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

unclear what support, including financial, was in place to address the suitability and stability of this
arrangement.
Case study 4
One young person (aged 16) had been living with his father and four brothers prior to custody. His
father and three of his brothers had been in custody previously and one of them was currently in the
establishment with him. His mother had left the family a few years before and ceased contact with all
except the youngest brother. This circumstance was thought to have triggered his offending behaviour.
The young person was returning to live with his father, which was his preference. His father had
maintained contact – he had been to visit and had attended training planning meetings. The address the
young person would be returning to was not yet confirmed as his father was in the process of being
evicted from his current address. Again it was unclear if anything was being done to make this a
suitable and stable place for the young person to live.
Case study 5
One young person (aged 16) was returning to live with his mother and cousin. However, his mother
lived in a two bedroom house and this meant that he would have to share a room with his female
cousin. There were also financial and location issues: his mother was in rent arrears and he had gang
problems in the area to which he was returning. Although his mother was beginning to sort out her
financial difficulties, the case supervisor had explained to the young person that they might have to
involve social services at his next review regarding his accommodation on release.
5.11 While the young person is in custody it is important that work is undertaken with them and their
family members to ensure that accommodation plans do not fall through, and to address any
potential issues required to improve the likelihood of their successful resettlement. There was
evidence at all establishments of young people being encouraged to maintain contact with
and/or improve relationships with their family and this was often a target in training plans. Of
the 37 young people returning to live with family, 21 had family members who had attended at
least one training planning meeting so that they were involved with the planning for the young
person’s time in custody and release.
5.12 Some YOTs and establishments had family intervention or liaison officers who provided
support to families. This included working to address difficult relationships, often caused by the
young person’s behaviour and offending, or to build relationships where a young person was
moving in with a family member with whom they had not previously lived. In our sample, family
liaison or support workers had attended training planning meetings for only four of the young
people. Case supervisors were, on occasion, also trying themselves to rebuild links between
young people and their families. For example, some case supervisors explained that where
relationships between a young person and his family were strained, they would encourage
regular contact between them. They would also contact the family regularly to keep them
involved in the young person’s care and/or to encourage family members to attend training
planning meetings. However, in several cases the quality of work to maintain or enhance
family relationships while young people were in custody could have been improved.
44