test results *

Mean ETE score 1.78 (n=91) 1.75 (n=68) n/s (p=.874)

Mean Asset score 20.88 (n=93) 18.97 (n=68) n/s (p=.253)

* N-sizes vary because while a section score might be missing, the total score might still pass the threshold of 80% of scores present (i.e. be valid) and be included in this analysis.

Looking in more detail at questions within the ETE section of Asset shows that there were some identifiable differences between the two groups. These differences were noted in two areas. First, comparing the numbers of young people who received KYPE

assistance against those who did not (Table 7.6), to see whether they had (at the time of assessment) obtained educational qualifications, shows a statistically significant

difference between the groups. A greater percentage of those who received KYPE assistance did not have any educational qualifications compared to their non-KYPE counterparts.

Table 7.6 Educational qualifications

Has educational qualifications

Did not receive KYPE Received KYPE No 29 51 Yes 13 9 Don’t know 11 14 N/A 0 6 Total 53 80

Chi-square test confidence level: * p.<05

The second area of comparison in which highlighted differences between the two groups were evident, was that of non-attendance in education (Table 7.7).64 Again, a higher incidence was found among those chosen to receive KYPE assistance.

64

In all the other variables for this section of Asset, there were no significant differences between the two groups. These variables were whether or not the young person had: vocational qualifications; identified special educational needs; negative attitudes to ETE; poor attachment to current ETE placement; been bullied; bullied others; poor relationships with teachers; a negative attitude towards ETE; ‘other’

Table 7.7 Evidence of non-attendance in education

Evidence of non- attendance

Did not receive KYPE Received KYPE No 20 13 Yes 32 43 Don’t know 1 5 N/A 0 4 Total 53 65

Chi-square test confidence level: * p.<05

While it might be suggested that there would be substantial overlap between these two variables, only one young person had both of these attributes at the same time so the groups appear to be mutually exclusive.

In addition to the ETE data, a comparison of offending history derived from the PNC showed that those who received KYPE had committed, on average, more offences in the previous 12 and 24-month period prior to the current intervention. These differences were not significant, but the general trend is that the KYPE group were more prolific offenders than their non-KYPE counterparts.

Table 7.8 Offending history

Group Offences 12 months prior Offences 24 months prior Received KYPE 7.4 11.0 Did not receive KYPE 6.0 9.6 T-test sig. n/s (p.076) n/s (p.069)

Independent samples t-test used.

Finally, sentencing history variables were compared to explore whether any differences could be found in the experience of previous sentences for the two groups. Table 7.9 below shows the results of this comparison. There were differences between the proportions of the KYPE/non-KYPE groups with regards to both experience of

community and custodial disposals; the KYPE group had a higher reported incidence of both of these categories of disposal. This also extends to young people who had

Table 7.9 Experience of previous sentences by KYPE/non-KYPE group Group Previous community sentence Previous custodial sentence Both previous community and custodial sentences Received KYPE 63% 75% 77%

Did not receive KYPE

37% 25% 23%

Chi square sig. n/s (p.09) p<.01 p<.01

These findings suggest that based upon the available data, the projects successfully met their objective by targeting the most challenging and disadvantaged young people across the nine YOTs. Those young people with previous experience of either a community or custodial sentence who did not have educational qualifications and had evidence of non- attendance were more likely to be the recipients of assistance via KYPE. However, what is unknown, without clear guidelines or protocols on targeting, is whether this occurred systematically or not.

An examination of ETE within Asset for KYPE-assisted young people

Having established some insight into the young people targeted by the project, it is helpful to explore the specific characteristics of those who received KYPE-funded support. In this section, a more detailed exploration of the ETE section within Asset is presented for those young people who were identified as receiving support from KYPE- funded staff. While this is no substitute for the detailed descriptions of the issues and difficulties faced by these young people given in the case studies (see Chapters 8 and 9), it does allow comparisons to be made with other research studies, and gives some indication about where this group of young people are typical of young people on ISSPs and DTOs. Again, problems with data completeness mean that sample sizes vary within the section.

Comparing current ETE status in Asset

Asset presents practitioners with both tick box and qualitative evidence boxes for

indicating the current ETE status of young people and/or providing other evidence about their ETE situation. During the course of this research, it became clear that while some elements of Asset were being updated as new assessments were being made and/or reviews were undertaken, sometimes the data remained static (e.g. indicating that they were at school when in fact they were unemployed and had left school the year before). By coding what was found in evidence boxes according to the categories found in Asset, it was nevertheless possible to compare the information found in these two places. In 10 of 41 available initial Asset forms where both tick box and evidence boxes were completed, there was a disparity between what was entered in the tick box and the evidence box for the ETE section. In some instances this was easily explained; such as

classifying ad hoc temporary work as ‘working part-time’. However, in some cases, young people were classed as unemployed when their actual status was full-time

employment. This may be a reflection of the constantly changing ETE status of many of the young people, however this situation is also compounded by the fact that some young people were in more than one category at once (e.g. working part-time and at

college/training). In addition, some data were missing for this analysis within the

qualitative section of the Asset forms, so it is not possible to draw firm conclusions about overall accuracy of this cross-tabulation.

According to the data in Table 7.10, by far the most frequently reported ETE status for the young people was unemployed (35%), with PRU/special school and mainstream school making up another 31% of the total. The unemployment rate for this group as a whole was 35%, 10% higher than the national average for 16 to 17-year-olds of 24% (ONS, 2006).65 In 4% of school aged young people ‘nothing’ was the current

arrangement, but this masked a range of possible situations, most notably that the young person may be on a school roll but not attending (i.e. unauthorised absences). However, it was also sometimes the case that there were no current arrangements because the young person had recently moved house, been released from custody or had been excluded from school.

Table 7.10 ETE status of KYPE cases starting community intervention

ETE status Percent of

sample (n=79) Moore et al (2004) (min n=1,117) Mainstream school 13% 19% PRU/special school 18% 34%* Home tuition 3% 4% Working full-time 5% 4% Working part-time/temp 3% 9% Unemployed 35% 56% Pre-ETE 5% 12% Training courses 5% 10% Nothing arranged 5% 27% Other 9% 15% Total 101%** –

* This consists of PRU, special school and ‘other specialist unit’. ** Due to rounding.

65

Statistics taken from the Labour Force Survey (LFS), source: Office for National Statistics. ‘The LFS is a large sample survey in which around 10,000 people aged 16 and over are interviewed each week. In order to produce estimates from the survey, the LFS sample data are scaled up (weighted) to ONS population estimates’ (ONS, 2006).

The differences in proportion between KYPE and ISSP samples in relation to their ETE status is most likely an artefact of changes made to the Asset form between the

timeframes of the two studies. During an earlier study of young people on ISSP, practitioners were asked to summarise the young person’s situation over the last six months. During the KYPE data collection period, they were asked about the young person’s current situation.66 A further contributory factor to this change might also be efforts by YOTs and the YJB to affect changes to local/national provision between 2001 and 2004.

Non-attendance

Practitioners record a number of factors relating to young people’s attendance, the most basic being whether there is any evidence of non-attendance,67 which was the case for 66% (n=65) of the KYPE sample. Practitioners also record what the reason(s) may be for non-attendance; a summary of answers is included in Table 7.11 below. The initial report into ISSP reported that over one-third of young people had been permanently excluded, a finding which is closely matched here; as is the rate of fixed-term exclusions (Moore et al, 2004).

Table 7.11 Reasons for non-attendance

Reason for non-attendance

Percent with ‘yes’ answers Moore et al (2004) (min n=1,400) Permanent exclusion (n=54) 32% 40% Fixed-term exclusion (n=51) 20% 26% Family issues (n=33) 6% – Illness (n=31) 3% –

Qualifications, special educational needs (SEN), literacy and numeracy

Forty-five per cent of young people (n=60) were reported to have difficulties with literacy and 45% with numeracy (n=60). Perhaps unsurprisingly, only 11% of the KYPE group (n=80) were reported to have educational qualifications at the beginning of their intervention and only 6% (n=79) were reported to have vocational qualifications. Special educational needs were further reported in 27% of the KYPE group (n=75). Of those with SEN identified, 17 out of 19 (89%) had a statement of special educational needs.

Comparing these findings again to a wider sample, Moore et al, (2004) found that 40% of individuals had SEN reported (n=1,624) and a further 40% of the ISSP sample (n=1,507)

66

For other factors within the ETE section, this change does not affect reporting as the factors are static (e.g. have SEN been identified?).

67

It is not clear whether practitioners regard this as only relating to school non-attendance or not; Asset guidance (YJB, 2003) states that this might also relate to workplace non-attendance, but the categories

had reported difficulties with literacy and/or numeracy. Similarly, only 6% of cases (n=1,356) had qualifications at the point of sentence. Similarly, Challen and Walton (2004) surveyed young people serving custodial sentences and found that 34% felt that they would need help with reading and writing.

Attitudes and attachment

Turning to examine the role of attitudes in ETE it was found that 31% of young people (n=77) were reported to have ‘negative attitudes towards ETE’, 54% were reported to lack attachment to their current ETE placement (n=63), and 40% were reported to have ‘poor relations with teachers’ (n=62). However in only 15% of cases were parental attitudes to ETE reported to be negative (n=73). Again, most of these results are comparable with Moore et al (2004), who found that 14% of parents were reported to have negative attitudes towards ETE; 60% were reported to lack attachment to their school;68 and 43% had a poor relationship with teachers.

Overall therefore, considering the range of data reported in this chapter, it is possible to see that while the implementation of KYPE differed across the YOTs included in this study, the profile of the group being worked with was broadly similar to other samples of young people on similar sentences. This again demonstrates the many challenges that staff faced in seeking to place these young people in ETE.

However in order to develop more detailed insights into the ways in which KYPE-funded staff worked with young people to address many of the ETE needs outlined above, the next chapter focuses on the perspectives of those individuals who were in receipt of this extra support. In doing so, it is possible to examine the extent to which these young people felt that the KYPE-funded assistance impacted upon both their interest in and willingness to engage with ETE services.

Summary of findings

The following points can be derived from the analysis in this chapter:

ƒ

Individual level data, using Asset and other case-specific information for young people within the KYPE target group found that within the nine YOTs included in this element of the study, the primary recipients of KYPE-funded support were white males aged 16 years or older.

ƒ

Fifty-seven per cent of young people on ISSP or leaving custody were offered KYPE-funded support within the timeframes of the study. There were no

demographic differences between those who did and did not receive KYPE-funded support. However, those who actually received assistance were more likely to have had previous experiences of community and/or custodial interventions; less likely to have any educational qualifications; and had previously not attended ETE prior to

68

At the time, Asset was structured differently so this relates only to school rather than ‘current ETE placement’.

beginning their current sentence (or release from custody). This suggests that the projects successfully met their objective by targeting their resources to work with the most challenging and disadvantaged young people. However without any formal guidance it was not possible to establish whether this was being done on a systematic basis

ƒ

Young people who received KYPE-funded assistance presented with a range of problems relating to ETE. Over one-quarter had special educational needs identified; only 11% had educational qualifications at the point of release or sentence; and nearly one-third were reported to have negative attitudes towards ETE or have been permanently excluded from school. Drawing upon data from other samples of young people within the youth justice system (e.g. Moore et al, 2004; Challen and Walton, 2004) it was found that the profile of the group being worked with by KYPE-funded staff was broadly typical of other young people on DTO and ISSP.

8 Receiving KYPE services: the perspectives of young

In document Keeping young people engaged: improving education, training and employment opportunities for serious and persistent young offenders (Page 116-123)