Agenda item

(i)            Report of the Corporate Director of Children and Young People’s Services.

(ii)          Presentation by the Strategic Manager County Durham Youth Offending Service (CDYOS), Gill Eshelby and the Countywide Manager (Operations and Service Delivery), CDYOS, Dave Summers.

The Chairman introduced the Strategic Manager, CDYOS, Gill Eshelby and the Countywide Manager (Operations and Service Delivery), Dave Summers to give a presentation to Members in respect of the County Durham Youth Offending Service – Work to Reduce Reoffending (for copy see file of minutes).

The Strategic Manager, CDYOS reminded Members of the Youth Justice Plan and the many iterations of the Plan which had been presented to the Committee.  She added that the work of the CDYOS was a strong area within the criminal justice system, was multi-agency, and worked.

Members were referred to a new structure of the CDYOS for April 2018, noting some changes to the delivery and some administration, now including Police secondees carrying out some functions previously done by Durham Constabulary.  It was explained there were 2 Officers from the National Probation Service and over 70 volunteers in addition to the structure as set out.  The Strategic Manager, CDYOS noted the Interventions Team, of approximately 30 people, and highlighted that this element was very important.  She noted that the Chief of Staff, OPCVC, had previously spoken of helping offenders into employment as a pathway and highlighted the CIC “Skill Mill” in terms of helping achieve this, an intensive 6 month programme, noting 3 young people from the first cohort had gone on to secure employment.  She noted this was a particular success with those having gained employment having been very far from the job market prior to the programme.

She added there was work with Public Health, the PCVC and the Heath Service in relation to speech and language specialists, nurses and emotional wellbeing workers, helping to meet the complex health needs of the cohort.  The Strategic Manager, CDYOS explained there was funding for a Consultant Psychologist to further help address childhood issues.

Members were referred to the Youth Sentencing Framework, with out of court disposal (OOCD) and post court work. It was noted OOCDs included: pre-caution disposals; youth cautions; and youth conditional cautions.  It was added that post court included: conditional discharges; referral orders; youth rehabilitation orders, which included requirements; and custody.  The Strategic Manager, CDYOS noted that of those who had a pre-court disposal, only 18% had reoffended. 

The Countywide Manager (Operations and Service Delivery) noted, from the previous item, £50 for those leaving prison and explained that this was for adults only and those aged 16-17, and some 18 year olds, could be left with nothing.  He added it was very complex work and that if Members wished to know more as regards this he was happy to speak to them.  The Chairman noted to liaise via the Overview and Scrutiny Officer.

The Countywide Manager (Operations and Service Delivery) noted for out of court and post court there was a specialist national criminogenic assessment and intervention planning tool (AssetPlus), which aimed to identify the strengths, in desistance factors, and also needs and problems.  Members noted that the service would learn from what works and the Youth Offending Group Reconvicting Scale (YOGRS) was used in order to assess the likelihood of reoffending and the impact of the offence.

Members noted that the average length of a post court intervention was 8 months, ranging from 3 months up to when the offender turned 18, and for OOCDs it was 1 month, ranging between 1 week and 3 months. 

The Countywide Manager (Operations and Service Delivery) explained that intervention plans were bespoke to each young person and aimed to reduce the risk presented by the young person and to also build upon an individual’s strengths.  Councillors were reminded of the importance of the multidisciplinary service, with elements including: working with the young person and family/carers; offence specific interventions; restorative justice; health screening (speech, language and communication needs, substance misuse, emotional wellbeing/mental health); comprehensive health assessment; education, employment and training; and work carried out in relation to attitude to offending/risk.

Members noted that the frequency of contact depended upon the risk of reoffending and harm, varying between a minimum of 1 contact per week of 2 hours up to 25 hours over 7 days and also included measures such as electronic tagging.  The Committee noted that this was governed by National Standards for Youth Justice and national Case Management Guidance, was audited annually and reported to Ministers.  

Councillors were reminded that resources in all of the public sector were facing reductions and therefore in terms of reducing reoffending, there was a need to target those reoffending the most through a multi- agency approach.  It was noted that this represented those who had committed 6 or more offences in the previous year, the cohort refreshed every 6 months.  Members were reminded that this was a small cohort, 19 young people out of 43,000 young people aged 10-17 in County Durham.  It was added that those young people had an intensive, enhanced, individualised multi-agency intervention programme, with a monthly review panel.

The Strategic Manager, CDYOS concluded by noting that the reducing reoffending cohort represented 0.04% of the young people in the county and while they were persistent offenders, they had multi-layered issues and needs that would require continued in-depth coordination between agencies. An invitation was also offered to Members to visit the CDYOS offices.

The Chairman thanked Officers for their presentation and asked Members for their comments and questions.

Councillor L Kennedy asked as regards “life sentences” for young offenders.  The Strategic Manager, CDYOS noted that there was a tariff associated with a life sentence, and they would be under the responsibility of the YOS up to the age of 18, then under the responsibility of the probation service in adult prison 18 and older.  Councillor L Kennedy asked if the offenders were visited while in prison, the Strategic Manager, CDYOS noted the YOS was statutorily responsible and the minimum would be a visit per month until a young person reached 18.

Councillor L Kennedy asked how those 19 individuals were allowed to commit those hundreds of offences.  The Countywide Manager (Operations and Service Delivery) reiterated that these individuals often had been in custody, it had not worked and they had reoffended, and that their needs were incredibly complex and required potentially years of intensive work.

The Chairman asked what was done to engage with individuals involved in “low level” crime.  The Countywide Manager (Operations and Service Delivery) noted that all individuals were approached in the same way; however, there was a targeting of the more prolific offenders in that they represented greater harm. 

He added that if there was intelligence as regards a particular area in the county then agencies would work together in order to tackle an particular issue.

The Chairman asked as regards what work was done with those individuals that had been issued with Criminal Behaviour Orders.  The Countywide Manager (Operations and Service Delivery) noted the YOS worked with those that had committed an offence, and ASB is not a criminal offence. Those young people involved in ASB were dealt with via Anti-Social Behaviour Teams and mainstream Children’s Services according to the relevant policies.

Councillor S Iveson noted that young people released from prison did not receive £50 as adults did and asked what support was available for those young people.  The Countywide Manager (Operations and Service Delivery) noted the YOS was the support for those individuals and there was a homeless protocol in place, and in terms of frontline work a lot of preparation was done in advance of the day a young person was released.

Councillor C Wilson asked if it was known how many of the young people in the reoffending cohort had come from Local Authority care.  The Strategic Manager, CDYOS noted such figures for care leavers could be obtained, though the number of young people that offended while being looked after in County Durham was the lowest in the country.

Resolved:

That the report and presentation be noted.