Bank House, 41 Bank Street, Bradford, West Yorkshire BD1 1RD
Telephone: 01274-436060 Fax: 01274-436061 Website:
Secure email:
Minutes of the Youth Justice Board Meeting
19 March 2012
Present
KT(Chair), POH, MS, AL, MV, AyS, SG, MV, AM, SW(minutes)
Apologies
JJ, BC, SK, MA, JP
Minutes
Minutes were agreed as a true record.
Matters Arising
Restorative Justice Clinics now running across City. From this month will be taking young people at risk of Anti Social Behaviour. Early indication in first month of 90% success rate of not reoffending. Full report at next board meeting.
POH raised issue of voice of young offenders, arranged User Voice to do a piece of work and will feedback to board. Completed by May.
KT asked that it be built into schedule of reports.
POH suggested may wish for have a short additional meeting.
KT suggested as having them on as first item.
1.Report on YOT Performance
POH presented report.
Custody
KT asked if the percentage is of general population.
POH confirmed it was and it was a fairer measure.
Reducing Reoffending
KT commented that they were remarkably simple 3 indicators.
POH welcomed this, as they were the three important ones. He explained that most of the data is taken from Ministry of Justice Police National Custody system. Any inconsistence would be National.
POH noted that Probation colleagues were doing extremely well at reducing reoffending and have been recognised nationally.
KT noted excellent progress in first time entrants and reoffending.
Report approved.
2.Report on West Yorkshire Custody Pathfinder/Resettlement
POH presented the report.
MS asked how it worked in terms of money.
POH explained that we have been paid now, upfront in the promise we will deliver. It is a 2 year project work £1.5m, £200k for Bradford. If we don’t deliver project will finish earlier and we won’t received final payment.
MS noted so far so good.
POH it is but Bradford have struggled to get our figures down but we are improving. Agreed across West Yorkshire that anyone struggling will share bednights.
KT noted good progress, very trick if working in other consortiums.
3.Race Audit
SG presented report
KT asked that where there are large groups and the sentencing policy not doing the actual crime but part of a group, is this impacting on the sentencing.
SG confirmed that it was impacting on sentencing.
POH explained that it is not necessarily gangs but large groups. Also theft of mobile phone is classed as robbery. Young people don’t fully understand how seriously this is viewed in the courts. We are working in schools with No Way Trust and colleagues in the Youth Service.
MS commented that it might be useful if we could have the offences against the figures.
SG said that we often find a lot of people who commit these offences have been victims of the same offence, this needs to go back to educational element in schools.
KT commented that it was interesting to see the impact of the work, it should make a difference to figures but serious consequences.
POH said that even if young person gets sent down families are very appreciative of our efforts and work with us hen the young person is on licence, following “Dear Judge” letters.
KT the figures for Black community are so small very difficult to make a judgment on that.
MS asked if we had compared data with other areas with high Asian community.
KT asked that the Custody Pathfinder report had extra details of each area, drill down a little bit into other areas.
MV said that looking at exclusion data and how schools respond to incidents, i.e schools responding to a mobile phone being stolen may not be how we would expect. Fixed Term exclusions may be worth researching and looking at.
POH agreed, one of the Restorative Justice Clinics was an 11 year old who had assaulted a teacher in one of the units. That clinic process was deemed to be valued by the victim. May be opportunity to deal with things before entering a too formal process.
KT said that she attended a meeting organised by the Afro Caribbean community. They state being treated adversely in Children’s Services, this lead to a debate on exclusions and breakdown. A request was made by Cllr Sunderland of people excluded who ended in custody. KT said it would be very difficult to do but would look at Bradford and attendance.
MV said that he and Paul could link and produce a report for a further board meeting.
Report approved.
4.Update on YOT Inspection Framework
POH presented report.
KT asked if the inspection would be short noticed or unannounced.
POH confirmed we would receive one weeks notice.
KT asked about notice for a full inspection.
POH confirmed this would be 2 weeks notice.
MS asked if partners would be involved in inspection.
POH explained that if you are an underperforming YOT partners may be part of inspection to see how they are supporting the YOT.
KT asked if this is a proposal that came out in February.
POH confirmed it was, essentially welcomed it but asked for them to look at way they produce report. We have been involved from early days, but one of those consultations that won’t change very much. Seems fair what the are proposing.
MS asked if service users would be interviewed.
POH said they have done in that previously here, but shorter timescales will be more difficult but can be done once you get your notification and they send you the link.
KT said that she was confident that if we get the phone call one Monday morning that we will all get the relevant briefing. Maybe we need something more indepth once agreed.
POH agreed that once formal agreement would want to do a risk assessment to ensure we are ready and have plans in place who to contact etc. Happy to feedback to the Board.
KT asked how many YOTs judged as strong performing. Trying to work out the odds of this, if one a year could be 10 years before we get an inspection.
Report approved.
5.Report on update of High Risk Cases and Mappa Serious Case Reviews and Staff Safety Notices
Report presented by POH.
KT said that it was important to add Probation to the list.
KT asked what is the threshold for issuing notices.
POH the threshold that is sustained is not a one off, direct threat to staff or service users. Has to be a pattern, we do work with difficult young people, because we issue a staff safety notice it doesn’t mean that we won’t work with them we put special measures in place. Not had any complaints or letters from Solicitors or parents. Have withdraw staff safety notices after being very difficult, then doing well at college so withdrew the staff safety notice.
MV asked that rather than withdrawing staff safety notice would it not be more relevant to update and say risk has improved.
POH that is what I would do, doesn’t meant they don’t pose any risk. Had some where young person’s intervention has finished so staff safety notice wouldn’t be updated.
MS asked if these were Mappa cases.
POH replied no, some are but not all, some haven’t been convicted yet.
MV asked reviewing risk assessment process through PRU, in district PRU we have 3 levels of risk, highest risk I countersign with LB. Two systems should compliment each other and be supportive once finished.
SG said that we do have this in the risk management plan, rather than the staff safety notice.
KT asked if this was national.
POH said no, this is something we’ve developed. If I’m instructing my staff the young person could be worked with by other agencies, why should I be sitting on a risk management plan.
MV stated that it is highlighted as good practice in Serious incidents/serious case reviews in sharing information with agencies.
POH said that previously the only thing we would have shared were offences which resulted in conviction. Sharing risks of young people, Social Care may only know of one incident and we know of 3 incidents. As a duty of care if we know information we need to share.
AM said that some of these young people are worked with by youth service. They may behave differently in youth clubs etc but useful to be aware of the risks and also to work with the young people around the issues.
KT said the key thing is sharing information for the protection of all staff.
MS said that people who are a risk to Probation staff, if risk so high would be on our central system. Thinking how if we received this information before we are aware of the young person, we would need to work a way of keeping this information.
POH said also looking at safeguarding of siblings. We will still work with these young people but in different/safe ways.
KT said to be advised by MS whether Probation want to receive the information.
Report approved.
6.Report on Complaints/Compliments 2011
Report presented by POH.
KT said we say this every year that it’s unusual for any service to have such a small number of complaints and so many compliments. Some agencies are poor at monitoring compliments and tend to monitor complaints. Positive reflection of staff and service and work done with partners. Well done.
Report approved.
7.Report on the Police and Crime Commissioner
Report presented by POH.
KT thanked Paul for the alert, it will have an impact on the YOT.
Report approved
8.Report on Work of the Right, Respect and Responsibility Project
AS circulated the 3Rs Programme booklet and explained the modules that the programme undertakes.
AS said that the young people tended to enjoy the programme and they have a 95% attendance rate. They deliver across all orders, up to 18 years old, male, female and all ethnicity. We don’t mix groups, i.e. if on a referral order would not be with young people on DTO licence. We also offer one to one if young person can’t get to Bank House.
AS gave two case samples.
KT asked about the different young people and if it was compulsory.
AS explained that it is on a referral order but not other orders but we offer it to them. If a young person has done the programme on a Referral Order we will change the programme rather than them repeating what was done previously.
POH explained that when we first started the project it was decided that it would be young people on Referral Order that we worked with.
MV asked do you get people back into the teach of the programme, your case example, her example would be useful to those going into the programme.
AS said it was something they were looking at doing, we tweak the programme constantly.
POH asked if there were any issues, can’t all be good.
AS said that sometimes attendance but we pick up on that. When putting groups together I have to make sure they are a similar age group.
KT asked how many weeks the programme ran.
AS said it was a 6 week programme, one module a week. As a one off I took a young person to do a session outside Wetherby YOI as he was one offence form prison. This shocked him and he said he didn’t want to be in Wetherby.
POH this is more community cohesion rather than work on offending.
KT asked how many young people have been on the programme.
AS, not sure but approximately 200.
KT asked if the programme was evaluated.
AS we do a Viewpoint survey, they do a bullet point list of what helped them form the programme. We have also had letters from parents to say how there young person has changed.
KT thanked Ayesha.
Report approved.
9.Any other business
MS raised that Probation have the HMI Inspectorate last 2 weeks in May. I will let you know if any partner agencies will be interviewed. Also some changes in managers.
10.Date and time of next meeting
Monday 25 June 2012 at 10.00am.
Youth Offending Team Manager: J. P. O'Hara