Evaluation Report 2: Hard to Reach Youth (CART) - Te Puni Kokiri

He Pūrongo Arotake 2: Hard to Reach Youth (CART)Evaluation Report 2: Hard to Reach Youth (CART)

Me mahi tahi tātouLet us work as oneAuthored by Michael Roguski, PhD21 July 2009DISCLAIMER This publication is intended to provide information on the matters containedherein. It has been written, edited and published and made available to all persons and entitiesstrictly on the basis that its authors, editors and publishers are fully excluded from any liabilityor responsibility by all or any of them in any way to any person or entity for anything done oromitted to be done by any person or entity in reliance, whether totally or partially, on thecontents of this publication for any purposes whatsoever.© Te Puni Kökiri ISBN 978-0-478-34513-1 JULY 20111 CART: Hard-to-Reach Youth Project – Evaluation Report, Te Puni Kōkiri July 2009

CONTENTSINTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 3APPROACH ........................................................................................................ 5CONTEXUALISING THE PROGRAMME ............................................................ 6PROGRAMME SUCCESS ................................................................................... 9CHALLENGES .................................................................................................. 13FUTURE ............................................................................................................ 15CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 162

INTRODUCTIONBACKGROUNDIn 2006 the government launched its Effective Interventions (EI) policy package. The packagewas established to identify and support options for reducing offending and the prisonpopulation, thereby reducing the costs and impacts of crime on New Zealand society. Animportant component of the EI package was the need to enhance justice sectorresponsiveness to Māori. As such, Te Puni Kōkiri (TPK) and the Ministry of Justice developedand Programme of Action for Māori (later known as the Justice Policy Project with the changeof government) which comprised the following three elements: ongoing engagement with Māori communities; supporting learning from promising and innovative providers; and enhancing information gathering and analysis across the sector about effectiveness forMāori.Under the Justice Policy Project, Te Puni Kōkiri invested in a small number of interventions(up to June 2008) that were designed, developed and delivered by Māori providers and testfacilitators of success for Māori in the justice sector. This work has contributed to an initialplatform for developing an empirical evidence base about „what works‟ for Māori, whileagencies develop options for sustainable funding streams.At the direction of the Minister of Māori Affairs, several providers were selected as candidateswhose programmes have potential to impact on Māori rates of offending, re-offending andimprisonment.The six providers who delivered the practical initiatives were: Te Whakaruruhau Māori Women‟s Refuge (Hamilton), which supports women and childrenaffected by domestic violence; Hoani Waititi Marae (West Auckland), who are delivering an initiative related to identifyingthe factors that strengthen whānau affected by the negative effects of Methamphetamine(„P‟) use and abuse; Mana Social Services Trust (Rotorua), which delivers a restorative justice programme forchildren and young people who are at „high risk‟ of disengaging from the education system; Taonga Education Trust (Manurewa), which provides alternative education to teenagemothers in Clendon; Te Whare Ruruhau o Meri (Ōtāhuhu), who deliver a programme aimed at reducing reoffendingamong 20 of Auckland recidivist offenders and their whānau referred by Police;and Consultancy Advocacy and Research Trust (CART) (Wellington), who facilitate access toservices for hard-to-reach whānau.3 CART: Hard-to-Reach Youth Project – Evaluation Report, Te Puni Kōkiri July 2009

Each initiative was evaluated in mid-2008 with a specific focus on: short-term outcomes; process-related issues; and barriers and facilitators of success with a view to promote good practice for futuredevelopment and improvement.THE EVALUATION PROJECTThis project aims to gather detailed information on two of the six initiatives. The objectives ofthis evaluation are to: gather quantitative information to augment the process evaluations undertaken after oneyear of operation; document in narrative form, at least two of the six intervention initiatives, providing at leasttwo examples of successful transition from involvement in crime and the criminal justicesector into pro-social living and a life without offending, utilising networks gained throughthe first evaluations; and to go beyond documenting problems and gaps, towards providing examples of Māorisucceeding as Māori.The key questions that this evaluation aimed to answer were: What has Te Puni Kōkiri learnt from Māori designed, developed and delivered initiativeswithin the criminal justice sector? What are the facilitators of success for Māori in the justice sector?4

APPROACHThe study initially aimed to collect rich narrative data through face-to-face interviews. In thisregard, the following interviews were to be carried out in each of the three sites: one interview with the manager of the provider organisation; and two individual interviews with individuals who are identified as having a successful transitionfrom involvement in crime and the criminal justice sector into pro-social living and a lifewithout offending.This approach was amended with the CART: Hard-to-Reach Youth Project interviews. Ratherthan one-on-one interviews, a group facilitation approach was used to embrace theparticipation of the Community Worker (Roy Dunn), three members of the Notorious MongrelMob Chapter and six young people who had participated in the programme. As aconsequence, rather than an in-depth semi-structured interview format with individuals, theevaluation adopted a workshop-styled approach where young people‟s and providerperspectives were gathered simultaneously. The workshop occurred over three hours and,with participants‟ permission, was digitally recorded.In addition, outcome data was gathered through the workshop process.5 CART: Hard-to-Reach Youth Project – Evaluation Report, Te Puni Kōkiri July 2009

CONTEXUALISING THEPROGRAMMEThe initiative was initially referred to as the „Hard-to-Reach Youth‟ project because of theyoung peoples‟: affiliation with criminal youth gangs (crews); and distrust of and resistance to: Social service agencies The Police Courts Authority figures in general.Much of this resistance can be traced to poor experiences with authority figures at an earlyage and a continued process of being labelled as deviant. For example, a large proportion ofthe young people in question had: negative experiences whilst in the care of Child, Youth and Family; been labelled as “dumb” by their teachers; and few positive family role models.These negative experiences often culminated with the young people leaving school betweenthe ages of 12 and 14 years and having little future focus aside from burglary and aspiring torun their own tinny houses. Following school, the young people‟s negative experiences andperceptions of authority figures were galvanised through repeat arrests and, for the olderyouth, incarceration.As a consequence, the crews provided metaphorical whānau units - enclaves of support and asense of belonging. These whānau units, while positive in providing a sense of belonging,placed the young people outside of mainstream society and reinforced being labelled asdeviant. This culminated in a sense of being unemployable as the young people reportednumerous rejections and traced these to employers‟ knowledge of the individual‟s criminalhistories, family associations and/or the individual‟s reputation in the community. In turn, theprocess of being labelled deviant reinforced the young people‟s distrust of authority figuresand growing beliefs that economic wellbeing could only be achieved through criminal activity.Given the degree of resistance, the Community Worker‟s (alongside other members of theMongrel Mob‟s Notorious Chapter) ability to engage with these young people has been heldup as a major success by the young people, community members and some Policerepresentatives.Three factors have been identified that go some way in explaining the successes underpinningengagement with the various crews: the respect that patched members conjure among the crews of South Auckland; life history similarities; and6

the process of engagement used by the Notorious Mongrel Mob Chapter.The respect that patched members conjure amongst South Auckland crews. Patchedmembers can inadvertently act as aspirational role models for young people who have not hadrole models in their communities. This level of respect placed the Notorious Mongrel MobChapter in a position of having young people want to speak with them. This in turn assistedwith enrolling the various crews in hui and reconciliation meetings.Life history similarities. Chapter members and the various crews shared life experiences of: being stigmatised, experiencing public distrust and police scrutiny; similar socio-economic backgrounds; understanding what it is like growing up in South Auckland; and understanding the sense of camaraderie and whānau provided by crew affiliations.The process used by the Community Worker (Roy Dunn). As previously outlined, theyoung people had a high degree of distrust of social service agencies.They [social service agencies] don’t know what we we’ve been through. They’ve [NotoriousMongrel Mob Chapter] been there and done that. They understand us and we understandthem. Crew member, female, 20The Community Worker‟s approach involved him and the Notorious Mongrel Mob Chapterspending time with the young people and facilitating processes whereby the young peoplewere able to engage in a series of visioning exercises which culminated in their selfdeterminedaspirations.You have to sit down with them. You have to find a method of reaching people – based onpast experiences. Notorious Mongrel Mob Chapter MemberFurther, the Community Worker provided a series of sport-based activities. On one levelthese activities provided the young people with something to do, but on another level theyprovided opportunities for continued exposure to pro-social behaviours and opportunities toliaise with opposing crew factions in positive (violence free) environments.As such, the initiative filled a void created by the young people‟s distrust of social serviceagencies and authority figures in general.There was no one out there that could help us – who could work with us. We didn’t respectthem or they didn’t respect us. Notorious was the only ones who could get beside us. Crewmember, female, 20Crew representatives related that the Community Worker and the Chapter provided: awhi in an environment where they had been generally relegated to the responsibility ofPolice and the Courts; and an environment which empowered the young people to: Adopt pro-social means of conflict resolution, Develop positive interpersonal relationships, Gain a sense of achievement which in turn reinforced the desire to gain training,education and/or employment7 CART: Hard-to-Reach Youth Project – Evaluation Report, Te Puni Kōkiri July 2009

a sense of safety through an environment of one’s peers – those with similar lifeexperiences and common understandings.What is notable is that the programme did not simply engage hard-to-reach youth. Rather apreparatory learning environment was provided – with peers who share a common lifeexperience and attitudes - in which young people were able to develop skills and futureaspirations and then transition on to appropriate learning and employment opportunities.You’re in your own environment. You’re not at AUT or somewhere – but you’re in your ownenvironment in the hood and the hood can come together.Crew member, male, 21 years8

sporting activities provided an opportunity for the young people to meet in pro-socialenvironments and appreciate their similarities rather than differences; representatives from the various opposing crews were sent to a diving course in Wellington(2008) where students were required to work together to learn how to dive. Positiveunderstandings and experiences ensued whereby representatives learnt to appreciatesimilarities as well as differences which culminated in a move away from violence. Thetraining culminated in a diving certification. For all participants this had been their onlyqualification earned at the time and proved to be a major turning point in that realisationswere made that success is possible; participating in Evaluation for Transformation (EFT) workshops provided an opportunity forparticipants to appreciate the qualities, traits and life histories shared with other crews.Significant shifts in appreciating the human qualities of historically opposing crewsdeveloped when the crews understood the common life experiences, similarities in currentlife challenges and shared hopes and aspirations; and seasonal horticultural employment provided an opportunity for some young people to liveand work together.A visible culmination of each of these strategies was offered by one Notorious Mongrel MobChapter member who pointed out that the fact that Crips and Blood leaders had chosen toattend the workshop and be seated side-by-side, engaging in dialogue, was “proof” of theprogramme‟s success.That these people are sitting here [pointing] is the biggest shift in the damn world. This is thetrue impact of what has happened. This would never have happened before. NotoriousMongrel Mob Chapter memberDeveloping pro-social behavioursAs an outcome of their involvement with the programme, participants reported having replacedmany antisocial activities with pro-social behaviours. For example:Since I have been on board with the Notorious kaupapa I haven’t been arrested – for morethan 12 months now. I’ve given up drinking everyday. And I used to do heaps of petty crimesand that sort of rubbish – heaps – but not any more. Before I came to the programme I wasrobbing everyday, getting drunk everyday and in the cells every week. And in the jail. Since Icame to the programme all that stuff has gone away. Crew member, male, 20 years old.The following were unanimously related by participants as being a major impact of theprogramme: the development of career aspirations; improved self-esteem; future focused hopes and dreams such as owning a house, being drug free, being healthy,supporting their family with clean (not drug-related) money; learning to engage in dialogue to work through conflicts (rather than violence); an end to binge drinking; reduction in violent crime; and reduction in arrests.10

QUANTIFIABLE OUTCOMESTable 1 outlines outcome-related data for the three crews that participated in the workshop.Four notable changes to pro-social behaviour coincided with the implementation of the variousinitiatives. The most significant changes occurred for two crews (Crews 1 and 2): a drastic reduction of arrests (all members over the preceding 12 month period to nil and 5percent respectively during the duration of the programme); not engaging in any violent crime (from all members engaged in street-based violent crimeto no street-based assaults against other crews); not engaging in any binge drinking (from all members engaging in binge drinking to nilbinge drinking); and a major reduction in theft (from all members engaging in theft to 25 percent and nilrespectively).Less drastic changes were reported for Crew 3. The behaviour changes were perceived ashighly significant by crew leaders as the crew was reported as being more entrenched inantisocial activities and more time was required for the full impact of the various initiatives totake effect.A number of enduring impacts of the programme were identified once the programme hadended. Namely the following pro-social behaviours have been maintained (or at least notreverted to pre-programme levels): rates of binge drinking remained at nil engagement for two crews; and arrest rates increased to 50 percent for two crews, whereas Crew 3 (known as the moreentrenched in antisocial behaviour), maintained its programme level rate of 50 percent.However, of concern, the majority of those arrested aged 18 or over are now incarcerated.For instance the following have been incarcerated for each of the following: Crew 1 – six incarcerated; Crew 2 – five incarcerated; and Crew 3 – seven incarcerated.Everything stopped. When they [the Community Worker] stopped getting resources we had togoing back to what we knew to survive.Crew member, female, 19 years11 CART: Hard-to-Reach Youth Project – Evaluation Report, Te Puni Kōkiri July 2009

Before{12 months prior to Sept 2007)During(Sept 2007 to May 2008)After(since June 2008)Before(12 months prior to Sept 2007)During(Sept 2007 to May 2008)After(since June 2008)Before(12 months prior to Sept 2007)During(Sept 2007 to May 2008)After(since June 2008)Table 1: Shifts in Antisocial Behaviour Attributed to the Hard-to-Reach Youth ProgrammeBehaviourCrew 1 (n = 27) Crew 2 (n = 20) Crew 3 (n = 45)In training oremployment0% 20% 0% 0% 5% 0% 33% 50% 40%Arrested inlast 12 months100%0% 50%100%5% 50%100%50% 50%Engaging in violentcrime (street-basedassaults against othercrews)100%0%100%100%0%100%100%20%100%Engaging in regularbinge drinking (atleast once a week)100%0% 0%100%0% 0%100%80%100%Engaging in theft atleast once a month100%25% 50%100%0%100%100%100%100%Source: This data was gathered in a workshop to triangulate qualitative findings acrossparticipants12

CHALLENGESDespite the programme‟s success at having engaged hard-to-reach youth and facilitatingsignificant shifts from antisocial behaviour to pro-social activities a number of challenges to theprogramme‟s operation and sustainability were identified.NEGATIVE PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS AND POLICE SCRUTINYThe Community Worker and the Notorious Mongrel Mob Chapter‟s efforts to engage in prosocialactivities and work alongside hard-to-reach youth have been met with mediaspeculation that the Chapter‟s youth focus is nothing but a guise for gang recruitment. 1Consequently, the Community Worker and Notorious Mongrel Mob Chapter members havegenerally worked “under the radar” – under the auspices of other entities (such as CART) anddoing their best to minimise media exposure. While this approach has proved effective inreducing exposure it has: prevented any programme-related successes of being attributed to the initiative; not decreased the level of public distrust as the public is generally not aware of the positiveoutcomes of the programme; and hindered the development of local and central government support.RESOURCINGInsufficient resourcing has been a continual problem. When funding ended the CommunityWorker and associated Notorious Mongrel Mob Chapter members tried to continue withprogramme activities. This proved unrealistic and activities ceased when members‟ ownfunds were exhausted. A number of outcomes of the loss of funding were identified: when the programme ended many of the young people reverted back to antisocialbehaviour at pre-programme levels. This was especially true for violent crimes and theft;and Crew representatives related that the programme had inadvertently raised participantexpectations.For the first time the young people had been encouraged to develop a vision for the future -hopes developed around training, career and employment potentialities. With theprogramme‟s end, participants related that they felt as though they have been left hanging –not having someone to assist realise their aspirations. The sense of being left hanging can beappreciated in light of the fact that the initiative provided a preparatory learning environment inwhich young people were able to develop skills and future aspirations and then, with theassistance of the Community Worker and Notorious Mongrel Mob Chapter members,transition on to appropriate learning and employment opportunities.1 New Zealand Herald (7 th February, 2008)13 CART: Hard-to-Reach Youth Project – Evaluation Report, Te Puni Kōkiri July 2009

You’re in your own environment. You’re not at AUT or somewhere – but you’re in your ownenvironment in the hood and the hood can come together.Crew member, male, 21 years14

CONCLUSIONIn 2007, under the Programme of Action for Māori, Te Puni Kōkiri invested in a small numberof interventions designed, developed and delivered by Māori. The hard-to-reach youth projectwas initiated because of a number of youth homicides in South Auckland and growing concernabout escalating violence between youth „gangs‟.The contract with CART had the following objectives: engage with, liaise and mediate processes with hard-to-reach youth groups in SouthAuckland – identify groups in conflict and the basis for their rivalry; identify formal/informal connections with established clubs and encourage them to supportthose youth groups to resolve conflict peacefully; liaise with hard-to-reach youth groups on the need to resolve issues in a nonconfrontationalway; inform hard-to-reach youth groups on the negative lifetime ramifications of being in anestablished club; liaise with the established clubs that have influence with various hard-to-reach youth groupsand facilitate mediation processes by linking hard-to-reach youth to existing positive youthdevelopment and/or assisting youth groups to establish their own positive activities orprogrammes in the community; initiate discussions with government and community agencies that focus on thedevelopmental needs of the hard-to-reach youth groups; and develop recommendations for the type of action/support that is required for hard-to-reachyouth and provide information about the key lessons from the project to inform Te PuniKōkiri policy sector.The project has successfully met each of the above objectives.A number of facilitators of success have been identified that go some way in explaining theprogramme‟s success: the Community Worker was in a unique position of being able to harness the respect thatpatched members conjure among the crews of South Auckland as a means of initiatingcontact with the various crews; similarities in life experiences between the crews, the Community Worker and Chaptermembers provided a space for empathy and understanding across facilitators and thecrews; the processes used continually empowered the young people to develop pro-socialbehaviours and develop positive visions of the future; and the Community Worker, in association with the Chapter, was able to provide a safepreparatory learning environment in which young people were able to develop skills and16

future aspirations and then transition on to appropriate learning and employmentopportunities.Taken to a higher level, reasons why these factors have so successfully contributed tomeeting each of the objectives may be traced to the programme‟s adherence to a number ofcore principles underlying Māori succeeding as Māori.In particular, the programme strongly supported the young people‟s self-development, selfdeterminationand self-responsibility by creating opportunities for the young people to shareand learn in safe environments.In addition, the programme‟s success can also be traced to working within a strengths-basedapproach and working alongside young people to develop the young person‟s capability tomake positive choices.This appears to have been achieved through the programme‟s provision of pro-social whānauunits that provided safe and structured environments in which the young people were able todevelop.In conclusion, participants strongly related that there is no other programme in SouthAuckland geared to working with these hard-to-reach youth and without funding therecontinues to be a major gap in service provision. The risk is that programme successes havealready began to erode and the level of street inter-gang violence is escalating.17 CART: Hard-to-Reach Youth Project – Evaluation Report, Te Puni Kōkiri July 2009

19 CART: Hard-to-Reach Youth Project – Evaluation Report, Te Puni Kōkiri July 2009