What works to prevent youth violence: evidence summary

Footnotes

1. See the full list of effectiveness classifications in Annex C

2. Factors which might facilitate effectiveness or act as a barrier to effectiveness

3. 'Implementation fidelity' is the degree to which an intervention is delivered as intended

4. Universal programmes are delivered to all pupils in a year group or school) whilst Targeted programmes are implemented with young people who are considered to be at increased risk of engaging in youth violence.

5. Peer contagion refers to the transmission or transfer of violence-related behaviour from one adolescent to another.

6. Research suggests that “Young people encounter multiple and various forms of violence on a daily basis – verbal and physical conflicts with friends, family, or siblings – that are seen simply as part of the fabric of daily life, distinct from what might be understood to be a matter for the police.’ (Batchelor et al., 2019). As such our definition of youth violence encompasses both physical and non-physical violence.

7. Domestic abuse is understood as a particular form of Violence Against Women and Girls (United Nations, 2015). According to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) and Police Scotland, Domestic Abuse is defined as:  Any form of physical, verbal, sexual, psychological or financial abuse which might amount to criminal conduct and which takes place within the context of a relationship. The relationship will be between partners (married, cohabiting, civil partnership or otherwise) or ex-partners. The abuse can be committed in the home or elsewhere including online. Both men and women experience DA but women in Scotland were almost twice as likely as men to have experienced partner abuse since the age of 16 (20.0% and 10.9%, respectively) (Scottish Crime and Justice Survey, 2016/18).

8. This analysis was conducted by Analysts within Justice Analytical Services

9. This is the age breakdown used in the SCJS Main Findings Report

^[1] 41% of all victims were aged 16 to 29 years old.

^[2] 41% of all perpetrators were aged 16 to 29 years old.

10. Changes in the profile of people being convicted for violent crime over time can be visualised using an App created within Justice Analytical Services.

11. Group 1 includes Homicide, Attempted murder & Serious assault, Robbery and other non-sexual violence.

12. Despite a reduction in the size of the cohort of offenders aged 10 to 29 years old, there is no clear trend in youth reconviction rates (for any crime or offense) in the year following an index conviction for a violent crime during the past ten years. This was also true when considering reconviction rates for violent crimes in particular. In 2017-18, 23% of 10-16 year-olds and 9.8% of 17-29 year olds were re-convicted for a violent crime in the year following and index conviction.

13. WHO (2002:15) World Report on Violence and Health

14. see also in this Scottish Government report series, What Works To Reduce Crime (2014) and What Works To Reduce Reoffending (2015) 

15. The interventions listed as out of scope below are predominantly identified as secondary or tertiary prevention and have thus been deemed out of scope.

16. Annex D provides detailed information about each of these evidence classifications.

17. By contrast, a no effect classification has strong or moderate evidence available with no evidence of effect (positive or negative) for preventing youth violence.

18. This approach works towards making sure that the whole school shares the same vision towards reducing violence, and that the school head, teachers, administrative staff, students, parents and the community work together towards this shared goal (WHO, 2019).

Interventions that take a whole school/school-wide approach have been shown to have a positive impact on other student outcomes including school suspensions/exclusions (Bradshaw et al., 2010). Research suggests that school exclusions are associated with a greater risk of violence in young people, and a report by the Scottish Government Youth Justice Improvement Board in 2017 noted that Early school exclusion is one of the strongest predictors of making the transition from the Children’s Hearing System to the adult criminal justice system and ending up in custody. As such, whole-school approaches may have the potential to indirectly influence a young person’s risk of becoming involved in violence. Research examining the impact of reducing school exclusions on the prevention of youth violence outcomes is needed.

19. The programme has four major components: individual level, classroom level, school level, and community.

20. Molnar-Main and Cecil (2014) identified three categories of variables related to the readiness of a school to implement comprehensive prevention initiatives: (i) organizational capacity, which includes resources, structures, and organizational practices of the school; (ii) implementer characteristics, which include buy-in, commitment, and self-efficacy of faculty and staff; and (iii) leadership factors, which include such variables as leadership stability, an ethos of shared leader ship and a commitment to ongoing improvement, encouragement of parental engagement, and a clear understanding on the part of school leaders of the programme requirements

21. Dating Matters has been developed as by the CDC and is a comprehensive, multi-component prevention model “including classroom-delivered programs for sixth to eighth graders, training for parents of sixth to eighth graders, educator training, a youth communications program, and local health department activities to assess capacity and track teen dating violence–related policy and data”.

22. A bystander is “somebody who observes an act of violence, discrimination or other unacceptable or offensive behaviour” (Powell, 2011:8). A bystander can therefore be a friend, classmate, team-mate, colleague, relative or a stranger. Bystander approaches aim to encourage ‘active’ or ‘prosocial’ bystanders to intervene in response to violence incidents (Powell, 2011).

23. These behaviours are centred on bystanders actively intervening to prevent or end violent behaviours among peers.

24. For accessible overviews of the MVP programme, see Scottish Violence Reduction Unit website on MVP or Mentors in Violence Prevention (MVP) via Restorative Justice Coventry

25. Report reviewing evidence on preventing intimate partner and sexual violence against women.

26. This intervention has been noted as having a promising evidence base in terms of preventing violence against women and girls within the Scottish Government report What Works to Prevent Violence Against Women and Girls: A Summary of the Evidence.

27. It should be noted that the relationships between attitudes held by an individual and their behaviour is not always straightforward and that “attitude change does not guarantee behaviour change” (Flood, 2006; 28). However, it is important to measure attitudes as they may shape broader social norms, which do in turn influence behaviours (Scottish Social Attitudes Survey, 2014). Further, evidence does suggest that attitude is linked to perpetration.

28. It is important to bear in mind that gang activity within the USA is arguably different to that in Scotland and the UK.

29. Indicated by lower rates of arrest for violence and crime than in the control group

30. The control groups are made up of young people who were not participating in the sports based programmes.

31. Within this evaluation, involvement in violent behaviour was determined using items that assessed whether young people had attacked someone with the intent to harm, carried a gun to school, or beaten someone up.

32. Other examples of deterrence based juvenile awareness programmes include JOLT, Texas Face-to-Face Programme, SQUIRES and Stay Straight (Petrosino et al., 2013)

33. It should be noted that preliminary investigations of this nature should only be taken as indicative, rather than robust evidence of “what works”. The authors note that “a before-and-after quasi-experimental design with a comparison group was chosen as it offered a pragmatic yet robust approach (Robson et al., 2001, Stoto and Cosler, 2008). It is, however, acknowledged that such a design is susceptible to a number of biases”.

34. Sources include: (i) Police Recorded Crime, (ii) Scottish Crime and Justice Survey (SCJS), (iii) Emergency Hospital Admissions due to Assault and (iv) Criminal Proceedings.

35. This publication does not include evaluations or information about the effectiveness of these projects.

36. These criteria have been informed by What Works to Prevent Violence Against Women and Girls: A Summary of the Evidence report

37. The evidence presented within this report is primarily from quantitative research published in peer-reviewed publications and organisational reports, however qualitative research is identified as important in understanding the effectiveness of an intervention.

38. This review is limited by the fact that we only drew upon evidence published in the English language

39. By contrast, a no effect classification has strong or moderate evidence available with no evidence of effect (positive or negative) for preventing youth violence.

40. An overview of the Scottish policy context relating to violence and violence reduction can be found within Chapter 3 of the report “Taking Stock of Violence in Scotland”.

41. The interventions listed as out of scope below are predominantly identified as secondary or tertiary prevention and have thus been deemed out of scope. For more information regarding primary prevention, see ScotPHN (2019) Violence Prevention Framework.