Agenda item

6.1       Geeta Subramaniam-Mooney, Head of Crime Reduction and Supporting People, presented the report to the Committee. During the presentation, the following key points were highlighted.

·         More work was being done to ensure that there was a greater link to outcomes when looking at the interventions by the Youth Offending Service.

·         There was a strong focus on partnerships working and governance. There was an independent Chair of the Partnership Board and lead roles had been allocated.

·         Work had been done on speech, communication and language to provide the skills to staff to help them access the services needed.

·         Risk and vulnerability management had been reviewed with clearer thresholds and actions, and escalation and learning frameworks.

·         The trauma informed approach had been very positive and was being embedded across the service.

·         Interventions were taking place such as through “Street Doctors” who were delivering sessions on the impact of trauma and first aid instructions for young people.

·         In terms of the Key Performance Indicators for the Improvement Plan – “reducing the number of first time entrants to the Youth Justice Service” was still red, however improvements had been made and Lewisham had had the biggest reduction across London.

·         “Reducing the numbers of reoffenders” had now moved from red to amber.

·         Episodes of youth custody was in the highest quartile in London. This did not reflect the number of children but the number of incidences. This had started to reduce which would hopefully be shown in the next set of statistics.

·         A pilot scheme similar to the Virtual Schools had been launched for the Youth Offending Service that flagged up those not attending school. The team were working hard to improve outcomes.

·         There was a new inspection regime that would come into effect from April 2018.

6.2       During the discussion that followed, the following key points were noted:

·         The new processes to monitor and track missing, exploited and trafficked young people were now more joined up across service areas and embedded in the work being done.

·         There were opportunities for young people in the YOS to do work linked to community groups but it was essential it was for a suitable project with the right supervision. Assessors checked each placement rigorously to ensure proper safeguarding for the young people.

·         For adult offenders the Community Rehabilitation Service managed the process.

·         Graffiti removal was an example of work that could not be carried out by young people in the YOS because of the toxins involved. Adults could carry out this work and the Head of Crime Reduction and Supporting People would provide details to the Committee on who to contact to discuss this in more detail.

·         The reoffending statistics were prepared by the Ministry of Justice. The statistics are based on a 12 month period and evaluated which is why there is a delay in those versus the live statistics.

·         Members of the Committee were informed that additional details on variance from targets could be provided in relation to the RAG (Red, Amber, Green) ratings and shared with the Committee in future reports. Looking at details of ages and ethnicities could, however, be very challenging but consideration could be given as to whether it was possible.

·         It could be beneficial for the trauma-informed approach to be extended to other Council services working with children and to schools.

·         Lewisham’s “stop and search” strategy was based on intelligence and had a 34% “conversion rate” meaning 1 in 3 stop and searches resulted in weapons being found. This was above the London average of 26%.

·         A member of the committee raised the issue that once a child offended it could be easier to access services such as speech and language and that it would be good if all young people had access to essential services when they needed them.

·         The Executive Member for Community Safety reported that there had been a backlog in SEND assessments at Kaleidoscope due to recruitment issues and IT problems, but that this was being monitored closely and showing improvement.

·         In future reports on stop and search numbers would include details of ethnicity.

6.3       RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

That the Chair of the Safer Neighbourhood Board be invited to attend the next meeting of the Safer Stronger Select Committee for the item: “Local Police Update”.