Agenda item

Tracey Staines, Head of Youth Justice and Complex Safeguarding presented a report setting out the Youth Justice Business Plan 2025- 2026.

Bury and Rochdale Youth Justice Service amalgamated in 2014, and the partnership board is chaired by the Director of Bury Children’s Services, with the Assistant Director of Rochdale Children’s Services as co-chair. Strategically and operationally partners are drawn from both boroughs.

Bury retained responsibility for the Youth Justice Prevention element following the merge. There are close links and working relationships between the two services to ensure that we are identifying need at the earliest opportunity. One of our key priority areas is early identification of young people who may be at risk of offending, to intervene early and reduce the number of first-time entrants into the criminal justice service.

The Youth Justice Plan 2025/2026 was agreed by the Youth Justice Board in July 2025, and sets out the priorities for this financial year, in addition to the proposed outcomes for children and young people open to the service.

Issues covered in the business plan include:

a. the need for a Bury town centre base for the service,

b. higher numbers of children in Bury’s care open to the service

c. higher numbers of Bury children with EHCPs and identified SEND being worked with by the Youth Justice Service

d. the disproportionality of some ethnic groups within the cohort of young people supported by the service

The Business plan notes performance against national key performance measures, with the number of first time entrants falling and the reoffending rate and custody rate being lower than the regional or GM average in Bury and Rochdale.

The plan also notes key risks, which include:

a. Inconsistent attendance at the Partnership Board, with a change in governance structure being implemented to address this issue

b. Differential access to expert additional resource as part of the Youth Justice offer, with Bury children not having access to a dedicated CAMHs practitioner, or a Educational Attendance specialist, or a Speech and Language Therapist

c. The absence of a seconded probation officer for children moving between children and adult youth justice services.

Six priority areas for 2025/26 are identified within the plan:

a. Governance & Leadership

b. Prevention and Diversion

c. Remand, Custody and Resettlement

d. Victims and Restorative Justice

e. Serious Violence and Harmful Sexual Behaviour

f. Quality Assurance and Workforce Development

and these broadly map to the inspection framework for Youth Justice Services.

Those present were given the opportunity to ask questions and make comments and the following points were raised:

• Councillor Ayesha Arif referred to the number of BME young people referred to and working with the Youth Justice Team and asked how the team could assure that staff working with these young people were representative of and sensitive to their needs.

It was confirmed that the workforce was culturally representative of the young people it supported. One of the concerns that was beyond the teams’ control was disproportionality at the referral source before they reach youth justice. The workforce are trained and have completed all of the cultural, relevant training in relation to biodiversity and how to support meeting the needs of the child throughout their time with the Youth Justice Team. The supervision framework has been developed to ensure that the young person is talked to in a reflective way, looking at social graces and intersectionality and agree through supervision how to work with the child and their family to ensure that it is meaningful more impactful and respectful.

• Councillor Hayes referred to the significant disparity between the provisions in Bury and in Rochdale, in particular the fact that there was no purpose built centre in Bury for young people to attend to meet professionals and secondly, there's a disparity in terms of the number of professionals in Rochdale when compared to the number in Bury, Bury is depleted in comparison to Rochdale.

• The YP representative also referred to the lack of a facility for young people to go to in Bury, and that this was currently under review and asked for an update on this, including how much would it cost, how long will it take and whether a location had been identified.

Tracey explained that in terms of the disparity between staff, the issue had been raised at the Youth Justice Partnership Board and was explained that it was with regards to partners as opposed to the Justice staff themselves.

The aspiration was to have a walk-in centre that can be accessed without an appointment as part of a family hub. Colleagues within the BGI directorate were currently looking at different options. The cost and timescales were currently unknown due to the question of location still being considered.

Tracey explained that the expertise that we already have in the service was utilised with regards to the place and space, staff were promoted to go and see children at home and to also take them out to different places. Whilst there might not be a location and building currently, the young people were seen at locations they were comfortable with.

• Councillor Boles referred to the numbers of young people that were being supported by the YJB who were in the NEET category and asked why it was felt that a sub group should look at the issue. He also asked whether any consultation work had been done with the young people themselves as to why they were not in education, employment or training?

Tracey explained that the figures refer to ‘suitable’ education or employment which reflects 25 hours or more which could mean that some young people are in employment, education or training but for less than 25 hours a week which makes the figures misleading. A survey/consultation hasn’t been undertaken but it was explained that the team hold regular reviews with the young people to get their views on where they are best suited in relation to activities and education

Jeanette explained that the subgroup decision was reached through discussion across the partnership and to look at working with the young people to look at the current offer and how the partnership were working together and what could be done differently. The relationships between the young people at the youth justice practitioners was very strong due to the small number of young people and the high level of support they received.

It was agreed:

1.    That the contents of the report be supported for onward submission to Cabinet.

2.    That an update in relation to the dedicated purpose built centre be brought back to a future meeting of the Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee.

3.    That a dialogue is opened with young people using the Youth Justice Service who are classified as NEET (Not in Education, Employment, or Training) to gather their input on the barriers preventing them from engaging in employment, education, or training.