Agenda item

·          

The Committee noted the positive feel that came over from the earlier work shop with young people in respect of their experiences.

·          

Members discussed the number of assessments waiting to be signed off and the drift.  Officers explained it did not mean that work had not been undertaken with young people, the cases had not been officially closed down which meant that there appeared to be 200 open cases when in actual fact there was only 140.  There were also administrative issues with the assessments being signed off, particularly over the Christmas period, as a result of sickness, and agency staff leaving.  The Quality Assurance (QA) framework has been revised and it is now being overseen by an additional agency manager.   Compliance will be monitored closely. 

·          

Members sought information about the evidence required to demonstrate that the provision made for the young person is having the desired impact.  Members were advised that further training, particularly in relation to planning and reviews, has taken place which has resulted in improvements being made in self assessments.  With reference to the evidence, Members were told that it relates to the judgement of risk.  Previously risk levels were not been correctly assessed and later adjusted.  Now risk is being discussed more frequently, particularly with the Risk Management Planning Forum and meetings taking place which has resulted in them being more confidence that risk levels will not require adjustments.  All of those meetings are now being documented in the Child Review Recording System.

·          

Members were advised that there are three arears of risk that are assessed: re-offending; serious harm; and the safety and wellbeing of the child.  Every case is reviewed on a 3 months basis, risk levels depending on how high they are can be assessed fortnightly or monthly.  It is recognised that there is still some way to go before measuring outcomes and impact, and not just outputs and.

·          

Graham Robb clarified that as a Board they are more interested in the long term progression and achievement measures that is currently being set up – but it is going to take some time.  It is hoped that progression in relation to that will have been made by the time of the Inspection. 

·          

The Chief Executive noted that there has been a step change in the quality of governance and it is clear on the basis of the positive discussions in the meeting testifies to that.  There is still a major piece of change management to be driven through to it’s conclusion and the scale of change must not be underestimated; restructuring   is part of that exercise together with practise and quality assurance.

·          

Members discussed the effectiveness of strategic partnerships.  It was noted that the way the Committee has been reconstituted to be a partnership problem solving team has the potential to be a really effective.  It can pick up groups with particular issues, get the right people in the room to analyse the problem, do something about it and measure the impact. 

·          

The University Health Board will shortly be publishing the work done on health and wellbeing pathways which will provide data and benchmarking us against what is happening elsewhere in England and Wales.  It is anticipated that the impact of that will be visible by the end of next year. 

·          

Members were concerned that references to gaps in provision and services meant that there were significant levels of underinvestment in Youth Justice services.  They were informed that the Joint Strategic Needs work should be able, in due course, to highlight whether there is a gap in service or there is a gap in helping children get to that service. 

·          

The Committee discussed the means by which obtaining outcomes across the board can be better reported and evidenced. It was noted that there has been a massive culture shift; there are lots of different models.  There needs to be a conversation and understanding of what is important to young people and identifying the changes they want and are willing to make. There have been links with education and the coaching model.  It is accepted that a lot of training is required.  It is important to become much more aware of family engagement; the Youth Justice Service tends to be about just the child in the system but that has to be expanded to family.

Partnership meetings were being held on a monthly basis to discuss data sets, and that has now become a quarterly meeting with actual case studies being reviewed and discussed to see precisely how this service has been involved in the changes in their lives. Updates in relation to that can be provided.

·          

Members sought clarification in relation to the 8 cases since February that have been the subject of a QA assessment and were advised that each manager has two cases to quality assure; which means that every month 6 – 8 will be conducted depending on the number of Team Managers at the time. Those figures will increase. 

·          

Members discussed benchmarking and how the Quality Assurance work is being done by Team Managers, and whether consideration is being given to an external verification of that process, for example with other Local Authorities. Members were advised that an experienced Operational Manager from another Youth Justice Service had been involved in the development of the benchmarking process, however that has since been reviewed and changes have been made.  There was an oversight in the reporting, it is now reported at Team Meetings; in ‘one to ones’ brought to Children’s Services and then the Board.  It has to been seen as part of the job, which is a culture change for staff. 

·          

Members referred to the culture shift that is taking place and queried what the views were in relation to staffing.  The Director advised that they are in the middle of a formal process in terms of consulting with the current management team.  A new proposal has been made in relation to Youth Justice Services going forward; it is a good model but has not yet been widely shared.  It is a very clear proposal; there have to be changes to drive things forward.