Agenda item

Purpose: To present the Youth Justice Annual Plan, which is due to go to Executive for Approval on 25 September 2025.

Dave Wraight presented the Youth Justice Annual Plan (Agenda Item 6).

The following points were raised in the debate:

·       Members praised the quality of the report.

·       It was noted that the report included a large number of acronyms.

Action: Include a glossary to explain acronyms used.

·       Members noted the increase in suspensions/exclusions from schools. It was acknowledged that there was a clear link to offending. Schools could refer pupils at risk of offending to the Positive Intervention Programme (PIP). This sought to divert young people from crime and reduce suspensions/exclusions. Also, a focused diversion pilot to target children suspended from school was about to be rolled out with the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC).

·       Concern was expressed about the increase in incidents of violence perpetrated by girls. This was not unique to West Berkshire, and the problem seemed to have its origins in online activity. Despite the increase, most violent offences were still committed by boys.

·       Members asked if officers worked with children aged under 10 years. It was confirmed that 10 was the age of criminal responsibility. Younger children could be referred to Children’s Services as a safeguarding issue. It was considered important not to give young children a criminal identity and to support them in a positive way.

·       It was noted that food was being offered to young people/their families. Officers had found that children were coming to sessions hungry and were unable to concentrate. Referrals were also made to food banks.

·       It was explained that the cohort of children engaged by the team fluctuated year-on-year, but overall numbers were relatively small. 

·       Members noted the increase in drug use. The Youth Justice Team was co-located with The Edge and there were good synergies between the services. Also, a drug diversion programme was being delivered in conjunction with Thames Valley Police (TVP), which connected young people into The Edge.

·       It was acknowledged that there had been an increase in the number of girls referred to the Youth Justice Team. This mirrored the national trend, but the increase had been more pronounced in West Berkshire/Thames Valley. The reasons for the increase were unclear.

·       Clarification was sought regarding the terms ‘gravity’ and ‘substantive outcomes’. It was explained that each offence was given a gravity score related to its seriousness. Substantive outcomes were appropriate for more serious crimes and were recorded on the national police system. Informal outcomes were not recorded and would not appear in DBS checks.

·       Members asked if the 2025/26 priorities for education, training and employment were sufficient, or if there was more that could be done. Officers indicated that they worked closely with colleagues in Education, schools and colleges and advocated for young people to sustain their education. Some children had speech/language difficulties, and the team had a therapist who could support them. However, there was always more that could be done and there was a clear case for early investment.

·       It was noted that some primary schools had very low numbers of exclusions but exclusions for the same pupils jumped significantly when they moved up to secondary schools. At primary school, classes had an individual teacher who knew each child well, but at secondary school they had multiple teachers. It was recognised that neurodiverse pupils often struggled with the transition and colleagues in Education were doing more to support them. It was recognised that suspensions varied significantly between schools and there may be opportunities to share learning.

·       Members asked if statistics were affected by cross-boundary issues. Officers confirmed that children from other areas may be placed in West Berkshire and vice versa. The service had a dual responsibility and the data captured both cohorts. It was noted that some children were placed a considerable distance away from home, which was more problematic.

·       Members asked about restorative justice. Not all crimes had a specific victim and where there was one, take-up of direct restorative justice was low, since often victims did not want to meet the perpetrator. However, indirect restorative justice was more common (e.g., letters). Restorative justice needed to be timely in order to be effective, but this was sometimes difficult to achieve.

·       It was suggested that more could be done to facilitate conversations between young people and older people to address concerns and improve mutual understanding. It was confirmed that work was ongoing with partner organisations to address anti-social behaviour. Meetings could be arranged as part of that activity. The OPCC had recognised this as good practice.

·       Officers were asked if more needed to be done around reducing exclusions. It was confirmed that suspensions/exclusions had been recognised as a strategic issue. Best practice was being shared across Thames Valley, and a Safer Schools Officer had been reinstated by TVP. Operationally, it was important to respond quickly to changes in trends. The Team advocated for a Therapeutic Thinking approach in schools and worked closely with them to support and retain young people in education. 

·       Members asked how the Team worked with the Building Communities Together Partnership (BCTP). It was confirmed that there were several officers in BCTP who had close working relationships with the Youth Justice Support Team. The Team was represented on the BCTP Board where they were able to raise/escalate issues and seek feedback on ideas.

·       There was discussion about the effectiveness of prevention letters and PIP. It was noted that the COO of the Youth Justice Board had visited West Berkshire to learn about these initiatives as examples of best practice. Evidence showed that preventative measures were effective in helping to change children’s behaviour before they committed a crime. As a result, very few children went to court. Also, schools had been good at identifying suitable children to be referred to PIP.

·       Members asked about over-represented groups. Officers were trained in terms of diversity and disproportionality and made effective use of screening tools. Programmes were tailored to the particular needs and learning styles of individual children. The Team had staff who engaged with particular groups such as the Traveller community.

·       It was recognised that long delays in the restorative justice programme could be disheartening for victims. Work was underway with the OPCC and Chief Constable around improving timeliness. The Team’s Victim Worker was very good at keeping in touch.

·       Members asked if young people slipped through the net and if this caused problems later. It was recognised that children may commit crimes before they are caught. However, it was felt that there was a strong police response and numbers not caught were thought to be lower than previously.

·       There was discussion around whether children saw bad behaviour as something to boast about. Officers indicated that they worked hard to avoid stigmatisation and give children a criminal identify.

·       Officers were asked how they would allocate funds in an ideal scenario. It was noted that a custodial sentence was the most costly outcome, with those imprisoned often repeat offending. The team had reduced the number of children going into custody from 18 to 1 per year, saving the public purse millions of pounds. Preventative work, building pro-social values and keeping children in education were seen as key elements.

·       The David Gauke report on reforming the justice system was welcomed. However, the number of people in the prison estate needed to reduce to free up funds to implement the proposed measures. 

·       Members asked about the changes to the TVP reorganisation. Officers indicated that the new arrangements were bedding in well.

RESOLVED to note the report.