Implementation and process evaluation (IPE) of the Turnaround programme

About the study

Youth crime and antisocial behaviour (ASB) continue to pose serious challenges for communities across England and Wales. Recognising the importance of early, holistic, and needs-driven intervention, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) launched the Turnaround Programme in December 2022, providing Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) across England and Wales1 with approximately £3,000 extra funding per child, with the aim of enabling targeted, wrap-around support to up to 20,500 children who are on the cusp of the youth justice system, but not on YOTs’ statutory caseloads.

In April 2024, the MoJ commissioned the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) to conduct an independent implementation and process evaluation to assess the programme’s effectiveness to date, and key lessons for the future, which concluded in May 2025.

The evaluation captured the voices of those designing, delivering and directly benefiting from Turnaround using a mixed-methods approach, consisting of a mixture of focus groups, observations, interviews, surveys, programme management information analysis and theory of change workshops.

The evaluation had three main aims:

1. To assess how effectively the programme was implemented and delivered, and to identify the factors that contributed to its successes and challenges.
2. To evaluate outcomes, by examining perceptions of effectiveness among delivery staff and children, the results achieved, and the contexts in which they were realised.
3. To extract key lessons and implications for future early intervention practice

Findings

The key findings highlight that the Turnaround programme has made a tangible difference for children, parents, and carers through strong partnerships, system improvements and collaborative change.

• 91% of children who completed Turnaround interventions by end of December 2024 had no further judicial decisions or cautions over the same period.
• Turnaround successfully engaged children previously not receiving early intervention services, including those released under investigation (RUI).
• Children engaging in physical activities through Turnaround, such as boxing, noted improvements in discipline and wellbeing – highlighting the positive impact of Turnaround on children’s physical and mental health.
• Emotional openness and mental health improved through trusted relationships with staff.
• Some children changed peer groups and strengthened family ties, which had a positive ripple effect on household dynamics.
• Support offered to families included parenting classes, emotional guidance, and referrals for mental health and financial aid.
• Programmes like Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (DBT) and the Triple P (Positive Parenting Programme) were particularly effective.
• 70% of YOT leads noted improved integration and partnership working due to Turnaround.
• Collaboration with police was particularly impactful, improving and streamlining referral pathways for children receiving No Further Action (NFA) or community resolutions (CR).
• YOTs noted improvements in existing partnerships with community services, such as football clubs, leisure centres, gyms, and outdoor education centres.

Methodology

The evaluation followed a mixed‑methods design delivered in two main phases: a scoping phase and a mainstage phase. The scoping phase included a thematic review of 10 key programme documents, nine interviews with national strategic stakeholders, a survey of 155 Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) with 103 responses, and a Logic Model workshop with 11 stakeholders. Insights from this phase informed the development of the Programme Logic Model, sampling strategy, and topic guides for fieldwork.

The mainstage phase involved qualitative case study research totalling 93 encounters in 12 YOTs across England and Wales, conducted in two waves (July 2024 to October 2024; and November 2024 to February 2025). Data collection included observations of nine interventions; 16 interviews with Turnaround leads; 16 focus groups with staff and delivery partners; 26 interviews with children who received support; and 25 interviews with parents/carers.

Sampling criteria ensured geographical spread, diversity of delivery models, inclusion of common intervention types, and representation across demographic and offending characteristics. Participants including YOT staff, partners, children, and parents were purposively sampled to capture diverse roles, experiences, and backgrounds.

Qualitative data were analysed using the Framework approach, enabling systematic coding aligned with evaluation objectives.

In parallel, management information (MI) covering December 2022 to December 2024 was analysed. MI captured referral volumes, intervention starts/completions, reasons for referral or non‑completion, and 12‑month offending outcomes. YOT‑level variables (region, ASB status, funding) were linked to the MI to explore delivery patterns and regional variations.