Agenda item

The Director of Childrens Social Care and Community Safety submits a report to provide the Commission with the Annual Youth Justice Plan, highlighting progress to date and new emerging priorities.

The Director of Childrens Social Care and Community Safety submitted a report to provide the Commission with the Annual Youth Justice Plan, highlighting progress to date and new emerging priorities.

The Executive member for Social Care, Health and Community Safety introduced the report and noted that inspections had found good practice and whilst there was always work to do the understanding that the team had was good.

The Director of Childrens Social Care & Community Safety, The Head of Service Early Help (Targeted Services) and Service Manager (Integrated Services) presented the report.

Key points included:

• The three-year plan was updated on an annual basis.  It was currently in its second year.  This was the first year in which young people had been fully engaged to help produce the plan. 
• The young people involved had emphasised that they needed strong role models and needed to be supported to achieve and be aspirational.  It was important that they were believed-in, respected and not judged.  The involvement of young people ensured that priorities were delivered on.
• Key performance areas included a significant reduction in Children Looked After (CLA) open to the Youth Justice Service.  This had risen in previous years but was now below the national average.  This had been achieved by working in partnership as well as by supporting residential homes, putting restorative justice work in place and creating bespoke group work programmes for CLA. 
• A ‘child-first’ approach was taken, and it was ensured that partners such as the Police were engaged with this, making sure that children involved were seen as children before they were seen as offenders. 
• A remand strategy had been developed with the Police that was child-focussed.  This had helped with performance.
• Custody rates had been worked on.  Whereas in previous years there had been between 60-80 young people in custody over 12 months (higher than the national average), in the last 12 months, there had been only one young person placed in a custodial establishment.  It was acknowledged that it was sometimes necessary to place young people in custody, however, alternatives to custody were explored and victims were worked with.
• There were high numbers of young people in education, training and employment.  This had been a challenge for post-16 young people during the Covid-19 pandemic as many were on casual contracts or let go from work due to the pandemic.  Employers and trainers had been worked with on this over the last 12 months.
• Work on neurodiversity needs had been undertaken over the last 12 months, training staff and working in partnership to ensure that children and young people received the right support.
• There was a challenge surrounding reoffending rates.  The data tracked a small cohort meaning that a single offence could create a big swing in statistics.  This had resulted in reoffending rate that was higher than the national average.  A Reoffending Group met weekly to ensure that reports from the Police were dealt with quickly and young people were worked with to prevent reoffending.
• Successes had included the Reach Project, which mentored children who were at risk of exclusion and trained staff in neurodiversity.  This was externally evaluated by Sheffield Hallam University and was seen to be a big success.  The project had received short-term funding and work was being carried out to secure further funding.
• Another success had been the Summer Arts College.  Government funding for this had been removed, however, it had been internally decided to continue with its delivery and staff with appropriate skills had been reached out to.  The college was a six-week full-time programme for young people and all participants had received an arts award, with some also gaining apprenticeships with the Curve theatre.
• Challenges had included funding, and the situation would need to be monitored.  External funding had been received form the Police, the Probation Service and Health Services.  There was a need to maintain a strong budget to ensure delivery.
• A number of Young People came through pre-court services such as Early Intervention and people were accessing diversionary activities through partnerships and were able to establish mechanisms to identify the relevant young people sooner and proactively work with communities and with children and young people at risk to proactively engage them with diversionary work.

The Chair thanked the officers for their presentation.

The Committee were invited to ask questions and make comments. Key points included:

• Youth justice workers worked with complex and challenging young people.  It was difficult but there was a well-trained staff group who worked intensive hours with vulnerable children and young people.  A programme was worked to support children and young people and there was a duty roster to work on evenings and weekends.
• Every child and young person in the youth justice system had a case manager and advocate, receiving one-to-one support.  These children and young people co-produced their own plans, some were very detailed and others less-so depending on the needs of the child or young person.  Support was sometimes sought from services such as the psychology service.
• 20 out of 80 young people were engaged in a plan.  This was the first year that individual plans were used and as such numbers could increase year-on-year.  Outcomes were outstanding and the numbers going back to court were small.  However, young people did go to court if they did not comply with their plan as it was important that they knew there was an impact if they did not comply.
• Work was contextualised and people such as teachers and neighbours became involved as appropriate to support young people.
• The numbers of reoffenders were fairly static, but frequent reoffenders were a small group.  The most prolific reoffenders were reoffending within around 30 days of sentencing.  Reoffenders were assessed as to why they reoffended and worked with to see how they could desist.  It was noted that influences on young people such as County Lines gangs and other organised crime were a big factor.  Reoffending was of concern, and it was acknowledged that it was difficult for parents to influence children where other people had an influence on them.
• Organisations such as the Phoenix Project were engaged in partnerships to work with young people and the community at the right time with a co-produced plan and supported by organisations such as the police and community safety.  There was a focus on consequences and young people were worked with on the plans in place, including looking at employment, education and training.
• Work had been done on demographic disproportionality within the prison population, including a task and finish group on the issue.  Demographics across the city were reflected in the preventative side and statutory side of youth justice and work had been done within courts on issues such as unconscious bias.  Early intervention work had targeted particular communities in which people may have become disenfranchised so as to make sure they got the right intervention and the right message at the right time.  Nationally work had been done with young black males to ensure that they had the same opportunities as all young people as this demographic were often treated differently.
• All people form ages 10-17 with a court outcome came through the youth justice system.
• Young offenders were worked with on a resettlement plan when they came out of custody.  Seven pathways were worked with, and if these seven areas of resettlement were not achieved then reoffending became likely.  Work was undertaken on accommodation for young people upon their release to ensure that it was suitable.

AGREED:

1)    That the verbal report be noted.

2)    That comments made by members of this commission to be taken into account by the lead officers.

3)    That the report be brought to Full Council.