Agenda item

Dan Bride (Assistant Director for Adolescent Services, Open Access and Head of Youth Offending) and Louise Fisher (Head of Service (0-25), Children Young People and Education - South), KCC were in attendance for this item

(1)  The Chair welcomed the guests and thanked them for the information they had shared in advance of the meeting. The Chair invited them to give their presentation. Salient points from the meeting were:

·         Definitions of knife crime, with the most common offense being for “possession”.

·         There had been a decrease year on year for three years for knife related offences (by young people) in Kent.

·         Frequency of knife offences – 243 young people had one knife related offence (between April 2016 – March 2019), reducing to one young person with six offences.

·         The highest proportion of youth offences in knife crime (in Kent) were committed by white males from Kent.

·         The number of first-time entrants into the Youth Justice System had declined since 2014/15.

·         Reoffending rates in Kent were below the national average and in most cases those counties with similar demographics.

·         Motivations for carrying a knife included self-protection, self-presentation and to a lesser degree utility (i.e. the person aimed to commit an offence).

·         There was a stronger link between knife crime and gangs in London than in Kent.

·         The Youth Offending Team used evidence of what worked in order to prevent young people getting involved in knife crime.

·         Examples of national initiatives, including the opportunities presented by the Youth Endowment Fund.

·         The restructured Adolescents, Open Access and PIAS Service in Kent would allow a core offer of support to those young people needing it.

·         All of Kent’s activities in relation to youth offending were in partnership with Health, the Police and Crime Commissioner and District Councils.

(2)  Members thanked Ms Bride and Ms Fisher for their presentation.

(3)  Members requested a heat map of Kent showing where offences were committed. This would allow them to understand where areas of concern were. The map, to be shared at the wash-up session, should include:

·         Demographic information about those committing the offences;

·         Ethnicity, and if possible, nationality of offenders;

·         The data over a number of years.

(4)  In addition, a Member asked for data on school exclusion rates in relation to those committing offences.

(5)  Members questioned the impact of gangs in Kent. North Kent was more likely to be affected by London gangs and links to Serious Organised Crime. Their presence can lead to young people carrying, and being the victims of, knife crime.

(6)  Members asked if there was consistency across Kent districts of reducing youth offending. Officers explained there was a Scorecard produced that demonstrated performance, but also assured Members that all services were robustly performance managed with areas of concern looked into straight away.

(7)  In relation to the Youth Endowment Fund, officers explained that the Local Authority were working alongside the Kent Police and Crime Commissioner to design a collaborative bid for extra funding.

(8)  The Committee discussed the services available to young people who offend in Kent.

·         Officers explained that the age of youth workers did not matter – it was their ability to engage the young person that was key.

·         Contextual safeguarding and ensuring young people felt safe in buildings used for service delivery. The Adolescents, Open Access and PIAS Service would be engaging young people later that year to get their views on this.

·         The reduction in local authority budgets – Ms Fisher referred to the evidence base and how it demonstrated a positive reduction in rates of youth offending. She believed it was vital to use the resources available to make the biggest impact.

·         The introduction of Early Help workers had really helped prevent young people from getting involved in crime.

·         Ms Bride assured the Committee that they had been and would continue to look for opportunities to reduce duplication, such as reducing the number of multi-agency meetings that discuss a single case.

·         Long term mentoring had been shown to be far more successful in reducing re-offending rates. There was a body of research in this area, which showed the benefits of a young person feeling safe and supported, particularly through adolescence.

·         A Member had read about “the Way” concept (used in Wolverhampton and Dagenham) and asked officers for information about this at the wash up session.

(9)  When asked what she would do with more money, Ms Bride said she wouldn’t spend it straight away but would learn from emerging evidence from projects underway to inform new initiatives.

(10)               Members asked if there was a balance between the provision of universal youth services and youth justice.  Ms Bride explained that Youth Justice benefited from a highly skilled workforce with a relatively low turnover of staff. She felt quality training was more important than recruiting more Youth Justice staff.  Universal services were shown to be delivering but innovation in the wider market meant training for staff was again key.