Resettlement provision for children and young ... - Ministry of Justice

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4.24 Although these meetings are to discuss plans for release, case supervisors said plans were not always finalised by the time of the reviews and YOT case managers would attend still not having confirmed accommodation or ETE placements. Post-release involvement 4.25 Our training plan thematic 37 reported that the attendance of establishment staff at young people’s first reviews in the community after release were usually prioritised according to risk, although at some establishments staff needed to attend more first reviews. Half of the fieldwork site establishments reported that case supervisors did not provide any post-release support for young people, and at two of these that case supervisors used to attend post-release training planning reviews in the community but no longer did so. At one establishment we were told case supervisors attended post-release training planning meetings where it was felt there was a need or it would have the most impact. Example of good practice Heron unit, HMYOI Feltham Each young person was allocated a resettlement broker and personal officer and a needs-led resettlement plan was developed. Resettlement brokers and personal officers ensured that reintegration arrangements were assured prior to release and brokers offered intensive support to young people for at least six months after they had returned to the community. Some personal officers also remained in contact with young people during the community phase of their sentence. Involvement in training planning Our expectations: The training plan should be the product of collaboration between all those involved in ensuring the young person’s wellbeing in custody and plans for their release. Review meetings should include the young person, their parents or carers, where appropriate, all relevant internal staff (for example, case supervisors, education staff and personal officers) and external staff (such as YOT case managers, and, where applicable, social workers). There should be open communication between all those involved, including the young person. Our findings: Young people and case supervisors in our sample had attended all training planning meetings. Case supervisor’s knowledge of young people in their caseload varied. Attendance by YOT case managers at training planning meetings was good and, overall, establishments reported positive working relationships with YOTs. Less than two-thirds of young men said they knew how to contact their YOT case manager. Specialist YOT workers and IRS workers had attended meetings for some of the young men in our case sample. Attendance at meetings by family/carers was estimated to be around 40–50%. Attendance of social workers, where applicable, was poor and some looked after children reported no contact with them since entering custody. Within several establishments, input from education and personal officers was 34
inadequate. Other specialists who had attended meetings for some of our case sample included resettlement brokers and Connexions. 4.26 Young people in our case sample had attended each of their training planning meetings. The attendance and involvement of other relevant internal and external staff was more varied. Apart from our sample of cases, we were not able to ascertain the overall attendance at training planning meetings of relevant people as the majority of establishments did not collect this information. The only figure consistently collected was attendance by external YOT case managers. Case supervisors 4.27 All fieldwork sites had teams of dedicated case supervisors or offender supervisors whose task was to oversee individual young people’s training and resettlement plans. They were the main link with external YOTs and other external providers and were responsible for arranging training planning reviews and coordinating the setting and delivery of young people’s targets. There were significant inconsistencies in how case supervisors were managed and supervised internally, particularly in teams which consisted partly of seconded YOT staff and partly of prison service staff. These groups were often managed separately by their own organisations, making consistent and agreed good practice difficult to achieve. These issues may help to explain the variance in practice we observed across establishments and case supervisors. 4.28 Case supervisors attended all training planning meetings, but outside of these meetings engagement with young people varied by establishment and supervisor. Several supervisors had very good knowledge of the young people and their resettlement needs and saw them regularly. In some cases young people saw case supervisors on a daily basis, but this was only when they were vulnerable or had a behavioural problem or where case supervisors saw young people around the prison. For example, case supervisors said: ‘I see him during training planning review meetings. I also see him around the prison and if he had issues I would meet with him but he is well behaved.’ ‘I have seen him every other day as he has struggled in custody and been bullied.’ 4.29 There were some worrying examples where case supervisors knew little about the young person and had had minimal contact with them. At one establishment this was said to be due to staff shortages. This was particularly true where case supervisors had changed throughout a young person’s sentence. At one establishment case supervisors had less contact with the young people on that unit; resettlement brokers had effectively taken over the role of liaison between the young person and the YOTs. Although case supervisors were less engaged, young people were receiving a good service from their resettlement broker. 4.30 Working practices vary across the 157 YOTs and by establishment. Despite this, all heads of resettlement reported that they had developed good links with YOTs, usually through their casework teams working closely with YOT case managers on individual cases. However there were no joint protocols specifically addressing how different establishments and their group of core YOTs could work most effectively together. 35
Page 1: Thematic report by HM Inspectorate
Page 4 and 5: Crown copyright 2011 ISBN: 978-1-84
Page 6 and 7: Acknowledgements Samantha Booth Sen
Page 8 and 9: Individual learning plan (ILP) Each
Page 11 and 12: Introduction Resettlement is one of
Page 13: offender institutions involved were
Page 16 and 17: status and staff raised concerns ab
Page 18 and 19: 1.18 Case supervisors relied on YOT
Page 20 and 21: 1.30 In the 41 questionnaires retur
Page 23 and 24: 2. Background to the report Childre
Page 25 and 26: 2.11 HMIP expects that children and
Page 27 and 28: 3. Scope of this report 3.1 This re
Page 29 and 30: 4. Management of resettlement provi
Page 31 and 32: 4.6 Heads of resettlement and case
Page 33 and 34: supported by inspection findings an
Page 35: issues were not always a focus for
Page 39 and 40: However, there was also a worrying
Page 41 and 42: education staff were not attending
Page 43 and 44: 5. Accommodation Our expectations:
Page 45 and 46: ‘It's been suggested in meetings
Page 47 and 48: Case study 6 In one young person’
Page 49 and 50: ‘Someone else may have taken my p
Page 51 and 52: 5.29 No establishments kept figures
Page 53 and 54: 6. Education, training and employme
Page 55 and 56: of activity but only two thirds or
Page 57 and 58: ‘IT. I have a really good teacher
Page 59 and 60: 6.24 Forty-three young people (70%)
Page 61: experience placements which listed
Page 64 and 65: ROTL opportunities 7.3 The greatest
Page 66 and 67: working outside the establishment f
Page 69 and 70: 8. Follow-up findings Our expectati
Page 71 and 72: 8.7 Three young people were release
Page 73 and 74: awaiting a start date Ten young men
Page 75 and 76: could not be arranged until his acc
Page 77 and 78: Appendix I Methodology Fieldwork Fi
Page 79 and 80: Establishment Date of survey Ashfie
Page 81 and 82: Parc - mixed site Parc is the only
Page 83 and 84: Eligible or relevant children Looke
Page 85 and 86: Number of completed questionnaires
Page 87 and 88:
Appendix V Interview template for c
Page 89 and 90:
If yes or due to: E. Do you think t
Page 91 and 92:
T. Have any outside agencies come i
Page 93 and 94:
D. Do you try to achieve your targe
Page 95 and 96:
E. Do you think that the arrangemen
Page 97 and 98:
FOR LOOKED AFTER CHILDREN Q. How of
Page 99 and 100:
Early information, initial assessme
Page 101 and 102:
Accommodation: 1. Was the issue of
Page 103 and 104:
7. If no to question 6, what arrang
Page 105 and 106:
Arrangements for ROTL Has X been fo
Page 107 and 108:
2. Are there any particular problem
Page 109 and 110:
5. Was the accommodation the same a
Page 111 and 112:
Education, training and employment
Page 113 and 114:
4. How effective is liaison with YO
Page 115 and 116:
Appendix VIII Interview template fo
show all

Resettlement provision for children and young ... - Ministry of Justice

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?