Intervention for Prevention

1
Intervention for Prevention?
Jean Hine, De Montfort University Louise
Marsland, Essex University
2
Two issue emerge from all projects in the Network

• the complexity of young peoples lives and their
  active negotiation of risk in those environments
• the presence of drugs and crime as a routine
  feature of those lives

3
Questions to Consider

• Do current interventions take account of the
  every day realities of young peoples lives?
• Given that risk factors do not always represent
  risk, how useful is risk factor assessment in
  identifying interventions for young people, and
  what is the alternative?
• Should cannabis use be targeted in interventions
  for offending?

4
Relevant points from Project 1 (YP offending,
excluded, EBD)

• Findings fall into three areas
• young peoples lives
• young peoples experiences of interventions
• professional practice

5
Young peoples lives

• complex lives with difficulties and critical
  incidents
• young people as active agents
• where YP live is important determinant of their
  experience
• violence/crime/drugs routine feature of that
  experience
• problem behaviour normal stage in young peoples
  lives
• in/out of crime is false dichotomy
• when is a risk factor not risk? Importance of
  context

6
Young peoples experiences of interventions

• multiple experiences/agency involvement 44 1
  type, 37 2 types 19 3 types
• frequently do not understand process and reasons
• ambivalent views re special schools
• contesting official view leads to disappointment
  and frustration
• concerns about information sharing
• relationship with professional important

7
Professional practice

• subjectivity YP with three professionals saying
  different things (temper, drugs, no problem)
• importance of family fear of parents, blaming
  parents, family history/reputation
• risk factors assumed to be one dimensional
• two types of risk risk to and risk from
• troubled/troublesome dichotomy
• risk assessment leads to limited understanding of
  YP

8

• Over to Louise

9
Substance use and offending

• Drug users tended to offend more than non-users
• Those dependent upon heroin (and cocaine) tended
  to offend more than those who did not use drugs
  regularly/were not dependent upon them
• Use of soft drugs leads to use of
  harder/addictive type drugs
• Drug use increases as youth age
• Proportionate increase in substance use problems
  and dependence
• Increase in drug problems is a major explanation
  for youth crime

10
Design

• Longitudinal study - 293 young offenders from 11
  Youth Offending Teams in England/Wales
• 1st wave - Home Office Summers 2001 2002
• 2nd wave ESRC networkApril 2003 June 2004

11
Instrument

• Self-complete questionnaire
• Substance use, offending, risk and protective
  factors
• Primarily structured
• Many pre-validated scales
• One-to-one guidance

12
Cohort profile

• Predominantly white males age 15 and 16
• Females were represented proportionally to their
  appearance as YOT clients
• Black and Asian ethnicities were deliberately
  over-represented
• Few findings varied systematically with sex, age
  or ethnicity
• Over represents those with longer offending
  histories and those with greater involvement with
  the YOT

13
Nature of substance use (wave1)
14
Service use (wave 1)

• GPs social work the most common services used
• More than 50 visited AE during previous 2yrs
• More than 10 felt they needed special help with
  education and/or getting a job and had not
  received any
• The quality of help was generally felt to be low
• over 40 said it had been only better than
  nothing or no use at all (except for help with
  getting a job)
• only half those who had received help for a drug
  or alcohol problem felt it had been useful

15
Predicting offending (wave 1) factors for
multivariate analyses

• Single index of offending frequency
• Three factors for substance use frequency
• Stimulant and polydrug use
• Addictive type (heroin methadone, also crack
  cocaine valium)
• Socially accepted (alcohol, cannabis, tobacco)

16
Predicting offending (wave 1)

• Decoupling of the relationship between drugs and
  crime
• Socially accepted substances predict offending
  more than other drugs
• Classic risk factors predict offending more
  strongly than they predict drug use

17
Pathways (waves 1 2)

• Substance use/offending pathways differ from
  cultural expectations
• No evidence that use of soft drugs leads to use
  of harder/addictive type drugs
• Drug use persisting/increasing
• But drug use NOT associated with increase in
  offending more likely to be attributable to a
  series of life events

18
Drugs as a mediator between stress and crime
Drug use
Stress
Officially known problem
Offending
Problems at School
19
Conclusion

• Normalisation the cultural incorporation of
  drugs, drug use and drug users into everyday
  lives
• Need to revisit interventions within context of
  the changing everyday realities of young peoples
  lives