Agenda item

Officers introduced the Hillingdon Youth Justice Services’ draft five-year strategy.

The strategy contained five priorities:

• Priority One – Prevention and Early Intervention: This sought to build on the provision currently in place and the aim was to intervene at the earliest possible stage to prevent escalation and children entering the criminal justice system. This meant exploring and understanding the root causes of offending by exploring the wider determinants of social inequality. The number of first-time entrants had decreased over the COVID pandemic. It had now started to rise but had remained below pre-pandemic levels. The rate remained below both national and London averages. Officers wanted to build on successes in the rate of engagement in children consenting to accessing support and intervention at an earlier stage. This meant continuing to develop the AXIS service and ensuring children were identified and supported at the earliest opportunity.
• Priority Two – Over-representation and Disproportionality: The goal was to address disparities and create a system that treated all children equally. Data showed that black and mixed heritage children were over-represented in the criminal justice system. A disproportionality action plan would be produced to support this priority and provide increased provisions for children with protected characteristics. Officers also wanted to increase the trust in the justice system among children, families and the wider community by listening to their experiences and providing opportunities for active participation.
• Priority Three – Child-Centred Practice: The focus was on the holistic needs of children to promote health, well-being, and development to promote positive outcomes. A lot of work had been done to ensure practitioners used an interpersonal approach when working with children and understand their life experiences and how this forms part of their identity. The aim was to increase active participation and co-production with children so that they were actively involved in decisions about how services were delivered.
• Priority Four – Reducing Re-offending: The aim was to use a trauma-informed approach to prevent re-offending. The re-offending rate for the period 2021-2022 had decreased, with a true re-offending rate of 32.8%, which was slightly above the national average and below the London average. It was noted that as there was a small cohort of children entering the criminal justice system in Hillingdon, it only took a small increase in offending to impact the percentage change.  There had been a reduction in children being remanded in youth detention, which was very positive. There had been zero children receiving a custodial sentence for three consecutive quarters. Work with partners continued to ensure that children were not experiencing a cliff-edge when they reached the age of 18.
• Priority Five – Victims and Restorative Justice: The focus was on the needs of victims, giving them a voice and an active role in the justice system. A lot of work had been done to increase the offer to victims and to be innovative and creative in the opportunities for children to repair the harm that they had caused. The restorative justice offer had also extended to schools and care homes to ensure that colleagues were supported to manage behaviour and incidents in a positive way The percentage of victims consenting to restorative justice had increased.

Members thanked officers for the child-friendly version of the strategy, which had been co-produced by young people, and asked about the locality-based approach in delivering services and interventions to children within their context, and what this looked like in practise. Officers explained the locality-based approach as seeing children in their own environment, including home, community, and schools.

Members raised a concern about the timing of the consultation period, which straddled the school summer holidays, potentially affecting responses from schools. Officers assured that the timing for the consultation was considered and that schools and education providers had had an opportunity to engage in the consultation process. There had been a lot of responses coming in from schools.

Members questioned the financial implications of the strategy as it came with no additional financing costs, particularly in light of potential increases in youth offending, potential pressures on remand accommodation, and potential reductions in grant funding. Officers explained that they had various funding streams including grants from the Youth Justice Board and were not expecting a reduction in funding at this time. However, they were mindful of changes in expenditure, particularly with regards to remand costs.

Members asked for clarification on the term “living in poverty” and its implications. Officers defined “living in poverty” in terms of children’s experiences, including the cost-of-living crisis and access to basic necessities.

Members raised a question about the increase in burglary and whether it was connected to poverty. It was noted that all 19 offences were committed by two young people. Officers acknowledged the issue and explained that they took an individualistic approach to each child and family to understand the causes of the offending behaviour.

Members asked about the expected changes as a result of the strategy. Offices expressed the aim to continue the work they were already doing, celebrate their successes, and ensure they were continuing in the right pathway. This was about ensuring a clear direction of travel not only for children themselves but the wider community.

Members inquired about the increase in gang culture and if it was localised to any specific part of the borough. Officers acknowledged the existence of gang culture and explained that they had a unique service, the AXIS service, which sought to gain intelligence and data regarding serious violence and exploitation. Officers added that they had a clear understanding of what was going on around violence among young people, and they were working not just within the Council but with their partners such as the Safeguarding Partnership and the community to identify the reasons and start addressing them.

Members asked about the delivery of the programme locally within locality-based family hubs, particularly in areas like Heathrow Villages, which lacked such facilities. Officers assured that they are constantly thinking about creative and innovative ways to reach children in areas where they did not have family hubs, including supporting transport links to and from the localities.

Members asked if audits to the strategy would be a regular item on the work programme. Officers confirmed that it had been recommended that this came back on an annual basis.

Members asked about Project Turnaround and what it involved. Officers explained that Project Turnaround was a Ministry of Justice-funded project (the funding ended in March 2025) aimed at working with children at the earliest opportunity before they entered the criminal justice system. The data showed that those children that did work with the Turnaround officer were less likely to enter the criminal justice system.

Members asked about the Council’s collaboration with schools, community organisations, and other agencies to prevent youth offending. Officers highlighted their multi-agency service and their work with various partners, including schools, social care, probation, and custodial establishments.

Members asked if there was any support from the Mayor of London. Officers confirmed that the Mayor of London currently funded some of their work in the prevention area. Officers added that they have received grant funding to put together a bespoke programme for children engaged in serious youth violence, particularly around their mental health and well-being. Officers confirmed that the AXIS programme was funded through the local Crime Partnership Fund, which came directly from the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC). There was also the Engage project which worked directly with young people in custody suites. Hillingdon was the host of a tri-borough programme funded by MOPAC.

In terms of resources, Hillingdon was well-resourced in terms of police colleagues and health colleagues. There was a speech and language therapist and part-time CAMHS officer.

Members asked if there were any lasting disruptions from the COVID pandemic. Officers acknowledged the impact of COVID, particularly on children’s social communication skills. Where children had not entered school, they missed out on socialising with other children. Officers were also aware of emotional well-being and mental health, considering children’s lived experienced in relation to the support that could be offered. Officers added that they had seen an increase in children accessing their mental health services on the back of COVID. Every child that entered the service had a speech and language assessment. Officers had been working with colleagues in the Integrated Care Board to look at how to provide a bespoke response to children who were engaged in serious youth violence, particularly around mental health. Through this collaboration some grant funding had been received.

Members asked about the strategy’s specific targeting of areas with high percentages of children in poverty to provide early intervention measures. Officers highlighted their collaboration with partners internally and externally to support families living in poverty. This included early health, stronger families, education and health were thinking creatively about how to support families living in poverty.

Members congratulated officers on the average of 31% of children consenting to receive intervention and asked about the remaining percentage who did not take up the intervention. Officers explained that some children may decline due to lack of trust in the system or simply choosing not to, but young people can contact the service at any time for support.

Members asked about victims meeting with the young people who had committed the crimes against them. Officers referred to Priority 5 – Victims and Restorative Justice. There was the chance offered to have a restorative justice conference where the children and the victim have an opportunity to have a conversation and understand how the victim was impacted by the harm caused.

Members asked about the numbers of young people engaged in organised crime; how young people may be getting involved in this; and whether there were family links. Officers highlighted that family links to organised crime did exist across London and nationally. Officers took an individualistic approach to each child and each family to ensure that they were understanding the causes of the offending behaviour and working not only with the child but with the wider family unit.

Members asked about over-representation in the youth justice system and noted the production of a disproportionality action plan. Officers noted that the Youth Justice Partnership Board was currently working to put together the action plan. Updates would be provided on the Strategy, including the action plan, to the Committee yearly.

Members referred to the ‘Walking in our Shoes’ training delivered by young people and commended the Youth Justice edition. Members asked if it was appropriate to share this with Members of the Committee or all Elected Members. Officers agreed to take the suggestion back for consideration, depending on the children involved in the programme.

Members asked about the issue of accommodation in the borough and its impact on the youth justice system. Officers explained their robust process for planning for children to be in the community from the minute they entered custody and their work with social care to prevent multiple moves for children.

Members noted that the Committee’s comments to Cabinet could include a request for the final report to have more detail on comparisons to neighbouring boroughs. Officers noted that they were sharing good practise with partners in other local authorities such as on restorative justice and widening this out to schools and care homes. Other local authorities had approached Hillingdon to learn from them.

When children came back into the community after being in a custodial establishment, there was a robust process in place. It was ensured that there was an address available six weeks prior to their release to allow officers to plan around access to health and education. For looked after children, officers worked closely with colleagues in social care to support the staff and child where it was foreseen that there could be a breakdown in placement. Some restorative justice training was delivered to care homes. It was important that there was the same engagement for children where the Council was corporate parent.

Members noted the officers continued to deliver transitions work without a seconded probation officer. Officers noted that they worked in collaboration with the probation team, although probation were experiencing some staffing issues so they could not second an officer at this time. In the interim it was ensured that there was a member of staff who was focused on transitions. It was important to think about each individual child that was turning 18 to make sure they had the right support plan. Once they had transitioned to probation, officers did keep in touch and had services available to continue support.

The Committee’s comments to Cabinet would be delegated. Members asked that the action plan be referred to in the comments.

RESOLVED: That the Children, Families and Education Select Committee:

1. Noted the Draft Youth Justice Strategy; and

2. Delegated to the Democratic Services Officer in conjunction with the Chair (and in consultation with the Opposition Lead) to agree comments to be submitted to Cabinet