Agenda item

To provide an update to the Council’s Corporate Parenting Committee about the London Protocol on Reducing Criminalisation of Looked After Children and Care Leavers (The Protocol hereafter), published in March 2021. Previous reports have been presented to the Corporate Parenting Committee in April 2019, January 2022, and February 2024.

Afzal Ahmed (Service Manager, LAC and Permanency, Brent Council) introduced the report which updated the Committee on the London Protocol on Reducing Criminalisation of Looked After Children and Care Leavers, published in March 2021. In presenting the report, he highlighted the following key points: 

• This was a joint report between the LAC and Permanency Service and Early Help.
• Emphasis over the past several years had been on prevention, such as through the Covid-19 Pathfinder 3-year Preventative Programme for Overrepresented Children, the investment in trauma recovery by Early Help, and the MOPAC funded disproportionality project that ended in 2023 which funded a range of activities in Brent Family Wellbeing Centres that were co-designed by young people.
• Early Help was now running Turnaround, a project contributing to the decrease in LAC participation in the youth justice system, which would run until 2026.
• He had been involved in the Your Choice programme providing training in Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) techniques to youth practitioners working with young people between 11-17 years old at risk of elevated harm. A total of 66 children and young people accessed the programme with 5 reoffending, only one of which was from the LAC cohort.
• Training for both services was delivered which had raised the need for clear protocols outlining when carers or key workers should make contact with the police. A grid system had been agreed and introduced to define when it was appropriate to call the police. The service now wanted to upskill providers to work with young people proactively before going to the police and give providers confidence in managing young people without police involvement. The intention was that every provider or commissioned service working with looked after children signed up to a protocol on this.
• In terms of the impact of the work, it was highlighted that, compared to the previous year, there had been a decrease in the number of care experienced young people involved in the youth justice system. This was attributed to effective partnership work, the preventative approach being taken, the work of the Exploitation, Violence and Vulnerability Panel (EVVP) and increased awareness of the protocol amongst practitioners.

The Chair thanked Afzal Ahmed for the introduction and invited contributions from the Committee, with the following points raised:

The Committee asked whether the London protocol was working as intended, and, if so, what impact it had in Brent. Afzal Ahmed replied that the protocol had emphasised the importance of working in partnership with other stakeholders, as the solution and responsibility did not sit with the local authority on its own and needed partners to make that difference. The people that the LAC and Permanency Service worked with daily, including foster carers and key workers,  needed to be upskilled in terms of their confidence in managing young people without police involvement through a child-focused approach.

Highlighting the reality that care experienced young people were more likely than others to experience the youth justice system, the Chair asked BCJ 2.0 to reflect on what they thought would be successful at supporting those young people at an early stage to prevent them becoming involved in the justice system. BCJ 2.0 felt that males in particular were vulnerable to exploitation through gangs, and emphasised the need for discussions with young people around these types of situations early, with a focus on prevention. Sometimes, care experienced young people might get involved in risky situations due to a lack of activity and friends due to multiple placement moves, resulting in boredom and getting involved with exploitative individuals. Money was seen as another motivator, particularly for young men, where they saw their peers getting money from their parents, or where they were not able to work but did not have the security of parental support, and they looked to build a safety net for themselves. BCJ 2.0 added that, where a care experienced young person did not have family, they needed community, and they might then find it amongst criminal groups. This was linked back to BCJ 2.0’s request for a dedicated space for themselves to build a safe community.

In continuing to consider what support might help, BCJ 2.0 felt that the reaction that many people had to get police involved in a challenging situation often made things worse as it created tension and trust issues, so BCJ 2.0 agreed with the need for upskilling in that area. Many felt like their social worker saw them as a ‘case’, particularly when they were moved between placements often, as key workers behaved a certain way towards them based on what had been recorded in their file. Some care leavers had experienced their key workers telling them that their personality did not match up to what they had read about in their file, which they highlighted lacked sensitivity.  As such, BCJ 2.0 felt that key workers could benefit from training in this area. In addition, a programme to help young people regulate their emotions, with parallel training for key workers to help young people manage their emotions, was proposed. Emphasis was given to social workers and key workers using a person-centred, sensitive approach based on the individual. They advised that, where possible, having a social worker who had a similar culture to the young person also helped young people stay on track.

In response to the comments from BCJ 2.0, Palvinder Kudhail confirmed that the service was working hard to understand children’s networks and who might be the best person within that circle to manage a particular situation, which might be different at different times in that young person’s journey. She assured the Committee that, once a person became known to the youth justice system, the assessment was very individualised and focused on the person’s wishes, feelings and ambitions for the future. Nicole Levy (Quality Assurance and Learning Service Manager, Brent Council) committed to providing training for practitioners on recording in files to incorporate positive details, in collaboration with young people. The Committee noted the importance of the information professionals recorded about young people and how that impacted how young people felt about themselves, their future and their sense of identity.

The Committee asked whether young people were given access to their record. Nicole Levy advised that young people could make a formal Subject Access Request for that. Nigel Chapman added that young people had access to many documents written about them on a daily basis, such as their LAC reviews and personal education plans, which they were able to talk through and contribute to, but there would be a need to follow appropriate processes in terms of accessing their entire file.

In relation to priority C of the London protocol, training for personal advisors on providing advocacy when supporting young people in prison, the Committee asked whether that training was being provided. Afzal Ahmed explained that the training was being delivered as a joint initiative with NYAS who worked in prisons and youth justice system secure units. A programme had been developed, to be delivered between October – November 2025, for personal advisors to advocate on behalf of the young people they were visiting in prison to support them in their rights. He agreed to report back to the Committee on that work in the next update.

The Committee asked whether there were appropriate employment, education, skills and training placements available for care leavers to help to deter them from the youth justice system. Officers felt that the opportunities for employment for care leavers in Brent were good, with Brent Start helping to secure apprenticeships and apprenticeships within the Council. There were also initiatives across London that the service benefited from, and the dedicated Leaving Care Manager who led on those opportunities ensured that the Council was securing every opportunity it could for young people. Kelli Eboji (Head of LAC and Permanency, Brent Council) highlighted the importance of diversifying those options and having as many opportunities for care leavers as possible. The service connected with partners in the NHS and Ikea to expand those opportunities, and where opportunities did come up, they were shared in the care leaver WhatsApp group, made up of around 180 young people. Personal advisors also encouraged young people to get into employment, education or training. 

The Committee highlighted the new space in the Civic Centre called the Base that could be used to hold training and skills workshops for care leavers. Afzal Ahmed agreed this was something that the service could look at utilising, working with Brent Start.

The Committee asked why there had been no public health element included in the report. James Salter (Service Manager, Youth Justice Service, Brent Council) drew members’ attention to the substance misuse provision within the Youth Justice Service and officers were in advanced discussions about extending that offer. They were also considering how sexual health could be incorporated into that service. He added that the Youth Justice Service was led by the programmes that officers could access at a given time, which was often dependent on funding which came with its own remits and conditions, but the service could now influence and develop the Targeted Prevention Hub in partnership with others, including health. That hub focused on early intervention to ensure support was provided early to young people through a partnership approach.

The Committee advised that, using the data in the report, it was difficult to follow the degree to which looked after children were following the same trends as all children and young people in Brent, with the data often switching between cohorts.

As no further issues were raised, the Committee resolved to note the report.