Agenda item
Youth Offending Team Inspection
An inspection of the Brent Youth Offending Service was conducted in September 2011 by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation. The results of this inspection will be presented to the Committee for scrutiny.
Minutes:
Anita Dickinson (Head of Service - Brent Youth Offending Service) presented a report to the committee setting out the results of a recent inspection of the Brent Youth Offending Service (YOS). The inspection took place in September 2011 and was conducted by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP). Anita Dickinson explained that Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) in England and Wales had been established under the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act and formed part of the criminal justice system. YOTs worked with young people aged 10 to 18 years old who were referred via court order. YOTs were multi-agency and drew staffing and resources from a range of services including the Local Authority, the Police, the Probation Service and the Health Service.
Anita Dickinson explained that the inspection had examined a representative sample of offender cases to assess whether work had been carried out sufficiently well against the HMIP criteria. Three key practice areas were assessed; Risk of Harm, Safeguarding and Likelihood of Re-Offending. The judgement scale utilised by HMIP related to the level of improvement required, with possible outcomes encompassing ‘Minimum’, ‘Moderate’, ‘Substantial’ and ‘Drastic’. Brent achieved a ‘Moderate’ award for both Safeguarding and the Likelihood of re-offending with scores of 65% and 62% respectively. For Risk of Harm which related principally to Public Protection, a score of 59% had been awarded and it was judged that substantial improvement was required. Brent’s scores were close to the National Average and were greater than the results currently published for other London Youth Offending Services. Five recommendations had been proposed by HMIP for Brent and an improvement Plan to address these recommendations had since been developed and agreed with HMIP.
Anita Dickinson emphasised that the inspection was focused on how well the required processes had been followed for each case rather than outcomes. As a consequence there was some question as to whether this type of inspection provided a full assessment of the quality of the service provided. In addition, immediately prior to the inspection the Brent YOS had been subject to a budget reduction of almost 30%. As many other London YOTs had experienced similar budget reductions a request had been made to delay the inspection for London, however, this had been unsuccessful.
In the subsequent discussion, members raised several issues and queries. Ms Elsie Points sought further information regarding the inspection judgement which stated that there was little evidence of joint working within the YOT. Councillor Mathews queried how well the Brent rates for reoffending compared to other London YOTs and sought further details on whether budget reductions in partner agencies had impacted Joint Working for YOTs. Councillor Cheese queried whether YOTs had any input for young people whilst they were in custody. The Chair sought further details regarding the Triage programme, referred to within the report. The Chair also queried whether there had been any noticeable increase in youth offending rates by Brent young people following the riots of August 2011.
In addressing the committee’s queries, Anita Dickinson advised that the sample of cases reviewed during the inspection had unfortunately not evidenced the high level of Joint Working between Social Care and Brent YOT. However, the impact of reductions in budgets and in available funding had created challenges for Brent’s YOT. The YOT had recently lost its Mental Health worker post as the funding for this had been withdrawn. This was deemed to be a significant loss to the team given the often complex needs of the young people with whom the service engaged. Efforts were now being made to compensate for the loss of this post by working closely with the Brent Centre for Young People. In addition, the recent inspection of Children’s serviceshad identified that cuts had not been coordinated across partner agencies and consequently many similar services had been reduced or removed. The impact of reduced service provision for children and young people, alongside other changes such as those affecting access to higher education, were significant factors influencing the potential for youth offending and reoffending.
Anita Dickinson further advised the committee that YOTs were required to report on reoffending rates as a key performance indicator, to the Youth Justice Board. A new measure of ‘reoffending’ was in the process of being introduced and consequently, it would prove difficult in future to compare reoffending rates with previous years’. Brent’s YOT had been successful in reducing both the frequency and seriousness of reoffending for many of those cases in which it was involved. However, there were some prolific reoffenders familiar to Brent’s YOT. Where young people were placed in custody, YOTs continued to engage with them and their families and would raise any concerns regarding their safety with the prison system and the Youth Justice Board.
Turning to the Chair’s question regarding the Triage programme, Anita Dickinson explained that there were many impacts of having a criminal record that could cause difficulties for a young person and which could act to limit their life opportunities. Therefore, in cases relating to low level crime and where the young person had expressed remorse, the police could choose to make a referral to the Triage programme. Following an assessment by the YOT, the police could be requested to take no further action and a plan would be developed to support the young person. This programme had been sustained in a reduced form following budget and funding reductions. With reference to the riots of 2011, Anita Dickinson noted that there had been very few Brent young people involved.
RESOLVED: - that the report be noted.
Supporting documents: