1 / 20

Children and Crime – Guidelines for the development of an Index of Youth Crime Indicators

Willem JH Roestenburg Associate Professor: University of Johannesburg Co-Director: Afri.Yze Consult (Pty) Ltd. & A.Yze LLC (USA). Children and Crime – Guidelines for the development of an Index of Youth Crime Indicators.

kaloni
Download Presentation

Children and Crime – Guidelines for the development of an Index of Youth Crime Indicators

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Willem JH Roestenburg Associate Professor: University of Johannesburg Co-Director: Afri.Yze Consult (Pty) Ltd. & A.Yze LLC (USA) Children and Crime – Guidelines for the development of an Index of Youth Crime Indicators

  2. 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 Objectives of the presentation

  3. 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 Why are social indicators not used more extensively in the South African social welfare field?

  4. 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 The Indicators of Family Well being Study (Roestenburg: 1999)

  5. 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 Method of development

  6. 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. Results of the FW-Indicator study

  7. Overall best fitting Indicator model

  8. 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 = - Key indicators in FW study

  9. Illustration of Index weights: Power management

  10. Family Power Management Responsibility management Goal Inclination Emotional functioning Value-based functioning Indicator Indices

  11. 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) Example 2: Characteristics of Youth Offender study

  12. 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 ProgrammeBehaviour 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) Measures used

  13. 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 Main results of Youth Study: FW indicators

  14. Instances where indicators played a significant role

  15. Other potential indicators of child well being

  16. 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) The way forward (FWI)

  17. Product Logo for web-based data management system

  18. Indicator data entry points

  19. Screenshot of FAMSA Client Well being profile

  20. 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 programmeevaluation as shown A few potential programme indicators for youth offenders have been identified that need to be developed and tested in further research Conclusions

More Related