Agenda item

The purpose of this report is to present the Medway Youth Justice Plan 2026-2029, Appendix 1, for consideration and approval. The Plan sets out strategic direction for youth justice services in Medway over the period 2026-2029 and fulfils the Council's statutory duty under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to prepare and publish a Youth Justice Plan. The Plan has been developed by the Youth Justice Partnership Board and its statutory partners, including Children's Services, Kent Police, Health, Education and Probation.

The Plan has been developed jointly with statutory and partnership agencies and responds directly to the findings of the HM Inspectorate of Probation inspection undertaken in May 2026. It outlines Medway's commitment to a Child First approach, reducing offending and reoffending, supporting victims, tackling disproportionality and strengthening the partnership response to risk and vulnerability.

Estimated time: 30 Minutes.

Discussion:

The Committee received the annual report and was informed that  the service was given the option to provide a one, two or three year plan and it was decided to produce and submit a three year plan as a result of Local Government Reorganisation,  which had now subsequently been paused.

This plan provided an opportunity of self-evaluation on progress of the service and trajectory of travel.

Medway Youth Justice  Plan 2026-2029 prioritised four areas of focus over three years which included prevention of offending and re offending,  victim support and safety, violence and harm, and fairness, equality and inclusion.

Members raised several comments and questions which included:

Improving experience of  young people - it was commented that 80% of young people felt listened to and asked what was being done to improve experiences of the 1 in 5 young people that were not in that 80%. The Committee was informed that the main priority demonstrated throughout the plan was on how to improve engagement with parents and young people to ensure their voice would be heard. There would be a focus on gathering of feedback in order to develop a systemic response to address concerns and improve experience.

Multi agency protocol- it was noted that the plan called for a multiagency protocol to addressing serious violence and equipping young people to be active bystanders and it was asked how widely the protocol would be implemented as it was important that it was not limited to the cohort that had contact with the youth justice system. The Committee was informed that the service would not be limiting intervention to young people referred to the service and there would be wider work undertaken on prevention. A white paper had been launched on tackling knife crime, and the plan reinforced the  compulsory requirement by local authorities to tackle the issue. Issues needed to be addressed on a collective partnership basis as the service could not solely tackle issues presented with serious violence.

Consistency in workforce- it was asked what was being done to ensure consistency in case workers and also push for diagnosis for neurodivergent young people in custody as it was vital to ensure consistency of case workers for that cohort to enable them to build relationships and gain understanding of why reoffending kept occurring. The Committee was informed that over the last 12 months in Medway, there had been little change in workforce and caseloads had been manageable. This had enabled case workers to actively reach out, support and work through individualised plans for those in youth custody. The youth justice service worked closely with children’s services to ensure a good offer of support for young people and that they were jointly supported by the youth justice service and other teams across the children’s directorate.

The service was ambitious, continued to look for gaps in its service and had recently developed an App to support practitioners due to the identified shortage in speech and language support. There was a CAMHS worker in the service, an education worker has been recruited, and the partnership with the Therapeutic Alliance had been strengthened. The Strategic Head of Education – Quality and Inclusion added that the partnership between Education, SEND and the Youth Justice Service had been strengthened, with work being undertaken by the inclusion team on identification and preventative measures for the cohort that may be at risk of entering the youth justice system.

Support for victims- it was asked how the balance was being struck to support victims as well as perpetrators of crime. The Committee was informed that the profile of support for victims had been raised by the Youth Justice Board and services were being heavily scrutinised on support provision for victims. There was a reliance on partners for their specialist support as victims were not always young people, and there was a need for further development of restorative justice and increased visibility of the offer of support. A victim liaison officer had been recruited to ensure that the offer of support was more tangible. Encouragingly, the police were now providing more information on victims when previously the information received had been very limited.

Assurance was sought that victims needs would be a priority for the service and the Committee was informed that with the changes of the ability for victims to opt out of whether their details be shared with the service, this  allowed the service to be able to work with business intelligence colleagues to gather data that would enable  the service to understand the needs of victims and respond appropriately.

Partnership working – it was commented that whilst there was confidence in  the youth  service to address gaps and achieve improvements, this could be severely impacted by other partnership agencies who needed to prioritise the needs of Medway residents. It was asked what confidence there was of partner agencies adequately discharging their duties as required as part of this plan. The Committee was informed that a sub group was being developed to track progress and outcomes. It was acknowledged that there would be challenges and it had been made clear to all partners that this was not a youth justice service plan, but a multiagency plan and all partners would be accountable for realising outcomes.

It was commented that there was a lack of a Diversity Impact Assessment  and that this should have been undertaken, in particular due to the issues of significant proportionality of some groups identified in the plan.

Decision:

The Committee:

a)     Noted the Medway Youth Justice Plan 2026 – 2029.

b)     Recommended Full Council to approve the Medway Youth Justice Plan 2026 – 2029.

c)     Recommended that the service reconsider completion of a DIA assessment alongside this plan.

d)     Agreed that details of support provision for victims and victim profile be included in an update on progress of the plan next year.