The Scrutiny Children & Young People Sub-Committee reviewed the Youth Justice Plan 2026-27, noting progress in reducing re-offending rates and addressing disproportionality, and received an update on the Family Hubs Transformation Programme and Best Start in Life Strategy, highlighting positive engagement and improvements in children's development. The committee also considered the progression to Phase 2 of the CYPE Strategic Delivery Partner contract with Newton, which aims to implement service redesigns for better outcomes and financial sustainability.

Youth Justice Plan 2026-27

The committee discussed the Youth Justice Plan 2026-27, which outlines Croydon's strategy for preventing and reducing offending rates among children aged 10-18. Councillor Ola Kolade, Cabinet Member for Communities, Safety & Justice, introduced the plan, highlighting successes such as re-offending rates being lower than the London and national averages. Emma Carter, Service Manager of the local Youth Justice Service, elaborated on the plan's focus on early intervention and diversion, noting that the service worked with 269 children in the previous year and continued to see reductions in re-offending.

A significant portion of the discussion focused on the over-representation of Black and mixed-heritage boys, as well as care-experienced children, within the youth justice system. Councillor Kolade acknowledged this as a deep-rooted systemic issue that predates children entering the youth justice system, with disadvantages seen in the education system and during stop and search interactions. A disproportionality action plan has been developed, and a subgroup of the Youth Justice Crime Board is dedicated to addressing this.

Questions were raised about the proposed prevention and diversion panel, its membership, frequency, and how it would complement existing services like MASH (Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub) without duplication. Emma Carter explained that the panel would involve Youth Justice, MASH, the police, early help, and health services, and was likely to meet weekly.

Concerns were also raised about the increase in stop and searches of children, with statistics showing a 36% rise. Councillor Rym Daoud questioned the lack of figures by ethnicity, age, and outcome in the plan, asking how disproportionality in stop and search would be addressed. Stuart Collins, Corporate Director for Children, Young People and Education, stated that while the data was held by the police, discussions were ongoing to challenge any disproportionality. Emma Carter added that while stop and search had increased, the rate of no further action had remained consistent, which she viewed positively. She also noted that the police were working on a stop and search charter and had engaged with young people to improve encounters.

The committee also discussed the re-offending rates, with Councillor Catherine Wilson questioning the lack of stability in these figures. Emma Carter explained that re-offending rates are measured centrally by the Youth Justice Board (YJB) and involve a sustained period, making current snapshots difficult. She attributed peaks and troughs to multiple factors, including COVID-19 and summer holidays, but reiterated that Croydon consistently remained below the regional average.

Regarding Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG), Councillor Angie Price expressed disappointment that progress seemed limited to representation and participation, asking about tangible work to protect young girls on the streets. Councillor Kolade responded that this was linked to the broader community safety strategy and that initiatives like the Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls Delivery Plan were in place. He highlighted outreach work by Anima Youth and a Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls conference. He also noted a 20% reduction in VAWG offences in the town centre, partly attributed to facial recognition technology.

The reduction in the use of custody was also discussed, with Councillor Mark Johnson asking how serious and persistent young offenders would receive adequate sentences for public protection. Emma Carter explained that the service worked creatively to ensure sentences had conditions attached to manage risk in the community, and that custody was used only when harm could not be managed otherwise. She noted a significant reduction in children on remand, with only two children currently on remand. The committee also explored the role of restorative justice in diversionary decisions, with Emma Carter highlighting the dedicated restorative justice team and practitioners who ensure victims' voices are heard.

The Turnaround Project, an early intervention programme, was discussed in detail by Councillor Andrew Price, who noted its success in diverting children from court sentences. Questions were raised about funding and expansion, with confirmation that the Ministry of Justice currently funds the project until April 2030, with a three-year settlement providing stability.

Councillor Natalie Vesty raised concerns about the criminalisation of children in care, noting that 27% of the cohort were looked after children. Councillor Stranack acknowledged this as a vulnerable group and stated that work was ongoing to ensure they received the best support. He admitted there were real challenges and definitely an area for improvement for transparency.

The funding for speech and language therapists and physical health nurses, which is currently from non-recurrent income, was questioned by Councillor Wilson. It was explained that this funding comes from public health and that while it is a risk, these posts are seen as valuable for reaching hard-to-reach children. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 places a statutory responsibility on health colleagues to contribute to youth justice services.

Concerns about knife crime reforms and capacity were raised by Councillor Wilson, particularly regarding meeting the four-week rule for working with children with weapon-related offences with one fewer manager. It was confirmed that the notification system was working and that plans were being met for children out of court disposals. The reduction in resource for one post was explained as a shift in system priorities, with youth engagement now largely delivered by the voluntary community sector. Councillor Kolade noted that the SN policing arrangement, covering Sutton, Croydon, and Bromley, had the second-lowest knife crime rates in London.

The issue of long waiting lists for Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) was raised by Elaine Jones. It was explained that CAMHS sits within NHS England and Public Health, and while Croydon Youth Justice Service could access alternative counselling services, the main struggle was with neurodivergent assessments.

Nicole Williams asked about the involvement of schools in supporting young people, particularly regarding the over-representation of Black boys. It was explained that the Youth Justice Service works closely with local providers like Saffron Valley and pupil referral units, and that an education lead in the team sits on panels with schools.

Councillor Vesty also raised the issue of serious youth violence, noting that robbery was the most common offence type linked to poverty. The committee discussed the role of the voluntary community sector in providing opportunities and improving financial health for young people.

Family Hubs Transformation & Best Start in Life

Councillor Andy Stranack, Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Education, introduced the update on the Family Hubs Transformation Programme and Best Start in Life Strategy. He highlighted encouraging progress, with Family Hubs becoming embedded in communities and a significant increase in children achieving a Good Level of Development (GLD). Provisional results showed an increase from 70.4% to 74.1%, with particular improvements for children with SEND (Special Educational Needs and Disabilities) and disadvantaged children.

Councillor Ellie Sandover questioned the sustainability of these improvements and actions being taken to close the gap to the 78.3% GLD target by 2028. Katy Sparrow-Robins, Family Hubs Transformation Senior Programme Manager, expressed confidence due to the three big shifts in the strategy: partnership approach, programmatic delivery, and working with parents.

The role of Family Hub Navigators was discussed, with questions about the number of families each navigator supports and whether staffing was sufficient. Sparrow-Robins explained that navigators do not case-hold, as each family's needs are unique. She noted that there were now six navigators, funded by the DfE, and that the model was being learned and refined. Early indications suggested the navigators were effective in preventing escalation into social care.

The committee explored how families find out about Family Hubs, with responses including close working relationships with public health nursing, midwife bookings, birth registrations, word-of-mouth, and promotion across the borough via WhatsApp, Instagram, and Facebook.

The Best Start in Life programme, which covers ages zero to five, was explained as building on the previous Start for Life programme (zero to two). It includes perinatal mental health, infant feeding, and antenatal support, with a strong link to public health nursing.

Councillor Johnson raised concerns about the lack of specific Family Hub targets in the Mayor's Business Plan and asked if local targets would be set and reported to the committee. Councillor Stranack explained that the aim was for hubs to embed in their communities in ways that worked locally, avoiding a one size fits all approach. Officers agreed to explore sub-metrics that could be measured and reported.

Councillor Rym Daoud highlighted that 106 out of 292 referrals to Family Hubs were related to cost of living issues, indicating broader financial hardship. The committee asked what the council could do beyond signposting. It was noted that partnerships with organisations like the South West London Law Centre had helped nearly 400 families in one quarter, securing over £200,000 in financial gains. A story was shared about a teenager who raised money to create food packs for families.

Councillor Johnson also asked about plans to maintain essential services after government funding ends in March 2029. It was suggested that many essential services are universally beneficial and would likely continue to want to be part of the Family Hubs model, which is expected to become business as usual as the new front door for families accessing children's services.

Councillor Price inquired about the balance of funding across various sites and how staff deployment was decided. It was explained that funding was not allocated by locality but as a whole borough model, utilising existing buildings. Staff deployment was flexible and responsive to demand, with sessions being re-planned based on uptake.

Councillor Wilson asked about the recruitment of six inclusion posts for children with SEND, which were expected by the end of the year. It was clarified that while these posts were pending, families with SEND were already being supported through existing services and navigator referrals.

The committee discussed the need for more reporting on milestones, growth, performance measures, and assurances about continuity, as well as the inclusion of case study stories to illustrate the richness of the work. A recommendation was made to consider prioritising a Family Hub in the north of the borough, based on data from the Youth Justice Plan.

CYPE Strategic Delivery Partner Phase 2

The committee considered the Cabinet report on proceeding to Phase 2 of the Strategic Delivery Partner contract with Newton. Councillor Andy Stranack, Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Education, introduced the item, highlighting that Phase 1 had provided a detailed diagnostic review and identified opportunities for earlier intervention, potentially preventing a quarter of entries into care. The proposed Phase 2 aims to translate these findings into practical changes across various services.

Newton's credibility was questioned by Councillor Sandover, who asked for evidence of value for money and clarification on the 100% of fees at risk clause. Simon Townend, CYPE Transformation Lead, explained that the fees at risk meant Newton would rebate fees if agreed benefits were not met, ensuring Croydon would pay nothing in the worst-case scenario. He stated that Newton guaranteed to deliver at least the value of the one-off fee, with a projected annualised benefit of £13.2 million (excluding transport).

Councillor Rym Daoud raised concerns about the Equality Assessment, which rated the impact as high, noting the over-representation of Black and mixed-heritage, disabled, older, and most deprived children in some groups. She questioned who outside the council, including Black children and families, would be consulted and how this would change the plan. Stuart Collins confirmed that the Corporal Parenting Board with Youth Ambassadors, who are representative of young people across the borough, would be involved. He also noted that Phase 1 had included engagement forums with care-experienced young people.

Councillor Michael Neal asked about the main reasons identified in case reviews for children not receiving effective help earlier, specifically whether these were gaps in service availability, thresholds, workforce capacity, or coordination. Collins explained that the Family First Partnership aimed to corral services to reach children who might not otherwise come forward. Risthardh Hare, Director of Children's Social Care, elaborated that case reviews focused on care entry points and identified early warning signals that, if apparent at the time, might have led to different interventions.

Councillor Mark Johnson questioned how much of the projected £52.19 million in benefits by 2030-31 was attributable to Newton's work and how much the council could achieve independently. Collins stated it was impossible to put a financial figure on it, but Newton brought external expertise and capacity that the council might lack. He expressed confidence in Newton's ability to deliver similar savings in children's services as they had in adult social care.

Questions were raised by Councillor Andrew Price regarding the forecasting of savings and whether they were consistent over the years. Officers agreed to provide a written answer. Councillor Price also asked about the health and social care successes, referencing a £15 million budget saving target. It was clarified that this related to adult transformation and a written submission would be provided.

Councillor Natalie Vesty questioned who carried the risk if savings fell below the target but above the fee guarantee level. Townend explained that the £8.5 million fee guarantee was the at-risk amount, and anything above that was a benefit to Croydon.

Councillor Catherine Wilson expressed concern that a quarter of care entries might have been preventable, asking what prevented savings targets from pushing decisions that could put a child at risk. Collins assured the committee that no decisions would be made that put children at risk, and that the focus was on earlier intervention and support.

The committee discussed the need for a formal process to ensure finance did not override child safeguarding, with Collins reiterating his statutory responsibilities and the existing checks and balances.

The committee recommended that officers consider prioritising a Family Hub in the north of the borough and that a report on progress be provided in six to ten months, including case study stories and performance measures.

Early Help, Children's Social Care and Education Dashboard

The committee reviewed the Early Help, Children's Social Care and Education Dashboard for August 2026. Councillor Ellie Sandover questioned a discrepancy between the dashboard rating of amber for children in care (51 per 10,000 against a target of 47) and a comment stating performance was meeting the target. It was explained that the monthly figure fluctuates, but the overall DfE reporting target was still being met.

Councillor Rym Daoud raised concerns about the low percentage (38%) of Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) issued within 20 weeks, noting a 2% decrease since the last KPI. It was explained that a new assessment team had been recruited, and while demand had caused slowdowns, the new team was expected to improve performance.

Councillor Catherine Wilson questioned the plan to bring home visits up to the required target (95% and 90% for open assessments and child in need plans respectively) and reduce caseloads (currently 26.7 against a target of 20). It was stated that focus work on the front door and assessment team had reduced cases by 400, and that the Family First Partnership model would help reduce assessment duplication.

Nicole Williams asked about the plan to reduce social worker workload and its impact on schools. It was explained that the Family First Partnership aimed to bring the workforce together, with pilots starting to reduce assessment time and duplication.

The committee noted the ongoing challenges with EHCP issuing times but expressed hope for improvement with the new assessment team. It was also agreed that Youth Justice figures, such as re-offending, custody, and exclusions, could be incorporated into the dashboard in the future for comparative analysis.

Scrutiny Work Programme 2026-2027

The committee reviewed the draft work programme for 2026-27. Several items were provisionally added based on discussions during the meeting, including: foster care services, partnership with health, the outcomes of the Families First Partnership pilots on Domestic Abuse, Family Breakdown, and Neglect, and a focus on the ethnicity, age, and outcome data related to police activity. A recommendation was made for officers to consider prioritising a Family Hub in the north of the borough.

The committee also discussed the difference the meeting had made, with members expressing reassurance that finances would not be prioritised over youth welfare and commending the recommendations made. Confidence was expressed in the Family Hubs initiative's expansion and its role in early intervention. The Newton Phase 2 proposal was supported, with assurances regarding financial risk transfer. The importance of addressing disproportionality within the Youth Justice Plan was reiterated, with optimism for future progress.