Aims of the workshop

1. LASPO Act implementation eventsWorkshop:Developing YOT performance and financial monitoring systems

2. Aims of the workshop • To outline the new financial context; • To consider financial and performance monitoring systems for the YOT to aid implementation and; • To look at ways in which local authorities and YOTs might reduce unnecessary secure remands.

3. Understanding the new financial context

4. Reminder of key financial implications • Distribution and transfer of funding based upon historical YOI placements; • Responsibility for SCH and STC placement costs; • Extension of LAC status and transfer of associated funding; • New secure transport arrangements.

5. Appreciating costs: This chart illustrates the differences in daily cost of the various types of bail and remand placements for yp (the community-based and open provision are estimated costs which may vary from one area to another)

6. Funding distribution • Given that it is proposed to base the allocation of funds on the historic use of YOI placements, it is crucial to have an agreed baseline for historic use by each local authority. • An exercise is currently underway to reconcile any discrepancies between YOT-held data and YJB Placements-held data on the number and duration of secure remands to YOI over the last 3 years. • Once this exercise is completed it will be possible to inform local authorities of the amount of funding they will receive for secure remand placements in 2013/14 (Anticipated early December 2012). • This level of validation will not be repeated, therefore essential to ensure that systems to monitor and quality assure are in place.

7. Data discrepancy: Lessons so far • Establish ongoing oversight and QA procedures to avoid the most common areas for discrepancy • Record all remand episodes formally as intervention programmes with correct start and end dates. • Check the residency/ designated authority of the young person (whether out of area or not). • Record each distinct remand episode once as an intervention programme, without amalgamating episodes. • Update remand end date as and when the young person is released from custody, if different to predicted end date.

8. What is a designated local authority? • In the case of each child remanded to YDA the court must designate a local authority;- • if the child is already “looked after” by a local authority then the court MUST designate this authority; • if the child in not already looked after then the court MUST designate either the authority in which the child habitually resides or the authority in which the offence was committed. • in respect of those children that are remanded to LA accommodation, (not YDA) the local authority will be responsible for placing them and “looking after” them as is the case now.

9. Ensuring accuracy • Court officers • research into young people’s circumstances • ensure accurate warrant • communicate designated authority with YJB Placements via Placement Information Form; • Administration within case management systems; • Liaison with ‘home YOT;’ • Clear transfer and case management oversight.

10. Transfer of funding to LAs. • Practicalities of transfer for the next two years is yet to be confirmed but; • It is local authorities, not youth offending teams, who are financially responsible for children and young people made subject to a youth detention accommodation (YDA) order; • AND given the: • high costs of secure remand placements; • the volatility of the numbers placed in such placements, • and unpredictability of the length of placements, • It will be unlikely that local authorities will devolve the budget for these placements directly to YOTs.

11. Transfer (cont) • Any savings achieved by spending less on secure remand placements than the amount received from YJB can be retained by the local authority. • The expectation is that savings will be re-invested in youth justice services, particularly alternatives to secure remand (although there is no ring-fence). • It is therefore crucial that a dialogue is begun between YOTs and their local authorities to ensure plans are in place to monitor and control costs arising from secure remands.

12. Developing financial and performance monitoring systems and reducing unnecessary secure remands

13. Modelling potential future spend on secure remand placements • The YJB has developed some tools to help YOTs and local authorities to analyse their secure remand data and model potential future costs. • The Bed night tracking toolshows each area’s use of secure remand in terms of bed nights, broken down by establishment type (YOI, STC, SCH) over the last 3 years, based on data taken from SACS. • The Remand Toolkit allows YOTs / local authorities to input their own data on secure remand use in order to gain a clear picture of their secure remand population and whether and how it may be appropriately reduced.

14. Remand data collection tool • Most YOTs are now completing and returning the excel remand data collection tool to the YJB. • This provides key case-level information in the form of a series of graphs which tell us something about the local secure remand population (depending on the chosen cohort); • All YOTs are being offered workshops in which their secure remand data can be analysed • With this analysis, it is then possible to devise strategies to reduce and prevent unnecessary secure remands; • Contained within the excel tool there are also key lines of enquiry and suggested actions to be considered depending on the data displayed by the graphs in the tool.

15. Examples of graphs taken from the tools • The following are examples of graphs taken from the tools…….

19. The pie charts below are taken from the Remand data collection tool and illustrate how 2 different local authorities with the same annual number of secure remand placements (64) may have different ratios of YOI to SCH/STC placements.

20. These authorities may also have young people on average remaining in each type of placement for different lengths of time:

21. …………and these factors combined lead to a very wide variation in total costs for those 64 secure remand placements for the 2 local authorities…..

22. LAC monitoring • New duties for Local Authorities • Recommend YOTs establish basic monitoring systems to • help illustrate demand • inform liaison with children’s services • highlight implementation/delivery issues • Potential to utilise existing case management systems • Establish or adapt existing mechanisms QA, Case audit, management boards etc

23. Triple track approach

24. Summary, effective oversight: Some top tips • Consider information already at your disposal and liaise with key colleagues to ‘build a picture’ of your secure remand population; • Diversity considerations should be integrated throughout assessments (a common area of performance concern highlighted by HMIP); • Establish basic excel monitoring for numbers type and costs associated with remands to YDA; • Ensure LAC extensions are monitored, recorded and inform liaison and case management approaches with CSD; • Link in/establish assessment QA systems with those at risk of and receiving remands to YDA (Asset, VMP and RM, PIF accuracy, Bail and remand systems).

25. Discussion and Questions • Readiness? • Suggestions? • Questions?