Implementing and delivering for desistance

Content

Case summary
Inspectors comments
Important learning
Take-away learning

Back to desistance homepage Next chapter: Reviewing for desistance

This case example illustrates where the implementation and delivery of services showed a good understanding of promoting a child’s desistance. We expect implementation and delivery of services to:

support the child’s desistance
deliver services that are most likely to support desistance, giving sufficient attention to sequencing and the available timescales
reflect the diverse needs and wider familial and social context of the child, involving parents/carers or significant others
build on the child’s strengths and enhance protective factors
develop and maintain an effective working relationship with the child and their parents/carers
promote opportunities for community integration, including access to services post-supervision
encourage and enable the child’s compliance with the YOT’s work.

Case summary

Kai is a 16-year-old male sentenced to a 24-month youth rehabilitation order with supervision, curfew and activity (reparation) for three counts of robbery.

Kai had one previous conviction for domestic burglary. He had been known to the YOT for a number of years and had been subject to prevention interventions and out-of-court disposals. He had received a previous referral order for domestic burglary, which he had completed successfully. The robbery offences had all occurred in the same day and had involved Kai and others stealing from three local shops. One of the offences had included the use of a weapon and one of the victims had been an elderly shopkeeper. Intelligence from the police showed that Kai was on the periphery of a known gang in the local area and there were concerns that he was becoming more involved.

Kai’s older brothers were known to the police and one of them was serving a sentence in prison for manslaughter. His parents had tried to keep Kai away from offending peers so that he did not go along the same path. However, over time, older peers from the local gang who were known to his brothers had encouraged Kai to spend time with them.

The case manager fully engaged Kai and parents in the assessment and planning processes. He wanted to understand Kai’s motivation for the offences, Kai’s relationship to the gang and their influence, and the use of a weapon. During the assessment process, Kai had revealed that he used cannabis and that he had lengthy periods when he felt very down and could not shake off dark thoughts. He told the case manager he was worried that he was destined to go down the same route as his brothers and that he had the capacity in himself to kill someone like his brother had.

The case manager recognised that, for Kai to stay away from the people he was associated with, he needed to keep him motivated and engaged in his order. The curfew had offered Kai an excuse to remain indoors every evening, but the case manager was also keen to understand what Kai enjoyed doing so that he could build foundations for a new structure to Kai’s life. As the order was for two years, it was important that the interventions were tailored and tapered appropriately to keep Kai motivated.

As part of the intervention period, an assessment was completed by the restorative justice and victim worker to see if it was appropriate for Kai and the elderly shopkeeper to meet. Kai was reluctant to meet the victim, and the case manager knew that he was ashamed of his behaviour and found it difficult to think about seeing his victim face-to-face. Alongside this work, Kai was engaging with his Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) worker, who was providing therapy to improve Kai’s self-esteem and his belief in being able to determine his own future. Eventually the victim decided that he did not want to meet face-to-face but, as a result of his ongoing work with CAMHS, Kai felt comfortable being part of ‘shuttle mediation’ with the victim. The restorative justice and victim worker passed information, explanations, hopes and concerns between the victim and Kai. Both parties reported that this had a positive impact on them and enabled an understanding of each other’s perspectives on the offence.

Due to the nature of his offence, Kai completed the knife crime and consequences programme and had some individual sessions with the YOT police officer about keeping himself safe in the community. This was supported by the case manager delivering a healthy relationships programme which looked at how Kai built friendships. The substance misuse worker also completed an awareness programme with him regarding his cannabis use. A range of different techniques, including apps, films, groupwork and one-to-one sessions, were used to deliver the interventions in order to keep Kai engaged, as initially he was seen twice a week.

For Kai to build a new structure to his leisure time, the intervention programme included things that he enjoyed, such as boxing, attending the gym and rugby. These also offered him the opportunity to develop new friendships. The case manager also used his interest in art to help him engage with the local graffiti project.

The case manager gathered Kai’s parents’ views and kept them informed of the progress he was making. There were good records of Kai’s progress, which evidenced an improvement in his own perception of his wellbeing and his continued motivation to change his lifestyle.

Inspector comments:

This case is an example of good work to promote desistance. The assessment, planning, service delivery and interventions are seamless and take a holistic view of the child rather than focusing solely on the offence. There was good recording in the ‘explanation and conclusion’ section in the AssetPlus assessment; it brought the case together well and there was good analysis of information.

The interventions were appropriate. The case manager balanced the offence-focused work, such as knife crime and consequences, with emotional wellbeing, support and diversionary activities. There was a good approach to working with the family, sharing information and building trust.

The services, activities and interventions underway in this case were the ones that are most likely to support the child’s desistance. They were personalised to him and built on his strengths. The case records showed good attention to understanding engagement and participation and how the family could support desistance. The case manager made sure Kai’s leisure activities were community-based so that he could continue to access universal services after his sentence finished.

These constructive sports-based activities showed that the case manager understood and planned the delivery of the interventions to suit Kai’s lifestyle, his physical health and development and self-identity being a priority.

Important learning:

The case manager built on the child’s strengths and continuously engaged his parents. This helped to minimise the risk of reoffending.
The case manager identified Kai’s motivation to change and selected a specific programme that promoted pro-social modelling and problem-solving techniques.
The case manager involved other specialists in the wide range of interventions delivered.

Take-aways – applying the learning

For further information on this subject, please see HM Inspectorate of Probation’s Academic Insights publication by leading academics Shadd Maruna and Ruth Mann, Reconciling ‘Desistance‘ and ‘What Works’.