Agenda item

The Youth Justice Plan 2024/25 forms a part of the Council’s Budget and Policy Framework, and as such it is required that Scrutiny have not less than four weeks to respond to the initial proposals. The Children & Young People Sub-Committee is asked to review the Youth Justice Plan 24/25 with a view to considering whether there are any concerns that should be raised or recommendations that should be made.

The Sub-Committee is also asked to:

1.     Note the report and endorse the outcomes achieved by the Youth Justice Service and its partners for the year 23/24.

2.     Note the plan of action for 24/25.

The Sub-Committee considered a paper set out on pages 43 to 220 of the agenda, which provided a draft of the Youth Justice Plan 2024/25. The Youth Justice Plan 2024/25 forms a part of the Council’s Budget and Policy Framework, and as such it is required that Scrutiny have not less than four weeks to respond to the initial proposals. The Children & Young People Sub-Committee was asked to review the Youth Justice Plan 24/25 with a view to considering whether there are any concerns that should be raised or recommendations that should be made. The Director for Children’s Social Care introduced the item and the Children’s Youth Justice Service Manager summarised the report.

The Sub-Committee asked for the learnings from the Youth Justice Plan 2023/24 and the key risks and mitigations to the delivery of the 24/25 Plan. The Youth Justice Service Manager explained that the Youth Justice Service was always looking to improve and had had undertaken training around Domestic Abuse, which included Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) processes, as well as safeguarding principles, and sexually harmful behaviour. There had been a considerable learning around serious youth violence and ‘child first work’ to focus on the needs of children as a means to encouraging behavioural change, alongside work with partners to become better at the identification of those children much earlier on, as well as improvements in what interventions looked like for those children. There had been work looking at localities and closer relationships with schools, understanding the changing cohort of young people, contextual safeguarding, and adopting learnings from the thematic review on serious youth violence, particularly on keeping children in education. A sophisticated health offer had been progressed (with a physical health nurse, sexual health clinic, speech and language therapist, and mental health practitioner) to provide a holistic package for children entering into the criminal justice system. The prevention offer was making use of partnership working with the Custody Suite Team and Turnaround Project, as well as data to improve prevention outcomes.

The Sub-Committee heard that the risks to the delivery of the plan included resourcing and staff retention, but consistency was stated as a strength of the service. The level of serious youth violence was highlighted as an ongoing challenge, as well as competing priorities around protecting the public and safeguarding vulnerable young people.

There had been progress made with the 16+ youth not in employment, education or training (NEET) cohort, by providing help with life skilling and interview preparation, but Members heard that there could be challenges matching provision with the needs of some young people, especially during the transition from year 11 to 12 or to mainstream colleges due to disrupted education histories or special educational needs. Members heard that there was a dedicated ‘Entry to Employment’ officer who focussed on working with young people on transitioning from year 11 to 12, but that there were challenges where young people had not been in full time education for some time. The Youth Justice Service were working closely with the 16+ team to share available resources in and outside of the borough for that cohort.

The Vice-Chair raised the topic of disproportionality and queried whether there had been progress in tackling this since the Sub-Committee reviewed the 23/24 Plan. The Youth Justice Service Manager explained that this had been discussed at the Youth Crime Board, but that the service sat within a larger system with systemic issues. The Youth Justice Service looked to challenge and address disproportionality wherever it could and to keep young people out of the criminal justice system. There was a disproportionality action plan and the service tried to ensure that interventions met the needs the cohort and their characteristics, with a male group and a female group that focussed on specifics around identity. It was acknowledged that disproportionality was an ongoing challenge.

The Chair asked whether the demographics of the cohort were reflected in the Youth Justice Service and whether this was considered during recruitment to the team. The Youth Justice Service Manager explained that applicants to vacancies in the team were disproportionately female. The service was making use of male staff from the Youth Engagement Team to reflect the demographics of the male cohort, as well as representation from the Community and Voluntary sector. The Chair highlighted the 2017 Lammy Review, and quoted that ‘over half of Black boys have grown up in lone parent households and would benefit from male mentors in their lives. For many, these mentors will have credibility only if they understand the communities they live in’ and asked what the Council could do to improve black male representation within the Youth Justice Team. The Director of Children’s Social Services explained that the Council undertook blind recruitment and the Chair asked what was being done to ensure that those applying for roles reflected the cohort the team was working with, to ensure the service was effective and relatable to the young people it worked with. The Director of Children’s Social Care explained that decisions around recruitment, such as specifically encouraging males to apply for a role, would be a larger decision for the Council and not one they would be able to make unilaterally. Members heard that other characteristics, such as staff being local residents could be just as important in relating to young people as other characteristics. The Youth Justice Service Manager highlighted the high satisfaction and feeling of safety the cohort had fed back to the team and stated that community and partner relationships were used as effectively as possible.

The Sub-Committee asked why it was thought that men were not applying for these roles, and the Youth Justice Service Manager explained that this reflected the national picture for care roles and explained that additional work had been put in to the recruitment of male volunteers, including through canvassing barbershops and other local businesses. The Chair acknowledged that these roles required a qualification and that this was likely gender imbalanced, but that the Council needed to do as much as possible to hire staff that reflected the demographics of the cohort.

Members highlighted the importance of role models and mentors that had similar life experiences to the cohort, including those who had experience of the criminal justice system. The Youth Justice Service Manager confirmed that the Council could employ staff with a criminal record, and this was the case within the Youth Justice Service. The Director of Children’s Social Services explained that the Council had to consider the effect of the criminal record on the present through a risk assessment, and that it was not necessarily a barrier to employment. The Sub-Committee asked whether people with this experience, but who did not necessarily have relevant qualifications, could be employed into the service, and the social work apprenticeship scheme was highlighted as was the assessed and supported year in employment (ASYE) offer. The Director of Children’s Social Care highlighted that local social workers working in their own communities often delivered better outcomes for young people. The Youth Justice Service Manager highlighted the comprehensive workforce development plan and the training it offered to inform others about the Youth Justice Service and its multiagency partners, which also promoted the service as a career opportunity.

Members asked about the overall number of interventions on page 66 of the agenda pack, and the Youth Justice Service Manager stated that they could come back with this information. The Sub-Committee commented that more support for children with SEN could be an effective prevention measure. The Youth Justice Service Manager agreed and praised the work of the speech and language therapist and explained that, whilst some young people already had an EHCP, the whole cohort were screened to ensure nothing had been missed. The Sub-Committee heard about the development of ‘communication passports’ to assist in working with young people. Members were informed that external assessors had awarded the Council a Lead Award for its joint work on SEN.

The Sub-Committee referred back to disproportionality and highlighted the importance of black male representation in the leadership of the service. The Director of Children’s Social Care explained that the Council had launched a leadership programme, ‘Black on Board’, and Children’s Social Care had commissioned an organisation called ‘Solve’ to do some work around identify within youth justice and exploitation. Members heard that partnerships with community leaders were important in addressing disproportionality in the balance between gender and race in the leadership in the system. Members asked if there were positions available specifically to black men and the Director of Children’s Social Care responded that it was a question of how to encourage black men to apply for positions and removing barriers to entry, with it also being important to consider intersectionality, accessibility and neurodiversity. It was acknowledged that this was an area of constant learning and the importance of all to be open to challenge was highlighted.

Members asked how the Plan could reduce stigma for younger black boys in having their needs met to access early education. The Youth Justice Service Manager explained that the Plan did pick up on prevention and diversion and identifying children at the earliest possible opportunity. Members heard that the service were providing information on universal services and local resource from children’s first contact with the police (such as in ‘community resolutions’) as well as asking children and families what they felt would be most helpful. Social Care, Early Help and schools were proactively engaged with the Youth Justice Team, with Youth Justice taking responsibility for directly contacting young people to see what help could be offered. The Youth Justice Manager explained that efforts were being made to listen to what it was that children and families felt they needed, and this had been facilitated through a ‘parents evening’ to discuss the needs that parents felt were not being met. The Youth Engagement Team, as well as a number of Voluntary and Community sector projects, delivered workshops to talk about the challenges facing young people in Croydon. The Youth Justice Team had been attending strategy meetings across the Council to provide advice, expertise, and knowledge on local resources. The Sub-Committee heard that the service was well embedded in the community.

The Sub-Committee asked about the increase in Asian children entering the service, and the Youth Justice Service Manager responded that there did not seem to be a pattern to explain this, although it was only a moderate increase. Members asked about encouraging more young people to participate in the service and the Youth Justice Service Manager explained that this fit with the emphasis on a ‘child first’ principle, to ensure the service could meet the needs of the young people and to provide an offer that young people wanted (e.g. sports, mentoring, work with animals).

Members asked how the service was collaborating with other local authorities and the Youth Justice Service Manager explained that they met with peers from neighbouring boroughs every six weeks, and that they attended the Youth Justice Board Heads of Service Regional Meeting, South London Group, National Conference, and were involved in informal group chats with peers. The Sub-Committee heard that these were all useful forums to share expertise and best practise.

The Sub-Committee asked about plans to increase counselling provision and closer work with Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS). The Youth Justice Service Manager explained that they worked closely with a clinical team with a mental health practitioner, and the service had a consulting relationship with Forensic Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (FCAMHS) for high-risk children, as well as spaces with Off the Record (with a dedicated resource for the Youth Justice Team) and Be Inspired’s box therapy. Members highlighted that these services were oversubscribed and heard that there were reserved spaces for the Youth Justice Service through a grant linked to the custody suite and Engage Programme. The Sub-Committee queried whether the team was finding that the oversubscription to these programmes was meaning that young people engaged with the Youth Justice Service were not able to participate, and heard that this was not the case with counselling due to the reserved spaces and co-location. The Youth Justice Service Manager explained that the mental health practitioner helped young people with containment work whilst young people were on CAMHS waiting lists, as well as a crisis team available through the custody suite where escalation was required. The Youth Justice Service Manager explained that there was a low number of the cohort with acute mental health needs, but that there were higher than average counselling needs, especially around bereavement. The Sub-Committee raised concerns that young people needed to be involved with the Youth Justice Team to get these slots and suggested that, were the services not oversubscribed, access would be an effective prevention measure to involvement with the criminal justice system. The Youth Justice Service Manager agreed and commented that many schools were now embedding counselling services and mental health practitioners to this end. Members asked if there was scope to helping children who were not part of the Youth Justice cohort and heard that referrals could be made through the prevention offer for those with a ‘community resolution’, arrest with no charge, or some other minor contact with the criminal justice system. The Director of Children’s Social Care acknowledged that the thematic review on serious youth violence had stated that the Youth Justice services available were high quality but should be implemented earlier. The Vice-Chair commented that the lack of access to early help and pre-intervention work had been a theme over the last few meetings of the Sub-Committee.

The Chair asked what the Director of Children’s Social Care thought the Council should do to try to identify young people at risk of becoming involved in the criminal justice system. Members heard that children were being picked up earlier through Social Care and consideration was being given to how the i-THRIVE Programme could be rolled out in schools. The Director of Children’s Social Care explained that the Council should be doing everything within its reach at the earliest point at which it came in contact with families, using the limited resources available to deliver and maximising resources in the community and voluntary sector. The Corporate Director for CYPE stated that prevention and diversion work in Croydon was better and more integrated than in many other places, but acknowledged that mental health and early intervention services outside of the youth justice service were oversubscribed. Members heard that the focus had to be on statutory provision, but that signposting and prevention work happened wherever possible.

The Chair asked about the low number of volunteers for Community Panels and heard that a recruitment campaign on this would be launched very soon and that children would be involved. Members highlighted the difficulty of making people aware that these positions were available.

The Cabinet Member for Community Safety praised the work of the Youth Justice team and their collaboration on the Youth Safety Plan and Safer Croydon Partnership. The Cabinet Member for Community Safety highlighted the borough-wide approach of the Safer Croydon Partnership, looking at how the Council could influence broader themes, such as disproportionality. The Sub-Committee heard that the police were looking at a ‘race action plan’ and Members were encouraged to engage with this. The Cabinet Member for Community Safety highlighted the importance of partnership working with statutory organisations as well as Voluntary and Community Sector Groups. Members heard that the tackling violence against women and girls plan would be heard at Cabinet in July 2024.

Conclusions

1. The Sub-Committee noted the report and thanked officers and the Cabinet Member for Children & Young People and the Cabinet Member for Community Safety for their open discussions with the Sub-Committee.

2. The Sub-Committee concluded that the Youth Justice Plan 2025/26 include additional evaluation of the Youth Justice Service through hypothetical case studies and tracking of where service users are in their lives.

Recommendations

1. The Sub-Committee recommended that the Youth Justice Plan 2025/26 include hypothetical case studies, which included community and intervention work, to make the information in the report more accessible.

2. The Sub-Committee recommended that the Youth Justice Plan 2025/26 include some information on high-risk young people have been tracked through to where they have ended up now, including information on higher education and employment, by collaborating with the Probation Service where necessary.