CHILDREN AND CRIME – GUIDELINES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INDEX OF YOUTH CRIME INDICATORS

Willem JH RoestenburgAssociate Professor: University of JohannesburgCo-Director: Afri.Yze Consult (Pty) Ltd. & A.Yze LLC (USA)

OBJECTIVES OF THE PRESENTATION

To provide an overview of the author’s work regarding a South African developed system of Family Well Being indicators designed for the Social Welfare field (Roestenburg, W, 1999)

To show how the Family Well being indicators performed in another study involving youth offenders (Roestenburg & Oliphant, 2008)

To explore possible programme effectiveness indicators from the Youth offender study.

To provide some guidelines regarding the way forward in developing youth crime indicators in South Africa

WHY ARE SOCIAL INDICATORS NOT USED MORE EXTENSIVELY IN THE SOUTH AFRICAN SOCIAL WELFARE FIELD?

The White Paper for Social Welfare (1997) frequently refers to the lack of information in many areas of social welfare planning.

Dept of Social development uses various international and macro level indicators

The level of knowledge in the welfare field not as developed as in other countries

Social welfare Indicators not a field that attracts many scholars

THE INDICATORS OF FAMILY WELL BEING STUDY (ROESTENBURG: 1999)

Commissioned project to develop a system of indicators for the welfare field.

This had to be used as information tools in the field of social welfare planning

The initial development had to be done within Gauteng, a province in South Africa

METHOD OF DEVELOPMENT

Stage 1: Description of the information problem – What is meant by “welfare” and what is to be measured?

Stage 2: Identification of relevant theory/pragmatic base

Stage 3: Indicator identification, selection and primary measure design

Stage 4: Measurement of subjective QOL and Indicators

Stage 5: Statistical Indicator Model and Index development

Stage 6: Implementation

RESULTS OF THE FW-INDICATOR STUDY Ecological paradigm as theory Focus groups of Social Workers were used to determine a gross list of

indicator variables Measures were self designed based on Ecological concepts as outlined. Well

being was measured on 7 dimensions: Power management, Goal inclination, Emotional functioning, Responsible functioning, Dependency, Value-based decision making and Social Aspects of poverty

A multi-cultural quota sample was selected by means of accidental selection method. The study aimed to reach a cross section of households in the population. Population statistics were used to determine the population size

508 respondents participated in the study Scale dimensions were established from second order Principle Axis factor

analysis and reliability analysis by means of Cronbach’s Alpha Indicators were identified by means of General Linear Modeling (GLM)

technique. The best fitting overall model is presented here Indexes were compiled for five of the seven dimensions based on model

significance levels and adjusted R2 values.

OVERALL BEST FITTING INDICATOR MODEL

Variable Value F - value DF P

Language .605 3.04 16 .000**

A17: Residential mobility .775 3.09 8 .004**

A18-3: Home-ownership .823 2.28 8 .029**

A21: Alcohol consumption changes .833 2.13 8 .041**

Educational qualifications .602 3.07 16 .000**

Marital status .738 3.78 8 .001**

Family composition .739 1.74 16 .044**

KEY INDICATORS IN FW STUDY

Language group (English, Afrikaans or African) (Used as grouping variable)

Marital status (Married or unmarried and single) married = + and single = -

Household size (1 – 3, 4 – 5, 6+ members) Large = +, small = - Educational level (Below 10th grade, Gr 11 – 12, Post School

qualification) Residential mobility (Measures whether families moved

residence during the past five years) Yes = + and No = - Home ownership (Whether residents own the house they live

in). Yes = + and No = - Changes in Alcohol consumption over the past five years.

(Increase or decrease in drinking alcoholic beverages) Decrease = +; increase = -

ILLUSTRATION OF INDEX WEIGHTS: POWER MANAGEMENT

No(-1.947)

Yes

Changes inAlcohol

Consumption

EducationalQualifications

ResidentialMobility

HomeOwnership

MaritalStatus

FamilyComposition

No(8.150)

Yes6+

Members4-5

Members(6.443)

1-3Members(2.281)

NotMarried(4.648)

MarriedNo(.313)

Yes

Certificate/

DegreeStd 9-10(2.653)

<= Std 8(6.245)

Copyright, 1998 W Roestenburg

INDICATOR INDICES

Family Power Management Responsibility management Goal Inclination Emotional functioning Value-based functioning

EXAMPLE 2: CHARACTERISTICS OF YOUTH OFFENDER STUDY

Purpose: To begin evaluation of Social Development programmes to youth. Obtain profile of factors of crime; perceptions about programmes

Method: quantitative survey of children in programmes measuring a) Factors of crime and b) programme perceptions. Qualitative description of service provider views on factors and outcomes

Sample: 309 male/females children 15 – 18 years of age. All were either in Secure Care or had just completed a variety of Diversion programmes.

Measures: Self-developed measures – developed from literature and a panel’s input

Measures designed for low reading level (Grade 5 – 7)

MEASURES USED

Family Risk Behaviour measure (FRB) (22 items; α = .859, “negative” scale)

Service perceptions Index (SPI) (11 items; α = .796; “positive” scale)

Programme Impact Index (PI) (11 items; α .847; “positive” scale)

Post Programme Behaviour Index (PPB) (29 items: α = .910; “positive” scale)

Post programme Insight (PPI) (12 Items; α = .865; “positive” scale)

Post programme remorse (PPR) (12 items: α = .765; “positive” scale)

MAIN RESULTS OF YOUTH STUDY: FW INDICATORS

Home ownership: 80% of parents owned the houses they lived in and in

Mobility: 42% social mobility. Marital status: 66% single parent families. (In 39% of

cases both parents took care of children, 46% grew up primarily with a single caregiver.)

Education: 54% of parents have an education below 10th Grade

Family composition: Mean family size 3.5 members. The smallest number was 2 and the largest 8

Alcohol consumption: 84% of respondents indicated a decrease in the family’s alcohol consumption over the past 5 years

INSTANCES WHERE INDICATORS PLAYED A SIGNIFICANT ROLE

Indicator Dimension P – value Interpretation

Residential mobility

•Family Risk Behaviour•Service Perceptions

.041

.026

Less mobile = more riskMore mobile = Less positive about programme

Home ownership Service Perceptions

.037 Own = more positive about programme

Marital status Service Perceptions

.006 Divorced = less positive about programme

Educational level of parent

No differences - -

Alcohol consumption

No differences - -

Family Size No differences - -

Language No differences - -

OTHER POTENTIAL INDICATORS OF CHILD WELL BEING

Item Dimension

P-value

Interpretation

Participation in religious group

PPI .045 Participation = More insight

Periodic homelessness

FRBPPR

.016

.046Homeless = more riskAt home = more positive

School attendance

PIPPIPPRPPB

.020

.001

.011

.004

School attending = more impactSchool attending = more insightSchool attending = more remorseSchool attendance = improved behaviour

Child’s drug use prior to offence

PPB .051 Used before = more negative

At home at time of crime

FRBPIPPBPPI

.001

.002

.022

.002

= less problematic family= more impact= improved behaviour= more insight after programme

THE WAY FORWARD (FWI)

System not implemented by Government. Data availability remained a problem Implementation required further work which received

no further budget Author practically tested the FW indices to assess

family QOL in a Botswana Mining Village (2001) where family abuse was reported. Results: FWI identified and confirmed family abuse risk in village. Confirmed results from focus groups and survey

System is currently implemented as part of a case management Information system at a major NGO in welfare called FAMSA (Families South Africa)

PRODUCT LOGO FOR WEB-BASED DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

INDICATOR DATA ENTRY POINTS

SCREENSHOT OF FAMSA CLIENT WELL BEING PROFILE

CONCLUSIONS

The South African Indicator System for use in the welfare sector is under constant development

This system has potential to be adapted for use with youth offender programme evaluation as shown

A few potential programme indicators for youth offenders have been identified that need to be developed and tested in further research