Agenda item

The Board were provided with an update on the Youth Justice Plan which was a part of the Policy Framework.  The Youth Justice Board had not requested an annual plan this year due to the Covid-19 situation and funding had been agreed on the basis of a ‘Covid-19 Recovery Plan’.  The Covid Recovery Plan had received local sign-off and approval from the Youth Justice Management Board and nationally by the Youth Justice Board.  Next year’s plan would revert to the standard strategic plan format and governance.

The Plan for 2020/21 had been created in line with the template supplied by the Youth Justice Board and included the following:

·         Recovery Plan – including high level overview and service specific areas

·         Grant Allocation of Resource

·         Service Priorities

·         Pooled Budget

·         Overview of Value for Money and Spending Plan

·         Authorisation

These were detailed in the report.

The Board were provided with additional detail about the delivery of the service which included performance on reoffending and how the service met these needs.  Oldham’s rate was below comparative datasets and successful in outcomes, Oldham was slightly above in the custody performance.  Members were informed of the focus on children looked after and a range of actions to tackle overrepresentation in black, mixed heritage and Asian young people in custody.

The strategic priorities for the coming year were outlined which included preventing youth crime, reducing offending, reducing custody, safeguarding, protecting the public, improved outcomes for young people and communities and families.  The Youth Justice Service had six priorities which included keep delivering outstanding work, improve the health offer, Covid-19 themes, build prevention and diversion, child first offender second and overrepresentation.  Health outcomes had been compounded by Covid-19. 

Members asked about the percentage of excluded young people in the youth justice system, the extent poverty played in criminal behaviour and if there were enough placements when young people left custody.  Members were informed that there was a proven link with regard to exclusion in overrepresentation from the Pupil Referral Unit (PRU) and other exclusions and it was a priority to build partnerships with schools to stop exclusions, to sign up to an exclusion strategy and before the exclusion took place a multi-agency meeting should be held.  There was also a link between poverty and structural inequalities.  Placements in accommodation had improved as the numbers had reduced and able to be better managed.

Members asked about the datasets and Oldham’s comparison with other individual GM authorities and how many young people in the Youth Justice system were of SEND or AS background and how those needs were supported.  Members were informed that the datasets were national and there was only the ability to compare with GM and not individual authorities but there was confidence that Oldham’s performance was better than that across GM and that there was work to do on the custody rates.  Members were informed that there was a higher proportion of young people with ADHD, SEND and speech and language issues and work was tailored around them.

Members asked about employment education where 85% achieved a destination but queried the remaining 15% and how many there were and what was being done to support them.  Members were informed that there were 11 young people and each had a case manager who worked with them with an assessment and supported opportunities which were right for the young person.  Some were challenging as funding formulas had changed.  In Oldham, the service worked with Oldham College and other training providers as well as a training provider network which had been relatively successful.

Members asked what the average time was to address issues and were informed that this was dependent on the cases and that the service could only encourage and motivate.

Members asked if restorative justice had been used and informed that it was and that there was a coordinator for the area of work.  All victims were offered the restorative justice package but the rate of take up was not high.  There were direct conferences with individual and sometimes with communities.  This had been impacted by Covid-19 which was being addressed by the use of written correspondence and shuttle mediation.

RESOLVED that the update and information provided on the Youth Justice Plan be noted.