Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...................................................................................................................1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Angela Carr

Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...................................................................................................................1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Angela Carr

2008

visibility

…

description

225 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

necessarily represent the views of the department of Internal Affairs.

Figures (38)

Table 1: Whaia Te Tika participant’s gender, age and ethnicity 1997-1998 and 1998-1999

Table 2: Whaia Te Tika presenting issues 1997-1998 and 1998-1999 (?=not measured, In addition, between November 1997 and November 1998, nine (9) young people were referred to the programme but, due to excess participation numbers at the time of referral, they could not be accepted. Seven (7) of these were truanting school and two (2) demonstrated anger management problems but none were involved in any petty criminal activities. They were referred to agencies which dealt specifically with truancy, training and anger management.

Table 3: Whaia Te Tika outcomes 1997-1998 and 1998-1999 Furthermore, five (5) of the seven (7) participants who left the programme before completing their personal pathway plans, did so in order to return to whanau living in other parts of New Zealand. Indeed, one of the positive outcomes of the project has been the improvement in the relationships between young people and their whanau. As indicated by members of the Whaia Te Tika management committee, even if a young person is removed from his or her whanau, the psychological connection with the whanau continues. Table 3 shows the different employment, education or training opportunities pursued by the thirty-four (34) youth who completed individual pathway plans and left the project to implement them (on a full-time basis) between November 1997 and November 1998. Similarly, between November 1998 and November 1999, twenty (20) programme participants pursued their pathway plans into a range of training, education and employment activities and opportunities (Table 3).

Table 4: Gisborne Crime Prevention Project gender, age and ethnicity 1998 and 1999 Between January and December 1999, the proportion of individuals attending the centre, who identified themselves as Maori, appeared to increase (to 6031 or 80%). However, during 1998, at least 30% of attending rangatahi did not provide information regarding their ethnicity, age and/or gender. Indeed, in 1999, the proportion of attendances made by individuals aged 15 years and under increased (to 3915 or 52%), but so did the proportion of attendances made by individuals aged over 15 years (3647 or 48%). Similarly, the number of male (3766) and female (3796) During this time, the majority (56%) of attendances were made by Maori (2836), with 14% (714) being made by non Maori and the remainder being by individuals of unknown ethnicity (1518).

Table 5: Gisborne Crime Prevention Project presenting issues 1998 and 1999 Clearly, there are some large differences between the presenting issues identified in 1998 and 1999. To some degree, this change is likely to have resulted from better record keeping during the second year, and more awareness of the nature of issues presented. It is also likely to have been influenced by changes in the project focus such that those young people who attended the RHC on a drop in basis during 1998 differed from those who participated in the more structured programmes introduced in 1999,

Figure 1: Incidents of misconduct recorded by the Gisborne Crime Prevention Project during 1998 and 1999. During the first year of operation (1998), forty-seven (47) incidents were recorded. Between April 1998 and December 1998, a slight downward trend was observed in the number of incidents recorded (Figure 1). This trend was particularly evident during the final three months of the recording period.

Using these variables, a score of 15 or under is considered low risk, a score of 16 - 27 is considered medium risk, and a score of 28 or over is considered high risk. Scores concerning risk of drug and alcohol abuse are considered both within and separate from the overall risk score.

Table 7: Gender and age for Te Puna A Rona participants, 1998 and 1999 Background information and presenting issues In 1999, only male participants were accepted onto the project. Of those who completed the block courses, three (3) were aged 13 years, two (2) were aged 14 years, and one (1) each were aged 11, 12 15 and 16 years. The other young person did not complete the block courses and his age was not recorded.

Table 8: Overall pre and post course risk assessment data for1998 (shaded areas indicate high risk young people) ° High risk for individual measures (such as drug/substance abuse) was indicated by a score of 5 on the risk assessment measure. is ! In 1998 the risk assessment measure did not include categories for cultural identity, self control or self harm. Therefore, high risk was indicated by a score of 15 and above, amedium risk as a score between 10 and 15, and low risk as a score of 10 or under.

Table 9: Overall pre and post course risk assessment data for 1999 Once again, this reduction in risk is particularly creditable given that two of the risk criteria (age at first incident and prior criminal behaviour), with an overall combined score of 73, were fixed and non mutable. All of the other risk criteria reduced (Figure 3). The most notable changes occurred for school disciplinary problems (- 20), negative peer relationships and associations (- 22), and self control including demonstrations of anger and violence (- 29). Also of note was a reduction in self harming activities (-11). In comparison, the participant who did not complete the courses did not demonstrate any reduction in at risk behaviours.

Figure 3: Te Puna A Rona Participants changes in overall risk assessment measures 1999

Table 10: Otara crime prevention project age, ethnicity and gender of participants, June 1998-May 1999

Table 11: Otara crime prevention project age, ethnicity and gender of participants, June 1999-April 2000

Table 12: Otara crime prevention project participant’s presenting issues, June 1999-April 2000 Case studies Case study data was collected for twelve (12) of the twenty-seven (27) young people with whom the CPWS worker was intensively involved between June 1998 and May 1999. The latter is presented below, together with data from six (6) of the eighteen (18) young people with whom he worked intensively between June 1999 and April 2000. Of the six (6) cases identified between June 1999 and April 2000, three (3) first came in contact with the case worker between June 1998 and May 1999 and were also identified in the cases presented for that period.

Table 13: Otara crime prevention project case study’s presenting issues, June 1998-May 1999 Table 14 shows the main presenting issues for the six (6) young people identified in case studies between June 1999 and April 2000. Overall, drug and alcohol abuse was the most common issue, followed by involvement with justice agencies, committing

Table 14: Otara crime prevention project case study’s presenting issues, June 1999-April 2000 Participation Of the 12 case studies collected between June 1998 and May 1999, all had regular (at least weekly) contact with the youth worker over different periods of time. Of these, youth worker involvement with four of them is ongoing, and three have moved on to participate in other activities (including a TOPS course in cobblestoning, a music course and drug and alcohol counselling, and a KAATS course aimed at preparing individuals to enter employment) but remain in contact with the youth worker who is monitoring their progress. property related offences, disengagement/alienation from family, and non attendance at school.

Because the participants were encouraged to work through their plans in their own time, and to set goals that were meaningful to them as individuals, these components were offered on an individual, as per need basis. Components were delivered in collaboration with a range of other Trust and external agency programmes.

Tablel6: Awhinatia Te Whanau project participants by gender, ethnicity and age, 1998 an 1999

Table 18: Awhinatia Te Whanau project participant presenting issues, 1999

Table 17: Awhinatia Te Whanau project participant presenting issues, 1998 The issues most frequently presented by the eighteen (18) young people who became active project participants during 1999 included minor offences, drug and alcohol abuse and financial stress. These and other issues are identified in Table 18:

Briefly describe in one page or less the process of setting up your project. For example: What kinds of things needed to be done for your project to get started? How much time did it take? What issues did you encounter along the way?

tow do rangatahi come to be on your project? Who refers them?

What were their main reasons for leaving? How many rangatahi on the project are aged:

Estimate the number of rangatahi on the project who have the following problems: 7. Presenting issues

Briefly describe the main individual or group activities offered by the project or attach examples of weekly work plans or other programme documents if this is easier.

List the agencies that you have had contact with or have worked with over the past twelve months: 10. Community outcomes Attach any other relevant comments or feedback about the project from the rangatahi.

Matua Whangai O Kirikiriroa: for inclusion into 3 Week Block Course Programme Appendix F: Te Puna A Rona 1998 client record form

What is the level of your alcohol or drug use?

A summary of information collected from programme entry and exit, using Maatua Whangai’s risk assessment form. Note that the first two factors, age at first incident and prior criminal behaviour will not change from before to after the course. The summary shows the significant reductions in risk as measured by this tool. Participant 10’s score is included as a crude control comparison, because he did not complete the course but was reassessed at the course completion and his score remained unchanged. Maatua Whangai has not assessed other variables, so there is an assumption that reductions in risk were because of the course. Maatua Whangai Risk Assessment Summary

This is a summary of Hamilton Police offence histories for the participants. The purpose of collecting this information is to “reality-check” any real reductions in offending of the participants. Summary of Hamilton Police Offences History for TPAR Participants

Young Person’s Interview on Entry to Programme Appendix L: Te Puna A Rona Needs Assessment

Would you like help with any of the above things? (tick the boxes that apply in 5th column) What are the things you hope the programme might help you with? (last column) Is there anything else?

Executive Summary

Between 1997 and 1998, Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) Community Advisors worked with community groups to establish crime prevention projects under the Community Project Workers Scheme (CPWS). The projects were located in areas identified under the 1997 Government Crime Prevention Package as five of New Zealand's crime "hotspots":

Each community group received funding for the salary of one community project worker ($36,800 GST exclusive per project, per annum). Project workers were responsible for developing programmes targeting "at risk" young people.

Specifically, "at risk" young people were defined as those who had come to the attention of government and community based organisations because they were:

• at risk of offending or already committing offences;

• only attending school sporadically or not at all;

• showing symptoms of being "disengaged" or "alienated" from their families and communities

At risk indicators were defined as violent and threatening behaviour, attraction to gangs, misuse of alcohol or drugs, and low self esteem.

The programmes developed by the CPWS worker were to aim at facilitating the following outcomes:

• positive behavioural changes • increased personal strength and self reliance • increased positive participation in their communities, whänau and schools • increased community capacity to effectively deliver programmes and projects targeted to at-risk young people • improved co-ordination between groups involved with youth at risk of offending By May 2000, each of the projects had been operating for at least two years. During this time, CPWS workers engaged intensively with more than 200 young people. Definition of intensive engagement varied by project but always included contact specifically aimed at working through and changing identified behaviours. In addition, at least twice this number (another 400) came in contact with the CPWS workers during less structured events (i.e. wänanga and recreational activities).

Of the young people with whom the CPWS workers engaged, at least 65 percent were Mäori, and between 10 and 25 percent were of a Pacific Island ethnic group. Most (approximately 48% in the first year of operation and 65% in the second) were aged between 14 and 16 years old, and the majority (at least 70%) were male. Almost all (more than 80 percent) of the young people who became involved with the project workers were identified as committing criminal offences, and the majority of these had come to the notice of local law enforcement authorities. More than two thirds (70 percent) were reported to be chronically or intermittently abusing drugs and/or alcohol, including marijuana, solvents, amphetamines and narcotics.

Overwhelmingly, CPWS workers identified family problems and/or alienation as a significant contributor to these at risk behaviours. In some communities, more than half of the young people participating in the projects were no longer residing with their parents. At least half of the project participants were chronically truanting, expelled from, or no longer enrolled in an educational institution.

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the CPWS projects, a range of information was collected during the first two years of each project's operation. This information included annual evaluation reports completed by the CPWS worker and agency; contact between the CPWS worker, agency and the local DIA community advisor; visits by a DIA research analyst; and administration records such as project proposals, client records and case studies, and application information.

In addition, literature concerning crime prevention project best practice was reviewed and compared with the processes undertaken by each of the CPWS projects.

The CPWS projects implemented a range of processes to match the diverse social conditions in which they operated. These included activities and interventions identified in crime prevention literature as particularly effective in preventing or addressing crime. These activities included:

• clarifying and communicating behavioural norms by way of community based mentoring programmes, pro-social role models • involvement of the major influences in young people's lives, including family, home, school/educational programmes, marae and cultural affiliations, and coordination across these to consistently provide positive reinforcement • accurate identification of at risk young people by way of risk assessment and peer review • graduated systems of intervention providing intensive, high contact services to high risk young people and lower contact programmes as the level of risk decreased • structured and focused programmes • interventions aimed at addressing offender characteristics associated with individual criminal activities, using behavioural methods to improve young people's reasoning and social competency skills • positive reinforcements for clearly identified pro-social behaviour • continuous review and improvement of the processes involved These processes were particularly effective where projects were supported by agencies involved in a range of services for young people. Specifically, projects were effective where co-ordination across services proceeded in an integrated manner with clearly defined mechanisms for internal referral. Locating CPWS workers in such agencies provided them with the back-up and support to fully develop their projects and to be effective in very stressful working environments. They were able to share information and gain assistance and relief from co-workers. Where specific issues arose for project participants, internal referral provided easy access to specialist services, and ongoing monitoring of the client.

Furthermore, working alongside related professionals provided access to a greater network of associated community groups and agencies, than working alone.

Project effectiveness was measured in terms of the outcomes identified for project participants and the community. Individual outcomes identified across projects included:

In addition, community stakeholders in each of the locations being served by a Crime Prevention CPWS project reported that the activities of the CPWS worker had:

• enhanced the work of, and reduced the strain on, other agencies working with local youth populations • provided important and effective assistance, information and resources • facilitating networking and referral between agencies These stakeholders included representatives from the Police, schools, DCYFS (Department of Child, Youth and Family Service, previously CYPFA), Iwi Social Services and other community groups. It was also indicated that the CPWS worker played an important role in facilitating interaction between the young people, their whänau and other agencies. Furthermore, all of the CPWS projects were identified as playing an important role in monitoring the progress of young people and their whänau and ensuring that they did not "slip through the cracks".

However, in addition to demonstrating the effective implementation of methods aimed at reducing at risk behaviours, the overall evaluation of the Crime Prevention CPWS projects also highlighted implications for ongoing development of such interventions. Overwhelmingly, project stakeholders identified a lack of resources for project development. In particular, they identified the need for increased funding to cover project expenses other than the project worker salary, including the costs of contributing to ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the projects and participants.

Similarly, stakeholders indicated the need for administering agencies to provide sufficient time for communities to identify resources, develop capacity and implement projects. It was suggested that three years was not long enough for projects to set up programme and administration systems, effect long term change, and address issues of sustainable funding. The evaluation also demonstrates that over longer periods even more significant outcomes could be expected from the youth intervention programmes.

Another problem associated with effective project implementation was the persistence of negative community attitudes towards project participants. Young people and project staff described how community groups continued to treat them as criminals even after they had stopped offending. This was reflected in an unwillingness of potential employers to hire young people associated with the projects. It was also shown in the continued suspicion placed on them by the police. Indeed, in some cases it appeared that participation in the projects made young people even more vulnerable to these attitudes and labels as it focused attention upon them. Furthermore, many of projects facilitated more effective monitoring of young people. While this is an important outcome, the results of the evaluation suggest that monitoring activities should focus as much, if not more, on the positive behaviours demonstrated by young people as the negative. This can contribute to changes in community attitudes and reinforce the changes made by the young people.

Project stakeholders also identified the need for changes in the services offered by community groups and agencies. Specifically, they expressed frustration with the lack of appropriate referral options within some communities. Furthermore, even where referral options existed, project stakeholders indicated that service administration methods often prevented access to them. In particular, agency staff indicated a significant amount of their time was used establishing relationships with social workers and government officials in order to access services for their young people, only to return to "square one" when the worker left or agency restructured. Furthermore, many of the workers felt that their project was seen by government agencies as a "last resort" or "dumping ground". As such, they received some of the most difficult cases, but no resources to deal with them.

In order to address these issues it is important that the successes of the projects, and the positive behaviour changes demonstrated by young people, are recognised by other community groups and agencies. It is also important that the projects work with other service providers to define mechanisms for referral, including the appropriateness of the service for the young person, and the resources which would need to accompany referred young people.

Overall Recommendations

1. Continued emphasis should be placed on ensuring that positive role models and mentors are culturally appropriate to the young people with whom they work. This is especially important where negative stereotypes are common for a specific cultural identity. It should take account of differences between cultures within a specific ethnic group (i.e. urban compared to rural Mäori) or grouping (i.e. distinguishing between different Pacific Island identities such as Samoan, Tongan, Niuean, Cook Island, Tokelauan, etc.) 2. Fund administering agencies (especially government) could enhance the holistic approach, especially in terms of young peoples increased involvement in social and economic activities, by further encouraging support for the community projects from other relevant agencies working in the locality. In particular, fund administering agencies should receive the resources and assitance to work further with business, educational and training providers so that young people leaving the projects are able to access real opportunities. In terms of the CP-CPWS projects, intervention could include resources and assistance to facilitate the formation of partnerships between DIA and other agencies such as local authorities, Skill New Zealand, Schools and Polytechnics, Department of Labour, etc., and to embed maintenance of these partnerships into the core activities of each of these agencies.

3. Fund administering agencies should ensure, where at all possible, that any additional community based crime prevention projects are based in agencies that offer a range of social services. These should include other youth services for varying levels of at risk behaviour, and links to services targeting the whänau, schools and other community resources associated with the young people.

4. Risk assessment tools and methods used within each of the current projects should be further tested to establish their validity in measuring at risk behaviours and their reliability in consistently measuring these behaviours across different at risk youth. Specifically, the risk assessment tool developed for the Te Puna A Rona project could be trialed in some of the other CPWS projects. Similarly, the methods used in the Whaia Te Tika and Awhinatia Te Whänau projects could be further reviewed by other professionals external to the agencies involved.

5. The CPWS projects should be assisted to clearly define the type of young people they are able and willing to work with. Although target populations were identified in the project proposals, some of these changed in response to community and project developments. Furthermore, in some cases a lack of recognition from referring agencies meant that a number of referrals did not fit the specified criteria. Therefore, agencies need a mechanism to effectively communicate these criteria to referring agencies. For young people who do not fit the criteria, clearly defined methods for referring to other agencies must be established, along with knowledge of the most appropriate agencies for such referrals.

6. Referring agencies should ensure that referrals conform to the projects' target population. In particular, intensive assessment procedures should be applied to particularly violent offenders before they can be referred on to community organisations.

7. Development of community projects aimed at specific outcomes should emphasise the need for structured interventions. Although a drop in centre may provide a useful place for attracting young people, and co-ordinating workers, it should not be the sole focus of crime prevention efforts. Rather, such centres must be accompanied by services, activities and/or programmes specifically aimed at reducing at risk behaviours. In order to facilitate this emphasis, government should target agencies with the capacity to deliver such interventions and/or assist them to develop this capacity prior to initiating intervention. An implicit part of developing this capacity is the recognition of positive trends within communities upon which to build. Specification of such trends could be requested within project proposals.

8. Individuals and groups working with young people at risk should be identified for their skills and connections and encouraged to use these to enhance the nature of the interventions they provide.

9. Further support should be given to community groups and agencies to allow them to develop and test intervention methods specific to their own needs and cultural context. In particular, fund administering agencies should encourage them to access feedback from the young people involved in them, and ensure that these young people are represented on wider community forums. Such representation might also include obtaining opinions and ideas from young people and passing them directly to local authorities and central government.

10.Collection of data which accurately measures change and documents progress requires commitment from within the fund administering agency, to allow time for planning, co-ordination and analysis.

11.It is essential that all projects be supported in developing data collection and monitoring methods that accurately define and measure outcomes. These systems should be community wide and include information about positive activities as well as those that are less desirable. As such, they should contribute to facilitating community recognition of any changes made by project participants. In terms of the CP-CPWS projects, DIA staff could encourage representatives from other government agencies to assist with the development of such tracking/monitoring systems.

12.The relationship between community agencies, urban Mäori and iwi authorities, and government agencies needs to be enhanced so that there are clear mechanisms for interagency referral. Specifically, these mechanisms should define how and when government agencies can refer young people to the projects, including the resources and support required. They should also define the means by which CPWS workers may refer project participants, and/or their whänau, to government agencies, or work with government agencies to resolve issues of concern to project participants, and/or their whänau. In terms of the CP-CPWS projects, intervention could include additional resources for liaison between DIA workers and other government employees, as well as urban Mäori and iwi authorities to establish specific guidelines for these processes. In order for such an intervention to become sustainable, effort would need to be made to ensure that the mechanisms through which it operates are embedded in the agencies' core systems and processes.

13.In terms of Mäori development, intervention for Mäori is most effective when it is undertaken by Mäori. However, where a range of Mäori service providers exist, it is essential that all appropriate options be explored. Referrals to these providers should be made on the basis of need as well as culture. As such, prior experience that the youth have had with each provider (including iwi authorities) should always be considered. Where this experience has been negative (or nonbeneficial), alternatives should be sought. Furthermore, where urban Mäori authorities are working effectively with local iwi, allowance could be made for diversion of some iwi targeted funds to the urban Mäori authority.

14.In terms of the CP-CPWS projects, future targeting of resources needs to allow time for Community Advisors to explore all options when projects are being established. It is imperative that Mäori service providers be effectively assessed from within their own communities, before the project is established.

15.In the case of urban and culturally diverse populations, there is an additional need for government support to assist with co-ordination between groups. Providing additional funds for such activities may be appropriate, but the significant need in these locations is more likely to result in the diversion of such funding to address the immediate requirements of the young people involved. Rather, it may be necessary for government officials to assume a pro-active role in leading this activity.

16.Identification of questions regarding the nature of the relationship between at risk behaviours and status, as well as issues regarding the targeting of project resources point to the need to further test the effectiveness of specific interventions. In particular, the difference between individual and group approaches to intervention, the different needs of different age groups, gender and ethnicity.

17.Given that community projects appear to take considerable time to develop, particularly in terms of community capacity and co-ordination, evaluation of outcomes should only occur once the project has had time to achieve its objectives or outputs (i.e. at least three years after initiation). However, in order for this to happen, data collection and periodic analysis needs to be an ongoing process. 18.The initial funding period should be extended to account for the time taken to develop projects and effect outcomes. It is recommended that at least five years be allowed for this process. Furthermore, decisions regarding ongoing funding after this period should be made in sufficient time for alternative options to be explored, without detracting from project delivery. Ideally, there would be no time periods put on funding duration. Rather, projects and funding options could be reviewed annually to assess the feasibility of both.

19.Government agencies should work together to co-ordinate statistical reporting boundaries between police, local authorities, statistics New Zealand, central government and other relevant agencies. 20.In all cases, projects require increased funding to cover project expenses other than the salaries of the project workers.

21.The development of effective data collection methods requires additional resource allocation. Resources should either provide project administrators with the means to contract evaluation professionals, or provide them with time and training to develop their own skills and put these into practice. 22.In terms of ongoing development of crime prevention projects, there is clearly a need to develop and fund projects targeting at risk youth under the age of 13 years. This is especially true in isolated communities and those where culture encourages participation as a family group, such that individuals are likely to bring along younger brothers and sisters (i.e. Mäori).

23.The data also suggests a need for a similar project addressing the needs of high risk young women (especially Mäori), and for medium risk young people who are not yet committing crimes but are still considered disadvantaged.

Introduction

The Community Project Workers Scheme

The Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) Community Project Workers Scheme (CPWS) focuses on supporting agencies working with the most alienated groups of atrisk young people. Specifically, it provides a salary for a worker to work with youth who do not identify with mainstream organisations.

The scheme operates within a community development framework and works with the at-risk young people in their social and community context. CPWS funding is given to agencies varying from small rural based groups to more formally structured provincial or urban organisations. Department of Internal Affairs Community Advisors provide ongoing support and project development advice to the agencies.

Decisions on the location of CPWS projects are made on the basis of an assessment or stock-take of youth needs and services in the region. The stock-take of youth needs and services is carried out by the Department of Internal Affairs Community Advisors in consultation with community organisations and government agencies in the region. CPWS projects are selected in areas of greatest need. If these areas do not have an appropriate community agency already set up, Community Advisors work developmentally with the community toward establishing a project and agency base.

The Crime Prevention Package

In 1997 the Government made funding available for 5 new CPWS salaries under the Budget 1997 Youth at Risk, Crime Prevention package ($36,800 GST exclusive per project, per annum). These projects were intended to focus specifically on at-risk young people aged 14-20 years who have problems that are likely to lead to offending, and who are failing to respond to conventional helping services. At risk young people are defined as those who have come to the attention of government and community based organisations because they are:

• at risk of offending or are already committing offences;

• attend school sporadically or not at all;

• show symptoms of being "disengaged" or "alienated" from their families and communities.

At risk indicators are defined as violent and threatening behaviour, attraction to gangs, misuse of alcohol or drugs, and low self esteem.

The intended outcomes of the scheme, under the Budget 1997 Youth at Risk Crime Prevention package, are as follows:

Individual

• positive behavioural changes • increased personal strength and self reliance • increased positive participation in their communities, whänau and schools

Community

• increased community capacity to effectively deliver programmes and projects targeted to at-risk young people • improved co-ordination between groups involved with youth at risk of offending Agencies wishing to access CPWS funding, under the Budget 1997 Youth at Risk Crime Prevention package, needed to fulfil the following criteria:

• targeting youth who are most at risk of offending, or who are already committing minor offences, in specific high-risk communities • using a youth development approach • including both individual support and community development activities • being located within an organisation with the capacity to supervise and support a CPWS worker, and deliver and manage the project effectively • reaching the most marginalised youth in the area • co-operating with the DIA monitoring and evaluation process and the evaluator of the Budget 1997 Youth at Risk Crime Prevention package Five areas were selected for the Youth at Risk Crime Prevention CPWS projects, on the basis of high incidence of youth offending and at risk variables. These were:

By locating the projects in the most difficult youth crime areas, the Department of Internal Affairs aimed to provide services where they were most needed and achieve robust evidence about effectiveness and transferability of the project approach.

Evaluation Methodology and Context

At the end of each year of operation, each individual project was required to provide a range of data regarding the nature, process, outputs and outcomes of their activities. This was entered onto an annual evaluation form (Appendix A) and returned to their local DIA community advisor. The methods by which this data was collected varied according to project, but each included consideration of client records, case studies, client and stakeholder feedback, CPWS worker observations and activity records. Some projects also undertook structured interviewing and/or external evaluations.

The data provided by the projects was analysed and evaluated by the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) Research Unit. In addition, a representative from the Research Unit visited each project annually to advise on data collection, obtain observational information and consult with project staff and community stakeholders. The information collected during these visits was also fed into the evaluations.

Information regarding project outcomes was primarily presented in the form of correlation and temporal sequence observations. None of the evaluations included comparisons between participant and non-participant populations and outcomes were not controlled for extraneous influences. Therefore, it is impossible to say with absolute certainty whether project outcomes were purely the result of the CPWS worker intervention, partly the result of the CPWS worker intervention, or whether they would have occurred regardless of this intervention. Similarly, where outcomes relate to reduced offending, it may be that the majority of the young people would not have re-offended, even if they had not participated in the project. Alternatively, it could be that they have simply become more careful offenders and are no longer getting caught.

In order to assess whether participant outcomes were related to their involvement with the project, project process was compared with evidence from the literature concerning the relative effectiveness of different crime prevention methods. By comparing project process with evidence from the literature, the means by which specific outcomes have been achieved under controlled conditions could be compared with the means used in the CPWS projects. From this comparison, inference could be made about the likelihood that the project contributed to the outcomes.

In terms of the literature used to evaluate the processes of the CPWS projects, specific attention was given to a document entitled "Preventing Crime: What works, what doesn't, what's promising" by Sherman, Gottfredson, MacKenzie, Eck, Reuter and Bushway, in collaboration with members of the Graduate Programme, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland (1998). This document was prepared for the United States National Institute of Justice, in response to a request from the Attorney General for a comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of Department of Justice Grants in preventing crime.

In response to this request, the authors of the 1998 publication independently reviewed relevant scientific literature for in excess of 500 crime prevention programmes across a range of community, family, school, labour market, place, police and criminal justice settings. They considered programmes in terms of the strength and number of evaluations conducted for each and the outcomes identified from these. Only those programmes which showed positive outcomes in at least two evaluations using, what the authors referred to as, "strong" evaluation methods were considered effective (the authors said they worked). The minimum criteria for a programme evaluation to be considered "strong" was that it compared two or more units of analysis, one with and one without the programme, preferably controlling for other factors and using random assignment methods.

Although the literature presented by Sherman et al (1998) focuses on programmes specific to the North American context, to date it is one of the most comprehensive of its kind. While there have been numerous evaluations of crime prevention programmes world-wide, the majority have measured effectiveness using correlation or temporal sequence observations. Such methods do not infer causation. Indeed, Sherman et al (1998) indicated that this was also true for the majority of evaluations reviewed by them.

In the New Zealand context, strong evaluation data regarding crime prevention projects is particularly hard to come by, especially for projects developed in community settings. This is due in part to limited resources and in part to the fact that the communities involved are often very small. It is also due to the fluid and changing nature of youth populations, changes in the demographic make-up of an area, and the fact that the subject matter is particularly difficult to measure. Indeed, it is much harder to measure the absence of crime than it is to measure its presence.

There are a number of ways to measure crime and each is subject to various flaws and biases. For instance, police crime figures are not only influenced by levels of offending, but also by a range of social and economic variables. These variables include the size and effectiveness of the police force, the skill of the offenders, willingness of victims and witnesses to report crimes, and ease of offender mobility within and outside of a community. Indeed, increases and decreases in police crime rates may be as much due to changes in any of these factors as they are to changes in actual offending. In addition, police figures are typically reported by station and these do not always conform to the communities identified for intervention.

In contrast, self report may be influenced by social conditions, with offenders less likely to report criminal activity to individuals that they do not trust, or to those who they do not want to disappoint. There is some research evidence to suggest that reporting by proxy (i.e. behaviour reported by others) yields better results for all sensitive questions. However, this is also influenced by the relationship between the offender and the reporting individual, and how much contact the two have (Clark and Schober, 1992). Indeed, reporting by proxy has been shown to be less effective where parents report the behaviour of their children.

Furthermore, there is a general reluctance of project providers (many of whom are given the responsibility to collect data) to exclude individuals from their project in order to provide a comparison or control group. Indeed, doing so actually changes the nature of the projects. The fact that many of the US community projects (that have been evaluated) focused on urban communities reduced this problem somewhat. Given the large number of young people residing in cities there is a lower likelihood that comparison group members will come into contact with the programme participants, and an increased likelihood that, for small scale projects at least, some would have been excluded anyhow. This fact should be kept in mind when considering the following evaluations, as urban US communities are likely to differ significantly from rural New Zealand ones.

Few of the evaluations identified in North American analyses of crime prevention initiatives deal specifically with the issue of culture and how it relates to behaviour and at risk status. Sherman et al (1998) indicate that when studies control for the effects of poverty, ethnicity fails to demonstrate influence over offence levels. However, this conclusion does not consider the reasons that specific ethnic groups are more likely to suffer the effects of poverty than others. In New Zealand, social analysis has pointed to a number of factors, including the effects of colonisation, which have contributed to this trend.

Indeed, New Zealand based evaluations have shown that the use of culturally appropriate workers is a major influence on the effectiveness of interventions aimed at Mäori and Pacific Island youth (Ministry of Youth Affairs, 1998). Specifically, it is important that programmes develop pride and involvement in cultural identity, and work to erode negative cultural stereotypes. Within Pacific Island groups, this includes recognition of the differences between different Island cultures and the difference between New Zealand and Island-born Pacific Island people (Anae, 1997).

These findings are supported by research investigating so called "protective" factors. Protective factors are those which build an individual's resilience to at risk behaviours. In an analysis of research concerning these factors, Resnick (2000a) identified a "sense of connectedness" to family, school, community, and non familial adult role models as a significant influence in reducing "quietly disturbed" and "acting out" behaviours of young people. Similarly, in a New Zealand evaluation of "Six Mäori Community Initiatives for Youth At Risk of Offending" it was shown that young people are more likely to respond to positive achievements and pro-social behaviours modelled by members of their own communities and ethnic groups, than those modelled by individuals with whom they do not identify (Te Puni Kökiri, Ministry of Social Policy and the Crime Prevention Unit, 2000).

Other protective factors identified in both local and overseas literature include:

• access to an available, adequate, emotional relationship with a caregiver or significant other in the family i • Mäori young people having whakapapa, whether acknowledged or not, which binds them to a potentially caring whänau and community ii • an optimal level of social support via social networks e.g.: extended family and community groups iii • having a personal spiritual faith iv • being in therapy v • positive school experience vi • external interests and affiliations i.e. strong interests outside the home vii In addition, it has been shown that fostering certain dispositional attributes in young people increases their resilience to stressful life events and other factors associated with at risk behaviours. These attributes include:

• having a good fit between a young person's temperament and their familial and cultural environment (in western society this includes adaptability, persistence and a reasonable quality of mood and activity level) viii • having an internal locus of control such that the young person feels in control of their own destiny (the opposite of learned helplessness) ix • good self-esteem, self-image, self-confidence, self-efficiency x • intelligence and problem solving abilities xi

US Crime Prevention Literature

US crime prevention literature identifies a range of factors that are associated with an increased risk of criminal behaviour within communities. These include:

• high rates of non-working adults • widespread poverty • high rates of persons with criminal histories • high rates of single parent families

• high rates of unmarried or divorced adult males • high rates of teenage males • high rates of drug and alcohol use • social and physical disorder (communities where both people and buildings appear disorderly or run down)

While these factors may be perceived as relating only to individual circumstances, it is their concentration in specific community settings which makes them important in terms of crime prevention. Indeed, despite widespread prevalence of many risk factors (e.g. teenage males, single parents and unmarried men exist in most communities), North American research shows that the majority of violent crime is committed by a small proportion of individuals, in a small proportion of neighbourhoods (Sherman et al, 1998). Police crime statistics suggest that this is also the case in New Zealand (Crime Prevention Unit, 2000).

What is important about communities characterised by high levels of risk factors is that they are more likely to develop specific structural features leading to individual isolation and alienation from social and economic activities. These features include:

• low community capacity to maintain adult networks of informal control of children • high prevalence of unsupervised male teenage groups • low density local friendship networks (few networks with little overlap between them) • low levels of voluntary association membership Sherman et al (1998;chapter 2, p 6) identify research which demonstrates that "each person's bonds to family, community, school and work create.....informal social control". This social control manifests itself in "pressures to conform to the law that have little to do with the threat of punishment". In order to maintain these pressures, it is essential to reduce the likelihood that alienation and isolation will develop. In order to achieve this, intervention must simultaneously address multiple risk factors (Sherman et al, 1998). In particular, research has demonstrated that effective primary prevention processes should focus on:

• increasing involvement in (and identification with) mainstream economic and social life, including family, education, work, and volunteer associations • increasing prevalence and density of social networks and friendship groups • addressing structural conditions contributing to high concentrations of high risk social attributes in hyper-segregated communities • providing positive role models for youth (especially male role models for "fatherless boys")

The following methods have been shown to facilitate these processes (Sherman et al, 1998):

• long term frequent home visits to families of young children, combined with effective pre-school education • intensive behavioural programmes working with children and families to address severe problems • programmes aimed at clarifying and communicating norms about behaviours (particularly by way of consistent positive reinforcement)

• comprehensive instructional programmes that focus on a range of social competency skills (e.g. developing self control, stress management, responsible decision making, social problem solving, and communication skills) that are delivered over a long period of time to continually reinforce skills • programmes aimed at keeping young people in school and/or educational activities • out of school skill building and community recreation programmes • community based mentoring programmes providing frequent contact between adult/young adult role models and young people Such processes depend on co-ordination between a range of organisations and groups. Indeed, Sherman et al (1998;p2:4) state that a "necessary condition for successful crime prevention practices in one setting is adequate support for the practice in related settings". In particular, they point to the interdependency of seven main social institutional settings: communities, families, schools, labour markets, places (specific locations with their own pattern of social organisation, such as public bars, street corners, etc.), police agencies and other agencies of criminal justice.

Unfortunately, in communities where crime is greatest, the strong institutional context required for crime prevention efforts does not exist. Therefore, it must be developed. However, research shows that only when such development efforts work to provide links between community agencies and those operating outside of the immediate context, are community members able to influence the larger issues surrounding labour markets and access to resources (Hope, 1995;cited in Sherman et al, 1996). Examples of agencies working outside of the immediate community context include government organisations such as those responsible for labour, health and welfare initiatives, and other service providers, especially in the communications area.

Furthermore, in such communities alienation and isolation are usually already evident amongst community members and, especially in communities where participation in mainstream social and economic activities (such as employment and education) is low they are frequently associated with a pattern of "oppositional culture". Oppositional culture involves a reversal of societal norms so that behaviour traditionally considered undesirable is considered desirable, while generally accepted behaviour comes to be viewed as unacceptable.

It is hypothesised that "given the apparent rejection of community members by the larger society, the community members reject the values and aspirations of that society by developing an 'oppositional identity' (Cohen, 1955;Clark, 1965;Braithwaite, 1989;Massey andDenton, 1993: cited in Sherman et al, 1996). As such, community values come to oppose factors such as marriage, family, education, work and obedience of the law, and efforts to gain respect in such "cultures" may actually rely on demonstrating this opposition.

Crime prevention programmes aimed at responding to offending which is already occurring, requires that the nature and influence of oppositional culture be addressed. Such programmes must therefore involve an aspect of re-socialisation, both individually and at the larger community level. Processes found to be effective in responding to offending include:

• facilitating involvement in mainstream social and economic activities • breaking community ties between offenders and negative role models/at risk peers • providing access to alternative networks and relationships • developing social, academic and behavioural skills • reducing drug, alcohol and gun use Methods which have been shown to be effective in developing these processes include:

• dedicated residential units with highly trained staff and well designed and implemented programmes • long term, residential, vocational programmes attached to the labour market • substantial, intensive, meaningful contact between programme participants and pro-social role models • structured and focused rehabilitation programmes that use behavioural (including cognitive behavioural) methods to improve young people's reasoning skills and social behaviours • programmes which include reinforcements for positive behaviours that are clearly identified and overtly expressed behaviours • programmes that are designed to address the characteristics (attitudes and behaviours) of the offenders that can be changed and are associated with individual criminal activities

These methods should include:

• continuous improvement of the quality interventions through provider development, staff training, improved infrastructure and better knowledge of best practice. • a holistic approach which works with young people in the context of the major influences on their lives -their family, school or employment, peer group and neighbourhood, etc. (multi-systemic theory) • an ability to identify accurately the children and young people most at risk so that the most intensive services can be targeted to them, combined with a graduated system such that young people are able to access lower contact programmes as their level of risk decreases Furthermore, there is significant research evidence to show that those methods which are most effective in accurately identifying differences between individuals (such as risk level) tend to be culturally specific to the individuals concerned. They are developed for, and within, a specific cultural context (Estrin, 1993;Dana, 1998).

It also appears to be important that interventions avoid the use of some methods. These methods have been shown to have either no effect, or a detrimental effect, on at risk behaviours and crime in the long term (Sherman et al, 1998):

• community mobilisation against crime in high-crime inner-city poverty areas without sufficient intervention aimed at establishing vertical links with institutions operating outside the community, but exerting their influence over it

• offering youth alternative in-school activities such as recreation and community service, in the absence of more potent prevention programming • short term job placement and training programmes • pre trial diversion programmes that do not focus on rehabilitating offenders • rehabilitation programmes that emphasise specific deterrence such as 'Shock Probation' and 'Scared Straight' • rehabilitation programmes that use vague, non-directive, unstructured counselling • community restraints (i.e. intensive supervised probation or parole, home confinement, community residential programmes, drug testing) without structured programming and rehabilitation services • programmes emphasising structure, discipline and challenge in the absence of effective rehabilitation (i.e. correctional boot camps using old-style military model, wilderness programmes for juveniles) • non-directive counselling focusing on insight, self esteem, or disclosure

In line with the conclusions regarding the negative effects of punishment and shock based interventions, Lawrence et al (1998;cited in The Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, 1999) indicate that a significant component of preventing crime involves police showing greater respect to arrested offenders. Similarly, Karabanow (1999) shows that negative treatment of young people resulting from judgements and labels regarding their "anti-social" activities is a significant factor in perpetuating those activities.

How to read this report

The first part of the report discusses the overall effectiveness of the Crime Prevention Package's CPWS programme. This discussion includes identification of themes and issues that were consistently presented across projects. Recommendations for the ongoing development of the CPWS programme, and administration of community crime prevention programmes generally, are also made. These recommendations concern the role of government in administering such projects.

The report then presents each of the CPWS projects as individual case studies. Each case study provides details of the need for the project. Project need is identified both in terms of identification of the project location as a crime "hotspot" under the Crime Prevention Package, and in terms of location-specific variables which appear to contribute to this identification. The case studies provide information about the agencies responsible for the CPWS workers, the workers themselves, and the initial project proposals, including objectives, set by these agencies. Each case study then describes the process by which the projects developed, including any difficulties encountered during this process, and the activities undertaken to meet project objectives.

The effectiveness of the projects in meeting the outcomes identified under the crime prevention package is then measured against both project process, and specific changes made by project participants, whänau, and community during or following their involvement in the project.

At the end of each case study, the information presented in the case study is drawn together as a set of conclusions about the overall effectiveness of the project in preventing crime. These conclusions also discuss specific issues relevant to the project's progress. Some recommendations for the ongoing development of each project are made in response to these issues.

i Egeland and Erickson, 1987;Honig, 1986;Kellam et al, 1977;O'Grady and Metz, 1987;Quinton et al, 1984;Rutter et al, 1974: cited in The Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, 1999 ii Ministry of Youth Affairs, 1998; cited in The Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, 1999. iii Crittenden, 1985Hickox and Furnell, 1989: cited in The Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, 1999. iv Baldwin et al, 1990cited in The Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, 1999. v Egeland et al, 1988Moeller et al, 1993;Dunn, 1993: cited in The Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, 1999. vi Rutter et al, 1974cited in The Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, 1999. vii Jenkins andSmith, 1990;cited in The Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, 1999. viii Berger, 1985Carey, 1982;Cowen et al, 1990: cited in The Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, 1999. ix Herrenkohl et al, 1994Luthar, 1991;Luthar and Ziglar, 1988;Moran and Eckenrode, 1992;O'Grady and Metz, 1987;Parker et al, 1990;Werner and Smith, 1982: cited in The Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, 1999. x Werner and Smith, 1992Parker, 1990;Moran and Eckenrode, 1992;Herrenkohl et al, 1994: cited in The Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, 1999.

xi Herrenkohl et al, 1994;Kandel et al, 1988: cited in The Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, 1999.

Discussion and Overall Analysis

The following discusses the overall findings of the CPWS projects in terms of the strengths and issues which were consistently identified across a range of community settings.

Strengths

Each of the CPWS projects administered under the Crime Prevention Package was different. However, they all targeted young offenders and each has demonstrated a range of positive outcomes for project participants. These have included:

• reduced offending • increased participation in (and identification with) mainstream economic and social life, including family, marae, education, training, work, cultural and volunteer activities • increased positive social networks with reduction in community ties between offenders and negative role models/at risk peers, and access to alternative networks and relationships • improved self esteem and confidence • development of social, academic and behavioural skills Projects implemented a number of methods identified by Sherman et al (1998) as effective in preventing and addressing at risk behaviour. They also demonstrated how specific agency, worker and community variables could be employed to enhance the use of these methods.

Clarifying and communicating behavioural norms by way of community based mentoring programmes, pro-social role models, and holistic integration of the major influences in participant's lives to consistently provide positive reinforcement

Four of the five projects specifically targeted young Mäori and, as such, emphasised hapü networks. These projects aimed at instilling young people with a sense of identity, belonging and pride. As indicated by Sherman et al (1998), communities with high levels of crime tend to be characterised by structural features leading to individual isolation and alienation. Data and anecdotal evidence from the projects suggest that within the Mäori community, negative stereotypes and the damaging effects of colonisation are likely to further compound these problems. As such, young people may identify with the negative portrayal of their cultural identity and perpetuate the associated "at risk" behaviours, or reject their cultural identity and become alienated and isolated from their familial and community networks.

Developing positive associations between young people and their cultural identity appears to provide young people with positive ways to identify with their cultural community. This identification reduces the pressure to become alienated and isolated from it. An important component of facilitating community identification is the provision of positive, pro-social role models (Sherman et al, 1998). All of the CPWS projects (including the one that did not specifically target Mäori) provided young people with role models by way of intensive, meaningful contact with mentors from within their community and cultural context. Furthermore, these mentors worked in a holistic manner, engaging whänau and the wider community and encouraging them to support and model the behavioural changes desired for their young people.

For Mäori this holistic approach was particularly important as Mäori culture traditionally incorporates a holistic perspective. Therefore, it is essential that Mäori mentors and role models accommodate this perspective into their work.

Such liaison and involvement with the wider community has also been important as a means of ensuring that young people are provided with, and accepted into, educational, training and work opportunities. Furthermore, these processes appear to be important in ensuring that young people's behavioural changes are reinforced by their environment.

Recommendation

2. Fund administering agencies (especially government) could enhance the holistic approach, especially in terms of young peoples increased involvement in social and economic activities, by further encouraging support for the community projects from other relevant agencies working in the locality. In particular, fund administering agencies should receive the resources and assitance to work further with business, educational and training providers so that young people leaving the projects are able to access real opportunities. In terms of the CP-CPWS projects, intervention could include resources and assistance to facilitate the formation of partnerships between DIA and other agencies such as local authorities, Skill New Zealand, Schools and Polytechnics, Department of Labour, etc., and to embed maintenance of these partnerships into the core activities of each of these agencies.

Accurate identification of at risk young people so that the most intensive services can be targeted to them, combined with a graduated system providing access to lower contact programmes as the level of risk decreases

Crime prevention literature (Sherman et al, 1998) shows that successful initiatives are dependent on the use of effective risk assessment techniques. They also include access to a graduated system of high contact programmes for the highest risk young people, and lower contact programmes for 'lower risk' young people. Of particular importance is that the young people are able to move through this system as their level of risk decreases. In three of the projects (in Hamilton, Kaikohe, and Christchurch) such processes were clearly in place.

Furthermore, it has been shown that the effectiveness of assessment techniques is largely influenced by cultural appropriateness. All of the assessment techniques used in the three projects identified above were developed within the cultural context of the young people concerned, by culturally appropriate individuals and agencies.

The graduated systems used in the Hamilton, Kaikohe, and Christchurch projects were supported by the fact that the agencies involved provided a range of services for young people, and co-ordination across services proceeded in an integrated manner with clearly defined mechanisms for internal referral. Such systems also provided significant support for the CPWS workers.

In addition, the Te Puna A Rona Project in Hamilton developed a risk assessment tool. Similarly, both the Whaia Te Tika (Christchurch) and Awhinatia Te Whänau (Kaikohe) projects used assessment and interview methods that were subjected to regular peer review by individuals working in the fields of education, social welfare, police and justice.

The use of effective risk assessment techniques resulted in some agencies identifying young people who could not be served by the project they provided. In particular, it was noted that a number of referrals demonstrated extremely severe violent behaviours, which could not be addressed within a prevention oriented approach. It was suspected that such individuals required intensive psychological and or psychiatric intervention.

Recommendations

18.The initial funding period should be extended to account for the time taken to develop projects and effect outcomes. It is recommended that at least five years be allowed for this process. Furthermore, decisions regarding ongoing funding after this period should be made in sufficient time for alternative options to be explored, without detracting from project delivery. Ideally, there would be no time periods put on funding duration. Rather, projects and funding options could be reviewed at regular intervals to assess the feasibility of both.

19.Government agencies should work together to co-ordinate statistical reporting boundaries between police, local authorities, Statistics New Zealand, central government and other relevant agencies.

1. Additional time and/or resources for facilitating whänau and community support (especially from local employers and school) for the project.

2. Extend the initial six (6) week component of the Whaia Te Tika project to between twelve (12) and sixteen (16) weeks to allow the young people to work through emotional baggage and develop the project components/CPWS worker's skills to assist in this process.

1. Continued development of youth projects in a manner that is responsive to the needs of young people. Indeed, with ongoing support from the other centre coordinators and the project manager, this could become the CPWS worker's main activity.

2. Additional attention to evaluating project process and outcomes in order to feedback into this development loop.

3. Identify services required for young people and develop clear methods for advocating for these services, both politically and strategically between all agencies involved with Gisborne youth. During the course of his activities, the CPWS worker gains insight into a number of needs. It is not possible for him to fulfil all of these but, with the right systems in place, he could play an important part in ensuring that other agencies do. Following identification of Hamilton as an area of high youth offending and at risk behaviours, the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) undertook an assessment of youth needs and services in the region. In consultation with community organisations and government agencies, DIA Community Advisors identified a range of issues facing young people in Hamilton. These included:

• high levels of young people not succeeding in the school system • links between lack of education and youth crime 4

• lack of linkage and co-ordination between current intervention and project providers • limited community capacity to effectively and/or consciously develop interventions and projects for youth at risk

As part of this assessment, the DIA community advisor approached a range of organisations which she had identified as potentially able to meet the requirements of the crime prevention package. In 1998, a project proposal was received from Mätua Whangai, a community service provider. This proposal identified additional trends of relevance to local crime prevention. In particular it recognised that young Mäori lead both local and national statistics in terms of:

• leaving school without qualifications • being suspended and/or expelled from school • appearances in the youth court These factors were perceived to contribute to a range of behavioural and cognitive problems, including: It was also established that several Hamilton based projects and services effectively catered to low and medium risk young people, but that none served those identified as being high risk (i.e. long history of offending and anti-social behaviour, seldom attend school, have experienced many "failed" interventions, and may demonstrate marked cognitive deficiencies). Furthermore, more and more young people referred to established services were being identified in the high risk category, and a large proportion of these suffered serious drug, alcohol and/or solvent abuse.

1. Test the effectiveness and validity of the risk assessment tool developed by Mätua Whangai. Specifically, it needs to be established that:

• individual rangatahi would receive the same risk assessment rating regardless of who completed the form • the way in which data is collected accurately represents the behaviours it intends to represent.

2. Continue monitoring individual rangatahi so that post course offending can be tracked across a period of at least one year.

3. Implement strategies to ensure that rangatahi are not discriminated against because of their higher profile as a participant on the course. In particular, monitoring needs to acknowledge positive behaviours, as well as any that are less desirable. Encouraging external agencies to record positive changes may encourage greater community acceptance of the young people involved.

4. Specify and reinforce criteria for referrals from government agencies. This is particularly important now that project referrals must be processed via Fairfield Intermediate School. However, it is also essential that these agencies provide appropriate resources to support the young people they refer.

1. Te Kotahitanga E Mahi Kaha trust should work with other providers to identify a lead agency for each young person (or whänau). This agency would formalise coordination across community groups and agencies so as to ensure that approaches are consistent and that resource and information sharing is a two way process.

2. In addition, the lead agency could attempt to develop projects and/or activities for meeting the needs of young people who are disadvantaged but not yet demonstrating at risk behaviours. Any such initiative would require additional resources and funding.

3. Continue to raise the profile of the project to prevent other agencies from reinventing aspects of it.

Structured and focused programmes aimed at addressing offender characteristics associated with individual criminal activities, using behavioural methods to improve young people's reasoning and social competency skills, and reinforcements for clearly identified positive behaviour

Progress towards rigorous identification of client issues was slower for the Gisborne and Otara Crime Prevention Projects. This was largely due to the lack of structure in the project formats. However, since introducing the OSCAR and ROAM programmes, the Gisborne CPWS worker has been able to undertake a "pre-risk assessment and health plan" for each young person who became involved with him.

Both the Gisborne and Otara CPWS workers identified structure as a necessary component for youth at risk crime prevention efforts. From their experience, they stated that drop in centres by themselves were not particularly effective in facilitating behavioural change. This view is reinforced by the research evidence presented in Sherman et al (1998).

It is also supported by evidence from the projects themselves. Data collected by the CPWS workers suggested that participants tended to invest more time in project components which employed behavioural interventions to address behaviours associated with offending (for example drug and alcohol abuse, truancy, violent behaviour, negative family functioning, poor literacy, lack of education/training, poor school and community relationships). Examples of these included:

• developing literacy skills through intensive supervision and reading contracts (Otara) • developing and implementing personal plans regarding educational, training, personal and employment goals (Christchurch) • providing an active learning environment implementing role plays and practising communication and personal expression skills within simulated and real life situations (Hamilton) • facilitating supervised involvement in recreational and employment activities and reducing connections with negative peer groups (Kaikohe) • encouraging identification and expression of personal issues through art, written word (literacy) and other "productive" activities and facilitating social identification and connection through these (Gisborne) • reinforcing positive social participation through fun activities and opportunities not otherwise available to the young people concerned (All)

An important component of these interventions was that they drew on resources which already existed within the communities involved and with which the CPWS workers had some form of connection. For instance, the development of literacy skills in the Otara project drew largely on the CPWS workers relationship with, and previous experience in, another literacy programme. However, the fact that he was able to offer these skills to young people who did not fit the criteria of the other programme meant that this resource was enhanced by his involvement. Similarly, the Gisborne CPWS worker had previously worked as an art teacher; the Te Puna A Rona project was supported by external agencies skilled in facilitating active learning of communication and personal expression; and the Awhinatia Te Whänau CPWS worker maintained significant connections with local employers and community groups.

Recommendation 7. Development of community projects aimed at specific outcomes should emphasise the need for structured interventions. Although a drop in centre may provide a useful place for attracting young people, and co-ordinating workers, it should not be the sole focus of crime prevention efforts. Rather, such centres must be accompanied by services, activities and/or programmes specifically aimed at reducing at risk behaviours. In order to facilitate this emphasis, government should target agencies with the capacity to deliver such interventions and/or assist them to develop this capacity prior to initiating intervention. An implicit part of developing this capacity is the recognition of positive trends within communities upon which to build. Specification of such trends could be requested within project proposals.

8. Individuals and groups working with young people at risk should be identified for their skills and connections and encouraged to use these to enhance the nature of the interventions they provide.

Continuous improvement of quality interventions

Recognition of the need for structure resulted in the changed focus of the Gisborne CPWS project. The Otara CPWS worker expressed a desire to institute structured learning activities at the Otara Youth Embassy, but lacked the human resource support to make this happen. However, the fact that this recognition occurred, is but one example of the evolving nature of the CPWS projects.

Indeed, one of the strengths of the CPWS projects administered under the Crime Prevention Package has been that they allowed communities to develop and test intervention methods specific to their own needs and cultural context. As such, they facilitated the development of knowledge which increased each community's capacity to address the issues associated with at risk youth.

The capacity for continuous improvement has been identified as an important component of effective crime prevention programmes (Sherman et al, 1998). Furthermore, as demonstrated in the CPWS projects, empowering community members to learn from their own actions increases the likelihood that the resulting information will be accommodated within their activities.

In most of the projects, participants were given the opportunity to contribute to project and community development. Feedback from these young people suggests that this process was particularly constructive in reaffirming their sense of value within their communities and attachment to them.

Similarly, all of the projects included external agencies in their development process and shared the knowledge which they obtained with these agencies. The effectiveness of this process, and the project changes which resulted are evident in:

• a very strong pattern of Police, DCYFS, Corrections and schools referring significant numbers of young people to the community programmes in order to meet their own statutory responsibilities • increasing number of referrals from whänau and families indicating trust in the programmes and providers

To date, most of the information collected as part of the ongoing development of the CPWS projects has been descriptive. In order to effectively assess the projects and target resources for future development it is necessary to access data which accurately measures change by controlling as far as possible for external influences (e.g.. comparison groups, time series measures, etc.).

Recommendations 9. Further support should be given to community groups and agencies to allow them to develop and test intervention methods specific to their own needs and cultural context. In particular, fund administering agencies should encourage them to access feedback from the young people involved in them, and ensure that these young people are represented on wider community forums. Such representation might also include obtaining opinions and ideas from young people and passing them directly to local authorities and central government.

10.Collection of data which accurately measures change and documents progress requires commitment from within the fund administering agency, to allow time for planning, co-ordination and analysis.

Issues

In addition to demonstrating the effective implementation of methods aimed at reducing at risk behaviours, analysis of project processes also highlighted a number of issues that consistently made the projects more difficult. These included:

Community attitudes and negative labels

In some cases young people's behavioural changes were not reinforced by their communities. Despite evidence to the contrary, some project participants continued to be treated as "criminals" after undergoing intensive change processes through their involvement with the CPWS workers. Indeed, this was one of the main obstacles identified by stakeholders involved with each of the projects. In particular, potential employers were unwilling to take on young people, even in a voluntary capacity, because they did not trust them, schools were loathe to take them back, and the police continued to pick them up for questioning.

While none of the projects show any sign of punishment focused programming, these methods may exist in other community programmes and interventions. Indeed, as is the case for law enforcement authorities, they may even be institutionally and legally identified as implicit parts of society's structure.

As indicted by Sherman et al (1998) punishment or negative focused programming is of concern when it exists in the absence of structured rehabilitation programmes. The provision of the CPWS crime prevention initiatives contributes to filling this gap. However, in order to be effective, the initiatives must be recognised as such.

Research shows that if individuals are punished (or treated negatively), regardless of how they behave, they stop trying to initiate positive interaction with their environment (Feldman, 1999). Similarly, when individuals only receive attention in response to one type of behaviour (i.e. negative), they cease to demonstrate any other types of behaviour. Clearly then, if communities continue to treat individuals as criminals (or only attend to them as such), regardless of their efforts to change, they will stop trying to change.

Therefore, it is essential that community agencies acknowledge the interconnected nature of their activities, and positive outcomes should be afforded as much (if not more) attention and credibility as negative ones. In the case of the CPWS projects, the increased attention given to participants, especially in relation to tracking and monitoring their ongoing behaviours, should not be viewed as a means of "catching them out". Rather, the focus must also include reinforcing positive activities and changing attitudes in response to them.

Recommendation 11.It is essential that all projects be supported in developing data collection and monitoring methods that accurately define and measure outcomes. These systems should be community wide and include information about positive activities as well as those that are less desirable. As such, they should contribute to facilitating community recognition of any changes made by project participants. In terms of the CP-CPWS projects, DIA staff could encourage representatives from other government agencies to assist with the development of such tracking/monitoring systems.

Community co-ordination and vertical links with institutions operating outside of the immediate community

Other issues of concern include the lack of relevant referral options in some communities, and the fact that service administration methods may actually prevent access to them. The latter appears to be particularly true for government agencies. Almost all of the project workers indicated the need to invest significant time and energy establishing relationships with social workers and government officials, only to return to "square one" as a result of staff turnover or restructuring.

Furthermore, many of the CPWS workers felt that their projects were sometimes treated as a "dumping ground" by government agencies. They indicated that they were given referrals but no support or resources to deal with them. Some CPWS workers stated that once social workers had referred clients to them they provided little if any follow up, and only rarely checked on the progress of their clients. This was particularly true of the Whaia Te Tika project (Christchurch).

As an urban Mäori authority, the organisation associated with the Whaia Te Tika project (Te Rünanga O Nga Maata Waka) stated that they often received referrals only after iwi agencies had given up on the young people concerned. In many cases, the young people referred to Whaia Te Tika were local iwi members who had had negative experiences within their hapü or iwi. Despite these experiences, almost all previous referrals had been to iwi service providers, often involving individuals the young people knew. This continued contact with a possible source of their problems had made them resistant to the efforts of such agencies, and to the positive effects of providing culturally appropriate role models as a means of generating pride in their ethnic identity.

Interestingly, Te Rünanga O Nga Maata Waka was the only project provider which did not indicate significant concern about State determined care arrangements for young people (when the family environment was viewed as contributing to at risk behaviours). All of the other agencies indicated that they took every measure to avoid the removal of young people from their family. This was considered particularly important when working with Mäori young people as State imposed care arrangements were seen to weaken the whänau, hapü and iwi links necessary for cultural development.

The CPWS workers frequently included a mediating function within their roles. This function involved working with whänau to assist them to overcome any problems they were experiencing. However, in all cases, CPWS workers indicated that the safety of the young person was paramount. Where whänau problems required significant long term intervention, the CPWS workers attempted to work with statutory agencies to ensure that care arrangements were conducive to maintaining whänau, marae and hapü associations.

In Kaikohe, Hamilton, Gisborne (and Christchurch), the agencies managing the CPWS workers maintained established relationships with statutory agencies and iwi authorities, and systems which facilitated this type of interaction. However, the links between the Otara Crime Prevention Project and statutory agencies were weaker. The nature, and location, of this project made it more difficult to monitor project participants over the long term.

Furthermore, the fact that Otara Crime Prevention Project participants came from a range of different cultural backgrounds, including urban Mäori and members of diverse Pacific Island groups, meant that the workload associated with co-ordinating between these groups was much larger than for projects where cultural affiliation was less fragmented. The effects of this fragmentation were further compounded by the urban location of the Otara community within Manukau City, and the way in which this location contributed to increasing the mobility and transience of the young people involved. Not only is it easier for transient young people to "fall through the cracks", but their mobility was commonly accompanied by movement between social service providers within South Auckland.

Each time a young person moves on to a new provider, resources are required to assess their needs and integrate them into a programme structure. As such, more resources are needed than if the young person remained in the same location with the same service provider. This results in competition for funding that is already scarce. Service providers could help overcome this problem by ensuring effective communication between them. However, the size of the population involved, their significant workloads in dealing with the diverse cultural context in which they exist, lack of resources, and the clear or primary need to keep the young people off the streets, means that there is little if any time left to dedicate to such an activity.

Recommendations 12.The relationship between community agencies, urban Mäori and iwi authorities, and government agencies needs to be enhanced so that there are clear mechanisms for interagency referral. Specifically, these mechanisms should define how and when government agencies can refer young people to the projects, including the resources and support required. They should also define the means by which CPWS workers may refer project participants, and/or their whänau, to government agencies, or work with government agencies to resolve issues of concern to project participants, and/or their whänau. In terms of the CP-CPWS projects, intervention could include additional resources for liaison between DIA workers and other government employees, as well as urban Mäori and iwi authorities to establish specific guidelines for these processes. In order for such an intervention to become sustainable, effort would need to be made to ensure that the mechanisms through which it operates are embedded in the agencies' core systems and processes.

Time, knowledge and information

To date, much of the development undertaken by the Crime Prevention projects has concerned "macro" issues concerning structure and focus. Identifying these issues has generated a number of questions which need to be addressed in order for more specific development to progress. These questions include the need to investigate the link between at risk behaviours and at risk status. It is currently unclear how at risk behaviours contribute to the likelihood of offending. Therefore, it is difficult to relate reduced offending to reduced at risk behaviours.

There are also concerns about targeting project resources, both in terms of ensuring police crime statistics match the area they purport to describe, and in terms of allowing sufficient time for needs assessment and project development. Indeed, social science researchers have shown that the development of community projects requires significant time before outcomes can be identified. Resnick (2000b) describes US programmes which have been shown to be effective in reducing at risk behaviours but which have taken up to five years to yield such results.

Under the CPWS criteria, funding for the Crime Prevention projects was only identified for a three year period. At the end of that time, projects faced a significant amount of uncertainty regarding their futures. This stress, and the resulting need to consider alternative courses of action, occured at the very time that projects were beginning to show effect. As such, project workers had moved beyond initial planning and administration activities and were fully engaged in delivering their programmes to youth. This presented a conflict of interest between continued intensive involvement with project participants, and diversion of energy to address issues associated with sustainable funding.

In 2000, Government made further Crime Prevention CPWS funding available to five projects, at the same level as the preceding years ($36,800 GST exclusive per project, per annum).

Lack of resources

All of the project providers identified a lack of resources associated with the Crime Prevention Projects. Specifically, funding was targeted at the employment of a CPWS worker and it was left to these individuals or their agencies to find money for activities, administration, evaluation data collection, and expenses.

The lack of resources was also identified by DIA community advisors within each of the project areas. Advisors indicated that the eight weeks they had been given to identify issues and agencies, and to work with these agencies to develop project proposals, had been insufficient. It was this lack of time for planning and issue identification that contributed to the hasty formation of the Otara United Crime Prevention Committee, and probably resulted in its "disbandment" one year later.

All programmes dealt with 50 to150 percent more young people than they were funded for and many received a number of referrals which they could not meet. Managing these extra referrals often required significant time and energy, especially where the young people involved demonstrated severe behavioural problems. Given the limited resources available to the projects, care had to be taken to manage the dynamics inherent in working with small groups. For one project this resulted in the exclusion of female participants and, for others, the age range of youth identified under the crime prevention package was limited to exclude older or younger participants. Almost all of the projects received referrals for young people under the age identified in the Crime Prevention package.

20.

In all cases, projects require increased funding to cover project expenses other than the salaries of the project workers.

Differences between youth populations

All of the projects identified differences within at risk youth populations. The effectiveness of specific interventions were found to vary according to the age, gender, level of risk and ethnic group of the project participants. It was recognised that different populations required different approaches to intervention, and that the limited resources available under the CPWS funding was unable to provide for these. Therefore, projects tended to focus on characteristics with one or two main characteristics, most commonly Mäori males.

Furthermore, project referrals indicated a need for crime prevention projects which addressed the needs of young people outside of the criteria of the Crime Prevention Package. All of the projects received referrals for young people under the age of 13. In addition, CPWS workers identified the need to provide projects for young people who were neither offending, nor demonstrating behaviours consistent with a disposition to offend, but who could develop such behaviours. Such individuals included youth in areas of high unemployment where resources were scarce and although they remained in the school system there were few opportunities for them outside of that environment. These youth indicated that there was little motivation for them to continue with the effort that they were making, especially given that any resources which became available were dedicated to individuals who were not doing so. As such, the at risk youth got to do all the "fun stuff" whereas those that were "struggling to stay on track" were not rewarded for doing so.

Stakeholders and Consultation

The need for additional services for at risk youth was most evident in the Linwood area of East Christchurch. Therefore, a stock-take of services for youth, and a youth needs assessment in the East Christchurch area, was undertaken. The stock-take involved consideration of information presented in the Linwood Community Board Youth Needs Assessment, as well as consultation with: The stock-take revealed gaps in the types of services available to youth, a need to address a range of specific issues facing youth, and a lack of co-ordination between existing youth services. In particular, it identified a need for:

• community projects aimed at keeping youth at school • employment projects • parent support projects • access to free or cheap extra curricular activities (e.g.. informal sporting activities, outdoor projects) • access to a safe place for youth to engage in informal activities (e.g.. a youth centre as opposed to the streets) • trained peer support volunteers/mentors to work with youth • services specifically targeting young women "at risk"

The stock-take identified Te Rünanga O Nga Maata Waka as the only organisation serving the Linwood area with the capacity and capability to deliver a project targeted at this population. Specifically, Nga Maata Waka were already working with the at risk client group identified in the CPWS criteria and were identified as being able to follow up on the project work via their other services or established networks.

Te Rünanga O Nga Maata Waka, was invited to apply to DIA for CPWS funding. In their application, Te Rünanga O Nga Maata Waka identified various community trends and issues impacting on the target group of young people. These included a need for better co-ordination of services and networks among those working with youth, more projects offering peer support and targeting Mäori and Pacific Island youth, projects targeting male socialisation, and projects reaching at risk young women.

Several positive trends were also identified. These included the encouragement of sports projects with a Mäori focus, increasing recognition of the need for parents to be supported, a major concern regarding safety in the community, and social work support services in schools which also respond to home safety issues.

Türanga Health is an established agency delivering culturally-appropriate health services to iwi. In this capacity, they maintain linkages with a range of community and government agencies including: Together with the rangitahi, their hapü, local marae, and the wider community, these organisations are significant stakeholders in the CPWS project.

Prior to establishing the project, public consultation meetings were undertaken by the Department of Internal Affairs Community Advisor. These attracted a range of representatives from various community groups and organisations, as well as interested individuals. The meetings were particularly well attended by Pacific Island peoples.

During consultation, the community expressed concern over increased drug and alcohol use, petty criminal offences, school truancy, gang formation and violence, youth suicide, graffiti, vandalism and teenage pregnancies.

These issues were indicated as resulting from a number of factors including:

• hopelessness • loneliness • need to escape or find a way out • lack of family support • need to feel part of a family, having strength in numbers and a sense of belonging/acceptance • expressions of resentment, frustration, rebellion • feelings of shame • lack of social acceptance • lack of education, advice and cultural awareness It was also suggested that the current education system was not adequately developing the life skills needed by the community's youth. In 1998, only 12 percent of the (approximately) 3,000 secondary school aged students residing in the area left school with the qualifications required to enter any form of tertiary education. Furthermore, each month, between 50 and 80 students were reported as being permanently absent from school. Community consultation suggests that there was little, if any, follow up regarding these truancies.

The implications of these problems are significant. At the time of the project being introduced, 9.7 percent of Otara residents aged over 18 years were unemployed. Otara residents had significant health problems e.g. the highest reported rate of tuberculosis in New Zealand and the highest number of children suffering from respiratory diseases such as asthma.

In order to meet the specific objectives of the crime prevention package, combined meetings between Te Kotahitanga E Mahi Kaha Trust and other community organisations, individuals and government agencies were held. These included representatives from Education, Police, Community Funding Agency, Income Support Services, New Zealand Employment Service, Community Employment Group, Children and Young Persons Service, Te Puni Kökiri, Iwi Social Services, the Safer Community Council, and the Police Community Co-ordinator. These meetings established support and liaison from the associated agencies and provided the foundation for developing the new CP-CPWS project (called Awhinatia Te Whänau).

The Trust is particularly focused on enhancing education and training opportunities, has had a long history of working with young people, and has fostered supportive networks to assist in this process.

Te Kotahitanga E Mahi Kaha's staff strive to work in partnership with government agencies in order to remove barriers to youth accessing resources. In this capacity, they are constantly working towards the development of quality management systems to improve the quality of their services. These systems include regular monitoring and self evaluation through feedback from programme and course participants, and the wider Kaikohe community. The Trust is also committed to staff development and staff members are allocated annual training budgets and supported in accessing appropriate training opportunities.

Agency History and Status

Te Rünanga O Nga Maata Waka is an Urban Iwi Authority, registered as an Incorporated Society. The agency is also accredited as a Private Training Establishment by the New Zealand Qualification Authority and for the past four years it has been involved in rehabilitation, training and employment initiatives. Groups targeted by specific education projects include: long term unemployed youth, at risk youth, the socially disadvantaged, prisoners rehabilitating back into the community, and people with low self esteem. • Active member of the Tumatauenga Culture Group where the membership is made up of many youth who are tutored in waiata, kapa haka, and tikanga Mäori. Assistance to the local school kapa haka groups with their cultural/Mäori projects.

Türanga Health is the health arm of the iwi authority. It is part of the rünanga, but has been set up as a separate legal entity, and has been in existence for about seven years. The directors are elected by iwi in the area.

Türanga Health takes a lead role in delivering culturally appropriate health services to iwi, and maintaining tino rangatiratanga in any service opportunity. These activities include the provision of training, policy, research, health promotion, primary health services, disability services, drug and alcohol services, and Mäori mental health services. Over the three years prior to 1998, Türanga Health had taken steps towards targeting these services to youth at risk.

During the first year of operation, the project was administered by a committee formed specifically for the purpose of project administration. This committee was based at Crosspower Ministries, and operated under its legal status. The committee was made up of individuals identified as local Pacific Island and Mäori community leaders, including representatives from various social service providers and community groups.

Input was also received from an interagency group convened by the Safer Manukau co-ordinator. At the time, this interagency group met regularly as a network of workers from projects funded by the Crime Prevention Unit including the Police, Wraparound Service, Schools' Project and Safer Streets.

It was intended that the committee would meet monthly to manage the activities of a CPWS youth worker. Unfortunately, there were a number of difficulties with this arrangement. Most notably, the majority of the committee members demonstrated a lack of commitment towards attending meetings. Furthermore, when they did attend, many of the committee members brought very specific agendas to the meetings and showed little willingness to work co-operatively with other members of the committee.

As a result of these difficulties, responsibility for administering the project was left with a few individuals, including the agency chairperson, the DIA Community Advisor and representatives from the umbrella group Crosspower Ministries. It was proposed that responsibility for administering the project be handed to Crosspower ministries at the end of the first year. The remaining members of the management committee were in agreement and the transaction was completed in June 1999.

Crosspower Ministries is a Charitable Trust incorporated under the Act in 1994. It provides a number of activities and projects for youth, many in conjunction with local schools and some as a means of alternative education. It also provides a place for youth to hang out, work out with gym equipment, and socialise.

CPWS Worker

The CPWS worker is a male of Mäori/Pakeha ethnic identity, who speaks Mäori and Samoan. He is Otara born and bred and possesses significant personal experience with drugs, alcohol and gangs, having spent approximately eight years involved in that "scene". His wife is Cook Island Mäori.

In 1990, at the age of 26, the CPWS worker became a Christian and he and his wife attended Fowley Lodge Bible College (in the Auckland region) for one year, acting as house parents during that time. They were then offered positions working with youth on the Makah Indian Reservation, in Neah Bay, Washington, USA, where they remained for four years. The CPWS worker's activities during that time included both structured and unstructured interaction with youth, providing them with a safe place to hang out, positive role models, and opportunities to participate in new experiences and develop life skills.

Management

The CPWS worker is managed and supported by a special project management group set up within Te Rünanga O Nga Maata Waka. The project management group meets with the CPWS worker once a week to discuss concerns and issues regarding the project, project worker or participants, and to ensure that weekly recording and reporting is complete. In addition, the project management group assists the youth worker by liaising with a range of government and community agencies and by maintaining good relationships between these agencies and Te Rünanga O Nga Maata Waka.

The project management group also assisted the CPWS worker to access the following courses:

•

Mätua Whangai O Kirikiriroa is governed by a trust of six trustees who meet on a monthly basis. Trustees include a Kaumätua, lawyer, administrator/secretary, manager, probation officer and one other. The trust overseas the overall administration of staff and projects and ensures the Kaupapa, aims and objectives are upheld.

The day to day running of Mätua Whangai is overseen by a co-ordinator, with staff responsible for the management of their own services. The CPWS worker is managed and supported by Mätua Whangai O Kirikiriroa Trust and staff. Mätua Whangai O Kirikiriroa retains its management link with the iwi of Tainui via recognition of the roles of Te Rünanga O Kirikiriroa and the Tainui Mäori Trust Board.

The CPWS worker receives regular group and individual supervision from both the co-ordinator and other staff, including a practising counsellor trained in both Mäori healing and mainstream counselling techniques.

Initially, the Otara United Crime Prevention Project committee was responsible for managing the CPWS worker. This occurred through monthly meetings between the CPWS worker and the management committee during which time the youth worker provided updates of his activities and expenditure.

In addition to their involvement on the management committee, members of Crosspower Ministries Trust were also involved in supporting the CPWS worker's personal and professional development, and facilitating networking between the CPWS worker and other community groups and agencies.

Following the disbandment of the Otara United Crime Prevention Project committee, Crosspower Ministries Trust took over managing the CPWS worker. In addition to day to day contact, the CPWS worker meets formally with the Crosspower manager at least once a week. During these meetings, the CPWS worker and manager set goals and review those which were set the previous week. They also identify barriers to achieving goals and means of accessing support and resources to overcome these. The manager monitors the CPWS worker by visiting him in the field and providing ongoing supervision.

In addition, the CPWS worker receives monthly personal and professional supervision from one of Crosspower's trustees and from the director of Houhanga Rongo Ministries. Houhanga Rongo Ministries provides a literacy and numeracy project and programmes for under 13 year olds.

As part of the supervision process the CPWS worker maintains a personal diary and provides monthly reports on the progress of the project. The Crosspower Trust administration team also provides assistance with formal reporting procedures.

Responsiveness to Mäori

The project specifically targets Mäori. It is led and administered by an Urban Mäori Authority and a number of the project components focus on fostering young people's cultural identity, primarily through education in Tikanga Mäori.

Although the project accepts all young people, Mäori are a priority target group. Türanga Health takes a lead role delivering culturally appropriate, high quality primary health and social services to iwi.

Mätua Whangai O Kirikiriroa is a Mäori service provider -providing services for Mäori by Mäori. Service provision aims toward an ideal of proactively strengthening individuals, whänau, hapü, and iwi so that they may, in the long term, care totally for their own. Mätua Whangai O Kirikiriroa provides services that endorse the kaupapa of Tino Rangatiratanga, and advocate for Mäori in a manner consistent with the Treaty of Waitangi.

During the development of the project, consultation with the Otara Mäori community was limited. Those attending the public community meetings were mainly Pacific Island representatives and this was reflected in their involvement on the management committee. Nevertheless, the youth worker has actively undertaken a range of activities to ensure that the project is responsive to Mäori. These include:

• regular cultural supervision of the worker by a Mäori advisor • identification of Mäori organisations as referral agencies • consultation with key Mäori stakeholders on a regular basis

Responsiveness to Pacific Island Peoples

Although the project focuses on meeting the needs of Mäori youth, Te Rünanga O Nga Maata Waka has a strong commitment to cultural safety, and how it treats others. Members of the organisation believe that the whänau oriented approach from which they operate is also appropriate to Pacific Island peoples.

While, Mäori are the priority target group, it is estimated that between 10 and 15% of local young people identify with a Pacific Island ethnic group. Opportunities for Pacific Island input into the development of the project were available through consultations carried out in the community forums such as the Safer Community Council public meetings, and the meetings at the schools. Ongoing consultation with these agencies ensures that at risk Pacific Island youth receive services that are appropriate to their cultural needs.

The project specifically targets Mäori youth.

During the development of the project, extensive consultation was undertaken by Pacific Island community workers in Otara. As a result of this process, the project was largely driven by Pacific Island committee members, with a strong commitment to ensuring an effective and appropriate service for Pacific Island youth. Crosspower Ministries is also strongly influenced by Pacific Island culture and therefore the project continues to respond to Pacific Island youth. However, the project does not specifically address cultural issues relevant to any particular Pacific Island community.

Evaluation Methods

The information about the Whaia Te Tika project was obtained from four main sources: the annual evaluation reports completed by the CPWS worker and agency, contact between the CPWS worker, agency and the local DIA community advisor, visits by a DIA research analyst, and project and administration records including project proposals and application information.

The information about the Gisborne Crime Prevention project was obtained from four main sources: the annual evaluation reports completed by the CPWS worker and agency, contact between the CPWS worker, agency and the local DIA community advisor, visits by a DIA research analyst, and project and administration records including project proposals and application information.

The information about the Te Puna A Rona project was obtained from four main sources: the annual evaluation reports completed by the CPWS worker and agency, contact between the CPWS worker, agency and the local DIA community advisor, visits by a DIA research analyst, and project and administration records including project proposals and application information.

The information about the Otara Crime Prevention project was obtained from four main sources: the annual evaluation reports completed by the CPWS worker and agency, contact between the CPWS worker, agency and the local DIA community advisor, visits by a DIA research analyst, and project and administration records including project proposals and application information.

Annual Evaluation Reports

Te Rünanga O Nga Maata Waka and the CPWS worker completed two annual evaluation reports for the Whaia Te Tika project. These provided information for the periods between November 1997and November 1998, and November 1998and November 1999

The CPWS worker and project manager completed two annual evaluation reports for the Gisborne Crime Prevention project. These provided information for the periods between March and December 1998, and January and December 1999, respectively. Data for these reports was collected from a range of sources including: The youth centre and CPWS worker have received significant praise from local and government agencies, including Gisborne District Council. Much of this has taken the form of Media articles in The Gisborne Herald, Crime Prevention News, and Pipiwharauroa (local iwi newspaper).

Following the first year of operation (1998), Mätua Whangai completed an evaluation report. This report was produced by an internal employee who worked with the CPWS worker to obtain information regarding the Te Puna A Rona Project. Data focused on process and was collected using a range of methods including: In addition, the evaluator interviewed project participants (clients) and the primary caregiver/s of each participant (client). Client interview schedules are provided in Appendix G and the schedules for caregiver interviews are provided in Appendix H. All interviews were conducted in the home of the interviewee and manually recorded. No interviews lasted longer than 30 minutes.

During the second year of operation (1999), Mätua Whangai contracted an external evaluator who had extensive experience evaluating crime prevention and intervention projects. He conducted an evaluation of the 1999 block courses using information obtained from a range of documents and interviews. Documentation included observations, records and perceptions written by staff, participants, volunteers and stakeholders during the course of the programme. In addition, the evaluator compared risk factor assessments (Appendix I) collected prior to the participants' entry onto the Te Puna A Rona course, with risk factor assessments collected after the participants' exit from the course. Risk assessments were completed by the course co-ordinator using a semi-structured interview method. Also, the evaluator obtained information regarding participants' offence histories before, during and after participation in the block course from Hamilton Police (Appendix J).

Interviews were conducted with 15 individuals identified as project stakeholders. These included project staff, volunteers, representatives from the community and referring agencies, whänau and participants.

Most of the interviews took approximately 40-60 minutes and were held at the Mätua Whangai office in the presence of the CPWS worker. In addition, five interviews (with referral agency representatives) were conducted by telephone. The evaluator indicated that there was no apparent difference between the interview responses collected when the CPWS worker was present and those conducted in his absence. Interview data was transcribed directly onto a portable computer as the interviewees spoke. A copy of the interview schedule is provided in Appendix K.

The Otara CPWS worker completed two annual evaluation reports for the Otara Crime Prevention project. These provided information for the periods between 1 June 1998 and 31 May 1999, and 1 June 1999 and 30 April 2000, respectively. Data for these reports was collected from a range of sources including:

• Case studies from client records, updated on each occasion the CPWS worker worked with the client • CPWS worker monthly reports indicating participant profiles, activities and long term plans for participants, and community contact and networking, seminars and training, problems, administration time, supervision outcomes, and general comments.

Department of Internal Affairs Visits

Throughout the duration of the CPWS project, the Whaia Te Tika CPWS worker maintained ongoing contact with her local DIA community advisor. In addition, the community advisor provided input into the data collection and administration of the annual evaluation reports. She also provided feedback to the department regarding the CPWS worker's progress towards meeting Whaia Te Tika project objectives. difficulties and process issues were also reviewed. The researcher also visited the project site and met with the CPWS worker and other staff involved with the project.

Throughout the duration of the CPWS project, the Gisborne CPWS worker and project manager maintained ongoing contact with their local DIA community advisor. In addition, the community advisor provided input into the data collection and administration of the annual evaluation reports. He also provided feedback to the department regarding the CPWS worker's progress towards meeting Gisborne Crime Prevention project objectives.

A research analyst from the Department of Internal Affairs visited the Gisborne Crime Prevention project annually. On the 2 nd of May, 1999 the researcher used this visit to access additional information for the project evaluations and met with the CPWS worker, project manager and other RHC co-ordinators. During these meetings the project's contribution to meeting each of the outcomes identified under the Crime Prevention Package was discussed. Obstacles, difficulties and process issues were also reviewed.

The researcher also visited the Rangatahi Health Centre and was shown around the locations of the urban ROAM (Rangatahi on a Mission) sites (this will be explained later).

Throughout the duration of the CPWS project, the Te Puna A Rona CPWS worker maintained ongoing contact with his local DIA community advisor. In addition, the community advisor provided input into the data collection and administration of the annual evaluation reports. She also provided feedback to the department regarding the CPWS worker's progress towards meeting Te Puna A Rona project objectives.

A research analyst from the Department of Internal Affairs visited the Te Puna A Rona project annually. On the 10 th and 11 th of May, 1999 the researcher used this visit to access additional information for the project evaluations. The research analyst attended half a day of one of the follow up courses, participating in the course activities, engaging with course participants and their parents, and observing course facilitators and staff. These meetings included discussion regarding the project's contribution to meeting each of the outcomes identified under the Crime Prevention Package. Obstacles, difficulties and process issues were also reviewed.

Throughout the duration of the CPWS project, the Otara CPWS worker maintained ongoing contact with his local DIA community advisor. In addition, the community advisor provided input into the data collection and administration of the annual evaluation reports. She also provided feedback to the department regarding the CPWS worker's progress towards meeting Otara Crime Prevention project objectives.

In addition, a research analyst from the Department of Internal Affairs visited the Otara Crime Prevention project annually. On the 3 rd and 4 th of May, 1999 the researcher used this visit to access additional information for the project evaluations by meeting with various members of the CPWS worker's management committee, including:

• CPWS project co-ordinator/manager Crosspower Ministries

The researcher spent a day with the CPWS worker, following his activities as he engaged with young people and supervised the Youth Embassy. She also met with:

• Volunteer youth workers • Team Leader of Manukau City Council Community Development Services.

During her meetings with the CPWS worker, management committee members and Otara Crime Prevention Project stakeholders, the researcher asked questions regarding the project's contribution to meeting each of the outcomes identified under the Crime Prevention Package. Obstacles, difficulties and process issues were also reviewed.

Throughout the duration of the CPWS project, the Awhinatia Te Whänau CPWS worker maintained ongoing contact with his local DIA community advisor. In addition, the community advisor provided input into the data collection and administration of the annual evaluation reports. She also provided feedback to the department regarding the CPWS worker's progress towards meeting the Awhinatia Te Whänau project objectives.

In addition, a research analyst from the Department of Internal Affairs visited the Awhinatia Te Whänau project annually. On the 8 th and 9 th of May, 1999 the DIA researcher met with the CPWS project worker, as well as other members of Te Kotahitanga E Mahi Kaha Trust, including:

• alternative education programme facilitator • facilitator of the after school programme for at risk young people aged 13-16 years old • CPWS project manager Meetings also occurred between the research analyst and: These meetings included discussion regarding the project's contribution to meeting each of the outcomes identified under the Crime Prevention Package. Obstacles, difficulties and process issues were also reviewed.

The CPWS Project

The project is called Whaia Te Tika. The project proposal identified the aims of Whaia Te Tika as:

• preventing, or reducing offending by young people aged 14 -20 years • enhancing community capacity to address youth problems which contribute to offending • empowering youth to enable them to make informed decisions about their future direction • increasing positive participation of young people at risk of offending in their community, whänau and schools • improving co-ordination between agencies involved with youth at risk of offending • increasing community capacity to effectively deliver projects and projects targeted to these at risk young people

In order to achieve these aims, the project set the following objectives:

• reducing participant offending rate during participation on the programme by a minimum of 85% • delivering programme modules on a one to one basis with participants progressing at their own pace such that a minimum of 95% of participants attend and complete the programme • receiving a minimum of 50% of referrals from whänau networks • reducing participant offending rate when participant is on the maintenance prerelease plan • using a lead agency approach for programme participants where required • recording the number of referrals that do not meet CPU/CPWS criteria and recording action taken.

The Whaia Te Tika project intended to target young people between the ages of 14 and 20 years of age, residing in Christchurch East district and either experiencing problems likely to lead to offending, or already offending. Only those young people who did not appear to be responding to conventional helping services were to be accepted. It was envisaged that Te Rünanga O Nga Maata Waka would also work with the local Shopping Mall Management to identify youth at risk and to establish avenues for referral.

The project was to focus on youth experiencing the following problems:

• youth offending -drug related offences, anti-social behaviours, violence, vandalism, bullying, truancy, gang involvement • youth health and welfare -self harm, substance abuse, unemployment, depression/anxiety/mental health, poverty, lack of money, gang membership • education -truancy and suspension from school

As indicated in the project proposal, the overall aim of Türanga Health's CPWS project was:

• to work with at risk rangatahi to improve life chances by early identification and early intervention.

This was to be achieved by way of:

• providing a role model for at risk rangatahi in Gisborne City, responsible for establishing a trusting relationship through which young people may be referred for appropriate help, and guided towards appropriate activities.

The CPWS worker was identified as the means of providing this role model. His tasks were defined by a series of objectives, including:

• identifying key issues and working towards strategies to deal with them • identifying at risk rangatahi and providing them with early intervention • assisting in the reduction of risk-taking behaviours (sex, drug and alcohol abuse and involvement in petty crime) amongst rangatahi • reinforcing positive social behaviours by involving youth in productive educational, cultural and leisure opportunities • providing a forum for facilitation and negotiation between rangatahi, their hapü, their marae and the wider community

In order to achieve these objectives, the following activities were identified as necessary:

• liaising with a range of relevant community agencies in Gisborne, Responsibility for the agency and administrative networking aspect of these activities was taken by the project manager, leaving the CPWS worker to plan and complete the youth programmes.

The project target group comprised of rangatahi aged under 20 years of age, within Gisborne City and surrounding area. The project concentrated primarily on working with rangatahi in the two most at risk suburbs -Kaiti and Elgin, with Mäori being the priority target population.

According to the original project proposal, the Te Puna A Rona project aims to:

• empower, inform, and nurture young Mäori who are alienated from mainstream institutions, to reduce their recidivist offending and encourage their positive development and autonomy.

The project target group comprised of 12-17 year old Mäori youth experiencing school failure and/or criminal offending. As such, Te Puna A Rona aimed to work with those youth most likely to offend against their whänau, themselves, and wider society. In doing so it intended to:

• keep tamariki out of the youth justice system

• encourage whänau to be responsible for their tamariki • make rangatahi accountable for their actions • make rangatahi aware of the effects their actions have on victims and their families, and their own whänau

The original project proposal did not specify geographical area, ethnic or gender groups associated with the project. Neither did it specify the exact nature of the project worker's roles and responsibilities.

At the time of accepting the proposal, DIA and CPU acknowledged that by keeping these criteria flexible, the project provided the opportunity for the worker to "get out there on his own", identify needs, specify the client group and develop projects accordingly.

However, the proposal did identify aims for the project worker to work towards. These included:

• encouraging and nurturing the well-being and self esteem of young people in a manner that is acceptable and non threatening to them • inspiring and supporting youth to make informed choices about their lifestyles and the environment in which they live

The proposal also indicated means (objectives) for the CPWS worker to work towards in order to meet these aims:

• identifying and working with young people, to develop their strengths, resources and self reliance and to divert them away from offending • building relationships with individuals and providing support that is ongoing

• facilitating better utilisation of services available to young people and assisting with the co-ordination of youth services in Otara • providing a follow up system for young people coming out of corrective institutions

The project intended to target 14-20 year olds who were at risk of offending, or who had already committed minor offences. Those considered to be most at risk of offending included those with behaviour problems (destructive or detached) as well as victims of violence/conflict, abuse (physical, sexual and substance), neglect and/or isolation. The project aimed to work intensively with 6-8 young people per year.

According to the original project proposal, the overall aims of the Awhinatia Te Whänau project were to:

• enhance the well-being and raise the self esteem of young people, in a manner that is acceptable and non-threatening to them. • encourage youth to make informed choices about their lifestyles to enhance their own well-being

The project proposal identified three main objectives:

• target ten young people (aged 14-20 years) in Kaikohe, who are recidivist offenders • develop an individual development plan for each of these young people and network with other community and government organisations to facilitate an integrated service capable of meeting a wide range of individual, social, cultural and spiritual needs • work intensely over a three year period with each individual offender The work undertaken with the young people was intended to include both preventative and rehabilitative components. The preventative component comprised:

• relating young people back to their cultural heritage to promote self understanding, and to provide a sense of identity. • protecting the interests of the youth who are predominantly disadvantaged, displaced and abused. • working to increase self esteem and self management of young people, primarily through education

The rehabilitative component of the project was to comprise of:

• countering negative actions, and peer pressure by redirecting energy and thinking in a positive manner. • reintroducing young offenders back into the community.

• developing and building better relationships between the young people and their community.

Nature of the Project

Project outline and content

The Whaia Te Tika project began in 1997 and funding was identified for three years, to 2000.

The CPWS worker works with youth referred from other Nga Maata Waka projects who have been identified as participating in criminal acts. The CPWS project and Nga Maata Waka also act as a sponsor for some community corrections clients, providing an alternative to prison. From the information gained in these workshops, and with one-on-one support from the project worker, the participants are encouraged to develop individual pathway plans. Development of these plans include establishing clear objectives and time frames for achievement, as well as finding ways to overcome barriers encountered along the way. Participants also undertake individual learning projects and receive assistance addressing personal issues and concerns.

The Whaia Te Tika project emphasises community involvement and youth are encouraged to seek assistance from various external agencies and networks. In addition, participation includes involvement in group activities designed to foster interpersonal, social, and communication skills. Technical capability and cultural skills, including Tikanga Mäori, numeracy and literacy, current affairs and knowledge in at least one industry, are also developed through these activities.

The project operates full-time, moving at a pace appropriate to the needs of participants and group dynamics. It is structured so that individually oriented activities occur between 9.00 am and 12.00 am each day, and group activities occur between 1.00 p.m. and 4.00 p.m.. Two afternoons each week are scheduled for recreational activities.

After six weeks of intensive involvement with the CPWS worker, clients are given six weeks to implement their plans. This includes practising positive behaviours within real life situations such as school, training, work and/or family interactions. During this time the CPWS worker maintains daily contact with the clients, providing support and guidance.

Clients are then expected to return to the project site and spend the next six weeks assessing their plan, discussing barriers they encountered during implementation, attending additional workshops (to further enhance their personal development), and putting in place another learning plan for implementation.

Completion of the Whaia Te Tika project occurs when participants are ready to follow their individual pathway plan into an appropriate alternative full time activity. However, a structured system of contact is maintained during the time after the participant leaves the project. This includes: week at a pre-arranged time. During contact, the participant arranges to contact the project worker on another time and day during the next three weeks • Ongoing -The participant is encouraged to make contact with the project worker at least once a month

In addition to youth at risk, the CPWS worker also works with whänau, schools, Police, and Youth Justice to resolve issues the young people are experiencing. This involvement has included:

• attending family group conferences • supporting participants at court hearings • working through issues with individuals, their whänau and any other agencies involved in finding solutions/resolutions

In addition, both the project management group and the CPWS worker have taken an active role in liaising with the CYP&F Service, Mental Health Services, Counselling Services, Whänau Groups, and Community Organisations. It was considered particularly important to establish positive, co-operative working relationships with these agencies, both in terms of ensuring that project participants receive the best level of service possible, and as part of reducing the possibility that participants will be disadvantaged by past criminal activities upon reintegration into the community.

The project also avoided media attention. The criminal histories of the youth involved in the project meant that a low profile was considered best for their progress, and for community acceptance of both the organisation and the youth.

The CPWS project was set up early in 1998 with initial funding identified for three years.

The CPWS worker's role involves helping to co-ordinate and facilitate the activities of the centre, as well as providing the specified services for "at risk" Rangatahi. These include:

• encouraging rangatahi and their whänau to plan events including organising whänau nights • supporting and assisting rangatahi with the development of a Rangatahi Advisory Group • promoting positive healthy and drug free lifestyles, both informally and through organised educational, cultural and leisure activities • referring rangatahi to other agencies where appropriate (i.e. for drug and alcohol counselling, mental health services, anger management, rape crisis and sexual health services) • providing information to rangatahi through projects and wänanga run at the centre • advocating of behalf of rangatahi (including involvement in family group conferences and mediation in public issues)

The interaction between the RHC and the CPWS worker is such that the centre attracts young people who participate in group activities with the CPWS worker. As the young people become known to the CPWS worker, he is able to identify at risk individuals and assist them to access services specific to their needs.

The youth centre provides a safe environment for youth to come and hang out. Other than Mäori, it does not target a specific youth population and therefore attracts a wide range of individuals. In addition, the CPWS worker actively works to facilitate greater interaction between rangatahi and the wider community, especially in terms of whänau groups. This work includes:

• advocacy and support during family group conferences • increasing access of families to services • assisting families in the search for runaway rangatahi • facilitating communication between parents and young people • networking with other youth services and facilitating the use of the health centre by other community groups

Since April/May 1999, the CPWS worker has also been involved with co-ordinating an Out of School Care and Recreation programme (OSCAR). This programme is targeted at medium to high risk young people, aged 10 -14 years, who demonstrate "in school behavioural problems" or are "falling out of the education system". As part of OSCAR, parents are required to participate with their rangatahi through attendance on the GAIN programme. This whänau interaction allows exploration of communication issues and facilitation of skills to address these. Since April 1999, the RHC co-ordinators have worked towards establishing interventions away from the RHC, both in Gisborne and in two of its surrounding rural areas. They received significant community support and encouragement to do so. Indeed, the youth centre and CPWS maintains a very high public and media profile in Gisborne, and has even attracted foreign students on placement and visitors from overseas.

The new interventions include the ROAM (Rangatahi on a Mission) project. This project was developed by the project manager and CPWS worker in response to a desire by Türanga Health to provide educational and interest based activities within the three iwi areas; Ngai Tamanuhiri, Rongo-whakaata and Te Aitanga a Mahaki. At the same time, Türanga Health had leased two residential homes within Gisborne, one in Ranfurly Street, Kaiti and one in Munroe Street, Eglin. These two addresses are located in extremely high risk neighbourhoods, with significant gang influences. It was proposed that the homes could be used as a base from which to provide after school educational and recreational programmes.

There are three rural and two urban ROAM projects. These focus on:

• providing safe, challenging learning environments for young people to reflect back on where they have been and plan their futures • providing skill development programmes designed to challenge, entertain and assist rangatahi to make decisions that will challenge their attitudes and behaviours • facilitating mutual learning between workers and rangatahi such that workers learn more about the pressures that impact on young people who dwell in rural and residential communities within the Gisborne region.

The projects are also intended to offer support to young people, their families and schools, as well as providing community groups and organisations with the opportunity to deliver or assist with life skills programmes for young people. In order to attract young people to the projects, and to obtain community buy in, the CPWS worker and one other RHC co-ordinator canvassed the homes, streets and schools in each locality. They talked to local residents and teachers, introducing themselves and explaining their role.

The programme targets a maximum of 20 rangatahi aged 10-12 years, in each location, and is intended to run for one year, after which time it will be evaluated and a decision regarding its future will be made. Once rangatahi have completed the ROAM programme, the co-ordinators intend to assist rangatahi and their families to provide support needed to join other intensive after school programmes, social or sports clubs, and other youth groups within their area. It is hoped that the ROAM project will facilitate ongoing relationships between Türanga health and rangatahi, whänau, parents/guardians, schools, marae and other youth groups.

The Te Puna A Rona project began in 1998 with funding identified for three years, until 2001. It consists of a series of three block courses, delivered over a period of sixteen weeks (Figure 2). All participants are required to attend all three block courses. Prior to the block courses, each participant and their whänau receives an orientation to the programme.

Figure 2

The project was established in 1998, with funding identified for three years, to 2001.

Young people are identified, and referred to the project, either through a community referral process, a self referral process or as a result of participation in other activities common to the CPWS worker. A needs assessment is then conducted and a personal management plan developed with the young person. The needs assessment includes identification of cultural background, education and training, employment, and previous offences.

The CPWS worker engages with each young person on a one to one basis, and the nature of this interaction varies accordingly. However, in each case the CPWS worker focuses on the personal development of each young person, including: As the young person develops skills relevant to each of these components, they are encouraged to practice them in increasingly social settings. They are also encouraged to assist with the development of other locally relevant project components to ensure the project addresses real opportunities for the young people.

In addition to working with individual young people, the youth worker is responsible for networking with community groups, local business people, and government agencies; helping to establish and co-ordinate reduced offending projects for 14-20 year olds; facilitating community discussion of the above; organising, encouraging, and making the vision (overall aims of the project) a reality.

The project began in January 1998 (although the work is not new to the organisation) with funding allocated for a three year period, until January 2001.

Upon referral to the project, participants, their whänau, and associated agencies worked with the community project worker to draw up, and agree to, individual personal project plans. These plans consisted of a series of goals for each project participant.

Individual progress focused on the development of specific skills including: In order to facilitate this development, plans were complemented by a series of project components designed to provide participants with the skills and motivation to achieve their goals. These included personal development, educational and vocational skills attainment, cultural development and awareness, and health, fitness and recreation (Table 15). Because the participants were encouraged to work through their plans in their own time, and to set goals that were meaningful to them as individuals, these components were offered on an individual, as per need basis. Components were delivered in collaboration with a range of other Trust and external agency programmes.

Table 15

Awhinatia Te Whänau project components by related learning and activity areas

Number of participants and source of referrals

Between November 1997 and November 1998, forty-eight (48) young people participated in the Whaia Te Tika project. Of these, three (3) maintained only short or infrequent contact and two (2) left early to live with whänau in the North Island. The majority of these referrals were made by whänau (15), schools (12), or DCYFS (11). Nine (9) of the young people who participated in the project between November 1997 and November 1998 continued their involvement into the 1999 year.

Between November 1998 and November 1999, thirty-seven (37) young people participated in the Whaia Te Tika project (including 9 from the previous year). Of these, three (3) maintained only short or infrequent contact.

Nineteen (19) of the young people who participated in the project between November 1998 and November 1999 were referred by whänau workers (primarily through Otautahi Social Services Whänau Workers), and eighteen (18) were referred by DCYFS Social Workers. This represents an increase in DCYFS referrals as compared to the first year of operation.

Between March and December 1998, 5068 attendances were recorded at programmes run at the Rangatahi Youth Centre, with an average of 17 young people visiting the centre each day. Most of these came to the centre of their own accord 2 , or with friends. However, towards the end of the year, the CPWS worker noted that an increasing number of referrals were being made by whänau, community groups and mainstream organisations (no exact figures were kept).

Between January and December 1999, the CPWS worker indicated that the youth centre received an increased number of referrals from statutory agencies, such as the police and DCYFS as well as community groups, schools, other youth organisations, churches, and the youth themselves. Similarly, the average number of young people participating in centre activities increased to twenty-one (21) youth visiting the centre each day, with a total of 7562 attendances.

Currently, there are between ten (10) and twelve (12) young people participating weekly on site at each of the ROAM locations.

Demographics

Most project participants who became involved with the project between November 1997 and November 1998 were Mäori (30), males (36), aged between 12 and 13 years (28). Only nine (9) of the forty-five (45) participants (who were actively involved in the project) were female. As well as young Mäori, the project attracted nine (9) Päkehä/European participants, and six (6) Pacific Island participants. Seventeen (17) of the young people were aged between 14 and 16 years, but none were aged 17 years and over.

Between November 1998 and November 1999, there was an increase in the age of participants, with most aged 14-16 years (29 - Table 1). In addition, eight (8) participants were aged 11-13 years old. Participants included thirty-two (32) males and five (5) females. The majority of project participants were Mäori (24). Two (2) described their ethnic group as Pacific Island and eleven (11) identified themselves as Päkehä. 's gender, age and ethnicity 1997-1998November 1997-November 1998November 1998-November 1999

Table 1

Whaia Te Tika participant

Data collected from attendees showed that between March and December 1998, 29% (1480) of the rangatahi visiting the centre were aged under 15 years, 35% (1794) were aged over 15 years and 35% (1794) were of unknown ages. Male youth made up 38% (1921) of attendances, females made up 32% (1629) and 30% (1518) were of unknown gender (Table 4).

Table 4

Gisborne Crime Prevention Project gender, age and ethnicity 1998 and

During this time, the majority (56%) of attendances were made by Mäori (2836), with 14% (714) being made by non Mäori and the remainder being by individuals of unknown ethnicity (1518). Between January and December 1999, the proportion of individuals attending the centre, who identified themselves as Mäori, appeared to increase (to 6031 or 80%). However, during 1998, at least 30% of attending rangatahi did not provide information regarding their ethnicity, age and/or gender. Indeed, in 1999, the proportion of attendances made by individuals aged 15 years and under increased (to 3915 or 52%), but so did the proportion of attendances made by individuals aged over 15 years (3647 or 48%). Similarly, the number of male (3766) and female 3796attendances both increased but remained equally represented. As such, the 1999 data was more accurately recorded.

Most of the twenty-one (21) young people who became actively involved with the project during 1998 were: Mäori (19) • aged between 14 and 16 years (16). Table 16 gives the remaining demographic details for 1998 participants. Only two (2) of the active participants were female and the same number were aged between 17 and 20 years old (2), under 14 years old (1) and/or of Pacific Island ethnicity (2). The age of one participant was not specified. In 1999, all of the eighteen (18) young people who worked intensively with the CPWS worker were Mäori, and all but one were male. Table 16 gives the remaining demographic details for 1999 participants. Ten (10) of these young people were aged 14-16 years and eight (8) were aged 17-20 years.

Table 16

Presenting issues

The main issues presented by young people who became involved with the project between November 1997 and November 1998 are shown in Table 2. As indicated, the largest proportion of these had committed minor offences (the dominant presenting issue for young males compared with truancy for young females). Table 2 indicates that between November 1997 and November 1998 the majority of project participants suffered from learning difficulties, most commonly a lack of literacy or numeracy. This variable does not appear to have been measured during the second year of operation. 1997-1998 and 1998-1999 (?=not In addition, between November 1997 and November 1998, nine (9) young people were referred to the programme but, due to excess participation numbers at the time of referral, they could not be accepted. Seven (7) of these were truanting school and two (2) demonstrated anger management problems but none were involved in any petty criminal activities. They were referred to agencies which dealt specifically with truancy, training and anger management.

Table 2

A further five (5) youth involved in criminal activities were referred to the project but not accepted onto it. Three (3) of these were declined on the basis that their offences were extremely severe, indicating the need for psychological or psychiatric intervention. It was decided that the project worker was not professionally qualified to manage these cases. The remaining two (2) referrals for criminal activity were significantly older than those already participating in the project and it was considered that their admission would seriously hinder group dynamics. They were referred to alternative training projects.

Between November 1998 and November 1999, the proportion of all of project participants who had committed minor offences prior to becoming involved with the CPWS worker (Table 2) increased to 100%. Half of the male participants had committed serious offences (these included burglaries and physically or sexually violent crime). All of the female participants and most of the males were identified as being disengaged and alienated from whänau and as truanting school.

The programme received sixteen (16) referrals that didn't meet CPU-CPWS criteria. Of these, seven 7were mentally disabled and required special care regarding sexual behaviour. They were referred on to specialist agencies. Eight (8) individuals were aged over 20 years old and were referred on to training or employment initiatives, and one (1) referral displayed severe violent behaviour and was referred on to a programme specifically addressing this issue.

From observations made by the centre co-ordinators, it is estimated that all Rangatahi who attended the RHC in 1998 and 1999 were committing some kind of minor offences (including under aged drinking) when they became involved with the youth centre activities. In addition, in 1999, up to 70% of male rangatahi and 60% of female rangatahi were involved in some form of drug abuse. Other presenting issues are listed in Table 5. Clearly, there are some large differences between the presenting issues identified in 1998 and 1999. To some degree, this change is likely to have resulted from better record keeping during the second year, and more awareness of the nature of issues presented. It is also likely to have been influenced by changes in the project focus such that those young people who attended the RHC on a drop in basis during 1998 differed from those who participated in the more structured programmes introduced in 1999.

Table 5

The researcher also met with a range of individuals associated with Te Puna A Rona, including:• Mätua WhangaiJustice Services Officer • Mätua Whangai youth and whänau workers (including youth diversion and dusk 'til dawn co-ordinators) • Mätua Whangai co-ordinator • Mätua Whangai analyst/funding officer • Mätua Whangai counsellor/therapist • Te Puna A Rona volunteer workers • Alternatives to Violence Project facilitators • DCYFS social worker • Tainui Iwi Authority health worker and representative

Between June 1998 and May 1999, data regarding the presenting issues of young people who came in contact with the CPWS worker was limited. However, the CPWS worker estimated that the largest proportion of these young people presented with issues of drug and alcohol abuse and/or truancy. In addition, most were involved in sexually unsafe behaviour, and were disengaged and/or alienated from whänau. Table 12 shows presenting issues for all eighty-five (85) young people who came in contact with the CPWS worker between June 1999 and April 2000. Overall, the most common issue was truancy, followed by minor offending and drug and alcohol abuse. Case studies Case study data was collected for twelve (12) of the twenty-seven (27) young people with whom the CPWS worker was intensively involved between June 1998 and May 1999. The latter is presented below, together with data from six (6) of the eighteen (18) young people with whom he worked intensively between June 1999 and April 2000. Of the six (6) cases identified between June 1999 and April 2000, three (3) first came in contact with the case worker between June 1998 and May 1999 and were also identified in the cases presented for that period.

Table 12

Age Nine (9) of the young people identified in the case studies undertaken between June 1998 and May 1999 were aged between 14 and 16 years. The remaining three 3were aged between 17 and 20 years.

Between June 1999 and April 2000, two (2) of the six (6) young people identified in case studies were aged 11-13 years, and four (4) were aged between 14 and 16 years old.

During 1998, the most common issue presented by twenty-one (21) project participants, who worked intensively with the CPWS worker, was drug and alcohol abuse. Table 17 provides a breakdown of the number of young people who presented with this and other issues: The issues most frequently presented by the eighteen (18) young people who became active project participants during 1999 included minor offences, drug and alcohol abuse and financial stress. These and other issues are identified in Table 18: In 1999, at least half of the participants were no longer living with their parents, even though the average age of participants at the time was 15 years.

Table 17

Table 18

How do rangatahi come to be on your project? Who refers them?

Process

Whaia Te Tika was established in an organisation with appropriate community networks and a proven record in providing youth services. Development of the project proceeded relatively smoothly with few obstacles to effective implementation.

It was initially projected that up to 80 youth would participate in the project during the first year, with each group of ten actively involved for a six week period followed by a six week period in the community fulfilling their individual action plans. However, the fact that the project was also intended to proceed at a pace appropriate to the youth, and the group dynamics, prevented this from happening.

Furthermore, the CPWS worker indicated that while the project was set up to cater to ten (10) participants at any one time, the significant amount of "emotional baggage" brought by the participants meant that even dealing with eight (8) could put undue pressure on the quality of programme delivery. She recommended five (5) as a more suitable number of participants.

Recognition of the amount of emotional baggage which participants needed to work through also meant that the initial 6 week period of onsite participation was often too short to address all of the issues and components involved. For most, a period of 10 to 16 weeks was needed before they were ready to put their first development plan into action.

Similarly, the CPWS worker observed differences between the successful implementation of development plans for young people who received whänau support as opposed to those who didn't. For instance, many whänau members actively resisted their young people returning to mainstream educational activities as they did not believe they would do any better than previously. Therefore, the CPWS worker attempted to invest more time working with whänau to encourage and facilitate the needed support. It was necessary for the CPWS worker to invest significant time facilitating community trust and relationships. One of the main barriers to young people implementing their personal plans was the way in which the community viewed them. Most potential employers were unwilling to take on local young people, even in a voluntary capacity, as they did not trust them.

Although such liaison, encouragement and facilitation could be achieved during the six weeks when the young people were implementing their development plans, it could not be achieved if the CPWS worker was expected to work with other young people during this time, or if some young people required more than six weeks to put their plans into practice.

Much of the whänau liaison and development role was consequently taken over by another employee of Te Rünanga O Nga Maata Waka. This person was not funded under the CP-CPWS scheme and the CPWS worker observed that although her wages were paid by the scheme, many of the group development activities undertaken by the young people required additional resources for materials and facilities. These costs were covered independently by Te Rünanga O Nga Maata Waka.

In addition to increased whänau involvement, the CPWS worker also recognised the need for increased involvement on the part of DCYFS social workers, especially where young people were not supported by their whänau. The CPWS worker stated that social workers often ceased contact after bringing their young people to her. They then rarely made contact to check how the young people were going. In one case, the CPWS worker spent three weeks trying to track a social worker down before being able to speak with them. Furthermore, DCYFS do not provide the Whaia Te Tika project with any resources or support to work with the young people they refer.

Another issue which arose during the first year of operation resulted from initial reliance on whänau referrals. This meant many of the young people referred to the project during its development were under the intended age group. As referrals increased, the project was unable to accept significantly older youth for fear of upsetting the dynamics of the group (although the average age did increase to within the intended age range during the second year of operation).

Although increasing community recognition of the project resulted in a greater number of referrals to the project, many of these did not fit the specified criteria. These referrals were not accepted onto the project, but neither were they abandoned. Finding alternative placements for them required the unforeseen expenditure of both human and financial resources. Members of the project management team also indicated that a number of young people referred to Whaia Te Tika demonstrated behaviours consistent with severe psychological disturbance. They felt that these young people required psychiatric assessment but did not have the means to access this for them. This was particularly evident for some young Mäori who they said appeared to be referred on the basis of their ethnic identity (i.e. because the project was a Mäori provider) rather than because of their needs.

During February 1999, in the second year of operation, there was a noticeable decline in referrals. Schools were either closed during this period, or reluctant to utilise the programme until after funding had been secured. As a result, the project management team recognised the need to extend networks to other youth agencies/providers, and to widen boundaries to include the entire Christchurch Community. They also decided to include the Whaia Te Tika project when promoting other programmes run by Te Rünanga O Nga Maata Waka. However, after making these changes they were inundated with referrals, many of which could not be accepted.

During the first year of the CPWS project, the CPWS worker spent a significant amount of time helping to set up the RHC. This included finding a suitable building and establishing funding to renovate it.

Development of the RHC involved significant input from local youth. At the time of opening, the centre consisted of little more than a building. In order to foster ownership of the RHC, responsibility for decorations, and other finishing touches, was left with the young people who used it. They have since painted murals on the walls and floors using funding from a Creative Communities Grant which was accessed by the project manager.

The official opening of the RHC received significant media and community support. Much of the street on which it is located, was closed off for the day and a variety of activities and festive events were provided. These events attracted large numbers of young people, but it soon became apparent that many of them experienced difficulties getting to and from the youth centre on a regular basis. Therefore, a van was acquired in order to provide youth with a means of transport.

Provision of transport resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of young people becoming involved with the community project worker (from an average of 2 youth per day during the first week of opening to an average of 17 youth per day throughout the rest of the first year). Since then, the RHC has become a focal point for Gisborne youth. Initially the centre was open five days a week but access to additional funding meant that, from June 1998, hours were extended to allow full time operation.

During the first two months of operation, the Health Centre staff experienced a number of difficulties with rangatahi. These included gang involvement, swearing, alcohol abuse, drug taking and other "at risk 3 " behaviours. In order to combat these behaviours, a three strike rule was instituted.

This rule was such that, once a young person demonstrated an at risk behaviour they were formally warned by a centre co-ordinator and, depending on the incident, steps were taken to reduce the chance of the behaviour occurring again. These included referrals to appropriate agencies, development of personal plans and/or frequent (intensive), one on one mentoring and involvement with the CPWS worker. If a second incident occurred, another warning was issued and, frequently, the whänau of the rangatahi were involved.

After three warnings, the rangatahi were banned from the centre for a period of time, and encouraged and supported to seek outside assistance. Far from being discipline based, the three strike rule facilitated identification of risk and helped to formalise the referral process. In the two year period since the RHC has been operating only one rangatahi has been permanently banned and in this case the centre co-ordinators considered the action necessary in order to protect other centre users.

As the role of the CPWS worker gained recognition as a community resource, more and more youth were referred directly by whänau, community groups and mainstream organisations, or sought the CPWS worker out of their own accord. Therefore, the RHC became less and less important in terms of facilitating this relationship. The specific nature of the referrals facilitated the CPWS worker's awareness of the need to engage with youth in a more structured manner. In discussion with the DIA research analyst, he indicated that crime prevention required more than a drop in centre.

In early 1999, the number of youth visiting the RHC on a drop-in basis began to decline and, in May, the focus of the centre was changed to accommodate the OSCAR programme. In addition, the CPWS worker began developing the ROAM project. Originally intended as an outreach extension of the OSCAR project, limited time (the project visits each area for one day per week), and the wide range of issues experienced by local young people, resulted in a change in focus.

By April 2000, approximately eleven (11) young people were attending weekly meetings at each of the ROAM locations (three rural and two urban resulting in a total attendance of approximately 55 young people). These meetings focused on:

• building self esteem through identity; i.e. whakapapa, kapa haka, and developing confidence through personal and artistic expression. • developing skills and education; i.e. through structured wänanga, art, practical exercises, mediation and learning communication skills • anger management; identifying issues and referring to appropriate agencies • addressing issues; youth workers inform parents of their obligations and assist them to work through problems

As a new project, Te Puna A Rona has been continually evolving throughout the two and a half years since its inception.

In October 1998, the project was piloted as a single block course. The first week of this course was residential, with young people spending the duration at the Kökiri Centre in Whaingaroa (Raglan). Over this time they participated in a series of modules delivered from 9.00am until 7.00pm. These included discussion, education, training and experiences in: The second week of the pilot block course consisted of a series of day courses, running from 9.00am until 2.30pm at Fairfield Intermediate wharenui. The classes followed directly on from the modules delivered in the first week.

Following delivery of the pilot course in 1998, a number of issues were identified for improvement. Specifically, staff, whänau, facilitators and volunteers indicated:

• the range of topics that the block course attempted to address was too wide, placing significant pressure on staff, time and resources and contributing to an information overload for some participants • the need for caregivers to provide more support for rangatahi, especially in terms of modelling and reinforcing the changes they are making • problematic and disruptive behaviours by rangatahi suffering drug and/or alcohol withdrawal during the course • concerns that the block course operated in isolation, with no appropriate follow on interventions

Comparison between the pre and post participation risk assessments revealed individual differences in the degree to which the project influenced drug related behaviour. Those young people who had demonstrated a medium or high risk of drug abuse prior to participating in the project either reduced or maintained their risk level, but the one (1) rangatahi who presented as a low risk of drug abuse, actually moved to high risk by the end of the block course. It was also established that female and male rangatahi had different needs. Mixing the two in a residential programme created significant distraction for both groups resulting in increased staff workload.

In response to these issues, the project was modified to incorporate the following features:

• a series of three block courses with each focusing on a separate issue: alternatives to violence, health education, and Te Ao Mäori • putting systems in place to relieve staff fatigue and overload, including the provision of relief staff, ensuring that staff took time to recuperate while facilitators were delivering modules, and delegating and delineating on site tasks appropriately • making whänau involvement implicit in the programme with entry conditional on a contract bonding the young person's parent to attend the parent/whänau component • recommending that clients consult General Practitioners and other health workers regarding workable alternatives to withdrawal, and that a harm minimisation period be developed 1-2 weeks prior to block course attendance • providing an option of programme exclusion for rangatahi demonstrating extreme reluctance, or withdrawal type behaviour • limiting programme participants to males who had been assessed as high risk, either in terms of cognitive behavioural measures, or drug abuse, or both • development of a co-ordinated and sequential programme of follow up interventions for each individual, based on the pre-programme needs assessments • adding cultural identity, self control and self harm categories to the risk assessment measure These changes were tested for the 1999 Te Puna A Rona intake. While the majority appear to have been effective in addressing the issues identified, information generated both during and after the programme suggested that there was still insufficient whänau support. This may or may not have contributed to the perceived ineffectiveness of some of the individual interventions as a long term follow through method. These interventions typically included one or more of the following:

• referrals to the "Manäki Te Rito Rangatahi Alternative Learning Centre" in Fairfield, • "in-school intervention" with a dual role of reintroducing students back to school and catching other students before they leave school, • effective and realistic tracking and monitoring of a student's progress • community investment and involvement enabling a deepening of community partnership and ownership.

It was also indicated that the single block course was too short to develop and reinforce pro-social behaviours as alternatives to violence.

Te Puna A Rona was further modified in 2000. Changes included:

• fully integrating Te Puna A Rona into Manäki Te Rito Rangatahi (the alternative learning centre operating in Fairfield intermediate school) such that students complete Te Puna A Rona at entry to the centre and then continue for the rest of the year in the Manäki Te Rito Rangatahi learning programme • refocusing the last block course on alternatives to violence, incorporating Mäori cultural issues and understanding into this theme • only offering the programme to participants whose whänau are considered unlikely to move out of the Hamilton area within the next year (based on previous addresses, life circumstances, and history of transience)

• contracting parents to support their rangatahi in specific ways such as: assisting with homework, spending time talking with and listening to them, actively participating in the programme and its development (e.g. attending with their rangatahi)

In order to accommodate these changes, additional funding was accessed from the Ministry of Education, as part of the resource package for Fairfield Intermediate School. This funding meant that from 2000 Te Puna A Rona could only receive referrals from either Fairfield Intermediate School or NETZ, the community truancy agency. Fairfield Intermediate emphasised school non attendance for two or more terms as one of its referral criteria. However, school staff indicated a willingness to make referrals on the recommendation of other agencies, such as DCYFS and the Police, both of which the principal and deputy principal maintain frequent contact with.

Data collected in early 2000 indicates that the new referral system has had little effect on programme accessibility. Fairfield Intermediate is a decile one school, located in a particularly disadvantaged area of Hamilton, and is often the last port of call for young people who have been suspended or expelled from other schools. With the exception of a lower average age, programme participants demonstrate similar attributes (prior offending, drug and alcohol abuse, and at risk behaviours), to those who participated in previous years.

Integration of Te Puna A Rona and Manäki Te Rito Rangatahi has meant that the alternative education facility no longer caters to female students or those assessed as medium risk. Mätua Whangai believes that medium risk students could be catered to within the mainstream school environment. However, there is still a need for programmes for young Mäori women.

The project activities depended largely on the specific needs and level of responsiveness of the youth involved. Furthermore, stakeholders indicate that Otara is a very insular community and that Otara youth operate according to established boundaries concerning hierarchy, territory and ethnic diversity. In order to cross through these boundaries and develop the credibility to be effective on the street, the CPWS worker spent the first two months of the project developing relationships with individual youth, whänau and community organisations.

In particular, the CPWS worker established regular contact with a group of young people involved in the Crosspower "Back to Learning" project. This project is a collaborative effort between Hillary College and Crosspower to provide an alternative learning environment. The CPWS worker engaged with these youth outside of the learning times, providing them with support and monitoring their interactions in the community. He also assisted the "Back to Learning" teacher by liaising with the young peoples' whänau.

As the CPWS worker became recognised and acknowledged as a community resource, he began working with other community groups (especially Christian organisations) to assist whänau to cope with, and manage their young peoples' behaviour. He also provided assistance to community groups, including two days of support work to the Houhanga Rongo Ministries Literacy Project (between 1998 and 1999).

In addition, the youth worker continued to get alongside the young people. This process frequently involved physical activities such as weight training and working out together.

As the young people began to open up, the CPWS worker encouraged them to participate in more social forms of exercise such as the Unisex basketball team, established and registered in a local competition. This was instrumental in fostering team spirit and team work. He also encouraged them to participate in weekly youth group sessions held in his home.

During the process of getting close to the young people, the CPWS worker attempted to identify specific issues of concern to each of them, as well as interests and possible goals. Once trust had been established, the CPWS worker was able to propose possible means of working through issues or selecting and working towards goals. These frequently included assistance in developing numeracy and literacy skills.

In addition, young people were provided with support and assistance identifying and applying for courses and projects to meet their goals. They were also encouraged to participate in activities which facilitated public acknowledgement of their specific skills, knowledge, ideas and talents (such as singing, cooking, organising) including youth forums, workshops and drama. Furthermore, the CPWS worker organised opportunities for youth to participate in activities that may otherwise have been unavailable to them. These included weekend retreats and camps at Whanaki and Ponui Island, and yacht trips.

In cases where specific issues arose, the CPWS worker used various techniques to refocus individuals. These included guided imaging and facilitating access to specific services and community groups.

The CPWS worker also worked with other community groups, assisting them to monitor youth whom they identified as being at risk. Monitoring took place both at school and in the community and the CPWS worker also visited the young people at their homes. This monitoring role sometimes extended to activities more reflective of police intervention. Specifically, with the CPWS worker frequently witnessing fights, vandalism and other such transgressions, he was often in a position where he felt compelled to intervene. When asked whether he believed that such intervention was his role, the CPWS worker indicated that it was a good way to get kids to talk to him. He believed that most of the time neither party wanted the risk of losing face which comes with a fight and therefore the required intervention was often minimal.

In terms of vandalism, the CPWS worker approached perpetrators with options ranging from family involvement to cleaning things up. Although they considered it embarrassing, most of the offenders opted to clean up rather than have the CPWS worker approach their families.

During the first year of operation, the project was managed by a committee specifically established for the purpose. Unfortunately, this did not function as intended. With the exception of the committee secretary and chair person, few of the committee members demonstrated an active commitment to their role. Therefore, most of the support came from either of these two people, or the DIA community advisor, who not only attended committee meetings, but also met with the CPWS worker on a monthly basis, and with the chairperson on a bi-monthly basis.

The DIA community advisor, together with the secretary, assisted the CPWS worker to develop methods and skills in both administration and evaluation. The advisor's report for that year is evidence of the implicit knowledge that she had of the project and issues affecting it. In addition, one member of the Crosspower team met with the youth worker on a weekly basis to discuss progress and issues relating to his work with youth.

Six months into the project, the DIA Community Advisor was joined by the Manukau City Council Community Advisor and they worked with the committee chairperson to plan ways of up-skilling the committee members. It was intended that the committee would become more responsive, both to their roles and responsibilities, and to the CPWS worker. This did not happen and at the end of the year of operation, the chairperson moved that the committee be dissolved and responsibility for the project be handed over to Crosspower Ministries, the umbrella group. This decision was approved and passed into action in June 1999.

During the first year of operation, the CPWS worker experienced some difficulties working with various members of the management committee, many of whom represented specific stakeholder groups. In particular, the CPWS worker identified difficulties in resolving the interests of representatives from different Pacific Island Groups.

From the CPWS worker's point of view, many of the committee members approached the project with their own agendas. As such, he felt that they expected him to serve each of their own ethnic groups individually, rather than the community as a whole. Once committee members realised that his role was to focus more widely, they ceased to volunteer their time to support him or act as his employer. The youth worker also indicated that there were communication problems, with the spoken English of some committee members being difficult to understand.

Nevertheless, the umbrella group (Crosspower Ministries), with whom the youth worker maintained the closest contact and from whom he received supervision, assisted to reduce the difficulties resulting from the management committee. This group is well known within the Otara Community and was able to encourage the youth worker's relationship with Stakeholder groups by way of its own networks.

Since dissolution of the Otara United Management Committee, the CPWS worker has worked to develop the drop in centre at the Otara Youth Embassy. The Otara Youth Embassy was established by Crosspower as an after school resource based at the Alternative Education Centre. It was intended to provide a safe place for youth to "hang out". It also provided the CPWS worker with increased access to young people and therefore, from 1999, he took on a supervisory role at the Embassy.

Developing the drop in centre has been a slow process due to a lack of voluntary staff able to help with the supervision of the 25-50 young people who turn up most nights. At the time of producing the second evaluation report (April 2000), the CPWS worker had accessed three volunteers to assist him.

Given the large numbers of young people per staff/volunteer attending the drop in centre, this facility has primarily been used as a means of monitoring the young people, encouraging them to check in and make contact with the CPWS worker. The CPWS worker has expressed the desire for a more structured programme at the youth embassy, rather than simply providing a drop in centre. The envisaged programme would emphasise the value of specific processes with young people learning through hands on activities. Unfortunately, without sufficient human resources, especially female supervisors, this cannot be achieved.

Therefore, for individual and small group mentoring, young people have hung out with the CPWS worker at the gym facilities of Crosspower, and visited him at his home after hours. Often these visits involved sharing food. In addition, young people put in his care through youth justice, and a number of those who have been "kicked out" of home, have resided with the CPWS worker. This activity was not identified in the CPWS project proposal and is recognised by DIA workers as problematic.

In a letter supporting the CPWS worker's activities, HT Chapman, the Director of Houhanga Rongo Ministries, indicates that by welcoming young people into his home, the CPWS worker and his wife have created a "place of belonging, a safe and secure place to be, a place where young people can feel loved and valued and a place where they can come to and call home". Certainly, this capacity for positive reinforcement and unconditional regard is evident in videos produced by the CPWS worker.

However, HT Chapman also indicates that the CPWS worker has paid for the young peoples' food and expenses associated with accommodation out of his own pocket. Furthermore, given the worker's limited resources, and his family committment, HT Chapman expressed concern regarding the long term sustainability of this intensive involvement.

During the first six months of 1998, the main focus of the Community Project Youth Worker was the identification of recidivist youth offenders and the development of personal progress plans. This included establishing appropriate community and whänau support.

In August 1998, the CPWS worker who had set up much of the project left Awhinatia Te Whänau to take up alternative employment. Although a replacement youth worker was found relatively quickly, this new person required some time to familiarise himself with the project and establish rapport with the project participants, their whänau, and relevant external agencies. The remainder of 1998 was spent in this capacity.

As a result of the change in CPWS worker, the Trust worked through a process of streamlining its recruitment and recording systems. These included improving systems for monitoring the young people's activities. It also invested time in the clarification of boundaries, both in relation to community needs and expectations, and those of other agencies.

In early 1998, a new manager was appointed to oversee the activities of the Trust. The new manager placed significant emphasis on integrating the various projects in which the Trust was involved, and on ensuring that these worked to complement, rather than compete with, other community activities. In particular, the manager focused on streamlining the target groups of each project in terms of age and risk levels.

As a result of these changes, the CPWS worker's role became more focused in 1999. While continuing to work with participants to develop their personal plans, his main functions in assisting them to pursue these plans were:

• supporting young people in court and FGC (Family Group Conference) appearances • supervising community work • setting up work experience • working through individual plans to achieve objectives and offering support • assisting with enrolments to school and courses • one on one körero about needs • crisis support • care co-ordination During this time, project worker activities became increasingly focused on the development of community and whänau support for youth at risk. These included:

• whänau participation • gradual integration back into community • developing community support for these young people • changes in whänau environment • eliminating isolation from support networks Specifically, the community project worker engaged with schools, whänau, and other community groups, to establish means by which the young people could be encouraged to achieve positive outcomes. Such means included ensuring that policies, practices and procedures were conducive to the participant's progress. In particular, the CPWS worker ensured that key operating procedures were conducive to keeping youth safe.

The CPWS worker also worked to establish mechanisms by which he could call upon these agencies to provide assistance with court advocacy, family group conferences and specialist educational services.

In some cases, this resulted in ongoing integration and co-ordination of services between agencies. For instance, the Police CPU programme (Te Taurikura) focuses on working with at risk 8 -13 year olds to prevent crime. Police refer those aged over 13 to Te Kotahitanga E Mahi Kaha Trust's after school programme for at risk youth or, for those who are recidivist offenders, the Awhinatia Te Whänau programme. In turn, the two agencies frequently call on each other to provide human resources and share information. This relationship is enhanced by the fact that the Te Taurikura programme is physically located next to Te Kotahitanga E Mahi Kaha Trust.

In addition, the CPWS worker specifically engaged with whänau in the following activities:

• talking about participants • regular check in • court and FGC appearances • acting as advocate with other departments • whänau development plans

The development plans of both young people and their whänau were monitored and reviewed on a regular basis to ensure the goals were realistic, achievable and effective in meeting the changing needs of those concerned. As the project participants worked through each of their goals, their activities were increasingly oriented towards reintegration into the community. Initially, participants were encouraged to participate in group activities and later community contact was facilitated through community service.

Throughout its development, the CPWS workers and project management collected feedback from participants, whänau and the community. In November 1999, project participants indicated that they found it helpful to have someone who is:

• outside the whänau to talk to about their problems • accessible during a crisis and knows how the system works • able to help identify and support them toward the next step • able and available to provide advocacy on their behalf with Police, Courts, Probation Officers etc.

However, both participants and their whänau indicated that although contact at the initial stage of offending was of significant benefit, one year down the track they felt the need for more space to sort out their own priorities and practise the skills they had acquired. It was established that although continuous monitoring was beneficial to the police and victims, it was not a constructive form of rehabilitation for the participants. Furthermore, the extensive community networks maintained by the Trust in collaboration with the Police made explicit monitoring unnecessary.

Participants and their whänau suggested that following crisis support and assistance, there was a need for more flexibility in the project. They considered it unnecessary to be intensively involved with the CPWS worker for three years, indicating a preference for self determined involvement after 6 to 9 months of intensive contact. It was indicated that both the young people and their families should be able to initiate involvement after this period, ensuring a minimal amount of ongoing contact through the CPWS worker role in care co-ordination and community work supervision.

This feedback was put into practice towards the end of the second year of operation (1999). However, up until that time, and beyond, the CPWS workers continued to meet, or to work towards meeting, each of the objectives set for the project:

Achievement of Project Objectives

In the following analysis, percentages are reported in order to compare project progress with the objectives identified in the original project proposal. However, it should be noted that with sample populations of less than 100, percentage measures may be misleading.

Identifying at risk rangatahi During 1998, identification of at risk rangatahi occurred responsively, largely as a result of rangatahi committing incidents which transgressed the rules of the RHC. Similarly, much of the information regarding key issues for rangatahi was identified during investigation of incidents.

However, in 1999, a drop in the number of young people committing incidents led to a more proactive approach being developed. This approach involved targeting 10-14 year olds, specifically by way of the OSCAR and ROAM programmes. The structured nature of these programmes enabled RHC co-ordinators to conduct "pre-risk assessment and health plans" for each rangatahi that became involved with the service. Over the two years during which the CPWS worker has been funded by the Department of Internal Affairs, a total of eighty-six (86) rangatahi demonstrating at risk behaviours have been identified.

To target ten young people (aged 14-20 years) in Kaikohe who are recidivist offenders In 1998, the project workers worked with twenty-one (21) young people identified by police and government agencies as recidivist offenders. At the end of the year, six (6) of these were still actively involved in defining and pursuing their goals and five (5) others were receiving ongoing support as they moved out on their own.

In 1999, the project worker sustained intensive involvement with eighteen (18) young people identified by police and government agencies as recidivist offenders (including 11 continuing involvement from 1998). After 12 months, twelve (12) of these continued to access assistance from the project worker.

In total, the CPWS worker worked intensively with 28 individual young people during 1998 and 1999.

Reduce participant offending rate during participation on the programme by a minimum of 85 percent

Of the 36 participants who had completed pathway plans between November 1997 and November 1998, only three (3) re-offended during their participation on the programme. This suggests a 92 percent non-offence rate. Re-offending was measured by way of reports made by police, whänau, social workers and supervisors.

The second annual report indicates that only two (2) of the thirty-seven (37) programme participants engaged in criminal activities during their involvement with the CPWS worker. This suggests a 96 percent non offence rate. Following offending, both of these young people continued to work on their pathway plans, as well as completing community service. At the time of the second annual evaluation report (November 1999), they had been continuously involved with the Whaia Te Tika project for seven (7) and five (5) months respectively.

Deliver programme modules on a one to one basis with participants progressing at their own pace such that a minimum of 95% of participants attend and complete the programme

Between November 1997 and November 1998, 94 percent (45) of project participants completed the first structured six week course of the programme. Of these thirty-four (34) completed individual pathway plans and left to pursue employment, education or training opportunities. An additional two (2) participants left the project after six weeks to go and live with extended whänau in the North Island, and nine (9) continued to develop their pathway plans into 1999.

As such, 89 percent had either completed, or were continuing to attend, the programme at the end of 1998. For those participants who completed the project (34), attendance ranged between 10 and 16 weeks. The largest group of these (17) attended for 16 weeks, with 12 weeks being the median (14) length of attendance.

Of the youth who became involved with the project between November 1998 and November 1999, 92% (44) completed the first structured six week course of the programme with twenty (20) completing individual pathway plans and leaving to pursue employment, education or training opportunities. An additional two (2) participants were referred to other agencies and three (3) returned to live with whänau in the North Island. At the end of November 1999, the remaining twelve (12) participants were still working with the CPWS worker to develop their pathway plans. In total, 86 percent of project participants had either completed, or were still attending, the programme at the end of 1999.

For those individuals who completed individual pathway plans during 1999, minimum attendance levels were recorded as 97 percent of course time.

In all cases, programme participants were encouraged and supported to work at their own pace. Part of allowing participants to progress at their own pace has involved young people maintaining contact with the project worker following release from the programme. All but two of the participants who left the project between November 1997 and November 1998 remained in monthly contact with the youth workers, as did those who left between November 1998 and November 1999. Of these departures, nine have returned to the project for further support/assistance when needed.

Additional assistance has included: helping to redefine and address issues that are not working for the individual, redeveloping pathway plans, assistance with home placements, support during family group conferences, advocacy for employment and/or training opportunities, and support during court proceedings. Returning individuals have remained with the project for between one (1) and four (4) weeks before leaving to make a new start progressing their pathway plans.

Receive a minimum of 50% of referrals from whänau networks

The Whaia Te Tika project aims to receive at least 50 percent of its referrals from whänau networks. The rational for this objective is that whänau referrals provide a link between community and community programmes and therefore increase the capacity of community members to access services and resources. It is also an implicit part of the Mäori development component of the project to strengthen hapü groups as the social infrastructure.

Between November 1997 and November 1998, 60 percent (27 referrals) of the referrals made to the Whaia Te Tika programme came from government agencies and organisations. These included DCYFS, schools and Youth Aid/Community Constables. However, 33 percent (15) referrals came directly from whänau. The remainder (3) were referred by community agencies who were in the business of working with at risk young people.

Between November 1998 and November 1999, most referrals were made by whänau social workers (51%: 19). The remaining referrals (18) were made by DCYFS. Te Rünanga O Nga Maata Waka indicate that the large number of referrals being made by these agencies has precluded direct referrals from whänau members.

Reduce participant offending rate when participant is on the maintenance prerelease plan

Between November 1997 and November 1998, thirty-four (34) participants left the programme after completing a personalised pathway plan and trialing their pre-release programme for two weeks prior to departure. At the time of the first annual evaluation report (November 1998) all of these young people continued to maintain monthly contact with the project worker, and reports from police, whänau, social workers and supervisors indicated that 88 percent (30) had not re-offended since leaving the programme.

Between November 1998 and November 1999, a further 20 participants completed and implemented their pre-release maintenance plan. At the time of the second annual evaluation report, all were still being monitored by the CPWS worker and none had been reported as re-offending. This equates to a 100 percent non offence rate.

Use lead agency approach for programme participants where required

The lead agency approach involves a single agency acting as the main liaison between the programme participant and other agencies with whom he or she is involved. It also involves the lead agency working with other agencies and organisations to coordinate their activities around the programme participant.

Between 1997 and 1999, Te Rünanga O Nga Maata Waka had regular contact with whänau, government agencies, school, justice and community organisations that had referred youth to the programme. The CPWS worker assisted clients to identify needs and facilitated the involvement of these groups in meeting them. These activities have assisted Te Rünanga O Nga Maata Waka to maintain an accountability function.

This accountability function has extended to other agencies to which young people are referred, particularly other Mäori organisations. The latter presented a considerable challenge to Te Rünanga O Nga Maata Waka. As an Urban Mäori authority, Te Rünanga O Nga Maata Waka indicates it is often excluded from consultation and funding in favour of Iwi based organisations. However, a significant proportion of the young people worked with are either alienated from such organisations and associated Marae, or not provided for in programmes administered by them. In order to overcome these issues, Te Rünanga O Nga Maata Waka has attempted to form close relationships with individuals in the police and other government agencies.

The agencies with whom the Whaia Te Tika project worker maintained frequent contact between November 1997 and November 1998 included:

Between November 1998 and November 1999, these agencies were extended to include greater emphasis on whänau organisations, Iwi and Hapü. Specifically:

The CPWS worker has supported participants when they have had to appear in court, at family group conferences, in meetings with school counsellors/advisors, and when they are trying to resolve issues with whänau. In addition, she has kept an ongoing record of other agencies associated with each participant, including contact dates, individuals involved, and nature of the involvement. Each of these agencies received regular updates from Nga Maata Waka regarding the progress of the participant.

Record number of referrals that do not meet CPU/CPWS criteria and record action taken.

Between November 1997 and November 1998, the Whaia Te Tika project worker received 14 referrals that did not meet the CPU/CPWS criteria. From November 1998 to November 1999, a further 16 referrals did not meet the criteria. Details of these referrals and the action taken were recorded and are provided in the "presenting issues" section above.

Outcomes

Achievement of CPWS Outcomes

In addition to the objectives set for the project, each CP-CPWS project was also required to contribute to the CPWS outcomes identified in the 1997 Youth at Risk Crime Prevention Package (pp. 11-12). These outcomes were designed to address the needs of both individual participants and communities.

Individual objectives included:

Positive behavioural changes Of the thirty-six (36) participants who completed the programme between November 1997 and November 1998, only three (3) committed offences whilst on the programme. Furthermore, of the thirty-four (34) participants who left the programme with a pre-release plan, only four (4) had re-offended by the end of the first annual evaluation period (in November 1998), and only one (1) has subsequently re-offended.

For those participants who completed the programme between November 1998 and November 1999, only two (2) re-offended during programme participation. Both of these continued with the programme after committing the offences; developing their pathway plans in conjunction with fulfilling the requirements of community service sentences. Of the 20 youth who left the programme with pre-release plans between November 1998 and November 1999, none had re-offended at the time of the second annual evaluation report (November 1999).

In the second annual evaluation, support for the programme's success in reducing youth offending is provided by a representative from the New Zealand Police Pegasus Project. This representative states that:

I believe this organisation [Nga Maata Waka] to be invaluable in the community as it fills an important gap for youth in the area.

[The CPWS worker] and her team are dedicated to their work with young people, helping in areas such as youth offending and education. To my knowledge, their programmes have been hugely successful. Table 3 shows the different employment, education or training opportunities pursued by the thirty-four (34) youth who completed individual pathway plans and left the project to implement them (on a full-time basis) between November 1997and November 1998. Similarly, between November 1998and November 1999 programme participants pursued their pathway plans into a range of training, education and employment activities and opportunities (Table 3). 1997-1998Outcomes November 1997-November 1998 November 1998 -November 1999 Secured full time employment or training placements

Table 3

liaising with, and working with, appropriate stakeholder organisations, • establishing a working base at the Rangatahi Centre, • liaising with all high schools and intermediate schools in Türanganui-ä-Kiwa, • monitoring popular gathering places frequented by rangatahi, • receiving referrals of at risk rangatahi from individuals and agencies, • appropriately intervening with rangatahi referred, • referring rangatahi and whänau, requiring other assistance, to appropriate agencies.

Positive behavioural change Evaluation of the pilot block course held in 1998 was primarily focused on process, with the results being used to modify the way in which the programme was delivered. However, comparison of pre and post project risk assessment scores did provide evidence that two of the four rangatahi assessed as high drug/substance abuse risk 6 prior to the block course had reduced their risk levels after the block course. In addition, one had maintained his drug/substance abuse risk level, and one did not complete the post course assessment.

Comparison of risk categories (excluding those relating to drug, alcohol and substance abuse) indicated that rangatahi (and their parents) had also modified their behaviours in other areas. All but one of the rangatahi demonstrated decreased levels of risk 7 across crime, convictions, parental control, school disciplinary problems and peer relationships. The one rangatahi who did not decrease in risk, maintained a medium risk level.

Overall of the risk measures, rangatahi showed a 22% decrease in risk factors (from 142 to 111) after the programme (Table 8). Despite the fact that a number of the risk factors measured were non changeable by nature (i.e. age at first conviction and prior criminal behaviour), this result achieved slight significance (2.315 = 0.10, t test), In addition to risk assessment information, all of the participants' primary caregivers reported positive changes in their rangatahi post block course. Those specifically noted were: The 1998 evaluation report also indicated that as of 23 December 1998 (two months after the conclusion of the pilot block course) none of the rangatahi involved with the project had re-offended. This conclusion was based on zero notification rate from both the police and DCYFS as well as information obtained from post programme whänau and rangatahi visits.

Table 8

In 1999, comparisons between the Te Puna A Rona pre and post course risk assessment measures revealed 47% reduction in risk during the course of the programme. At the beginning of Te Puna A Rona, participants total risk score was 236 and at completion it was 126 (Table 9). These results are significant (7.13 = 0.01, t test). Once again, this reduction in risk is particularly creditable given that two of the risk criteria (age at first incident and prior criminal behaviour), with an overall combined score of 73, were fixed and non mutable. All of the other risk criteria reduced ( Figure 3). The most notable changes occurred for school disciplinary problems (-20), negative peer relationships and associations (-22), and self control including demonstrations of anger and violence (-29). Also of note was a reduction in self harming activities (-11). In comparison, the participant who did not complete the courses did not demonstrate any reduction in at risk behaviours. In 1999 the evaluation report was much more outcome oriented than in 1998 and included comparison of police records for each of the programme participants. These records identified the number of contacts between project participants and police. They included all contacts, including those in which participants were contacted as witnesses or victims of offences, or for information.

Table 9

Don for his commitment to assisting young people at risk and sincerely hope that this invaluable programme can continue to be made available in our community.

Figure 3

• a TOPS course learning Te Reo Mäori and carving • a training course in CV preparation, presentation, and performing in job interviews • a car grooming course • KAAT trust music courses

Participant police records were compiled for the 88 days prior to their involvement with Te Puna A Rona, during their involvement in the block courses (61 days), and for the 88 days following their completion of the block courses. Comparison across these periods failed to show any significant reduction in participant -police contact after the block course. However, it did indicate a slight reduction during the course.

No reduction in police -participant contact over such a short time frame does not necessarily indicate an unsuccessful programme. Contact may have occurred for any number of reasons other than participant offending. Given the increased salience of young people following their participation in the programme, it is very likely that they were noticed and noted more frequently than if they had not participated. Indeed, one of the outcomes of the project was improved monitoring of young people's activities and progress (see later: Improved co-ordination between groups involved with youth at risk of offending).

In addition, even if offending behaviours did not reduce immediately, Barnes (1999) suggests that it is reasonable to expect that change in behaviour lags behind changes in attitudes, values and increased knowledge. This suggestion is supported by research examining the effects of attitude change on behaviour (Regan and Fazio, 1977;Calder and Ross, 1973;Fazio, 1986: cited in Vaughan, 1991. These researchers showed that attitudes are more likely to influence behaviour when they are formed through frequent, direct experience, and when they have been thought about frequently. Fazio (1986) also showed that situational factors can cause people to act in a manner inconsistent with their attitudes.

The feedback and interview data collected during the second evaluation indicated that for many of the young people involved in the programme, recognition of their capacity for change was a frightening thing. It required them to completely modify their concept of themselves. In order to redefine this concept, the data suggests that a period of role testing was needed. This involved practising new behaviours and comparing them with old. As indicated by one of the volunteers working with the young people: Another issue which may have impeded changes in offending behaviour was the differential support received from parents. As indicated by a government agency manager:

Any effort put into kids alone doesn't achieve anything. Currently working with police, it's not that there are insufficient resources but that we target the wrong end. The hard core kids are committing the crimes for adults. Until we target the adults and use common-sense approaches such as surveillance, the kids will be out of control because the adults will allow it.

Indeed, there was concern that rather than reducing crime, the programme might create a strongly bonded network of criminals. In the words of one staff member:

They all come from different areas. There was potential for them to learn each others tricks. There were incidents outside the programme once it had finished, they'd bike all the way to each others place and get involved in crime.

The fear of fostering criminal collectives was not limited to the programme participants. There was also concern that some of the volunteers had not sufficiently resolved their own issues and motivations to effectively discourage those with whom they were working. However, the changes in attitudes of the volunteers which resulted from participating in the project suggests that this was not the case. If anything, the volunteers appeared even more aware of their behaviour than the participants.

Similarly, participant feedback suggests that any networks formed were more conducive to preventing crime than encouraging it:

We ended up hanging together after the course. We were keeping each other out of trouble, like if one started derailing off the track the other would help. After we got accused of doing a burglary, then we stopped hanging out together.

Unfortunately, the data suggests that although the young people's attitudes may have changed, some community attitudes towards them did not. Furthermore, the fact that the project facilitated more diligent monitoring of participants may actually have impeded this process. These processes are likely to have increased the ability of outside agencies to identify rangatahi.

Lawrence et al (1998) They identified one of the main advantages of the programme as its effect in reducing labels and judgements, such that young people were seen as individuals rather than "at risk", and Mäori were seen as a culture rather than a social ill. The worth that young people place on such distinctions is also identified in Karabanow (1999). It is also evident in the effects that lack of such distinction can have. Despite, an apparent lack of change in police behaviour towards Te Puna A Rona participants, there is evidence that the police supported the Te Puna A Rona project.

In October 1999, a representative from the East Hamilton Police Projects, Taiohi Toa -Strengthening Youth project provided a written recommendation for Te Puna A Rona. This recommendation argued that Te Puna A Rona encourages youth to develop "self discipline, ownership and responsibility for their actions", as well as fostering a general philosophy of "what do I do to change?".

Increased positive participation in their communities, schools and whänau

19* 15

Returned to school 13 3 Registered as unemployed 2 2 *Four (4) secured full-time employment Furthermore, five (5) of the seven (7) participants who left the programme before completing their personal pathway plans, did so in order to return to whänau living in other parts of New Zealand. Indeed, one of the positive outcomes of the project has been the improvement in the relationships between young people and their whänau.

As indicated by members of the Whaia Te Tika management committee, even if a young person is removed from his or her whänau, the psychological connection with the whänau continues.

An implicit part of the project has been working to enhance the ways whänau members interact with, think and feel about, each other. Whänau members are encouraged to show support for their young peoples' increased participation in their communities, schools and whänau. This support has manifested itself in a range of activities, from whänau members getting up to get their young people off to school (where formerly they didn't), to whänau members actually modelling positive participation by taking part in employment and training activities themselves (where previously they weren't).

Increased personal strength and self reliance

The annual evaluation reports (November 1998 and provide observations made by the CPWS worker, whänau, school staff and community agencies about the young people involved in the Whaia Te Tika project. These observations indicate qualitative changes in the personal strength and self reliance of young people involved in the programme:

• increased self esteem, motivation and an insight to a positive direction in life • increased confidence in their own ability

• increased recognition of their own potential and ability to make decisions for themselves • increased ability to identify personal learning difficulties and access assistance addressing them • more positive attitudes All but two of the participants who have left the project remain in contact with the project worker. These individuals have not always found it easy to pursue their pathway plans and several have been brought back into the project for further support, encouragement and direction. However, the fact that they remain in contact is due to their own efforts and commitment to do so. That they return for help indicates that they are willing to acknowledge difficulties, and be open to finding ways to address them.

Indeed, the mere fact that, since November 1997, fifty-four (54) young people have completed and pursued their individual pathway plans, indicates that they have been empowered to make decisions about their future. Another indicator of the programme's success is the young people's expressed desire to be a part of it.

The following provides an example of how one young person ended up on the Whaia Te Tika project:

Apart from the data concerning reductions in drug and substance abuse, most of the evidence for increased personal strength and self reliance was qualitative in nature. Specifically, Mätua Whangai staff, block course facilitators, volunteers and parents, observed the following changes which they attributed to the project:

• improved communication abilities, including a willingness to sit down and talk about issues, plans and ideas • completion of community work • identifying and fulfilling personal goals Evidence of these changes presented itself in the form of young people planning for a future which they believed they could achieve, and taking action to make that happen. For instance, during the health education block course, one young male set a goal to "not have a baby in his teens". He also asked project staff for condoms.

Other young people appeared to be particularly influenced by self healing practices, and the power of safe touching in the form of massage. They learned meditation and frequently asked for time to practice the art. Similarly, staff observed rangatahi rehearsing what could only be described as their own personal mantra "don't say yes when you mean no".

As indicated by project staff, one of the key aspects of Te Puna A Rona is that it encourages young people to use their imagination to creatively solve problems. In particular, it emphasises replacing old habits which have frequently developed as a result of circumstance, with new behaviours which they have designed themselves. Specifically, it helps them to discover what they like. Young people participating in the block courses were observed asking "very deep" questions, recognising that they could find the answers themselves, and working collectively to do so.

In addition, project participants became much more open during the course of their participation. They were willing to talk about how they felt about things, and to take ownership of their feelings. As they became more in touch with themselves, staff noted "less attitude"; rather than imitating others, they were being themselves. Furthermore, participants actively demonstrated pride in their identity and self control by:

• choosing to become involved in Te Rapa programme learning about self and culture • learning and practising Shaolin shadow boxing and passing grade within the first year • becoming involved in learning Mäori martial arts

After both the first and second years of operation (1998 and 1999) the project worker reported project participants having a greater sense of their own future, less anger and frustration, and added enthusiasm and intuition. They were said to demonstrate an increased knowledge of how to access services (including vocational and educational), increased ability to communicate with others (including a willingness to talk about their own problems) and less "attitude". These changes are evident in the willingness of the youth (and their whänau) to provide feedback to the youth worker, advocating greater self determination in their interactions.

• Ohaeawai Rugby Football and Sports Club

The CPWS worker has worked with local groups and organisations (including schools, training providers and government agencies) to develop policies, practices and procedures conducive to encouraging positive outcomes for the youth involved.

These networks have not only facilitated support for the young people in achieving their personal goals, and reintegration into the community, but have also provided additional support to their families. Working with other agencies involved in at risk youth has increased the knowledge base of both the youth worker and Te Kotahitanga E Mahi Kaha Trust. In turn, a number of other agencies, groups and businesses have sought and received information and advice from the project staff.

In annual evaluation forms provided by Te Taurikura (a Crime Prevention project of the NZ Police), DCYFS, and Ngapuhi Iwi Social Services, all three agencies identified the advice, assistance, information and resource sharing aspects of the project as both important and effective. It was also indicated that the project has been effective in facilitating networking between agencies and referral to other agencies. When asked whether the integrity of their services would be challenged if the Awhinatia Te Whänau project was no longer available, all three agencies answered "yes".

In addition, the CPWS worker has worked intensively with the families of the young people involved with the project. This has included assisting them to set up their own development plans, talking about participants, providing advice, assisting with Court and FGC appearances, maintaining open telephone contact, and acting as an advocate with other departments.

In the CPWS worker's March 1999 update, he indicated that at least half of the participants were no longer living with their parents, even though the average age of participants at the time was 15 years. He indicated that whänau still care about their children but do not feel like they have any influence in the daily activities of their young people.

An important outcome of the project has been to provide a means to communicate this care and concern, and increasing the levels of involvement that young people have with their whänau. This outcome has been facilitated by family days and activities aimed at cultural development, particularly those to do with Whakapapa. An indicator of the effectiveness of these processes has been an increase in the amount of time participants spend at home or with whänau. Acknowledged at the end of 1998, this increase remained evident throughout 1999.

Also important in increasing community capacity is the work the CPWS worker does with whänau in the absence of involvement with their young people. For young people who are not participating in any intervention projects, but who display at risk behaviours, the CPWS worker works with whänau to ensure their safety and development of coping mechanisms. As such, he acknowledges his own limits and reinforces the boundaries and personal responsibility of whänau members.

Community objectives included:

Increased community capacity to effectively deliver programmes and projects targeted to at risk young people The project is administered by Te Rünanga O Nga Maata Waka, an established community group which plays a large role in co-ordinating youth services in Christchurch. As a result of the project, Nga Maata Waka has increased its own capacity to deliver and co-ordinate services for youth people at risk of offending. Benefits include:

• increased knowledge and innovation in dealing with this client group • positive working relationships with all agencies and whänau involved with the project participants • increased networking and sharing of resources with other youth oriented community agencies

In turn, Te Rünanga O Nga Maata Waka's involvement with youth at risk has highlighted a number of issues in identifying and serving this population. Specifically, the increased knowledge developed during the Whaia Te Tika project has called into question the value of focusing such interventions around police figures. In Christchurch, police reporting for the Christchurch East area includes figures from Christchurch South. However, because of the label given to the reporting area, the latter locality was not originally targeted for intervention.

Similarly, increased knowledge and information sharing has demonstrated significant gaps in local service provision caused by a focus on targeting funds to Iwi authorities. This has been shown to be particularly ineffective where young people, although affiliated to local iwi, are alienated from them (i.e. as a result of serious negative experiences with iwi representatives or during marae visits).

Community recognition of the effectiveness of the Whaia Te Tika project and increased capacity of Nga Maata Waka means that Nga Maata Waka is able to exercise greater influence over the responsibilities of referring agencies. As such, it is able to advocate for greater accountability regarding the involvement of referring agencies in the development of individual youth. This includes ensuring appropriate school learning projects are in place, and that specific, necessary activities are funded.

Te Rünanga O Nga Maata Waka have maintained regular contact with young peoples' whänau. Where necessary, the project worker has supported participants and their whänau when they have had to appear in court, at family group conferences, during meetings with school counsellors and advisors, and whilst trying to resolve interpersonal issues.

Also of relevance to enhancing community capacity, is the fact that the young people maintain contact with the project worker after they have left the project. This, together with the project worker's community contacts, means that the relevant agencies are more aware of how things are going for the young person and are better able to respond when needed.

Improved co-ordination between groups involved with youth at risk of offending

Part of the Whaia Te Tika project objectives included the implementation of a lead agency approach to working with youth at risk. In order to ensure the effectiveness of this approach, the CPWS worker and project management group liaised and linked up with a range of other groups and organisations.

In addition to receiving referrals from these groups and organisations, and supporting the participant in their dealings with them, a significant component of the project worker's job involves recording and sharing information with them. The project worker maintains a list of all of the other groups, organisations and agencies involved with the participant, including the nature and duration of involvement. She also provides each group with updates, not only with regard to the participants' progress in the Whaia Te Tika project, but also with regard to their contact with other groups.

Since November 1997, the Whaia Te Tika project has worked to co-ordinate its activities with those of a range of agencies, including The project also works with whänau and extended whänau, police and youth justice, CYPS; Linwood High School; Aranui High School; Hornby High School; the respective Truancy officers. There is also an informal networking relationship between the project and Community Corrections.

Of significance is that the Whaia Te Tika project has worked to integrate its activities with external agencies rather than to compete with them. As evident in a comment made by the DIA community adviser, the project is particularly complementary to the Police Pegasus project because it works towards similar goals but does so in a different way. Therefore, while the Pegasus project is viewed as being part of the police, the Whaia Te Tika project is viewed as being part of the community.

The CPWS worker has worked with a number of other agencies involved with youth at risk. His role has included supporting young people and families during Family Group Conferences, and other offence related activities, and facilitating communication between the various parties attending such activities. This support aimed to improve the likelihood that interagency/group forums will yield outcomes that are meaningful and understood by all concerned.

The CPWS worker attends school trustees and PPTA meetings, and regularly liaises with the whänau of rangatahi with whom he is involved. These relationships often work interdependently. As in the case of the rangatahi whose father was leaving prison, the CPWS worker was able to inform the school in order to prepare them for changes in his behaviour and provide ways of supporting him. Similarly, the CPWS worker often assists whänau to liaise with schools and other agencies regarding issues involving their rangatahi.

In addition, the CPWS worker has also been involved in advocacy and mediation between the police and young people.

In addition to the Awhinatia Te Whänau project, Kaikohe hosts a number of other youth agencies providing crime prevention services targeting different levels of at risk youth. These include Kaikohe Community Youth Committee (KCYC), Te Taurikura (a youth at risk crime prevention project administered by the NZ Police), an after school programme run by the Te Kotahitanga E Mahi Kaha Trust, and He Tohu Rangatira.

In particular, the Te Kotahitanga E Mahi Kaha after school project targets medium risk (those who have committed one or more non-violent offences and were not yet considered recidivist) individuals aged 13 -16. The Awhinatia Te Whänau project targets high risk (recidivist and/or violent offenders) young people aged over 13 years (it also accepts medium and high risk young people aged 17 -21 years). At the same time, a neighbouring project run by the Police (Te Taurikura) targets at risk young people aged 8-13 years. The Kaikohe Community Youth Committee runs a parenting programme for young mothers aged 16 -21 and provides access to a number of one off interventions such as Anger Awareness courses and wilderness experiences. All of these projects and programmes maintain links with the alternative education project run by the Trust.

The project worker collaborates with all of these projects to ensure integration of activities to best meet the needs of those involved. This collaboration also allows other agencies, such as the police and DCYFS, to monitor and keep track of the young people with whom they work.

Also, implicit in developing improved co-ordination between groups involved with youth at risk of offending is the CPWS worker's role in care co-ordination. Specifically, they work with DCYFS and Ngapuhi Iwi Social Services to ensure that young Mäori maintain hapü and marae links during placements away from their immediate family. Similarly, they support Ngapuhi Social Services in their work with families to facilitate the eventual return of young people who have been removed from their care. As indicated by the Youth Justice co-ordinator of Kaikohe Child, Youth and Family Services, the CPWS worker's involvement is essential in facilitating hapü connections while Ngapuhi Social Services continue to work at the iwi level.

During 1998 and 1999 the CPWS project worker has become increasingly involved in sharing resources (human, information and physical) with these other agencies and exploring ways in which each project can add value to the others. The value of this involvement was formally recognised by Te Taurikura in the 1999 annual evaluation form for the project. Similarly, in various monthly updates, the CPWS worker has expressed increasing recognition of the importance of his role in assisting to coordinate and facilitate these relationships.

As of 2000, the CPWS worker has become the chairperson of the Kaikohe Safer Community Council. He sees this role as important in facilitating greater interaction between local government, community groups and iwi organisations.

Te Kotahitanga E Mahi Kaha Trust have worked hard to achieve community ownership of their programmes and projects. Representatives from various agencies, including DCYFS, Ngapuhi Iwi services, the Police, and Kaikohe Community Youth Council indicate that these efforts have been successful. As indicated by one such representative, Te Kotahitanga E Mahi Kaha is no longer seen as "that Mäori Trust" but is rather viewed as a resource for everyone.

Unfortunately, this relationship does not always appear to be reciprocal. While the CPWS worker actively involves himself with agencies concerned with youth at risk, not all such agencies are actively involved with, or knowledgeable about, the Awhinatia Te Whänau project. Specifically, some agencies are heavily involved with the youth intervention, but not at all aware of the CPWS worker's involvement with whänau. This causes problems where those same agencies may advocate to replicate some Awhinatia Te Whänau functions, merely because they do not know they exist.

Conclusions

Participants in the Whaia Te Tika project have demonstrated a number of positive outcomes including reduced offending and increased participation in community, school and whänau activities. The project has incorporated a number of methods demonstrated to contribute to such outcomes. These include:

• providing whänau with support and assistance to encourage positive behaviour amongst young people • substantial, intensive, meaningful contact between programme participants and pro-social role models • structured and focused rehabilitation programmes using behavioural processes to improve young people's reasoning skills and social behaviours • focusing intervention on characteristics (attitudes and behaviours) that can be changed and which are associated with individual criminal activities

The fact that project participants are assisted to practice positive behaviours within real life situations provides positive reinforcement of the value of associated changes in the overt expression of these through increased whänau, social, educational and financial rewards. It is this positive reinforcement which is most likely to have contributed towards the increased personal strength and self reliance observed for young people involved with the CPWS worker.

These methods were supported by continual contact with the participant following release from the programme. By maintaining contact, the project worker was able to detect if the project participant was experiencing difficulties and if so, bring the individual back into the programme for further support, encouragement and direction.

Ongoing monitoring of the young people also proved effective in facilitating a range of conditions shown to support the methods identified above. These included:

• identification of the most at risk young people so that the most intensive services could be targeted to them • continuous improvement of the quality interventions through provider development, staff training, improved infrastructure and better knowledge of best practice, including sharing this knowledge with other agencies involved with at risk youth.

• providing a holistic approach by working with young people in the context of the major influences on their lives -their family, school or employment, involved agencies and community.

As such, the project also facilitated recognition of a number of issues particularly relevant to working with youth at risk. These included the following requirements:

• time to work through "emotional baggage" prior to the introduction of cognitive and behavioural interventions • support from whänau/social workers and the local community (especially schools and employers) to facilitate young people's increased involvement in these entities • resources to provide material support for activities aimed at increasing group development • recognition of the interdependency of community agencies and activities, such that different agencies are able to influence each other to achieve the best results for young people (particularly with regard to organisations involved in Mäori development)

An additional issue raised by the results of the project relates to the fact that between the first and second year of programme operation there was an increase in the proportion of young people who secured full time employment or training placements and a decrease in those returning to school. Although this reflects an increase in the average age of participants during the second year, it also reinforces the need to provide a programme for those in the younger age group, who may otherwise slip through the net completely.

All of the young people who completed the Te Puna A Rona block courses demonstrated reduced levels of at risk behaviours following their involvement with the CPWS worker. The majority of these were identified as high risk prior to participating in the project and all had come to the notice of Hamilton law enforcement authorities. Specifically, completion of the project was associated with:

• reduced school disciplinary, truancy and attendance problems,

• reduced levels of gang affiliation and association with negative peer groups,

• reduced drug and substance abuse,

• increased self control, including reduced incidence of violence and victimisation.

In addition, programme participants demonstrated increased community participation, particularly in terms of education, training and cultural activities, following involvement in Te Puna A Rona.

The Te Puna A Rona project employed a range of methods which have proven effective in crime prevention projects overseas. These included cognitive behavioural interventions in which programme participants learn a range of social competency skills, as well as acquiring the ability to identify high risk situations and appropriate responses to them. Participants were given time and space to practise these skills in the safety of a residential environment, away from negative peer and family influences. They were then supported in transferring these skills, and applying them in their day to day lives through follow-up day classes. The families of participants were assisted to access information and resources which would enable them to reinforce and model the acquired skills, thus maintaining the young people's behavioural changes.

These processes were reinforced by the fact that they were ongoing over a 16 week period with appropriate follow on interventions aimed at keeping young people in the educational system. Furthermore, they were complemented by the development of a multi-dimensional assessment tool designed to accurately identify, and classify, at risk behaviour. The development of this tool (by Mätua Whangai) has contributed to the continuous improvement of the project by way of effective monitoring and evaluation of outcomes and processes.

It has also facilitated increased co-ordination and capacity between and within a range of community agencies in and around Hamilton. In particular, Te Puna A Rona has provided an effective referral option for high risk Mäori young people. It has facilitated community knowledge regarding practical intervention methods, increased information sharing, and allowed more accurate identification of resource needs. The project has also resulted in more effective monitoring of young people and their families such that they are less likely to "fall through the cracks".

The CPWS worker met and exceeded the original project proposal in terms of the number of young people to whom he provided intensive support and one on one mentoring. This support was paralleled by a number of positive outcomes for the young people involved, including increased participation in educational and training activities.

Almost all of the youth identified in the case studies had left or been expelled from the school system without any qualifications and often in the absence of basic numeracy and literacy skills. Most were unemployed and few were actively seeking work. All were, or had been, involved in criminal or anti-social activities, and several had had some contact with the legal system. Few came from stable home environments and many were, or had been, subject of familial abuse (physical, emotional or sexual).

As such, project participants were alienated from mainstream institutions, their outlook was bleak and most did not have the skills or knowledge to envisage or work towards a future involving positive community participation. A significant achievement of the CPWS worker was to assist the youth to identify goals and to show them how to take the first steps towards achieving them. Whether it be accessing application forms for a course, or assisting with numeracy and literacy skills, the youth worker's involvement reinforced the message that these young people could achieve positive personal outcomes.

In some cases, processes did not go according to plan. Individuals did not get into the courses that they wanted, and addictions detracted from activities. Nevertheless, the fact that these youth were able to set new goals to replace those that didn't work out, and pursue them, clearly demonstrates that the message had carried through. In addition, the CPWS worker's role in modelling positive behaviours and liaising between young people, their families and local schools and organisations, is in line with activities which have been shown to contribute positively towards crime prevention.

The project did not work miracles. Two young people went to prison for crimes that they had committed prior to their contact with the youth worker. One was arrested for car conversion during his involvement with the project and later disappeared without giving a reason. Yet another was "sentenced" to 3 months on the Whakapakiri project and another three months in alcohol and drug rehabilitation. Nevertheless, the fact that they engaged with the CPWS worker week after week of their own accord suggests that they found some value in the experience. This conclusion was reinforced by comments made by the young people themselves.

In terms of developing community capacity, one of the most powerful aspects of the project was increasing the young people's involvement in various community consultation and planning forums. Encouraging youth to share information and ideas not only resulted in an increased local knowledge base but this form of intervention has been shown to foster a sense of ownership and enhance community responsibility. Furthermore, it gave the young people the sense that what they say does matter and, as such, may have increased the likelihood of future participation, as well as self confidence and self worth.

Nevertheless, there was at least one objective that the CPWS worker did not meet. Specifically, his lack of involvement in facilitating better utilisation of services available to young people and assisting with the co-ordination of youth services in Otara. Also, there was a dearth of interaction between the CPWS worker and government agencies working with at risk youth.

Furthermore, a number of factors contributed to difficulties in managing the project. From the beginning the nature of the project and the roles and responsibilities attached were ill defined. In their proposal, the Otara United Crime Prevention Unit Committee was reluctant to specify geographical area, ethnic or gender groups associated with the project.

At the time of accepting the proposal, DIA and CPU acknowledged that in keeping these criteria flexible, the project provided the opportunity for the worker to "get out there on his own" and find out the needs, specify the client group and develop projects accordingly.

However, such variables were never completely specified and identification tended to occur on an ad hoc basis. To compound this problem, record keeping also occurred in an unstructured manner.

It was intended that the involvement of the committee members would open a pathway for committee members to have their own groups utilise the worker's skills. The latter was not achieved. With the exception of Crosspower and Houhanga Rongo Ministries, the CPWS worker did not appear to make his skills available to the groups represented by committee members, and the committee members did not specifically identify how he could do so.

As such, an opportunity to build community capacity was missed. Furthermore, given all of the time and energy put into the development of the management committee, very little was left to up-skill and/or provide training and personal development opportunities for the youth worker, let alone adequate supervision.

The establishment of a management committee which was representative of various ethnic and community groups was intended to facilitate co-operative relationships between the youth worker and these groups. This did not happen.

Rather the youth worker became increasingly involved in the activities of Crosspower, to the exclusion of the others. This focus developed naturally from the fact that the youth worker was based at the Crosspower premises, and because the other committee members did not have as much contact with him, or provide as much support to him.

The results suggest that Awhinatia Te Whänau project has contributed towards a number of positive outcomes for young people within Kaikohe, as well as strengthening the capacity of that community to prevent and address crime. Overall, the project straddles the boundary between preventing and responding to youth offending. Prevention efforts focus on strengthening community networks and capacity. Response activities focus on participants being intensively involved with role-models and mainstream organisations. By nature, these activities are implicitly related and are therefore complementary.

Feedback from the police and other community agencies suggests that the project has contributed to lower levels of recidivist offending within the Kaikohe community. This feedback is supported by the fact that only 6 of the 28 young people with whom the CPWS worker has been involved have subsequently come to the notice of Kaikohe's police force, and only one has entered the prison system.

Furthermore, there is significant evidence that participation in mainstream social and economic life is an important aspect of crime prevention. All of the project participants have increased their involvement in mainstream activities. These outcomes have resulted from the CPWS worker directly facilitating increased involvement in work, education, sports and community activities, both in terms of referral to programmes that retain young people in school and providing out of school opportunities to build skills and participate in community recreation activities.

Indeed, a particularly important aspect of the CPWS worker's role has been his ability to bridge the gap between youth at risk and mainstream organisations. Through his involvement, young recidivist offenders have been accepted onto sports teams and community activity groups that were not formerly open to them. It is likely that by reducing this rejection, the CPWS worker has contributed to reducing the development of oppositional culture (or rejection of mainstream norms).

Also significant in terms of the evidence regarding effective crime prevention is the fact that the Awhinatia Te Whänau project has significantly contributed towards increased collaboration and support between community agencies and institutions working with youth at risk. Furthermore, the project has enhanced these relationships by working to increase the resources available to whänau of youth at risk.

Specific to crime prevention methods, the CPWS worker has provided support for families with multiple disadvantage, including home visiting and linking to other services, as well as encouraging and facilitating social learning for children and parents. This involvement has allowed whänau members to establish limits, for both their own and their young people's behaviours, whilst reinforcing the attachment which exists between them.

In terms of the project's progress and ongoing development, the results indicate an increase in positive outcomes between the first and second year of project operation. These parallel the establishment of the project as an implicit part of the community, including greater involvement with and by other community groups. In his six monthly project plan for June to December 1999, the project worker stated that he had developed a much clearer understanding of his role in the project, acknowledging particularly the care co-ordination aspect of his activities. Other community and government agencies indicate that, particularly since 1999, the Awhinatia Te Whänau project has become increasingly important to the integrity of their own work.

A significant aspect of the project's development has been consultation of participants and their whänau. Acknowledgement and actioning of their feedback has contributed both to the empowerment of those concerned and to their buy-in to the overall process. It has also lead to continuous improvement of the intervention quality and a more tightly defined target group. As such, the CPWS worker is now actively engaged with other community and government agencies to accurately identify children and young people most at risk, so that the most intensive services can be targeted to them.

Gisborne Crime Prevention Project, Te Hauora O Türanganui-ä-Kiwa Ltd (Türanga Health), Türanganui-ä-Kiwa (Gisborne)

Background

Project Need

New Zealand's most isolated district, Gisborne, is home to 45,780 people (Statistics New Zealand, 1997). Of these, 42.4 percent identify their ethnic group as New Zealand Mäori and a disproportionate number of these are represented in local crime statistics. In addition, 1.1 percent identify their ethnic group and overall, 41.2 percent are aged under 25 years old.

In 1997 there was no dedicated youth worker for "at risk" rangatahi 1 in the Gisborne area. As a result, the Department of Internal Affairs approached various community groups and organisations to apply for funding to employ a Community Project Worker under the Community Project Workers Scheme (CPWS).

In early 1998 a funding proposal made by Te Hauora o Türanganui-ä-Kiwa (Türanga Health) was accepted. It identified Mäori rangitahi (under 20 years old) as the priority target group and pointed to a number of issues to support this. These included the fact that Mäori youth are more likely that other youth to:

• commit petty crime • engage in drug and alcohol abuse • leave school at an early age and/or without qualifications • come from large families and therefore have reduced opportunities for financial assistance to support tertiary education • experience cultural dichotomies and their impact • be recruited into gangs and gang related activities • operationalise stress by contemplating acts of suicide and violence

The households from which Mäori youth come are:

• more likely to be recipients of a social service benefit • less likely to be able to provide educational support to their children In addition, the funding proposal indicated that the Gisborne community sustained a number of trends which directly impacted on young people. These included:

• marijuana abuse • culture of "binge drinking" Furthermore, there appeared to be nowhere, apart from the cinema and Time Out arcade game centre, for youth to congregate and hang out. Therefore, youth tended to congregate in the streets.

Identified under the 1997 Crime Prevention Package as a location of significant criminal offending, Kaikohe lies at the southern end of the Far North District. This district has a population has a population of 52,935 (Statistics New Zealand, 1997 It was also suggested that most of the intervention projects located in the area were individually oriented and, although effective in the short term, did not account for these environmental influences on behaviour.

Youth Worker

The youth worker identified for the CPU-CPWS project is a Mäori male who has several years (3 years prior to employment as the CPWS worker) experience working with youth and/or families. He has been involved with a number of youth education projects, including teaching the history of both Mäori and other cultures, as well as Art and Kapa Haka.

The CPWS worker has received relevant training through university study, participation in the Internal Affairs youth worker training hui, and Türanga Health training projects.

The project worker identified, by Mätua Whangai O Kirikiriroa, for the CPWS position is a male Mäori with iwi affiliation to Waikato/Tuhoe. He has several years experience working with youth and/or families and possesses skills, training and transferable life experience gained through employment as a youth diversion worker, Mätua Whangai O Kirikiriroa Group Facilitator, and alternative education provider.

Youth Worker Management and Development

The CPWS worker is based at the Rangatahi Health Centre (RHC), and his official role is "Centre Co-ordinator". Although not funded by the Department of Internal Affairs, the RHC is implicit in the CPWS worker's role.

The RHC was opened in March 1998. It was established in response to the need for youth to have a space (building) where they can "hang out" and participate in free time activities. Apart from the cinema and the "Time Out" arcade games centre, the RHC has been the only facility in Gisborne to provide an evening venue for youth. Furthermore, most of the activities at the RHC are provided free of charge.

The RHC is administered by Te Hauora O Türanganui a Kiwa Ltd, an iwi incorporated society. In total, it has four co-ordinators and all are managed by a project manager.

In addition to receiving feedback from the rangatahi with whom he works, the CPWS youth worker has access to a youth worker network forum and peer support from other youth workers employed by Türanga Health.

During 1998, the Centre Co-ordinators were provided with training and development opportunities in: In addition, both the CPWS worker and the project manager attended a GAIN programme about "Getting Alternative Information Now". GAIN is a 10 hour family facilitation programme run with teens and their parents for 2 hours each week for 5 weeks. It teaches parents and young people communication skills, problem solving, family contracting, rules and their consequences, drug and alcohol information and life skills.

At risk youth

Of those rangatahi who attended the RHC in 1998, the CPWS worker identified fortyseven (47) individuals as being at risk. These young people presented with a range of issues including drug and alcohol abuse, graffiti, sexual health problems, depression, chronic truancy, suicide, rape, criminal behaviour, poor nutrition, anger management. A number of them were also children of gang members. In 1999, thirty-nine (39) rangatahi were identified as being at risk.

Identification of at risk status was responded to in a range of ways, depending on the cause for concern. However, it most commonly resulted in ongoing one on one intervention and referral to other agencies specialising in drug and alcohol problems, sexual abuse counselling, mental health work, and anger management.

Identifying key issues

In addition to incident investigation and pre-assessment, a significant amount of information regarding key issues has been obtained through self disclosure and feedback from the rangatahi themselves. This has been complemented by information sharing between the CPWS worker and relevant community agencies, stakeholders and schools, to establish a picture of how rangatahi issues are affected by, and affect, the wider community.

Some of the issues identified include: In addition, the CPWS worker has advocated on behalf of rangatahi to community organisations, schools and government agencies (including representation at family group conferences), and has helped rangatahi to develop personal progress plans. Commonly, the latter involved increased attendance at educational, cultural and leisure activities provided by the RHC. These activities were open to all rangatahi attending the RHC, thus encouraging social interaction and discussion from a wide range of perspectives. At risk rangatahi are not treated as a separate group and are therefore less likely to become one, thus reducing the likelihood that a subculture of criminal activity and norms will develop.

Reinforcing positive social behaviours by involving youth in productive, educational and cultural leisure opportunities

Furthermore, the group activities, and sharing of perspectives and options which occurred within their context, provided a means of early intervention for rangatahi who may have been in at risk circumstances, but had not yet been identified as demonstrating at risk behaviours.

Such educational and leisure activities continue to be offered through the OSCAR and ROAM programmes, with group activities aimed at addressing:

Assisting in the reduction of at risk behaviours amongst rangatahi

In addition to providing early intervention, the CPWS worker has contributed towards the reduction of at risk behaviours amongst rangatahi. In many cases, this has been achieved simply by providing a point of entry for rangatahi to access assistance from mainstream health and education agencies.

One of the main advantages of the RHC is that it has attracted a number of youth who were not otherwise in contact with mainstream agencies. A number of the youth visiting the centre were socially isolated and it took some time to get alongside them. Any attempt to intervene could only be achieved once sufficient trust was developed.

Evidence that the CPWS worker has been effective in developing the trust of both the youth and the wider communities is reflected in the following examples:

Case study 498 A young person approached staff because she was being pressured by her peers to do things that she did not want to. The staff spoke with the individuals and families involved, and the peer pressure ceased. The young person claims that her peers are now treating her with respect and she feels much stronger in herself.

Case study 598 A Pacific Island family asked the centre staff for assistance with their young person. The centre staff attended a family group conference with the young person concerned and assisted in referring them to counselling. Both the family and the young person thanked the centre for their assistance.

Case study 299

While Participant was at the centre, she disclosed that she had been raped. Staff split their tasks so that two continued to run the youth programme and two were called to deal with the issue. A counselling service was called. However, due to their caseload, the counsellors were unable to see Participant until the following day.

Staff ensured that Participant was safe until counselling occurred and put in place suicide prevention strategies. Participant completed her counselling with the agency to which the referral was made.

Participant was being questioned by the police for an assault that he witnessed and was being implicated in. Staff supported him during the inquiry, referred him to a criminal lawyer, and gave him information sourced from the youth law project. Participant was not charged with any offences.

Such work is particularly important in reducing the sense of learned helplessness that often pervades the at risk youth culture. This sense is such that young people believe they are being targeted and no matter what they do, they will always be under suspicion. They reason that if they are going "to face the time they might as well do the crime".

By showing young people that they can make the "system" work for them, and that cooperation with the authorities can yield positive outcomes, the CPWS worker has contributed towards increasing the young people's sense of personal responsibility and empowerment.

The CPWS worker has referred rangatahi to other agencies dealing with at risk young people. This has not only increased young peoples' access to mainstream organisations, but has increased information and resource sharing between those concerned. Referral processes have highlighted service gaps such as the need for more Mäori counsellors dealing with rape and sexual abuse issues. Recognising these gaps, and highlighting them within the context of appropriate forums (i.e. Safer Communities Council), may provide the first step towards addressing them.

Case study 398

During the course of 1998, there was an outbreak of sexual disease among the youth at the centre. This came to the attention of the youth workers. They responded by taking everyone participating in the RHC projects to the public sexual health clinic, where they were tested, treated and given training in sexual health issues. The RHC will continue to support the youth in obtaining six monthly follow up check-ups.

The trusting nature of the relationship between rangatahi and the CPWS worker may have contributed to improving the relationship between rangatahi and other agencies, especially those to which the CPWS worker referred them. Evidence of this improvement is provided in the willingness of formerly alienated rangatahi not only to attend, or participate in activities defined by the referral, but also to continue doing so over long periods of time (i.e. counselling, sexual health check ups). As such, the rangatahi have been open to the assistance that they received as a result of referrals made by the CPWS worker.

The effect of both the CPWS worker and the RHC, in reducing at risk behaviours, is evident in the decline in incidents recorded during the second year of operation. This went from thirty-nine incidents recorded prior to 30 June 1999 to none recorded after 30 June 1999. This reduction is dramatic, but appears to result from positive role modelling.

As indicated in the second annual evaluation report (1999):

At the beginning of the project there were a high number of young people who needed a drop in centre. [By early 1999] Implementation of the three strike rule also appears to have contributed to the reduction of at risk behaviours amongst rangatahi. With only one rangatahi actually being permanently banned from the centre, it is unlikely that this rule succeeded through punishment based mechanisms. Such mechanisms usually require more than one example and have been shown to be extremely ineffective.

Rather, the three strike rule provided a formal mechanism for identifying at risk behaviours and assisting rangatahi to access a means of addressing them. As indicated earlier, these means commonly took the form of referrals to appropriate agencies and/or the development of progress plans.

Providing a forum for facilitation and negotiation between rangatahi, their hapü, marae and the wider community

The CPWS worker has played a significant part in facilitating relationships between rangatahi and the wider community. Specifically, he supported rangatahi in family group conferences and advocated for them with regards to referrals, intervention, and education and employment options. In addition, media reports collected during 1998 and 1999 indicate that the RHC Co-ordinators provided a range of opportunities for youth to engage with hapü and marae. These included:

Achievement of CPWS Objectives

In addition to the objectives set for the project, each CP-CPWS project was also required to contribute to the CPWS outcomes identified in the 1997 Youth at Risk Crime Prevention Package (pp.11-12). These outcomes were designed to address the needs of both individual participants and communities.

Individual outcomes included:

Positive behavioural changes Since the RHC opened in 1998, centre staff have recorded the number of incidents of misconduct occurring in or around the centre. These include:

• drug use • nuisance behaviour • law offences (e.g., any of the above which resulted in police intervention and/or burglary, violent and threatening behaviours)

During the first year of operation (1998), forty-seven (47) incidents were recorded. Between April 1998 and December 1998, a slight downward trend was observed in the number of incidents recorded (Figure 1). This trend was particularly evident during the final three months of the recording period. In 1999, only 39 incidents of misconduct were recorded, although all of these occurred between January and June. No incidents of misconduct were recorded between July and December 1999.

Figure 1

Incidents of misconduct recorded by the Gisborne Crime PreventionProject during 1998 and

Interestingly, Figure 1 shows a slight increase in incidents recorded between April and June 1999. This period corresponds with the beginning of the OSCAR programme and the entry of a new group of 10 -14 year old rangatahi into the centre. As identified earlier, staff suggest that the dramatic decline in incidents may be due to the older rangatahi (who were already familiar with the centre's rules and focus on positive social behaviour) acting as role models to the younger rangatahi participating in the OSCAR programme.

In addition, staff report observing positive changes in the following areas:

• reduction in peer pressure These are mirrored by media reports attributing significant social changes to the services provided by the RHC. In particular, an article in the Crime Prevention News (Issue 17, September 1998) indicated that the RHC was instrumental in keeping young people off the streets and out of trouble. The RHC has also been praised by the Gisborne District Council, the Safer Communities Council and local retailers for the change in attitude and behaviour of local young people.

Similarly, in the Gisborne Herald (September 17, 1998) members of Gisborne District Council acknowledged the work the RHC was doing in helping to build a positive community, including the presence of RHC rangatahi at a council youth forum.

Positive behavioural changes, attributed to rangatahi involvement with the CPWS worker, have also been reported by their parents and teachers:

Case study 199

The Increased personal strength and self reliance RHC workers report increases in the self esteem of rangatahi attending the projects.

Other examples of increased personal strength and self reliance include reduction in drug and alcohol dependency, with up to 60 percent of young people reducing their nicotine intake, and a 50 per cent reduction in other at risk behaviour (including drug and alcohol use, violence, and unsafe sexual practices).

Rangatahi have also demonstrated increased ability to identify when they need assistance and knowledge regarding how to get it. Rather than bottle things up, or express themselves through at risk behaviours, rangatahi have actively approached both the CPWS worker, and other agencies, for assistance. Examples include one rangatahi who contacted the CPWS worker nearly two years after his initial involvement in the RHC, to gain assistance applying to WINZ (Work and Income New Zealand) and accessing accommodation. In a similar case, a rangatahi approached the worker to act as a mediator between herself and her father, providing support while she practised the communication skills that she had acquired through involvement with the project.

Increased positive participation in their communities The case studies describe some of the personal goals achieved by the young people since becoming involved with the youth worker. These include increased participation in education and training programmes.

Specifically, five (5) young people, who had ceased attending school, returned to education via the "Back to learning Project" run by Crosspower and Tangaroa College In addition, four (4) young people attended one or more training courses, including:

• a TOPS course and is making steady progress towards becoming a paving professional. These young people demonstrated good attendance records and commitment to the goals and processes of the courses. Indeed, one young man wrote a letter supporting the CPWS worker's involvement with him. In the letter he stated that "I am enjoying the course so far. I actually like going out on sight (sic) and doing construction work".

One (1) of the young people with whom the CPWS worker was involved has undertaken a number of work experience placements, including time as a kitchen hand, a store-person and a labourer. Unfortunately, despite adequately fulfilling his tasks and duties during these placements, he was not able to obtain a permanent position with any of the employers involved. As a result, the young person indicated that he felt like no-one wanted him and he was back where he began. However, after a brief period on the streets, this young person returned to the CPWS worker and at the time of the second evaluation report (April 2000) was working out on a regular basis and assisting the CPWS worker with his activities.

Unfortunately, the feeling that they are "not wanted" appears to be common amongst the young people with whom the CPWS worker has been involved. As indicated by one young woman, there is a perception that even if they try, they will not be able to obtain employment:

If you're Mäori or if you're brown and you walk into a shop they think you are going to steal something....they don't trust you...If you ask if they have any vacancy, like for a job, they say no straight away. They just look at you, they don't know who I am but they still judge me as soon as they see me. They're pretty stink because they don't give me a chance.

Therefore, being able to assist the CPWS worker, even on a voluntary basis, provides young people with positive reinforcement of their ability to contribute within their community. In addition to the young man identified earlier, at the time of the second evaluation (April 2000), two (2) other young people were also regularly assisting the CPWS worker with his role co-ordinating and supervising the drop in centre at the Otara Youth Embassy.

At least half (8) of the young people identified in the case studies became involved in some form of sporting or fitness activity during their involvement with the youth worker. Two (2) of the young people have participated as members in a competitive unisex basketball team. As such, they demonstrated commitment to the other players, consistently turning up for training and performing well in competitions. They learned to support each other and to work as a team, both to achieve goals and to manage their relationships in times of poor performance.

Similarly, four (4) of the young people have become regular patrons of the Christian youth group held weekly at the CPWS workers home. One of them has obtained a part time job (on top of his educational activities) with the aim of saving enough money to attend the Indigenous Nations Christian Conference.

Finally, three (3) young people were supported to participate in community forums, including the:

These young people spoke about issues of concern to them, assisted with food preparation, cleaning, organising, and contributed to drama, music and role playing activities.

As indicated by one forum participant: It is also of note that the young people's relationship with the CPWS worker is largely self determined. As such, at least two (2) of the young people have ceased contact with the CPWS worker, returned to the streets and life from which they came, and then turned up again when they needed assistance, support or guidance. Although this sort of relationship may appear less than conducive to reinforcing changes in behavioural patterns, the fact that the young people are motivated and able to ask for assistance is often a major change. As indicated by the CPWS worker, through their experience on the streets these young people learn not to trust anyone and not to show weakness by asking anyone for help.

Although the CPWS worker acknowledges that some young people take what they can and then leave, he indicates that this process is essential in order to build the trust needed for them to feel that they can return. The CPWS worker states that if they haven't received assistance before they hit the teenage years (at about 13 years old), most of the young people will take several years before they are ready to accept it again. They leave when they don't want anymore help and they return when they are ready for more. The CPWS worker believes his role is to be there for them when they are ready, and to let them know that he is. The changes and progress made as clients worked to address their presenting issues is evident in the following case notes: Indeed, as indicated above, the CPWS worker significantly contributed to providing a safe environment for young people to identify and work through numeracy and literacy problems. There can be little debate that literacy and numeracy significantly influence the personal and professional power of an individual. Not being able to read, write and/or add, subtract and multiply are often seen as a grounds for shame, with young people being loathe to admit these perceived weaknesses.

Of those young people identified in the case studies, three (3) had problems with basic literacy and numeracy, and worked with the youth worker to obtain skills in these areas. All of these committed themselves to spending two days each week working with the CPWS worker and all made significant progress using phonics to gain decoding and reading comprehension skills.

Positive behavioural changes.

Of the twelve young people with whom the community project worker was involved during the three months to December 1998 nine (9) had neither committed any further offences nor come to the notice of the police during that period.

During 1999, only three (3) of the eighteen (18) young people, with whom the CPWS worker was intensively involved, committed any further offences during the 12 month period over which they were monitored.

Over the entire two years of operation, only six (6) of the twenty-eight (28) young people involved in the Awhinatia Te Whänau project have come to the attention of the Kaikohe police. One of these has entered the prison system.

A worker evaluation sheet completed on behalf of Te Taurikura, a Crime Prevention project run by the NZ Police, supported the conclusion that the project had contributed towards reducing crime.

Increased positive participation in their communities

The first annual evaluation report indicates that in 1998, 20 percent of the unemployed young people who participated in RHC projects either returned to school, entered alternative education/training projects or found employment. By mid 1999, only a handful of rangatahi continued to regularly use the drop in centre. This reduction in patronage was due to the fact that 95% of those who had become involved with the centre had moved into training, education or employment.

Involvement with the RHC has also resulted in selected rangatahi, many of whom were significantly isolated from their community, accessing mainstream drug and alcohol counselling, anger management services and sexual health services.

Furthermore, RHC staff report many young people attending the centre as a means of leaving their past behaviours behind. The RHC has encouraged young people to become involved with their community, including the police, through efforts such as the completion of a mural in Hardy Street. The mural showed a two sided image with a positive path on one side and a negative path on the other. It displays the message "It's your future -choose wisely" and won community awards for best mural and best message.

In addition, the RHC has supported a group of at risk youth to establish themselves as performing artists.

Community outcomes included:

Increased community capacity to effectively deliver projects and programmes targeted to at-risk young people The CPWS worker has contributed to increased community capacity, both within and outside the RHC. Not only has he actively facilitated programmes and projects, but he has also worked with other agencies and community groups to ensure that Rangatahi gain access to as many opportunities as possible. Contact with these agencies/groups and collectives included:

• setting up means and criteria for referral,

• encouraging the development of policies and projects to meet the needs of the rangatahi, • mutual support in activities directly impacting on the youth, • sharing of knowledge and skills, both with regards to specific cases and generally.

In addition to providing access to programmes and projects, the CPWS worker has contributed to community capacity by mediating between the community and young people, talking to the youth about their behaviour and providing them with role models. He has also encouraged community members to show support for the RHC in order to gain respect from the rangatahi. For example, approaching a local bakery, the CPWS worker suggested that they could bring any left over wares to the RHC. When the offer was taken up, the rangatahi went to thank the baker involved.

Similarly, during a Safer Communities meeting aimed at addressing the perceived "criminal" behaviours of a small group of local young people, the CPWS worker proposed a smile campaign. This campaign involved making an effort to positively greet the young people when they were encountered on the streets, or in retail centres.

After a week of the smile campaign, all of those who participated expressed greater trust and respect for the young people involved. Indeed, they began to learn the young people's names, and the young people reported feeling more positive towards adult community members. Even non participating community members noticed a change in the young people's behaviour, many of whom asked the CPWS worker what he had "done to them".

In this, and numerous other small but significant examples, the community and youth have shown that they are able to influence each other's behaviour, not just through projects and programmes, but also through interpersonal relations. As indicated in Crime Prevention News (Issue 17, September 1998) "The community has been extremely supportive now that the centre is operating. There were plenty of doubters but now they're right behind it, not just verbally, but also in terms of donating equipment".

Furthermore, both the retailers and other members of the community report fewer rangatahi hanging around the streets. Prior to the introduction of the RHC this was an issue of significant concern. The public reported being treated disrespectfully and feeling threatened by the rangatahi in the area. The CPWS worker has invested significant energy in working with the rangatahi to address these issues. As a result there have been many reports that such experiences are on the decline.

In terms of the OSCAR project, community links have been extended to include schools and whänau. In the ROAM projects, the involvement of local schools (especially in terms of providing space) has been particularly crucial to the development of capacity. Furthermore, by demonstrating support for the programme, schools have attracted more support from programme participants and stakeholders.

Improved co-ordination between groups involved with youth at risk of offending One of the aims of establishing the project committee was to foster interactions and community networks, both between the different community groups concerned with youth at risk, and between the youth worker and these community groups. Unfortunately, these processes did not proceed as planned.

Nevertheless, the youth worker did work closely with some of the groups represented on the management committee. In particular, Crosspower Ministries Trust, where the CPU-CPWS project was initially based. As a result of this interaction, the project worker became involved with Tangaroa College, and the back to learning project which it offers in partnership with Crosspower. This project provides an alternative educational environment for youth who have ceased to participate in mainstream education. As such, the CPWS worker was able to refer youth to the project and support those already in attendance.

Another Crosspower initiative with which the CPWS worker became involved was the Otara Youth Embassy. The Otara Youth Embassy was established to provide a safe place for youth to "hang out". The potential for increased access to young people resulted in the CPU-CPWS project moving base from the Crosspower Ministries headquarters to the Youth Embassy, where the CPWS worker acted as a supervisor three times a week for three hours each time.

In addition, the CPWS worker maintained established networks, primarily with Christian organisations and projects. These included the Houhanga Rongo Literacy project run by Houhanga Rongo Ministries, which received two days of assistance from the CPWS worker each week during the 1998/1999 year. For young people with literacy and numeracy problems, the experience and connections gained by the CPWS worker during his direct involvement with the literacy project provided a means by which to facilitate their own learning processes.

Young people with whom the CPWS worker has been involved have also benefited through his networks with local schools, Waipareira Trust, and KAAT Trust, all of whom have assisted the youth to access educational and training activities. The CPWS worker has had more limited contact with government agencies and those regulating youth at risk, such as Youth Justice, DCYFS, and the Moko Truancy project.

Indeed, in the first annual evaluation report (1999), the DIA advisor recommended that networks between Crown Agencies and Community groups be established in order to increase the effectiveness of projects for the Otara community. In particular, she indicated the need for protocols to encourage and support youth workers accessing these agencies and groups, so that available funding and resources are effectively used.

From discussions between the CPWS worker, Crosspower representatives, and a DIA research analyst, held in May 2000, it appears that this need is still evident. Neither Crosspower, nor the CPWS worker, indicated any direct relationships with statutory agencies. Indeed, the CPWS worker stated that "we are lucky if we get a youth justice referral". At the same time, both parties appeared somewhat reluctant to refer young people to such agencies, especially where there is a chance that young people might be taken away from their family or community. These ties were identified as being very important to the Crosspower representatives and the CPWS worker.

The first line of intervention occurs most frequently via the family. In particular, the manager of Crosspower invests a significant amount of time working with the families of young people and referring them to appropriate community based agencies (for issues such as drug and alcohol counselling). The CPWS worker also makes a point of getting to know the families of young people with whom he is working (many of whom he grew up with) and where possible, involving them in activities with their young people.

Although contact with most government agencies was limited, the CPWS worker has identified a more salient relationship with local police. Indeed, it is envisaged that development of the Youth Embassy will proceed in collaboration with the police, and that plain clothes police officers will engage with the young people there.

Increased community capacity to effectively deliver programmes and projects targeted to at-risk young people Young people involved with the project participated in various information sharing exercises including the Auckland Regional Growth Strategy and the Manukau and Otara Youth Forums. As such, the youth were invited to identify issues and outcomes which they considered important in terms of local development. These issues frequently referred to personal and public safety and means of preventing and addressing crime within the community. As such, they contributed to knowledge within the community about how to effectively target and manage at risk behaviour.

As indicated by Tony Kake, Acting Team Leader of Manukau City Council Community Development Services, 2000:

[The CPWS worker] has been involved in a number of Otara initiatives where he has enabled young people to have an opportunity to gain exposure to activities and issues impacting on their lives as young people.

In addition, the project worker regularly participated as a member of the Otara Community Forum, networking with various local service providers and sharing skills and knowledge, as well as assisting with community problem solving. His involvement in monitoring students who were on the periphery of criminal activity, both at school and in the community, enabled the schools and community groups (i.e. Crosspower) access to information which they would otherwise not have had. Similarly, the CPWS workers involvement in the home life of these students opened up avenues of communication that had not previously been available.

Involvement with whänau included assisting parents to access help and resources to develop their relationships with their children, including management of their children's behaviour. In particular, the CPWS worker encouraged them to participate in the activities of local Christian organisations in order to obtain support.

Indirectly, the project also resulted in the development of management skills and unity between the different community representatives. This occurred in response to the difficulties experienced by the management committee and was facilitated by the DIA and Manukau City Council community advisors. Unfortunately, the intervention came too late to rectify the situation which had developed amongst management committee members. However, the training and information which they received may have benefited the wider community and the organisations to which they returned after leaving the management committee.

Conclusion

As a primary prevention project, the Gisborne CPU-CPWS project targeted all young people. Despite identifying at risk behaviours (i.e. drug and alcohol abuse, violence and threatening behaviour, truancy, theft, burglary, vandalism, verbal abuse, etc.) amongst project participants, it is difficult to assess whether these contributed to increase the overall risk status of individuals (i.e. propensity to commit crime). Therefore, it is also difficult to assess how effective the Gisborne CPWS project has been in preventing crime.

However, the fact that Gisborne was identified as a youth crime "hotspot" and, given the large numbers of youth coming in contact with the CPWS worker, it is likely that the project had some impact on the at risk population, especially as the CPWS worker's activities, through the ROAM interventions, moved into locations known for extremely high risk populations. This is supported by media feedback from Gisborne District Council, Safer Communities Council and Crime Prevention News stating that the project is effective in keeping young people off the streets and contributing to a positive change in their attitudes and behaviours.

Furthermore, despite no statistical evidence of reduced crime since the introduction of the CPWS worker, the project does appear to have contributed to a number of outcomes which have been identified as instrumental in reducing at risk behaviour.

Specifically, the large number of project participants who ceased contact with the project worker to become involved in alternative employment, training and/or educational activities suggests increased involvement in (and identification with) mainstream economic and social life. This appears to have been achieved by way of providing a positive role model, who was effective in gaining the trust and respect of rangatahi, and who actively worked to increase their social networks and friendship groups.

The fact that the project included a number of methods which have been shown to contribute to the development of such outcomes, adds credibility to the claim that they came about, at least in part, because of the CPWS worker's activities. Not least of these was the continual development and adaptation of the CPWS worker's activities to meet the changing needs of local rangatahi.

Initially, the CPWS worker's activities were tied to the Rangatahi Health Centre (RHC), providing young people with a range of structured and unstructured activities. These included a number of interventions identified as being effective in the primary prevention of at risk behaviour:

• out of school skill building and community recreation programmes • mentoring programmes providing frequent contact between role models and young people • programmes aimed at clarifying and communicating norms about behaviours (particularly by way of positive reinforcement)

This CPWS worker's relationship with the RHC was particularly effective because many of the young people who visited it were not in contact with any other mainstream organisations. Therefore, as at risk behaviours were identified, the CPWS worker was able to provide a link between them and intensive behavioural programmes aimed at addressing the issues associated with these behaviours. The latter has also been shown to be an important aspect of crime prevention. Furthermore, the trusting nature of the relationship that developed between the CPWS worker and the young people with whom he became involved, appeared to contribute to their willingness to participate in such interventions.

Indeed, the RHC provided a base from which the CPWS worker could develop this trust and demonstrate his value as a community and youth resource. However, as the CPWS worker acquired community recognition, trust and respect, he recognised the need to take on a more proactive role in working with youth at risk. Rather than waiting for at risk behaviours to surface, he actively sought referrals and identified issues which could put young people at risk. Raising and discussing these issues frequently led to disclosures from the young people themselves. He also worked to develop structured methods of addressing such behaviours, including the provision of education and development groups located in at risk neighbourhoods.

The latter, embodied in the ROAM projects, extend the CPWS workers activities to include comprehensive instructional programmes focusing on a range of social competency skills. They also focus on keeping rangatahi in school and/or educational activities.

The ROAM projects are particularly important in facilitating the co-ordination of school, family and community activities, both in terms of cultural and educational development, and as a method of sharing resources and information. The CPWS worker has also contributed to increased capacity by acting as a link between rangatahi and other community groups (i.e. police, safer communities council, retailers, etc.), advocating for youth needs, and identifying problem solving methods which address the values of both parties.

One of the main strengths of the project has been the strength of the organisation in which it operates. This organisation, through the project manager and other centre coordinators, has supported the CPWS worker in developing of the project. They have provided a means for him to gain credibility in the community and supported his efforts to take interventions to the community. This could not have been achieved without complementary staff and programmes to fill the gaps and build bridges between the various stages of evolution. Even such things as having a colleague to join him as he canvassed some of the more disadvantaged neighbourhoods of the city contributed significantly to his ability to attract at risk youth to the ROAM project. Similarly, the project manager's administrative support enabled evaluation of the changes as they occurred and adaptation to ensure effectiveness.

Consultation with Stakeholders

In March 1998, a plan was developed to consult with key service providers, especially those in the drug and alcohol field, regarding the development of a block course for high risk youth. A planning hui was attended by eight representatives from community organisations (including one anger and violence prevention educator, and four staff from Mätua Whangai youth services). It resulted in the confirmation of fifteen adult educators/therapists willing to contribute time and expertise to the development of a block course (Te Puna A Rona) to be run by Mätua Whangai youth services. Those offering their time included three adult student placements.

Participants in the planning hui considered aims, objectives and outcomes of the block course, taking into account the time frame and dynamics of the pilot group. Responsibility for documenting, planning, implementation and evaluation was also discussed, as was ongoing care for each young person attending the programme.

Risk Assessment -Medium Ongoing Intervention Manaaki Te Rioto Rangatahi

Each block course focuses on a different issue. Block One deals with "Alternatives to Violence" incorporating the Quaker-derived Alternatives to Violence (AVP) training package, adapted for youth and renamed HIPP (Help Increase the Peace Project). The AVP package is facilitated by specialist AVP training providers and aims to explore violence and help participants to move towards non-violence, and pro-social behaviour, through practising new beliefs, ideas and skills in a motivational group process.

Block Two focuses on health education, including the issues associated with drug, alcohol and substance abuse. With the assistance of community and social workers skilled in this area, the programme explores reasons for and the effects of substance abuse, including methods for facilitating reduction. It also includes a wider focus on health and wellness, spiritual and alternative healing, sexuality education and holistic balance of taha wairua, taha tinana, taha hinengaro and taha whänau.

Block Three is entitled HIPP Intermediate. It extends the pro-social training from the Alternatives to Violence package to focus on the young peoples' "place in the world". This includes discussion and training in Te Ao Mäori and exploration of the issues surrounding cultural alienation and decolonisation. As such, facilitators, community workers and volunteers aim to strengthen Mäori identity by reinforcing connections between whänau, hapü and iwi, increasing awareness about how these connections have been damaged by colonisation, and identifying ways to rebuild strong identity and goals.

Each block course begins with a five day intensive residential programme, including evening work and marae styled seating and sleeping arrangements. The learning programme is group based with a range of presentations, interactive activities, games, personal testimonies and informal discussion. In addition, rangatahi participate in food preparation and clean up activities, shared meals, and informal interaction with each other and the course facilitators.

The second week of each block involves a five-day programme, operating from 9.00am until 2.30pm, and based at a school marae. This period focuses on following up the themes of the residential component, and exploring ways to implement associated learning in the young people's day to day lives. It also serves as a supportive transition period from the residential component to the home environment.

The third week of each block is described as "home based social work". No group programmes are offered during this time and participants are expected to attend either their school or an alternative learning centre. Home based social work involves the course co-ordinator, and other staff, following up the needs of each participant's whänau. This includes meeting with whänau members, usually at their homes, discussing the activities and information provided to their rangatahi during the preceding weeks, and exploring ways to reinforce behavioural changes within the home environment. Whänau are also assisted to access help and resources to address any of their own issues.

Prior to entering the project, the CPWS worker conducts preliminary interviews with each young person to enable accurate risk and needs assessment. Assessment of risk is determined according to the following behaviours and cognitive variables identified in Table 6: Using these variables, a score of 15 or under is considered low risk, a score of 16 -27 is considered medium risk, and a score of 28 or over is considered high risk. Scores concerning risk of drug and alcohol abuse are considered both within and separate from the overall risk score.

Table 6

TePuna A Rona Risk Assessment Tool (1999)

The information accessed from the risk assessment tool is used to determine whether the project is suitable for the young people referred. It is also used as a baseline measure which can be compared with the results of another assessment conducted after they have finished the programme (using the same criteria). In addition, participants are given a needs assessment upon entering the project (Appendix L) and this, together with the risk assessment information, is considered by the project facilitator when developing ongoing interventions to follow up the young peoples' involvement with Te Puna A Rona.

Number of participants and referring agencies

During the first year of the project (1998), ten (10) young people were referred to participate in the pilot block course. Of these, eight (8) were identified as fitting the project criteria. All of these referrals were made internally, by the Mätua Whangai Youth Diversion Service. This service receives its referrals from Police, DCYFS, youth and their whänau.

In the July 1999 intake to the Te Puna A Rona block course, twenty (20) referrals were received. Of these, ten (10) were accepted on to the block courses. Referrals were received from a school (1), an alternative education learning centre (2), DCYFS (1) and Mätua Whangai Youth Diversion Service (6).

Participation

Of the eight (8) young people who participated in the 1998 pilot block course, seven (7) completed all of the components of the programme, including the pre and post risk assessments. In 1999, nine (9) of the ten (10) block course participants completed all of the components of the programme, and all ten (10) completed both pre and post risk assessments.

Of the 12 case studies collected between June 1998 and May 1999, all had regular (at least weekly) contact with the youth worker over different periods of time. Of these, youth worker involvement with four of them is ongoing, and three have moved on to participate in other activities (including a TOPS course in cobblestoning, a music course and drug and alcohol counselling, and a KAATS course aimed at preparing individuals to enter employment) but remain in contact with the youth worker who is monitoring their progress.

Five of the twelve (12) young people identified in the case studies have lost contact with the youth worker. Of these, two have gone to prison (both were facing charges at the time of meeting the youth worker) and one has been placed on the Whakapakiri project for three months and will then proceed to spend three months at the Tarawera drug and alcohol rehabilitation centre. In addition, one has been sentenced to 200 hours community service and will complete this at a location determined by DCYFS, while another was arrested for car conversion during his involvement with the CPWS worker and has since ceased this contact.

Between June 1999 and April 2000, one of the other cases from the previous year resumed frequent contact with the CPWS worker. None of the young people identified in the case studies for the June 1999 and April 2000 period terminated their involvement with the CPWS worker.

Of those twenty-one (21) young people who became actively involved with Awhinatia Te Whänau in 1998, ten (10) left the project as a result of relocating out of the Kaikohe area, with one (1) remaining in contact with the community project worker for subsequent support. Relocation occurred for a number of reasons including court orders; family; and employment opportunities. Of the remaining eleven (11) young people, six (6) were still receiving ongoing assistance from the project worker at the end of 1998, and five (5) made contact for support when they needed it.

Of those eighteen (18) young people who were actively involved with Awhinatia Te Whänau in 1999, six (6) left the project. Three (3) of these relocated out of the Kaikohe area, and three (3) gained paid employment. At the end of 1999, all of the remaining twelve (12) young people continued to receive ongoing assistance or support from the project worker.

Despite relocation, and withdrawal from the Awhinatia Te Whänau project, the CPWS worker "keeps in touch" with all of the young people with whom he has been intensively involved. This occurs either directly or through whänau.

Ethnic identity

All of the young people accepted onto the courses were Mäori. During the course of their involvement with the CPWS worker, these young people were encouraged to identify their iwi affiliation.

Of those participating in the 1998 pilot course, four (4) identified themselves as Tainui iwi with one of these also indicating links to Ngäti Haua and another to Te Aupouri. Two (2) other Rangitahi identified themselves as Maniapoto iwi with one of these indicating a link to Ngäti Rereahu. Finally, one (1) rangitahi was identified as Ngäti Porou and one (1) as Ngäi Tuhoe.

In the July 1999 intake, three (3) young people identified themselves as Ngäti Haua, one (1) as Maniapoto, one (1) as Te Arawa and one (1) as Taranaki iwi. One (1) young person identified with both Te Arawa and Ngäti Mahanga, one (1) with both Waikato and Cook Island Mäori, and one (1) young person's iwi affiliation remained unknown. The other young person did not complete the block courses and his iwi affiliation was not recorded.

Between June 1998 and May 1999, slightly more of those young people for whom case study data was collected identified themselves as Pacific Island (7) than New Zealand Mäori (5). Of the former, four (4) indicated their ethnic identity as Cook Island Mäori, one (1) as Samoan, one (1) as Niuean, and one (1) as Cook Island Mäori/Samoan.

Of the six (6) case studies of those young people who worked intensively with the CPWS worker between June 1999 and April 2000, two (2) identified their ethnic group as New Zealand Mäori, two (2) as Cook Island Mäori, and two (2) as Cook Island Mäori/New Zealand Mäori. Table 13 shows the main presenting issues of the twelve (12) young people identified in the case study data between June 1998 and May 1999. Identification of these issues was based on case notes. As such, committing offences was defined as any activity prosecutable by law and any actual contact with the law was coded separately. Furthermore, some issues, such as unsafe sexual practice, were not usually identified in the case notes unless they resulted in pregnancy or disease.

Table 13

Age and gender

Three (3) of the rangatahi who completed the 1998 pilot block course were female and five (5) were male. Two (2) of these rangatahi were aged 14 years, three (3) were aged 13 years, two (2) were 12 years old and one (1) was eleven (Table 7).

Table 7

The positive outcomes associated with participation in Te Puna A Rona were evident in comments made by the participants' parents:Participant's father, a volunteer:Before that, not even my son would come and talk about what he needed to do. They're asking for help, but it's more macho not to ask for help.

In 1999, only male participants were accepted onto the project. Of those who completed the block courses, three (3) were aged 13 years, two (2) were aged 14 years, and one (1) each were aged 11, 12 15 and 16 years. The other young person did not complete the block courses and his age was not recorded.

Background information and presenting issues

All of the rangatahi accepted onto Te Puna A Rona had previously offended and whänau make-up consisted mainly of a single mother and siblings (more than half of the participants in each block course).

For those who participated in the 1998 pilot course, five (5) of the young people were assessed as being at high risk in terms of demonstrated behavioural and cognitive variables. These included age when first crime committed, prior criminal behaviour, negative peer relationships, school disciplinary problems, and poor parental control. Another two (2) were classified as being of medium risk in terms of behavioural and cognitive variables, and one (1) as being of low risk. The young person identified as being of low cognitive and behavioural risk, demonstrated high risk in terms of drug and/or solvent abuse.

In 1999, police records were obtained for nine (9) of the participants in the block courses. These records showed an average of seventeen contacts per young person. All but one (8) of these young people had been involved in theft related activities, two thirds (6) had been apprehended for violence related offences and the same number (6) for wilful damage. More than half (5) had been involved in burglaries.

Risk assessment measures indicated that all of the 1999 participants demonstrated high levels of overall risk (cognitive and behavioural measures combined with drug and alcohol abuse).

More than half (7) of the twelve (12) young people identified in the case studies had been, or were, the subject of legal proceedings or charges, and the same number 7were involved in drug and alcohol abuse.

Five (5) of the young people had either left or been expelled from school and an additional two (2) identified themselves as unemployed. Three (3) of the young people demonstrated numeracy and/or literacy problems.

The home environment of four (4) young people was considered particularly dysfunctional, including influences from parental gang involvement, drug use, physical and psychological abuse (including encouraging the young people to participate in illegal activity such as selling drugs). Table 14 shows the main presenting issues for the six (6) young people identified in case studies between June 1999 and April 2000. Overall, drug and alcohol abuse was the most common issue, followed by involvement with justice agencies, committing property related offences, disengagement/alienation from family, and non attendance at school.

Table 14

Services Representatives • Department of Child, Youth and Family Services Youth Justice Co-ordinator • Kaikohe Police Youth Project Co-ordinator "Te Taurikura" • Kaikohe Community Youth Council Co-ordinator • Kaikohe Community Youth Council youth worker

Designing and implementing effective and informative evaluation and assessment processes with the overall aim of continual improvement in service provision and/or the development of appropriate interventions.

During the two years since its inception, Te Puna A Rona has effectively implemented evaluation and assessment processes to achieve continual improvement in service provision. In achieving this objective, the project has also developed an easy to use risk assessment questionnaire (Table 6). Although still in need of objective testing, this questionnaire has the potential to contribute significantly both to the measurement and evaluation of risk factors and their reduction.

Prior to introducing the project, Mätua Whangai undertook a significant amount of research to assess how best to address the issues of concern within the crime prevention package. This research showed the following factors are particularly promising when working with at risk young people:

• training or coaching in "thinking" skills

• use of techniques which encourage young people to learn new skills and ways of thinking, and then practising them, transferring them to other environments, and maintaining them • residential training programmes targeting risk factors • intensive supervision and aftercare (Sherman et al., 1998) The Te Puna A Rona project was designed with these factors in mind. It was then piloted and a process evaluation was conducted. The evaluation included interview and feedback data from programme participants, their families, school staff, and programme facilitators. In addition, participant progress was measured by comparing pre and post programme risk assessments.

Mätua Whangai continued to review relevant literature to identify additional features which could add value to Te Puna A Rona. They found evidence of crime prevention benefit from the following programme features:

• communities having a range of needed services and agencies working effectively together • parents, children/young people and schools working together to provide information and to develop a good plan • parents willing to have their child/young person enrolled and to collaborate with providers in implementing a plan • caseworkers forming a trusting relationship with the child/young person and parents • caseworkers being reliable, liaising with schools and other agencies, reviewing plans regularly, encouraging all parties to be responsible decision makers, and providing regular feedback to parents and referring agencies (Shepard, P. and Maxwell, G., 1999) The information collected during the evaluation of the 1998 block course led to a number of modifications in the way the Te Puna A Rona programme was delivered in 1999 (See process section). At the end of 1999, the modified version of the Te Puna A Rona project was tested and evaluated. This second evaluation was conducted by an external evaluator and focused much more on outcomes than the initial evaluation. Once again, recommendations arising from the evaluation were taken on board and implemented in the 2000 version of the programme.

Development and co-ordination of services targeted at Mäori at risk youth that work towards positive outcomes for young people

The Te Puna A Rona project targets young Mäori who have already committed offences and pose a high risk of re-offending. Significantly, Mätua Whangai staff, and many of the facilitators, are also Mäori, and have experienced a number of issues in common with the project participants. As indicated in the 1999 evaluation report (Barnes, 1999;pp 18-19), Te Puna A Rona staff and facilitators believe that they separate themselves less from the participants than other programmes they have experienced:

Partly this is because there is a generally shared experience of being Mäori, being disadvantaged within a colonised society that devalues indigenous peoples. This alienation and injustice is something that all those facilitators still may feel at times, not forgetting the power of that experience when they were youth themselves.

However, the experience of alienation is not enough to create a good course. The facilitators must also have moved on from the sense of alienation, resentment and powerlessness to a new place where they are stronger in their own identity through deconstructing the colonised experience and, in turn, rebuilding a new identity for themselves. This process of change may not be complete, but it is under way, and they must share that journey with the participants so they can in turn make their own journey. By sharing that story, they also gain strength from the participants to continue the journey. Together, they are partners, ....gaining strength from each other and sharing a common vision.

When that connection is in place sufficiently, the facilitators can draw on knowledge skills and activities that these youth have had thrusted at them before, but have mostly not been able to receive then because the learning process was not open.

In that sense the content of this programme is similar to many others offered to high risk youth, but the learning environment and shared purpose enables the participants (and facilitators, visitors, whänau, and volunteers) to grasp the knowledge with passion.

This belief also appears to have been shared by project participants:

The reason I talked to you is because I want others to do this course. Stuff I learnt from it I've heard before, but the way they done it, it just brainwashed me. But we were all volunteers. We could walk if you want, but I never wanted to leave. They gave us many options but I didn't take it. Only one boy left.

At first we had heaps of different gangs -Mob, Black, East West South.

At first it was hard but then it didn't matter anymore, we just dropped it. In the first week we were all coloured up, but at the end there were no colours, there was more of a family unit.

We're more prepared than what we were before. We have the tools to know what's right and wrong. They weren't speaking like doctors. They came down to our level instead of us going up to them. We understood them word for word instead of bits and pieces here and there. Implicit in the fact that the Te Puna A Rona project targeted Mäori was the marae setting. As indicated in the research compiled by Mätua Whangai, programmes with a residential component appear to be more effective than those without. For Mäori, the sharing of living space, food and sleeping quarters is inherent in their cultural traditions. Therefore, the residential component served a dual purpose. The communal nature of the sleeping arrangements during the residential phase also provided a unique opportunity to observe and identify the changes that were taking place for the participants.

Facilitator

There was a high quality of volunteers and supervisors which complemented the marae setting, and the Mäori component. We were getting a lot of people talking in their sleep like "don't punch him in the nose", "think before reacting". They were processing in their sleep.

Learning to work together, they start to realise that their neighbour is also their friend rather than "I'd like to punch his lights out".

The increased sense of community facilitated by the project was also evident in the pilot project participants' desires to learn more and become more actively involved in kapa haka, tikanga Mäori and to spend more time at the whare.

As indicated by a facilitator:

[Te Puna A Rona is] done very well -I wish it was around in the early sixties. I don't see it as a band-aid like some programmes. It's building bridges to their identity.

The residential segments. The weeks they're together at the centre, major shifts are made, and for me the cultural identity is a big one.

The value of the residential is so profound in comparison to working in schools.

Staff and volunteers also commented that a special feature of the project was the way in which they were able to learn from the young people involved. By adopting the attitude that "we are all teachers and we are all students", the capacity for learning became greatly increased. Similarly, the enthusiasm generated by course participants, parents and volunteers was frequently transmitted outside the immediate whänau environment such that information was shared with friends, work-mates, and acquaintances. Many of these were also physically brought to, or hooked up with, the project.

Improved co-ordination between groups involved with youth at risk of offending Development and facilitation of the block courses has involved a range of agencies and groups concerned with youth at risk of offending. As a result of this involvement, these groups are not only more aware of what the others are doing, but are actively working together towards a common end.

In both the first and second annual evaluation reports, community agencies directly involved in the block course expressed overall satisfaction with the project, as did referring agencies. These agencies included: Evidence of improved co-ordination between these agencies and groups is demonstrated through increased sharing of information and resources. This has been undertaken both as a means of assisting with programme development and facilitation, and as part of the participant monitoring processes.

Improved co-ordination and information sharing is also of benefit to participants.

With individuals known to a range of agencies they are much less likely to "fall through the cracks". This monitoring system is complemented by the fact that most of the young people who have come in contact with Te Puna A Rona have voluntarily stayed in touch even after completing the block courses. The introduction of the risk assessment tool, and the exchange of information produced by it, mean that other agencies are better able to respond appropriately to these and other high risk young people.

As the project has developed it has become increasingly involved in the activities of other groups and projects. It has employed facilitators from a wider range of agencies and, in 2000, became part of Manäki Te Rito Rangatahi alternative learning centre.

Sharing information and tools has been a significant contributor to the formation of effective community relationships involving Mätua Whangai. In particular, the development of its own client assessment tools has provided both Mätua Whangai, and other agencies, with the means to determine best practice in terms of referrals and case management. Use of this tool and the information gained as a result of effective evaluation practices has demonstrated a need for other programmes, specifically those that cater to young, high risk, Mäori women as well as high risk Päkehä youth. The current Te Puna A Rona programme cannot meet the needs of these populations. However, identifying this need has created opportunities to work with other agencies to develop suitable responses.

Development and co-ordination of services targeted at Mäori at risk youth that work towards positive outcomes for their families.

The 1999 evaluation report indicates engagement with whänau as a key factor in maintaining the changes made by rangatahi. Such engagement was identified as being of particular importance to Mäori as it reinforces the ties to hapü and iwi through the extended family structure.

Data collected during the second evaluation (in particular, comments made by parents and caregivers) suggests that participants in Te Puna A Rona transmitted their sense of enthusiasm and commitment about the programme to whänau members. Furthermore, stakeholders observed that those whänau members, volunteers, and facilitators who participated in the programme applied what they learned, not only to their tamariki, but also to themselves. Similarly, stakeholder feedback suggests that whänau benefited from the programme through the development of more harmonious relationships between parents and rangatahi. This is made clear in comments from parents and support workers: However, despite these positive achievements, increased whänau involvement was identified as a major aspect of the project requiring improvement in both the 1998 and 1999 evaluation reports, and during interviews conducted in 2000. Specifically, volunteers, staff and facilitators observed that those whänau members who did not participate were unable to support the changes made by the rangatahi.

Participant's father, a volunteer

We needed to bring the whänau in more, instead of just once a week. We got these youth together, we taught them as much as we could, but cause their whänau haven't been, they go back to the same rut. Since 1999, Mätua Whangai has taken an active role in contracting whänau/caregivers to support their young people by assisting with homework, catering to basic needs and supervision, participating actively in the development of the parent programme, and coming along to other parts of the course to learn with their rangatahi. This has facilitated increased involvement on the part of some whänau members, but others continue to resist participation, especially in terms of committing time.

Development and co-ordination of services targeted at Mäori at risk youth that work towards positive outcomes for their community

In terms of facilitating positive outcomes for the community, the evaluation data indicates that all those who were involved in the project, either as facilitators, volunteers, whänau or participants, gained significant insight from their involvement and, went on to share this insight with others. However, the way in which the courses were delivered also contributed towards increasing recognition of the need and impact of community and youth development methods.

Te Puna A Rona facilitators focused on viewing youth issues through the eyes of the young people, and facilitating direct links between them, community agencies and government groups. This was indicated as a key aspect of effective youth intervention by many of the individuals who either observed or became involved in this development process: This method contrasts sharply with the criminal justice response which tends to take "a hard line on street thugs" (Barnes, 1999;p 22). Given the high levels of offending by young Mäori males, such an approach, characterised by removing offenders from the community, may actually weaken the cultural ties which support community cohesiveness and identity. In turn, weak community ties have been shown to contribute to increased crime levels resulting from social alienation (Sherman, 1998). For young Mäori, this sense of alienation may be enhanced by the statistics of the time such that they are forced to either take on the negative cultural identity inferred by these, or abandon their cultural identity altogether.

By facilitating community involvement, rather than removing individuals from the community, the Te Puna A Rona project encourages social responsibility as well as a sense of interdependence between both the young people and those who encounter them.

In addition, the CPWS worker has extended his role to assist young people, their families and other community agencies and groups, with court assessment, advocacy, and referral. This includes encouraging co-operation, and formation of effective partnerships with other agencies and providers of youth service.

Building and maintaining open communication and partnership between all Mäori service providers

Development of the block course involved liaison with a number of community and government agencies involved in providing services to Mäori. These included providers of youth services (including the City Council and DCYFS), schools, Youth Aid, Youth Court, vocational training providers, the Safer Community Council, health providers, and marae. Furthermore, community service providers and representatives actively participated in Te Puna A Rona, both in identifying and referring young people to the block course, and delivering different modules in it.

Liaison undertaken by the CPWS worker contributed towards the objective of building and maintaining open communication and partnership between all

Mäori youth service providers, as well as developing community links and networks, and building community capacity. Indeed, the project evaluation data showed evidence of substantial community support for the block course, from direct stakeholders to more removed members of the community.

Interviews with referring staff from Waikato police, DCYFS, Safer Hamilton, and teachers from Fairfield Intermediate and Manäki Te Rito Rangatahi (a kaupapa Mäori alternative learning centre), all affirmed the approach taken by Te Puna A Rona. They identified the value of concurrent whänau and youth intervention, as well as the combination of sanctions, support, statutory and community interventions. It was indicated that working individually with youth, and even at a wider whänau level, needs to be backed up by a community that doesn't tolerate violence, holds offenders accountable, and provides opportunities for disadvantaged groups to help themselves.

However, despite this affirmation, community connectedness and support did not appear to be as readily practised as it was advocated. In particular, Te Puna A Rona workers have been dissatisfied with the minimal or nil involvement of DCYFS social workers and Youth Aid Officers. This dissatisfaction was expressed in both the 1998 and 1999 evaluation reports, as well as the 2000 interviews.

Mätua Whangai staff indicated that government agencies and iwi authorities appeared unwilling to provide resources for young peoples' participation in Te Puna A Rona. There have been exceptions to this claim, with at least one DCYFS social worker advocating for, and achieving, the provision of a minder and koha to support a young person referred to the programme.

Mätua Whangai indicate that such exceptions result from the development of proactive relationships with individuals working for these agencies, rather than recognition from the agencies themselves, or changes in organisational mindset. The high turnover and significant workloads of government agency staff means that Mätua Whangai must frequently spend valuable time and energy re-establishing these connections. While the CPWS worker has challenged government agency workers and iwi authorities to actively participate in the healing process, and has involved them in the ongoing development and sharing of effective risk assessment and evaluation tools, there does not appear to be a significant reciprocal effort from the agencies identified.

Increased positive participation in communities

Young people's participation in their communities increased by way of referrals and re-entry into education, or increased participation in educational activities. Indeed, seven (7) of those who participated in 1999 8 , and two (2) of those who participated in 1998 9 , returned to some form of education or training following involvement with Te Puna A Rona. Only, one (1) of the 1998 participants, and three (3) of the 1999 participants, had been involved in educational activities during the time immediately preceding their entry to the programme.

Furthermore, for those who were already attending an educational programme, participation in the Te Puna A Rona project was shown to facilitate increased commitment and focus (Appendix M): For many, the Te Ao Mäori component provided a sense of belonging that they had not previously felt and with this, a sense of shared purpose. This sense of belonging and purpose fostered participants' ability to work together rather than as individuals.

Community Objectives

Increased community capacity to effectively deliver programmes and projects targeted to at risk young people The development of the Te Puna A Rona programme has provided a point of referral for young high risk Mäori males. This population is not specifically served by any other agency in the area, yet its needs are recognised as extremely specific. The need and value of having such a service has been recognised by a range of community and government agencies.

In particular, these agencies indicate that effectively intervening with this high risk group has the potential to greatly enhance the work of, and reduce the strain on, agencies working with other youth populations. In addition, a significant part of the Te Puna A Rona project has been the assessment and evaluation of process, outcomes and the nature of the target population. The information collected for this purpose provides significant insight into the means by which such efforts can best meet the needs of at risk Mäori youth in Kirikiriroa/Hamilton. As such, it contributes to the information available to the community.

Specifically, evaluation data appeared to confirm the results of previous research that programmes with a residential component worked particularly well (Sherman et al, 1998). As indicated in the process review presented earlier, this aspect was also of particular relevance to the Mäori kaupapa of the programme.

Staff members

The residential part of all the segments were the best. It was a safe environment, clear boundaries, three meals a day, not having to deal with everything else and someone focusing on them only.

Participant

The difference between this course is we lived in and we stayed with the facilitators and that made the main difference. The tutors were down to earth. The ones before were "look at the book" types and think they know it all. These ones had been there and done that -they knew what it feels like, whereas other tutors, they were just keeping the discipline.

However, it was also significant that the residential component was not run along correctional boot camp/scared straight lines. Rather, participants valued the fact that they were treated as individuals and given respect. In this way, they gave respect back and learned to take responsibility as individuals. As such, the changes made during the residential component are much more likely to be transferred to the outside world than if they had been based around the group culture, and the commands of site specific superiors.

We were having fun; it didn't feel like a boot camp. They'd come down on us hard but there was always a reason, you could speak your mind, you could talk how you usually talk -you could talk.

In addition, the evaluations supported the value of whänau involvement. At least one participant had a parent who acted as a volunteer on the programme. This involvement appeared to be particularly beneficial.

Working with my father was quite good, because when we worked in a circle he got to know what I was really thinking. At first we were always down each others throats, since we were both there it made it a whole lot better.

In terms of what worked well, specific credit was given to the structured components of the programme, especially Alternatives to Violence Project. A number of comments were made about how these components were complemented by the informal nature of the environment:

Facilitator: There was an equality, and all were participating freely in the programme. The gatherings and some of the exercises were powerful too. Discussing situations they were involved in and reflecting on the victims' experience -building empathy. The trust we showed them was tested, we had a minder for every group of three participants, remaining firm and consistent. There were chores and rules (stay in your group, etc.) and we maintained it.

Although this knowledge was already available in relevant literature, and actually formed the basis for the project, it was important that those involved were able to test it in their own environment.

Furthermore, although it was Mätua Whangai that originally investigated the criteria for running an effective crime prevention project, the information obtained was spread throughout all of the agencies, volunteers and participants involved in the project and, through them, into the wider community.

Volunteer

Mäori youth spark well with these ideas but I find it much more difficult with Pakeha. How do we get them to spark?

The Te Puna A Rona Project has contributed towards increased co-ordination between the different services offered by Mätua Whangai. Other youth diversion workers employed by Mätua Whangai actively refer their higher risk young people to Te Puna A Rona, either directly, or through Fairfield Intermediate.

Where the CPWS worker believes that participants' parents and/or whänau might benefit from involvement in Mätua Whangai adult programmes, or community based sentences, he is able to share information with the case workers and co-ordinators responsible for these activities. Similarly, where participants' whänau come to the attention of other Mätua Whangai staff, information is shared with the CPWS worker.

In all cases, participants and their whänau are able to access Mätua Whangai healing and counselling services through referral from the CPWS worker. In turn, the counsellor is able to make recommendations for improvements to the programme based on her insight into the needs of its clients.

Otara Crime Prevention Project, Crosspower Ministries, Otara

Number of participants and source of referral

Between the 1 st of June 1998 and the 31 st of May 1999, 111 young people came in contact with the CPWS youth worker. Of these, 27 became actively involved with the CPWS worker (i.e. significant contact on a number of occasions -at least weekly for a minimum period of one month).

Almost all of youth referred themselves to the CPWS project. These self referrals commonly became acquainted with the CPWS worker through other community projects in which he and/or Crosspower was involved, or as a result of the CPWS worker canvassing places where youth were known to "hang out". In addition, one youth was referred by youth justice and one by DCYFS.

Between 1 June 1999 and 30 April 2000, eighty-five (85) young people came in contact with the CPWS worker. Of these, eighteen (18) had frequent, significant contact with him. Once again, the majority of these were self referrals.

None of the young people with whom the youth worker was actively engaged were referred for follow-up after spending time in a corrective institution.

In 1998, identification of project participants was performed by way of surveying relevant agencies. In addition, referrals were received from:

• Police (15 referrals),

• CYPS (11 referrals)

• Other community agencies (3 referrals).

Both surveys and referrals resulted in between 100 and 150 young people coming into contact with the Awhinatia Te Whänau CPWS worker between January and December 1998. Of these, twenty-one (21) were identified either as recidivist offenders, or as first time offenders at risk of re-offending (as indicated by the agencies making the referrals), and subsequently became intensively involved in the project. Intensive involvement constitutes at least weekly körero and supervision. However, in some cases, daily contact has been necessary to assist participants through procedures (i.e. court appearances, community work, individual plans set, etc.).

In 1999, 75 young people came in contact with the project. These included the eleven (11) young people continuing intensive involvement from 1998 and a further seven (7) young people identified either as recidivist offenders, or as first time offenders at risk of re-offending. These eighteen (18) young offenders worked intensively with the CPWS worker during 1999.

All of the eighteen (18) young people who worked intensively with the CPWS worker during 1999 were referred by one of the following agencies:

The majority were referred as a result of Family Group Conferences (FGCs), court orders or police directives, with three (3) required to complete community hours under the supervision of the CPWS worker.

Age, ethnicity and gender

Between June 1998 and May 1999, the project worker collected age data for seventyone (71) young people, information regarding gender for fifty-five (55) young people and ethnicity statistics for sixty-three (63) young people.

This data suggested that the majority of young people with whom the project worker had intensive contact between the June 1998 and May 1999, were male (44), aged 14-16 years (38) and of Pacific Island ethnicity (49). In addition, eleven (11) of the young people were female, twenty-five (25) were aged between 11 and 13 years, eight (8) were aged 17-20 years, thirteen (13) were of Mäori ethnicity, and one (1) was Päkehä (Table10). Between June 1999 and April 2000, gender and ethnicity data was collected from eighty-five (85) young people, and age data was collected from eighteen (18) young people.

This data indicated that the majority of young people with whom the project worker had intensive contact between June 1999 and April 2000, were male (78), aged 11-13 (8) and of Pacific Island ethnicity (70). In addition, seven (7) of the young people were female, six (6) were aged 14-16 years, four (4) were aged 17-20 years, and fifteen (15) were of Mäori ethnicity (Table 11).

Table 11

Gender

Of the 12 young people for whom case study data was collected between June 1998 and May 1999, ten (10) were male and two (2) were female. Between June 1999 and April 2000, half (3) of the six (6) young people identified in the case studies were male and half (3) were female.

Identifying and working with young people, aged 14-20 years who are at risk of offending or have already committed minor offences, to develop their strength, resources and self reliance and divert them away from offending

Between June 1998 and May 1999, the project worker identified and worked with twenty-seven (27) youth at risk of offending. These youth conformed to the target population in that they demonstrated behaviour problems and/or were victims of violence, conflict, abuse, neglect and/or isolation. Similarly, between June 1999 andApril 2000, eighteen (18) at risk young people regularly engaged with the project worker.

As such, the project worker consistently exceeded the number of youth originally indicated in the project proposal (6-8). The majority of young people made contact with the project worker through informal or community networks, or via the monitoring of local "hang out" places. Several young people were not otherwise involved in mainstream activities or agencies, and so were unlikely to access any alternative form of assistance or intervention. Furthermore, this access to young people was increased by moving the project base from Crosspower to the Otara Youth Embassy (an after school resource based at the Alternative Education Centre).

It is difficult to say whether the CPWS worker involvement has helped to develop the young peoples' strengths, resources and self reliance and/or diverted them away from offending. Of those young people identified in the CPWS worker's case studies, three (3) were awaiting court proceedings at the time of coming in contact with the CPWS worker. Of these, two were sentenced to prison, and one to the corrective facility on Great Barrier Island. Of the remainder, three (3) were legally identified as committing offences during their involvement with the CPWS worker. As such, nine (9) were identified as not offending during their involvement with the worker (of these, 4 of the cases identified the young people as having been previously involved with the law).

Where involvement with the CPWS worker was coupled with regular in school monitoring, supervision, or residence in the CPWS worker's home, this influence appears to be greatest. As indicated by one of the young people who resided with the CPWS worker during the course of her involvement:

I'm safe. I don't go out and be naughty like I did when I was living with my Dad. I got the guidelines. I never got them before, and I follow them. It's good. (At the time of making this statement the young person reported having been "straight" from drugs and alcohol for two weeks).

To build relationships with individuals and provide support that is ongoing

The case studies indicate that the project worker managed to build relationships with, and provide ongoing support to, at least seven (7) of the young people with whom he worked between June 1998 and May 1999, and six (6) of those with whom he worked between June 1999 and April 2000. Furthermore, of the six (6) young people identified in the 1999/2000 case studies, three (3) continued their involvement from the preceding year.

Ongoing support included: spending time together, talking, engaging in motivational activities, fostering literacy and numeracy skills, engaging the youth in sports and fitness activities. The CPWS worker also assisted young people to apply for education and training courses, work placements, and financial support. Where these applications were not successful, he worked with them to identify alternative areas of interest and/or means of gaining the experience to support their applications.

As part of the development of individual relationships, the CPWS worker introduced a number of the young people to the weight training facilities at Crosspower. He was then able to talk with them while they worked out.

In addition to providing the project worker with a captive audience, the weight training activities provided the young people with intrinsic benefits. Young people indicated that during the weight training sessions they were able to personally control what they did, and were supported by the project worker to set and work towards individual goals. Furthermore, they were easily able to measure their progress and as well as creating strength, exercise is known to be an effective form of stress management.

To facilitate better utilisation of services available to young people and assist with the co-ordination of youth services in Otara

During the first year of the project, the CPWS worker actively participated in the Otara Community Forum. Through this involvement, he was able to identify the different social service providers in Otara and network with them. The CPWS worker referred young people to these services as and when he considered it necessary.

In particular, the CPWS worker referred young people to educational and training courses, including TOPS, Manukau Polytechnic, Houhanga Rongo Literacy project and Tangaroa College Alternative Education Programme. However, there is little evidence that youth were referred to other services such as medical, counselling, therapy and/or welfare agencies.

Although the project worker has become increasingly involved in a range of services associated with Crosspower (Tangaroa College Alternative Education programme, Otara Youth Embassy etc.), he does not appear to have become involved in coordinating youth services in Otara. Rather, his role has been much more hands on, including supervising and monitoring students, one to one mentoring, etc.

To provide a follow up system when young people come out of corrective institutions

None of the youth were referred from corrective institutions. However, between 1998 and 1999, the project worker established relationships with three (3) young people who subsequently entered Prison or Juvenile facilities. It was anticipated that contact with these individuals would resume after their release. However, it is not clear whether this has happened.

The CPWS worker has attended court appearances and family group conferences for young people. In some cases, this involvement has resulted in the CPWS worker agreeing to supervise the young people. Although, beneficial in ensuring the young persons' participation in work and education, the CPWS worker indicates that the supervision process often requires a dramatic change in the perception of the young person. At the time of the CPWS worker being accepted as a supervisor, he is generally perceived by the young person as a friend. In order for the supervisory relationship to work, this perception has had to be altered to accommodate the power differential between the two parties and the statutory requirements of each.

Facilitate active engagement between the CPWS worker and statutory agencies

working with at risk youth, and development of protocols for interaction and referral.

2. Establish greater definition between the responsive nature of the CPWS worker's activities and his role as a community facilitator. Specifically, the CPWS worker should be encouraged to pursue the development of a more structured programme of interactive learning activities provided at the Youth Embassy. The value of such interventions in reducing crime (as opposed to drop in facilities) is identified in relevant literature. However, in order to achieve this, the CPWS worker would require greater support, both in terms of acquiring human resources, and the information and training necessary to develop such a programme.

3. Assist the CPWS worker to define the boundaries between his personal and professional life. Although his willingness to accept young people into his home appears to have contributed to the positive outcomes identified in this report, the potential for negative outcomes following such intensive involvement has not been measured. The CPWS worker currently receives supervision from a number of different people and agencies, but does not have peers with which he can share his work load, nor does he have the financial resources to provide a residential service which distinguishes his responsibilities to the youth from those to himself and his family. Whether such assistance can be provided in terms of financial, material and/or human resources, or in terms of clearly defined limits to his role, needs to be explored further.

4. Specify conditions for young people who spend time with the CPWS worker as part of court ordered supervision. Prior to agreeing to such arrangements, the CPWS worker must make it clear that, in this case, his role is not one of "a friend", but rather as a supervisor of the young persons court ordered activities. As such, he must identify his expectations of the young person, and the statutory requirements of his role.

5. Develop an accurate recording system for obtaining evaluation data from all project participants, including community wide processes for monitoring progress both during and after involvement with the CPWS worker.

Awhinatia Te Whänau, Te Kotahitanga E Mahi Kaha Trust, Kaikohe

CPWS Workers

In January 1998 Te Kotahitanga E Mahi Kaha Trust recruited a youth worker for the Awhinatia Te Whänau CP-CPWS project. The youth worker was Mäori, male, and possessed twelve years experience working with youth and/or families. He had also undertaken counselling training at the Central Institute of Technology and attended training seminars and workshops in: In August 1998, the original CPWS worker left the CP-CPWS position to take up alternative employment with Ngapuhi Social Services and is now a social worker in schools. He was replaced by a second youth worker, also a Mäori male, with significant experience in youth work, including two years as a CPWS worker in the Hokianga.

In November 1998 the second CPWS worker entered 10 weeks of intensive training in Auckland, returning to Te Kotahitanga E Mahi Kaha Trust in the capacity of the alternative education programme co-ordinator. His role in the Awhinatia Te Whänau project was taken over by another Trust employee, also a Mäori Male with long term experience as a youth worker.

All of the CPWS project workers who have been involved with the Awhinatia Te Whänau project have identified themselves as Ngapuhi and have possessed significant personal knowledge of the social environment in which the project was developed. Furthermore, all remain in contact with each other and continue to contribute to the development of the project, and the young people involved with it.

Management and Support

From inception, management of the project has been the responsibility of the Trust.

Throughout the project each Project Worker met with the General Manager of the Trust on a regular basis (at least fortnightly) to monitor project progress (including hours worked, activities undertaken and client progress), undertake project planning, and discuss and work through any issues related to the project. Peer support and mentoring was also available from other Trust staff involved in the operation of Trust based youth & whänau services. Access to the DIA Community Development Advisor and the worker's own established networks provided additional supervision and support for the project The Trust has been responsible for ensuring the provision of sufficient resources to cover the operational costs associated with the project. They have provided access to office space, telephone, fax, photocopier, computer and administrative support, as well as some additional resources for project activities (such as kayaks, Trust van and camping equipment). The Trust has also assisted the project worker to seek additional funding to support his activities.

During 1998, the project management group provided the Awhinatia Te Whänau project worker with in-house training in:

To develop an individual development plan for each participant

For each participant, individual development plans were negotiated with the assistance of whänau and other community members. The project worker not only provided the young people with assistance in achieving these plans, but also monitored each individual's progress, and regularly reviewed plans to ensure that they were realistic, achievable and appropriate to the changing needs of the client and their whänau.

In some cases, individual development plans were tied to court ordered community service hours and emphasis was placed on individuals achieving productive personal outcomes whilst continuing to meet their obligations to the community. As such, court orders were seen as opportunities (as well as discipline) and plans involved a mixture of practical and learning activities, aimed at up-skilling, as well as instilling an interest in learning and work. Once community hours had been completed, the plans were revised and new opportunities were explored. Ongoing development of individual plans following completion of community hours has tended to involve pursuing former activities, often for payment or further educational attainment.

To work intensively with each individual offender over a three year period

Only eleven (11) of the twenty-one (21) young people to become involved with the Awhinatia Te Whänau programme in 1998, and five (5) of the young people who entered in 1999, were still involved with the youth worker at the end of 1999. However, the agency has always indicated that contact should be made on an as per need basis, and since late 1999 there has been increasing emphasis on a youth development model. This emphasis aims at empowering young people to determine their own needs.

As a result of this emphasis, the project has evolved so that, following an initial 6-9 month period of intensive contact, the CPWS worker role becomes one of support person with participants making contact as they need assistance and/or require access to resources. Most participants who have remained in Kaikohe maintain monthly contact with the CPWS worker, either by phone or "just dropping in".

Most of the young people who have left the project have done so as a result of moving out of the area, often due to family or legal obligations, or, as was increasingly the case in 1999, following the acquisition of paid employment.

Meeting and developing the preventative components of the project:

Relating young people back to their cultural heritage All young Mäori who become involved with the Trust are encouraged to develop their understanding of their whakapapa and marae affiliations. This focus is aimed at fostering a sense of whanaungatanga (common links and reciprocal responsibility). It appears to be especially effective for those young people returning from outside the area.

Identification of whakapapa and marae affiliation has resulted in young people expressing pride in their cultural identity and forming closer links with extended whänau, and the wider community. These links have, in turn, opened a number of doors to the young people, providing them with opportunities that they did not previously have access to.

In the specific case of the Awhinatia Te Whänau project the largest proportion of project participants are Mäori, as is the project worker. In 1998, the project worker engaged participants and whänau in informal discussions regarding local history, Whakapapa, Te Ao Mäori and the effects of colonisation. In 1999, as trust developed between the young people, their whänau and the project worker, this aspect of the project became increasingly structured around activities such as whänau days out, trips to Waitangi, Arai Te Uru, and Täne Mahuta, camps and marae involvement (including learning basic mihimihi and marae protocol).

Protecting the interests of the youth who are predominantly disadvantaged, displaced and abused Protection of youth interests has primarily occurred through referral to specialist agencies, often as part of the participant's progress towards achieving their goals. The youth worker's role in protecting youth interests has involved liaison with schools, sports, community groups, government agencies, advocacy for the young people in court or family group conferences. The ongoing nature of goal setting, and support activities, through the monitoring and review process is particularly advantageous in meeting this objective as it allows participants to identify and address issues (such as drug and alcohol abuse, etc.) when they are ready.

In 1999, care co-ordination became an increasingly important aspect of the project worker's efforts to protect the interests of young people. Frequently, this involved working with Iwi Social Services, hapü and other agencies to ensure that youth placements acknowledged extended whänau and marae. It also involved working with immediate whänau to develop means and conditions to enable the young person to return to them at some future date.

In addition, the CPWS worker, together with the Te Taurikura worker identified a number of young people who were disadvantaged, but not specifically at risk. These included young people who did not have access to significant physical, or social resources, many of whom were struggling through the education system. These young people indicated that they were further disadvantaged by the fact that they didn't have access to the programmes targeting at risk youth.

In order to address these issues, and prevent these young people from becoming at risk, the CPWS worker and Te Taurikura worker organised an educational field trip for them. After independently raising funds and sharing resources, they took the young people to Rotorua, where they received information and experience with the tourist industry in that area. This trip was not funded by the CP-CPWS fund, but indicates an example of the way in which the project worker's activities and objectives extend throughout the community.

Working to increase self esteem and self management of young people, primarily through education

The approach taken with clients has been as diverse as their needs. Given the nature of the participants, preference has been given to working with clients in small groups, or on a one to one basis. In all cases, young people are encouraged to develop skills through the provision of experiential opportunities.

In particular, young people have received support and encouragement in accessing services and opportunities, especially those of an educational nature. This has provided them with the motivation and confidence to apply for, and participate in, activities which they had previously perceived as out of their grasp, or irrelevant to them.

Furthermore, giving young people the opportunity to determine the nature of their involvement with the CPWS worker has facilitated the development of problem solving systems. These have included experiences where both parties work together with whänau and community to resolve issues of concern to them. The readiness with which young people have returned to the CPWS worker to access assistance when needed, suggests that these experiences have contributed to the development of self management.

Meeting the rehabilitative components of the project:

Countering negative actions, and peer pressure by redirecting energy and thinking in a positive manner. Project participants are challenged to "enjoy life", but not at the expense of others. This challenge has been reinforced by expanding the client's options and encouraging them to take responsibility for their actions. In particular, development plans have centred around personal goals refocusing youth on what they can do to change their world, rather than what they think needs to change in the world. These plans suggest options which involve the young people engaging with the world in a way that is conducive to their own development, and which facilitates positive feedback from others. It also involves encouraging youth feedback and taking on their ideas, such that they perceive their own ability to influence, rather than just be influenced. Examples of youth feedback which has been taken on include the suggestion that after crisis and support, the CPWS worker should provide young people with the space to identify their own wants and needs.

Part of the process of countering negative actions and peer pressure has been to reframe certain activities, encouraging pride in achievement and the development of an inclusive rather than exclusive youth culture. By demonstrating that all youth have opportunities, efforts to take advantage of them no longer involve the added pressure of crossing from one social group to another. Implicit in this process is working with individuals as individuals rather than working with groups of "offenders" who may be subject to stigmatisation and reinforcement of negative identification.

Reintroducing young offenders back into the community.

The reintroduction of participants back into the community is a gradual process and still developing. A large part of the personal progress plans negotiated with the young people focused on this goal, either through community service or increased community involvement. The project worker's involvement with other community stakeholders, including whänau, is particularly important to this process.

Significant contributions to achieving this goal have been the integration of community care and community work supervision with community valued activities, such as participation in sports clubs and community activity groups. Rather than diverting young offenders into unseen positions, the outcomes of FGCs and court orders have been placed firmly in the public arena. Thus continuing their visibility after the crime and refocusing attention on the positive contributions they are able to make to the community, rather than leaving a purely negative impression.

This community salience and involvement is also important in reducing the sense of isolation and marginalisation felt by youth, especially in terms of showing them that their positive contribution and participation is valued and accepted.

Similarly, involvement in care co-ordination and community work supervision has allowed youth access to a wider range of services and resources than they were previously able to access. In addition to providing young people with the confidence and knowledge to source services and resources, the project worker's involvement and community profile has helped to open doors for the young people. Examples include invitations to participate in sports clubs and community groups which, given a history of offending, would not otherwise have welcomed the young person.

Developing and building better relationships between the young people and their community

The project worker has actively worked to strengthen networks, develop new links and establish procedures and policies with government agencies, schools, whänau and other community groups that impact on the young peoples lives. Specifically, he has worked to:

• integrate project activities with those of Te Taurikura (the police crime prevention project), • ensure community group hands on involvement in the development of the project (i.e. Kaikohe Community Youth Council), • advocate for the needs of the young people, • collaborate with schools and referring agencies (i.e. DCYFS) to develop interventions that serve the needs of both, and • interface with iwi and hapü to facilitate communication and accommodation of young people

These efforts have enhanced the reintroduction process by establishing an environment of mutual effort. Young people were shown that they are not the only ones who are encouraged to make an effort, and outside individuals, agencies and groups are given a sense that they are able to positively influence young people with whom they have previously had primarily negative interactions.

This process has been enhanced by the Trust's connections within the community. On the basis of good faith in the Trust, the CPWS worker is able to assist young people to gain access to groups and organisations that had otherwise excluded them. Specifically, these have included sports clubs, and community activity groups.

Implementation

Briefly describe in one page or less the process of setting up your project. For example: What kinds of things needed to be done for your project to get started? How much time did it take? What issues did you encounter along the way?

The number of young people the project has worked with

What is the total number of rangatahi the project has worked with in the past twelve months? How many rangatahi were actively involved in the project? (significant contact on a number of occasions) How many rangatahi had short or infrequent contact with the project? How many rangatahi have left the project in the past twelve months?

Outcomes for the young people

Attach any information gathered so far that briefly describes some of the achievements of rangatahi over the last twelve months.

Attach any information gathered so far that briefly summarises the feedback from rangatahi on the activities they have participated in, noting any suggestions for improvement or changes made.

Attach any other relevant comments or feedback about the project from the rangatahi. Attach any comments or feedback gathered so far from these agencies regarding the project and the programme or activities it offers.

Community outcomes

If relevant, comment on the participation of your agency in local efforts to co-ordinate services for rangatahi.

Attach any examples of media coverage relating to the project or the rangatahi.

Project objectives

List the key project objectives for the past twelve months and for each one specify the extent to which the objective has been met. If the objective has not yet been met, briefly explain why.

Objectives:

Comments:

12. Project management Briefly comment on the process of managing the project over the past twelve months, including training and supervision provided for the Youth Worker. Note any changes in direction for the project or employing agency.

13. Financial information a) Provide a current set of audited accounts. If accounts were audited more than three months previously provide an updated financial statement relating to expenditure of CPWS funding.

b) Provide an outline of the budget for the CPWS project for the coming year

Whaia Te Tika, Te Rünanga O Nga Maata Waka, Otautahi (Christchurch) Background Project Need

Table 2 :

Table 8

Table 10

Table 11

Table 12

Table 13

Table 17

Log In

Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...................................................................................................................1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Sign up for access to the world's latest research

Abstract

Figures (38)

Related papers

Related papers