Agenda item

Presentation by Tony Pryce and Andy Cook from the Future 4 Me team regarding their work with prevention and early intervention with youth offending.

The Chairman welcomed Guest Speakers, from Future4Me which incorporated Youth Justice, Mr Andy Cook and Mr Tony Pryce, who in opening outlined the roles they held, the nature of these, and the purpose of the evening’s presentation.  This being to provide an overview of the Team’s work, demonstrate its diverse nature, the approach used and its impact and effectiveness.  The service was dedicated to providing across the board support for adolescents, including those who were involved in the youth offending system.

 

Mr Cook set out the context in which the Team worked

 

·       A Large rural, coastal county, which brought with it geographical and logistical issues

·       147,000 children 

·       360 schools across the county

·       76 maintained, academy or special secondary schools

·       Approximately  50,000 children on roll at secondary school

·       The areas of highest deprivation in Lincolnshire can be found in pockets of the major towns and along the coast

·       Approximately 150 children in the youth justice system

 

 

A large proportion of Mr Cook’s teams work was multi-agency, with a multi-disciplinary team.  Whilst core activities were funded by the County Council, key funders were also the Youth Justice Board and the Lincolnshire Police and Crime Commissioner, with resources also provided from a number of partnership agencies including Police Officers, Probation Service, Health Workers, Court Officials and Education.

 

Mr Cook hoped that the presentation given would demonstrate the changed approach since the establishment of his Team in 2018.  With the main drivers being diversionary and prevention, at the centre of which were the decisions taken by the Joint Diversionary Panel which would be further expanded on later in the presentation.

 

The legal framework in which the Youth Offending Teams worked and their Statutory functions were outlined to the Committee, as set out in the Crime & Disorder Act 1998 :-

·       to co-ordinate the provision of youth justice services for all those in the authority’s area who need them

·       to carry out such functions assigned in the youth justice plan formulated by the local authority

 

There were 3 National targets set by the Youth Justice Board, these being: -

·       Number in Custody

·       Number of First Time Entrants

·       Rate of Re-Offending

 

A consultation was underway to move to more qualitative measures nationally, and this was the approach Lincolnshire partners had used for a time.

 

A summary of the outcomes achieved in recent years, in respect of Youth Crime, were shared with the Committee during which it was noted

 

·       There had been a significant reduction in first time entrants

·       There were low numbers of children in youth custody

·       There had been an overall decrease in children being arrested and detained.

·       Many more children were given restorative outcomes.

·       There was a smaller core group of young people influencing re-offending rates

·       There had been a specific focus on tackling links to drug supply and exploitation

·       Specific interventions to reduce serious violence and knife crime.

·       The importance and stability of Education, Training and Employment and had been recognised

·       Multiple complex needs recognised and addressed

·       There had been collaboration work with district partners around addressing exploitation and Anti-Social Behaviour.

 

Exploitation was of the biggest risks to young people and often a reality of some youth offending, blurring the line between victim and perpetrator.

 

Local indicators and priorities were also set in Lincolnshire these were: -

 

·       Reduce Offending and Anti-Social Behaviour to ensure Lincolnshire is a safe place to live.

·       Children and young People are fully supported and provided with all available opportunities to realise their potential.

·       Ensuring our staff have the skills, training and knowledge to meet the complex and diverse needs of young people.

·       Victims of crime are given a voice through restorative practice to ensure safer communities in Lincolnshire.

·       Recognising the importance of education, training and employment for children and young people in Lincolnshire.

·       Reducing criminalisation by diverting where possible away from the formal criminal justice system.

 

This had given to rise to Future4Me being established, an overarching service geared towards supporting adolescents established in 2018.  They supported children and young people across a wide range of complex needs.  This included a dedicated integrated complex care team to support mental health, emotional well-being and speech, language and communication. Support was also provided to young people aged 16 and 17 around homelessness and ensuring stability at home, they tackled missing children and exploitation, and worked with young people to create a positive future; using sport, community schemes and diversionary activities. Looking at the whole picture, changing behaviours and avoiding life limiting their futures where it was not necessary.  For those that did find themselves on the wrong side of the law, support was also offered on release, with numbers being relatively small.

 

Mr Pryce then addressed the Committee and outlined how the Joint Diversionary Panel operated and how it made decisions.  Members were advised how historically any youth aged 10-17 who found themselves in trouble would solely be dealt with by the Police and criminal system.  The action taken would be informed by the offence and that person’s history.  In effect it was an escalatory system, and whilst interventions could be offered, some had serious long-term implications on a young person’s future.

 

It was noted the Panel could not deal with Crown Court offences and the perpetrator had to admit guilt to be suitable to be considered by the Diversionary Panel.

 

Decision making at the Panel was holistic in nature and considered all aspects of that young person’s life.  Time was taken to ensure the Panel accurately understood what could have led to the behaviour in order to be able to address the behaviour.

 

The Panel met every week, and always had police, court and children services representatives.  On average they dealt with 12/15 cases per week; 300 – 400 per year.  There had been 36 referrals from the West Lindsey area to the Panel with the average age of referral being 14. 

 

The Panel were responsible for determining whether it was defensible and or justifiable to deal with matters out of court.  The Panel was also responsible for then developing a package of interventions noting that everything agreed had to have a restorative element.   The Panel had moved away from the escalation process with each offence being dealt with on its merits.  A young person could be subject to a Panel decision multiple times (as long as there was admission of guilt).  Decisions were mandatory, meaning perpetrators had to comply, where there was non-compliance, cases where brought back to the Panel and alternative decisions could made.

 

Engagement rates were fairly high, but an exact percentage was unavailable, needs of the victim were also an important consideration.  Prior to the new approach re-offending rates had been around 45% , with the new approach this was down to 29%.

 

The approach described was not universal across the Country and as such it was a post code lottery for service users if they left the County, with a number of the options not being available.  Lincolnshire was leading the way in this type of approach, and an offer to shadow the Panel was extended.

 

A lengthy question and answer session ensued. Members commented on the informative and interesting presentation, noting the work of the Panel but sought indication as to what victims felt about the approach? Was their satisfaction measured?

 

Assurance was offered that decisions were bound by a Code to ensure the victim’s voice was heard and it was a consideration.  Victims were spoken to pre any Panel hearing and post.  Managing expectations and being clear about what was achievable was key.  Victim Officers were Members of the Panel and their role was to champion the voice of the victim.

 

Work had been commissioned with the University of Lincoln to get more victim feedback and Mr Pryce indicated he would be happy to share this with Members, once received.  Trends were positive as understanding grew.  The new approach it was hoped gave victims answers.   A full evaluation of the Panels effectiveness had been undertaken and published and again, the presenters were happy to share this with the Committee.

 

In response to concerns it could be viewed as a “soft option”, it was stressed that it was not presented as a soft option, sanctions were mandatory and in reality, most victims were not looking for punitive action they simply did not want the same thing to happen again.

 

Members recognised the risk of county lines exploitation, and how easy it was for young people to be involved.  Clarification was sought and received as to how such concerns could be raised before a crime was committed, noting the established safeguarding routes which Members and public could access on the District Council’s website, childrens’ services and the non-urgent police number.

 

Reassurance was offered that the vast majority of young people came before the Panel once and once only.  The sole intention was to be proportionate, to understand all factors and considerations (environment, health, home life) and seek to firstly address and support these where possible, hence the cross range of services present on the Panel. The rewarding nature of the work was shared with Members, and the positive outcomes and transformations seen.

 

In responding to further questions Members learnt that the current budget was circa £1.9m, made up of funding from Youth Justice, the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner and Lincolnshire County Council; funding provided had been stable and there had been no indication this would be reduced.  Funding for youth justice was a statutory requirement.  The work of the department and panel was audited by both Ofsted and HM Probation Services.  All audits had been positive and inspection was anticipated imminently.   West Lindsey data was available, and the team were fully aware of where peaks, or spikes were.  Numbers continued to reduce, currently 65% of cases were dealt with out of Court.  Magistrates supported the alternate approach and were known to highlight in Court cases they felt should have first, or would have benefitted from, referral to the Panel. Assurance was offered that mechanisms were in place to ensure there was no complacency.

 

Again, acknowledging the fine line young people trod in choosing the right path and the wrong path and how a number of factors affected this including deprivation, a visiting Member spoke of concerns within his Ward at the increase in serious cases in recent years and where young people were at such risk of exploitation. West Lindsey specific data was welcome, given the level of anti-social behaviour reported and witnessed, it was suggested the figures seemed low.  Clarification was given that anti-social behaviour was actually treated slightly differently.  Whilst this could be a pre-cursor to more serious issues and there was an early help service which ran alongside the Panel’s work, cases referred to the Panel were driven by Police arrests and the responses to those arrests drove the Panel’s case numbers.

 

Schools were leading the way in early intervention work and examples of exemplar service were shared.  It was also noted that the Service had engaged with the District Council’s targeted work at Hemswell, providing short term interventions and projects in response to escalating ASB, with positive outcomes seen.  The District Council’s Senior Management had expressed a desire for the two service providers to work together in the future.  Members were advised of some notification agreements which were in place regarding ASB, which high-lighted this pre-cursor behaviour to the early intervention team, although acknowledged this had slipped during Covid times.

 

The reasons for the decrease in entrants was outlined and this was considered to arise from the changed position in respect of escalation and eradicating the use of Youth Cautions, which were considered across the board as non-effective. It was confirmed service users could now be “de-escalated” which had not been the case previously.

 

Members indicated they were reassured by responses and questioned whether police resources hindered the Panel’s work.   Whilst Police resources was not something Mr Pryce could influence, he was confident that that the Team could cover the county, were providing a responsive approach, acknowledged and managed the rurality of Lincolnshire and its differences, North to South, East to West.  Commitment from partners was strong consistently, financial contributions were stable.  There were establish processes for considering and escalating risks at a strategic level and outcomes were positive.

 

The number of repeat offenders was reducing, and addressing route causes rather criminalisation unnecessarily, the data suggested was more successful.  The Team, Panel, and all connected to the work shared aspiration was to be supportive, proportionate, reduce re-offending, reduce victim numbers, leading to safer communities and brighter futures from difficult starts.  The Multi-agency approach was considered the key strength.  The intention of the evening’s visit and presentation had been to raise awareness of the Service, its priorities, and the fundamental change in service delivery style and perceptions around young offenders.

 

In the bringing questions to an end, given the length of the session, a Member indicated there were a number of other questions he would have welcomed the opportunity to pose.  Permission was sought from both the speakers  and the Chairman for these to be posed outside of the meeting, with both the questions and responses received being reported back through the next Matters Arising report or similar.

 

At the conclusion of the question and answer session the Lead Officer again thanked Mr Cook and Mr Pryce, for the informative presentation, for their time and for their open, honest, and transparent approach to the Committee.

 

Throughout the course of the discussion a number of follow up items had been agreed and these were summarised to the Committee, namely: -

 

·       Sharing with Members the Outcome of Work recently commissioned with Lincoln University to ascertain victim feedback of the approach used – once it becomes available;

·       reference to an Evaluation undertaken and a report which had been published in the public domain about the Panel’s effectiveness – and again sharing this with Members;

·       A Request for additional general statistics about the work of Future4 Me and ideally West Lindsey specific where feasible;

·       An offer to see the decision making in action and to attend the Panel as observers; and

·       A copy of the presentation slides displayed during the evening; and

·       responses to additional questions, referenced earlier.

 

The offer to shadow / observe the Panel was most welcomed.

 

The Lead Officer’s comments were echoed by the Chairman and Members and, in return, Mr Cook and Mr Pryce thanked Members for the opportunity before leaving the meeting.

 

 

Note:  Councillor Trevor Young left the meeting at the conclusion of this item.