Agenda item

For the Committee to note the improvements made by the Youth Offending Services since the HM Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP) published their findings in January 2023 following the service inspection made by them in September 2022.

Contributors:

Cllr Anita Cranmer, Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services

John Macilwraith, Corporate Director, Children’s Services

Aman Sekhon-Gill, Assistant Director of Quality Assurance and Standards, Children’s Services

Cllr Cranmer introduced Aman Sekhon-Gill, Assistant Director of Quality, Assurance and Standards. She explained that this is a very complex service area and reminded the committee that a Youth Justice Plan had recently been presented at Council as was required annually and had been circulated to select committee Members.

Ms Sekhon-Gill explained that the HM Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP) had inspected the service a year ago, and this was a response to that inspection report detailing progress made to date against recommendations set out by HMIP.

The HMIP report had rated the service as good overall, with one area ranked as outstanding and one area requiring improvements. Ms Sekhon-Gill noted that an action plan had been produced to monitor progress and this was overseen by the Strategic Partnership   Governance Board with partners being responsible for the delivery of services jointly.

The Chairman commended the service on the good inspection report from the HMIP.

In response to Councillors’ questions several points were raised and responded to as follows:

·       Ms Sekhon-Gill responded to a query regarding the number of youths who had not returned into mainstream education after offending, noting that it was a key priority and vital that education was resumed to enhance outcomes for young people. It would also help to drive down re-offending rates. A qualified teacher had been recruited into the re-offending team to help with educational support for reintegration and to assist with basic skills when outside of the educational system. There were no specific targets for re-entry into mainstream education as this would not be appropriate for all children. The Partnership Board looked at reintegration levels and quality assurance to understand the background to cases and address the relevant issues.

·       Action: Ms Sekhon-Gill to provide the committee with details of the reintegration targets into education or apprenticeships.

·        In relation to a question as to whether children’s ages were significant for their re-entry into mainstream education, Ms Sekhon-Gill noted that it was a nuanced picture and that the needs of the young person were central to successful integration, in addition to finding the most appropriate setting for them.

·       One Councillor considered that the issue of abusers becoming perpetrators of crime. Ms Sekhon-Gill explained that the service sees young people as children first, not as perpetrators and any interventions were tailored to the needs of the individual child. A very small percentage of children were noted to reoffend.  John Macilwraith considered that an additional report to look at the types of intervention used could be brought to the committee in the future. This would assist the Select Committee in understanding the practices involved in the service.

Action: YOS to bring a further report on types of intervention as part of the 2024 to 2025 Select Committee work programme.

·       Ms Sekhon-Gill explained that the training of staff was ongoing regarding the audit work and the service worked jointly with social care teams on this.  All new staff members undertook training. The Partnership Board is responsible for the scrutiny of the work and how it is delivered.

·        Ms Sekhon-Gill explained that as part of the “life path model” the service gains feedback from every child about their experiences. This feedback is collated quarterly and fed back into the Partnership Board and the actions are tracked.

·        Ms Sekhon-Gill noted that prevention work had been strengthened. She outlined that young people are tracked for a period of 1-2 years after an intervention has been delivered to see if they re-enter the criminal justice system or not and this data is collected monthly.

·       Regarding young people’s re-integration into mainstream school, Ms Sekhon-Gill explained that the service does not produce statistical data on this. Re-integration is child-led and thus is tailored for each child and could involve attending school, taking up an apprenticeship or attend a specialist school. The age of the child is relevant as most children of 16 or over attend college or start an apprenticeship. Younger children would usually attend school and take GCSEs. Ms Sekhon-Gill noted that encouraging appropriate volunteer representation from the community was an on-going piece of work.

·        Ms Sekhon Gill explained that the service always strives for the highest standards. The figures could be impacted by a child moving house or re-offending. There was not a target figure to achieve but investigations would happen if the figure fell below 70%. The Turnaround Programme is a youth early intervention programme led by the Ministry of Justice. It was not known whether funding for this would continue in the future. This scheme was one aspect of the team’s strong prevention programme. The out of court tool had been updated and the Youth Justice Board are due to launch a standard tool which all authorities will be expected to adopt when published.

·       Ms Sekhon-Gill confirmed that volunteers were a valuable resource and were always welcomed in the service. Their role could cover various tasks including accompanying a child to a police station or being present when the child attended meetings. She explained that there were regular offers to assist the service from university students who wanted to volunteer as part of their studies, but there was always a need for more volunteers. Any help from Members to highlight this issue would be appreciated. Councillors suggested that Community Boards and volunteering fairs could be used to promote volunteering in the Youth Offending Service. Councillor Dormer invited the service to have a stall at the Amersham career fair.

Action: Councillors, Scrutiny Officer and Ms Sekhon-Gill to liaise as to how to link into Community Boards and events to raise the profile of volunteering in the Youth Justice System.

·        Ms Sekhon-Gill explained that all volunteers were trained in restorative approaches. They were also offered supervision and had access to ongoing training from the youth offending team. New volunteers were paired with more experienced volunteers.

·       Ms Sekhon-Gill explained that there was a cohort of looked after children in the Youth Justice Service but the number was small. The Partnership Board considered information as to whether offending occurred before or after entering the Youth Offending System. Schooling was always considered as part of the intervention plan and there would be a conversation if the child did not attend education. Re-integration was a gradual process, and a conversation was maintained over a period of time about the individual.

·       59% of young offenders had a learning difficulty in Buckinghamshire and this was not dissimilar the national trend. Young people who came into the service were screened by a speech and language therapist. The education and SEND officers were also involved. A child’s learning needs were always treated as paramount.

·       Ms Sekhon-Gill explained that the service was only able to track young people until the end of the court order. A young person could ask to remain in the service if they wished to stay in contact with their support staff.

·       In response to the role referred to in paragraph 2.21 of the report, Ms Sekhon-Gill answered that the new jobholder had been appointed and had started in the week beginning 22^nd January 202. This officer had been appointed to ensure that there are suitable supervision arrangements for children completing reparation projects.

·       It was queried as to why there had not been such good progress with young people who had committed less serious offences, than those who were subject to a “Out of court disposal”. Ms Sekhon-Gill explained that the out of court disposal was left to the local authority in terms of delivery model which can impact how services are then inspected against this area.  The YOS has now ensured all out of court work is subject to   the same scrutiny and quality assurance measures as statutory court work.

·       Although the service cannot make legal decisions but every child going through the system has a pre-sentence report written by the service detailing their views and their needs, the victim’s views and the service’s recommendations. The service’s role is to advocate for the child. This includes helping them through the process and understanding their rights. The service works with the courts to understand how daunting the process can be for children. The service has consulted with children and young people regarding the language used to describe the service, and the preference was to use the title “Youth Justice and Support Service”. Training was offered to magistrates to recognise how children may feel/behave when in the court process.

·        Ms Sekhon-Gill explained that in some cases, oversight of a child can be retained despite child reaching the age of 18 to help them complete their order. If a child has a custodial sentence and has additional needs, this was made clear to the custodial setting. The Partnership Board is the place where partners can look at examples of particular cases and assess where barriers to service delivery can be considered and explored.

·        Ms Sekhon-Gill explained that there were many prevention routes into the service for young people such as the Turnaround Scheme or via youth workers in schools. If funding for Turnaround ends, any young people already in the system will continue to be supported by the service. The team were looking at how to fund additional young people coming into the service.

·        Ms Sekhon-Gill explained that historically there was a view that many young had come from certain backgrounds and communities, but this is not always accurate. The service tried not to focus on where the young person lived as the offence may not have been committed there. Errol Albert pointed out that where young people were exploited, there were no geographical boundaries. Those who exploited young people chose them on the basis of their vulnerability.

The Chairman thanked the officers for the excellent report and asked them to take her congratulations back to the team for their very good work and inspection outcome.