Race Equality Scheme 2007/2009

(1)

Race Equality Scheme

2007/2009

This document should be read in conjunction with CSF policy document ‘putting people first’. The principles, guidance and requirements of which apply to the Hertfordshire Youth Justice Service.

(2)

INDEX

Purpose of the Scheme 3

Section 1: Introduction 3

Section 2: Monitoring and reporting 6

Section 3: Outcomes summary for achieving race equality 2005-2007 11

Section 5: Race Action Plan for 2007 - 2009 12

Appendix 1: Hertfordshire Youth Justice Service: Service delivery policy:

‘Working with racially aggravated and racist offenders’ 14

Appendix 2: Detailed race audit by district 19

Appendix 3: Key anti discriminatory legislation 21

Appendix 4:2001Ethnic Classifications 23

Appendix 5: Race Relations (Amendment) Bill 24

Appendix 6: Herts Universityresearch report on services and outcomes For ethnic minority groups in the Herts Youth Justice System:

Key points and recommendations. 26

Further Information

(3)

The Purpose Of The Scheme

This scheme has developed since its inception in 2005 in partnership with Herts University and the Youth Justice Board who have collaborated with the Commission for Racial Equality. It takes into account the provisions outlined within the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill (See Annex C). Its purpose is to assist the Hertfordshire Youth Justice Service to work towards the achievement of:

i. Race equality within the youth justice system, with specific focus on: a) the staffing profiles by ethnicity of the Teams;

b) ethnic monitoring of those offending and of the responses made by the YOTs, Police and the Courts to that offending;

c) the effective use of the data collected and analysed at both national and local level; d) the promotion of understanding of cultural differences amongst young people known to

the Youth Offending Teams; and

e) challenging any racist behaviour or attitudes from those young people; and

ii. Raising confidence amongst Black and minority ethnic groups in the youth justice system, with the Board and the Teams committed to consultation with Black and ethnic minority communities with the objective to learn of their perceptions and concerns, and:

iii. To establish policy, planning, protocols and staff training that enable the service to meet challenges arising out of the auditing of the experiences of the counties BME community.

SECTION 1: Introduction

Race Equality in Public Services as a Performance Measure can be seen in the context of the Government’s commitment to achieving race equality within public services. The Guidance, ‘Race Equality In Public Services’, was published by the Home Office in March 2000. It sets out the key principles for services, which include the core members of the Youth Offending Team partnerships : In summary:

‘The Government is committed to creating One Nation, a country’: - where every colour is a good colour;

- where every member of every part of society is able to fulfil their potential; - where racism is unacceptable and counteracted;

- where everyone is treated according to their needs and rights; - where everyone recognises their responsibilities; and

- where racial diversity is celebrated.

The Youth Justice Board is concerned to ensure that Youth Offending Teams and the Secure Estate contribute to this agenda and provide their services in line with the set of principles above.

Copies of this Guide have been circulated to all Youth Offending Teams.

At the time of the introduction of Youth offending Teams, the Youth Justice Board suggested a series of disadvantages experienced by young people from minority ethnic groups which increased the likelihood of them becoming involved in offending behaviour or in maintaining offending behaviour once in the justice system. Findings (policy action team 12 social exclusion unit) indicated that children from minority ethnic groups were:- - disproportionately represented in the ‘looked after’ population

- five times more likely to be excluded from school than their white counterparts - regardless of qualification more likely to be unemployed

(4)

amongst arrests and amongst those sent to prison. (This infers what we believe, that there is a disproportionately high number likely to be in the youth justice system nationally at every stage) - More likely to receive more restrictive sentences at court

Subsequent research and activity around the introduction of YJB the ‘Race audit and action planning toolkit for Youth Offending Teams’ (2004) suggests that reasons for the divergence appears to be due to three factors: 1. Unfair discrimination occuring at various points in the youth justice system

2. Black and minority ethnic (BME) young people being disproportionately affected by the key risk factors associated with juvenile offending

3. Practice with BME children and young people, and appropriate prioritisation of effective practice, being inadequate within the youth justice system.

Strategically any response to the issues outlined above needs to continue to encompass: National and local perspectives with an emphasis on effective caseworking and must be informed by the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill (Annex C).

In order to develop a useable document that translates into unit planning and effective practice delivery, the scheme has established a set of benchmarks during its first three years. It is felt that the original professional groups identified as being responsible for the process and actions arising from it are the same (National Youth Justice Board (YJB) County Steering Group, County Youth Offending Team (YOT) Management and

Practitioners).

However, in response to our developing knowledge, the Scheme will concentrate its main focus on front line considerations. Therefore, greater emphasis will be placed on practitioner and front line manager

responsibilities and actions, though not exclusively so.

The Criminal Justice System Strategic Plan (1999 – 2002) includes as one of its objectives :

“To promote confidence in the criminal justice system”

with the performance measure :

“An improvement, by March 2002, in the level of confidence in the criminal justice system”.

To help support this expectation into deliverable action, in September 2004 the YJB introduced a new national performance target that requires the YOT to:

‘ Eliminate differential outcomes for BME young people within the Youth Justice system by ensuring that Yots and secure facilities have In place action plans to achieve improved practice’

and to support this the Board have introduced a new performance indicator for Yots from April 2005 that:

‘All Yots should have an action plan in place to ensure that any difference between the ethnic composition of offenders on all pre-court and post-court disposals and the ethnic composition of the local community is reduced year on year’.

The objectives within the performance indicator are to develop a professional culture in which: - Race equality issues are mainstreamed at the core of all activities and services

- Policies and practices that identify and tackle discrimination on any grounds are maintained. More generally it also aims to:

- Contribute to an Improved confidence In the criminal justice system within local BME communities, groups and individuals and

- Improve the confidence and skills of the workforce in working with difference throughout the youth justice system.

(5)

This is in response to evidence that suggests that BME children and young people continue to be

disproportionately represented throughout the youth justice system and that in some respects, the gap has widened in recent years.

To support the requirement, the YJB have issued the ‘Race Audit and Action Planning Toolkit’ for Youth Offending Teams. After consultation with the YJB, the Herts YJS have decided to incorporate information gleaned from the audit and any action emanating from this, into the Race Equality Scheme, to ensure a more effective and better co-ordinated response to local issues.

To help with a transition whereby the original Race Equality Scheme ‘Actions Tree’ is super ceded by the new ‘toolkit’, the table below identifies which previous areas of responsibility in the Race Equality Scheme will be incorporated into ‘which’ section of the YJB ‘Audit and action planning toolkit’ template. This will ensure that incomplete actions still considered a priority can continue to be addressed within the toolkit.

2005-07Area of Responsibility 2007-09 Audit and action planning

Defining the local context: Ethnic monitoring and evaluation.

S.1.01 – S1.05e & S3.03 Race equality and the staffing of Youth

Offending Teams.

S3.02

Race equality and crime. S2.01 – S2.02e

Working with victims.

Working with the Courts. S2.03 – s2.08E

Race equality and health.

Race equality and education, training and employment.

S3.02

Policy, planning and protocol S3.01

In summary, the service performed against the areas of responsibility set in 2005 as follows: Actions achieved 55%

Actions partially achieved 11%

Actions not achieved or adopted 29%

SECTION 2: Monitoring and reporting

1. Monitoring and Reporting

Monitoring:

The YJB ‘Audit and Action Planning Toolkit’ takes account of the demographic differences encountered by the Hertfordshire YOTs and of the variations in the size of the gap in the ways that BME children and young people are dealt with within the criminal justice system. It ensures common auditing between YOTs with a degree of flexibility to ensure that local relevance is achieved.

The ‘Toolkit’ operates in conjunction with the quarterly data returns (Themis) and due to its more

comprehensive data sets, will superseded previous monitoring processes. It provides a focus on quantitative data, though much of the process is concerned with the quality of strategic planning, policy, workforce, service delivery and involvement of the community (such as confidence in the youth justice system).

The Hertfordshire University research specification was reviewed and modified to take account of this.

Full audits measured against baseline data collected in 2005 and the 2001 population census will be carried out annually in order to:

(6)

- Enable the mainstreaming of race issues into the core of the Youth Justice Plan and wider strategic planning process.

A local Youth Justice service Race steering group comprised of key personnel from the youth justice service has been set up to manage the Scheme. An initial decision taken requires six monthly reviews of the scheme, in relation to its suitability and the adoption of the scheme and scheme actions.

Reporting:

Firstly, all Youth Offending Teams must report to the Board via the Themis (annual and quarterly data return) system, by ethnicity, using the 2001 Census Classifications (Annex B) and by gender, the following details:

(a) the treatment of young people of an ethnic origin by the youth justice system and how this treatment compares with the outcomes for white counterparts;

(b) the extent of “racially aggravated” offending being identified as committed by children and young people; and

(c) their staffing profiles.

- The Board must analyse this data along with ASSET and development fund programme evaluations, and report on how this information will be used to raise standards in service provision.

- The Board must monitor and report on racially aggravated offending and any identifiable trends. - The Board must provide, in partnership with the Commission for Racial Equality, an analysis of the

quarterly and annual returns and circulate such reports with 8 weeks of the closing dates for such returns. - The Board will provide the Home Office with the findings from both quarterly and annual returns from youth

offending teams for inclusion in the Section 95 (Criminal Justice Act 1991) annual report.

- Full inspections of youth offending teams will have a distinct equality focus. Inspections will report on how a teams ‘Race Equality Policy’ is evidenced in practice. Hertfordshire Youth Justice Service is scheduled for inspection in April 2007.

Secondly, the finer detail behind the Themis report identified as a result of the ‘Race Audit and action planning toolkit’ will be published between and within the local Youth Justice Plan and Race Equality Scheme.

Section 3: Summary of outcomes for achieving race equality for 2005- 2007

This outcome summary outlines how the service performed against key actions over the first 3 years of the Scheme that were considered necessary to ensure a difference is achieved.

1.

User representation Progress

Youth Offending Teams must include representatives from ethnic minority

communities in the process of monitoring and reporting and its subsequent development. Youth Offending Teams must recruit staff committed to anti-discriminatory practice and who can demonstrate a willingness to engage with minority groups.

The Board will analyse how a youth offending teams staffing profile is proportionate to that of the communities being served.

Recommendations to correct imbalances will be made. The Board will actively encourage the recruitment and retention of ethnic staff both for itself and youth offending teams.

Herts University were commissioned to provide independent research to explore the impact of the Race Equality Scheme 2003-2005 on the delivery of services.

Subsequent to this, the service has realised as a result of some of the findings that access to representatives from BME communities may better be achieved through and in partnership with the 10 local CDRPs. The specification for this action has been modified to give a greater emphasis on the qualitative focus required by the YJB from the ‘Toolkit’ guidance to include users, community and partner agency

perspectives. Part of this aims to include impact assessments, exploring what impact policy developments may have on those at the receiving end.

In partnership with Herts University, Exit Interviews have been developed for young

(7)

people coming to the end of their orders and a separate one for their parents / carers. These are reviewed to help inform an understanding of user experiences of the YOT and wider Criminal Justice system, with a view to informing service development.

2.

National standards Progress

National Standards require agencies to ‘take specific actions to ensure that their work is free from discrimination’. The first three year Action Summary of the Scheme up to this time details the specific actions required. These

requirements are equally applicable to agencies working on behalf of the Board or Youth

Offending Teams.

Decisions will be made by the Herts youth justice race sub group, in managing the transition to the ‘Race Audit and Action

Planning Toolkit’. The 2005-2007 Race Equality Scheme 3 year Action Tree highlighted which actions were achieved and which of those not achieved are to be carried forward.

3.

Trust and Confidence Progress

All Youth Offending Steering Groups must report in their annual Youth Justice Plans: - Specific actions to be taken in achieving

the objectives detailed in the Government’s guidance ‘Race Equality in Public services’; and

- Measures adopted locally which promote confidence in the criminal justice system by black and minority groups as outlined in the Criminal Justice Strategic Plan.

The Board must ensure that the proposals outlined are likely to be effective.

In 2002 Herts Youth Justice Service Steering Group approved the Race Equality Scheme. The Youth Justice Service meanwhile has been actively involved in the Herts Criminal Justice Committee and subsequently the Herts Criminal Justice Board(HCJB). This latter Board has both a “confidence group” and a “Race Equality Sub-group “ both of which have youth justice representatives, and in which the Race Equality Scheme and other possibilities for improving the confidence of BME groups in the criminal justice system are promoted. A Communications Plan for the HCJB entitled Engaging with Black And Ethnic Minority Communities is currently under consideration.

4.

Policy Progress

Every Youth Offending Team must have an Equal Opportunities Policy. The inspectorate will require evidence of how the policy is being translated into practice. The ‘toolkit’ is specific in its requirements to audit the impact of policies and the extent to which local policy enables understanding, progress and positive developments. It is required that the YOT incorporates this aspect into its Youth Justice Plan. The Board will review the implementation of such policies following an inspection. Any improvement requirements that flow from this will be incorporated into our ‘toolkit’ actions. The County Youth Justice Steering Group must review the policy annually and be able to gauge impact on issues of equality pertinent to the

The current policy was approved by the Hertfordshire Youth Justice Steering Group in 2002. It has been reviewed by staff since but not by the Steering Group. The scheme was also made available to the Children Schools and Families management and policy officers to both acquaint them with the work and of how the Youth Justice Service meets Hertfordshire County Council expectations. With the new scheme being incorporated into the annual Plan it will automatically come to the notice of both the Youth Justice Steering Group and Council Members.

(8)

5.

Training Progress The Steering Group must provide the Youth

Justice Service with a training budget that will enable all members of the team to attain competence to work with young people from an ethnic background and be able to address specific needs deriving from this group. Managers of Youth Offending Teams must: - Advise, as part of the annual planning

process, training needs of staff in relation to ‘equality’ issues and how these needs are to be met

- Ensure that new members of staff undertake an induction programme that provides a comprehensive insight into the diversity of need existing within the local population, cultural or otherwise. New and existing members of staff must be fully conversant with the Teams Equal

Opportunities Policy and measures in place that promote anti-discriminatory practice.

As a result of sponsorship from the St.Albans Community Safety Partnership, Herts Youth Justice service commissioned training from Linda Ghast, co-author of the ‘From murmur to murder’ training pack focusing on racially motivated offending. Extensive preparation enabled the training to be Hertfordshire sensitive and age appropriate.

73 staff experienced the two day training over four events at the end of 2003. Feedback suggests that the training has been beneficial and needs to be ongoing to cater for staff turnover. 16% of participants found the training excellent and 81% found it good to very good. Participants requested further training on motivational interviewing and cognitive intervention, which has been provided. In addition, the Youth Justice Service has ongoing access for its practitioners to the HCC CSF diversity training.

6.

Supervision Progress Managers and Assistant Managers of Youth

Offending Teams must ensure that: - Issues pertinent to equality and

anti-discriminatory practice are included - Consideration is given to having equality

and anti-discriminatory practice as a standing agenda item. This will enable teams to assess progress in this area as well as allowing for early identification of gaps in provision. This is intended to inform local Unit Plans and whole service

development issues.

An audit of practice has been instigated to help review the inclusion of equality and

anti-discriminatory practice into staff supervision and performance management and development.

7.

Practice Progress Youth Offending Team practitioners must:

- Ensure they are fully conversant with the Equal Opportunities Policy and actively promote adherence to it;

- Ensure that the ethnicity of young people to whom they are providing a service is accurately recorded using ‘self

classification’ categories;

- Bring to the attention of the manager any incident that undermines the promotion of equality and anti-discriminatory practices within the youth justice system.

As a result of the ‘From Murmur to Murder’ training, information and intervention guidance packs have been acquired for each

unit.Including:

• Roots of the future’: Ethnic diversity and the making of Britain: CRE publication.

• ‘Staying power’: ‘The history of black people in Britain’: Peter Fryer.

• ‘Something else’: Katheryn Cave & Chris Ridell

• ‘Routes to racism’: the video and manual

• ‘From murmur to murder’: Working with racially motivated and Racist offenders - A 8

(9)

The Youth Offending Team manager must ensure that specific programmes designed to address racially motivated crime are available, and are capable of addressing the victims needs (see 8)

resource pack for probation and others: John Kay, Midlands probation services & Linda Gast.

• ‘Against human dignity’: A programme for racially motivated offenders’: National Probation Service

• ‘Diversity awareness programme’:

Working with racially motivated and racist offenders’: National Probation Service. The Race Equality Scheme has also been included in the service induction pack for new staff.

In addition, a Pilot core anti-racism and diversity awareness session is being developed in West Herts YOT to be delivered as a core session in offending behaviour programmes for all young offenders, which will be followed up when the response of a young person gives rise for concern. Should this prove successful, it will be adopted county wide.

8.

Working with Victims Progress

Youth Offending Team Steering Groups must ensure:

- That victims of crime perpetrated by young people have an opportunity to have their needs recognised by the youth offending team. This is essential where the crime was racially motivated, irrespective of the ethnic identity of the perpetrator.

- That the team offers reparation services, including, where appropriate, suitable apology, explanation and direct work by young offenders for the benefit of victims/community. (National Standards)

Youth Offending Team managers must ensure: - That they obtain through the Crime

Reduction Steering Group and other relevant agencies data whose analysis may identify:

1. Particular offending patterns across the YOT area

2. Nature and frequency of crimes being experienced by ethnic minority groups

3. Devise and implement strategies with the approval of the YOT Steering Group that curtails such victimisation.

The winter of 2004 saw the launch of the Herts Youth Justice Victim Service specification in partnership with Herts Victim Support and witness services. To facilitate victim sensitive interventions and greater victim empowerment, nine Victim liaison workers were recruited from Victim Support, Witness Support services and Youth Justice referral panel members to work with Youth offending teams. This has worked particularly well in North Herts YOT but not elsewhere. It is believed that part of the reason for this is that the posts are voluntary. In response, a budget has been created in each team to enable a salaried support worker to engage and support victims in greater trauma, higher degrees of vulnerability or of more serious crimes.

(10)

10 9.

Working in Partnership Progress

The Youth Justice Board, Youth Offending Team Steering Groups and their respective Youth Offending Teams must:

- Continually work together and with other relevant agencies to achieve race equality within youth justice services, and regain the confidence of the black and ethnic minority population. This is equally applicable to victims, offenders and the general public. Partners in this process must include: - The Youth Court and its agencies - Steering group organisations

- Other local partnerships (e.g. Connexions, Children’s Services Planning)

- Local Crime Reduction Partnerships - Victim Support services

Actions required of Youth Offending Teams in this Summary must be required of service providers with whom the Youth Offending Team contracts formally or otherwise.

The Youth Justice Service is represented on the county Diversity Sub-Group (formerly the Race sub Group). Within this group all statutory agencies affiliated to the criminal justice system share practice, information and research, policy and strategic development. Most notably over the last 3 years the forum has supported and advised on the development of Race Equality Schemes within the county. It is also exploring the benefits of collective ownership of user satisfaction surveys. Greater integration with the strategies of CDRPs in accessing local BME groups will be of priority for all 4 YOTs.

The Youth Justice Service work closely with agencies and teams with responsibility for service development and delivery to minority groups. The Traveller Education service have delivered presentations, attended team

meetings and provided casework support to the YOTs

(11)

SECTION 4: Race audit summary for 2007 - 2009

HERTFORDSHIRE White % Mixed % Asian % Black % Chinese % TOTAL

Offenders 1,992 90.26% 32 1.45% 59 2.67% 102 4.62% 15 0.68% 2,207 Overall

General Population 968,641 93.69% 14,031 1.36% 30,922 2.99% 11,824 1.14% 8,507 0.82% 1,033,925 County

Youth Population 96,551 90.90% 3,089 2.91% 4,262 4.01% 1,248 1.17% 1,069 1.01% 106,219 Figures

Ratio Offend/Ypop 1.0 0.5 0.7 3.9 0.7

Race Audit Oct 2005 - Sep 2006

Race Audit Oct 2004 - Sep 2005

(12)

SECTION 5: Race Actions plan for 2007- 2009

Issue 1. Over representation of BME young people in Youth Justice system (offences, disposals, court remands) highlighted in the race audit.

Despite over representation which correlates with Oxford University research findings in respect of Hertfordshire, few significant patterns have emerged on further analysis. There are low numbers of BME young people involved in the count y as a whole. This is then divided across 4 YOT areas with different courts, police areas and 10 district councils. We will look to share this information more widely to share the concern around the disproportionate number of young ME people coming into the court system.

Current data Over representation of BME young people 4 times more likely to

appear in court than the white youth population across the county. Target (if

applicable)

Target for March 2007-2009

We will establish a base line for re-offending by B & ME young people and set a target for reduction, where appropriate.

Action plan • Further research and more detailed analysis of the disproportionate over

representation of BME young people in the Youth Justice system in areas of re-offending

• Case by case analysis to track discrimination

• Investigate recording accuracy of BME young people amongst YOT staff and implement the necessary training.

• YOT management group to monitor. • Race Steering group to review bi annually

Responsibility YOT managers

Race steering group YOT practitioners

Issue 2. Action Planning : Policy & Planning

Current data Audit revealed race policy integrated into corporate county council policies and planning processes ( recruitment, staff retention, etc)but no systematic process across the Youth Justice Service for ensuring race policy is fully integrated at all levels.

Target (if applicable)

Target for March 2007-2009

To ensure YOT policy is integrated at all levels

Action plan • Schedule review of existing policies and revise accordingly

• Nominate a lead in each YOT to improve information /feedback on race issues.

• Agenda race issues for team meetings on a regular basis

Responsibility Policy advisor

YOT management group Action planning : Consultation

Issue 3. Lack of systematic consultation with Black and minority ethnic and other community based networks by the YOT. Lack of information on local BME community groups, no process in place to seek the views of BME community groups on service delivery issues.

Current data Research findings from Herts university point to the difficulties the service has in engaging BME community groups.

Target (if applicable)

Target for March 2007 -2009

To evidence meaningful engagement with BME community groups and positive use of individual service user feedback to inform service development.

(13)

Action plan • To integrate the aim of accessing BME community groups with the 10 county CDRPs

• Maintain YOT links with County Council Equalities group

• The YJ Race Sub Group is to review BME user feedback from Exit Interviews, compliments and complaints, bi annually.

Responsibility YOT managers

Action planning : Monitoring of service delivery

Issue 4.

Monitoring of satisfaction rates, effectiveness and comparative use of services in respect of race. Monitoring of anti social behaviour by ethnicity.

Analysis/ Diagnosis

Satisfaction rates not recorded generally and no consistent monitoring of effectiveness or comparative use of services in respect of race. Unclear whether anti social behaviour is recorded or monitored by ethnicity.

Current data Early Exit Interviews show concerns about some Criminal Justice agency interventions

Target for March 2007 - 2009

Complete significantly more Exit interviews and analyse results Target (if

applicable)

Target for March 2007 - 2009

To expand Exit Interviews to include all court disposals requiring involvement from the YOT

Action plan • Discuss with Police and CDRP how to monitor anti social behaviour and race

in local areas.

Responsibility YOT management group

(14)

APPENDIX 1

HERTFORDSHIRE YOUTH JUSTICE SERVICE SERVICE DELIVERY POLICY

WORKING WITH RACIALLY AGGRAVATED AND RACIST OFFENDERS

It is the responsibility of all agencies in the criminal justice system to challenge racially motivated attacks and harassment.

The Youth Justice Service will contribute to the prevention of racial attacks and harassment by addressing the racist actions and attitudes of young people and where appropriate their parents through addressing it in reports to criminal court and youth offender panels and through interventions for those under supervision. The service will also achieve its contribution by creating a safe working environment for staff, particularly those made vulnerable by racist offenders.

Fear of racially motivated crime1

The Youth Justice Service recognises a continuing responsibility to address the fear of crime that exists in local communities. This is particularly significant amongst ethnic minority groups, where the following were concerned about racially motivated assaults (national figures):

- 60% of Asian respondents - 51% of Black respondents - 12% of White respondents

The service will aim to achieve this through publicising its direct work with racially motivated and racist crimes and through its partnership working with other key agencies including those affiliated to the local community safety partnerships.

Impact of racist incidents on victims2

‘ The experience of racist crime and racial harassment can have an intense emotional and social impact on victims. Anger, insecurity, stress and depression are common, especially among people who are experiencing persistent harassment. Research suggests the impact of racially motivated crimes on victims may be even greater than that of other crimes’.

The service is committed to providing every opportunity to victims of race crimes to become as involved in the restorative process as safe and suitable. The service is also committed to ensuring that victims are aware of the availability of other, more specialised services to help with the trauma involved in racially motivated crimes, such as victim support.

To ensure locally sensitive awareness of the impact of racist crimes on victims, and their experiences of the criminal justice system, the service continues to integrate with existing initiatives and forums i.e. the Criminal Justice Board Race Sub Group. The service also continues to adopt and utilise general Hertfordshire based research findings such as that undertaken by NACRO (commissioned by the Race Sub Group 2002) and its own, commissioned to assist in the implementation of the Youth Justice Race Equality Scheme (Hertfordshire university 2003 and Oxford university 2002)

Offender types There are five types of racially motivated offender3

1

British Crime Survey 2000 2

Fitzgeral, M & Hale, C (1996) ‘Ethnic Minorities: Victimisation & Racial Harassment. Findings from the 1988 and 1992 British Crime Survey’. Home Office Research Study 154. London: Home Office.

3

National Probation Service Hertfordshire. Service Delivery Policy and Procedure ‘Working with Racially Aggravated and Racist Offenders’.

(15)

1. Offenders who have been convicted of a racially aggravated offence – whether they agree or not 2. Offenders where there is a strong indication of racial motivation but not sufficient to sustain conviction

3. Offenders whose offences are apparently racist: i.e. Directed at their association with people of a minority ethnic origin, but not acknowledged by the offender, police or sentencers ( examples of offences include offences which target peoples homes and businesses)

4. Offenders who use language or behave in a manner that is racist although their offences do not appear to be motivated by racism

5. Offenders, under our supervision, who disclose or are known to be members of racist organisations. Definition of racially aggravated offences:4

Section 28 of the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act provides a definition of the term ‘racially aggravated’ An offence is racially aggravated if :

“… At the time of committing the offence, immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim hostility based on the victims membership (or presumed membership) of a racial group:

Or

The offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a racial group based on their membership of that group”

This term applies to the following offences under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998: - Assaults (section 9)

- Criminal damage (section 30) - Public order offence (section 31) - Harassment (section 32)

Types of racial incidents

Racial incidents cover a wide range of behaviour, including: - Assaults (GBH; ABH; Common Assault)

- Criminal damage (slogans and graffiti)

- Offensive behaviour (threatening/abusive/insulting) - Harassment (designed to cause the victim alarm or distress) - Stalking

- Sending a letter/article conveying indecent or grossly offensive message or threats - Nuisance phone calls

(16)

16 Key principles

Hertfordshire Youth Justice Service has an agreed set of principles that will enable the service to work with racially motivated and racist offenders:

1. The service will work with young people who have committed a racially aggravated offence and where appropriate, their parent/guardian. The service will engage with those willing to participate and who accept responsibility for their actions from the outset, and will also work with those in denial in such a manner as to contribute to the protection of the public and to challenge racist attitudes, values and actions.

2. The Service will ensure that racially aggravated and racist offenders are risk assessed and allocated to staff on a case by case basis. It is our intention that practitioners should not find themselves in a position of vulnerability as a result of being asked to supervise a racially motivated or racist offender.

3. Where the risk assessment of a racially aggravated/racist offender suggests staff should be concerned about the risks involved in even the most minimal contacts, then this is to be shared with all members of the team including administrative staff.

4. Where any offender uses language or behaves in a racist way, steps will be taken to challenge this whilst at the same time protecting and supporting staff. This could result in the responsible officer invoking the enforcement process on a court order where it is considered reasonable to do so. This will be done with due consideration of the child centred learning methodology used by Youth Offender Teams and of the benefits to the young person and wider community where a young person engages with interventions delivered by the Youth Offending Team.

5. Language or behaviour will be treated as racist if the victim experiences them as racist, whether or not the perpetrator intended them to be racist.

6. The service will assess for, design and deliver programmes of intervention that target specific criminogenic need. Programmes will be based on ‘What Works’, such as cognitive behavioural approaches to young people, based on social learning theory, which have proved to be the most effective in addressing offending behaviour, attitudes and anti-social values in young people 5

The Hertfordshire Youth Justice service is committed to ensuring that its policies and

practices remain appropriate to task. This policy will be periodically reviewed and where

necessary revised to reflect our increasing knowledge and achievements.

NS 02.07.2003

5

Maguire, M., Peroud, B., and Raynor. P., (1996) Automatic Conditional Release: The first two years. Home Office Research study No’s 156 & 187. London. Home Office.

(17)

APPENDIX 2. Detailed Race Audit by district:

Section 1 - Population Data

EAST YOT White % Mixed % Asian % Black % Chinese % TOTAL

Offenders 691 93.76% 17 2.31% 3 0.41% 26 3.53% 0 0.00% 737 Rolled up

General Population 300,229 95.75% 3,424 1.09% 4,532 1.45% 2,838 0.91% 2,523 0.80% 313,546 Area

Youth Population 29,748 94.44% 695 2.21% 435 1.38% 334 1.06% 287 0.91% 31,499 Figures

Ratio Offend/Ypop 1.00 1.00 0.30 3.30 0.00

Broxbourne District

Offenders 204 93.58% 6 2.75% 0 0.00% 8 3.67% 0 0.00% 218 individual

General Population 83,670 96.10% 913 1.05% 1,039 1.19% 1,015 1.17% 430 0.49% 87,067 district

Youth Population 8,489 95.25% 178 2.00% 85 0.95% 114 1.28% 46 0.52% 8,912 figures

Ratio Offend/Ypop 1.00 1.40 0.00 2.90 0.00

Welwyn Hatfield District

General Population 91,362 93.64% 1,338 1.37% 2,283 2.34% 1,342 1.38% 1,241 1.27% 97,566 district

East Hertfordshire District

(18)

NORTH YOT White % Mixed % Asian % Black % Chinese % TOTAL

Youth Population 19,269 91.14% 692 3.27% 793 3.75% 240 1.14% 148 0.70% 21,142 Figures

North Hertfordshire District

General Population 108,972 93.23% 1,673 1.43% 4,100 3.51% 1,513 1.29% 627 0.54% 116,885 district

Stevenage District

General Population 75,394 94.59% 1,141 1.43% 1,669 2.09% 936 1.17% 568 0.71% 79,708 district

(19)

SOUTH YOT White % Mixed % Asian % Black % Chinese % TOTAL

Youth Population 22,576 85.80% 922 3.50% 1,997 7.59% 438 1.66% 379 1.44% 26,312 Figures

Hertsmere District

Three Rivers District

Watford District

General Population 68,523 85.96% 1,658 2.08% 6,541 8.21% 2,128 2.67% 867 1.09% 79,717 district

Youth Population 6,116 78.36% 364 4.66% 1,003 12.85% 208 2.66% 114 1.46% 7,805 figures

WEST YOT White % Mixed % Asian % Black % Chinese % TOTAL

Youth Population 24,958 91.54% 780 2.86% 1,037 3.80% 236 0.87% 255 0.94% 27,266 Figures

Dacorum District

(20)

20

nb Offending figures from YOIS.

68 Excluded from the figures as they are Out of area

7 District Unknown

5 Ethnicity Unknown

(21)

Appendix 3

Key Anti Discriminatory Legislation

ANTI DISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION PROHIBITED BY REFERENCE TO LED BY

The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (as amended)

Sex DfEE

The Employment Act 1989 & The Employment

Rights Act 1996

Sex, maternity & other employment rights

DTI

The Equal Pay Act 1970 (as amended) Sex DfEE

The Race Relations Act 1976

Colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins

Home Office

The Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Disabled People DfEE

Pregnant Workers Directive

Pregnancy, maternity DTI,DSS

Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome and Equal Treatment and Equal Pay Directives made under the Treaty. EC Law on free movement

of workers, services and capital and freedom of establishment.

Sex, Nationality DfEE, DTI, DSS

The UK is also a signatory to a large number of international conventions which have anti-discrimination provisions; although these do not currently provide a right of individual complaint against the UK, policy should

be informed by an awareness of the UK’s international obligations. Some of the most important conventions are:

The UN Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women.

Women Minister for Women

(22)

The UN International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights

Inter alia: race, colour, sex, religion, national or social origin

Home Office

The UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Inter alia: race, colour, sex, religion, national or social origin

Home Office

The UN Standard Rules on Equalisation of Opportunities for People with Disabilities

Disabled people Department of Health

The Council of Europe European Convention on Human Rights

Inter alia: race, colour, sex, sexual orientation

Home Office

(23)

APPENDIX 4

Ethnic Classifications

Classifications Used For the 2001 Census

White British Irish

Any other White background

Mixed

White and Black Caribbean White and Black African White and Asian

Any other Mixed background

Asian or Asian British Indian

Pakistani Bangladeshi

Any other Asian background

Black or Black British Caribbean

African

Any other Black background

Chinese or other ethnic group Chinese

(24)

APPENDIX 5.

Race Relations (amendment) Bill

The 1976 Race Relations Act makes it unlawful to discriminate on racial grounds in relation to employment, training and education, the provision of goods, facilities and services and certain other specified activities, including public appointments made by Ministers.

The Race Relations (Amendment) Bill was introduced into the Lords on the 2nd December, 1999. It has passed through the various stages of Parliament and is now awaiting Royal assent. When enacted the Bill will prohibit race discrimination in ALL public sector functions not currently covered by the 1976 Act, with certain limited and justifiable exceptions. It will implement Government commitments made in response to one of the key

recommendations of the report of the inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence. It further extends the 1976 Act not only to police but to functions of other public authorities not covered by the original legislation. SCOPE OF THE BILL

The Bill when enacted will:

(i) outlaw discrimination (direct, indirect and victimisation) in public authority functions not covered by the 1976 Act and provide remedies;

(ii) define ‘public authority’ widely, as in the Human Rights Act 1998, for the purposes of outlawing discrimination so that it includes public functions carried out by private sector organisations and has only limited exemptions;

(iii) place a general duty on specified public authorities to work towards the elimination of unlawful discrimination and promote equality of opportunity and good relations between person of different racial groups;

(iv) empower the Home Secretary to extend the list of public bodies in the Bill that subject to the general duty to promote race equality, to include other bodies exercising public functions;

(v) empower the Home Secretary (or the Scottish Ministers where appropriate) to impose specific duties on some or all public authorities which are subject to the general duty to promote race equality to ensure better performance of the general duty;

(vi) give the Commission for Racial Equality powers to enforce the specific duties to be imposed on public authorities.

(vii) give the Commission for Racial Equality powers to issue Codes of Practice to provide guidance to public authorities on how to fulfil their general and specific duties to promote race equality;

(viii) allow race discrimination claims to be brought against education bodies direct to a county or sheriff court without, as now, a two month ‘cooling off’ period of notification to the Secretary of State for Education;

(ix) make chief officers of police vicariously liable for acts of discrimination carried out by officers under their direction and control and provide for compensation, costs or expenses awarded as a result of a claim to be paid out of the police fund or in Scotland from payments from the police authority. (x) remove the power for a Minister to issue conclusive certificates in race claims to the effect that an

act of racial discrimination was done for the purposes of national security and was therefore not unlawful;

(xi) extend the coverage in the 1976 Act in relation to public appointments made of the

recommendation or approval of Ministers or Departments, and to recommendations made for the conferment of dignities and honours. It will also prohibit discrimination in the termination and terms and conditions of public appointments.

The Bill will, therefore, impact on the implementation of Government policies and services across the board. Law enforcement, whether by the police, local authorities or tax inspectors will, for the first time, be subject to race discrimination laws, as will the activities of immigration and nationality staff where they exceed what is expressly authorised by Ministers or provided for by specified immigration legislation.

DUTY TO PROMOTE RACE EQUALITY

The duty to promote race equality will involve three elements. Firstly, a general duty (on the face of the Bill) on all specified public authorities to have due regard to the need to work towards the elimination of unlawful discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups in carrying out their functions. Secondly, specific duties (to be imposed by order) on some or all of those specified public authorities to ensure their better performance under the general duty to promote race

(25)

equality. Thirdly, Commission for Racial Equality Codes of Practice to provide guidance to public authorities on how to fulfil their general and specific duties.

What will the general duty require

New Section 71(1) of the Bill will impose a general duty on specified public authorities to (carry out) their functions with due regard to the need:

(a) to eliminate racial discrimination

(b) to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups.

The general duty to promote race equality will enshrine in law an important principle, which the Government wants public authorities to adhere to. It will replace a duty which Parliament placed upon local authorities under the Race Relations Act, 1976 but is significantly different in the earlier duty in three ways. Firstly, it will apply to all specified public authorities and not just to local authorities. Secondly it will not leave it for individual public authorities to decide whether the promotion of race equality is an ‘appropriate’ activity. Thirdly it will go directly to the need for public authorities to have due regard for race equality in carrying out their functions, rather than only requiring them to make arrangements for having due regard, the wording in existing Section 71.

What will the duty mean in practice

The general duty to promote race equality is a positive one. In other words it will require public authorities to be proactive, to seek to avoid unlawful discrimination before it occurs. Avoiding unlawful discrimination should have the effect of promoting equality and good relations between people of different racial groups and vice versa.

What specific duties will be imposed

The specific duties will be decided following public consultation as soon as possible after enactment of the Bill. The Government are taking specific duties that are already operating in Northern Ireland as a starting point as these will inevitably be used by Parliament and ethnic minority communities as a comparator. These involve the preparation of an Equality Scheme to show what arrangements an authority has made for assessing which of its functions are important under the general duty, for consulting interested groups, monitoring policy and service delivery, acting on unjustifiable disparities and reporting on progress. It would not however be appropriate to translate those arrangements wholesale to the mainland because of the significantly greater number of public authorities that would be involved. We would to ensure that the duties are kept proportionate to the size and functions of public sector bodies and would make a distinction, for example between what central and local Government should be doing on the one hand and small rural initiatives on the other. The Commission for Racial Equality will be able to issue a compliance notice to a public authority which it believes is failing to fulfil any specific duty imposed by order, and, if necessary, to seek a court order to enforce the notice. The Government expects, however, that the Commission will use its powers only if a partnership approach fails to work. No specific enforcement provision has been provided for the general duty, although Judicial Review would be available as a remedy.

What public authorities will be subject to the duty

The public authorities to which the general duty will apply are defined by reference to a list attached as a schedule to the Bill. The Schedule currently consists mainly of large public authorities such as Departments of State, local authorities, the police and the armed forces. The Secretary of State will be empowered to extend the list of public authorities in the Schedule, adding by order bodies that he considers to be exercising ‘functions of public nature’. In addition to public authorities, this power will allow private sector bodies, which are

(26)

APPENDIX 6

RESEARCH REPORT ON SERVICES AND OUTCOMES FOR ETHNIC MINORITY GROUPS IN THE HERTFORDSHIRE YOUTH JUSTICE SYSTEM

KEY POINTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Dr. Brian Littlechild and Helen Sender Centre for Community Research

University of Hertfordshire

August 2006

(27)

Key points from the literature review and analysis

1) There is strong evidence of disparities between different ethnic groups at all stages of the system, with young people from BME groups being overrepresented in the statistics at all stages of the JY process, a point emphasised by the Youth Justice Board in their 2004 report.

2) Theories and research findings concerning why this is the case generally fall into one of two categories; firstly, that such inequalities are a reflection of wider inequalities within the UK, for example in the education or looked after children systems. Bowling and Phillips (2002) argue that all the empirical evidence relating to the YJS demonstrates both direct and indirect discrimination within the process. Such views are supported by the empirical research with community groups and young people carried out by the University of Hertfordshire for this report

Secondly, there are factors which relate to decision-making by individual professionals; this review and analysis highlights that there exists a large variability in the decision making process by individuals within the YJS. Acknowledgement of this factor points to the need for the monitoring of decisions made by key players in the YJS; whilst in the past this has taken place for groups, such as magistrates and judges, this places a challenge on Youth Justice services who may have to determine that there has to be monitoring of practitioners’ decision-making overtime to see if there is a particular bias against any particular groups. However, of course, this is a politically very sensitive subject.

Actions as a result of these areas of knowledge will rest on system management approaches, and effective local monitoring of evidence of inequalities in these systems, considered within effective interagency groups which have representation at a level which will ensure effective review and action planning in relation to these areas

3)

a) Information in the agencies needs to be more systematically and uniformly collected, monitored, and evaluated. This has started to take place in Hertfordshire Youth Justice Service, partly as a result of the

(28)

Youth Offending Teams', distributed to all YOTs by the YJB in 2004, for implementation in 2005. In this way, Hertfordshire Youth Justice Service was ahead of the national proposals in starting to address these issues.

In addition, in relation to monitoring and evaluation, the MacPherson Report recommended routine ethnic monitoring should be conducted and then results should be made use of locally.

MacPherson also recommended that local communities should also be involved in discussions regarding the results of monitoring and to assist in the devising of plans to tackle any identified problems. As part of this research, community groups and youth groups were consulted. Again, Hertfordshire Youth Justice Service has again taken a lead by doing this locally

b) One of the major problems with monitoring and devising action plans from data currently available is that there are so many omissions and inaccuracies within the ethnicity data currently collected. Inaccuracies within ethnicity data need to be addressed prior to the sentencing stage. It needs to be available in a format, and within agreed categories between agencies, so that it can be transferred between, and analysed jointly by, those agencies.

We know that a high proportion of young people’s ethnic backgrounds are not recorded on monitoring forms within YOTs, or are recorded as a category of ‘other’. This means that no fully effective monitoring and evaluation can take place over time. This may require particular policy and support initiatives within and between agencies.

The YJB's Race audit and action planning toolkit for Youth Offending specifically states that in areas where it is indicated, that categories over and above those recommended (based on categories used in the 2001 census), should be included, ‘….for example, Gypsies and Travellers’ (Youth Justice Board, 2004b: 4). As the YJB suggests, this may require the addition of local categories for such groups as deemed necessary locally (Youth Justice Board, 2004b). This will need consistency within and across agencies locally and needs to be addressed within a multi-agency forum which has the powers to determine the use of such coding, and their consistent application by individual practitioners, who we have demonstrated in this report can make decisions which are very varied. Therefore, it would seem important that one senior person within each of the local Hertfordshire Youth Justice agencies has the responsibility to have oversight of and the duty to ensure the validity of the categories determined by a Hertfordshire Youth Justice Service multi-agency forum: to monitor its effective implementation and usage, possibly including monitoring forms to ensure that they are fully completed and accurate and include appropriate ethnicity criteria.

c) Regular monitoring and evaluation reports, for example based on annual and/or quarterly data, which 28

(29)

accurately detail ethnicity (see point 3b above), both in relation to offending and staffing requirements; and to resourcing staff training, designed to improve their ability to express relevant ethnicity aspects accurately in written reports for the Police, the Courts, and in support of referrals to other service providers. The data and analysis could be considered by the recommended interagency group which has representation from relevant agencies at a sufficient level of seniority to drive forward change in their organisation, and be part of monitoring progress over time on the basis of the information systems developed as a result of the joint work carried out so far between the Hertfordshire Youth Justice Service and the University. This person could then be tasked with being a ‘champion’ of taking forward the issues within their agency, and reporting back to the inter-agency group on developments/outcomes.

4) An information base could be built within any mechanisms developed, regarding the BME groups in the local youth population. This should aim to establish where current services are not meeting their needs effectively and to ensure that processes that are set up are to meet these identified needs. People- including young people- from local BME communities should be included in the development of this new structure. this has already commenced, with the work that the University has been doing in a production of this report.

In addition, the systematic use of exit interviews, for all young people who are finishing their contact with the YOTs, and with particular emphasis on any experiences of discrimination by BME groups, as developed between the University and the Hertfordshire Youth Justice Service, can contribute to the development of knowledge of young people’s experiences of the youth justice system in Hertfordshire over time.

The University of Hertfordshire’s Centre for Community Research has been involved with the Participation Unit in Hertfordshire County Council in producing a report on effective inclusion of young people within the wide range of services the Council provides, and this might be a basis on which to examine future initiatives.

5) In the quantitative data formulated and analysed for this report, it was found that in most categories, young Black people were overrepresented in the statistics apart from the categories of curfews and community punishment, although these lost two categories comprise very small numbers and therefore are not particularly significant. However this varied between what can be seen as the more controlling or punitive elements of the youth justice system, and the more rehabilitative elements. They were, for example, overrepresented in terms of the number of young people acquitted going before the courts, being stopped and searched, being arrested and tended to have proportionately less referral orders given to them in 2004-5.

(30)

and young people of Asian origin were underrepresented by nearly 2.9 times compared to the rate of young White people during the 2004/5 period.

Young White people were over 1.3 times more likely than young Black people to be given Supervision Orders with Curfews attached during the 2004/5 period.

Of those sentenced to Young Offender Institutions, young people of Asian origin and young Black people were many times more likely to be given such a sentence when compared with the number of young people from different ethnic minority groups coming to court, though these numbers are far too small to draw inferences from during the 2004/5 period.

Asian young people were proportionately more likely to receive community punishment than young White people, and young Black people slightly more than White; however these were very small numbers so cannot be taken to be statistically significant The same issue of small numbers arises for Community Rehabilitation Orders, where young White people tended to receive such orders rather more than other ethnic groups.

However there are some indications of change in the overrepresentation of young Black people, which diminished in the categories of acquittal, arrest, and appearing in court between the two periods studied, July 2003 to March 2004, and April 2004 to March 2005.

Data analysed might in future usefully include other court orders made, e.g. supervision orders, fines, etc.

6) The qualitative data arising from the interviews with young people from BME groups provided very useful data, even though only three young people could be accessed. This raises issues about such research within the Youth Offending Teams in the future in order to make effective access to the people which the Service would wish. Issues emerging from these included the young people’s views concerning relationship with the police, problems in young people’s experiences within custodial institutions, including complaints issues, and issues of how staff dealt with religion and religious practices. Young Muslim people can often, for example, believe that racist abuse against them was compounded because of their religion: an issue particularly addressed in the Zahid Mubarek inquiry.

Where young people experience professionals positively, this tended to be perceived in the context of being treated fairly and with kindness. Young people appeared to have a strong sense of fairness and justice, and anger in the face of what they perceived as injustice.

7) Whilst not in the direct control of the Hertfordshire Youth Justice Service, the recommendations of the MacPherson report and the Mubarek inquiry both include strong recommendations that the police and

(31)

custodial establishment complaints procedures respectively needs radical improvement. Amongst other areas highlighted for improvement by these reports, training concerning issues of ethnicity and in the latter case of the Mubarek inquiry, religion, was strongly recommended. One of the results of the consultation with adult community groups and groups of young people, as well as from the exit interviews undertaken, is that these groups see the need for greater sensitivity to their experiences, and the need for training of agency personnel, and in particular, the police. This is one area in which the Youth Justice Service might take a lead in developing and promoting such training, possibly on an interagency basis.

Key points from Focus groups

In the Focus group with the Watford Race Equality Council, views were expressed concerning the mistrust of the police by young people, and how young people’s views of the police are almost always negative, and the need for more proactive and positive situations and communications to occur with the young people, so their views are not just based on their experiences on the streets.

There were also views expressed that sometimes in talks by the police, they do use negative stereotypes of Black people, having been heard in one meeting referring to drug dealers as ‘Black’.

Following contact with the local YOT, the Council had tried to follow up with them to become more involved in young people’s issues related to offending, but then could not get a response from the Team in order to take this further.

Views were also expressed that there were not enough people from BME groups in the justice agencies such as police and courts.

In the Focus group with young Asian males, they expressed strongly held views that they were stopped and searched numerous times because of their ethnicity, and that the police force and the criminal justice system were racist. They could not see themselves engaging in this enough to consider joining the police, for examples. They believed that there should be more training on ethnicity for the police, but did not have much faith in how much difference it would make. They also thought that there was a need for more ‘positive’ figures and role models from their own community, engaging with them to help provide role models which are more positive than the media tend to present.