Agenda item

Mrs D. Taylor CC, Lead Member for Children and Family Services, has been invited to attend for this item.

The Commission considered a report of the Director of Children and Family Services which presented the draft Youth Justice Strategic Plan 2023 – 2026 for comment prior to it being presented to Cabinet and thereafter full Council for approval in May.  A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 8’ is filed with these minutes.

Arising from discussion, the following points were raised:

(i)               The Plan which clearly set out the strategic direction of the County Council for youth justice services was welcomed.  Members also welcomed the resources invested into the Service which were not entirely financial but involved the sharing of personnel amongst partner agencies which supported a more joined up approach.

(ii)              Members raised concerns regarding the impact on the Service of supporting children in private children’s homes located in the area and the limits on the Council’s ability to plan for and manage this at a strategic level, there being no requirement for the County Council to be notified when a new children’s home was being established in the area.   It was noted that the Service had regular contact with those homes it commissioned which included quality assurance visits and providing support around managing child exploitation. 

(iii)            Members were pleased to see the continued emphasis on prevention, but it was questioned how this had been affected given the reduction in a range of youth support services over the last decade.   It was noted that the change in approach by the Council to bring together early help and children’s social care services had meant resources could be better targeted.  A triage process had been adopted which meant all support options could be considered in a more co-ordinated and consolidated way.  Support might be provided by the County Council’s Youth Justice Services (YJS), or by a partner or within the community.  This provided for a more creative and individual approach to meet a young person’s needs.  Merging these services had also meant a wider approach could be taken to not only supporting young offenders or those at risk of offending but their families too.

(iv)            There had been a national increase in serious youth violent crime and the National Audit Office had predicted a doubling of the number of young people in custody as a result.  Members were pleased to note that numbers in Leicestershire remained low with 3 young offenders now being in custody in the area, but that this was the highest it had been in several years.  Members noted that much work was being done through the violence reduction network to tackle the issue, particularly around knife crime, and to ensure the safety of staff. The Lead Member emphasised that the Service not only worked with young offenders and their families, but also reached out to work with families across neighbourhoods to take preventative action and reduce the risk of wider escalation across communities.

(v)             A Member commented that the extent of support available to young offenders and the preventative work taking place was to be commended but suggested there was a need to improve the focus given to victims to ensure though the process their voice was still heard, as the impact of youth crime could still be severe.

(vi)            A Member suggested that it would be helpful for the YJS to share more information about the work it undertook in practice to deliver the Plans objectives.  It was recognised that communities often saw the immediate response of the police to incidents (for example in response to cases of anti-social behaviour), but work taking place with those young people and their families behind the scenes was less well known.  There was therefore the potential misconception that little, or nothing was being done by the Authority to address such issues.

(vii)          Young people being supported by the Service and its partners often had complex needs that were neither quick nor easy to resolve.  Managing the publics expectations where individuals were involved in cases of ASB was therefore an important part of the process.  Members acknowledged that an immediate resolution was not always possible.

(viii)         In response to questions raised, the Director confirmed that the County Council’s YJS had long standing robust relations with the City Council’s YJS which ensured good cross boundary arrangements were in place.  Links through the Youth Justice Board (YJB) and other partners, such as the Police and health were also well established.  It was recognised that schools continued to provide the highest number of referrals to the Service and therefore relationships with both maintained and academy schools remained a priority.  There was also contact with Multi Academy Trusts, some of whom had shown a keen interest in building links with the YJS at a strategic level.

(ix)            Whilst there were some parents that chose not to engage with the Service this did not mean they were not receiving support from a partner agency.  Members commented on the number of agencies that could be involved in supporting an individual that could sometimes be overwhelming and confusing.  Members were reassured that working in partnership the Service sought to identify with whom and with which agency a trusted relationship had already been established and to utilise and build on that, rather than seek to always bring in new persons from other services.  This was better for individuals and ensured the greatest impact in the support provided.   

(x)             Members challenged what information was provided about what support was available through the YJS.  It was noted that the Youth Justice self-service website had been updated to make this more accessible to both parents and young people.  This had been well tested to ensure it was easy to navigate.  The support available had also been promoted in several ways through partner contacts, through workshops held with district councils within communities, and on social media.  

(xi)            Data sharing amongst partners helped to ensure duplication of effort was minimised.  As partners in the police, probation and health were co-located in County Hall, this enabled regular discussions around individual cases to be held.

(xii)          Recruitment and retention were an issue for the service, and much was being done to make positions attractive to applicants.  This was a national issue that affected a number of service areas.

(xiii)         Concerns were raised regarding Government grant funding and Members noted that this had still not yet been confirmed for the current financial year.  Whilst it had been confirmed that this would not be less than the amount received in 2022/23, members suggested this made planning difficult and raised concerns about the lack of certainty for the future which impacted longer term planning.

(xiv)        Members commented that attendance by all partners at Youth and Justice Management Board meetings was vital and were pleased to hear that attendance data was now being collected and reported to the YJB as a key performance indicator.  A member requested that an overview of attendance performance be including in the next report to the Commission.

RESOLVED:

That the comments now made be presented to the Cabinet for consideration at its meeting on 24^th April 2023.