Decision details

The Chair welcomed County Councillor Cosima Towneley, Cabinet Member for Children and Families, Hannah Blower, Child and Youth Justice Senior Manager, and Niomi Whitworth, Team Manager – Child and Youth Justice Service, to the meeting.

The report outlined the structure and activities of the Lancashire Child and Youth Justice Service (CYJS) and highlighted its multi-disciplinary approach and partnership with various agencies. Key points included within the report included the service’s focus on prevention and diversion for children at risk of entering the criminal justice system, the impact of the Ministry of Justice’s Turnaround funding, and the development of a Harmful Sexualised Behaviour hub to address specific behavioural issues. A presentation was also provided, a copy of which is attached to the minutes.

Comments and queries raised from the committee were as follows:

• Concerns were raised about children in deprived areas lacking basic needs such as food and safety, and it was noted that while the targeted youth team worked with those children when needed, it was done so in partnerships with other organisations, including the police and family hubs, who would take the lead on addressing those basic needs issues.

• It was noted that while the age of criminal responsibility in England was 10, the Lancashire Child and Youth Justice Service provided support to children as young as 8 who had committed offences or were at risk of doing so. By starting at age 8, the service was able to carry out preventative work early and provide a safeguarding response.

• The committee queried the few partnership practices projects listed in the report and requested further information about the projects in different areas. It was noted that the partnership practices projects listed in the report were just a few examples and it was suggested that if there were particular projects of partnership practices that members would like more information on, they were encouraged to contact the officers.

• The role of sports in preventing youth crime was discussed and it was highlighted that community football trusts had been commissioned to engage children through sports and mentoring, and there was an interest in expanding similar initiatives into other sports, such as cricket.

• Concerns were raised about disused buildings, particularly in Preston, attracting young people and leading to incidents like fires. It was noted that securing these buildings was the responsibility of the owners, with police involvement when necessary, and that the multidisciplinary team of the Lancashire Child and Youth Justice Service would intervene once problems were identified.

• The committee requested if more Key Performance Indicators could be provided and it was noted that there were a number of Key Performance Indicators that had been set by the Youth Justice Board and included metrics such as access to mental health support, education continuity, and re-offending rates, and were all captured in the youth justice plan. The location of the Key Performance Indicators in the youth justice plan would be provided to the committee.

• The committee questioned the location and scope of services addressing harmful sexualised behaviour, and it was clarified that these services were available across Lancashire and were supported by a small team aiming to build confidence and experience in various settings.

• Concerns were raised about the differences in outcomes between children who engaged with the programmes and those who did not, and it was suggested that a dip sample analysis would provide insights into the effectiveness of the programmes for those less likely to engage, and the dip sample was expected to be available early next year, and preliminary findings indicated significant unmet needs, particularly in health and poverty.

• The importance of early prevention and stopping re-offending to reduce the need for more prisons was emphasised by the committee and it was highlighted that there was a need for more data to demonstrate the impact of early intervention programmes to secure more funding to target early prevention.

• It was noted that the turnaround funding, amounting to approximately £1 million over three years, would be lost by March 2025. It was also noted that this funding had supported around 300 children, equating to about £3,000 per child.

• The Serious Violence Toolkit, which was developed with the Youth Endowment Fund, summarised the best available research evidence about different approaches to preventing serious youth violence. The toolkit aimed to provide practitioners with tangible resources to support children.

• The importance of family involvement was highlighted, particularly for children from disjointed families. The success of family hubs in providing early support to prevent children from entering the youth justice system was noted and the partnership between the child wellbeing service and family hubs was praised for its effectiveness. It was also acknowledged that while some families were difficult to engage, efforts were continuously made to support them, and when direct engagement was not possible, alternative community services were considered to provide the necessary support.

• It was asked if divisional county councillors were routinely involved in initiatives withing their division and it was noted that although involving councillors could be beneficial as they might be able to help, some of the work could be sensitive and would remain confidential.

• It was noted that the team were very specific to each child's needs, which vary based on their circumstances and location, and special meetings would be arranged with specific partners to address particular groups and issues. It was also noted that the team displayed sensitivities around the communities and would work alongside experts in inclusion to ensure they were responsive to the needs of different cultural groups.

• A question was raised about involving children more in providing input for the initiatives, as the group was very adult led, and it was noted that efforts were being made to meet children in their own environments to gather their input, as they were often reluctant to attend formal meetings.

• The committee asked if the reoffending rate data from before and after Turnaround programme could be circulated to the committee.

The Chair thanked the Cabinet Members and officers for the report and for answering the committees' questions.

Resolved: That the committee:

1. Be provided with further data on Key Performance Indicators and outcome metrics;
2. Be provided with reoffending rate data from before and after Turnaround programme; and
3. Supported the ongoing work and Officers be invited to return to a future meeting with an evaluation of progress made against next steps.