The review brings together the latest evidence and emerging good practice that are shown to support young adults to move away from the criminal justice system. It highlights the need to scale up investment in police assisted diversion services to meet the ever-rising time demand on policing and courts.
Evidence from this review recommends that police-assisted diversion services should:
- Avoid prosecutions for low-level and non-violent crimes where possible to have the most impact
- Deliver tailored responses to meet the specific needs of young adults’ health, human needs and maturity
- Apply trauma-informed approaches to understand root causes of crime and minimise harm
- Adopt a gender-specific and culturally competent approach to achieve equable outcomes for young adults in the criminal justice system
- Promote a pro-social identity that builds on their strengths and abilities and empowers them to shape their own future
- Link young adults and their families into sustainable and long-term support to prevent future crises.
Pavan Dhaliwal, Chief Executive of Revolving Doors Agency, said,
“The benefits of out of court disposals are generally well known but what is often lacking is evidence about works about these programmes specifically and importantly given the fact that they make up around a third of all police cases, what works in reducing reoffending in young adults.
This new review shines a light on interventions that are most effective for diverting young adults into support. It pushes the New Generation agenda forward into practical steps towards reducing reoffending and offers the chance for young adults to turn their lives around.
With magistrates’ courts backlogs expected to rise ten-fold, it is vital that police and crime commissioners invest in diversion services so that the police can deal with low-level crime effectively.”
Natasha, New Generation young adult campaigner, said,
“What made the biggest difference for me was having a consistent support worker who worked with me at every step of my journey, taught me how to notice patterns, followed up after I left the service, and encouraged me to seek help. I liked how they did not judge me or make me feel less than. This made me see the light at the end of the tunnel and push me to make the positive changes and embark on my journey to change.”
Joyce Moseley, Chair, T2A said:
“T2A (Transition to Adulthood) has been working to develop and collate best practice evidence from the UK and globally to understand how young adults (18 to 25) can best be supported to move away from crime. This report from the Revolving Doors Agency makes a valuable contribution to that evidence base of diversionary approaches for young adults. Young adulthood can be a time of high offending but it is also the period where with the right interventions rapid desistance from the cycle of crisis and crime can be achieved.”
The findings – based on results from Freedom of Information requests – show that more than a third (15) of NHS mental health trusts that responded (42 of 58) have no policy on ‘routine enquiry’ about domestic violence and abuse – in spite of The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines.[1]
The report says that mental health services should be asking about domestic abuse in recognition of the high rates of violence and abuse experienced by people who access them. This is especially true for women; 38 per cent of women who have a mental health problem have experienced domestic abuse.[2]
The evidence in the report points to a postcode lottery in the support mental health services are providing to survivors. One trust said they asked just three per cent of patients about domestic abuse – when guidance says they should be asking everyone.
Agenda’s report, Ask and Take Action: Why public services must ask about domestic abuse, is supported by a group of charities, practitioners and other leading experts, and argues that while some health services are already required to ask about domestic abuse, this should be happening in a much wider range of public services if we are to truly protect women and offer appropriate support.
Some 1.3 million women experienced domestic abuse last year in England and Wales alone.[3] Research shows eighty five per cent of survivors sought help five times on average in the year before they got effective support, four out of five victims never call the police, but many will visit their GP as a result of the abuse they’re experiencing.[4] All public services could play a crucial role in recognising and responding to signs of abuse.
A recent National Commission of leading experts warned of the potentially devastating consequences for women who don’t get the support they need from public services because the signs of abuse are not picked up by professionals.[5] Without support, many go on to develop mental health problems or use drugs and alcohol to cope.
Agenda is calling for the Government to amend the Domestic Abuse Bill to put a duty on all public authorities to ensure staff across the public sector are making trained enquiries into domestic abuse.
[1] The National Institute for Health and Care and Excellence https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ph50/chapter/1-Recommendations#recommendation-6-ensure-trained-staff-ask-people-about-domestic-violence-and-abuse
[2] Agenda (2016) Hidden Hurt. Available here: https://weareagenda.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Hidden-Hurt-full-report1.pdf
[3] ONS (2018) Domestic abuse in England and Wales: year ending March 2018 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/domesticabuseinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2018
[4] SafeLives (2016) A Cry for Health: http://www.safelives.org.uk/sites/default/files/resources/SAFJ4993_Themis_report_WEBcorrect.pdf
[5] National Commission on Domestic and Sexual Violence and Multiple Disadvantage (2019): https://weareagenda.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Breaking-down-the-Barriers-full-report-FINAL.pdf
As a result of the success of the programme, the 17 investors in the Peterborough Social Impact Bond, one of which was the Barrow Cadbury Trust, will receive a single payment representing their initial capital plus an amount that will represent a return of just over 3% per annum for the period of investment. The Peterborough Social Impact Bond was measured by a reduction in the number of reconvictions.
In 2010 Social Finance raised £5 million from trusts and foundations to launch the first ever Social Impact Bond to reduce reoffending among short-sentenced offenders leaving Peterborough prison. It funded the One Service – an umbrella organisation designed to respond to the complex needs of offenders to help them break the cycle of reoffending. Over five years of operation, support from the One Service was offered to two cohorts of 1000 short-sentenced male prisoners for a period of up to 12 months post-release.
Engagement was voluntary but the whole cohort was included in the measurement of the results. Most of the clients on the Peterborough One Service had reoffended before, and for many, a spell in custody did not act as a deterrent. They had acute needs. A high proportion suffered from mental health and substance abuse challenges. Many had housing needs, didn’t have access to money and were in debt, and didn’t have the right skills to find employment.
The One Service was delivered by St Giles Trust, Ormiston Families, Sova, MIND, TTG Training, YMCA and John Laing Training, and managed by Social Finance. Over the course of its operation, it was an integral part of the Safer Peterborough Partnership and worked closely with the Police, Probation, Integrated Offender Management Teams, the Prison, the local authority, local statutory providers and the voluntary sector.
Not all of the £5m was drawn down over the course of the programme. It was terminated early with the introduction of a national rehabilitation scheme for all offenders in 2015. 2000 offenders were supported through the Social Impact Bond funded programme. The Ministry of Justice continued to fund the One Service directly for a further year.
Notes
1) Social Impact Bonds provide investment to address social problems and look to fund preventative interventions. They link financial success to the delivery of measured social outcomes. If, and only if, the social outcome improves, the outcome payor repays the investors for their initial investment plus a return for the financial risks they took.
2) Social Impact Bonds are designed to overcome the challenges governments have in investing in prevention and early intervention. They mitigate the risks of failure and bring in impact investors, who want to test innovation and scale successful programmes. Investors provide flexible funding to programmes that are designed to be responsive to the needs of vulnerable groups to improve their lives.
3) For a full list of Impact Bonds in operation and those in development, please click here. The database gives details of all the programmes and the full or interim results of programmes where available.
4) 17 impact investors committed £5m in 2010 to the Peterborough Social Impact Bond to fund a series of rehabilitative interventions for three cohorts of 1000 shortsentenced male prisoners for a year after their release from Peterborough prison. All funding was provided at risk by impact investors whose financial return was aligned to the positive social impact of reducing reoffending.
5) Investors in the Peterborough Social Impact Bond included: Barrow Cadbury Trust, the CowPat Trust, Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, Friends Provident Foundation, Golden Bottle Trust, The Henry Smith Charity, the Hintze Family Charitable Foundation, J Paul Getty Jr Charitable Trust, Johansson Family Foundation, K L Felicitas Foundation, LankellyChase Foundation, Monument Trust, Panahpur, Paul Hamlyn Foundation, R&S Cohen Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation and the Tudor Trust.
6) The programme, which was originally intended to run for 7 years working with three groups of 1000 prisoners, was terminated in 2015 with only two cohorts. This was due to the roll-out of the Transforming Rehabilitation national reforms to probation, which introduced mandatory statutory supervision for all short-sentenced offenders. This made it impractical for the service to continue or for its subsequent impact to be measured. The One Service continued to operate under a fee-for-service arrangement paid by the Ministry of Justice until the new Community Rehabilitation Companies started delivering through the gate services.
