Agenda item

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

  (ii)        Presentation by Martyn Stenton, Head of Early Help, Inclusion and Vulnerable Children

The Chair introduced the Head of Early Help, Inclusion and Vulnerable Children and the Youth Justice Services Manager who jointly delivered a presentation that provided an update on the County Durham Youth Justice Service and the Youth Justice Plan 2019-2021 (for copy see file of minutes). 

The Head of Early Help, Inclusion and Vulnerable Children informed the committee that the County Durham Youth Justice Service was a statutory partnership between Durham County Council, Durham Constabulary, National Probation Service and Clinical Commissioning Groups that worked with young people to help them not to reoffend who were under a statutory duty to submit a Youth Justice Plan.

The Head of Early Help, Inclusion and Vulnerable Children noted that after a consultation exercise the name of the service had changed to County Durham Youth Justice Service (CDYJS) to be more reflective of what the service offered and to remove the negative label placed on young people that used the service.

The Head of Early Help, Inclusion and Vulnerable Children told the committee that the Youth Justice Plan 2019-2021 had been presented to cabinet and full council and was also going to the Safe Durham Partnership Board.  It highlighted some of the key achievements in reducing reoffending during 2018-19 and provided areas of improvement that the service would focus on within the next twelve months through a service improvement plan. 

The Youth Justice Services Manager informed the committee that the focus of the service improvement plan was on:

·        Communication being vital to the service as it was found that 85% of young people had speech and language difficulties making it hard for them to understand the process;

·        Targeting resources to ensure that the means were used appropriately on young people and their families;

·        Listening being fundamental to safeguard what young people said was heard and acted on;

·        Restorative justice being central to everything the service does;

·        Quality assurance guaranteeing that the service maintained high quality and all front-line staff were fully trained.

·        Volunteering where volunteers offered mentoring services for young people and their families including both young victims and perpetrators being trained to become mentors and leaders.

·        Support services being available for young people and their families.

The Youth Justice Services Manager noted that the County Durham Youth Justice Service had a substantive health team working within the partnership that included services from Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS), Speech and Language Therapy, Public Health, School Nurses, Substance misuse, mental health and wellbeing services to provide all the support young people and their families need.  Members were advised that this approach had led to the achievement of the Investors in Children Status and the service was a finalist for two awards.  It was added that the achievements of the service were on par with other organisations who offered the same service in the North East.

The Youth Justice Services Manager informed the committee that the health services were crucial when supporting young victims who were equally traumatised following crimes including burglary and the focus of support had concentrated on the adult.  Members were also advised that special psychologist services helped to support young people and prevent repeat reoffending.  He mentioned that the numbers of repeat offenders in County Durham was low with a total of 16 young people within County Durham who had committed six offences or more in the previous 12 months.

The Youth Justice Services Manager informed the committee that the Youth Justice Plan 2019-2021 had been submitted to the Youth Justice Board on 5 August 2019 with feedback stating that it was an excellent plan.

The Chair thanked the Head of Early Help, Inclusion and Vulnerable Children and the Youth Justice Services Manager for their presentation and asked members of the committee for any questions and comments.

Mr Cooke congratulated the service on a very comprehensive report and asked if the service worked with families of reoffenders.

The Youth Justice Services Manager informed the Committee that the County Durham Youth Justice Service had specialist members of staff who worked with parents and families of reoffenders whereas many other organisations worked only with reoffenders.

Mr Cooke asked if parents acceptedthe County Durham Youth Justice Service working with their children. 

The Youth Justice Services Manager explained that most parents were accepting of the County Durham Youth Justice Service working with their children but there were some challenges to engagement and there were certain powers that could be used to force parent involvement, but these were used sparingly. Members were informed of a group that was established for parents who had suffered abuse from their children.  It was added that the group had been well received and had won an award for its work and for raising awareness to the negative element placed on parents of offenders.

Councillor D Boyes informed the group that there was a cohort of young people who committed anti social behaviour in his division that did not engage with the police.  He stated that people were frightened to go out due to the gangs in the area that caused anti-social behaviour. Councillor Boyes requested clarity on what could be done to engage with young people in these situations. 

The Youth Justice Services Manager notified the committee that the County Durham Youth Justice Service only worked with young people who had been through the formal court system.  The service did not deal with lower levels of anti-social behaviour however it did work with police and anti-social behaviour officers if young people who were in the system were causing anti-social behaviour.  The service could carry out interventions and staff provided positive activities throughout the year and during holiday periods to try to prevent negative behaviour.  He informed the committee that the police were required to consult with the service before going through the anti-social behaviour legislation with regards to young people.

Councillor P Jopling asked if work had been undertaken regarding why young people were physically abusive towards their parents, why they were angry and if there were any statistics on this area.

The Youth Justice Services Managerinformed the committee that statistics were collected on a range of areas of why young people offended.  He advised the committee that the main reason for young people being abusive was because they felt angry and frustrated and did not fully understanding an issue. It was added that many young people receiving support from the service had speech and language difficulties and whilst there was not one answer to rectify a situation, communication was vital.   

The Youth Justice Services Managernoted that some incidents parents could also have an adverse effect on young people’s behaviour and committing offences may be the consequence of them being neglected, ignored or suffered any traumatic experience early in their life.  

The Youth Justice Services Managerused the simple act of smiling as an example that could be detrimental to a young person in the system.  He informed the committee that research showed that smiling was a natural reaction when people were frightened or nervous. He explained to the committee that a young person standing in front of a judge in court smiling could be a reaction to not understanding what was going on and could be taken as them appearing arrogant of which could result in a more severe punishment being given out than if they looked sad and remorseful.

The Head of Early Help, Inclusion and Vulnerable Children informed the committee that wider work was being undertaken with the One Point service with parents and young people to see how they could work together to address anti-social behaviour.

Councillor J Clark commended all the hard work that had gone into introducing services for young people and asked how victim support services for young people were promoted.  She was concerned that if a crime was committed against a young person that they may be reluctant to come forward and report it especially if they knew who carried out the offence and they were worried about repercussions.

The Youth Justice Services Manager notified the committee that they encountered difficulties with parents of young people who had been victims of crime not wanting their children to take part in restorative processes.  He felt that parents thought they were protecting their children but teams work with families to link them into a whole range of services that offer support, so they feel more confident to report crimes.

Councillor D Hall raised concern to young people who were of primary school age in the villages within his division that caused issues and felt there was very little mandatory actions that could be taken to tackle the ring leaders that may alleviate these issues.

Councillor D Boyes responded that anti-social behaviour could be an area to be considered within the Committee’s work programme.

Councillor J Turnbull asked if the service got involved with high levels of anti-social behaviour being carried out by young people between the ages of eight and ten years old who did not attend school.

The Youth Justice Services Manager informed the Committee that the service did not concentrate on incidents of young people causing anti-social behaviour unless the young people were already in the system. The Head of Early Help, Inclusion and Vulnerable Children stated that if children were not attending school, Durham County Council and partners could intervene under the school attendance legislation.

Mr Balls commented on appendix two within the report that showed a reduction in custodial sentences.  He said that these were used as a last resort for young people, usually only for serious offences or where there had been several breaches of a community order. The numbers of custodial sentences were therefore quite small and variances from one period to the next could easily skew the presentation of performance. 

Resolved

That the report and presentation be noted.

That the plan be received.