Children S Services and Corporate Parenting

Children S Services and Corporate Parenting

HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

CHILDREN’S SERVICES AND CORPORATE PARENTING

CABINET PANEL

WEDNESDAY 10 SEPTEMBER 2008 AT 10.00 A.M.

YOUTH CRIME ACTION PLAN

Report of theDirector of Children, Schools and Families

Author: Tom Rees – Assistant Director, Youth Justice Service

Tel:01992 556337

Executive Member:- Jane Pitman

  1. Purpose of report

The report is to bring to the attention of the Panel the main issues in the Government’s recent Action Plan and some of the implications.

  1. Summary

The Youth Crime Action Plan can be broken down into three main components:

Those recommendations that will apply to all Local Authorities

Those recommendations that will apply to those areas of highest crime

Issues that may cause changes in current local authority functioning.

Like many government papers there is much written that recapitulates existing initiatives or points to other government publications. This paper deals only with those parts which are new.

The plan is seen by the three government departments (Home Office, DCSF and Justice) as a comprehensive, cross government analysis of what is further needed to tackle youth crime. It takes a “ triple track “ approach:-

Enforcement

Non-negotiable challenge (support)

Prevention.

Although each chapter asks for responses to consultation questions, there is already a small department established in government to implement the Plan. £100 million over three years is to be made available. However, it is clear in the Plan that this money will go to those high crime areas already identified, Hertfordshire is not one of these.

  1. Recommendations

The Panel are invited to note the initiatives that will be rolled out across Englandi.e.:

More searches and search equipment to help take weapons off the streets. All over-16s who are found carrying a knife will be prosecuted, while under-16s will expect prosecution on a second offence.
An increasing number of ASBOs will be accompanied by a Parenting Order.
There is new guidance on YOTs involvement with ASBOs in court and Individual Support Orders
Expanding provision at youth centres at times when young people are likely to offend, including Friday and Saturday nights. Also looking to get those subject to reparation to undertake the work at similar times.
Using existing powers more to tackle ASB and underage drinking.
Confiscation of alcohol, clearing over-16s from areas of concern, designated no alcohol areas and enforcement against sales.
Permanent exclusion from school will automatically trigger a CAF assessment of needs. Improving education to those excluded with quality alternatives to Pupil Referral Units.
Encouraging the expansion of Safer Schools Partnerships which will enable every school to have a named police contact.
Increasing take-up of Parenting Support by parents of young offenders, including Parenting Orders if this does not happen voluntarily. Make parents legally responsible for young offenders completing sentences.
Giving the public a chance to identify the reparation work they would like young people on community sentences to carry out, using Citizens Panels and Neighbourhood policing forums.
Closer working between Neighbourhood policing teams and young people in the local area.
Improving local authority systems so that they identify, engage and assess families better and join up services to meet the needs of the whole family. Better targeted support.
Reinforce the rôle of Children’s Services in overseeing all aspects of resettlement for those released from custody, including education, accommodation and mental health.
Expand intensive family interventions for the most vulnerable and chaotic families with children at risk of offending with non-negotiable elements and sanctions for a failure to engage. Government to offer funding and expert practitioner support to all local authorities to help with about 40 targeted families in each area.

In high youth crime areas in addition to the above there will be pump- priming money to support implementation of the following:

“Operation Staysafe” which uses safeguarding legislation to remove young people from the streets at night and take them to a safe place.
Encouraging the use of street-based teams of workers and ex-gang members to tackle groups of young people involved in crime and disorder.
Placing Youth Offending team workers in police custody suites so that young offenders can be assessed and directed to appropriate resources at the earliest opportunity.
Testing innovative ways of providing support to young victims of crime through pilot sites that can develop and spread best practice.
Continuing Intensive Foster pilots in some areas.
Expanding Resettlement and Aftercare Provision to provide intensive support for children leaving custody with substance misuse and mental health needs, subject to evaluation and consultation.

Local Authorities will be expected to take a more co-ordinated approach towards youth crime across agencies and thus include the issues in the Children’s Trust - Children and Young People’s Plan.

Local Authorities may be expected to pay for the whole cost of secure remands rather than the current one third.
Developing a formal review process for children who go into custody and develop “pathway plans” for their progress through the sentence and beyond. This will include: PEPs ( personal education plans), accommodation, educational maintenance grants and mental health care strategy.
Local Authorities should appoint a senior official to reinforce the rôle of Children’s Services in overseeing resettlement provision, ensuring continuity through Targeted Youth Support and mainstream services.
Place new duties on Local Authorities to fund and commission education and training in juvenile custody. Ensure links between what is learned in custody and what is available locally
Possibly place on a statutory footing YOT Management Boards and extend their membership.

4.Background

This was a much-awaited paper which, with the exception of the prevention proposals, largely rehashes initiatives already underway or identifies initiatives to be written in the future. Although the Plan was started last year and flagged as possibly holding some radical proposals – such as raising the age of criminal responsibility - ultimately it was overtaken by the current widespread anxiety about gun and knife crime by young people. As a result it was unkindly reviewed in one publication as having been”written by rabbits in headlights”. There may be some truth in this given the pressure to change established sentencing policy around those found carrying weapons, the expectation of young offenders performing reparation on Friday and Saturday nights and some of the initiatives for high crime areas.

Although Hertfordshire has very few young people remanded to secure accommodation, a potential tripling of the cost would need to be taken into consideration in planning for 2009/2010 and beyond and there is no hint that this cost might be covered from central government. (The overall cost to this local authority in 2007/8 amounted to approximately £60,000. Demand for the facility fluctuates unpredictably. The current average charge per head, per night is £672.17 towards which the Council pays a one-third contribution). There may also be some costs associated with the proposals to improve the lot of young people coming out of custody. The theory is that Local Authorities should be investing heavily in prevention which will then make a difference to the numbers finding their way to remand or custody.

With the number of young people entering remand or custody already below the government targets in Hertfordshirewe are unlikely to make a difference in the foreseeable future to the numbers at that end of the sentencing framework. What we know is that the younger a child engages in criminal activity, the longer they are likely to continue in it. Thus any increase in targeted preventative work can only be beneficial. The proposal in the Plan that the whole Children’s Trust takes on this responsibility is welcome and invites a more co-ordinated approach to prevention than hitherto.

The Children, Schools Families Department already engages with young people in custody and is currently reviewing its ability to engage with referrals of those leaving custody at an earlier stage. Since there are no young offender custodial institutions in Hertfordshire,an onus on the Education Authority to commission education for those inside is unlikely to become an issue here. However, it may be necessary to review what education and training options are available to young people on release in order to provide courses compatible with those they have had while inside. A great deal of work has been done in Hertfordshire to create a robust parenting framework with the “parenting pathfinder” now mainstreamed and set to continue offering parents assistance either voluntarily or via the courts. It may be that some funding comes to help with the Intensive Family Interventions.

Background Papers

HM Government Youth Crime Action Plan 2008

Youth Task Force Action Plan 2008

Herts Youth Justice Plan 2008

Herts Children’s Trust – Children and young peoples plan 2008-2011

1