Contents

1. Youth Justice Community Serious Incidents 2010Lessons learnt – Information for practitioners and managers

2. Contents Introduction Purpose Community serious incidents – definitions and reporting process Incidents reported in 2010 Key lessons and recommendations from local management reviews Improving practice – case study YJB developments Learning lessons in the future – consultation and the implications of a changing landscape.

3. Introduction • These slides were developed for managers and practitioners in youth offending team partnerships and the wider youth justice system. They contains lessons learnt from the community serious incidents notification process during 2010. This process continues to evolve and improve. • We have produced this learning pack in response to feedback from practitioners suggesting they would welcome a more accessible, user-friendly format to aid discussions about improving future practice. • 2010/11 has seen many changes in relation to both public protection and safeguarding processes – perhaps the most significant being the publication of the Munro Review of Child protection in England and the review of Serious Case Reviews in Wales. • In response to these and other changes, the YJB is consulting on the future of the youth justice community serious incident notification process. This slide pack can also be used as material to inform your responses to that consultation.

4. Purpose of this learning pack: • Supporting YOTs to improve practice and outcomes for young people - particularly around safeguarding and/or public protection • Sharing information about the community serious incidents reported during the 2010 calendar year, along with lessons learnt and key recommendations from local management reviews • Sharing improving / innovative practice in YOTs in England and Wales • Sharing YJB support for improvements in practice over the last year and this year • Informing the proposed consultation on the future of the community serious incident reporting process.

5. Community serious incidents – definitions • Public Protection • An incident should be reported under the public protection heading if, whilst under YOT supervision (or within 20 days of supervision ending) a child is charged with committing any of the following offences: • Murder, Attempted Murder or Manslaughter (the internal coding used by the YJB groups these offences together); • Rape; • Torture; • Kidnapping; • False Imprisonment; or • Firearms Offences[1]. • Safeguarding • An incident should be reported under the safeguarding heading if, whilst under YOT supervision (or within 20 days of supervision ending) a child: • Dies accidentally or from suicide; • Attempts suicide; or • Is victim of any of the following offences: • Murder, Attempted Murder or Manslaughter Rape; • Torture; • Kidnapping; • False Imprisonment; or • Firearms Offences[1]. • [1] Offences involving firearms are: possession of firearm with intent to endanger life (section 16 of the Firearms Act 1968; use of firearm to resist arrest (section 17(1) of the Firearms Act 1968; possession of firearm at time of committing or being arrested for offence specified in Schedule 1 to that Act (section 17(2) of the Firearms Act 1968); carrying a firearm with criminal intent (section 18 of the Firearms Act 1968); and robbery or assault with intent to rob where a firearm/imitation firearm is used (section 8(1) of the Theft Act 1968).

6. Community serious incidents – reporting process • Practitioner guidance is available online • Incidents meeting safeguarding or public protection criteria, or others at YOT discretion, are notified to the relevant YJB regional or Wales team within 24 hours • YOTs have 20 working days to submit a local management report (LMR) to the YJB. The purpose of the local management report is to identify areas for improvement and lessons learnt • YJB regional and Wales teams review the quality of LMRs • Annually, the regional and Wales teams share the lessons learnt from LMRs reviewed during the year and their recommendations for improvements.

7. Community serious incidents reported in 2010 • Public Protection • 113 public protection incidents were reported during 2010. In 2009 the reported figure was 98. • Note on the figures • To note: we can only say conclusively that the number of reported incidents has changed year-on-year since introduction of the guidance, and not that the number of incidents has increased or decreased. • Further work will be undertaken to examine the YJB’s data requirements in relation to community serious incidents and this will inform the wider work which will follow the consultation exercise outlined later in this pack. • Safeguarding • Between January and December 2010 YOTs reported that 19 children under their supervision died accidentally or through suicide. • (NB This does not include deaths from natural causes.) Four were murdered in that period. • In 2010 YOTs reported that 128 children under their supervision attempted suicide. • (The absence of an agreed definition of what constitutes an ‘attempted suicide’ or ‘near-death’ means that decisions about which incidents are reported under this heading are subjective.) • The total number of reported accidental deaths, murders, suicides and attempted suicides is 151 in 2010. In 2009 160 cases were reported. (See note on the figures in the right hand column.) • In 2010 eleven ‘other’ safeguarding incidents were reported. In 2009 the reported cases in this category totalled 15.

8. Local management reviews (LMRs) – lessons and recommendations

9. Key lessons and recommendations • The lessons learnt and recommendations in the following slides are derived from the YJB’s regional and Wales teams’ review of LMRs from YOTs across England and Wales in 2010. • The LMRs demonstrate that: • YOTs are actively identifying key lessons learnt • YOTs remain committed to taking action to improve practice • YOTs are keen to share good practice in this area and learn from others.

10. Assessment • Summary of LMR findings: • Assessments and analysis should be supported by adequate evidence to support conclusions • Other assessment frameworks (e.g. CAF) should be utilised and linked to YOT assessments to ensure that all available information is considered • Asset should contain consistent information – sources should be checked and Asset sections cross-checked by managers for consistency to aid effective analysis and planning • Greater engagement with young people during the assessment process would improve their sense of inclusion and aid practitioners’ understanding of risk • Considering young people’s learning styles within assessments may improve the quality of assessments and interventions.

11. 2. Assessment and management of risk of serious harm (ROSH) • ROSH assessments should be updated after an incident or following the receipt of new information or a change of circumstances • Practitioners should regularly re-familiarise themselves with ROSH assessment guidance, and improve awareness of the links between accommodation issues and risk (particularly in relation to domestic violence) • Where a ROSH is identified it must be addressed in a risk management plan • YOTs should consider multi-agency risk strategy meetings for looked after children and non-MAPPA high risk cases • Management oversight should ensure that ‘cloning’ does not take place within ROSH assessments • YOTs should improve staff awareness of sexually harmful behaviours and the exploitation of young people.

12. 3. Assessment and management of vulnerability issues • Changes in circumstance (especially in relation to substance misuse and mental health) should always trigger consideration of a new or updated vulnerability assessment and/or management plan • Other assessment frameworks can be particularly informative about vulnerability issues and can aid partnership working • YOTs should consider establishing protocols with local CAMHS for the management of vulnerability issues • YOTs can benefit from identifying joint working practices and initiatives to further address young women’s self harm and vulnerability in the youth justice system • YOTs shouldensure that sustainable support networks are considered and that proper support is available for isolated children.

13. 4. Intervention planning and implementation • Programmes and placements must be suitable, viable and available. • Intervention planning should be focused on required outcomes • Young people should be fully engaged in preparing action plans • Supervision plans must be tailored and linked to assessments, and in particular to identifiedrisk factors • YOTs should convene additional multi-agency planning meetings to ensure clear allocation of responsibilities and avoid duplication of work • YOTs to consider providing training to staff on motivating and engaging with ambivalent children and young people.

14. 5. Links with external providers / multi agency input and information sharing • Strong links should be established and maintained with other agencies’ risk and vulnerability assessments • Information sharing arrangements should be formalised, particularly in relation to education providers, the police, CAMHS and children’s homes • In England, YOTs should ensure links with the new ‘Young Offender Health Strategy’ after the anticipated introduction of Health and Well Being Boards • YOTs should consider undertaking multi-agency home visits • All relevant agencies should identify and agree the key information sets that should appear on relevant documents.

15. 6. Case recording • Management oversight should include effective quality assurance and should ensure that cases demonstrate ‘end-to-end’ case management • Analytical narratives need to be robust and evidence based, particularly in complex cases • YOTs need to ensure that all contacts and appointments are recorded, even those taking place before a statutory order commences.

16. 7. National Standards compliance • Improvements should be made in relation to timeliness, particularly in relation to action taken following breach • Referral Order panels should commence promptly after an order is made – delays can effect the impact and effectiveness of the order • YOTs should establish a consistent approach when recording acceptable absences. This should include management oversight • Deviations from National Standards should be signed off by an authorised member of the management team.

17. 8. Transfer between YOTs • High quality case transfers will result in better quality risk assessments and improved availability of appropriate programmes • Case responsibility, accommodation checks and clarity of ownership should be established clearly and early in the transfer process to ensure that service to young people is not diluted and risk is not effected • In England, YOTs should use the publication of the National Protocol for Case Responsibility as an opportunity to review case transfer arrangements and improve consistency of practice • In Wales, the YJB and YOT Managers Cymru are working to adapt the National Protocol for Case Responsibility to take account of the devolved context which presents an opportunity promote consistency of practice across the country.

18. Improving practice

19. YJB action to support practice improvement (1): • Since 2009 we have been working alongside YOTs to support improvements in a number of key areas: • Assessment, Planning, Intervention and Supervision (APIS): • Work has commenced on the review and redesign of the YJB assessment and interventions framework • The YJB, working with YOTs, has established APIS improvement fora in England. They take the form of quality circles with peer challenge and support. The circles conduct Asset audits for completeness and quality improvement. The YJB, together with YOT staff, has developed a series of tools to support this work which draw on best practice from across the two countries. These toolkits include quality assurance and monitoring tools and are aimed at supporting YOT management boards and managers in driving up the quality of assessments. • Implementation of the Scaled Approach.

20. YJB action to support practice improvement (2): • National standards: We are undertaking pilots to increase professional discretion within national standards, freeing up resources to deliver improvements in practice on the frontline. • Breach and compliance: The Justice Green Paper proposes a stronger focus on compliance. We are working with YOTs to share and embed good practice in relation to compliance panels and engagement and have produced a ranged of toolkits to support this work. • Information sharing: Publication of the National Protocol for Case Responsibility • Updated ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’ guidance published for England with the inclusion of clearer information for those working in Youth Justice. In Wales, the equivalent document is Safeguarding Children: Working Together Under the Children Act 2004.

21. Examples of promising practice from YOTs in England and Wales: • One YOT has produced a serious incident notification and LMR flowchart which has been circulated nationally and is widely used • Positive examples of joint working across YOTs and other agencies, which have demonstrated significant reductions in risk: The benefits of joint working were flagged by a number of YOTs, who spoke of the value of investing time and resource in the development of joint protocols and stakeholder relationships etc, which paid real dividends further down the line • In Wales, a YOT has worked successfully to resolve issues in relation to securing local authority accommodation. This has led to a decrease in the number of serious incidents occurring in their area.   • For further information on these and other examples of promising practice, please contact pcu@yjb.gov.uk

22. Case study – serious incident training • Delivered by the YJB’s regional teams in partnership with local YOTs, the training has helped support improvements to the community serious incidents process: • Part one • Training concentrated on definition of a serious incident; processes needed to address issues and risks; action taken in response • Expectations in relation to Serious Case Reviews (SCRs) and how serious incident procedures should compliment the SCR process. • Exploration of links to safeguarding and child protection, with reference to the requirements of the HM Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP) core case inspection (CCI) process. • Development of improvement plans in response to issues identified. • Legislative requirements associated with Coroner Courts. • Part two • Focussed on the provision of advice regarding suicide awareness. This was delivered by a psychologist with youth justice expertise. • For further information on this training, please contact your YJB regional / Wales team

23. Learning lessons in the future • This pack has been produced during a period of significant change for those working in youth justice. The changes in the UK Government and, more recently, in Wales; the financial challenges of the spending review; the UK Government’s focus on local determination and local accountability; the Munro review of child protection in England and of serious case reviews in Wales - all have impacted on the way that agencies can and will respond to community serious incidents in the future. • Alongside YOTs and other stakeholders, the YJB recognises that lessons must continue to be learnt, and, where appropriate, practice improved after each community serious incident. • This year, work was undertaken to consider how local and central responses to such incidents can be better managed in a climate of reduced resources and within the new UK Government’sfocus on localism. As a result, this pack links to a consultation questionnaire, which asks about the future role of YOTs and the YJB in managing, learning from and responding to community serious incidents. • Details of the consultation are set out in the final few slides.

24. Community Serious Incidents: Consultation

25. Community Serious Incidents Consultation • The YJB would like to consult stakeholders on: • the current community serious incidents notification process and the role of the YJB within this; whether and how we should make changes to the current process to better reflect the UK coalition Government’s new localism agenda and the agenda of the new Welsh Government; • whether and how we should make changes to the current process in the light of the findings of the Munro Review and Wales Serious Case Review, and • what should be the role of the government body with the function of overseeing the youth justice system (currently the YJB) in any future community serious incidents process.

26. Community Serious Incidents: Consultation • Why consult now? Drivers for change: • Localism: The UK Government has committed to reduce central bureaucracy and increase professional discretion • Justice Green Paper: This commits to increasing the freedoms and flexibilities of YOTs, and proposes a move towards a lighter touch monitoring framework. • Munro review: The review proposes a number of significant changes to child protection and safeguarding arrangements, with a strengthening of the role of Local Safeguarding Children Boards. • Wales: The Welsh Government is developing a new approach to serious case reviews, to be informed by the Munro review. • Governance: The UK Government’s intention (subject to the public bodies bill) is to abolish the YJB and move its functions into MOJ.

27. Consultation process: • We would encourage all stakeholders to contribute to the community serious incident consultation. This will enable us to develop and improve on the approach within the new policy and delivery environment: • The consultation questionnaire can be accessed on line, via survey monkey on: • https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/community_serious_incidents • or via e-mail copy available by request from PCU@yjb.gov.uk • The closing date is 29th July 2011. • Thank you.

28. For further information, please contact PCU@yjb.gov.uk