There has been a focus on tackling Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) within the authority. The Youth Justice Team has been particularly active in this regard.
The His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP) made specific reference to a number of areas of local practice and innovation in the 2023 inspection which have been highlighted below. Many of them link directly to national priority areas which are summarised fully in this plan. However, they have been captured together here:
The Youth Justice Team has taken a proactive approach to developing forums that meet the needs of its cohort of children. For example, the risk focus and education focus panels provide an opportunity for services to work collegiately.
The ‘hub and spoke’ model, which incorporates a primary hub where children are seen together with a number of alternative locations to suit the needs of children. In addition, staff are more integrated with other services, facilitating service delivery and ensuring children are seen in appropriate venues.
The installation of medical equipment at some venues was the direct result of consideration of health and safety needs in the case of potential serious youth violence risks. It is a good example of proactive planning to improve safety measures.
Consideration of victims was a particularly strong element of the Youth Justice Team’s planning activity.
We saw evidence that victims were consulted by the service’s victim’s worker, and in every relevant case, planning gave sufficient attention to the needs and wishes of the victim, as well as addressed specific concerns related to actual and potential victims.
We also saw examples of non-offence-related risks being addressed at the planning stage and this gave assurance that potential risks to others was always at the forefront of the Youth Justice Team’s thinking.
We saw a strong collaborative approach with children and parents or carers in every instance, and concerted efforts were made to support children to engage with the requirements of their intervention in every case.
Where enforcement action was required, it was undertaken well in every relevant instance, and inspectors reported a balanced, considered and proportionate approach by practitioners.
Implementation and delivery of services to safeguard the child were also done well.
We saw good links with BFC Makesafe and a coordinated approach to addressing issues such as exploitation and sexual health. This approach to keeping children safe reflected the ambitions articulated to us by the Makesafe manager and practitioners.
This coordinated, collegiate approach was replicated in work delivered to keep others safe, which was also undertaken well by the Youth Justice Team. In particular, we saw evidence that the service’s well-attended risk focus meetings were used effectively to coordinate the delivery of relevant, risk-focused activity, such as curfew and ‘whereabouts’ monitoring.
Assessment and analysis of safety and wellbeing and risk of harm to others reflected a mature approach to analysing risk. This enabled practitioners to maintain a ‘child first’ focus, centring on a child’s strengths and protective factors, alongside identifying factors to address and manage concerns and risks.
Where the risks to the child and risks to others were assessed well it was because there was an understanding and analysis of the intersectionality between risk factors. Factors such as missing episodes and exposure to situations which increased the child’s risk of being exploited, alongside the child’s behaviours towards others, such as carrying weapons, were well considered and evidenced.
We saw positive efforts to engage relevant partner agencies in planning to keep both the child and others safe.
This approach chimed with the collegiate approach that partner agencies told us about and reflected the positive impact that co-location with other children’s services teams appeared to be having on practice. For example, where the child displayed evidence of neurodiversity, practitioners enlisted support from specialist partners to assist in developing a meaningful plan for the child.
Consideration was also given to how partners could contribute to exit strategy planning to ensure progress could be maintained post intervention. This is a vital area for consideration given the short-term nature of interventions within out-of-court disposals and the need to maintain consistent support for the child going forward. We saw evidence that children and parents or carers were effectively involved in planning activity. This co-production of plans guaranteed that everyone understood what would be done during an intervention, the role individuals and partners needed to play in ensuring a successful outcome, and how all involved could be held to account.
Work undertaken to keep the child safe was delivered effectively in every case that we inspected. This work always involved other agencies, where required, and was well coordinated. In particular, work to address contextual risks was undertaken well both by the Youth Justice Team and via Makesafe.
It was also noticeable that if a child was considered to be at risk of harm, there was a robust multi-agency response and offer of support. This gave reassurance that the service was committed to ensuring external safety and wellbeing barriers that might impact on the child’s desistance were addressed promptly and effectively, giving the child the best chance possible to engage and complete their intervention with the YJT.
The implementation and delivery of services to support the safety of others were undertaken equally well and were sufficient in every case that we inspected. Consideration was given to non-convicted behaviours where there were patterns of behaviour, and we judged that sufficient attention was given to protecting all actual or potential victims in every case that we inspected.
Additionally, there was a ‘golden thread’ running through some activity whereby a therapeutic approach - noted within activity delivered to keeping the child safe - was also replicated when delivering work to keep others safe. The focus on tackling the child’s own trauma was seen as key in ensuring others were kept safe.
The adolescent ‘Makesafe’ triage panel provides an effective forum to discuss and implement interventions for the complex adolescents who need robust structured support at the out-of-court disposal stage.