A Report on the Inspection of the Care - Regulation and Quality ...

about the level of integrated intervention between the services did not deflect
the majority of these young people on their journey to secure accommodation
or the Juvenile Justice Centre.
There were some notable exceptions, and in these cases, success was
achieved through meaningful engagement by professionals who were
accessible, flexible and innovative in their approach and responses to the
young people. This was particularly noted as being of value during times of
crisis. The introduction by some trusts of the specialist multidisciplinary teams
to engage with young people in residential care is a positive progression in
this regard. However, there is scope to consider how the required quality and
intensity of support can be more innovatively and uniformly developed to this
group of young people on a regional basis.
The final area of practice identified through this inspection was in relation to
the operation and effectiveness of the restriction of liberty panels regionally.
The restriction of liberty panels are the decision making body which
determined which young people were put forward for secure care. As
discussed earlier in this report there are inequities in how they are constituted
and in their operational practice. One of the functions of these panels is to
ensure that all alternative care and support options have been exhausted prior
to the consideration of secure accommodation. As referenced throughout this
report this breadth of enquiry was found to be not a thorough as it could be in
all pathways. Within this context the lack of the voice of the young person
and/or advocate was also an area to be addressed.
The consequence of not getting a place in secure care was considerable for
this group of young people. The alternative contingency planning did not
provide the robust form of intervention required. Three out of five young
people who did not get a place in secure care went into the Juvenile Justice
Centre shortly afterwards. The implications inherent in this scenario could
imply that the trust, as corporate parent, should have done more to adhere to
the principle of detention as a measure of last resort and prevented the young
people's pathways from entering a criminal justice regime.
Given that the 10 young peoples' cases involved in this inspection were
selected from each of the five HSC trust areas, the trusts should consider the
findings of this report and consider how, as corporate parent, they can further
act in the best interests of these and other young people in their care.
46