Agenda item

Guide time: 2.00 – 2.45pm

RESOLVED that:

a)     The Panel requests to be provided with confirmation of the number of families supported by the Early Intervention Family Support Team in 2021/22 compared to 2020/21.

b)     The Panel congratulates the Early Intervention Family Support Team on its work so far.

The PFCC introduced the report, highlighting the following points:

·         Early intervention (EI) was a priority area and a focus for work by the OPFCC.

·         The dedicated Early Intervention Family Support (EIFS) Team established in 2019 provided specialist support in Northamptonshire.

·         The value of EI activity was undeniable as it prevented young people from entering the criminal justice system and helped them to lead more fulfilling lives.

The Director for Early Intervention advised that the EIFS Team focussed on interventions at a tier 2 targeted services level, working with people before they reached the threshold for statutory services. It had three main focus areas: general family support; young people involved in knife crime and gang-related activity; and families referred for support as a result of domestic abuse incidents.

The PFCC then introduced members of the EIFS Team who commented on their roles and gave examples of the types of support provided to young people.

Augusta Ryan outlined the case of a young person referred to the EIFS Team as they were at risk of becoming involved in knife crime and had been excluded from school and alternative provision. Dealing with the Team rather than a police officer had helped the young person to engage with available support. They had subsequently received individual mentoring, family support and support for anger management. A new education setting for the young person had been identified and they had been able to access training opportunities in a field that interested them. This had prevented a real risk of them becoming involved in serious violence.   

Lauren Adams outlined the case of a young person referred to the EIFS Team by their school safeguarding lead after taking an overdose, who had mental health issues, was demonstrating risky behaviour and was missing school. Work by the Team had identified that the young person would benefit from support about protective behaviours and personal safety. This had helped the young person to stop self-harming, to attend school and to build better relationships with their parent and peers.

Gemma Childs outlined the case of a family affected by domestic violence, debt and housing issues, with children who also needed support for additional needs and school attendance. The EIFS Team had helped to improve co-ordination between different professionals involved in the case. The mother’s wellbeing had been improved by getting their partner to leave the home; fire safety issues in their home had been addressed; they had been given support on healthy relationships; and support from Community Law on debt. This was an example of work by the Team with a family who might not otherwise had received intervention.  

The Panel considered the report. The EIFS Team members present provided additional information in response to points raised by Panel members during the course of discussion as follows:

·         There were pressures on the capacity of local services: for example, longer waiting times for referrals to Child & Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) were a reflection of staff numbers.

·         Schools were responsible for educational psychology. It was useful to have an in-house service available as had been the case in the past in Northamptonshire. However, local schools were still in a position to be able to offer this service to young people when needed.

·         Family support referrals could be made directly to the EIFS Team by anyone, including self-referrals. This approach had been introduced one month ago: previously, referrals had come via a local authority. Referrals connected with domestic abuse tended to come from PPNs.

·         Schools could make referrals to the EIFS Team. The Team had been contacted by Northampton International Academy (NIA) regarding particular issues affecting the school. The Team was responding to family support referrals and NIA had also been offered support by the OPFCC’s Targeted Youth Team. The neighbourhood police team was working on local anti-social behaviour issues.

·         The EIFS Team had created a ‘non-engagement’ pathway for working with young people who would not engage with the police in connection with anti-social behaviour.

·         EI work was intended to provide support to young people before they reached the point of coming into contact with magistrates courts. 

·         Some schools operated a zero tolerance policy regarding young people found to have a knife or drugs at school. Work was being in Northamptonshire to enable a more nuanced approach to be taken in conjunction with the provision of additional support for young people concerned.  

The Director for Early Intervention made the following additional points during the course of discussion:

·         The OPFCC was continually looking to expand the EIFS Team and it was already three times larger than when it had been established.

·         Safeguarding young people was a collective responsibility not one that sat with a single agency. The approach taken in Northamptonshire should reflect this. There were opportunities to address structural issues to make better use of overall resources, for example by improving the link between children’s and adult social care services.

·         Information-sharing between partners was another key area for attention. Organisations should not let information-sharing agreements become counterproductive, as there was a very low risk of action being taken in cases when sharing information produced a positive outcome. The Integrated Care System model might provide further opportunities to improve information-sharing and the use of common systems.

·         As much as possible should be done to prevent young people entering the criminal justice system for the first time. There was scope to consider what further action might usefully be taken in Northamptonshire. An example of this was a potential piece of work on how young people were affected by legal advice to give ‘no comment’ answers when interviewed by the police. This approach could require a case to go to court and reduce the opportunity to provide a young person with other types of support. 

·         Expectations about the level of support that schools could provide to young people needed to be realistic. Schools were only one of the agencies involved in safeguarding young people.

Panel members made the following points during the course of discussion:

·         The work of the EIFS Team was generally commended.

·         It was questioned how many families had been helped by the EIFS Team in the current year compared to the previous one. This information was needed to judge its success.

·         Cases coming to the magistrates courts provided examples of young people who could have been diverted from crime by prevention activity. 

·         Effective prevention saved money by reducing demand on higher level services. Northamptonshire needed to rise to this challenge.

·         The introduction of direct referrals was welcome. Ease of access was very important for services at the tier 2 level.

·         The focus on the whole family within the work of the EIFS Team was positive.

·         People working in frontline roles were well-placed to spot signs of danger.
They needed to be supported to act on these and to have access to good information about relevant services available. 

The PFCC made the following points:

·         Everyone who got involved in public service did so to make a difference. The EI work being done in Northamptonshire had helped a large number of families.

·         It was important that the EIFS Team employed the right people and future growth would be at a pace to support this.

·         Partner organisations involved in EI work needed to take a sensible approach to data sharing. He encouraged councillor members of the Panel to take this point back to their respective local authorities.

·         He agreed that there was a significant opportunity for local organisations to work together on EI to produce good outcomes. The OPFCC put a lot of effort into trying to demonstrate the benefit of EI work, which was difficult as the effect of not taking action could not be demonstrated. However, as PFCC he believed in the value of EI work.  

RESOLVED that:

a)     The Panel requests to be provided with confirmation of the number of families supported by the Early Intervention Family Support Team in 2021/22 compared to 2020/21.

b)     The Panel congratulates the Early Intervention Family Support Team on its work so far.