Agenda item

The Director of Children’s Social Work and Early help submits a report providing a summary of the five-year Youth Justice Plan 2025-30, highlighting strategic and operational priorities. This will be received at Board level and across the partnership and proceed through due diligence processes onto Full Council.

The executive summary/briefing addresses the statutory Youth Justice Plan for 2025-2030 and provides an opportunity to direct any comments to the Head of Service for Prevention Services.

The Director of Children’s Social Work and Early Help introduced the report which gave a summary of the five-year Youth Justice Plan for 2025-30.

It was noted that a statutory Youth Justice Plan must be maintained, reviewed annually, and its summary shared with political leadership. Following this, the review was then submitted to the Youth Justice Board.

The Head of Service for Early Help gave an overview of the report. Key points to note were as follows:

·       A new approach was being taken after reflecting on previous plans.

·       There was now a five-year plan with an annual refresh.

·       The board had met to identify priorities over the next 5 years, and the operational priorities for the next year.

·       The Youth Justice board continued to have oversight.

·       The plan set out the functions, governance and operational aspects of the Youth Justice Service.

·       The recent HMIP inspection and the subsequent eight recommendations were also covered by the plan.

·       Improvements were in line with the best needs of the young people and victims.

·       The plan detailed risks expected over the next twelve months and the ensuing five-year period.

·       Ten Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were outlined in the plan. The three top KPIs measured:

o   First time entrants

o   Reoffending rates

o   Custody and remand numbers

·       The plan incorporated innovation and best practice.

·       HMIP had commended the work with SEND children and young people. SEND panel referrals supported a holistic approach.

·       There was an overrepresentation of children with Education and Health Care Plans (EHCPs) within the Youth Justice system.

·       There was continued investment in the Reach programme, working with those at risk of exclusion, which was a marker for exploitation and future criminal activity. Ten Youth Workers within ten secondary schools provided support to reduce these risks.

·       Community cohesion policing work had taken place to support the communities.

·       Following a key HMIP report recommendation, a victim working group had been established with a focus on victims and their voice.

·       Members were asked to consider and note the achievements over the past year and consider and agree both the strategic and tactical operational priorities over the next five years. Any new priorities would be addressed as they arose.

In response to questions and comments, it was noted that:

·       The HMIP inspection outcome was less favourable than anticipated, prompting the following measures:

o   The development of an improvement plan which was presented to the inspectorate.

o   The establishment of working groups.

·       The board scrutinised as a partnership and progress updates would come.

·       The inspection scheme was new and involved different criteria which had brought fresh insights.

·       Scrutiny would come via the management board, HMIP, and also through the Youth Justice Board.

·       The board had been strengthened with a new director, having key experience in victim work.

·       A quality and performance subgroup to the board was in the pipeline.

·       A disproportionality working group scrutinised the data and monitored every child open to the service, and those going through custody. The HMIP report had commended work on disproportionality and diversity.

·       The Lundy model of participation, had been adopted and young people were encouraged to shape the service, including with holiday planning and staff recruitment. Children created their own plans with staff, shaped reparation programmes and helped to write and deliver programmes.

·       Members noted the strength of the team, but felt statistics were still concerning, in particular the numbers of first-time entrants, reoffenders and custody all being above the national average. Further scrutiny was welcomed.

·       The Head of Service for Early Help noted that since the HMIP inspection, numbers of first-time entrants had been significantly reduced and were now in line with the regional average.

·       Members were encouraged to take part in the working groups.

·       It was noted that Leicester is a deprived area, so mitigating support was necessary to prevent crime.

·       It was suggested that a piece of work mapping the city youth provision would be best managed by The Children’s Trust.

·       Members suggested future partnership with universities to further understanding of youth crime.

·       The workforce in place remained stable with experienced staff, coaching and support was in place. An Operational leadership change was noted.

AGREED:

1.    That the report is noted.

2.    That the executive liaises with The Children’s Trust regarding   

       mapping out city youth provision.