Archived decisions
The Future role and Responsibility of the Combined Youth Justice Committee: A Discussion Starter.
This paper aims to set out:
_ The background to the Combined Youth Justice Committee.
_ The need to consider change.
_ The view of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales.
_ Three options for the future.
1. Background
1.1 The establishment of the Committee predates the Youth Offending Team by a number of years.
1.2 Its predecessor brought together a large number of statutory and voluntary sector agencies with an interest in Youth Justice.
1.3 In 1996/7, it was re-structured in preparation for the Local Government Re-organisation which saw Portsmouth and Southampton established as separate unitary local authorities. The title, Combined Youth Justice Committee, reflected its intention to oversee the new partnership between the three local authorities in "geographical" Hampshire, and the Hampshire Probation Service. The number of co-opted members from the voluntary sector was significantly reduced.
1.4 Following the establishment of the Youth Offending Team in October 1998, the arrangements were revised again. The Committee was joined by a number of partners who were new to youth justice, namely the Police Authority and the Boards of the (then) four Health Authorities. The Isle of Wight Council joined the Committee for the first time.
1.5 The current terms of reference and membership (attached) were agreed at this time.
2. The need to consider change
2.1 In accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2000
decision making processes in Local Authorities have changed. Each of
the constituent councils has adopted the Leader with Cabinet model and all
Executive decisions are taken either by the Cabinet or by Executive Members
acting individually. Those decisions are open to scrutiny by the Non-Executive Members of the Council, the Local Government Act 2000 also
requiring local authorities to establish at least one scrutiny committee. Each of the constituent authorities has its own procedures to achieve that and its own arrangements for appointing representatives to serve on the Combined Youth Justice Committee. One of the outcomes of the Local Government Act 2000 has been that organisational structures between councils are very much suited to their own needs rather than "one size fits all".
2.2 The eleven district councils in the County Council's area have a responsibility for preventing crime and disorder but are not represented on the Combined Youth Justice Committee. The County Council appoints three members to the Committee the third place being in recognition of its particular responsibility for working together with the district councils in relation to community safety. In this respect it is actively engaged with all the district councils developing community strategies and community safety plans as required by the Local Government Act 2000. Whilst the Combined Youth Justice Committee has not engaged directly with the district councils, therefore, the County Council is actively doing so in line with the Combined Youth Justice Committee's expectations. However, district council representation could be considered if the Committee is to continue.
2.3 In relation to the Health Authorities, whilst there were four in 1997 there is now just a Strategic Health Authority for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight which commissions services from ten Primary Care Trusts. Each Primary Care Trust has its own Executive and Non-Executive Members with a developing interest in children's services and crime prevention. At the moment the Primary Care Trusts have one representative on the Combined Youth Justice Committee as does the Strategic Health Authority.
2.4 A key issue as to the future of the Committee is that attendance at meetings has fallen. Between January 2001 to date there have been 9 meetings of which 2 were inquorate throughout and 2 became inquorate. The quorum of the Committee is six members, excluding co-opted members, of whom not less than three must be representatives of the local authorities. There are 4 meetings a year.
2.5 The Committee's role is restricted to that of an advisory body and inevitably, therefore, there is some duplication of effort both on behalf of members and officers in reporting to the Committee and to their parent organisations. In that context the Committee's purpose, as defined in its terms of reference, is forward looking, fostering partnerships, promoting wide ranging consultation, giving advice to the constituent authorities' Executives, the Hampshire Probation Board, the Strategic Health Authority and the Hampshire Police Authority. It also monitors the performance of the Wessex Youth Offending Team and implementation of the Youth Justice Plan by the constituent local authorities and other agencies. The development of the scrutiny function among the local authorities ensures that their Executives are held to account.
3. The view of the Youth Justice Board
3.1 Despite some of the shortcomings set out above, there is no doubt that the existence and activity of the Committee is very highly regarded by the Youth Justice Board. Many of the 154 Youth Offending Teams do not have any effective dialogue with Members of their police authority, probation boards, senior magistrates, and members of boards in the health sector.
3.2 The Board issued a consultation draft in June 2003 of proposed new inter-departmental guidance on the "structural/organisational need of youth offending teams". Quotations include:
"It is imperative that local authority chief executives ensure that elected members recognise the significance of this area of their responsibility and its place within their broader range of work to tackle crime and social exclusion".
"The YOT Management Board should agree arrangements for reporting on the performance and resourcing needs of the YOT to local authority members, the police authority, the probation board and the respective primary health care trust or health authority. Each YOT Management Board should report to an inter-authority members' group, chaired by a local authority elected member".
4. Three options for the future
4.1 Against that background members are asked to review the effectiveness of the Committee and what role, if any, it should play in the future. Possible options are:
4.2 Retain the status quo
If members are happy with the work that the Committee has been doing then members may agree that there is no need for change. Should this be the case then members should encourage their appointing bodies to ensure that whenever it meets, the Committee is quorate and in a position to promote activities across all the participating organisations which will contribute towards youth crime prevention. District Council representation could also be considered. In its advisory capacity the Committee has previously assisted the partner organisations by scrutinising issues and commenting upon them before the constituent bodies make decisions. As mentioned earlier, among the local authorities there is now a legal requirement for them to scrutinise their own decisions. In this respect they may, at times, ask the Committee for views, advice or guidance.
4.3 Wind up the Committee leaving responsibility with each of the constituent councils
This would require the County Council, the Isle of Wight Council, Portsmouth City Council and Southampton City Council to oversee the delivery of Youth Justice Services in their own areas in partnership with their local Primary Care Trust Boards, Senior Youth Court Magistrates, the Probation Board and the Police Authority. Each council would need to establish arrangements which fitted appropriately with its constitutional arrangements.
4.4 Develop the Committee as a consultation and information sharing forum
The Committee currently meets at least 3/4 times a year but attendance has been an issue. An alternative arrangement could be for one or two conferences a year to be arranged by the Head of Youth Offending Services to keep representatives from participating organisations informed of local and national policy initiatives and work in progress. There would be no business meetings. The invitation list could be flexible, the theme of the conference(s) being developed in consultation with each of the partner organisations, led by the Head of Youth Offending Services. The constituent local authorities would manage the development and implementation of the Youth Justice Plan and their respective Executives would lead on contract issues
js231