The method of intervention planning should vary with the assessed level intervention determined via the Scaled Approach as set out below. Intervention plans for standard intervention cases are able to be developed by the Youth Offending Team case manager, and are unlikely to require significant provision of external or multi-agency resources such as specialist assessments or services. External agencies should be involved in this process as required. Intervention planning will be undertaken in a multi-agency meeting with the input of external agencies.
Although local DYO strategies will differ, they should all ensure that intervention plans for intensive intervention cases involve the relevant range of multi-agency professionals within the Youth Offending Team, as well as significant external specialists for provision of assessments and interventions. The multi-agency approach should also facilitate specific information and intelligence-sharing arrangements aimed at deterring further offending.
Review Case managers should ensure that they carry out an interim review at least every three months, or sooner if there is a significant change in circumstances. The review should include the following:. Where there is clear evidence of a change in circumstances or assessed risk, the case manager has the discretion to amend the level of intervention from that in place the start of the sentence.
The outcome of the assessment must be clearly recorded. Where it is proposed that the intervention level should be increased, this should be discussed with the young person before it is implemented, to facilitate their engagement.
In particular circumstances, there may be a need to amend the level of intervention before the formal review stage, for example where there is intelligence that a young person has become involved in dangerous behaviour that would present a high risk of serious harm to the public, and this information was not available to the court at the time of sentencing.
Again, any changes to intervention levels must be sorted by defensible evidence-based decisions which are clearly recorded. Progress against and any obstacles to achieving the targets set within the intervention plan and risk management plan should be reviewed. The case management approach taken will include: Organising interventions to meet basic requirements of the order Engaging parents in interventions Brokering access to external interventions Coordinating interventions with specialists in Youth Offending Team Providing supervision Monitoring compliance Enforcement Providing motivation to encourage compliance Pro-actively addressing reasons for non-compliance additional controls, restrictions and monitoring.
Determining the Intervention Level In determining the proposed intervention level, the report author should use the framework below to determine the most suitable level of intervention for managing the young person. This will form the basis of the proposal to the court. To complete this framework a full Asset needs to be available and where Asset indicates a potential risk of serious harm, the full Asset — Risk of Serious Harm assessment should also be undertaken. An example of this might be where a young person had committed a particularly serious offence but was assessed by the Youth Offending Team as low likelihood of reoffending or low risk of serious harm.
Any proposed changes to the initial intervention level should be defensible, and discussed and agreed with a manager, and the reasons clearly recorded. This will not affect the Scaled Approach intervention levels, but should form part of the overall intervention plan, and vulnerability plan where one is needed. Determining the Content of Intervention Whilst it is not appropriate for the YJB to formally link likelihood of reoffending, risk of serious harm or scaled approach intervention levels to detailed proposals for individual cases, it is possible to provide an indication of the types of sentence or contract components that may be suitable for those needing low, medium and high levels of intervention.
In general terms: More requirements will tend to equate to a higher intervention level — BUT if the risks and needs of a child or young person assessed as requiring the medium or high intervention level may can be adequately dealt with through a supervision requirement multiple requirements will not be necessary. Where issues such as mental health difficulties or substance misuse are present, it is preferable to engage the young person in interventions to address these needs on a voluntary basis; statutory requirements to address these types of issues should only be proposed where voluntary engagement has previously failed.
Determining Appropriate Requirements The content of the order and the requirements most appropriate for each young person should be based on the Asset assessment of the risk factors that need to be addressed and the assessed intervention level. The report author should make clear that the level of intervention will be delivered in accordance with the following minimum standards: Intervention level Minimum no.
Level of Intervention In all cases there will be some form of intervention, provided or overseen by the Youth Offending Team. Whatever your youth justice circumstance with AssetPlus, our team can help you with everything from data collection and analysis, through to service change.
We offer a full range of training and support services to help with the transition to AssetPlus, from data collection and analysis to service change. Having worked with the YJB for several years developing the new AssetPlus process, we are now rolling this programme out to the youth justice market by offering a full range of training and support services to help with the transition to AssetPlus, from data collection and analysis to service change.
We needed help to prepare for the transition to AssetPlus. Thanks to CACI we've made huge progress. How can we help? As youth justice services start to implement AssetPlus, CACI understands the opportunities and challenges this brings with it.
0コメント