Agenda item

* Note - This report was updated for accuracy purposes and was

republished on 14 September.

The Panel received a report which set out the priorities within the statutory Youth Justice Plan for 2023-24. The report was introduced by Jackie, Difolco, Assistant Director: Early Help, Prevention and SEND, as set out in the agenda pack at pages 9-128. The Director of Children’s Services and the Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Schools were also present for this item. The following arose during the discussion of this item:

a.    The Panel queried what preparations had been put in place in anticipation of an upcoming Ofsted inspection. In response, officers set out that an external provider had been commissioned to do a diagnostic assessment of the service. This involved looking at the service, talking to staff, speaking to the Board and reviewing a sample of our cases. This provided management with a good level of assurance, particularly around the impact on young people and around governance. The diagnostic highlighted the need for strengthened management oversight. Since then additional resources have been allocated to the Head of Service and the number of Team Managers had increased from two to three, with one team focused on prevention and the other two on court work.

b.    The Panel queried the ethnicity breakdown in the report and questioned why there was no separate category for Turkish/Kurdish people. In response, officers advised that they were restricted by the ethnicity codes that were allocated to nationally to each Youth Justice Board. However, the information given to the Youth Justice Board was broken down in more detail. It just was not reflected in the report as this was set  nationally.

c.    A Panel Member highlighted a recent piece of research carried out that went through the records of two million Children in Care, which found out that they were 33% more likely to end up in the criminal justice system. That number increased further for people from certain ethnic backgrounds. The Panel Member suggested that officers should be tracking this metric locally.  The Panel Member also highlighted the ever worsening state of young people’s prisons and commented that it was hard to see how you could rehabilitee a person in that environment.

*N.B. Clerk’s Note – the study referred to above is referenced in the following article:https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/sep/21/care-experienced-children-eight-times-more-likely-enter-youth-justice-system-england

d.    The Panel questioned what the factors were that had led to Haringey having the lowest reoffending rates in London. In response, officers set out that it was about the quality of interventions that were carried out by case managers. Haringey did not reduce staffing levels in this area during Covid and this had allowed the team to carry out better quality interventions. These interventions were evidence based and therapeutic and were informed by a trauma-led approach. This was partially do with good training for staff. The Director advised that that it was a difficult area to work in and that some of the more challenging cases were around people who were not know to authorities who suddenly came into contact with the youth Justice service at a high tariff, which meant that there was no scope to undertake preventative work. There was also a grooming element involved. The Director reiterated that this was a complicated and challenging cohort to work with in order to keep them away from the criminal justice system. 

e.    A co-opted member of the panel welcomed the report and questioned whether there was a summary report that could be shared with school governors. In response, officers advised that they would look at how a summary report could be shared with schools. It was noted that the Plan was very detailed as it was a statutory document but that some thought would have to be given as to how to best summarise it.

f.     The Panel questioned whether there was a co-production approach adopted to the Board and Plan at a strategic level. In response, officers set out that there was a young people’s participation network that met with managers from the service on a quarterly basis. There was also a separate parent/carers forum. The discussions from these session were reported up to the Youth Justice Board.

g.    In response to a question, officers advised that they were developing an ongoing relationship with the Tottenham Foundation and would continue to work with them.

h.    The Panel sought assurances around whether there was engagement with CAMHS services and use of behaviour analysis. In response, officers set out that the was a CAHMS officer seconded to the team on the basis of 1.3 FTE. The CAHMS officers tended to do undertake therapeutic or behaviour work as part of the trauma-led approach. Officers highlighted that there were a number of evidence based practices adopted by the team was set out at Section 21 of the report. The team commissioned a range of interventions, such as the Ether Programme that worked with young black men and looked at aspirational outcomes. These are detailed at section 22 of the Plan.

RESOLVED

That Members of the Scrutiny Panel note the contents of the report and plan, directing any comments and observations to the Assistant Director: Early Help, Prevention and SEND.