Research and analysis

Evaluation of the Early Intervention Youth Fund: Impact report

Published 13 February 2025

Applies to England and Wales

Acknowledgements

The Ecorys and Ipsos MORI evaluation team would like to thank everyone who supported and contributed to this evaluation. Without your support and input, we would not have been able to undertake the evaluation and present the useful findings featured within this report. Specifically, we would like to express our gratitude to the individuals and groups listed below:

• the EIYF OPCC project leads, partners and stakeholders. Without your support, dedication and patience, the evaluation would not have been possible. We are grateful for your role in sharing information and data, identifying and negotiating access to participants from a range of organisations and sectors, and supporting us with accessing young people. Furthermore, we thank all stakeholders interviewed for your time, and your honest and valuable insights about the EIYF and component projects

• participant young people for your incredibly valuable input into what works, and why, in preventing young people getting involved in serious violence and crime. We are incredibly grateful for the time and insights you gave us

• colleagues at the College of Policing for your continued interest and support in the EIYF evaluation. We are grateful for your input and for sharing relevant evaluation reports with us

• our academic colleagues, Dr Iain Brennan and Dr Simon Harding, who provided invaluable support to the evaluation design and reviewing the findings

• colleagues at the Home Office who funded the research and provided invaluable direction and support for the evaluation. Specifically, we would like to thank Abbie Cameron, Sam Darby, Kristy Kruithof, Kim Reed, Stephen Roe, Neil Round and Joe Thomson. Thanks also go to the report peer reviewers for their time and valuable input

Finally, we would like to acknowledge and thank the large team of researchers from Ecorys and Ipsos MORI who led the data collection across the 29 projects.

Executive summary

The Early Intervention Youth Fund (EIYF) was a Home Office-funded initiative designed to support local areas to develop and implement early intervention approaches to prevent and reduce youth offending, with a focus on serious violence. In late 2018, the 29 projects selected for funding were in areas that were amongst the worst affected by crime in England and Wales, with the largest EIYF investments made in London (almost £4.2 million allocated to 10 projects) and the West Midlands (just over £1.8 million for one project). Funding was distributed via 19 Offices of the Police and Crime and Commissioner (OPCCs), supporting local development of a range of interventions. The evaluation included the 29 Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) projects that the Home Office announced in November 2018. Projects were delivered across 19 OPCC areas. ‘Project’ refers to the area-wide activity, most projects had multiple interventions. In June 2019 the Home Office announced funding for a further 11 projects (10 OPCC areas); these additional projects were out of scope for this evaluation.

EIYF programme overview

Programme delivery: autumn 2018 to spring 2020

Projects ranged from universal and preventative interventions (for example, assemblies delivered in schools) to highly targeted interventions offering intensive (often one-to-one) support to young people already engaged in criminal activity, such as county lines. ‘County lines’ is a term used to describe organised networks involved in exporting/dealing illegal drugs. These networks and gangs often exploit children and young people into moving and storing drugs and money through coercion, violence and intimidation. There is a strong association between county lines activity and serious youth violence. Around half of interventions were new projects in the OPCC area, whilst half involved extending or expanding existing interventions. Interventions were categorised into 4 types (prevention, early intervention, therapeutic and desistence). Further detail is provided in the main report (Figure 1.1) and glossary.

The Home Office commissioned Ecorys, Ipsos MORI and an expert panel of academics to evaluate the programme. This summary presents key findings about the EIYF’s outcomes and impact. Quasi-experimental programme- and project-level techniques were used to estimate impacts on serious violence and crime. Analyses of qualitative data and additional project-level data was used to explore the fund’s broader outcomes (for example, young people’s awareness of the risks of crime, alongside attitudes, behaviours, aspirations and wellbeing). Effects on local delivery capacity, effects on peers and families, and outcomes for local communities were also assessed.

An overview of the evaluation methodology, across the 29 projects, is presented below.

EIYF evaluation overview

Evaluation timescales: spring 2019 to spring 2021

Impact of the EIYF: Key findings

While there was no definitive evidence to show that the EIYF reduced serious youth violence and crime within the evaluation timescales, there was promising evidence to suggest that the EIYF had, or may, make a positive contribution to young people’s outcomes in the short and potentially longer term. The evaluation found that EIYF projects had started to make a positive contribution to some potential precursor behaviours, such as drug misuse and public disorder offences. As outlined in ‘Context and limitations of the evaluation’ (Chapter 1.4 below), the complex landscape of co-interventions and other influencing factors, some of which were associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, meant fully controlling for non-EIYF influences was not possible.

Programme-level impact analysis of offences data showed a statistically significant reduction in drug-related (possession and/or supply) and public order offences in EIYF supported areas relative to non-EIYF supported areas. See box A in the ‘EIYF evaluation overview’ diagram above.

• the evaluation’s qualitative evidence also showed that some young people reported reduced substance misuse and anti-social behaviour as a result of being involved in the EIYF projects. There is strong evidence from the wider literature ^{[footnote 1]} to show that prior involvement in drug misuse and previous offences can increase the risk of young people being a victim and/or perpetrator of serious violence

• in addition to these findings, there were indications of reductions in violence against the person offences, which whilst positive were not statistically significant

Project-level impact analysis provided interesting examples of improved outcomes. (See box B in the ‘EIYF evaluation overview’ diagram above. In one example, young people at risk of child criminal exploitation (CCE), including county lines activity, were supported by violence prevention workers. Supported by multi-agency colleagues, violence prevention workers sought to disrupt anti-social or criminal behaviours through a child-centred approach to violence prevention (including contextual safeguarding), using group and one-to-one support. Relative to a comparator group, there was a statistically significant impact on young people’s risk associated with county lines amongst the cohort engaged.

Furthermore, the treatment group typically experienced greater reductions in risk on a range of vulnerability indicators relative to the comparator group, though not by a statistically significant margin. High vulnerability indicators included young people known to children’s social care, those who had adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), had low school attendance, and those who were linked to a crime. Other vulnerabilities included mental health issues and learning disabilities. Interventions within the other projects subject to impact evaluations also showed signs of promise, but the findings require careful interpretation and should be engaged with in the full report.

There was some good evidence of short-term positive outcomes, and promising evidence of progress towards improvements to young people’s intermediate outcomes, across all types of intervention. Within the context of this evaluation, good evidence refers to consistent levels of evidence of outcomes being achieved across a range of EIYF projects. This section refers to box C in the ‘EIYF evaluation overview’ diagram above. These outcomes are important as wider evidence supports that they may help to reduce and mitigate the risk of young people’s involvement in CCE, serious crime and violence. Due to the timeframe of the projects and this evaluation it was not possible to explore the sustainability of these outcomes.

Evidence of changes in young people’s outcomes, which may provide protective factors for young people’s risks of getting involved in CCE and serious youth violence, are presented below.

Summary of children and young people’s outcomes

Providing young people with diversionary pathways, improving mental wellbeing and resilience, providing opportunities for the future, and encouraging positive aspirations are identified in the literature as protective factors. The prevalence of these types of activities within EIYF interventions were designed to generate such outcomes and promote protective factors among vulnerable young people.

In additon to improved outcomes for some young people, there was evidence to suggest that wider structural changes had also occurred in some local areas. These specifically related to improved partnership working and multi-agency collaboration. This was facilitated by improved knowledge, skills and awareness among professionals working with children, young people and families, and related in part to engagement in EIYF delivery and specific training and capacity building activities funded through the programme.

While some reported positive impacts encompassed participants’ wider family members and peers, including improved relationships and stability, overall the effect of EIYF on these outcomes was limited. The same was true of any broader outcomes on local communities and community safety. This was to be expected as the primary focus of the EIYF projects was targeted at children and young people directly.

Context and limitations of the evaluation

When interpreting the above EIYF evaluation findings here and in the main report that follows, it is important to recognise some limitations to the analysis, along with appreciating the context for EIYF delivery (in particular, the challenging circumstances faced by many of the young people supported).

• at the programme level, there were limitations to attributing the potential impacts of the EIYF on violence and crime outcomes. This was due to the complex landscape of co-interventions and other influencing factors, meaning that fully controlling for non-EIYF influences was not possible

• at the project level, (see box B in the ‘EIYF evaluation overview’ diagram above) limitations related to the suitability of the interventions for impact evaluation and the availability of data, in part due to the onset of the COVID-19 epidemic. This resulted in a smaller than anticipated number of EIYF interventions being amenable to project-level impact evaluation

Further evaluation limitations related to the issues outlined below:

• evaluation timings: The qualitative research was collected at a single point in time between late 2019 and early 2020, before the EIYF interventions had finished delivery. This was due to the requirements of government funding cycles, which limited the timeframes of the evaluation

• timeframe available for observing outcomes and impacts: Some of the EIYF’s intended outcomes may emerge in the longer term, beyond the EIYF delivery timeframe and evaluation timescale

• interviewee selection and recruitment: The evaluation team negotiated access to interviewees through EIYF project representatives. This limited the ability to target and sample research subjects. Furthermore, the evaluation team only interviewed young people engaged by projects (not those who chose not to engage or who dropped out). This may put a positive bias on the evidence presented. In March 2020 the start of the COVID-19 pandemic prevented the team from interviewing some young people

Key learning

Key implications for policy, commissioning and practitioner audiences, based on the EIYF impact findings, are outlined below.

The Home Office, wider government, programme commissioners and those developing interventions should consider the following suggestions arising from the evaluation findings:

Engaging young people in setting their own objectives

Engaging young people in setting their own objectives or targets around changing behaviour, and offering a consistent framework to capture, measure and recognise any ‘distance travelled’. Evidence suggests that this may be effective in supporting progress away from engagement in criminality and violence. Great care should be afforded to each individual based on their situation, level of engagement in the intervention and the time needed to develop positive relationships with front-line staff

Operating a Trusted Adult Worker model

Operating a Trusted Adult Worker model, involving a dedicated member of staff to provide ongoing support aimed at building resilience amongst those with ACEs. This model showed promise in improving young people’s emotional health and relations with others, developing a positive outlook and feeling empowered for the future

Those already involved in criminality

For those already involved in criminality, ensuring interventions have appropriate intensity, tailoring, focus and longevity of support. Thus recognising the time needed to engage with and encourage young people’s desistence from more serious criminality and violence

Those already engaged in criminal activity

Likewise, for those already engaged in criminal activity, commissioning psychological interventions, with wider and more holistic support designed to address criminal behaviour. For example, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and other therapies showed promise in the context of some interventions. Evidence suggested that these interventions appeared to offer benefits to mental health, feelings of wellbeing and potentially had knock-on effects on behaviour and engagement in crime and violence

Ensuring universally targeted awareness-raising interventions

Ensuring universally targeted awareness-raising interventions are combined with activities to engage young people in deeper and more ongoing support, particularly for groups more at risk of criminal involvement. Evidence suggested that these interventions have an important role in awareness raising and identify some young people who are at greater risk of, or more heavily involved in, risky behaviours

Ensuring that targeted diversionary interventions

Ensuring that targeted diversionary interventions build positive relationships with young people to understand and respond to their specific needs. Furthermore, staff, including those with lived experiences, should be involved to support and encourage young people to engage in existing positive activities to help to address the challenges that they face. Evidence suggested that providing young people with practical, alternative coping strategies for dealing with emotional challenges and external contextual situations can lead to positive effects

Broadening early intervention and prevention activity

Broadening early intervention and prevention activity to focus on improving peer and family relationships (for example, through positive diversionary activities). Evidence suggested that this can bring enhanced stability in young people’s home circumstances, can help to improve interpersonal relationships, and can divert some young people from negative behaviours and criminality

Ensuring activities have a focus on ongoing training

Ensuring activities have a focus on ongoing training and support for practitioners’ professional development to ensure that those working with children, young people and families are aware of the risk factors for young people’s engagement in serious violence and crime. There was some good evidence to suggest that this improved knowledge and awareness, and facilitated shared learning, which were important underpinning contributors to effectively supporting and generating positive outcomes for young people

Continuing to invest in systems-change approaches

Continuing to invest in systems-change approaches (a multi-agency approach to aiming to embed change at the whole-system level) to addressing serious youth violence and crime, supported by all government departments. The evaluation provides promising evidence to support systems-level approaches, such as those being delivered by Violence Reduction Units

Providing guidance to delivery organisations

Providing guidance to delivery organisations about monitoring and evaluation expectations, appointing evaluation specialists during programme development and developing a longer term evaluation strategy. This will help to ensure further primary and secondary research, which can contribute to the wider evidence base of what works in preventing serious youth violence and crime; this includes commissioning longer term evaluations to enable support to be embedded and for change to be measured

Glossary

ACEs	Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are a set of ten adverse experiences in childhood that are associated with adversity in later life. The ten ACEs relate to abuse (physical, sexual, psychological); neglect (physical, psychological) and household dysfunction (witnessing domestic abuse, having a close family member who misused drugs or alcohol, had mental health issues and/or served time in prison); and parental separation due to relationship breakdown
Alternative provision	Educational provision for children and young people who do not attend mainstream school, often as a result of school exclusion
ASB	Anti-social behaviour
CBT	The NHS defined cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) as “a talking therapy that can help you manage your problems by changing the way you think and behave”. See: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/cognitive-behavioural-therapy-cbt/ [accessed 16/11/20]
CCE	Child criminal exploitation
Community members	This reflects members of the local community in a broad sense, including local residents and people employed in the area who may be involved in voluntary, community and social enterprise and/or private organisations
Contextual safeguarding	Dr Carlene Firmin, who developed the contextual safeguarding theoretical and operational framework, defines contextual safeguarding as: “Contextual Safeguarding is an approach to understanding, and responding to, young people’s experiences of significant harm beyond their families. It recognises that the different relationships that young people form in their neighbourhoods, schools and online can feature violence and abuse. Parents and carers have little influence over these contexts, and young people’s experiences of extra-familial abuse can undermine parent-child relationships. Therefore, children’s social care practitioners, child protection systems and wider safeguarding partnerships need to engage with individuals and sectors who do have influence over/within extra-familial contexts, and recognise that assessment of, and intervention with, these spaces are a critical part of safeguarding practices. Contextual Safeguarding, therefore, expands the objectives of child protection systems in recognition that young people are vulnerable to abuse beyond their front doors.” See: https://contextualsafeguarding.org.uk/ [accessed 16/11/20]
County lines	The Serious Violence Strategy defines county lines: “County lines is a term used to describe gangs and organised criminal networks involved in exporting illegal drugs into one or more importing areas [within the UK], using dedicated mobile phone lines or other form of ‘deal line’. They are likely to exploit children and vulnerable adults to move [and store] the drugs and money and they will often use coercion, intimidation, violence (including sexual violence) and weapons.” See: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/698009/serious-violence-strategy.pdf p 48 [accessed 26/11/20]
CSE	Child sexual exploitation
CSP	Community Safety Partnership
Delivery partners	These include a range of non-statutory national and local organisations, often part of the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector, that deliver services and interventions directly to young people.
Diversionary activities/ interventions	This refers to ‘Type 2’ interventions (see below)
ETE	Education, training or employment
EIYF	Early Intervention Youth Fund
EIYF stakeholders	Strategic stakeholders (see below) and/or front-line delivery staff involved in the coordination, management and/or delivery of EIYF
Impact report	This refers to this EIYF final evaluation report. The report summarises the outcomes and impact of the EIYF programme on young people’s involvement in serious crime and violence
Implementation report	This refers to the EIYF interim implementation evaluation report. The report presents the evaluation findings related to EIYF implementation, covering project management, partnership working and working with young people
Interventions	Interventions were delivered as part of each OPCC area’s wider project. See ‘Types one, 2, 3 and 4’ below for further information on the four types of interventions
LA	Local authority
Level of evidence: Limited	Within the context of this report this refers to, for example, a small number of isolated examples of outcomes achieved. It also refers to examples of evidence for outcomes where it was too early to achieve and/or measure change
Level of evidence: Mixed	Within the context of this report, this refers to some reported examples of positive change; however, there were also examples of some intended outcomes not being achieved. It also refers to where some outcomes were achieved in the short term but were not sustained
Level of evidence: Some	Within the context of this report, this includes examples of immediate positive change within some projects in some contexts for some young people
Level of evidence: Good	Within the context of this report, this refers to consistent levels of evidence of outcomes being achieved across a range of projects
Level of evidence: Strong	Within the context of this report, this refers to highly consistent levels of evidence of outcomes achieved across a range of relevant projects
MI	Management/monitoring information
OCG	Organised criminal gang
OPCC	Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner
PCC	Police and Crime Commissioner
PFA	Police force area
Programme	The Early Intervention Youth Fund programme
Projects	These refer to the area-wide activities. Specific interventions were delivered as part of each OPPC’s wider project
QED	Quasi-experimental design
Strategic stakeholders	‘Strategic stakeholders’ refers to evaluation participants, covering a range of individuals. These included OPCC area project leads and those involved in the development, management and governance of EIYF projects and interventions at the local level. For example, they included representatives of organisations involved in the EIYF and/or local strategies to address crime and serious violence drawn from the police, a range of public sector bodies (including local authorities), and voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations. These stakeholders varied by area according to the focus of the EIYF project concerned and, by extension, which individuals identified were most appropriate to engage in the research
Targeted activities/ interventions	This refers to Type 3 and Type 4 interventions (see below)
Trauma-informed approach	“Trauma-informed practice is to raise awareness among all staff about the wide impact of trauma and to prevent the re-traumatisation of clients in service settings that are meant to support and assist healing.” From the National Association for People Abused in Childhood (NAPAC), see: https://napac.org.uk/trauma-informed-practice-what-it-is-and-why-napac-supports-it [accessed 16/11/20]
Type one interventions [footnote 2]	Prevention: Education on crime and vulnerability
Type 2 interventions	Early intervention: Diversionary positive activities
Type 3 interventions	Therapeutic: Personalised interventions to address adverse childhood experiences
Type 4 interventions	Desistance: Interventions to cease offending and anti-social behaviour
Universal activities/ interventions	This refers to Type one interventions (see above)
VCSE	Voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations
YJB	Youth Justice Board
YOS	Youth Offending Services
YOT	Youth Offending Team

1. Introduction

This report presents findings from an evaluation of the Early Intervention Youth Fund (EIYF). The EIYF is a Home Office-funded initiative designed to tackle and reduce young people’s (aged 17 and under) involvement in violence and crime. In 2018 the EIYF supported Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) areas to develop and implement early intervention approaches designed to prevent and reduce youth offending, with a particular focus on serious violence. In December 2018 the Home Office commissioned the EIYF evaluation, led by Ecorys in partnership with Ipsos MORI and an expert panel of academics. The evaluation sought to enhance understanding of what helps to prevent young people from engaging in violent crime within England and Wales. It aimed to:

• evaluate the impact of the fund on young people’s involvement in serious violence and crime

• understand what works, for whom and how, by identifying the mechanisms that lead to change

The evaluation covered the first 29 EIYF-funded projects, assessing implementation, outcomes and impact. (The evaluation includes the 29 OPCC projects that the Home Office announced in November 2018. In June 2019 the Home Office announced funding for a further 11 projects (in 10 OPCC areas); these additional projects are out of scope for this evaluation.) This final evaluation report focuses on the outcomes and impact of the fund, building on a previous interim report that focused on EIYF implementation. Findings in this impact report are based on research with all 29 EIYF-funded projects, exploring EIYF outcomes and the contribution of fund activity to these, alongside the use of quasi-experimental impact evaluation techniques to estimate impact. Where relevant, information from the implementation report is referenced to contextualise the findings on outcomes and impact presented in this report.

1.1 Report structure

This report is structured as follows:

• chapter one (this chapter) provides an overview of the EIYF and the evaluation methodology, including its limitations

• chapter 2 examines the impact of the EIYF on reducing serious violence and crime, presenting the quasi-experimental impact analyses complemented by other evidence on EIYF outcomes around this theme

• chapter 3 examines EIYF’s outcomes on young people’s awareness of and attitudes to crime and violence, alongside effects on behaviour and aspirations

• chapter 4 considers outcomes relating to health, wellbeing and education

• chapter 5 assesses a series of wider EIYF outcomes, including on local capacity to respond to crime and violence, EIYF delivery organisations and partners, peers and family members, and local communities

• chapter 6 presents key conclusions and recommendations

The annexes provide further detail on the research methodology, the EIYF theory of change and overarching evaluation framework, and additional detail on the quantitative impact assessment.

1.2 Overview of the EIYF

In 2018 the Government published its Serious Violence Strategy, responding to increases in knife crime, gun crime and homicide. The strategy set out the importance of prevention and early intervention in tackling serious violence, promoting a multi-strand approach committed to effective law enforcement and partnership working between different sectors. Reflecting these themes, the Home Office allocated £17.7 million through the EIYF to 19 OPCC ^{[footnote 3]} areas to deliver 29 projects between October 2018 and March 2020. Funding supported activity aimed at preventing and reducing young people’s involvement with, and vulnerability to, serious violence and criminal activity. In June 2019 additional EIYF funding was distributed to a further 10 OPCC areas. These additional projects are outside the scope of this evaluation.

Specifically, the EIYF aimed to achieve the following:

• deliver positive support and prevention services to prevent young people from engaging in criminal activity

• deliver positive change for young people, focusing on addressing risk factors linked to serious violence

• develop and enhance the evidence base around what works in tackling risk factors associated with serious violence

• improve local and multi-agency partnership working, particularly across the police, voluntary sector, schools and other educational settings, and health and children’s social care services to ensure that early intervention and prevention are effective

Local interventions developed through the EIYF reflected the fact that the OPCCs were given a high degree of flexibility to design projects to address the specific priorities and gaps in provision within their vicinity. As such, the 29 projects in scope for the evaluation varied in the extent to which they targeted specific ‘hotspot’ localities and/or adopted a more OPCC area-wide approach. Similarly, the focus of projects ranged from more universal and preventative interventions to highly targeted activity offering intensive support to young people already engaged in criminal activity. Analysis at the interim reporting point, towards the end of project delivery, showed that 78 distinct interventions could be identified across the 29 funded projects covered in this evaluation.

Similar interventions in some areas (for example, Essex, West Midlands) were grouped thematically where projects were unable to differentiate due to the type of support provided. To provide a typology to aid analysis, these interventions were categorised according to 4 broad ‘types’. Figure 1.1 below summarises these types and their definitions.

Figure 1.1: Types of intervention

Notes:

While some interventions could be categorised into one type, many activities covered multiple types (for example, Type 3: Therapeutic interventions may also cover Type 4: Desistance activities).

Table 1.1 below summarises the number of interventions by intervention type for the 29 funded projects, alongside the numbers of young people engaged by each type and the proportion of overall children and young people engaged by the EIYF that this represents.

Table 1.1: Types of intervention

Types of intervention	Number of EIYF interventions	Numbers of young people engaged	Proportion of total engaged
Type one: Prevention	12	158,753	78%
Type 2: Early intervention	30	39,572	19%
Type 3: Therapeutic	25	3,062	2%
Type 4: Desistance	11	2,475	1%
Totals*	78	203,862	100%

* Totals may not sum due to rounding.

As Table 1.1 indicates, in terms of volumes of young people supported, preventative interventions (often focused on more ‘universal’ targeting through, for example, school assemblies) accounted for the majority of those engaged, as might be expected given the types of activities involved. Early interventions, typically targeting those identified as being at risk of being drawn into criminal activity, also engaged relatively large numbers of children and young people through positive diversionary activities such as sport. Therapeutic and desistence-focused interventions engaged relatively small proportions of EIYF beneficiaries; typically, these intervention types involved intensive and ongoing support targeted at those already engaged in serious offending.

1.3 Methodology overview

The EIYF evaluation gathered and analysed evidence through several approaches, these are summarised in Figure 1.2.

Figure 1.2: Overview of methodological strands

Further detail on each strand of evaluation activity is provided below and evaluation limitations are provided in Chapter 1.4.

Desk research, including reviews of EIYF documentation and quarterly EIYF project monitoring reports. Throughout the report, references to the quarterly monitoring report data are included where deemed relevant, based on an assessment of their value and validity against other data sources.

A programme of qualitative research with all 29 EIYF projects, exploring perceptions of outcomes and the degree to which EIYF activity contributed to them, including the following:

• initial scoping discussions with project leads from all projects in spring/summer 2019

A total of 448 interviews with EIYF stakeholders and beneficiaries (a breakdown of interviewee type is provided in Annex 1) between October 2019 and March 2020, this comprised:

• 315 interviews with strategic stakeholders ^{[footnote 4]} and front-line delivery staff

• 125 interviews with young people receiving support ^{[footnote 5]}

• 8 with family members, usually parents/carers, who were engaged through EIYF project activity)

Estimating the fund’s impact through a quasi-experimental programme-level analysis, using available quantitative data to compare selected crime and violence metrics in areas receiving funding with comparator areas, supported by a selection of project-level impact analyses using various impact evaluation techniques.

Programme-level analysis assessed differences in impacts between funded areas and non-funded areas, before and after the introduction of the EIYF, to which EIYF activity (as a whole) may have contributed. Annual Youth Justice Board data, supported by the Home Office’s victims’ data, assessed changes in:

• violence against the person
• robbery
• drugs-related offences
• criminal damage
• public order offences
• theft and handling stolen goods, using appropriate statistical methods

The primary method was synthetic control groups, which weights potential comparator areas based on their similarity on pre-EIYF offending trends to funded (or ‘treated’) areas. Comparator areas that are more similar to EIYF areas receive a heavier weighting than those that are less similar.

Recognising the tiered approach to delivery (where, typically, there was universal activity covering all [or most] of the EIYF-funded OPCC area, and more targeted interventions in hotspot areas), analysis was conducted with the following treatment group definitions:

• all local authorities within funded OPCC areas (105)
• local authorities where targeted EIYF activity was identified (for example, in delivery plans) (61)
• within each funded OPCC, the local authority with the highest youth violence rates pre-EIYF (18)

Project-level analyses assessed the impact of a small number of EIYF interventions, where data/evidence were available, supported by an EIYF intervention and a comparator group. Only a small number of project-level impact assessments were of sufficient size and quality to be included in this strand of the evaluation. See Chapter 2 for further details.

Further detail on the methodologies and analytical approaches used can be found in Annex one and Annex 3. Application of the approach outlined was guided by an evaluation framework (See Annex 3), agreed with the Home Office during the study’s scoping phase. This informed the development of research tools to facilitate data collection, as well as providing a structure to organise and guide thematic analysis of the data collected.

As part of the analytical approach, EIYF programme and project-level theories of change (ToCs) were developed, identifying the key outcomes that the fund intended to achieve and the presumed links between EIYF activities and the generation of these outcomes. A ToC seeks to set out the outcomes or impacts that a programme or project seeks to achieve, alongside the presumed mechanisms for generating these including – in this case – the relationships between EIYF inputs, activities, outcomes and impacts. The programme-level ToC is presented in Figure 1.3 below.

Figure 1.3: Early Intervention Youth Fund programme-level theory of change

Given the focus of this final report on the EIYF’s outcomes and impact, the quantitative assessments of impact using quasi-experimental evaluation techniques were complemented by contribution analysis. Contribution analysis is a theory-based evaluation method that assesses the extent to which observed outcomes identified through data collection are due to, in this case, EIYF activities, rather than to other factors. It does this by collecting evidence to 1) verify (or refute) the outcomes anticipated in the EIYF ToC and 2) assess other factors that may influence the intended outcomes.

This technique draws on the qualitative data gathered, allied to any additional evidence such as monitoring data produced by EIYF projects, to undertake a structured assessment of EIYF outcomes, including those for which quantified impact estimates are either infeasible or inappropriate. Within this context, it is important to understand the terminology used to describe the strength of the evidence used throughout the report; this is described in further detail in Annex one, Table A1.2 and summarised below:

• ‘strong evidence’ refers to highly consistent levels of evidence of outcomes achieved across a range of relevant projects, within the EIYF evaluation context

• ‘good evidence’ refers to consistent levels of evidence of outcomes being achieved across a range of relevant projects

• ‘some evidence’ refers to examples of immediate positive change within some projects in some contexts for some young people

• ‘mixed evidence’ refers to some reported examples of positive change along with examples of some intended outcomes not being achieved, or where some outcomes were achieved in the short term but were not sustained

• ‘limited evidence’ refers to a small number of isolated examples of outcomes achieved or examples of evidence for outcomes where it was too early to achieve and/or measure change

1.4 Context and limitations of the evaluation findings

When interpreting the findings of this report, it is important to recognise some limitations to the evaluation approach along with appreciating the context for EIYF delivery, in particular the challenging circumstances faced by many of the young people supported. Key limitations to data collection and analysis are listed below.

Evaluation timings

Qualitative research was carried out in late 2019 and early 2020, before the EIYF projects covered by the evaluation finished their delivery in spring 2020. Qualitative data was also collected at a single point in time, with the data collection period thus presenting a ‘snapshot’ of evidence relating to outcomes that could be observed at that point.

Timeframe available for observing outcomes and impacts

Linked to the above limitation, and as reflected in the ToC, some of the intended outcomes of the EIYF are only likely to be observable in the longer term, beyond the EIYF delivery timeframe and timescale of this evaluation (see Chapter 1.3 above and Chapter 2 below). While indications of early impacts could be captured, and assessments of the direction of travel made, timescales and lack of follow-up data imposed limitations on the degree to which some outcomes could be identified, tracked and validated.

Difficulty in securing and conducting interviews

The evaluation team sought to conduct interviews with strategic stakeholders, front-line staff, and children and young people (and also parents/carers where relevant to do so) across all EIYF projects. While this was possible in most cases, in some instances planned interviews with young people were not able to be conducted. In some cases, this was due to issues with gaining parent/carer consent. Equally, in March 2020 the start of the COVID-19 pandemic led many projects to cease face-to-face delivery; hence access to interviewees became difficult or impossible. While telephone interviews were considered, the evaluation team and Home Office decided that these were not an appropriate method of data collection at that time.

Required approach to interviewee identification and selection

It was necessary to negotiate access to interviewees through EIYF project leads and representatives of delivery organisations. This limited the control that the research team had over the targeting and sampling of research subjects. Efforts were made to avoid bias when liaising with those acting as a conduit for identification and selection, stressing the need to access individuals with a range of views, though inherent limitations in ensuring this should be recognised. (It is worth noting that negative or adverse consequences of being involved in EIYF interventions were not found. However, reports of positive outcomes not being sustained are reported, where relevant.) Additionally, the evaluation team only interviewed young people engaged by projects and did not speak to those who chose not to engage or who dropped out. This may put a positive bias on the evidence presented.

At a project level, the suitability of interventions to impact evaluation and data availability

Following an impact feasibility stage, only a subset of projects (10) was identified as theoretically amenable to quasi-experimental impact evaluation techniques. This reflected the largely preventative nature and universal delivery of interventions (limiting the ability to identify suitable comparator groups). This is not a criticism of the quality or suitability of the projects funded; rather, the most appropriate method of evaluation was qualitative research. The number of individual EIYF projects where quasi-experimental impact evaluation could be undertaken was further limited and reduced by difficulties in accessing the required data, principally due to challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

At a whole programme level, limitations on attributing potential impacts on violence and crime outcomes to EIYF

The results from the programme-level assessment should be interpreted with some caution. Whilst EIYF funding was used to deliver a range of activities to substantial numbers of (at-risk) young people across funded areas, impacts observed at this level cannot be fully attributed to the fund. There are external factors, including co-interventions, that may also explain differences between treatment and comparator areas. The analysis presented controls for external factors, as far as possible. However, findings at the programme level should be interpreted as representing impacts that the EIYF may have contributed to, rather than being solely and definitively responsible for.

Use of monitoring data collected by EIYF projects

Available data from projects, including that collected as part of monitoring beneficiary progress and outcomes, varied significantly in the mode of collection and the extent to which the outcomes presented could be verified. While examples of such data are presented in this report, lack of comparability and ability to validate the data limited the extent to which they could be used to inform conclusions around outcomes at the fund level. Similarly, the lack of consistent and reliable baseline and follow-up data through which to assess outcomes and ‘distance travelled’ by the beneficiaries limited the use of this data as an evidence source.

See Annex 1 for further detail on methodological and research limitations.

Alongside the above limitations, it is also important to consider the findings presented in context. Many of the children and young people involved in the EIYF projects came from complex backgrounds, and often had multiple needs. Some young people had family members who were in prison, others had family members who had been a victim of violence or who had been murdered.

Many others lived in chaotic households, lacked support from parents/carers and/or had poor engagement with (or were excluded from) school. When assessing outcomes, the evaluation team has sought to do so with this context in mind; in particular, it should be recognised that the extent to which significant change was likely to be observable, at least amongst some of the cohort supported, in the timeframe concerned was always likely to be limited.

Findings in this report around the extent to which sustained change can be achieved in these timescales, bearing in mind the background of some of the young people engaged, are relevant from this perspective.

2. Impact of the EIYF on reducing serious violence and crime

This chapter first estimates the potential (quantitative) impact of the Early Intervention Youth Fund (EIYF) on serious violence and crime at a whole programme level and, where possible, at specific project levels. Additional and supporting evidence around outcomes relating to serious violence and crime is then presented, principally drawing on evidence gathered through the qualitative research undertaken with EIYF projects, supplemented by selected evidence from projects’ monitoring activities.

2.1 Reducing serious violence and crime: Quantitative impact assessment

The following overarching approaches were implemented to understand the impact of the EIYF:

• programme-level: Assessing overall differences in offending between funded areas and non-funded areas, before and after the introduction of the EIYF, to which EIYF activity (as a whole) may have contributed

• area-level: Drawing on the programme-level approach, assessing differences in offending between each funded area and non-funded areas

• project-level: Assessing the impact of specific EIYF interventions, where data/evidence were available, supported by an EIYF intervention and a comparator group

Each of the approaches provided insights to the potential impact of the EIYF.

2.1.1 Programme-level impact results

At the programme level, there were statistically significant reductions in drugs offences (possession and/or supply) across all treatment groups tested. Likewise there were also statistically significant reductions in public order offences for the treatment group comprising local authorities (LAs) with the highest youth violence rates (pre-EIYF), relative to LAs in non-(EIYF)-funded Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) areas, in the 2019/20 financial year. Whilst some EIYF activity started slightly before, 2019/20 was when the majority of activity was delivered, and the most young people were supported (see Annex 2 for more detail).

Results from the synthetic control group approach for these offences, alongside violence against the person offences in LAs with the highest youth violence rates (pre-EIYF), which were not statistically significant but were of interest, are presented in Figure 2.1. Results for other offence types and treatment groups, from the synthetic control group and fixed-effects regression approaches, are provided in Annex 2.

Figure 2.1 shows that the approach generated synthetic control groups (the dashed blue lines) that track EIYF area offence rates (black lines) in the pre-EIYF period (financial years 2013/14 to 2018/19) very closely. Differences between EIYF areas and the synthetic control groups in the EIYF period (2019/20) are impacts that EIYF may have contributed towards.

Figure 2.1: Average offending rates in EIYF areas compared to synthetic control groups

Source: Ecorys analysis of Youth Justice Board data.

Notes:

Treatment groups specified in parentheses. The Y axes have different scales.

The key observations from Figure 2.1 show the following:

• although not statistically significant, there was an indication of reductions (approximately 6 offences) in violence against the person for LAs with the highest rates of youth violence (pre-EIYF) in EIYF-funded OPCC areas. This is equivalent to a 17% reduction. Analysis of victims’ data also indicated a reduction in violence (see Annex 2)

• there was a statistically significant reduction of approximately 3 drugs-related offences per 10,000 young people in all LAs in EIYF-funded OPCC areas, compared to the synthetic control group (LAs in non-funded OPCC areas). Expressed as a percentage decrease relative to the synthetic control group, the reduction was 23%. This reduction was consistent across the 3 different treatment groups

• for the treatment group comprising the LAs with the highest youth violence rates (pre-EIYF) in EIYF-funded OPCC areas, there was a statistically significant reduction of approximately 4 public order offences, relative to the synthetic control group; this is equivalent to a 33% reduction

There was no statistically significant difference between EIYF areas and the synthetic control groups for robbery, criminal damage or theft and handling stolen goods offences (these results are provided in Annex 2). However, it should be noted that for the treatment groups comprising all LAs and those with an additional EIYF focus, these offences do not appear to be increasing (relative to the synthetic control groups). Furthermore, for the treatment group comprising LAs with the highest youth violence rates (pre-EIYF) there were indications of reductions.

2.1.2 Area-level impact results

At the OPCC area level, analysis was conducted to illustrate the difference between each treated area and its synthetic control group (which underpins the results at a programme level in Chapter 2.1.1. Area-level results extracted from the synthetic control group model where additional control variables were included. The analysis focused on the same outcomes and treatment groups as Figure 2.1, which were statistically significant and/or of particular interest. The analysis is intended:

• to enable an assessment of consistency across areas (that is, whether a similar trend is observed across areas)

• to show if there are interesting outliers

As highlighted previously, results from the programme-level analysis should be interpreted with some caution, and this extends to the area-level analysis. Just because an increase or reduction in offending rates is observed in certain area(s) does not mean that this can be solely or definitively attributed to EIYF funding. There are wider external factors that may have contributed, which are considered in Chapter 2.2 and subsequent chapters.

Figure 2.2 summarises the results from the area-level analysis. For interpretability, only the differences between EIYF areas and the synthetic control groups in the 2019/20 financial year (the EIYF period) are shown. The following bullets give the key findings from Figure 2.2:

• for the treatment group comprising LAs with the highest levels of violence (pre-EIYF) in EIYF-funded OPCC areas, reductions in violence are observed in most areas. These relatively larger differences are explained, in part, by violence against the person accounting for higher rates of offences. The largest differences were observed in London, the West Midlands and Northumbria

• drug offences reduced in most EIYF-funded OPCC areas across all treatment groups, relative to the synthetic control groups

• for the treatment group comprising LAs with the highest levels of violence (pre-EIYF) in EIYF-funded OPCC areas, public order offences were typically reduced. The largest differences were observed in Humberside and Northumbria

Figure 2.2: Area-level differences in offences between EIYF-funded areas and synthetic control groups (2019/20 financial year)

Source: Ecorys analysis of Youth Justice Board data.

Notes:

LAs = local authorities; PFAs = police force areas.

2.1.3 Project-level impact assessment

Two project-level impact assessments were undertaken by the evaluation team. Evaluation summaries for 2 other projects, which were subject to evaluations commissioned by the College of Policing, are also provided. ^{[footnote 6]} The project-level impact assessments (undertaken by the EIYF evaluation team) sought to assess the impact of specific EIYF interventions that were amenable to impact evaluation methods. A structured and comprehensive impact feasibility assessment was conducted at the start of the evaluation to identify projects that were potentially amenable to impact evaluation. This included developing project-level theories of change (setting out the outcomes and assumed causal mechanisms), assessment of target group size and characteristics / eligibility for support, and initial considerations around the required data. The feasibility assessment ultimately identified 4 projects that were theoretically amenable to impact evaluation and were able to provide the required data.

Whilst there were other projects (6) initially identified as being theoretically amenable, owing primarily to COVID-19 circumstances and the subsequent lack of data availability, impact evaluation was, unfortunately, not possible.

Regarding the projects that were not deemed suitable for impact evaluation, this was not a reflection of their design or suitability for the intended target groups. Rather, these projects were best suited to qualitative evaluation methods, the findings of which are provided at a whole programme level in Chapter 2.2 and subsequent chapters.

2.1.3.1 Devon and Cornwall – Turning Corners project

As part of Devon and Cornwall’s EIYF project, the interlinked Youth Exploitation Assessment Tracker (YETA) and Turning Corners (TC) elements were identified as amenable to project-level impact assessment. The YETA, completed by practitioners and drawing on intelligence from multiple agencies, generated a risk score for young people based on a range of vulnerability indicators, helping to develop a coordinated safeguarding response. The YETA was repeated every 3 months (from the point the young person is referred to when their support ends, which is variable/based on needs being met) to allow for changes in risk to be tracked. Young people, referred by partner agencies and identified as being at risk using the YETA, and not currently supported by social care, were eligible for support through the TC project.

Turning Corners provided detached youth work led by violence prevention workers (VPWs). VPWs took a child-centred approach to violence prevention (including contextual safeguarding) and focused on building relationships with those engaged in (or at risk of engaging in) risky behaviours and/or criminal activity. One-to-one support was provided to high-risk young people. The TC project adopted, and was part of, a wider multi-agency community approach (which included parents) to disrupt youth anti-social/criminal behaviour.

YETA data was provided for 144 young people, of which 85 were supported by TC and 52 by social care (seven young people moved out of the geographical area). The impact assessment had 2 aims:

• to explore how risk changed for all young people assessed by the YETA

• to assess if changes in risk for those supported by TC differ to those supported by social care

Prior to the analysis, propensity score matching was undertaken to account for differences between the group supported by TC and those supported by social care. Those supported by TC (the treatment group) were matched on baseline YETA risk indicators (and other factors including age and gender) to those who were being supported by social care (the comparator group). The propensity scores generated a good match between the treatment and comparator group, which is evident in the similarity of baseline scores in Table 2.1 (additional balance statistics are provided in Annex 2).

To understand the impact of the YETA for those supported by TC or social care, baseline YETA scores on key risk indicators were compared against YETA scores at the 3-month review period. Sample size was maximised by focusing on those with a baseline and 3-month review. The results, set out in Table 2.1, were analysed using a paired t-test. Those supported by TC experienced statistically significant reductions in overall criminal behaviour and county lines associated risks. Those supported by social care experienced a statistically significant reduction in criminal behaviour risks.

Table 2.1: Changes in risk from baseline YETA to 3-month reviews

	Supported by Turning Corners			Supported by social care
Risk domain	Baseline	After 3 months	Change	Baseline	After 3 months	Change
Overall	47.40	41.26	-6.14*	47.78	44.48	-3.29
Welfare	11.49	11.63	0.14	11.67	12.02	+0.35
Victim of crime	1.12	1.06	-0.06	1.18	0.52	-0.67
Criminal behaviour	5.66	1.91	-3.75*	5.34	2.92	-2.42*
County lines	3.29	1.28	-2.01*	3.21	3.00	-0.21
Education	8.07	7.81	-0.26	8.30	7.86	-0.44

Notes:

* Indicates that the result is statistically significant. The risk domain ‘welfare’ included involvement with statutory services, being reported as missing, having mental health issues, having learning disabilities and substance misuse.

To assess the impact of TC specifically, risk indicators at the 3-month YETA review period for the treatment and comparator group were compared in a regression model. The results are provided in Table 2.2. Relative to the comparator group, there was a statistically significant impact on risk associated with county lines. The treatment group typically experienced greater reductions in risk relative to the comparator group but, as indicated by the p-values, not by a statistically significant margin.

Table 2.2: Turning Corners impact on risk indicators

Risk domain	Impact estimates	P-value
Overall	-3.224	0.27
Welfare	-0.39	0.79
Victim of crime	0.54	0.19
Criminal behaviour	-1.00	0.19
County lines	-1.72	0.02
Education	-0.05	0.96

In summary, the work funded by the EIYF was associated with positive changes for the young people supported. Levels of risk reduced across most indicators, often to a statistically significant level, for both the TC and social care groups. Furthermore, relative to the social care group, TC support had an impact on risks associated with county lines.

Following the EIYF funding period, the TC project ceased due to an absence of further funding.

2.1.3.2 Cleveland

The EIYF project in Cleveland comprised multiple interventions. Preventative and early intervention activities, typically filling gaps in local provision to prevent adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), reached many thousands of young people across the region. Targeted interventions, including enhanced Youth Offending Team (YOT) support and diversion for those in custody, were deployed for those identified as most at risk. Supporting the direct work with young people, ACEs training was delivered to professionals. From the outset, the project was focused on reducing youth offending, specifically anti-social behaviour (ASB), at a population level.

To establish what impact EIYF activity may have had in Cleveland, interrupted time series analysis was conducted on monthly youth ASB data provided by Cleveland Police. Interrupted time series analysis involved modelling the trend before and after the point of intervention (that is, EIYF). The precise approach is segmented regression, where a regression line (the trend) is fitted separately to the data points in the before and after intervention periods. The trends, specifically the degree of the slope, can then be compared. Whilst a step change (that is, from the trend line in month 15 to the one in month 16 in Figure 2.3) can be assessed, it is not a focus here. It was assumed, with insight from Cleveland, that any immediate change (up or down) would not be attributable to EIYF activity. In other words, the anticipated impact was gradual and cumulative. The analysis accounts for seasonality.

Figure 2.3 sets out the results from the interrupted time series analysis. The black dots and lines are the observed youth ASB. The solid red line is the trend before EIYF estimated by the regression model; this trend is extended (with the dashed red line) into the EIYF period to enable comparison. The solid blue line is the trend in the EIYF period. The following are key findings from Figure 2.3, and associated regression estimates:

• there was a downward trend in youth ASB prior to the EIYF period

• whilst the trend in the EIYF period started slightly higher than the pre-EIYF period, the downward trend continued but at faster rate. Relative to the pre-EIYF period, youth ASB reduced by approximately 6 additional instances per month in the EIYF period; however, this change in trend was not statistically significant (p-value = 0.25)

In summary, youth ASB in Cleveland reduced during the time period examined but this cannot be attributed solely to the EIYF.

Figure 2.3: Interrupted time series analysis – Cleveland youth anti-social behaviour

2.1.3.3 College of Policing impact evaluations

Project-level impact evaluation summaries of the DIVERT and Trusted Adult Worker (TAW) interventions are provided below. Both interventions were funded by the EIYF and the College of Policing Vulnerability and Violent Crime Programme (VVCP). The College of Policing commissioned separate evaluations of these projects.

Project example: DIVERT summary of evaluation findings ^{[footnote 7]}

DIVERT is an intervention targeting 18- to 25-year-olds in police custody who are not in education, training or employment (ETE). The programme aims to prevent young people from reoffending by using police custody as a ‘reachable moment’ to divert them away from crime and into ETE or further support. DIVERT uses custody intervention coaches (CICs) to work with young adults to develop an action plan for their future after custody. The programme has been providing this support from late 2016, expanding to 6 custody suites in 2018 in different locations: Brixton, Croydon, Lewisham, Stoke Newington, Tower Hamlets and Wood Green. During this time, 1,034 young adults have participated in the programme.

The evaluation of DIVERT was undertaken by the National Centre for Social Research. The evaluation included the development of a logic model to map the links between the inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, and impact of the programme. A mixed-methods approach was undertaken including 3 strands: impact evaluation, process evaluation, and cost analysis. The impact evaluation involved a quasi-experimental approach, creating a counterfactual for the programme using propensity score matching (PSM).

The findings of the evaluation require careful interpretation. The impact evaluation estimated that the re-arrests 6 months after the intervention were higher for DIVERT participants relative to the matched control group, while re-arrests 12 months after showed no difference. These results are likely explained by a combination of: the analysis not accounting for the subjective decisions of CICs who might be selecting the most challenging cases, and the intervention group potentially being at higher risk of re-offending relative to the control group as a consequence, causing potentially biased results; the estimated effect varying between custody suites, as re-arrests after 12 months were lower in Brixton relative to the control group; and Brixton having the greatest number of cases as it had been operating the longest and employing more experienced CICs relative to newer suites. The qualitative evidence also identified some features of the programme which underpinned successful outcomes for young adults, such as recognising the need to change their behaviour and engaging in ETE opportunities.

It is worth noting that it may take longer than 12 months before the impact of DIVERT on re-arrests can be measured, as a change in attitudes and behaviour must be achieved before reoffending behaviour can be expected to change. DIVERT appears to be a promising programme when it is long-established and well-implemented, as evidenced by the Brixton example. Programme participants have already reported positive changes in behaviour and that success was underpinned by the consistency, persistence and flexibility of support by CICs.

Project example: Trusted Adult Worker summary of evaluation findings ^{[footnote 8]}

The OPCC in Hampshire, collaborating with the local constabulary and other public sector services, commissioned ‘trusted adult workers’ (TAWs) to support children who have experienced ACEs. The role and aim of TAWs initially was to work with children who had experienced only a few ACEs and could benefit from early intervention (mentoring, support in their development of resilience) and improvement of life outcomes.

The impact, process and economic evaluation of the TAWs was carried out by the University of Birmingham. The methodology included focus group interviews with a sample of referral agency partners, interviews with the full sample of TAWs, a prospective cohort study exploring outcomes of children who have worked with the TAWs, interviews and questionnaires with children and families.

The evaluation found that TAWs brought significant improvements for children exposed to ACEs, with reported improvements in emotional health, connections with others, positive outlooks on everyday life and feeling empowered for the future. The overall ‘outcomes star’ measure ^{[footnote 9]} (distance travelled or progress) among children working with TAWs showed a statistically significant improvement (improved difference in scores +0.46) and also in their family outcome star (+0.65). The before-after analysis on the outcomes star was based on the differences from the beginning of the intervention (first quarter) and the last (closing quarter) of the intervention. A paired t-test was conducted to identify statistical significance. Analysis was also conducted against a comparator group but did not show statistically significant results, although there were several concerns that the comparator group was not suitable: the sample size was considered too small (33 observations), and the groups were not able to match according to main characteristics (gender, age, deprivation index and number/type) of ACEs experienced.

2.2 Additional evidence on violence and crime outcomes

This section summarises the additional evidence around the nature and scale of effects on violence and crime outcomes derived from the qualitative research and additional available data, including from the EIYF monitoring reports and data collected by projects. Selected examples of these latter data are reported to illustrate the different ways in which projects impacted on individuals who were in direct receipt of support, though the limitations of this data, discussed in the report introduction (see Chapter 1.4), should be recognised.

Figure 2.4: Overview of outcomes findings

2.2.1 Evidence of reduced anti-social behaviour, violence and weapon carrying

While many stakeholders felt that it was too early to talk about whether the EIYF programme would have a sustainable impact on reducing incidences of youth crime and violence, some stakeholders and young people across several projects gave examples of change. These included reports of:

• young people engaging less in ASB

• fewer offences

• young people no longer carrying weapons

Most of the examples presented in this section relate to young people involved in diversionary and targeted interventions. (Diversionary interventions relate to Type 2: Early intervention; targeted interventions relate to Type 3: Therapeutic and Type 4: Desistence interventions. See Figure 1.1). A number of young people involved in such interventions explained that they now chose not to engage in ASB, opting for more positive activities instead. In some cases, this was ascribed to a realisation of the consequences of their actions and the impact they had on others (see below). Other young people reported “not wanting to get into trouble anymore” more generally, and/or being better able manage their feelings of anger which lessened their tendency to get involved in ASB or violence (see Chapter 4).

A small number of examples of young people reducing or stopping the carrying of weapons, particularly knives, was reported. These included examples of some young people handing in their weapons.

“Not only did we have kids sharing their stories, but we actually had 3 kids hand in weapons to us as well … for me personally, that was a huge achievement. To get these kids to open up and talk to us the way they do.”

Front-line delivery staff

Other stakeholders gave examples of young people who set themselves targets to, for example, not to get arrested for a week or not to carry a weapon for a certain period of time (for example, a few days initially). Although these might be considered small steps, stakeholders explained these were incredibly significant for the young people involved and it was a step change for these individuals, some of whom were already involved in gangs.

“One young man this week, his goal for the week is not to get arrested – that is a really big thing for him because he has been arrested every week for the past 3 weeks. He would say: ‘Ok, I have stayed out of trouble this week and I am not adding to my already long list of offences or charged with offences’. That is a big impact to them.”

Front-line delivery staff

While most reports of young people’s reduced ASB or criminality were anecdotal or self-reported, in some EIYF project areas these reports had been substantiated by the police. In one example, a project supported young people and their families when they came into contact with custody suites. Project staff reported that whilst it was too early to assess whether there had been a noticeable reduction in published reoffending rates, early data showed a 49% reduction in offending amongst the cohort in the months following engagement. Anecdotally, the majority of young people supported had not come back to police attention during this period. Other similarly designed interventions were cautious in overstating the impact of support, whilst still highlighting promising early evidence.

“It is very early days making it difficult to provide any meaningful quantitative evidence of how the project is impacting upon youth violence overall. The fact that only 3 of the 66 referred have gone on to reoffend evidences a positive shift.”

Project staff

In other OPCC areas, information sharing between the police and EIYF stakeholders was cited as demonstrating that at least some young people who the EIYF had engaged with had not been in recent contact with the police, suggesting that they were choosing alternative pathways. Other examples included:

• a reduction in reported ASB while the target group of young people attended the EIYF provision (for example, on a Friday night while the intervention was being delivered)

• police officers having not seen particular young people in hotspot localities

• young people not being re-arrested and/or found to be carrying weapons

• police units receiving fewer reports of ASB within specific localities since the EIYF projects started

Another stakeholder explained how the EIYF project had made a difference to some of those engaged, as well as providing their perception that such targeted intervention should generate positive results in the longer term.

“It will [reduce violence] in the long run. There are definitely things that would have happened that didn’t happen because of our involvement – deaths in [locality name], there are people in [locality name] who we have helped move away from some pretty dark things and ditto in [locality name].”

Delivery manager staff

While many examples of change were given, it was not possible to fully assess whether these were sustainable though some of those delivering support felt that early indications on this were positive.

“I believe their motivation to continue on this positive trajectory will continually enhance, supporting them in creating a very bright future for themselves.”

Project staff

Other stakeholders, however, acknowledged how quickly positive changes can be reversed for some young people. Indeed, some noted cases where young people’s behaviour had ‘regressed’ when the EIYF intervention had stopped. In one instance it was reported that a cohort of young people involved in the EIYF project had stopped carrying weapons; however, following a spate of local stabbings, they started carrying weapons again to feel safe.

2.2.1.1 Evidence of impact on substance misuse

A small number of projects (both one-to-one and group interventions) specifically sought to reduce young people’s involvement in substance misuse. Across these projects, stakeholders and young people gave examples of how the EIYF interventions had helped them to stop or reduce drug taking. One young person, who had participated in a group intervention where they had heard from people with lived experiences of drug addiction, explained how it had put them off taking drugs:

“When you hear about it, what they are telling you they have done, it puts you off even more, it has put me off for definite.”

In another example, when reflecting on their behaviour from 6 months previously, one young person spoke about how they had reduced their cannabis use and had stopped spending time with people who were a negative influence.

“I was hanging out in town with people I shouldn’t be, age 18, 19, or 20 upwards and honestly, smoking a lot of weed. Now I’m not in town much, I don’t go to the same places … I barely smoke weed, I don’t get into trouble.”

Young person, from a targeted intervention

A big challenge for stakeholders in tackling substance misuse among young people was that taking drugs was often normalised within peer groups and social networks. Reflecting this, the evaluation report for one project recommended that providers should discuss young people’s motivations for drug misuse and provide differentiated support options based on needs, including referral to specialist drug therapy where necessary.

2.2.1.2 Evidence of impact on involvement on gangs, CSE and CCE

It was common for stakeholders to share concern that young people’s involvement with drugs and/or organised criminal gangs could put them at greater risk of exploitation, including county lines activity and child sexual exploitation (CSE). In addressing this, the importance of positive role models and diversionary activities operating within local communities (particularly at times of heightened vulnerability such as evenings, weekends and school holidays) was highlighted by stakeholders and young people. However, stakeholders commented that quantifying and attributing the impact of EIYF interventions to a reduction in involvement with organised criminal gangs (OCGs), child criminal exploitation (CCE) and CSE was particularly challenging, and that ongoing efforts were needed to achieve positive outcomes. That said, there were several examples across projects that illustrated signs of improved outcomes stemming from early intervention, diversionary and targeted work. As one stakeholder explained:

“Lots of the anecdotes, the feedback that we get from the parents and the engagement we have from the parents is actually [that] they’ve noticed a real difference in terms of the types of activity that their child’s getting involved in. And they’re not putting themselves in situations where they’re likely to get exploited, or assaulted, or go down into a life of crime and disorder.”

Project staff

One project specifically focused on tackling organised gang membership through a partnership between outreach youth services and the police. The approach was reported to have disrupted gang activity and contributed to several arrests of gang members. The perception of those involved was that the strategic outcomes of this project would have a lasting impact on the approaches adopted to tackle CCE across the locality.

In another example, there was some evidence that a 12-week programme delivered to a group of 12 to 13-year-olds already involved in offending was starting to deliver positive outcomes. The programme used a cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) structure, combined with tailored content designed by a clinical psychologist. None of the young people involved in the intervention were found to be involved in police incidents during the EIYF delivery period. The importance of young people being willing to be open and discuss their concerns with EIYF delivery staff about their risks, experiences and future potential conflicts was reported as a key factor in success across such examples (see Chapter 6.2: Recommendations).

There was limited evidence of positive outcomes being achieved for young people already heavily involved with gangs (for example, those engaged by ‘Type 4: Desistance’ interventions). In these instances, stakeholders were more likely to report that the young people they supported were on an (often long) journey, though were making small and important steps.

“People automatically want to see a big change, but we do the small stuff that leads up the big stuff. So, although we may not be the people to end violent crime in [locality], we’re there making sure that this person hasn’t beat up this person today; or these 2 people have been separated or this young man is not going to get sent to an alternative provision. We do the background work to lead up to the big change, it is very valuable and it works.”

Project staff

Another stakeholder explained:

“Even in crisis points, you can see where the work you are doing has made a difference … they’ve been arrested … and are currently in cells but they have asked for their mum or their mum has turned up to come and see them or this young person is missing again, but his mum has actually reported him this time … [But] sometimes it feels like you’re fighting a losing battle.”

Many of these young people still had complex issues to address. Where young people were more heavily involved in gang or criminal activity, supporting families to understand the risks that their children were taking was also cited as being crucial. (See Chapter 6.2: Recommendations).

“We’ve definitely been able to raise awareness of the issue of county lines, particularly amongst the young people that are referred and their families, because quite often their families don’t have an understanding of what the young people have been involved in and the level of threats, coercion and intimidation that they’ve had to endure.”

Project staff

Stakeholders also pointed to several factors that made it particularly challenging for achieving positive outcomes for some young people (particularly those at greatest risk or already involved in criminal, gang and/or county line activities). The adaptability and sophistication of gangs is a major barrier in supporting young people.

“The gangs are developing faster than we are developing the services and the interventions that we’re putting in place. When something goes wrong, they just change the model, they’re getting smarter.”

Strategic manager

Stakeholders also noted that young people involved in gangs were increasingly younger, and often more impulsive.

“… the way [young people] react to situations [has changed], for example, if an older [gang] member had an issue previously that might have been considered a minor issue, they may have let it go or dealt with it in a more planned way but [now] the young people are going to incite violence pretty quickly.”

Front-line delivery worker

3. Effects on awareness, attitudes, behaviour and aspirations

This chapter examines evidence on the extent to which support from the Early Intervention Youth Fund (EIYF) had an effect on young people’s awareness, attitudes, behaviour and aspirations. Given that raising awareness of violence and crime was intended to lead to changes in young people’s attitudes, awareness and attitudes are considered together. The chapter then considers the extent to which the EIYF had effects on young people’s outlook and aspirations for the future, before examining how far the support provided can be said to have led to actual behaviour change. The evidence presented draws on programme monitoring data, some project-level data and interviews with EIYF stakeholders, young people and family members. Chapter 1.4 provides an outline of the evaluation’s methodological limitations.

Figure 3.1: Overview of outcomes findings

3.1 Effects on awareness and attitudes

There was some evidence that EIYF interventions positively contributed to an increase in children and young people’s awareness of the risks and consequences of violence and crime, at least in the short term. However, there was mixed evidence on whether this translated into sustained recognition of the negative effects of violence and crime of the type likely to lead to changed attitudes and behaviours, particularly when young people lived in a locality that they perceived as unsafe. While these outcomes could be generated through ‘Type one: Prevention’ interventions, reflecting their typical awareness-raising focus, evidence suggested that more intensive interventions (diversionary and targeted) were necessary to improve young people’s aspirations for their future (see Chapter 6.2: Recommendations).

3.1.1 Awareness of the risks and consequences of violence and crime

Increasing children and young people’s awareness of the risks and consequences of violence and crime typically involved activities such as:

• awareness-raising educational sessions, including through school assemblies

• development of content (for example, leaflets, media content) to highlight the risks and consequences of involvement in violence and crime

• local campaigns using social media and other channels to promote awareness

Such activities were commonly delivered through ‘Type one: Prevention’ interventions.

Monitoring information collected by some projects as part of delivering awareness-raising interventions (including school talks, workshops and assemblies) indicated that they had a positive impact, at least in the immediate term, though evidence of longer term effects was unavailable as the data was only collected at a single point in time. Typically, large proportions of those engaged reported improved understanding of the consequences and impacts of violence and weapon carrying. There were also some good examples of young people being better equipped to recognise risk, including, for example, grooming behaviour on the internet.

Interviews with young people attending such sessions indicated that they had a better understanding of the consequences of violence and crime, along with the serious impact that this could have on their life. Testimony from ex-offenders or victims of serious violence appeared to be particularly effective in generating such outcomes. ^{[footnote 10]}

“He talked about his personal experience and how he used to be in a gang when he was younger and that he’s been in prison and stuff and he took knives and that to a gun fight … he showed us the scars of his stabbing and when you listen to his story, it becomes more real.”

Young person, from a universal intervention

Similarly, delivery staff described how using sessions to show the realities of violence and to de-glorify crime was proving effective in raising awareness of consequences and risks, for example, contrasting images that some young people might perceive as ‘cool’, such as a gun, with images and a discussion about injuries that can be sustained from bullet wounds.

“Because that’s not cool. That’s not glamorous. And they don’t show you that [the consequences] when they’re balaclava-ed up posing with all their weapons. So, that really was a change of perspective for those young people.”

Delivery staff

There was also some evidence that young people themselves recognised the potential importance of such sessions.

“Since we’re teenagers, we do need more awareness of [the risks and consequences of violence and crime] because there’s some people that think it’s okay to take a knife out with them and stuff. I think if they’re aware of that, then they’ll realise the consequences of taking that out with them.”

Young person, from a universal intervention

Beyond general awareness-raising interventions, more targeted activity, for example, involving one-to-one support, also sometimes involved discussions about the consequences of behaviour and the risks associated with violence and crime. However, because these interventions sought to change more specific outcomes such as offending or anti-social behaviour (ASB), they did not typically measure awareness per se. However, there was some evidence from interviews with young people that improved awareness was an important outcome for them. For example, one young person referred to support by a Youth Offending Team that had tailored one-to-one sessions covering a range of topics including the consequences of knife crime, trigger points and anger management. Reflecting on how he felt after watching a video of a local man with lived experience, the young person stated:

“It helped me see more clearly the reality of it … Since seeing it, knowing what would happen if I got caught, I was like ‘nah I’m all right’. Don’t want to do something stupid and go to prison for that.”

Young person, from a targeted intervention

Young people also reported being more aware of the risks they and their peers faced, leading some to disclose sensitive information about the situation they or their friends were in. This included young people disclosing weapon carrying and/or being a victim of exploitation. One stakeholder explained:

“I think that young people are now more equipped and have a better understanding of the sort of risks and behaviours around being exploited. I think if we hadn’t had this [intervention], things would have been different.”

Delivery staff

Some projects also educated young people in how to report crimes anonymously so they could do so safely and without fear of retaliation from gangs or peers.

While the above evidence indicates that the EIYF made a positive contribution to changes in young people’s awareness and, in some instances, attitudes, the sustainability of such effects was not evident given that the research was conducted at a single point in time. In addition, it was not always possible to definitively attribute changes to the EIYF and there was also evidence that other non-EIYF activities could have contributed to these outcomes, potentially in combination with EIYF support. In some of the project areas, delivery staff and stakeholders described other non-EIYF awareness-raising sessions and/or local (social media) campaigns that also sought to increase awareness of the dangers surrounding street crime, knife crime, drugs and violence among young people. To avoid duplication, many EIYF projects sought to align provision in their Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) area (see Chapter 5).

3.1.2 Awareness of local support provision

Some EIYF interventions that sought to increase awareness of the consequences of violence and crime also shared information about where young people could go for further support. This included raising awareness of options for seeking help for themselves or their peers. Some projects also educated young people in how to report crimes anonymously so they could do so safely and without fear of retaliation from gangs or peers. It is clear that EIYF engagement could achieve positive outcomes in terms of raising awareness of wider support services, though specific examples of this were only provided in relation to some projects and young people. In addition, while some projects sought to reduce barriers to engagement with statutory services, including the police, evidence on the degree to which this was achieved was limited.

In a number of instances EIYF interventions increased awareness of local support provision outside of statutory services, ensuring that young people were aware of options such as CrimeStoppers or Fearless. ^{[footnote 11]} There were also examples where projects did at least raise awareness of the role and potential support offered by statutory services, even where evidence of changing perceptions and willingness to engage with them on the part of young people was limited. For example, one intervention that aimed to raise awareness required participants to complete an OPCC course prior to taking part in other workshop activities, which aimed to ‘change young people’s views about what the police are here to do’. Young people commented that they had found this element beneficial because it clarified the role of the police.

3.1.3 Attitudes to violence and potential engagement with crime

There was some evidence to suggest that increased awareness may have led to changes in young people’s attitudes to violence and crime, as well as supporting improved decision making in some instances. However, the evidence suggests that the type and intensity of interventions is important in the degree to which any such changes could be observed.

Increasing awareness through group sessions or assemblies, for example, did not always appear to translate into changes in attitudes or behaviours. For instance, after attending sessions in one of the EIYF project areas, several young people noted that they were more aware of knife crime but that they still did not think it applied to them, or they admitted that they would still consider carrying a weapon for personal safety.

“I haven’t been personally affected so it doesn’t really affect me that much, but it made me think that other people had been affected [by knife crime].”

Young person, from a universal intervention

For another intervention, following the sessions 57% of young people said that they would be happy to persuade a friend to not carry a knife and 54% said that they would report knife carrying to police. While this represented an increase from 49% and 46% respectively compared with young people who were asked before the intervention, as is apparent that the level of change is relatively marginal.

However, there was some evidence to suggest that interventions that focused on placing young people in realistic scenarios, and getting them to think about the actions they would take, could have more of an effect on attitudes. For example, one intervention used the medium of drama so that young people could immerse themselves in scenarios that aimed to open conversations about their existing thoughts and then challenge them.

“For example, we had a scenario of, ‘Our friend is going out into the park or into town. What does he need to keep him safe?’ […] The children had to choose what to take with him to keep him safe: mobile phone, tissues, a bottle of water, a knife […] In the 41 schools we have delivered this in, there have only been 2 schools where the knife was not picked up. Then we go, ‘Right how does this keep you safe? Can this put you at more risk?’ We challenge them […] By the end of it we say, ‘Are you safe with a knife?’ and they say ‘No’.”

Delivery staff

However, examples such as this only indicate an immediate shift in attitudes about knife-carrying, with evidence on longer term effects being limited. When staff delivering interventions used outcome measures, results were typically recorded immediately after the session had been delivered, therefore longer term attitudinal changes were not captured. Despite this, interviews with some young people involved in EIYF-funded interventions suggested that impacts may be longer lasting, though clearly such evidence can only be treated as indicative and provisional. For example, as part of an intervention about the consequences of drug misuse, a young person explained that listening to drug users in recovery talk about their experiences had “put [them] off, for definite”. Another young person from a different project, who had watched a video about the consequences of knife crime, said:

“I never looked at a knife the same way. I knew some people who used it as a weapon. Never again.”

Young person, from a targeted intervention

In contrast, some delivery staff and stakeholders questioned whether such attitudinal change would be the same if measured again in 12 months’ time. They also felt that targeting children at secondary schools might be too late and that focusing on primary schools and younger age groups might potentially be more impactful in the longer term.

“The one thing that we could learn from this project is, I think, we need to go to a younger age. I think going to a senior school might be a bit too late; I think they start to maybe go off the rails towards the end of primary school, going into senior school. It’s at a time where they’re going into a new environment, where they’re becoming an adult, and sometimes they’re easily led.”

Strategic stakeholder referring to a universal intervention

In wider literature, there is an ongoing debate about the relationship between awareness raising and behavioural change, and whether one leads to the other. There is some evidence to suggest that awareness-raising interventions alone are insufficient to cause behavioural change, which broadly aligns with the evidence presented here. For example, an evaluation of the Street Aware intervention found that the programme raised general awareness of knife crime and gang-related behaviour but concluded that it was unlikely to have any significant impact on levels of such activity on its own (Hamilton et al., 2016). ^{[footnote 12]} Additionally, a Cochrane review that examined the effectiveness of school-based prevention interventions found that knowledge-based interventions increased knowledge about the harms of drugs but showed no difference on behaviour outcomes, including the use and intention to misuse drugs (Faggiano et al., 2014). It is therefore generally accepted that awareness-raising interventions should be used in combination with other interventions to generate greater impact.

3.1.4 Decision making

There is some positive evidence to suggest that EIYF interventions contributed to better decision making amongst some young people. This mostly related to interventions engaging those at risk of, or already involved with, criminal activity, usually delivered through more targeted interventions. Some, such as mentoring projects, worked with young people on a one-to-one basis, tailoring delivery and objectives to their specific needs. Others, such as diversionary group activities, included scenario-based exercises and aimed to enable young people to understand the consequences of their actions. Feedback from young people suggested that these sessions were successful in:

• enabling them to make more informed choices about personal safety such as avoiding risky or unsafe localities

• encouraging them to change the environment that they spent their time in or engage with a new peer group – for instance, one young person noted that the project helped them learn what makes a ‘good’ or a ‘bad’ friend

• helping them to manage potential conflict (see Chapter 6.2: Recommendations).

“It has taught me not to act tough because I can do stuff to hurt others. It has also made me think about how my actions have an impact on others. I’m really glad to have this programme.”

Young person, from a diversionary intervention

Project example: Understanding consequences of actions

One young person who was attending weekly one-to-one mentoring sessions and other (Type 2: Early intervention/Type 3: Therapeutic) group activities at the local football club explained that their school attendance had improved from about 60% to 100%. The young person said they do not “just walk out of school or have fights at school” any more because they now think about how their behaviour affects and hurts other people. The young person said they do not want people, such as family members and project staff to be ashamed of or disappointed in them. They noted “I think before I do anything now”. The young person also explained that they spend time with other people and chose to not be on the streets. “The difference I would say for me, in the last 2 years, I used to get arrested and now you don’t see me in the streets, I go with other people. It’s knowing I’m only 13, I have so much life ahead of me and I wouldn’t want to waste it.” They went on to explain that they “used to be very known to the police … but now they [the police] just drive past because they know I’m all right.”

3.2 Effects on aspirations

While outcomes around awareness and attitudes could be generated through ‘Type one: Prevention’ interventions, reflecting their focus, evidence suggested that more intensive interventions (diversionary and targeted) were necessary to improve young people’s aspirations for their future. As with the other ‘softer’ outcomes discussed in this chapter, there was some good evidence that the EIYF had a positive effect on aspirations in some contexts and for some young people. However, these effects are best considered as representing initial indications of support starting to lead to positive change along a continuum, rather than interventions fully leading to extensive and sustained change within the timescales for EIYF delivery. The challenging context and backgrounds of many of the young people who were offered more intensive support should be considered here, as should realism around the extent to which relatively time-limited support can have an effect.

Some young people indicated that participation in EIYF activities had made them realise their potential and improved their aspirations for a positive future. The types of interventions focusing specifically on changing young people’s outlook and aspirations usually included diversionary activities such as sports, arts or drama classes, mentoring or sessions focused on job-related skills and career aspirations. They typically aimed to increase resilience, build confidence or improve employability prospects, though often did not measure change in outlook or aspirations specifically. Accepting this, evidence from the interviews with young people and delivery staff suggested that some changes in aspiration could be ascribed to the support provided.

Such changes were sometimes linked to the EIYF offering new experiences or the chance to develop new skills, which in turn led young people to expanding their understanding of the options and opportunities that might be available to them. Examples included young people being given the opportunity to develop new skills and/or an aptitude for a sport (for example, boxing), leading to a small number of young people wanting to progress to a professional sporting career. For others, raised aspirations around education and employment (covered further in Chapter 4), with some young people revising choices of GCSE subject options, which they hoped would support them to get a desired career. Some young people equally talked more generally about having greater hopes for their future and having enhanced personal values.

Other positive outcomes emerging from a small number of EIYF projects related to young people supporting other young people who were also at risk of youth crime and violence. Some young people undertook formal volunteering roles as youth mentors or youth workers, others sought to provide informal support by talking to ‘younger’ young people through workshops or one-to-one sessions during the EIYF provision. Others expressed a desire to become youth workers in the future so that they could tell their story to deter others from getting involved in gangs, violence and crime.

3.3 Effects on behaviour

Several interventions aimed to improve the behaviour of the young people who engaged. Interventions aiming to improve behaviour included one-to-one mentoring and coaching sessions, workshops as well as diversionary activities providing young people with alternative behaviour pathways. While there was only limited evidence to definitively suggest that the EIYF directly contributed to improved behaviour, data from the monitoring reports and qualitative interviews suggested positive effects in respect of at least some of the young people supported. From the young people’s perspective, this was mostly described in terms of an enhanced ability to stay calm, avoid risk and manage anger.

• young people reported that attending after-school activities kept them busy and less likely to engage in risky behaviour. One young person described how he used to be involved in theft, but he joins boxing sessions instead now, staying out of trouble

“I used to get involved in robbing and that. Instead of going out with all the bad people, I just come here and box.”

Young person, from a targeted intervention

• some young people noted that they were able to better manage their anger and resolve potential conflict through staying calm and learning how to express their feelings rather than reacting angrily. Being involved in sports or other activities helped them to channel their energy and anger in other ways and enabled them to stay calm

“I am more confident talking about how I feel; it’s helped me understand and think about how I react to things, it’s helped me slow down when I am angry.”

Young person, from a targeted intervention

“I don’t get in trouble as much, because of the targets that I have set, and that I am trying to achieve. I’m not as confrontational as I might have been in the past.”

Young person, from a diversionary/targeted intervention

• one young person noted that they were now better able to understand the consequences of their choices and have changed their behaviour as a result of attending the sessions

“I have genuinely learnt quite a bit. What I learnt was what I was doing, I have learnt not to do because I have learnt the consequences.”

Young person, from a diversionary/targeted intervention

Behavioural changes were often closely related to other more specific outcome measures such as improved school attendance, staying away from criminal activities or improved relationships with family (these are discussed in detail in Chapter 4).

Delivery staff noted that achieving and measuring behaviour change was often very challenging. It was acknowledged that there are many contributing factors impacting on young people’s lives and behaviours, including their family, friends and background, making it challenging to achieve or measure change (see Chapter 6.2: Recommendations).

“Young people may be with us for 4 hours a week, but they’re with the elders in a gang for 10 hours a day. How do we counteract those things? We are seeing some changes. We’re seeing them specifically through our one-to-one work, but also in our enterprise group and our outcome monitoring will demonstrate that; but we can’t just wave our magic wand and think it’s all going to be okay.”

Delivery staff

Similarly, as noted in the EIYF implementation report, several delivery staff reported that it was too early to definitively report on outcomes around sustained behaviour change, as such outcomes take time to achieve and emerge.

“Prior to any real work with that young person, the key is building a good relationship with them, a relationship that is conducive to getting them where they want to be. I think it’s about being, you know, honest, transparent and open with them about what you’re doing and why you’re doing it, and the process that you’re gonna take. And also about, to a degree, being client-led as opposed to dictating ‘this is how it’s gonna be’.”

Delivery staff

4. Effects on health, wellbeing and education

This chapter assesses the extent to which the Early Intervention Youth Fund (EIYF) benefited young people’s health, wellbeing and education. It focuses on presenting the qualitative evidence on changes to young people’s resilience, self-esteem and confidence, mental and physical health, and feelings of safety. The extent of the impact of the EIYF on educational and related outcomes is then examined, along with the effects on young people’s perceptions of services. (See Chapter 1.4 for a summary of the evaluation’s limitations.)

Figure 4.1: Overview of outcomes findings

4.1 Effects on resilience

There was good evidence that the EIYF contributed towards young people developing greater resilience, (within the context of the EIYF, resilience refers to the ability to cope and withstand adversity) enabling them to better deal with challenges. EIYF interventions supported young people through education, encouragement and by providing tools/strategies to enable them to make informed choices, diffuse conflict and/or avoid negative behaviours (for example, anti-social behaviour, substance misuse).

There was also some good evidence of EIYF interventions supporting young people to realise that aggression and violence were not acceptable means of conflict resolution. In particular, diversionary and targeted interventions tended to focus on supporting young people by giving them tools and strategies to manage their anger and control their reactions when conflict occurred (see Chapter 6.2: Recommendations). In one example, a young person was targeted by a rival gang a few weeks after the intervention finished; the young person chose not to retaliate, telling the project staff: “It’s just not worth it, I’m just gonna let it go.”

Project staff stressed the importance of positive attitudinal changes in empowering young people to further develop resilience and move forward in their life. Delivery staff were hopeful that young people would be able to apply lessons learned in the immediate and longer term, thus potentially contributing to sustained impact beyond the lifecycle of the interventions. One project worker explained:

“We’re developing people to develop their resilience. We’re trying to develop them as individuals to become civic leaders and leaders in their own right, which take control of their life … We’re developing young people to be people of society.”

Front-line delivery staff

In another example, a young person reported having learnt to:

“Never give up, stay confident, stay on a path that might actually benefit you and help you get up to where you need to be.”

Young person, from a targeted intervention

Young people also showed enhanced resilience towards other forms of anti-social and criminal behaviour. As discussed in Chapter 2.2.1.1, a commonly cited example related to young people’s reflections on taking drugs. Interventions that were particularly impactful provided young people with first-hand knowledge and experiences from those with lived experience of drug addiction. These gave young people the opportunity to consider the wider consequences of substance misuse on their lives, including recognition that there may be people around them providing a negative influence towards these types of behaviours.

4.2 Improved self-esteem, self-worth and confidence

There was strong evidence that the EIYF contributed towards enhanced soft outcomes for young people, namely improved confidence, self-worth and self-esteem, all protective factors that help to prevent young people getting involved in crime and violence. ^{[footnote 13]} Young people frequently described how their confidence had grown by participating in project activities that encouraged them to ‘leave their comfort zone’. Stakeholders and young people explained that EIYF interventions had provided an open and supportive environment where it was possible to explore new opportunities and take on challenges. In several cases, peer mentoring, which tended to be provided in diversionary and/or targeted interventions, was specifically highlighted as being important in supporting change.

“It [the programme] has made me see my self-worth, and my self-confidence has gone up.”

Young person, from a targeted intervention

“I think it massively increases [the young people’s] confidence. We have young people that are like ‘I’m not doing that’, they don’t feel comfortable and they don’t feel ready. But when I’ve got groups young people, it’s [the involvement of peer mentors] a source of encouragement.”

Front-line delivery staff

Delivery staff also had a key role in encouraging young people to take ownership of their support. For the young people, this created a sense of empowerment and control, which further helped to improve their self-esteem, particularly when positive outcomes were realised.

“Young people are allowed to take ownership of it. If they want to try something, or learn something, then we’ll take that on board and do that. We want them to make decisions about what their pathway looks like. They feel empowered.”

Front-line delivery staff

Across a number of projects, staff noted that when they initially engaged, many young people had low self-esteem and confidence; this often made them reluctant to engage. Allowing young people and delivery staff time to develop trust and build relationships was cited as key in better enabling young people to engage and realise the benefits of support. (See Chapter 6.2: Recommendations).

“With data, you cannot demonstrate that a young person was previously unsociable and quiet and then 9 months later, they’re engaging, they’re humorous and coming out of themselves.”

Front-line delivery staff

4.3 Improved relationship with peers and family

There was strong evidence, predominantly from young people, that the EIYF contributed to improved personal relationships between young people, their families and peers. (Also see Chapter 5.2, which discusses the perceived impact of the EIYF on family and peer relationss from the perspective of EIYF participant young people’s family members.) Importantly, improved family ties can be a protective factor for reducing young people’s involvement in violence. ^{[footnote 14]} While it was implicit across most EIYF projects, several interventions explicitly focused on supporting young people to develop and practise skills to facilitate positive connections (for example, communication and teamwork). In particular, targeted interventions that provided young people with structured activities (for example, activity days, sports, art installations, residentials, and drama activities) and new opportunities were widely reported as effectively facilitating teamwork and communication. Furthermore, these opportunities were cited as having notable effects in terms of helping young people to consider others’ feelings and to empathise with them.

Where the evaluation engaged both young people and family members, improved relationships within the home were commonly reported. It should be noted that this was the case only for relatively few (8) interviews. Interventions that involved both young people and family members were of a targeted nature. Young people were reported to be demonstrably more calm, considerate and respectful, as well as displaying calmer behaviours and communicating more. Stakeholders and young people also gave examples of EIYF participants being reintegrated into the family home (and therefore being at lower risk of exploitation), being less physically aggressive and angry (for example, by no longer punching walls in the home) and being more sociable with family members.

“It’s been helping me at home, less fighting, we used to argue over little things, after I’ve been having these working sessions – it’s calmed me down.”

Young person, from a targeted intervention

“The anger management and self-calming techniques has taught me how to talk to people, respect them, and have a full-on conversation. This wouldn’t have happened without the project.”

Young person, from a diversionary intervention

The creation of a peer network within targeted interventions provided many young people with a sense of belonging and an opportunity to engage positively with peers. Young people were also able to meet new people and build positive friendships within a safe environment; as one interviewee explained:

“I think it’s going to help us in the future, like getting to know those new people from [another school]. It’s just boss getting to know new people.”

Young person, from a targeted intervention

The importance of these relationships was reiterated by staff.

“Through these activities, they got to know other young people on the project and other members of staff at the organisation … building relationships and trust has been important for success.”

Front-line delivery staff

For some young people, however, there was still a long way to go in supporting them with their peer groups. As one delivery staff member reflected:

“We certainly haven’t got children completely out of criminal exploitation and serious violent crime. It’s more about reflection, something around the relationships that they’re able to form.”

Delivery staff

Having the benefit of having the opportunity to reflect on friendships and peer groups was echoed by young people, as one young person explained:

“I probably would’ve been involved in county lines, I would’ve just because I would just do anything someone would tell me. They’d be like hold all this and I didn’t see it, I thought it was being a friend, being nice, like they were nice to me. I’ve started to realise it’s not good. I used to just do what they wanted me to do.”

Young person, from a targeted intervention

4.4 Enhanced feelings of safety

The evidence presented a positive picture for the immediate impact of the EIYF on young people’s feelings of safety, though longer term effects were seen as uncertain. While most EIYF activities aimed to raise awareness of crime, several diversionary and targeted interventions explicitly sought to teach young people skills to keep safe. Improved feelings of safety among young people were primarily achieved through talks (for example, from people with lived experiences), interactive group activities or skill-based training (for example, a first aid course). The evidence suggested that young people were acutely aware of the (potential and actual) negative activities taking place within their community, such as young people carrying knives and participating in county lines activities. Young people valued the knowledge that these activities provided, particularly in helping them to avoid or deal with situations that may arise.

The evidence suggested that the most impactful interventions for improving feelings of safety were those that provided tangible resources and safe spaces for young people to come together. A number of diversionary and targeted interventions provided safe physical spaces in which young people could feel at ease, irrespective of their background. Within these interventions, delivery staff placed emphasis on leaving external issues at the door (for example, postcode-based disputes), though the need to locate interventions in specific places to avoid rival young people crossing paths was also frequently referenced.

In a small number of examples, feelings of safety led to some wider and unanticipated benefits for some groups of young people.

“[The intervention] seems to have become a space where young LGBT people feel safe. It wasn’t something we were aiming for; it’s become a safe space for young women … We’ve got quite a few young people who are coming out as lesbians and young trans women come in as well. We think it’s more to do with the fact that it’s a sort of supportive space in general for young women’s empowerment.”

Front-line delivery staff

A major barrier to young people’s ability to feel safe within their community was the general perception that violent crime was increasing and, in particular, that knife carrying had become the norm. This was reflected by both young people and delivery staff and again shows the need for sustained and ongoing intervention and support. For example, one young person spoke about still carrying a knife for personal protection.

“People know that in [name of locality] you can’t go up the road without something happening, without some 16 or 17-year-old trying to start on you. If you were biking home at night-time by yourself, you’ve got a knife on you in case someone came for you, you’d feel a lot safer.”

Young person, from a universal intervention

However, there were also examples of some young people reducing their weapon carrying (see Chapter 2.2).

While the evidence showed that young people felt some general improvements in their feelings of safety, project staff felt that a truly safer community will take much longer to achieve. That said, they felt that they were contributing to important outcomes for the young people, which they hoped would benefit them in the short and longer term by reducing their risk factor for serious violence. ^{[footnote 15]}

“It’s recognising that some of the impacts and aspirations for the fund are quite long-term and actually some of the real outcomes and impacts that we can see are … very small steps in the grand scheme of things.”

Project staff

4.5 Improved perceptions of services

There was some positive evidence demonstrating a positive change in young people’s perceptions towards support services. Some of the young people taking part in the interventions had very few positive one-to-one time experiences with adults previously; with some associating one-to-one contact with negative experiences of statutory services, such as being in trouble with a teacher or being supported by a social worker/s. Some providers felt that previous negative experiences of interventions and support services often resulted in it taking longer to engage and build trust with some young people.

“From the time you go to school, the only time you would ever really be in a one-to-one situation with an adult is when you’re in trouble. We’re giving that attention, giving that time [to the young people].”

Front-line delivery staff

EIYF interventions were often able to go beyond what statutory services offered, particularly where the intervention was offering intensive, targeted support that was tailored to young people’s needs (see Chapter 6.2: Recommendations). When young people had comparable experience with other services, the evidence suggested that the support provided by EIYF interventions was preferred. Some providers explained that having delivery staff members who were not part of statutory services, and ensuring support was clearly differentiated from young people’s negative perceptions of statutory support, was important. Young people strongly reflected this view.

“It’s just speaking to someone that’s not social services. It doesn’t feel as professional, it’s more like speaking to someone, not a mate, but sort of a mate.”

Young person, from a targeted intervention

“[The project] is basically 5 times ahead of what the Job Centre is doing.”

Young person, from a targeted intervention

The evidence suggested that, for some young people at least, there had also been a positive impact on their perceptions of the police and youth justice workers. In one example, young people were invited to attend the Youth Serious Violence Summit. Through listening to the speakers and hearing about the positive things being done in their city, those invited were able to see statutory and local services in ‘a new light’; they realised that there were people within those services that were genuinely invested in improving the lives of vulnerable young people.

In a small number of instances, there was some evidence that the EIYF interventions were beginning to build a bridge between support services and families, with families providing positive feedback about the delivery and impact of the support. A number of projects also reported some parents beginning to engage in wider support services as a result of the intervention. For example, there were a few instances of parents of the young people being supported by the EIYF starting to engage with their community mental health support group for their own needs.

There was strong evidence that relationships with delivery staff were a key facilitator of improved experiences with and perceptions of services on the part of young people.

“You can talk to them [project staff] about anything and they’re always here for you, which is a good thing, they are here to talk to you.”

Young person, from a targeted intervention

“He’s the same type of person. He’s had a background of what I’m going through now. He understands how I am.”

Young person, from a diversionary intervention

While the short-term outcomes highlighted show that the perception of at least some services was changing for young people and their families, stakeholders were concerned about what would happen to the young people when the level of support was withdrawn.

4.6 EIYF outcomes on mental health

There was good evidence of considerable improvements of the EIYF on some young people’s mental health, namely improved emotional wellbeing, self-regulation and anger management, self-expression, and the ability to cope with and manage stress. These outcomes were evidenced through a range of sources including:

• self-reports

• clinical psychologist observations summarised and shared by projects

• through the use of clinical wellbeing measures and practitioner observations captured in project monitoring reports

Where young people had received clinical mental health interventions, they were convinced of the benefits. These included, for example, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and techniques such as ‘automatic negative thoughts’ (ANTs), which enabled young people to understand how, cognitively, they responded to different situations. ^{[footnote 16]} Being introduced to and being able to apply these techniques enabled young people to understand how to change their thoughts in a way to positively influence their behaviour (see Chapter 6.2: Recommendations). One young person explained:

“We’ve done things like ANTS, stages of your brain, focus … before you get angry, take a minute to think before you do anything.”

Young person, from a targeted intervention

One-to-one key working, mentoring and coaching models were found to be the most effective methods of engaging and supporting young people with their mental health over a short time period. Again, the importance of having dedicated attention and support from a trusted adult and the ability to engage in a positive relationship through bespoke tailored support was evidenced (see Chapter 6.2: Recommendations). Both young people and delivery staff explained the benefits.

“I feel like it takes a lot of stress away … makes you feel less anxious, makes you feel energetic and really happy … and you feel accepted.”

Young person, from a targeted intervention

“There’s definitely an improvement in the wellbeing of young people and the reduction of risk, because with the coaching you’re holding that young person accountable for their actions and choices.”

Front-line delivery staff

EIYF interventions also provided young people with an important opportunity to discuss worries or concerns with adult/s with whom they had developed a trusted relationship. Delivery staff had helped some young people deal with anxiety by suggesting coping mechanisms they might try. In one example, the young person was then able to use these strategies in other parts of life, such as school. The impact of EIYF interventions on young people’s engagement in education is reported in Chapter 4.8.

“When I could speak to him, and not have to worry about it, it was easier to do my schoolwork. That helped.”

Young person, from a diversionary intervention

Whilst it was not possible to assess the extent to which young people supported by the EIYF may have continued to have mental health problems beyond the funding period, there was strong evidence to suggest that the support provided at least helped in the short term. Some young people had made positive changes that contributed to improvements in their condition and/or felt better equipped to manage and regulate the feelings associated with their mental health problems. For some young people, positive changes to mental health were coupled with positive changes to their physical health, particularly where they were engaged in strenuous physical activity.

4.7 EIYF outcomes and impacts on physical health

There was some evidence of the EIYF supporting improved physical health among young people. Physical activity interventions often promoted positive lifestyle changes including:

• improved emotional wellbeing
• drug and alcohol abstinence/smoking cessation
• improved nutrition and sleep
• enhanced aspirations for the future

In some instances, physical activities clearly had broader effects on participants’ lives, extending beyond the personal satisfaction of playing sport and improved fitness. Young people explained that activities had been valuable for helping to regulate and manage their emotions, particularly feelings of stress.

“One of the biggest things is that this is stress-relief. I know these sessions are going on, and no matter what is going on in my life, I can come here and play the game that I love.”

Young person, from a diversionary intervention

There was also some evidence to demonstrate that physical activity interventions had supported some young people to reduce or abstain from drug misuse as part of wider changes to their lifestyle. When reflecting on their behaviours from before the programme, young people explained that they had reduced their consumption of substances, particularly of smoking cannabis. Others spoke of their abstinence as a direct result of EIYF intervention.

“I haven’t done drugs like, I haven’t touched it, but I was getting to the stage where I was going to start … [the intervention] taught me I shouldn’t so I was like ‘nah, I am not touching it now’.”

Young person, from a diversionary intervention

EIYF activities clearly had ripple effects into other spheres of young people’s lives, including some unintended or unexpected outcomes. For example, the evidence indicated that young peoples’ life chances and opportunities had been influenced as a direct result of being engaged in physical activity interventions. Evidence suggested that these activities had resulted in changes related to:

• new or different peer groups where young people sought out positive relationships

• life chances, for example, competitive sporting opportunities or joining a team or club

• exposure to different industries or career paths such as dance and theatre or professional sporting opportunities

“One girl is now working alongside the girls in the gym who box for England … before the programme she was a random girl on the street who has never done boxing before, to see where she is now through this programme is amazing.”

Front-line delivery staff

“We have seen a cohort of young people progress into leaders, taking lead on sessions, doing administration and working in schools. One of our young leaders and another young person competed at the [prestigious competition name] and came first place.”

Front-line delivery staff

Some EIYF projects also sought to improve knowledge of diet and nutrition. However, despite some positive anecdotal reports, definite outcomes of such work had not been evidenced through project monitoring or validated measures at the time of data collection.

Not only did the EIYF influence outcomes for young people related to mental and physical health, but it also gave project staff opportunities to identify unmet health needs. This included one young person revealing that they were blind in one eye; another young person who was identified as having hearing difficulties. Neither of these cases were known to relevant services prior to the EIYF. Other young people were identified as having additional needs, such as speech and language difficulties, autism or attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or mental health issues. These examples included young people who later received an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) or referrals to other specialist support.

4.8 EIYF outcomes related to education and related outcomes

Overall, there was mixed evidence of the contribution that the EIYF had on young people’s educational outcomes. Where educational outcomes were beginning to be positively influenced, the most compelling evidence was around ‘softer’ outcomes that led to important attitudinal shifts for young people. These included:

• targeted intervention examples of young people re-engaging in education

• exploring pathways into further education

• improved attitudes towards learning/school

• improved behaviour and attendance with the support of EIYF project staff

There was also some limited and emerging evidence of involvement in EIYF activities beginning to influence more definite outcomes for some young people (particularly those engaged in diversionary and targeted support, as noted in the example below).

Young person example: Improved academic outcomes

One young person, involved in a diversionary intervention, explained that they had behavioural issues and were underachieving at school. The young person received one-to-one mentoring support and, as a result of working through their issues with the EIYF-funded mentor, the young person’s behaviour and progress at school improved considerably. The young person found strategies to improve their behaviour and was moved up 2 sets into the top set for English and Maths. The young person explained: “Teachers have said to me that they’ve seen a big improvement in my progress booklets”.

Reflecting elements of this example, reported changes included improved progress, moving up subject sets, re-taking exams and reduced exclusion rates. Close partnership working between schools and EIYF delivery teams in meeting the needs of young people was particularly important in bringing about these changes. However, there was also evidence that improving attendance and engagement remained a distinct challenge for a number of the young people supported, albeit that there were positive individual indications of change.

“[The project] has helped me with my attendance and performance in school because I used to be so sad in school because of bullies, and had no one to turn to or talk to. Now I know there is always someone there to help me. And I’ve come out of my shell more now to the point where I’m actually helping other people with their problems.”

Young person, from a diversionary intervention

Project staff within diversionary and targeted interventions reflected on the need for closer partnerships between educational providers to increase young peoples’ engagement in mainstream school and college. They also noted that the projects’ timescales had limited the possibilities for developing close partnerships to better support young people’s educational outcomes. Project staff explained that to get young people more engaged in education, support needed to be provided to schools/colleges to manage some young people’s specific and complex needs and behaviours, particularly those who had been involved in criminal and/or gang related activity. Furthermore, project staff felt that schools/colleges needed more support to manage peer groups that some young people interacted with within school/college.

The above discussion indicates the importance of engaging educational professionals in more rounded, holistic and comprehensive strategies to address violence and criminality amongst young people. At a policy level, it may also indicate the need for enhanced collaboration between relevant parts of government.

5. Wider outcomes of the EIYF

This chapter examines some of the broader outcomes of the Early Intervention Youth Fund (EIYF), focusing on the potential effects beyond the children and young people who formed the immediate focus of support. Reflecting this, it first assesses the extent that the fund can be considered to have led to changes in what might be termed the ‘local support infrastructure’ in EIYF project localities, such as effects on the coordination of support and the nature of the support on offer. Outcomes for peers and family members of the young people supported, collected as part of the qualitative interviews, are then examined, before evidence on outcomes for the communities in which EIYF interventions were delivered. Limitations of the data are presented in Chapter 1.4.

Figure 5.1: Overview of outcomes findings

5.1 Strategic and structural effects

There is good evidence that the EIYF contributed to improved local structures and partnership working in addressing serious violence and crime. This was achieved through activity aimed at improving the knowledge, skills and awareness of professionals working across sectors and the creation of new opportunities for collaboration on early intervention and prevention activity. There was emerging evidence that some of the system changes facilitated through the EIYF will be sustained in the future.

5.1.1 Improved knowledge, skills and awareness of professionals

The EIYF made a positive contribution to improving the knowledge, skills and awareness of professionals working with young people at risk of or involved in serious violence through the following activities:

• provision of training: more than half of EIYF projects incorporated an element of training for professionals and front-line practitioners working directly with young people, including social workers, youth workers, school staff, police and custody officers and health workers

• bringing professionals together to work collaboratively: all EIYF projects brought professionals working across different sectors including criminal justice, education, health, social work and youth sector together

• the provision of resources, materials and learning events: a small number of projects developed resources and materials aimed at raising awareness of child criminal exploitation (CCE) and child sexual exploitation (CSE)

5.1.1.1 Improved practice

There was some good evidence that improvements in the knowledge, skills and awareness of professionals working with young people are likely to have contributed to improvements in practice. Specific examples relating to individual projects are provided below to illustrate the general impression of training being effective in enhancing the support available locally.

One such example related to an EIYF project involving the provision of trauma-informed training to 100 professionals, predominantly police and custody officers. At the end of the training, delivery staff asked participants to complete a feedback survey designed to measure progress towards the learning objectives of the programme. Of the 78 participants who completed the survey, almost all agreed or strongly agreed with a series of statements relating to awareness and understanding of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and trauma-informed approaches (Figure 5.1).

Figure 5.2: Post-survey for participants of trauma-Informed training

Source: EIYF Project.

Base: 78 respondents

Whilst some caution needs to be taken in the interpretation of this data, given the lack of a pre-participation baseline assessment, it does suggest that the learning objectives were met. This was substantiated by feedback from programme participants, who confirmed that they had developed a better understanding of ACEs and trauma. The opportunity to reflect on their practice resulted in them developing new strategies and approaches to their work with children and young people, including becoming more empathetic to their background and experiences:

“I found the training extremely beneficial to my day-to-day work and will definitely use it.”

Professional participant

Another project delivered training aimed at upskilling professionals on how to work with young people at risk through motivational interviewing. Participants reported that this had enabled them to become better and more active listeners as well as to have greater empathy for the young people they were working with. This was not new information for all participants, but it was found to have contributed to increasing their skills and confidence in working with young people.

“There were some really useful techniques that will be really helpful in my role. Although I have done motivational training before, I still learned some new things, which I will use to reflect on my role.”

Professional participant

There was also evidence that teachers had been upskilled in managing difficult behaviour amongst young people. For example, one project offered training to teachers, delivered through speech and language therapists, which covered techniques for managing young people with difficult behaviour. Participants reported that they felt better equipped to deal with challenging young people as a result of the training; as one commented:

“I will be looking closer at ‘disruptive’ students and considering new strategies to calm them.”

Feedback from professional, as cited in an EIYF project monitoring report

5.1.1.2 Improved awareness of risk factors

Evidence also indicated that staff who participated in training delivered through the EIYF increased their awareness and understanding of the risk factors associated with youth violence. In some cases, it was noted that many schools had not participated in this type of training before, so it addressed a gap in staff knowledge and understanding, particularly in relation to CCE and CSE. This upskilling of professionals working in education was often perceived to be an important contributing factor to improving early intervention across local geographical areas.

“We have already seen a shift in the strategic understanding of contextual safeguarding within the partnership; in particular the 3 pilot schools have welcomed this approach and are keen to develop a wider understanding of contextual safeguarding amongst their staff.”

EIYF project monitoring report

In some cases, cascade models were used to ensure that the learning professionals gained was transferred across their organisations. In one project, for example, delivery of training to professionals was found to have raised awareness of serious organised crime and knife crime among head teachers and school parole boards, even though those groups were not directly targeted. This sort of knowledge transfer was viewed as a positive outcome, resulting in more individuals being better able to identify and refer young people at risk of CCE or CSE.

However, there was some evidence to suggest that more may need to be done to improve understanding among some services of the risks facing young people. There was a perception from a few stakeholders that some groups of professionals would not necessarily look for signs of exploitation or have the knowledge to identify young people at risk. For example, in some contexts it was noted that existing protocols and guidance for social workers focus on identifying risk within the family and are less focused on risks within the wider community, such as those involving gang activity.

Project example: Child criminal exploitation education programme for children and young people and local professionals

One project developed and delivered a CCE education offer for children and young people and for professionals. Activity was targeted at localities where CCE issues had been identified or where there was a high incidence of organised crime locally. The project incorporated the development and dissemination of educational packages, information leaflets and guides around CCE and CSE for use by schools, professionals (including police officers) and other organisations. Specifically, the delivery of the CCE training offer for professionals was found to have increased their awareness of the problems around CCE and CSE and informed them of how to spot the signs of child exploitation.

There was increased interest among professionals about understanding the impact of missing children, ACEs, exclusion, and how these contextual factors related to the young people becoming involved in county lines and CCE. For instance, the specific terminology around CCE and county lines (for example, ‘cuckooing’) became part of the common vocabulary of professionals. This was thought to highlight the progress made in increasing understanding and knowledge of the risk factors associated with serious youth violence and crime, and its prevalence, locally.

5.1.1.3 New insights and changed perceptions

Training also appeared to contribute to a shift in perceptions of young people from being perpetrators to victims, particularly in relation to gang and county lines involvement. Stakeholders often cited that a focus on awareness-raising resulted in the exploitation of young people being more widely understood. As a result, professionals were reported to be changing their language and attitude to recognise that many young people are extremely vulnerable and are potentially being exploited. In one example, custody staff were reported to have changed their approach to dealing with children as a result of the training they participated in through the EIYF. The training was felt to have led to a more holistic and effective response to children in custody, with negative stereotypes having been broken down and a more child-centred approach being adopted.

“The project has made a lot of custody police realise that ‘these children’ have a history.”

Project staff

However, there was evidence to suggest that further work may be needed to change perceptions of the type of people who are involved in crime and gangs. Young men were often perceived as being more likely to commit violent offences and crimes, whilst young women were considered more vulnerable to sexual exploitation. There was a view amongst some that interventions addressing issues around youth crime and violence needed to develop more complex ways to deal with the relationship between gender and violence, including the impact of such interventions on young people going though gender transitions.

Professionals’ knowledge and awareness of other sectors was also found to have increased as a result of working together. In one such example, project delivery was based on 2 partners working together to build new collaborations with the police detention team. Delivery staff from both partner organisations commented on how much they had gained from working together and with the police, including valuable insights into the way that custody works and the pressures that the police are under. This was seen as having led to a greater understanding of how they can support and work alongside the police more effectively.

Sustainability

The improved knowledge, skills and awareness of professionals can be expected to be sustained beyond the EIYF and some Offices of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCCs) are planning to continue delivering training to more professionals. In one locality, 28 professionals were trained to deliver training in ACEs and trauma-informed approaches and were continuing to deliver this to others. In this example, there were waiting lists for the training due to high levels of demand. Another project was planning to continue providing training to custody staff as they viewed the systems change work initiated through the EIYF as part of a longer term strategy to improve outcomes for children and young people.

5.1.2 Improved collaboration

There was clear, consistent evidence that the EIYF contributed to improved collaboration and partnership working between organisations working with young people at risk of, or involved with, serious violence. A range of outcomes and benefits from improved collaboration and partnership working were identified, both at organisation and system level. These are summarised in Figure 5.2, with further detail on the evidence for each provided in the sections that follow.

Figure 5.3: Outcomes from improved collaboration and partnership working

5.1.2.1 Improved understanding of the landscape of provision

Evidence showed that the EIYF had contributed to improved awareness and understanding of the range of early intervention and prevention activities being delivered, though the extent of this varied across projects. In some cases, delivery organisations cited improved understanding of what others in their locality were delivering as a key benefit of participation. In one area, for example, provision was reported to have been very fragmented prior to the EIYF; whilst there were pockets of good work happening, agencies had little understanding of what others were doing (see Chapter 6.2: Recommendations). This was reported to have improved through the experience of delivering the EIYF, as partners had a much clearer understanding of what other services were being delivered, and their potential contribution to this wider landscape of provision.

“They now all know what each other are involved in; they all know what they’re delivering and there’s a lot more transparency.”

Project staff

However, stakeholders in some projects were less positive about the contribution of the EIYF against this outcome. In some cases, such effects were limited to the provision delivered by partners directly involved in EIYF projects. One stakeholder commented that this gave only a partial view of everything being delivered in their locality and that more could be done to gain a more holistic approach of the whole system.

“We have been talking [to the programme director] about how we need more information on what’s going on in our area; what’s working, what are the challenges. To that end we’ve set up our own project meeting now with providers because we need to know what their challenges are rather than waiting to hear from the project managers or the fund controller.”

Strategic stakeholder

5.1.2.2 Breaking down silos and cultural barriers

In a number of OPCCs, the EIYF helped to facilitate joint working between services that are culturally very different and had historically not worked together closely. In one case, for example, initial hesitance from police officers towards working with front-line practitioners was reported to have quickly dissipated once delivery was underway, while the EIYF was described by one stakeholder as having acted as a “bridge builder between 2 areas, 2 statutory services, that often clash”. In another OPCC, a member of the Youth Offending Team (YOT) said that they had previously operated “in a bit of a silo”, but that through the EIYF they were working much more closely with colleagues in Children’s Services – they cited this as one of the main benefits from participation.

“It’s meant that partners have seen that we’re all talking about the same things, that we have the same beliefs and aims. They’re aware that we’re aware of their issues and the way they work. The support mechanisms for young people are more joined up if we’re all working well together – the end result is that a young person gets more support.”

Delivery partner

However, some challenges remained to joint working between youth justice services and community organisations. In one project, delivery partners felt that the process for referrals to the EIYF had been largely one-sided and more beneficial to criminal justice than to the community. This suggests that there was more to be done to build those bridges and improve relationships between different partners.

5.1.2.3 Better alignment of services

There was some positive evidence to suggest that the EIYF contributed to better alignment of early intervention and prevention services, although there was still more to be done on this in some cases. Where multi-agency partnership units or similar were established, these brought statutory and non-statutory providers together. Such arrangements were seen as contributing to better alignment of provision. However, it was generally acknowledged that outcomes from such arrangements would only be fully evident over the longer term.

More generally, stakeholders in most projects recognised that youth violence was a complex and long-term issue that required sustained efforts and investment. Some delivery partners felt that, although going in the right direction, there was more to be done to strengthen relationships with some sectors. Organisations involved in housing and social care were variously cited as requiring an improved understanding of the complexities that young people who want to disengage from involvement in criminality can face.

A small number of stakeholders felt that EIYF projects were a little disjointed and disconnected, lacking a common sense of direction. They felt that they could have had a greater impact on improving coordination and alignment of provision with more strategic action planning, innovative thinking and reaching out to new partners and stakeholders. As one delivery partner noted:

“There’s a lot of preaching to the converted and I think it’s more about, ‘Okay, you’re preaching to the converted, but what can we really shake up and do as a movement?’ … I feel like it’s bringing the same people round the table to talk about the same thing and not creating an action plan.”

Delivery partner

5.1.2.4 Development of sustainable partnership infrastructure

Looking to the future, a number of projects were intending to use the partnership model developed through the EIYF to try to secure additional funding. Several OPCCs were delivering their own project-level evaluations to generate evidence to inform future funding bids. There was also widespread consensus amongst Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) stakeholders that the early intervention and outreach work delivered through the EIYF would result in a reduction in future demand for police services. One stakeholder was initially sceptical of the value of using limited police resources for early intervention, but involvement with the project seemed to change this perspective.

“I thought, why are we wasting resources on young people who may not even end up doing anything wrong, when we can’t cope with the amount of demand for actual youth offending where we are. But now, I see that just a bit of work earlier on has a huge difference on reducing that demand in the future.”

Stakeholder

5.2 Outcomes for peers and family members

There was some evidence that some EIYF projects also contributed to outcomes for parents/carers, families and peers. In some cases, the interventions funded by the EIYF directly engaged these groups with the intention to improve outcomes, while in others more indirect outcomes were apparent. For the latter, there were limited data collected; therefore, this finding relies on the perceptions of delivery staff and/or young people. Building on the findings presented in Chapter 4.3, the findings below incorporate additional insights from the perspective of EIYF participant young people’s family members and peers.

5.2.1 Parents, carers and families

The key outcomes for parents, carers and families discussed by delivery staff were associated with interventions that involved supporting the whole family; for example, through providing personal and tailored support for parents/carers and families alongside support for young people. These more formalised and intended approaches were commonly cited to have supported parents/carers and wider family members to have a greater understanding of their child and their behaviours. Some delivery staff members of diversionary and targeted interventions also talked about supporting young people and families to deal with the ‘next crisis’, such as immediate issues related to young people going missing, being arrested or having been assaulted.

Workshops for parents/carers and wider family members were also seen as helping to enhance an understanding of the impact of ACEs on young people and adults. These education programmes often, but not always, were also felt to have led to improved relationships between parents/carers and their child/ren. For example, one project focused on supporting young people at risk of CCE and their families to improve their communication.

“[We’re] helping parents be able to communicate more successfully with their children without it being a shouting match.”

Strategic stakeholder

This perception was corroborated by parents involved with the family support intervention concerned. They felt that their children learned how to explain and express themselves better to their families, the police and social services. One parent attributed this to the project worker reasoning with their child and communicating information in a way that a parent could not. Another parent described how, since working with the family support worker, they felt that their child was no longer at direct risk of CCE because the family support worker had helped them to develop an awareness of the risks of socialising with specific people. More generally, stakeholders highlighted that parents/carers often reported feeling better equipped to deal with their child’s behaviour, to have a better understanding of their child’s issues and concerns, and being better able to cope. Chapter 4 discusses the impact of the EIYF on beneficiary young people’s relationships within the home and with peers.

Front-line staff also often had a role in educating parents/carers about the sorts of activity that their child was involved in. One delivery staff member explained:

“We have very difficult conversations with parents to talk about what their child is involved in … The moment this job hit home was when I had to explain to a parent that her son was selling crack, explaining that he had a weapon on him whilst doing it and explaining what ‘plugging’ was.”

They continued:

“County lines is the biggest conversation I have with parents … A lot know what ‘cuckooing’ is but let’s just explain the other bits that get to that point. Giving parents information is a lot of my job – the social workers bring me out as a secret weapon. They kind of trust in you because it’s your job to explain to them [the parents] what it is.”

Delivery staff

For young people receiving support through Type 4: Desistence interventions, delivery staff also clearly provided a great deal of emotional support to some parents/carers and wider family members thus supporting their general wellbeing and access to wider services, for example. This was particularly the case where young people had been attacked and/or they or their family was at high risk of serious violence. Delivery staff also reported referring parents/carers and/or wider family members to other services for support. Commonly these included referrals to housing services, adult mental health services, parenting programmes and/or providing advice and support around benefits.

While the above outcomes were often ascribed to the EIYF, it is important to note that projects worked with children and young people who were supported by other services, especially if they were looked after children or had a Children in Need (CiN) plan. In these cases, both the young person and their family would have been receiving support through their local council’s Children’s Services. As such, other non-EIYF-funded support is likely to have contributed to outcomes for parents, carers and families.

More generally, there was relatively strong consensus among delivery staff and stakeholders that more intervention was needed with parents and families.

“The biggest one for me would be some sort of intervention with the parent … That’s their main influence in their life. We can do all the work we can, in an hour or 2 hours with that person, and if we put them back into that negative environment, it just undoes all the work you’ve done.”

Delivery staff

5.2.1.1 Friends and peers

There was very limited evidence on the extent to which the EIYF contributed to outcomes for friends or peers of children and young people directly supported through EIYF interventions. Across a small number of projects, the key impact was that young people receiving EIYF-funded provision appeared to sometimes tell their friends or peers about it, which resulted in requests or referrals to join the project. In one project, one delivery staff member explained that 20% of their caseload had come from friends referring others. This lack of evidence does not mean that such effects were not prevalent more widely; rather, it reflects the fact that peers were not directly engaged in the research and that not all young people or delivery staff discussed outcomes.

5.3 Outcomes for wider communities

There was some limited evidence to suggest that the EIYF contributed to outcomes for wider communities in terms of the following aspects.

• improved engagement of businesses in supporting young people: One EIYF project got over 50 local businesses registered as places of refuge for young people within the community. Refuges are places that provide specialist support, safety and/or shelter (often for women and children who have experienced domestic abuse) to protect them from danger or harm. The young people who helped to set up these places of refuge also gained valuable experience engaging with adults outside their usual circle and completing a civic action/social responsibility project. One stakeholder involved in this project commented that

“Without EIYF we would not have a number of businesses now engaged in becoming community guardians and they would not have the educated understanding of what they could do to help.”

• knock-on effects: In one project, EIYF activities were reported as resulting in a local organisation declaring a willingness to invest in a local estate’s regeneration. This was unexpected according to one delivery staff member who said that

“The work has not started yet, but the fact that they are spending money to improve that estate would not have taken place, or would not have taken place so quickly, had it not been for this project. That’s a clear benefit.”

• improved relationships between the police and communities: This was referenced by several projects as an unanticipated outcome of the EIYF. Joint working between the police and front-line workers delivering support to young people within communities was found to have changed negative perceptions of the police amongst some members of the community, with them being seen as personable, approachable and willing to help

Similar to the evidence relating to effects on family and peers, the limited examples of community outcomes presented should be understood in the light of the focus of this evaluation being principally on outcomes for young people and delivery organisations, with the data collection approach reflecting this.

6. Conclusions and recommendations

To conclude this report, the following section summarises the key evaluation findings against the Early Intervention Youth Fund’s (EIYF’s) aims and programme-level theory of change. Reflecting on these findings, this final chapter then provides recommendations for the Government, commissioners and those designing early intervention and prevention activities.

6.1 Overall findings on the impact of the EIYF

As outlined in the programme theory of change, the EIYF’s long-term aims were:

• to reduce serious youth violence and crime

• to develop safer communities

• to improve outcomes for young people

The theory of change recognised the importance of generating intermediate outcomes, through the early intervention and prevention activities delivered, as precursors to achieving these long-term aims. From this perspective, it highlighted the importance of improved outcomes around education, mental health and wellbeing, awareness of the consequences of crime, as well as access to appropriate support, improved relationships, and enhanced confidence and resilience in affecting longer term change.

There was no definitive evidence to show that the EIYF had directly reduced young people’s involvement in serious violence and crime. However, there was a wealth of promising evidence to suggest that the EIYF had, or could, make a positive difference to some young people’s intermediate outcomes. Based primarily on the qualitative data, but supported by the programme- and project-level impact analysis findings, the evaluation found that EIYF projects had started to make a positive contribution to young people’s awareness of and/or involvement in serious violence and crime in the shorter and potentially longer term.

While the evaluation was not able to explore sustainability of outcomes, there was promising evidence of progress towards outcomes across all intervention types. This was the case in respect of:

• improved knowledge/awareness of the consequences of crime and violence

• engagement in positive pathways away from crime/violent activities

• addressing underlying risk factors (for example, low self-esteem)

• enhancing local support structures to better support at-risk young people

Furthermore, self-reported examples of young people involved in diversionary and targeted interventions evidenced:

• lower levels of engagement in violence and crime

• reduced anti-social behaviour, weapon carrying and offending

• improved young people’s wellbeing, confidence, relationships, decision making and engagement in education, employment and training

The programme-level quasi-experimental impact analysis also showed a statistically significant reduction in drug-related offences in all treatment groups assessed, and a reduction in public order offences in local authorities with the highest level of youth crime (pre-EIYF). Improvements in these outcomes can reduce young people’s risk and improve protective factors for involvement in violence and crime. Due to the scale and nature of the evaluation, the programme, and similar local and national co-interventions, it is not possible to fully isolate the impact, or contribution, of the EIYF on young people’s intermediate or longer term serious violence and crime outcomes.

In addition to promising evidence of change for young people, there was good evidence to suggest that the EIYF had wider impacts on the local support infrastructure, in part through the enhanced partnership working and the collaboration it facilitated. There was evidence that the EIYF had developed professionals’ skills, knowledge and awareness of the risks and issues facing some children and young people. This was already contributing to improved practice, with the expectation of longer lasting effects as more practitioners received training and developed their understanding of the risks facing different (and new) cohorts of young people.

6.2 Recommendations

Based on the evidence presented in this report, the following key recommendations are provided:

EIYF evaluation evidence

EIYF evaluation evidence suggested that engaging young people in setting their own objectives or targets around changing behaviour, and offering a framework to capture, measure and recognise any ‘distance travelled’, may be effective in supporting progress away from engagement in criminality and violence. This would need to be given careful consideration based on each individual’s situation, level of engagement in an intervention, and the time needed to develop positive relationships with front-line staff. Programme commissioners and those developing interventions should consider supporting young people to set objectives/targets, alongside consistently capturing distance travelled, into the design of interventions to help encourage and maximise outcomes

Operating a Trusted Adult Worker model

Operating a Trusted Adult Worker model, involving a dedicated member of staff offering tailored, ongoing mentoring support aimed at building resilience amongst those with adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), showed promise in improving emotional health, connections with others, positive outlooks on everyday life and feeling empowered for the future. Programme commissioners and those designing interventions for young people ‘at risk’ due to ACEs should consider the potential offered by trusted adult worker approaches and importance of having relatable staff working with children and young people

Those already involved in criminality

For those already involved in criminality, ensuring an appropriate intensity, focus and longevity of support appeared significant in generating positive outcomes. Recognition of the time that a process of encouraging desistence from engagement in more serious criminality and violence is likely to take is similarly important in terms of designing and implementing interventions. Programme commissioners and those designing interventions must consider the time needed to support young people to bring about change. Increased flexibility, tailoring and length of support is needed for young people more entrenched in violence and crime

Those already engaged in criminal activity

Likewise, for those already engaged in criminal activity, combining psychological interventions such as cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and other therapies designed to address criminal behaviour, with wider and more holistic support showed promise in the context of some interventions. This deserves consideration from a programme design perspective for this cohort. Such approaches also appeared to bring benefits in terms of improved mental health and feelings of wellbeing, with potential knock-on effects on behaviour and engagement in crime and violence. Programme commissioners and those designing interventions should explore the potential for using psychological therapies as part of broader interventions for those already involved in criminal activity

Raising awareness of the risks

Raising awareness of the risks and consequences of engaging in violence and crime can play a role in programmes as part of a wider suite of interventions. However, the experience of the EIYF shows that more focused and ongoing intervention is likely to be important in generating sustained changes in behaviour and attitudes. More universally targeted awareness raising should thus be combined with activities engaging young people to offer support in a deeper and more ongoing way, particularly for groups more at risk of criminal involvement. Well-designed and targeted diversionary interventions, combining engagement in tailored positive activities with positive messaging (including from those with lived experience), can play a useful role in building on awareness raising to encourage actual behaviour change

Working with young people

Working with young people to offer practical, alternative coping strategies for dealing with internal emotional challenges and external contextual situations, for example, around conflict resolution and alternatives to violence, appeared to lead to positive effects in the case of a number of those engaged through EIYF interventions. Programme commissioners, along with those designing and implementing interventions, should consider providing young people with practical, alternative coping strategies as part of intensive ongoing support aimed at addressing and diverting young people from violence

Positive evidence concerning the potential benefits

Positive evidence concerning the potential benefits of a focus on improving peer and family relationships, for example through positive diversionary activities engaging peers and involving families where possible, offers another approach with potential benefits from an intervention design perspective. Evidence shows that such a focus can bring benefits in enhancing stability in young people’s home circumstances, help improve interpersonal relationships more generally, and can be important in shifting some young people into peer groups less, or not, engaged in negative behaviours and criminality

Focus on ongoing training and support

A focus on ongoing training and support for all children’s workforce practitioners, allied to facilitating sharing of learning, effective practice and awareness of local services, appears to be an important underpinning contributor to effectively supporting and generating positive outcomes for young people. For programme commissioners, funding capacity-building and knowledge exchange (for example, ACE-aware and trauma-informed approaches ^{[footnote 17]} ), along with encouraging enhanced cooperation and strategic working across local partnerships, should be considered as part of programme design alongside specific interventions to support young people

The EIYF evaluation findings provide evidence to support systems-level approaches

Overall, the EIYF evaluation findings provide evidence to support systems-level approaches for addressing serious youth violence and crime, such as those being delivered via Violence Reduction Units (VRUs). The system-level changes brought about through the EIYF programme may have, in part, supported the roll out of VRUs by providing a fertile ground for their delivery. Government departments should continue to commit to supporting cross-sector systems-change approaches

Key learning from the EIYF evaluation

It is important to consider key learning from the EIYF evaluation for enhancing the evidence base of what works. Although only a small number of project-level impact assessments have been feasible through this study, they demonstrate that quantitative comparative impact assessments in this are possible where clearly defined interventions are established with monitoring and evaluation built in from the outset. The Youth Endowment Fund (YEF) seeks to build on the wider evidence base within the UK by funding, supporting and evaluating programmes to help understanding of what works in preventing children and young people’s involvement in serious youth violence and crime. Programme commissioners, those designing interventions and delivery organisations should build in monitoring and evaluation from the outset. This could include appointing evaluation specialists during programme development, providing guidance to delivery organisations about monitoring and evaluation expectations, and the Government developing a longer-term evaluation strategy to ensure that primary and secondary research can contribute to the wider evidence base of what works

This impact report has identified the various and variable contributions that the EIYF has had in improving young people’s outcomes in the short term. There were some very positive and hopefully sustainable outcomes for some young people. However, this could not be evidenced for all of those involved in interventions; nor did the evaluation seek to explore the impact of violence and crime on other young people not involved in the EIYF. Where positive outcomes were achieved, generally project stakeholders and young people were, to differing degrees of confidence, hopeful that change may be sustained for young people – in particular, through increased awareness of risk and the education, tools and strategies learned through the EIYF interventions.

Annex 1: Methodology and research limitations

The specific methodology used to generate findings for this impact report sits within an overall evaluation approach that combines quantitative methods (including quasi-experimental impact evaluation techniques – see Annex 2 for further details) with complementary contribution analysis. Contribution analysis is a theory-based evaluation approach that seeks to help to identify and assess causal linkages between implementation processes and outcomes. It can be used to complement quantitative impact evaluation techniques to help to explore and understand causal relationships, effects and impact.

As mentioned in Chapter one, the evaluation as a whole was informed by an exploration of the Early Intervention Youth Fund’s (EIYF’s) intervention logic, developed at an earlier stage in the study in the form of a fund-level theory of change (ToC). This updated ToC has been used to identify elements of EIYF activities and anticipated outcomes to incorporate into the focus of evaluation activity, and was used to inform research tools developed to guide the qualitative research with EIYF projects and beneficiaries. The EIYF ToC is presented in the main report in Figure 1.3.

The qualitative data presented in this report were collected during face-to-face or telephone interviews with stakeholders and beneficiaries across the 29 EIYF-funded projects between October 2019 and March 2020. The fieldwork period coincided with the point at which projects were starting to come to an end of their EIYF-funded delivery (at the end of March 2020). Table A1.1 presents a breakdown of participants.

Table A1.1: Participant numbers, by stakeholder or beneficiary group

Participant types		N
Strategic staff	Strategic/delivery management role – local authority services (for example, children’s social care, Youth Offending Services (YOS)	66
	Strategic/delivery management role – voluntary, community and social enterprise (VCSE) organisations/charities	59
	Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) representatives	31
	Strategic/delivery management role – other (for example, private sector)	≤10*
Delivery staff	Delivery front-line role – VCSE organisations/charities	71
	Delivery front-line role – local authority services (for example, children’s social care, YOS)	39
	Delivery front-line role – other (for example, private sector)	≤10*
Sector specific	Police	24
	Education professionals	≤10*
	Health professionals	≤10*
Beneficiaries	Children and young people beneficiaries	125
	Parents/carers/family members	8
Other	Other roles	≤10*
Total number of participants		445

* Where participant groups had fewer than 10 individuals, the N is presented as ≤10 to preserve the individuals’ anonymity.

The evaluation team developed semi-structured topic guides for each participant group. These were approved by the Home Office prior to use. They outlined the purpose of the research, the confidentiality statement that ensured all participants anonymity and confidentiality, and explored the key research questions grouped thematically with reference to the evaluation framework developed to guide the study. For stakeholders and front-line delivery staff, the interview themes included the following.

Background and context

To explore the participants’ understanding of, and involvement in, the EIYF programme to date and the profile of the locality, including key challenges associated with youth violence and crime locally.

Knowledge and relevance of the EIYF projects

To examine:

• the project design, model of delivery including partners, targeting and recruitment of young people

• perceived relevance and quality of the provision, its strengths and suggestions for development

• alignment with other provision

• implementation processes and effectiveness

• whether it was targeting the right children and young people

Outcomes and impact

To explore:

• the extent to which the project was delivering against its intended outcomes and impacts against the project-level ToC
• the benefits of the project to date to beneficiary children, young people and families, delivery organisations and staff
• the benefits to date to the local area and/or to levels of youth violence and crime locally
• anticipated longer term impacts
• unanticipated outcomes or impacts
• enablers and barriers to achieving outcomes/impacts

Contribution of the EIYF

In supporting the achievement of outcomes and impact; what would have happened in the absence of the funding and any wider external factors that may affect the desired outcomes and impacts being realised?

Learning

To explore feedback to the Home Office and other commissioners of similar programmes.

Young people and family interviews explored:

• how they found out about the project and their initial reflections about taking part

• how they were involved in the project activity (including frequency and time spent, mode of delivery, activities within which they were involved)

• what they felt they had learned from being involved and whether they had changed their behaviour, attitude or actions

• what they liked and disliked about the project and staff

• how they felt it could be improved and what would have happened in the absence of the project

The evaluation team also explored young people’s views about their local area, specifically in relation to perceptions of youth violence and crime.

Most interviews with project stakeholders were carried out one-to-one in a face-to-face setting, complemented by telephone interviews where necessary for logistical reasons or due to interviewee preference. The evaluation team also carried out a small number of group discussions with project staff. All interviews with young people were carried out face-to-face by 2 researchers (for safety reasons). As part of research ethics considerations, with the Home Office Research Ethics Committee and the respective Ethics Committees at Ecorys and Ipsos MORI, the evaluation team chose not to carry out telephone or video interviews with young people or their families (see ‘Research ethics and data protection’ section below).

Access to all interviewees was negotiated between the research team and the EIYF project lead, who was usually from the OPCC. Each EIYF project had a dedicated research team of 2 researchers who:

• led the communication with the OPCC

• identified the sample of participants in collaboration with the OPCC project lead

• carried out the fieldwork within projects/interventions

A purposive sampling approach was adopted for each OPCC project area, factoring in the size and scope of the component interventions while ensuring coverage of types of activity across the EIYF programme as whole. The research design involved conducting interviews across all EIYF projects with:

• the OPCC project lead

• other local strategic stakeholders

• front-line delivery staff

• children and young people (and parents/carers where relevant to do so)

While this was possible in most cases, as discussed under research limitations below in some cases planned interviews with young people were not able to be conducted.

All interview notes were written up and quotes transcribed. For the implementation report, data was analysed thematically adopting a framework analysis approach to explore the key findings, firstly, within and, secondly, between project areas. Using the ToC and overarching evaluation framework, themes were developed using a combination of inductive and deductive strategies. A computer-assisted software analysis package, NVivo, was used to aid analysis by sorting and collating the data.

Research ethics and data protection

The evaluation team thoroughly considered and reviewed the ethics of the evaluation team’s activity throughout the study. At each stage, and where needed at specific points in collaboration with the Home Office Research Ethics Committee, the team established specific principles over and above their usual policies (which abide by Government Social Research, ^{[footnote 18]} Social Research Association ^{[footnote 19]} and Market Research Society ^{[footnote 20]} research ethics guidelines). These included ensuring the safety (physical and emotional) of the evaluation participants and researchers, including ensuring that researchers carried out face-to-face research activity in pairs.

The team abided by the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) in carrying out the research under the legal basis of ‘legitimate interest’, with the Home Office as the data controller. As part of DPA compliance and in line with key principles of research ethics, the team provided privacy notices, information sheets and consent forms to all participants. Informed consent was sought from all those engaged in the research, with the voluntary nature of participation being made clear in all cases. In addition, the team required parental consent for all young people under the age of 16 invited to participate in the evaluation. Most interviews were digitally recorded on encrypted devices and all data was written up in anonymised form. The team assured confidentiality to all research participants and has not identified roles, individuals or OPCC areas in this report, other than when outlining factual information or where permission was granted to do so (for example, in Chapter 2).

Limitations of the qualitative research

When the general election was announced in December 2019, a pause on communication with the young people and family members was required; it is common for pre-election periods to restrict research activity and communication about government-funded programmes. This meant that the evaluation team was unable to arrange fieldwork or collect data from young people during this time, though it was possible to carry out interviews with project stakeholders. Due to the timing of the election (December 2019), Christmas holidays and some projects starting work with a new cohort from January 2020) the evaluation team’s fieldwork period, particularly with young people, was extended to mid/late March 2020. During March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic affected the team’s ability to collect data from a small number of stakeholders and young people across 9 OPCCs.

The team had made arrangements to collect data from participants in most of these projects but this was not feasible following the Government’s guidance to tackle the pandemic, including the ‘stay at home’ instruction. It was always possible that the team would be unable to interview some young people, or their families, due to their levels of need and vulnerability.

To carry out an evaluation of the EIYF projects, the team relied on establishing positive relationships with all project leads. The team worked closely with EIYF project leads to identify the interventions within each project on which to focus the evaluation resource. These decisions were made based on:

• the level of project funding

• the type of intervention

• the target group

• anticipated outcomes

This was to ensure that, at the programme level, data was gathered on a range of intervention ‘types’. Furthermore, local project leads were crucial as ‘gatekeepers’ in supporting the evaluation team’s access to front-line delivery staff and young people/families for interview. It is a characteristic (and a limitation) of evaluation approaches such as this that participant stakeholders and young people may be those who are more engaged in, and perhaps more positive about, the EIYF projects they are connected to. Efforts were made to avoid any bias in interviewee selection through liaison with the project leads, stressing the need to access those with a range of views, though the inherent limitations in ensuring this should be recognised.

It should also be noted that the evaluation team only interviewed young people who were involved in the projects and did not speak to any young people who chose not to engage or who dropped out. This may put a positive bias on the evidence presented in this report. The team also only spoke to young people whose parents/carers gave permission for them to participate in the research. It was a challenge for some OPCC areas to get parental consent for some young people and this represents a further limitation and possible bias in the data. That said, the team spoke to a large number of stakeholders and young people overall, and the views collected were highly consistent.

Most project stakeholders spoke about the limitations of the programme and the component projects and so the team believes, in view of their wider knowledge and the evidence associated with similar programmes, that the findings presented in this report are a true reflection of the EIYF programme and projects.

The limitations of the quantitative impact assessments are outlined in Annex 2 below.

Contribution analysis approach

Contribution analysis is a theory-based evaluation method that follows 6 steps to assess to what extent observed outcomes are due to programme activities rather than other factors. It does this by collecting evidence to 1) verify (or refute) the ToC of the programme and 2) assess other factors that may influence the intended outcomes. This information is synthesised to provide evidence about the contribution of the programme. (Ideally contribution analysis is carried out on a well-defined programme.)

Figure A1.1: The 6 steps of contribution analysis

The 6 steps of contribution analysis are summarised as follows:

In the context of the EIYF evaluation, the approach to contribution analysis involved the following elements:

• a ToC/logic model was developed for the EIYF programme and individual projects. Following data collection, this was reviewed and amended, reflecting the iterative nature of contribution analysis

• other influencing factors were identified through a review of project bid applications and during interviews

• interviewees were asked explicitly for views on what difference the EIYF project has made (for example, ‘what would your life look like now if you had not been involved in the project?’) to understand the project’s contribution to outcomes

• evidence sources were triangulated, and findings across case studies were synthesised

In deploying the technique, the evaluation team followed a structured analytical approach to recording the evidence source, establishing whether the evidence confirmed (or refuted) the contribution claim/logic model, and determined the strength of the evidence. To support analysis, the evaluation team used NVivo following the process outlined as follows.

• uploading all data (for example, interview data, monitoring information reports, additional project-level data) using outcomes star ^{[footnote 21]}

• coding by outcomes and whether there was evidence that supported or refuted the achieved outcome, for example, ‘improved school attendance – refutes’

• synthesising data across sources (also referencing evidence from the quasi-experimental impact analysis)

• reporting on the strength of the evidence, including consideration of:

  • quality of evidence and limitations (for example, positive bias)

  • level of convergence of sources through triangulation

  • strength of outcomes (including perceptions and other evidence, for example, project-level data)

Following this approach, the evaluation team made a judgement of the strength of evidence following the protocol outline in Table A1.2 below.

Table A1.2: Descriptions of levels of evidence and related summary of outcomes achieved (as outlined in the ToC)

Level of evidence	Descriptor	Summary of outcomes and impacts achieved
1. Limited	This includes, for example, a small number of isolated examples of outcomes achieved. It also refers to examples of evidence for outcomes where it was too early to achieve and/or measure change.	There was limited evidence on the contribution of EIYF interventions on: • reduced involvement in gangs, child criminal exploitation (CCE) or child sexual exploitation (CSE) for young people who were already heavily involved with gangs • improved outcomes for the wider community
2. Mixed	This includes some reported examples of positive change. However, there were examples of some intended outcomes not being achieved. It also refers to where some outcomes were achieved in the short term, but were not sustained.	There was mixed evidence on the positive contribution of EIYF interventions on young people’s educational, employment and training (EET) outcomes.
3. Some	This includes examples of immediate positive change within some projects in some contexts for some young people.	There was some evidence on the positive contribution of EIYF interventions on: • increased children and young people’s awareness of the risks and consequences of violence and crime • improved young people’s attitudes, including decision making • improved young people’s physical health • enhanced outcomes for parents/carers, families and peers
4. Good	This refers to consistent levels of evidence of outcomes being achieved across a range of projects.	There was good evidence on the positive contribution of EIYF interventions on improving young people’s: • aspirations for the future • resilience • mental health • understanding that aggression and violence are not acceptable means of conflict resolution. There was also good evidence to demonstrate the contribution of the EIYF on improving: • local structure and partnership working • knowledge, skills and awareness of professionals working with young people • local support infrastructure through enhanced partnership working and collaboration
5. Strong	Within the EIYF evaluation context, this refers to highly consistent levels of evidence of outcomes achieved across a range of relevant projects.	There was strong evidence on the positive contribution of EIYF interventions on: • improved young people’s improved confidence, self-worth and self-esteem • enhanced personal relationships between young people, families and peers

Annex 2: Quantitative impact assessment – additional detail

This annex provides detail on the methodological approach and results for the programme-level impact assessment.

Programme-level assessment: Approach

The programme-level assessment sought to identify differences between funded and non-funded areas, before and after the introduction of the Early Intervention Youth Fund (EIYF). An overview of the approach, focus and key results are presented in the sections that follow.

Data and outcomes of interest

The assessment focuses on annual data from the Youth Justice Board (YJB). The YJB collates data on offences, which resulted in a caution or conviction, from the 154 Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) in England and Wales. YOTs are broadly equivalent to local authorities (LAs) and can be mapped to police force areas (PFAs). Although not disaggregated at these levels, the data cover first-time offenders and reoffenders. (Data up until March 2020 do not disaggregate offences by first-time and repeat offenders.)

Reflecting on the types of interventions funded (see Chapter one), and the programme-level theory of change (ToC), demonstrates that the YJB data are well-suited to explore the potential impact of the EIYF, as they can capture both preventive/early intervention (reducing first-time offending) and desistance/therapeutic interventions (reducing [re]offending). Whilst this data are well-suited to the EIYF, and of high quality, it should be noted that the data only cover proven offences, rather than all offending (that is, where an individual has not been identified/charged). The outcomes of interest from the YJB ata was the following offence types (population adjusted):

• violence against the person

• robbery

• drug-related offences (possession and/or supply) ^{[footnote 22]}

• criminal damage

• public order (which can cover a wide range of criminal behaviour, but typically involves the use or threat of violence or harassment towards someone else)

• theft and handling stolen goods

Whilst drug, criminal damage, public order and theft and handling stolen goods offences are not necessarily considered ‘violent’, they are offences of interest to the EIYF as they are drivers of serious violence. Again, reflecting on the focus and aims of EIYF interventions (see programme-level ToC in Chapter 1.3 of the main report), in particular reducing risk-taking behaviours and diverting young people away from criminal exploitation, and the recognition of these as drivers of serious violence, it is important to consider possible impacts on offence types beyond just violence. ^{[footnote 23]}

Furthermore, this wider consideration of offence types is supported by the project-level impact assessment presented in Chapter 2 of the main report (for example, see Devon and Cornwall and the focus on impact on county lines) and reflects some key themes of the qualitative evidence, which are presented in Chapter 2.2 and subsequent chapters. Other offence types, such as motoring offences, were retained for analysis as a sense/sensitivity check. If, as anticipated given the focus of the EIYF, there is no or little impact on the other offence types, this helps to validate any impacts on the outcomes that are of interest.

To supplement the YJB data analysis, victims’ data (aged 17 and under) from the Home Office was also assessed but, owing to lower coverage of areas, is less of a focus. Data quality checks by the Home Office and independent evaluators revealed that not all areas had accurate or consistent age data for victims and, as a result, were removed from the analysis. The outcome of interest was monthly counts of victims of violence, which were seasonally adjusted to facilitate analysis.

Data was also accessed for population characteristics that vary over time and may influence the outcomes of interest, so that the analysis could control for these. These characteristics included population (10 to 17-year-olds) size, proportion of males, Child Protection Plan rates and low income family rates. Comparable data for Child Protection Plan and low-income family rates were not available for Wales, which led to the exclusion of Wales from the programme-level impact assessment using YJB data.

Analytical approach

Following a competitive application process, EIYF funding was awarded to Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) to commission/manage organisations to deliver interventions aimed at reducing child/young person serious violence and crime. The application process involved demonstrating the level of need in an area and proposed interventions to effectively address these needs. As such, the allocation of funding was not random. The following 2 quasi-experimental designs (QEDs), which, as far as possible, sought to account for the non-random allocation of funding, were deployed in respect of the YJB data. (Recognising the limited sample of the PFAs included, and the overall quality of victims’ data, only a basic synthetic control group model was employed.)

Fixed-effects regression

Where the same units of analysis are repeatedly measured before and after the introduction of an intervention, it is possible to estimate causal effects through comparison of differences over time (before and after the EIYF) and between areas (EIYF-funded and non-funded LAs). This estimation strategy is often referred to as difference-in-differences. An advantage of this approach is that time-constant variables, which are often unobservable, are controlled for in the analysis. The key assumption of difference-in-differences based designs is parallel trends. This assumes that in the absence of intervention, the treated (EIYF) areas would have followed the same trend as the comparator (non-EIYF) areas. Whilst this assumption cannot be proved (it is impossible to observe the treated areas without intervention), it can be justified through the examination of pre-intervention trends. If treated and comparator units follow a similar trend pre-intervention, it is reasonable to assume they would have continued to do so without intervention.

Synthetic control methods

Building on the fixed-effects regression approach, generalised synthetic control methods relax the parallel trends assumption. ^{[footnote 24]} This is achieved by first creating a synthetic control group for each treated area by weighting and averaging comparator areas based on pre-intervention trends. Comparator areas that are more similar to the treated areas receive a higher weighting than those that are less similar. An additional advantage of this approach is that impact estimates for each treated area (compared to its synthetic control) can be extracted and assessed.

For the EIYF evaluation, both approaches are well-suited to the available data and are complementary. By assessing and comparing the results between approaches, additional strength can be placed on the findings. Using the same rationale, different model specifications were also employed. The base model estimates the effect of EIYF funding status (yes/no) on the outcomes of interest (offences, victims). Subsequent models include additional time-varying factors that may also affect the outcomes of interest but are not related (external) to EIYF funding status. Additional variables were only used with the YJB data analysis, which covers 7 years. Recognising that victims’ data cover just 2 years, population and other characteristics are less likely to change substantially. The following bullets show additional factors and their rationale for inclusion.

• total population of 10 to 17-year-olds. Changes in population may affect the prevalence of violent and criminal offending/victimisation

• proportion of males in the 10 to 17-year-old population. Males are over-represented in violent and criminal offending/victimisation

• the rate of Child Protection Plans. Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are a key risk factor for young person involvement in violent and criminal activity (as a perpetrator or victim). Whilst EIYF activity recognises addressing ACEs, this is a longer term change. The at (high) risk cohort supported will be likely to have experienced ACEs prior to the EIYF. The rate of Child Protection Plans is an approximation of key ACE indicators (for example, experiencing/witnessing violence, abuse, neglect or substance misuse in the home)

• the rate of low-income families. High levels of deprivation may be associated with increased violence and criminal offending

Recognising that the synthetic control approach builds on the fixed-effects regression approach (and the results were similar), only the former are presented in the main report. Results from all models and supporting analysis is provided in this annex.

Defining the treatment and comparator groups

EIYF funding was awarded at the police force area (PFA) level. Typically, activity comprised universal work across the whole (or most) of the PFA and targeted interventions in specific sub-areas (for example, LAs, specific localities). Targeted interventions were aimed at higher risk groups and/or in areas with higher levels of youth violence and offending. Recognising this layered approach to project delivery, the following treatment groups were operationalised and tested using YJB data:

• all LAs in funded PFAs

• LAs within funded PFAs where there was (additional) targeted EIYF activity

• the LA from each funded PFA with the highest youth violence rates (pre-EIYF) and targeted EIYF activity ^{[footnote 25]}

By iteratively refining the focus with the groups above, insights can be gained to the potential effectiveness of the targeting/hotspot approaches adopted in EIYF areas. Details of the additional targeted EIYF and highest youth violence LAs are provided in Table A2.1.

Table A2.1: EIYF PFA and LA treatment groups (YJB data)

PFA	PCC-funding	LA / youth offending with (additional) EIYF focus	Highest violence pre-EIYF
Avon and Somerset	£464,000	Bristol	Yes
		Somerset
Cleveland	£546,000	Hartlepool	Yes
		South Tees
		Stockton-on-Tees
Devon and Cornwall	£529,000	Devon
		Torbay	Yes
Essex	£664,000	Essex
		Southend-on-Sea	Yes
Greater Manchester	£1,015,000	Bolton
		Bury and Rochdale
		Manchester	Yes
		Oldham
		Salford
		Stockport
		Tameside
		Trafford
		Wigan
Hampshire	£417,000	Hampshire
		Portsmouth
		Southampton	Yes
Humberside	£338,000	Kingston-Upon-Hull	Yes
London (note: additional focus local authorities excludes DIVERT areas, where target group is 18+)	£4,164,000	Barking and Dagenham
		Camden
		Hammersmith and Fulham
		Harrow
		Havering
		Kensington and Chelsea
		Lewisham	Yes
		Merton
		Redbridge
		Southwark
		Westminster
Merseyside	£700,000	Knowsley
		Liverpool	Yes
		Sefton
Norfolk	£700,000	Norfolk	Yes
Northamptonshire	£627,000	Northamptonshire	Yes
Northumbria	£372,000	Newcastle upon Tyne	Yes
		Sunderland
South Yorkshire	£1,245,000	Barnsley
		Doncaster	Yes
		Rotherham
		Sheffield
Suffolk	£57,000	Suffolk	Yes
Sussex	£891,000	Brighton and Hove	Yes
		East Sussex
		West Sussex
Thames Valley	£822,000	Bracknell Forest
		Buckinghamshire
		Milton Keynes
		Oxfordshire
		Reading	Yes
		Slough
West Midlands	£1,831,000	Coventry
		Wolverhampton	Yes
West Yorkshire	£1,121,000	Bradford
		Calderdale
		Kirklees	Yes
		Leeds
		Wakefield

Owing to data completeness and quality, analysis of victims’ data was restricted to just focus on the LAs in the funded PFA treatment group. All LAs in the following PFAs were in the treatment group for the victims’ data: Avon and Somerset, Cleveland, Essex, Hampshire, Metropolitan Police, Norfolk, Northamptonshire, Northumbria, South Wales, Suffolk, Sussex, Thames Valley and West Yorkshire.

Comparator groups comprised all LAs in non-funded PFAs. These included PFAs that were awarded EIYF funding in the second round (June 2019). Excluding these areas would have resulted in a small number of comparator groups, which would have compromised the impact assessment (that is, not enough comparator areas to develop a reliable counterfactual). Whilst there is an argument that areas receiving funding in the second round may ‘contaminate’ the comparator group, the timelines associated with set-up and delivery, and the post-EIYF observation period in the data (financial year 2019/20) mean this is limited.

For both the first and second rounds of EIYF funding, there is an assumption that from the point of the funding announcement there is an average 3-month set-up phase followed by an additional 3-month ‘lead-in’ to reach scale (where impacts on population-level outcomes could materialise). These assumptions are based on primary research with projects in the first round and, where publicly available, commissioning and progress updates from projects in the second round. The assumptions are set out in Table A2.2.

Table A2.2: EIYF first and second round set-up and lead-in time assumptions

EIYF project funding rounds	Set-up time	Lead-in time	Months covered (after lead-in) in YJB data 2019/20 period
First round (November 2018)	December 2018 – February 2019	March 2019 – May 2019	June 2019 – March 2020 (10 months)
Second round (June 2019)	July 2019 – September 2019	October 2019 – December 2019	January 2020 – March 2020 (3 months)

Limitations

A degree of caution is advised around the attribution of findings at the programme level to the EIYF. Whilst the analytical approach seeks to explore (for example, through the exploration of treatment groups with different levels of EIYF focus, and different model specifications) impacts that the EIYF may have contributed to, there are multiple factors that may have also impacted on the outcomes of interest.

The EIYF funded a range of areas in terms of population size, characteristics and needs. However, most large metropolitan areas (for example, London and Greater Manchester), with (relatively) high rates of violence and criminal offending, were awarded funding. Areas with historically high rates of violence and criminal offending could be subject to regression to the mean. For the treatment group comprising all LAs in funded PFAs (and EIYF focus LAs), there is less risk of regression to the mean affecting the overall results, but this does become a consideration when focusing on the LAs with the highest violence rates (pre-EIYF).

To mitigate this risk, LAs with highest levels of violence were selected based on their median rate of violence over the 2013/14 to 2017/18 period (rather than just one or a few fixed points in time). Furthermore, the synthetic control approach explicitly seeks to compare outcomes for treated areas against a comparator that closely follows the pre-EIYF outcome trajectory and, if regression to the mean is present in the treated area, should reflect this.

The analysis focuses on projects funded in the first round of EIYF only. Analysis of YJB data covers all funded PFAs apart from Wales. This was because data for Child Protection Plans and low-income family rates, which were comparable to England, were not available for Wales. Almost half (20) PFAs were removed from the victims’ data during Home Office and evaluator quality checks and data cleaning; however, data for Wales (apart from North Wales, where data quality was poor) are included. As noted previously, recognising that YJB data are high quality and have wide coverage, greater emphasis is placed on this for the programme-level impact assessment.

Programme-level assessment: Analysis

Trends in youth offending in EIYF areas

Trends in youth offending between 2013/14 and 2019/20, by EIYF funding status, are presented in Figure A2.1. Each panel represents a different outcome of interest and the dashed vertical line indicates when EIYF activity started. Key observations are:

• violence against the person consistently accounts for the highest offending rates recorded by YOTs, followed by theft and handling stolen goods, and criminal damage

• offence rates of violence against the person and public order were relatively stable from 2013/14 to 2017/18, before starting to decline

• except for robbery, other offence types show a gradual decline over time

• whilst offending rates were typically higher in funded areas, the differences were typically not statistically significant (indicated by shaded 95% confidence interval bands)

Generally, the parallel trends assumption (for the fixed-effects regressions) is supported by the data.

Figure A2.1: Average number of offences (per 10,000 young people) recorded by YOTs, by EIYF status

Source: Ecorys analysis of YJB data.

Programme-level impact results

A summary of the results from the fixed-effects regressions by model specification (vertical panels) and treatment group definitions (horizontal panels) are presented in Figure A2.2. Each point in the figure represents the estimated impact of the EIYF on the different offence types. The dashed vertical line indicates zero (no impact) and points to the left and right of this show a reduction or increase respectively in the offending rates. The bars extending from each point are (95%) confidence intervals. That is, with 95% certainty that the true estimate of impact falls within these bars. Where the confidence intervals do not cross the dashed line, the impact estimate is statistically significant. The results in table format are provided at the end of this section.

The following bullets give key findings from Figure A2.2:

• there is a statistically significant reduction of approximately 3 drugs-related offences per 10,000 young people in EIYF-funded areas, compared to non-funded areas. This reduction is consistent across model specifications and different treatment groups

• for the treatment group comprising the LAs with the highest violent offending rates pre-EIYF, there is a statistically significant reduction in public order offences
• many of the outcomes of interest (violence against the person, criminal damage, public order and theft and handling stolen goods) indicate a reduction in at least one of the model specifications and treatment groups. Although not statistically significant, the direction can be considered encouraging, particularly if the confidence intervals are close to zero. Furthermore, outcomes where it was theorised that the EIYF would have least impact (burglary through to motoring offences) tend to be centred around zero, which helps to validate the results on outcomes where an impact was theorised

Figure A2.2: Average treatment effects – fixed-effects regression

Source: Ecorys analysis of YJB data.

Analysis using the same data, model specifications and treatment groups as the fixed-effects regressions was undertaken with generalised synthetic control approach. As discussed in the analytical approach section above, synthetic control groups relax the parallel trends assumption of fixed-effects regression by first constructing control groups for each treated area based on their similarity on pre-EIYF outcome trends. Figure A2.3 presents the results from the synthetic control group approach, which can be interpreted in the same way as the fixed-effects regression (Figure A2.2). The results in table format are provided at the end of this section.

In general, the results from the synthetic control group approach are similar to those from the fixed-effects regression. This suggests that the parallel trends assumption for the fixed-effects regressions is reasonable. Whilst the magnitude and direction of the impact estimates are similar across both approaches, the confidence intervals in Figure A2.3 are often smaller, meaning that the estimates are more precise. This precision is highlighted by the statistical significance of public order offences, which was not the case in Figure A2.2.

Figure A2.3: Average treatment effects – generalised synthetic control group approach

Source: Ecorys analysis of YJB data.

Based on analysis of the Home Office’s victims’ data, Figure A2.4 presents the trend in victims of violence in EIYF areas against the synthetic control group (the counterfactual Y[0]). The treatment group comprises EIYF LAs in Avon and Somerset, Cleveland, Essex, Hampshire, Metropolitan Police, Norfolk, Northamptonshire, Northumbria, Wales (excluding North Wales), Suffolk, Sussex, Thames Valley and West Yorkshire PFAs. On average, there were 2.6 fewer victims of violence per month in the treatment group relative to the synthetic control group. This result was not statistically significant (p.value = 0.372).

Figure A2.4: Victims of violence against the person – synthetic control group analysis

Source: Ecorys analysis of Home Office Victims’ data.

Fixed-effects regression tables

	Treatment group – all LAs in EIYF PCC areas
	Base model		With additional control variables
	ATT	Standard error	ATT	Standard error
Breach of statutory order	-1.502	1.097	-1.297	1.102
Burglary	0.329	0.834	0.532	0.836
Criminal damage	-0.151	1.274	0.228	1.279
Drugs	-3.176	1.134	-3.105	1.121
Motoring offences	0.036	1.126	0.180	1.127
Public order	-1.720	1.045	-1.247	1.042
Robbery	0.255	0.836	-0.011	0.819
Sexual offences	-0.051	0.582	-0.011	0.585
Theft and handling stolen goods	-0.912	2.022	-0.341	2.029
Violence against the person	0.539	2.287	0.946	2.298

	Treatment group – LAs with (additional) EIYF focus
	Base model		With additional control variables
	ATT	Standard error	ATT	Standard error
Breach of statutory order	-1.234	1.212	-1.026	1.214
Burglary	0.444	0.923	0.590	0.925
Criminal damage	-1.304	1.490	-1.055	1.497
Drugs	-2.883	1.110	-3.052	1.087
Motoring offences	-0.313	1.236	-0.196	1.230
Public order	-1.918	1.129	-1.526	1.124
Robbery	0.640	0.833	0.623	0.826
Sexual offences	-0.363	0.661	-0.253	0.665
Theft and handling stolen goods	-1.481	2.305	-1.214	2.319
Violence against the person	-0.195	2.585	0.093	2.598

	Treatment group – highest violence pre-EIYF LAs
	Base model		With additional control variables
	ATT	Standard error	ATT	Standard error
Breach of statutory order	-1.177	1.167	-1.012	1.159
Burglary	-0.166	1.431	0.195	1.425
Criminal damage	-3.348	2.137	-3.277	2.161
Drugs	-3.086	1.387	-3.430	1.393
Motoring offences	-0.601	1.673	-0.376	1.691
Public order	-4.077	1.626	-3.681	1.637
Robbery	-0.415	1.142	-0.103	1.143
Sexual offences	-0.651	0.899	-0.379	0.903
Theft and handling stolen goods	-5.149	3.423	-4.994	3.464
Violence against the person	-6.608	3.673	-6.456	3.713

Generalised synthetic control group tables

	Treatment group –all LAs in EIYF PCC areas (n treated = 105)
	Base model		With additional control variables
	ATE	Standard error	ATE	Standard error
Breach of statutory order	-0.306	1.617	-0.455	1.401
Burglary	0.329	0.852	-0.045	0.681
Criminal damage	-0.151	1.306	-0.031	1.334
Drugs	-3.176	0.585	-3.279	0.626
Motoring offences	0.036	0.845	0.192	0.914
Other	-0.786	1.611	-0.359	1.864
Public order	-1.720	0.810	-1.591	0.861
Robbery	0.255	0.657	0.235	0.716
Sexual offences	-0.051	0.391	0.151	0.412
Theft and handling stolen goods	-0.912	1.412	-0.708	1.488
Violence against the person	0.539	2.409	0.672	2.510

	Treatment group – LAs with (additional) EIYF focus (n treated = 61)
	Base model		With additional control variables
	ATE	Standard error	ATE	Standard error
Breach of statutory order	0.666	1.887	0.495	1.526
Burglary	0.444	0.950	0.246	0.722
Criminal damage	-1.304	1.427	-1.398	1.491
Drugs	-2.883	0.642	-2.961	0.712
Motoring offences	-0.313	0.967	-0.257	1.057
Other	-0.631	1.726	0.317	1.985
Public order	-1.918	0.889	-1.711	0.949
Robbery	0.640	0.688	0.716	0.762
Sexual offences	-0.363	0.428	-0.096	0.449
Theft and handling stolen goods	-1.481	1.560	-1.060	1.630
Violence against the person	-0.195	2.457	-1.359	3.024

	Treatment group – highest violence pre-EIYF LAs (n treated = 18)
	Base model		With additional control variables
	ATE	Standard error	ATE	Standard error
Breach of statutory order	0.681	2.152	0.179	1.790
Burglary	-0.166	1.253	0.311	1.610
Criminal damage	-3.348	1.898	-3.177	1.991
Drugs	-3.086	0.848	-3.114	0.957
Motoring offences	-0.601	1.359	-0.615	1.512
Other	-2.905	2.216	-1.671	2.587
Public order	-4.077	1.230	-3.879	1.347
Robbery	-0.415	0.996	-0.218	1.127
Sexual offences	-0.651	0.568	-0.352	0.599
Theft and handling stolen goods	-1.560	2.234	-4.081	2.374
Violence against the person	-6.962	3.774	-7.057	4.044

Project-level assessment: Additional outputs

Devon and Cornwall propensity score analysis

Figure A2.5 shows the balance on covariates between the treatment (Turning Corners) and comparator (social care) groups before (unadjusted) and after (adjusted) propensity score analysis.

Figure A2.5: Balance assessment

1. See: HM Government (2018) Serious Violence Strategy, p 37 [accessed 26/11/20]. ↩

2. While these types of intervention resonate with other categories of early intervention and prevention support, these categories are bespoke to the EIYF projects based on an assessment of their aims and delivery approaches. Many OPCCs and their partners delivered projects across multiple types of interventions. ↩

3. Home Office (2019) Transparency Data. Early Intervention Youth Fund: successful bids, 2018–20. Available at: Early Intervention Youth Fund: successful bids, 2018-20 [accessed 16/11/20]. ↩

4. In this context strategic stakeholders covered a range of individuals. These included OPCC area project leads and those involved in the development, management, and governance of EIYF projects and interventions at the local level (including, for example, representatives of organisations involved in the EIYF and/or local strategies to address crime and serious violence drawn from the police, a range of public sector bodies including local authorities, and voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations). This varied by area according to the focus of the EIYF project concerned and, by extension, which individuals identified were most appropriate to engage in the research. ↩

5. All interviews with young people were facilitated by project staff who arranged and negotiated access. The evaluation team only interviewed young people who were involved in the projects and did not speak to any young people who chose not to engage or who dropped out. The team also only spoke to young people whose parents/carers gave permission for them to participate in the research. ↩

6. These projects were identified early in the evaluation and it was agreed between the Home Office, the College of Policing and respective evaluation teams to share findings rather than (potentially) duplicate work. For the final evaluation reports, see: Lynch-Huggins, S., Rantanen, K., Wishart, R., Espasa, E., Turley, C. and Kelly, N. (2021) Evaluation of DIVERT. College of Policing. Available at: https://assets.college.police.uk/s3fs-public/2021-07/vvcp-evaluation-of-divert.pdf [accessed 09/09/2024]. And: Chandan, J. S., Denne, M., Abramovaite, J., McGuire, R., Nirantharakumar, K., Taylor, J., Bandyopadhyay, S. and Evans, E. (2021) Evaluation of the trusted adult workers role and Rock Pool train and trainer educational approach. College of Policing. https://assets.college.police.uk/s3fs-public/2021-07/vvcp-evaluation-taws-ttt-key-findings-practice-implications.pdf. [accessed 09/09/2024] ↩

7. See: Lynch-Huggins, S., Rantanen, K., Wishart, R., Espasa, E., Turley, C. and Kelly, N. (2021) Evaluation of DIVERT. College of Policing. Available at: https://assets.college.police.uk/s3fs-public/2021-07/vvcp-evaluation-of-divert.pdf. [accessed: 09/09/2024] ↩

8. See: Chandan, J. S., Denne, M., Abramovaite, J., McGuire, R., Nirantharakumar, K., Taylor, J., Bandyopadhyay, S. and Evans, E. (2021) Evaluation of the trusted adult workers role and Rock Pool train and trainer educational approach. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354985783_Associations_between_primary_care_recorded_cannabis_use_and_mental_ill_health_in_the_UK_a_population-based_retrospective_cohort_study_using_UK_primary_care_data. [accessed 09/09/2024] ↩

9. Further information about the outcomes star, its uses and evidence base can be found at: [accessed 22/07/21]. ↩

10. It has been noted in wider literature that hearing testimonials of individuals with direct (‘lived’) experience of knife crime can be impactful, see Foster, R. (2013) KNIFE CRIME INTERVENTIONS: ‘WHAT WORKS?, The Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research Report No. 04/2013. [accessed 24/04/21]. However, evidence on using ex-drug users as testimonials has also been associated with no or negative prevention outcomes, see Warren F. (2016) ‘What Works’ in Drug Education and Prevention?, Scottish Government Social Research. [accessed 27/04/21]. As such, this finding should be treated with caution and requires further examination in future research. ↩

11. CrimeStoppers and Fearless are UK independent charities receiving anonymous crime information. ↩

12. See Faggiano, F., Minozzi, S., Versino, E. and Buscemi, D. (2014) ‘Universal school-based prevention for illicit drug use’, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, issue 12, art. no.: CD003020. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003020.pub3. [accessed 27/04/21]. ↩

13. HM Government (2018) Serious Violence Strategy, p 57. [accessed 24/04/21]. ↩

14. HM Government (2018) Serious Violence Strategy, p 38. ↩

15. HM Government (2018) Serious Violence Strategy, p 37. ↩

16. Adler et al. (2016) reported that CBT approaches produced large effects on young people’s reoffending to age 25. However, the evidence was mixed for young people aged up to 18 years, possibly due to young people’s capability to respond to the intervention. See: Adler, J., Edwards, S., Scally, M., Gill, D., Puniskis, M., Gekoski, A., and Horvath, M. (2016) What Works in Managing Young People who Offend? A Summary of the International Evidence, Ministry of Justice Analytical Series. Retrieved from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/498493/what-works-in-managing-young-people-who-offend.pdf. [accessed 09/09/2024]. ↩

17. See Asmussen, K., Ficher, F., Drayton, E. and McBride, T. (2020) Adverse childhood experiences: What we know, what we don’t know, and what should happen next. Early Intervention Foundation. [accessed 20/07/21]. ↩

18. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ethical-assurance-guidance-for-social-research-in-government [accessed 16/11/20]; ↩

19. https://the-sra.org.uk/SRA/Ethics/Research-ethics-guidance/SRA/Ethics/Research-Ethics-Guidance [accessed 16/11/20]. ↩

20. https://www.mrs.org.uk/standards/ethics [accessed 16/11/20]. ↩

21. Further information about the outcomes star, its uses and evidence base can be found at: https://www.outcomesstar.org.uk/about-the-star/what-is-the-outcomes-star/ [accessed 22/07/21]. ↩

22. YJB data do not disaggregate offences by possession and supply. ↩

23. HM Government (2018) Serious Violence Strategy. Available: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/698009/serious-violence-strategy.pdf [accessed 24/04/21]. ↩

24. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1475-6773.13274 [accessed 24/04/21]. ↩

25. Highest violence LAs were identified on the median (less sensitive to outliers than the mean) violence against the person offences 2013/14 to 2017/18 in the YJB data. This, alongside the synthetic control group approach, mitigates potential regression to the mean. ↩