Issue - meetings

Consideration was given to a report which advised the Committee of the responsibilities of the Youth Justice Service and its priorities for 20/21. Members were also advised of the financial arrangements and performance for the previous year.

Members were informed that the Youth Justice Management Board Annual Plan was a requirement of grant allocation for Oldham’s Youth Justice Service and was overseen by the Youth Justice Board nationally. It was noted that the plan included the following areas:

·         Purpose of Plan

·         Introduction

·         Positive Steps

·         Structure & Governance

·         Overall Structure

·         Youth Justice Management Board

·         Strategic Priorities and Plans

·         Performance Report

·         Headline Performance areas - Local and National

·         Rate of Re-offending

·         Custody

·         Accommodation Suitability

·         ETE Rates

·         Looked After Children convicted of an offence

·         Diversity

·         Youth Justice Service Budget

·         Resources and Value for Money

·         Service Priorities for 2020/21

Members were advised that first time entrants in Oldham had a 20% reoffending rate compared to 34.1% in Greater Manchester and 37.1% England. Per reoffence, the frequency rate per reoffender was 3.23 compared to 4.23 in Greater Manchester and 3.93 in England. The frequency rate of 0.93 was significantly better than the 1.76 for Greater Manchester and 1.45 England. The custody rate for 10-17 year olds per 1,000 population in Oldham was 0.04 compared to the North West at 0.13 and England at 0.13.

Members asked for and received clarification on the following:

·         How had the service done so well with no money. It was noted that over the past 10-15 years the service users had reduced by a third due to offenders receiving more warnings than previously. However, staff had been upskilled to support young people as much as possible.

·         The type of work done to reduce reoffenders. Members were informed that the service worked on a child first approach and mentors and consultants were available. Different ways of therapy were also an approach such as art therapy.

·         Members felt that there was not enough communication around the good news stories and hoped to share the information to the Borough.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.