Issue - meetings

The Local Authority has a statutory duty, in consultation with key partner agencies Health, Police and Probation, to produce an annual Youth Justice Plan. The Plan sets out how youth justice services are to be composed and funded, how they will operate and what functions they will carry out to prevent youth offending and re-offending across Bath and North East Somerset.

The Council considered the annual Youth Justice Plan produced in consultation with key partner agencies Health, Police and Probation.  The plan was recommended to Council from Cabinet.

On a motion from Councillor Michael Evans, seconded by Councillor Lisa Brett, it was (unanimously)

RESOLVED

1.  To agree that the Youth Justice Plan fulfils the requirements of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and can be submitted to the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales;

2.  To adopt the Youth Justice Plan as part of the Council’s Policy & Budget framework and can be accommodated within the Council budget; and

3.  That the Children & Young People’s Policy Development & Scrutiny Panel be asked to oversee progress and performance.

The Local Authority has a statutory duty, in consultation with key partner agencies, Health Police and Probation, to produce an annual Youth Justice Plan. The Plan sets out how youth justice services are to be composed and funded, how they will operate and what functions they will carry out to prevent youth offending and re-offending across Bath and North East Somerset.

Councillor Michael Evans thanked the author of this report.  Councillor Evans informed the meeting that the Council has a statutory obligation to publish a Youth Justice Plan.  The principal, statutory aim of the youth justice system was to prevent youth offending by 10-17 year olds.  The Youth Justice Plan reviews the positive progress made last year in work with young people at risk of offending and re-offending and with their parents/carers and victims and sets out how services are to be resourced and delivered in 2016-17.   Actions in the work plan would contribute to making Bath and North East Somerset a safer place and to helping young people work towards more positive, crime-free outcomes.

Councillor Michael Evans moved the recommendations.

Councillor Patrick Anketell-Jones seconded the motion by saying that he was happy to support adoption of the Youth Justice Plan.  As lead partner, the Council would continue to support the work of all agencies involved in the youth justice system, to prevent young people from offending. Councillor Anketell-Jones was particularly pleased to see the positive reduction in the number of young people coming into the youth justice system for the first time.

It was RESOLVED that the Cabinet recommends adoption of the Youth Justice Plan as part of the Council’s Policy and Budget Framework and notes this can be accommodated within the Council budget.

The Cabinet also recommends the Youth Justice Plan to Council as fulfilling the requirements of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and agrees it can be submitted to the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales.

The current Plan was adopted as part of the Council’s Policy and Budget Framework on 16 July 2015 and has subsequently been approved by the national Youth Justice Board.

The Chair commented that she was concerned that the report didn’t cover the risks presented to the agreed local plans by proposed in-year cuts to the funding for youth offending teams in England and Wales. She said that the LGA has warned that the number of children in custody risks increasing if plans to reduce in-year funding for Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) by an additional £9 million go ahead. She stated that YOTs have already had to find efficiency savings, through staffing and support costs, to cope with 40 per cent less money to run services in recent years. She asked how much scope was there for further efficiencies.

The 11-19 Prevention Service Manager replied that the in-year cuts have already been implemented, having been confirmed in November. They were managed without any reduction in staffing but, several development initiatives were halted, as indicated in the progress report on the annual work plan. She was concerned over the prospect of further reductions as the Youth Offending Service is funded by a number of statutory partners, some of whom are reviewing their contributions.  The National Probation Service will be reducing its contribution to Youth Offending Services from April. We have been advised that the level of Ministry of Justice (YJB) funding for the year ahead will not be confirmed until mid-April.

The Divisional Director for Safeguarding & Social Care added that information relating to any merger of services or reconfiguration of the Youth Offending Team could be brought back to the Panel.

Councillor Liz Hardman asked if the financial contribution from the Council to the Youth Offending Team remained the same.

The Strategic Director for People & Communities replied that the contribution was as expected and reported within the current round of budget proposals.

Councillor Liz Hardman commented that it was good to see that there were currently no young people from Bath and North East Somerset serving custodial sentences and that no such sentences had been passed for 2 ½ years.

The 11-19 Prevention Service Manager replied that there is a strong Custody Review Panel in place to review all uses of detention for young people and that the work with this multi-agency group and the quality of report-writing in the Youth Offending Service has been particularly significant, as a number of cases could have  resulted in a custodial sentence. She added that the local custodial rate is currently zero, one of only a handful of Services in England and Wales with this level of performance. However, the Service is not complacent about this and is working with a small cohort of concerning young people.

The Chair commented she was pleased to see the number of first time entrants into the youth justice system was falling steadily, but disappointed to find out it might only be due to a different approach to the reporting of the possession of cannabis and therefore may not reflect any real reduction in criminal activity. She asked if it was possible to measure what progress had been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68