Jo Hambly

CONTENTS

Page

 .   Introduction............................................................................

2.   Background............................................................................. 1

3.   The Purpose and Scope of the Evaluation.................................... 2

4.   The Findings........................................................................... 4

5.   Conclusions and Recommendations........................................... 15

6.   Appendices........................................................................... 18

Jo Hambly acknowledges the generous and very open help of Clive, Laura and the young runaways team, who gave generously of their time and interest, in undertaking this evaluation

The Evaluation Trust,

Phone/fax 0118 966 4864

e-mail sarahdeltufo@evaluationtrust.org

In Plymouth during the year Apr 2005 – March 2006, 678 children under the age of 18 years, were reported to Police as being missing.  The 678 children totalled 1280 missing person episodes being recorded; an average of 1.9 episodes per child.  In response to the local problem and emerging Government recommendations (Young Runaways 2002, Missing Person Guidance 2005, City of Plymouth Missing Children and Young People (draft) 2006) the Police service led the development of a young runaway’s project in Plymouth in October 2006.  This report details the interim findings of an evaluation carried out by the Evaluation Trust.

It is estimated that each year 129,000 incidents of young people running away overnight take place in the UK[1].  In 2002 the Government produced a recommendations paper ‘Young Runaways’[2], which focuses much of its attention to the causes of young people running away, factors which may influence the likelihood of the young person running again, and the risk this may place them in.   The report identifies running away as an indicator of underlying issues in a young person’s life which need to be addressed in order to make an impact on running.

Running away is viewed as risky behaviour, and the understanding is that vulnerable young people may not fully understand the risks and consequences that can be associated with running away.  There is established data from the 2002 national Runaways guidance, a variety of Runaways projects and the Youth Justice Board, that show that  running away from home as leading to significant risks of both victimisation and perpetration of crime.  Young runaways can therefore be in need of different types of intervention according to their level of need and their reasons for running away.

One of the key issues for young people, as stated in the report is that when issues in their lives overwhelm them they often have no one to talk to and parents similarly are lacking support in how to manage the situation.  The report, in agreement with the ACPO (2005) report on missing persons[3], recommends a multi-agency approach; drawing on many resources to solve the problems perceived by the young person that promotes talking through issue with whoever is appropriate rather than running.   It is a child centred approach which promotes support in many areas of a child’s life; school, family, friends, drug/alcohol, crime and many more.

In terms of ‘what works’ several young runaways projects, with a variety of models, have been evaluated[4].  Successful models, such as the Lancashire project, have shown a reduction in young runaway cases from 508 to 343 (32% reduction) in one year.  The project demonstrated a number of successes including; efficiency savings to other partners, a reduction in crime committed by young runaways, a reduction in running away (both repeat and initial), a reduction in social exclusion of the young people and the aversion of risk, as each missing person has the potential to have a tragic outcome.

With this in mind the Plymouth Young Runaways Project (PYRP) was set up in October 2006 following guidance from the Social Exclusion Unit (2002) and ACPO (2005); a full multi-agency working team was operational in January 2007.  The project is funded until March 2008 by a mix of Neighbourhood Renewal Funding (NRF), direct Police service funds, Plymouth City Council and Drug and Alcohol Action Team (DAAT) funding.  The project operates by members of the team contacting individual young people who have been referred following their return to their parental or carers home; a ‘management return’ model.

In October PYRP contracted the Evaluation Trust to undertake an independent evaluation of the project in order to:

ü      Give an overview of the project

ü      Give an overview of what difference the project has made to service users using existing data

ü      Give an overview of what difference the project has made in relation to the project aims to date

ü      To make explicit the intervention methodologies used within the multi-agency team

ü      To identify good practice and emerging models to share with other agencies

The evaluation is viewed as an opportunity for the project to look in and identify any learning or action that can take place within the team.  The Consultants participative approach is one that aims to be developmental, responsive and supportive and will be useful to all stakeholders involved to strengthen the organisation.  The evaluation will use both quantitative (target related data) and qualitative (interviews, service user feedback) to provide a holistic, effective evaluation of the PYRP.

Methods

Due to the time limited nature of the evaluation and the need for effective dissemination of findings, the evaluation was divided in to 2 phases of data collection and report writing:

Phase 1 focussing on providing a descriptive overview of the project, the team and an internal view of successes through analysis of monitoring data.  Interviews with multi-agency team members give an opportunity to explore the intervention model(s) used by the team in their work with young runaways, and to share good practice.

Phase 1 (November/December 2007):

ü      Documentation review

ü      Desk analysis of existing monitoring data (as required by funders)

ü      1:1 interviews with 11 members of multi-agency team to explore intervention approaches and give reflection

ü      Produce interim report (December 2007)

ü      Facilitate event  to disseminate findings with stakeholders in the City

Phase 2 will focus on views from those who work with the team; the partner agencies themselves in order to explore the impact it has had on them; the service users (young runaways and their parents/carers) to explore the softer outcomes for the families involved.

        Phase 2 (January/February 2008):

ü      Telephone interviews with key partners

ü      Interviews with 10 young runaways

ü      Focus group with up to 10 parents/carers

ü      Produce final report

Throughout the data collection and analysis the emphasis is on development and learning; learning from successes and difficulties and making recommendations for future changes that may benefit key stakeholders.

An overview of the project: 

This section of the report draws on all of the data collected in phase 1 (desk research, monitoring data, documentation analysis and interviews with staff) to provide an overview of the project; describe the aims, the team, organisational structures and activities.

The PYRP is a jointly funded multi-agency team who work with young runaways once they have been found and are back at home with their parents/carers.  PYRP is an unusual project in that it is led by the Police service; projects of this nature are usually run by the community and voluntary sector and occasionally YOT teams[5] but very rarely by the police themselves.  The project is jointly funded by Neighbourhood Renewal Fund/NRF (50.9%), the Police (38% in kind), the Drug and Alcohol Action Team/DAAT (5.8% in kind) and Children’s Services (5.3%), see Chart 1 below.  The partnerships and funding commitments were established by the police ready for the bid to NRF in 2006.

Chart 1: Funding of PYRP