0

Reintegration and Resettlement Boards – good practice guide Dr Kathy Hampson & Tracey Kinsey

2016

Kathy Hampson & Tracey Kinsey Llamau

Reintegration and Resettlement Partnership Boards (RRPB)

Introduction

‘Resettlement’ for young people has been defined as: ‘the process by which children re-enter the

community and settle back into their lives after a period in custody’1. Young people entering custody

have the highest recidivism rate for all young people involved with the youth justice services, with

recent figures identifying that 67.1% of these young people were re-convicted within 12 months2

(although this represents a decrease in the reoffending of those given custody of 8.4% since 2003).

However, a dramatic reduction in custody figures over the past few years has left a distilled group of

young people for whom custody was perhaps more inevitable, and who have experienced a

multiplicity of risk factors for offending (with relatively few protective factors) and who are much

more likely to offend than other young people3.

As the numbers of young people being given custodial orders has decreased, the complexity of the

needs of young people being given pre-court disposals and community orders has increased, with

many of them also having clear resettlement-type needs4. This is also reflected in increasing

reoffending rates, with those receiving cautions showing the highest increase (4.3% increase),

reoffending at a rate of 30.6%. However, the reoffending rate of those receiving Youth Rehabilitation

Orders (YRO) is now not too far behind those receiving custody, at 64.5%. This has been

acknowledged by the current Welsh Government (WG) and Youth Justice Board Cymru (YJBC)

strategy document Children and Young People First, which states: “Young people serving community

sentences often share characteristics and present with similar complex needs and challenging

behaviours to those in custody”5. It goes further to say: “Young people eligible for resettlement and

reintegration support are those placed on remand, sentenced to custody or serving community

sentences and are at risk of custody if their offending behaviour continues”. Resettlement-type

needs are now even being assessed for young people on prevention interventions, indicating an

upward ratcheting of levels of need throughout the youth justice system, albeit with reduced

numbers. This increasing reoffending could easily result in increases in young people having system

contact, unless working is smarter, especially given the recent losses of funding experienced across

the sector. The temptation to revert to silo-working must be resisted in favour of expanding into

partnerships across all relevant agencies, from all sectors. This has the potential to add real value to

answer resettlement needs across the board of young people in contact with the youth justice

system.

1 HMIP (2015) Joint Thematic Inspection of Resettlement Services to Children by Youth Offending Teams and

Partner Agencies. Manchester: HMIP (page 14) 2 All statistics in this section are taken from: YJB/Ministry of Justice (2016) Youth Justice Statistics 2014/15.

Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/495709/youth-justice-statistics-2014-to-2015-summary.pdf 3 Bateman T, Hazel N and Wright S (2013) Resettlement of young people leaving custody. Lessons from the

literature. Beyond Youth Custody. Available at: http://www.beyondyouthcustody.net/wp-content/uploads/BYC_lit-review.pdf 4 Identified as seven ‘resettlement pathways’ of: accommodation, education training and employment,

substance misuse, health, family, finance benefits and debt, and case management and transitions - Youth Justice Board (YJB) (2006) Youth Resettlement: A Framework for Action. London: YJB 5 Welsh Government/YJB (2014) Children and young people first. Available at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/374572/Youth_Justice_Strategy_English.PDF (page 24)

Good reintegration and resettlement support

So what is good resettlement support? For young people in custody, research has identified the

need for all work in custody to be focused on release, and for pre-release work to be done in the

community in preparation6. Furthermore, that wrap-around needs-led care needs to be provided

post-release (also applicable for all cases in the community), taking the young person beyond the

end of any statutory order into a robust ‘after-justice’ plan delivered by non-criminal agencies7. This

could also mean, for those entering the transition into adulthood, early engagement with relevant

adult services (not just probation), so their support is guaranteed beyond the age of 18. The recent

HMIP resettlement inspection report8 criticised the lack of contingency planning, given that

arrangements are often fragile in nature, quickly breaking down. This needs further development if

it is not to continue being a weak link in the chain. Although Youth Offending Teams (YOT) are multi-

agency in nature, statutorily incorporating education, probation, health, social services, and police,

they cannot be expected to meet all unmet needs, and certainly should not be delivering the after

justice support (as use of a criminal agency for this keeps young people unnecessarily within the

criminal sector). This therefore requires a robust and comprehensive partnership approach,

involving all possible agencies, statutory and non-statutory, who could have a part to play in

resettlement planning. A partnership approach is also a recommendation of the HMIP thematic

inspection, and from research looking into what makes for effective resettlement:

“There needs to be proper coordination between custodial facilities and the community –

between the statutory, voluntary, community and business sectors – and necessary

information must be shared appropriately between them” 9

In pursuance of this, the WG/YJBC strategy document states the following:

“Reintegration and Resettlement Partnerships will be established … and will address the

common problems encountered when resettlement planning, undertake case reviews and

share good practice. Our proposal to support these regional partnerships is based on the

learning from the evaluations of resettlement consortia across England, resettlement

support panels in Wales and the regional projects we have established in South and North

Wales”10

6 Bateman T and Hazel N (2015) Custody to community – how young people cope with release. Beyond Youth

Custody. Available at http://www.beyondyouthcustody.net/resources/publications/custody-community-young-people-cope-release-research-report/ 7 Hampson (2016) From the Mouths of Dragons: How Does the Resettlement of Young People from North

Wales Measure Up … In Their Own Words? Youth Justice. Available at http://yjj.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/01/28/1473225415625374.full.pdf+html 8 HMIP (2015) Joint Thematic Inspection of Resettlement Services to Children by Youth Offending Teams and

Partner Agencies. Manchester: HMIP 9 Beyond Youth Custody (2015) Effective resettlement of young people – lessons from Beyond Youth Custody.

Available at http://www.beyondyouthcustody.net/wp-content/uploads/Effective-resettlement-of-young-people-lessons-from-Beyond-Youth-Custody.pdf (page 8) 10

Welsh Government/YJB (2014) Children and young people first. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/374572/Youth_Justice_Strategy_English.PDF (page 25)

Partnerships have been set up across much of Southern and North Wales through the Resettlement

Broker Project11, and this experience has allowed for the devising of these guidelines for the

establishment of RRPBs pan-Wales.

The establishment of Reintegration and Resettlement Partnership Boards (RRPB)

The aim of RRPBs is to provide a multi-agency response to reducing the risk of reoffending,

managing the risk of harm to the public, and improving outcomes for young people assessed as

having needs along the resettlement pathways already mentioned. Achieving this depends on a

shared responsibility and effective joint working between a range of different agencies (statutory,

nom-statutory, third sector, and private) which can offer support to answer assessed needs. This in

turn relies on positive, constructive relationships between individual partnership members,

promoted and supported by the commitment of senior managers. Ensuring positive and sustainable

outcomes for young people requires all stakeholders to work efficiently together according to an

agreed plan, following agreed terms of reference, also covering the sharing of information and

confidentiality documents. Ordinary RRPB meetings are intended to be case-based, with agencies in

attendance expected to offer services to answer the assessed needs which are presented at the

meetings.

Referral of young people

Young people could be referred to the RRPB by any agency in attendance, but with case information

being sent out a week in advance to assist the effectiveness of the discussions. It is anticipated that,

due to the criteria stressing offending-related factors, the main referrer is likely to be from the youth

justice sector, but other agencies should have the facility to refer, especially when they work with

young people who are at risk of serious criminality, but not yet within that system. The YOTs have

the legal basis (through the Crime and Disorder Act, 1998) to refer young people without their

consent, although discussing this with young people is undoubtedly best practice; however other

agencies will need to gain consent from young people for their case to be referred.

Referral criteria can be decided at a local level, but suggestions include:

In custody, remanded to youth detention accommodation (LASPO Act, 2012: S98)

In custody having received a custodial sentence (Detention and Training Order – Crime and

Disorder Act, 1998 S73-79; Section 90-92 Order, The Powers of the Criminal Courts

(Sentencing) Act, 2000)

Secure Accommodation Orders (given custodial accommodation for their own safety;

Children Act, 1989, S25(1))

Community orders nearing completion

Out of county transfers (in and out)

Transition to probation (young people nearing 18 years of age)

High risk of harm or re-offending (referred up from the internal YJS Risk Panel)

High vulnerability

Young people at risk of serous offending

11

Information on this project, and more detail on the experience of setting up Partnerships can be found at http://www.llamau.org.uk/resettlement/

Partnership membership

The membership of RRPBs should be at a management level senior enough to be able to commit

resources at meetings (negating the need to take a request back to senior management for a

decision on service), but attendees should come with knowledge of the case (if relevant) and

knowledge of potential services which they could offer. This is why case information is sent out in

advance of meetings. Membership should reflect all relevant statutory and non-statutory agencies

(for a full list of suggested agencies, see Appendix 1), and third sector organisations, as relevant

locally. It should be noted that agencies which work with young people beyond the age of 18 are

particularly useful in transitions (whether being transferred to probation or not) and in after justice

planning. For consideration is a slightly different model, currently in operation in one area, in which

operational managers attend an operational level RRPB, concentrating on case discussions, with a

strategic RRPB meeting (less frequently – currently every six months) to address recurring issues

identified through observations of the operational RRPB.

Terms of Reference

The PPRB must be underpinned by comprehensive Terms of Reference, which need at least to cover

the following:

Specific agreed referral criteria

Aims and purpose

Responsibilities of members

Structure of meetings

Administration arrangements

Agreed frequency

Governance

Information sharing and confidentiality

A template for Terms of Reference is included in Appendix 2, which should be amended for local

needs. In order for this to be completed, consideration needs to be made regarding available

information sharing protocols, and whether they could be applicable to this partnership (otherwise

this will need to be written with due regard to the Data Protection Act 1998, covering the obtaining

of the client’s consent to share information, whether lack of consent could be overridden, and

protocols for sharing information about risk of violence to staff, service users or self).

There also needs to be a decision made regarding which agency or agencies will be responsible for

the delivery of the RRPB – normally this would be the YOT, but where this is not appropriate or

possible, could be jointly held by the Local Authority (Children’s Services) and the Health Board (in

accordance with the Social Care and Well Being Wales Act, 2014). This would require different

arrangements for governance, which have been assumed to be through the YOT Local Management

Board in the sample Terms of Reference (but could equally be through the Local Safeguarding

Delivery Group).

The RRPB needs to be chaired in a way which will facilitate successful meetings, while retaining the

ability to challenge partners on their contributions, and completion of actions. Ideally the Chair

would be independent of member agencies, which allows all partners to be challenged equally and

without prejudice. However, this may not be possible, so chairing arrangements need to be agreed

by all parties. This might include the potential to rotate the Chair around partners, should no one

party be appropriate or available. It should be noted that the Chair needs to take responsibility for

facilitating meetings (although the actual administration of this can be done by others), gathering

any referrals not from the YOT, following up on agencies which are inconsistent in their attendance,

and in challenging when actions are not completed by partners.

Terms of Reference should be agreed by all partnership members, who should then become a

signatory. It is advisable that the Terms of Reference are regularly revisited to ensure they remain a

true reflection of the RRPB, and applicable as a protocol for membership.

Initial contacts and inaugural meeting

If the RRPB is to be established through the YOT, then the Management Board (MB) can act as the

initial point of contact for most relevant agencies (although others will need to be added to this, in

particular non-statutory and third sector agencies). The context and purpose, outlined in the

introduction to the document, should be presented to the MB, followed by a discussion during

which any concerns can be discussed. An inaugural meeting should be proposed, requiring the

attendance of senior managers or service leads. This information will need to be sent out to other

relevant agencies not involved in the MB, possibly by email. If the RRPB is going to be administered

through another agency than the YOT, then the initial approach may all need to be by email to

senior managers or service leads, but this approach has worked successfully in several areas.

Ahead of the inaugural meeting, a copy of the proposed Terms of Reference should be sent to all

members. At the meeting, there could be a presentation outlining the context and purpose, if this

has not already been done in another context. After this, there should be a joint consideration of the

Terms of Reference to ensure that they reflect the views of all partners. These can be developed

over the first few meetings, with an aim for all agencies to be signatories within six months. This

discussion should also include the desired frequency of meetings. Following this, a selection of case

studies should be considered, to give a favour of what the normal RRPB meeting will look like, using

cases covering a range of the agreed referral criteria. Cases can be detailed on the proposed case

description form (see Appendix 3), which breaks down the information into the seven pathways and

also details what is required of the RRPB. This form has been developed in consultation with several

YOTs, but can be altered to suit local needs. Cases would ideally be presented by the case manager,

who is in a position to answer partners’ clarification questions. Two worked examples (fictitious) of

how this might be done in practice can be seen in Appendix 4 and 5.

The inaugural meeting should serve to demonstrate how the RRPB will operate, therefore putting

those senior managers/ service leads in attendance in a position to decide who would be best to

represent them and their department in the ongoing partnership. These managers should then be

nominated for future correspondence.

Ongoing functioning of the RRPB

Once membership has been established, arrangements need to be made for future dates, and who is

responsible for sending out meeting invitations, case description notes, and the taking and

distribution of minutes/action sheets. For subsequent meetings, case description forms for referrals

to be discussed should be distributed (password protected or secure email) to partners as least a

week in advance of the meeting, so they have opportunity to examine the cases and come prepared

with information and/or offers of service for stated needs. While full minutes could be taken, as a

minimum a record of case issues and agreed actions need to be recorded and distributed in a timely

way, so those who have agreed to actions can be prompted by this to execute them (see Appendix 6

for an example action sheet). Ideally, feedback on actions should be send to the Chair ahead of the

next meeting, so that if any agency cannot attend, even at short notice, all actions are accounted for.

If this does not happen, it is a function of the Chair to challenge this with members (it is

recommended that the Chair contact all those with actions from the previous meeting a week prior

to the next to ensure that actions have been completed and that feedback will be available).

Monitoring and evaluation12

It is important that the effectiveness of the RRPBs is monitored, so that changes can be made if

necessary. This can fall into two categories – processes and practice of the RRPB meetings, and

outcomes for young people.

For the first category, attendance at meetings by different partners can be monitored, alongside

how consistent individuals’ attendance has been (frequent changes in personnel can dilute the

effectiveness of the networking opportunities which working in a partnership present). Agencies

offering service in answer to needs can be identified, with a challenge given to those not offering

anything additional, alongside analysis of how many identified needs were answered by action. The

proportion of actions actually being executed also needs to be looked at to see whether any changes

are actually being made through the partnership approach.

Concerning the monitoring of outcomes for young people, this is made more difficult by the fact that

these will by definition be those who have presented with most difficulties and needs, so their

outcomes are likely to have been poor with no such interventions. However, as there will already be

a lot of action going into each case by the YOTs and associated agencies, it may be difficult to

identify what changes are as a direct result of the partnership decisions and actions. Anything

undertaken as an action of the RRPB needs to be clearly recorded as such on the case management

system, so that cases can be examined on an individual basis to ascertain what can be attributed to

the partnership.

Kathy Hampson (North Wales) and Tracey Kinsey (Southern Wales)

Llamau, Resettlement Broker Coordinator Project

February, 2016

12

Some RRPB evaluations can be found on the project website http://www.llamau.org.uk/resettlement/ in the project reports, specifically the interim and final reports

Appendix 1: Agencies for involvement in RRPBs

Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service

Careers Wales

Children’s Social Care

Adult Social Care

Adult Mental Health Service

Speech, Language and Communication Therapist

Young People’s Substance Misuse Service

Team Around the Family

Probation

Community Rehabilitation Company

Police

Education Department

Youth Offending Team

Youth Service

Housing Department

Supporting People

Integrated Offender Management Unit

Community Safety Partnership

Domestic Abuse Service

Integrated Family Support Service

Youth Engagement and Progression Framework Coordinator

Vulnerable People Service

Appendix 2: Terms of Reference

XXX Youth Offending Team Reintegration and

Resettlement Partnership Board

Terms of Reference

Background

The Youth Offending Team (YOT) Reintegration and Resettlement Partnership Board

(RRPB) is a multi-agency partnership put together to address gaps and barriers to effective

resettlement and reintegration for young people (aged 10 to 18 at support request stage)

experiencing significant change or transition in their service provision. Specifically this will

include young people from the following categories:

In custody, remanded to youth detention accommodation (yet to be sentenced;

LASPO Act, 2012: S98)

In custody having received a custodial sentence (Detention and Training Order –

Crime and Disorder Act, 1998 S73-79; Section 90-92 Order, The Powers of the

Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act, 2000)

Secure Accommodation Orders (given custodial accommodation for their own safety;

Children Act, 1989, S25(1))

Intensive community orders at or near completion (as assessed through the ‘Scaled

Approach’ using the ASSET assessment tool)

Out of county transfers (in and out)

Transition to probation (young people at or near 18 years of age)

High risk of harm or re-offending (referred up from the internal YJS Risk Panel)

High vulnerability

High risk of serious offending

Agencies other than the YOT may make referrals for cases which are of concern as long as

they have past or current contact with the YOT (made to the Chair at least one week in

advance of the next meeting on the RRPB referral form). Resettlement needs will be

considered under the seven pathway headings of:

Accommodation

Education training and employment

Health

Substance misuse

Families

Finance benefits & debt

Transitions and case management

Aims and Responsibilities

The overall aim:

Through effective resettlement support, engender a shift in a young person’s

personal narrative from offender to non-offender

Develop packages of support to assist resettlement

Oversee delivery of resettlement support plans

Facilitate continuity of care and transition arrangements from sentence to voluntary

aftercare

Facilitate continuity of care and transition arrangements from custody to community

licence

Facilitate information sharing between agencies

Improve partnership working to make the optimum range of service provision

available to enable the offer of robust community alternatives for sentencers

Review the effectiveness of local service provision for those who have received

custodial sentences in order to determine how systems could have been better

deployed and what support could have been offered by partners to avoid a custodial

sentence

To reduce the numbers of young people re-offending

Embedded in these objectives, will be the full participation of young people and their

families, as well as focusing on valuing differences and inclusion to ensure that

appropriate unmet needs are identified and addressed.

As a partner representative we ask you to:

Come prepared to offer services to meet identified needs

Contribute your time, expertise and enthusiasm to ensuring effective operation of the

RRPB

Any actions you take away from the RRPB to be completed to the best of your ability

by the agreed date

Contribute in an open and honest manner

Recognise, respect and draw upon the contributions of each member

Ensure that equal opportunities underpin the work of the RRP and positively promote

the work of the RRPB

Facilitate opportunities for discussion/debate/challenge in your

organisation/department

Ensure that information from the RRPB and its work is fed back to your

organisation/department appropriately

Influence the aligning of other resources to the work of the RRPB, where this is

appropriate

Adhere to the agreed Terms of Reference

Values

In adopting these terms of reference the RRPB is committed to the following key values:

The young people are children first

Excellence in service delivery

Working in partnership

Prevention

Diversion

Social Inclusion

Structure of Partnership Meetings

The basic agenda will be as follows:

Look at all referred resettlement cases on an individual basis to identify gaps and

barriers in the resettlement and/or exit plan

Agree action to address identified gaps and barriers

Monitor and review previous cases (where relevant)

Oversight of out of county transfers currently in the area

Membership

XXX will chair the RRPB. The RRPB will consist of the Chief Officers, or their

representatives, of the statutory partner agencies, and others able to make a significant

contribution to effective resettlement plans for young people.

Membership of the RRPB should be at a senior management level. It is acceptable for

membership to be delegated to other members of staff provided that they are fully briefed

and aware of any issues beforehand and can contribute constructively to the RRPB process.

The RRPB will co-opt members as and when it is deemed necessary to do so.

Members will be expected to take an active leadership role during meetings and in practice,

and come prepared to make offers of service which may or may not be otherwise generally

available.

Additional requirements

Should cases requiring immediate action arise, the member raising the issue will consult with

the RRP Chair, who will call an emergency sitting of the RRPB where appropriate, involving

specific members as required, based on assessed need.

Tasks may be identified requiring more detailed work than can be achieved during the RRPB

meeting. Time limited ‘task and finish’ groups which may also require the participation of

non-panel members will be convened and chaired by a RRPB member, who will report back

to the RRPB.

Administration

Administrative support to the RRPB will be provided by the YOT. The YOT will ensure the

effective distribution of minutes and the advance preparation and circulation of the agenda in

consultation with the Chair. Password protected case information will normally be sent out

ahead of RRPB meetings. This information is highly confidential, and RRPB members must

not use this information for any purpose other than the RRPB meeting (or actions agreed

therein), and must ensure the safety of the data at all times.

Frequency of meetings

Meetings will be bi-monthly (every two months) while the RRPB is in operation.

Governance

The RRPB is a sub group of the YOT Local Management Board (LMB). The Chair of the

RRPB will report on the Partnership’s work to the LMB. A regular report will also be made to

the Local Safeguarding Children Delivery Group on a six monthly basis.

Information Sharing

The YOT is governed by an Information Sharing Protocol which is authorised at a strategic

level by the four main statutory partners;

X County Council

XX Police

Wales Probation

XX Health Board

This protocol enables the sharing of information for the prevention of offending and

reoffending by children and young people, these arrangements are authorised by the Crime

and Disorder Act 1998. Furthermore members of the RRPB, by agreeing to these terms of

reference, will practice in a manner which will protect any and all personal and sensitive

information shared with them to operate the panel processes. Information will be password

protected, no agency will share the information out with the panel meetings and any breach

of information security will be reported to the YJS service manager.

Review of the Terms of Reference

Any RRPB member can request a review of the Terms of Reference by contacting the Chair

before the publication of the next agenda, or as an item of any other business.

Agreement

I agree to abide by the Terms of Reference, as stated above, and to any subsequent agreed

alterations of the same.

Signed:

Agency:

Date:

Appendix 3: Case description form

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – DO NOT SHARE

XXX REINTEGRATION AND RESETTLEMENT PARTNERSHIP BOARD CASE INFORMATION FORM

Meeting date:

Name Date of birth Age

Address

Area Case manager

Current Order(s)

Length

Dates

Offence(s)

ASSET score

ROSH

MAPPA

Vulnerability

Overview

Thematic summary of issues

Accommodation

Needs/difficulties:

Desired RRPB response:

Education, Training, Employment

Needs/difficulties:

Desired RRPB response:

Health

Needs/difficulties:

Desired RRPB response:

Substance Misuse

Needs/difficulties:

Desired RRPB response:

Family

Needs/difficulties:

Desired RRPB response:

Finance, Benefits, and Debt

Needs/difficulties:

Desired RRPB response:

Case Management and Transitions

Needs/difficulties:

Desired RRPB response:

Notes:

Appendix 4: Case study 1

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – DO NOT SHARE

XXX REINTEGRATION AND RESETTLEMENT PARTNERSHIP BOARD CASE INFORMATION FORM

Meeting date: 25th March

Name Brandon Keats Date of birth 23/7/99 Age 16

Address 123 Any Street, Anytown. LL87 6YP

Area Any County Case manager Debbie Reynolds

Current Order(s)

Length

Dates

Offence(s)

YRO

12 months

14/9/15 to 13/9/16

Burglary dwelling

ASSET score

ROSH

MAPPA

Vulnerability

36

High

N/a

High

Overview

Brandon has worked with the YOT over several years on a variety of Orders for a range of offences, but this is the most serious conviction to date. He has been assessed as likely to reoffend, as he does not appear to be remorseful, and is likely to receive custody on a further Burglary conviction. He has had a difficult home life, which culminated in his mother throwing him out a few weeks ago. This was said to be because of his substance misuse issues. He needs something constructive to do with his time, as he tends to spend it with offending peers, also known to the YOT. He is currently ‘sofa surfing’ with friends, having missed appointments with Children’s Services and Housing for his assessment.

Thematic summary of issues

Accommodation Needs/difficulties: Brandon currently has nowhere to live and is ‘sofa surfing’ with friends, who are also known to the YOT. He is unreliable in attending appointments, and so has missed several opportunities to be assessed for his accommodation needs. He will need a high level of support wherever he is placed.

Desired RRPB response: A plan for him to gain appropriate accommodation, preferably away from his offending peers

Education, Training, Employment Needs/difficulties: Brandon left school officially last summer, and has failed to maintain any educational placement since then for more than a few weeks. His school career was problematic, and it is fair to say that he has not properly attended school since the start of Year 10. He is interested in gardening, and sometimes does work for neighbours, for which he is paid pocket money (however, this is also potentially an offending risk, given his recent offence). Brandon has tried several different ‘taster’ courses in college, but not really engaged well with any. He has difficulties with literacy and numeracy.

Desired RRPB response: ETE provision and/or work placement

Health Needs/difficulties: Brandon is physically fit, but has reported some feelings of paranoia, which could be linked to his substance misuse.

Desired RRPB response: None currently needed

Substance Misuse Needs/difficulties: Brandon is a copious user of cannabis, which might have started to give him feelings of paranoia. He has been seeing the YOT substance misuse worker throughout his order, but his attendance is not good (he has already been taken back to court once for breach). He will engage when he attends, but does not currently think there is any problem with his drug use.

Desired RRPB response: None currently needed

Family Needs/difficulties: Brandon is the oldest of three children, who live with their mother. Brandon and his mum recently fell out over his substance use, with some suggestion that she thought he was stealing from the home to fund his habit. The result of this was that she threw him out; he has been staying with friends ever since. She has expressed frustration over his behaviour, but says that she wants to support him – she just is not sure how, without putting her other children at risk

Desired RRPB response: Anything which can be offered by way of mediation/parenting support for mum

Finance, Benefits, and Debt

Needs/difficulties: It is currently unclear how Brandon is funding his cannabis use, as he has not fixed abode and no income. He occasionally asks his mum for money, which she still gives him. There are rumours that he owes money for drugs, but this is currently unclear

Desired RRPB response: Information/advice on what Brandon could claim in terms of benefits

Case Management and Transitions Needs/difficulties: Brandon is not yet nearing adulthood, so will stay with the YOT for his YRO. Case and risk management is being overseen through internal YOT processes.

Desired RRPB response: None currently needed

Example RRPB meeting discussion: Accommodation - Arrangements were made by the Children’s Services and Housing managers that the relevant workers would arrange to meet Brandon at his next YOT appointment, so they could conduct their joint assessment. ETE – A third sector agency suggested that Brandon join their current project working in local parks on work experience; they could offer him two days a week. A short Duke of Edinburgh Award course based on horticulture was suggested, and the contact details given to the case manager. Family – a third sector family mediation agency offered to meet mum at home to talk about their service with her. The local authority is planning a parenting course in the community, based in a local school to which mum could be referred. The afternoon sessions are aimed at parents of teenagers.

Finance, Benefits, and Debt – the Housing manager present informed the RRPB that Brandon would not be eligible for any benefits unless he was given Looked After Child status, and accommodated accordingly. However, if he engaged with ETE, he would then be able to claim Education Support Allowance. Suggested that this was discussed with Brandon by his case manager, which might encourage him to engage better.

Appendix 5: Case study 2

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – DO NOT SHARE

XXX REINTEGRATION AND RESETTLEMENT PARTNERSHIP BOARD CASE INFORMATION FORM

Meeting date: 25th March

Name Carys Jones Date of birth 14/8/98 Age 17

Address 46 Any Street, Anytown. LL86 8YP

Area Any County Case manager Richard Burton

Current Order(s)

Length

Dates

Offence(s)

Youth Conditional Caution (YCC)

3 months

14/2/16 to 13/5/16

Assault

ASSET score

ROSH

MAPPA

Vulnerability

28

Low

N/a

High

Overview

Carys has not had much YOT involvement in the past (she received a Final Warning 3 years ago, also for assault), but has now received a YCC, giving her an intervention of 3 months. Carys lives at home with her mum, but there are concerns that she has been able to ‘do her own thing’ for several years, and that mum has issues with alcohol, which may have affected her effectiveness. Serious concerns have been flagged by by the police that she is spending time with people known to pose a danger to children, and they are worried that she is being sexually exploited (although she refuses to talk about it). This conviction was the result of a fight she had with a neighbour when she was drunk. She is highly vulnerable, has less than two months’ intervention, and is reaching the age of 18 soon, so there are concerns that she will lose potential avenues of support at that point.

Thematic summary of issues

Accommodation Needs/difficulties: Carys lives with her mum, and although there are concerns over the level of supervision which have been exercised with Carys while she has been growing up, it appears to be stable with no issues. Carys received this conviction for fighting with a neighbour, but they have since talked, and there appear to be no ongoing issues. Desired RRPB response: None currently needed

Education, Training, Employment Needs/difficulties: Carys is not currently accessing any ETE provision, although she did start a Hair and Beauty course after leaving school. This lasted nearly a year, but she was eventually asked to leave the course because her attendance was so poor. She states that she enjoyed it, but does not want to go back into that field. She enjoys spending time with animals. However, Carys is currently spending her time with older people who present a risk to her, and might well be subjecting her to sexual exploitation (this may be what precipitated her poor college attendance. She appears either unable or unwilling to acknowledge the risk they present.

Desired RRPB response: ETE suggestions

Health Needs/difficulties: Carys appears healthy, but will not talk to anyone about her feelings. Her case worker has tried to talk to her about her sexual health, but so far Carys has not accessed any of the support available. There are concerns that she might be pregnant (rumours), but this has not been substantiated. Her drinking is also potentially causing risk to her health, and putting her at risk of incidents of alcoholic poisoning.

Desired RRPB response: Support with engagement with sexual health services

Substance Misuse Needs/difficulties: Carys has not been known to use substances apart from alcohol. However, she is more likely to fight when drunk, which has resulted in two disposals so far. It is of concern that she appears regularly to drink vodka, and has admitted that this might amount to as much as a half-bottle at a time. This is also of concern given the people she is spending her time with, who might be encouraging her drinking.

Desired RRPB response: An agency to help Carys look at her drinking (and into adulthood)

Family Needs/difficulties: Carys lives with her mum, and although there are concerns over the level of supervision which have been exercised with Carys while she has been growing up, they appear to have a loving relationship. Mum has previously received support from the Addiction Unit over her alcohol use, but this appears to be historic, following a referral was made by a neighbour to Children’s Services for Carys. Carys appears to be able to come and go as she pleases, with mum unaware of where she is when she is out, or when she is likely to return.

Desired RRPB response: Support for mum

Finance, Benefits, and Debt

Needs/difficulties: Carys is currently supported by her mum, as she lives at home. She is not eligible for benefits as she is not accessing any ETE.

Desired RRPB response: Nothing currently needed

Case Management and Transitions Needs/difficulties: Carys will soon be 18, which may cause difficulties in accessing some services. She needs ongoing support, which is more long term than the YOT can provide on a YCC, in which she can build trust with a professional. There are also ongoing concerns about her safety, given the older adults with whom she is spending her time

Desired RRPB response: Offers of support from agencies which can continue beyond the age of 18. Actions to improve Carys’ safety and reduce the chances that she is being/will be sexually expoited.

Example RRPB meeting discussion: ETE – a voluntary agency which coordinates work placements promised to look at getting her a place at the local animal sanctuary, which they could also use towards an Agored Award into Animal Care. She could then progress to the local Further Education College to complete a more advanced award, which could potentially allow her to access training as a veterinary nurse. Substance misuse – the adult substance misuse agency attending the RRP offered to come and meet Carys at one of her YOT appointments, with a view to engaging her in their alcohol programme. Health – the Youth Service has links with the local sexual health clinic, which runs some sessions at one of their premises. They offered to link in with her, with a view to persuading her to attend the clinic for chlamydia and pregnancy testing. They also offer sexual health awareness sessions which she could also access at the same venue. The youth worker for her area will liaise with the YOT worker regarding setting up a joint meeting. Family – The YOT worker will make a referral to the Integrated Family Support Service to see whether they can support mum. If the referral is not deemed appropriate, the YOT worker will make contact with the Addiction Unit to see whether a joint home visit can be made.

Case Management and Transitions – The Youth Service can work with young people until they are 25, so if she will engage with a youth worker on a one-to-one basis, she will have personalised support, but also access to the other provision, mentioned earlier. The police will issue a Harbouring Warning to the adults who have been cited as residing at the properties at which Carys frequents to see if this deters contact.

Appendix 6: Action sheet

XXX REINTEGRATION AND RESETTLEMENT PARTNERSHIP BOARD ACTION SHEET

These notes are confidential and are for the use of the Reintegration and Resettlement Partnership Board only. Please ensure they are stored securely or destroyed.

DATE:

Attendance: Apologies:

Other agenda items

Case Discussions

Name of Young Person

New case or review?

Discussion Points Actions By Whom By When

Case Discussions

Name of Young Person

New case or review?

Discussion Points Actions By Whom By When

Any Other Business Actions By Whom By When

Date/Venue of next meetings: