Recipient

Medway Youth Offending Team

First report 28 Dec 2014•Latest report 28 Dec 2014

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports: 1
Published responses: 0%
Concerns addressed: 0
Stated actions: 0

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

Evidence profile

Report topics

Share of this recipient’s reports compared with all other recipients.

0%published responses found

0stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Medway Youth Offending Team linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

28 Dec2014
Mid Kent and Medway
Concerns raised28
1. Failure to provide complete information and records for safer regimes meetings
2. Failure to verify medication ingestion before recording administration
3. Failure to transfer documentation and emails onto Framework
1. Failure to recognise distress communicated through behaviour
2. Failure to recognise conflict between behaviour plans and adjudications
3. Failure of YOT keyworkers to understand custodial welfare responsibilities
4. Failure to use holistic safe-management planning when interventions are ineffective
5. Inflexible cell-entry requirements during urgent safeguarding concerns
6. Lack of forensic psychiatric assessment before custodial placement
7. Conflict between ACCT and disciplinary procedures
8. Delays in allocating a named social worker and escalating allocation difficulties
9. Incomplete recording of mental-health in-reach contacts on System One
10. Failure to share medication non-compliance and its potential effects
11. Lack of a system for flagging or diverting urgent communications during staff absence
12. Failure to seek advice before disciplinary action indicated increased self-harm risk
13. Failure to understand available safe-management options
14. Failure to highlight significant events in ongoing safeguarding records
15. Failure to involve outside agencies and carers in safeguarding
16. Failure to reconcile inconsistent secure-placement recommendations
17. Failure to inform and involve agencies and carers in custodial welfare management
18. Failure of ACCT reviews to address reasons for behaviour
19. Failure to understand YOT authority to initiate secure-estate transfers
20. Failure to escalate interagency shortcomings affecting YOT management
21. Failure to adopt a holistic approach to custodial support
22. Failure to understand corporate parenting responsibilities for children in custody
23. Inconsistent recording of significant events across safeguarding records
24. Failure to flag medication non-compliance for clinical and custodial action
25. Failure to recognise or report significant incidents and disclosures
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements
No action or position from this recipient is clearly linked to the concerns in this report.
AI-generated summary

Alex Kelly · Prevention of Future Deaths report

This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

Report summary

Alex Kelly, a vulnerable 15-year-old looked-after child, died in hospital after suspending himself from a ligature made from his shoelaces while detained at Cookham Wood Young Offenders Institution. The report identified concerns about the lack of a forensic psychiatric assessment, failures in communication and information sharing, weaknesses in the ACCT safeguarding process, conflicts between disciplinary procedures and suicide prevention, and inadequate management of his medication and welfare.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Medway Youth Offending Team; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to provide complete information and records for safer regimes meetings
Wider context from the report
“Re: Secretary of State for Justice Alex Kelly a vulnerable looked after child of 15 years with complex unresolved emotional issues and unmanaged mental health issues was sentenced to a Detention and Training Order to be served at a Young Offender’s Institution without the benefit of a forensic psychiatric assessment. Whilst I heard evidence from a psychiatrist associate of Cookham Wood YOI that the mental health in-reach team were able to address Alex’s mental health needs whilst in custody, I am aware of the deaths of a number of other children in custody who similarly had not had forensic psychiatric assessments and it is for this reason I am reporting the concern. Whilst hearing evidence in relation to lessons learned I heard from the Service Manager of Medway Youth Offending Team that they have now secured the services of a psychiatric mental health nurse to assist them in the effective management of the young people for whom they have responsibilities which I was told was proving effective and is to be continued. Alex Kelly was under an ACCT between the 23rd December 2011 and 3rd January 2012 and 6th January 2012 until his death. During the operation of the ACCT there was a continued conflict between the ACCT process and disciplinary procedures; outside agencies and carers were not asked to contribute; specific acts by Alex were seen as obstructive/challenging behaviour rather than signs of distress or a means of communicating that he needed help (his foster carers who had not been asked to contribute had some experience of Alex using non-verbal methods of communication); the ACCT reviews tended to focus on addressing specific or recent behaviours rather than the reason for the behaviour; although Alex was frequently mentioned at weekly safer regimes multidisciplinary meetings, a holistic approach was never adopted as to how he could best be supported or whether the YOI could support his needs. Re: Tower Hamlets 1. Allocation a) Alex Kelly was without a named social worker for a period of two months at a time when he was in danger of being sent to custody and after he was sent to custody. Difficulties in allocation were not escalated to senior management 2. IT a) Social workers did not transfer documentation including emails onto Framework in a timely manner or at all b) There was no system in place for ensuring that urgent electronic communications were flagged/diverted when the recipient was absent from work 3. Custody a) Social workers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities as Corporate Parent included a role in a looked after child’s welfare whilst in custody Re: Medway Youth Offending Team 1. Involvement with other agencies a) Shortcomings in other agencies which affected the ability of the YOT to manage the young person were not brought to the attention of management 2. Placement within the Secure Estate a) There were inconsistencies in recommendations as to placement in a STC/YOI which were not reconciled b) Youth Offending Team keyworkers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities included a role in the young person’s welfare whilst in custody c) Members of the Youth Offending Team did not all appear to appreciate that the Youth Offending Team could initiate a transfer within the secure estate 3. Caseworker based at Cookham Wood YOI a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person b) Although involved in the ACCT reviews the caseworker was unaware of the range of options available to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews c) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release Re: Cookham Wood YOI 1. Communication with outside agencies a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person 2. ACCT a) Officers were inconsistent in the recording of significant events; entries being made in either the wing observation log, ACCT ongoing record or not at all b) At least one officer did not appear to appreciate the importance of significant incidents/disclosures or report them c) Significant events in a lengthy ongoing record were not highlighted and therefore not obvious to officers reviewing safeguarding provisions d) Officers were unaware of the need to involve outside agencies in the ACCT review process, the range of options available to them to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews e) The safer regimes meetings were not provided with all relevant information and were not used to their full effect. The minutes of the meetings were not fully recorded f) A holistic approach was not taken to the safe management of the young person during ACCT reviews or Safer Regimes meetings when it was apparent that he was struggling with the regime and that interventions were not working 3. Conflict between Regimes a) Officers did not always seek advice before placing the young person on report for tattooing when there was an indication in the ACCT documentation that adjudication awards would lead to a heighted risk of self-harm b) There was a conflict between the use of a behaviour improvement plan and adjudications which was not recognised at the time 4. Early Release a) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release 5.Cell entry a) There appeared to be an inflexible approach to cell entry requiring the presence of three prison officers even though YOI was in patrol state and concerns were sufficient to require entry Re: Healthcare at Cookham Wood NB: the service provider has changed since the death of Alex Kelly. The new provider is in the process of determining the systems and procedures being put in place at Cookham Wood 1. Sharing of Information a) Officers concerned with the management of the young person were not informed in terms of his non-compliance with medication and the potential effect of the failure to take the medication 2. Medication management a) a)Medication was found stockpiled in the young person’s cell; staff dispensing medication had not ensured it had been taken when it was probably recorded as having been taken b) b)Any failure to take medication was not sufficiently flagged for healthcare/prison staff to deal with the issue 3.Recording of information a) Not all occasions when the young person was seen by the in-reach team were recorded on System One ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Medway Youth Offending Team; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to verify medication ingestion before recording administration
Wider context from the report
“Re: Secretary of State for Justice Alex Kelly a vulnerable looked after child of 15 years with complex unresolved emotional issues and unmanaged mental health issues was sentenced to a Detention and Training Order to be served at a Young Offender’s Institution without the benefit of a forensic psychiatric assessment. Whilst I heard evidence from a psychiatrist associate of Cookham Wood YOI that the mental health in-reach team were able to address Alex’s mental health needs whilst in custody, I am aware of the deaths of a number of other children in custody who similarly had not had forensic psychiatric assessments and it is for this reason I am reporting the concern. Whilst hearing evidence in relation to lessons learned I heard from the Service Manager of Medway Youth Offending Team that they have now secured the services of a psychiatric mental health nurse to assist them in the effective management of the young people for whom they have responsibilities which I was told was proving effective and is to be continued. Alex Kelly was under an ACCT between the 23rd December 2011 and 3rd January 2012 and 6th January 2012 until his death. During the operation of the ACCT there was a continued conflict between the ACCT process and disciplinary procedures; outside agencies and carers were not asked to contribute; specific acts by Alex were seen as obstructive/challenging behaviour rather than signs of distress or a means of communicating that he needed help (his foster carers who had not been asked to contribute had some experience of Alex using non-verbal methods of communication); the ACCT reviews tended to focus on addressing specific or recent behaviours rather than the reason for the behaviour; although Alex was frequently mentioned at weekly safer regimes multidisciplinary meetings, a holistic approach was never adopted as to how he could best be supported or whether the YOI could support his needs. Re: Tower Hamlets 1. Allocation a) Alex Kelly was without a named social worker for a period of two months at a time when he was in danger of being sent to custody and after he was sent to custody. Difficulties in allocation were not escalated to senior management 2. IT a) Social workers did not transfer documentation including emails onto Framework in a timely manner or at all b) There was no system in place for ensuring that urgent electronic communications were flagged/diverted when the recipient was absent from work 3. Custody a) Social workers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities as Corporate Parent included a role in a looked after child’s welfare whilst in custody Re: Medway Youth Offending Team 1. Involvement with other agencies a) Shortcomings in other agencies which affected the ability of the YOT to manage the young person were not brought to the attention of management 2. Placement within the Secure Estate a) There were inconsistencies in recommendations as to placement in a STC/YOI which were not reconciled b) Youth Offending Team keyworkers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities included a role in the young person’s welfare whilst in custody c) Members of the Youth Offending Team did not all appear to appreciate that the Youth Offending Team could initiate a transfer within the secure estate 3. Caseworker based at Cookham Wood YOI a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person b) Although involved in the ACCT reviews the caseworker was unaware of the range of options available to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews c) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release Re: Cookham Wood YOI 1. Communication with outside agencies a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person 2. ACCT a) Officers were inconsistent in the recording of significant events; entries being made in either the wing observation log, ACCT ongoing record or not at all b) At least one officer did not appear to appreciate the importance of significant incidents/disclosures or report them c) Significant events in a lengthy ongoing record were not highlighted and therefore not obvious to officers reviewing safeguarding provisions d) Officers were unaware of the need to involve outside agencies in the ACCT review process, the range of options available to them to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews e) The safer regimes meetings were not provided with all relevant information and were not used to their full effect. The minutes of the meetings were not fully recorded f) A holistic approach was not taken to the safe management of the young person during ACCT reviews or Safer Regimes meetings when it was apparent that he was struggling with the regime and that interventions were not working 3. Conflict between Regimes a) Officers did not always seek advice before placing the young person on report for tattooing when there was an indication in the ACCT documentation that adjudication awards would lead to a heighted risk of self-harm b) There was a conflict between the use of a behaviour improvement plan and adjudications which was not recognised at the time 4. Early Release a) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release 5.Cell entry a) There appeared to be an inflexible approach to cell entry requiring the presence of three prison officers even though YOI was in patrol state and concerns were sufficient to require entry Re: Healthcare at Cookham Wood NB: the service provider has changed since the death of Alex Kelly. The new provider is in the process of determining the systems and procedures being put in place at Cookham Wood 1. Sharing of Information a) Officers concerned with the management of the young person were not informed in terms of his non-compliance with medication and the potential effect of the failure to take the medication 2. Medication management a) a)Medication was found stockpiled in the young person’s cell; staff dispensing medication had not ensured it had been taken when it was probably recorded as having been taken b) b)Any failure to take medication was not sufficiently flagged for healthcare/prison staff to deal with the issue 3.Recording of information a) Not all occasions when the young person was seen by the in-reach team were recorded on System One ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Medway Youth Offending Team; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to transfer documentation and emails onto Framework
Wider context from the report
“Re: Secretary of State for Justice Alex Kelly a vulnerable looked after child of 15 years with complex unresolved emotional issues and unmanaged mental health issues was sentenced to a Detention and Training Order to be served at a Young Offender’s Institution without the benefit of a forensic psychiatric assessment. Whilst I heard evidence from a psychiatrist associate of Cookham Wood YOI that the mental health in-reach team were able to address Alex’s mental health needs whilst in custody, I am aware of the deaths of a number of other children in custody who similarly had not had forensic psychiatric assessments and it is for this reason I am reporting the concern. Whilst hearing evidence in relation to lessons learned I heard from the Service Manager of Medway Youth Offending Team that they have now secured the services of a psychiatric mental health nurse to assist them in the effective management of the young people for whom they have responsibilities which I was told was proving effective and is to be continued. Alex Kelly was under an ACCT between the 23rd December 2011 and 3rd January 2012 and 6th January 2012 until his death. During the operation of the ACCT there was a continued conflict between the ACCT process and disciplinary procedures; outside agencies and carers were not asked to contribute; specific acts by Alex were seen as obstructive/challenging behaviour rather than signs of distress or a means of communicating that he needed help (his foster carers who had not been asked to contribute had some experience of Alex using non-verbal methods of communication); the ACCT reviews tended to focus on addressing specific or recent behaviours rather than the reason for the behaviour; although Alex was frequently mentioned at weekly safer regimes multidisciplinary meetings, a holistic approach was never adopted as to how he could best be supported or whether the YOI could support his needs. Re: Tower Hamlets 1. Allocation a) Alex Kelly was without a named social worker for a period of two months at a time when he was in danger of being sent to custody and after he was sent to custody. Difficulties in allocation were not escalated to senior management 2. IT a) Social workers did not transfer documentation including emails onto Framework in a timely manner or at all b) There was no system in place for ensuring that urgent electronic communications were flagged/diverted when the recipient was absent from work 3. Custody a) Social workers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities as Corporate Parent included a role in a looked after child’s welfare whilst in custody Re: Medway Youth Offending Team 1. Involvement with other agencies a) Shortcomings in other agencies which affected the ability of the YOT to manage the young person were not brought to the attention of management 2. Placement within the Secure Estate a) There were inconsistencies in recommendations as to placement in a STC/YOI which were not reconciled b) Youth Offending Team keyworkers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities included a role in the young person’s welfare whilst in custody c) Members of the Youth Offending Team did not all appear to appreciate that the Youth Offending Team could initiate a transfer within the secure estate 3. Caseworker based at Cookham Wood YOI a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person b) Although involved in the ACCT reviews the caseworker was unaware of the range of options available to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews c) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release Re: Cookham Wood YOI 1. Communication with outside agencies a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person 2. ACCT a) Officers were inconsistent in the recording of significant events; entries being made in either the wing observation log, ACCT ongoing record or not at all b) At least one officer did not appear to appreciate the importance of significant incidents/disclosures or report them c) Significant events in a lengthy ongoing record were not highlighted and therefore not obvious to officers reviewing safeguarding provisions d) Officers were unaware of the need to involve outside agencies in the ACCT review process, the range of options available to them to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews e) The safer regimes meetings were not provided with all relevant information and were not used to their full effect. The minutes of the meetings were not fully recorded f) A holistic approach was not taken to the safe management of the young person during ACCT reviews or Safer Regimes meetings when it was apparent that he was struggling with the regime and that interventions were not working 3. Conflict between Regimes a) Officers did not always seek advice before placing the young person on report for tattooing when there was an indication in the ACCT documentation that adjudication awards would lead to a heighted risk of self-harm b) There was a conflict between the use of a behaviour improvement plan and adjudications which was not recognised at the time 4. Early Release a) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release 5.Cell entry a) There appeared to be an inflexible approach to cell entry requiring the presence of three prison officers even though YOI was in patrol state and concerns were sufficient to require entry Re: Healthcare at Cookham Wood NB: the service provider has changed since the death of Alex Kelly. The new provider is in the process of determining the systems and procedures being put in place at Cookham Wood 1. Sharing of Information a) Officers concerned with the management of the young person were not informed in terms of his non-compliance with medication and the potential effect of the failure to take the medication 2. Medication management a) a)Medication was found stockpiled in the young person’s cell; staff dispensing medication had not ensured it had been taken when it was probably recorded as having been taken b) b)Any failure to take medication was not sufficiently flagged for healthcare/prison staff to deal with the issue 3.Recording of information a) Not all occasions when the young person was seen by the in-reach team were recorded on System One ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Medway Youth Offending Team; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to recognise distress communicated through behaviour
Wider context from the report
“Re: Secretary of State for Justice Alex Kelly a vulnerable looked after child of 15 years with complex unresolved emotional issues and unmanaged mental health issues was sentenced to a Detention and Training Order to be served at a Young Offender’s Institution without the benefit of a forensic psychiatric assessment. Whilst I heard evidence from a psychiatrist associate of Cookham Wood YOI that the mental health in-reach team were able to address Alex’s mental health needs whilst in custody, I am aware of the deaths of a number of other children in custody who similarly had not had forensic psychiatric assessments and it is for this reason I am reporting the concern. Whilst hearing evidence in relation to lessons learned I heard from the Service Manager of Medway Youth Offending Team that they have now secured the services of a psychiatric mental health nurse to assist them in the effective management of the young people for whom they have responsibilities which I was told was proving effective and is to be continued. Alex Kelly was under an ACCT between the 23rd December 2011 and 3rd January 2012 and 6th January 2012 until his death. During the operation of the ACCT there was a continued conflict between the ACCT process and disciplinary procedures; outside agencies and carers were not asked to contribute; specific acts by Alex were seen as obstructive/challenging behaviour rather than signs of distress or a means of communicating that he needed help (his foster carers who had not been asked to contribute had some experience of Alex using non-verbal methods of communication); the ACCT reviews tended to focus on addressing specific or recent behaviours rather than the reason for the behaviour; although Alex was frequently mentioned at weekly safer regimes multidisciplinary meetings, a holistic approach was never adopted as to how he could best be supported or whether the YOI could support his needs. Re: Tower Hamlets 1. Allocation a) Alex Kelly was without a named social worker for a period of two months at a time when he was in danger of being sent to custody and after he was sent to custody. Difficulties in allocation were not escalated to senior management 2. IT a) Social workers did not transfer documentation including emails onto Framework in a timely manner or at all b) There was no system in place for ensuring that urgent electronic communications were flagged/diverted when the recipient was absent from work 3. Custody a) Social workers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities as Corporate Parent included a role in a looked after child’s welfare whilst in custody Re: Medway Youth Offending Team 1. Involvement with other agencies a) Shortcomings in other agencies which affected the ability of the YOT to manage the young person were not brought to the attention of management 2. Placement within the Secure Estate a) There were inconsistencies in recommendations as to placement in a STC/YOI which were not reconciled b) Youth Offending Team keyworkers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities included a role in the young person’s welfare whilst in custody c) Members of the Youth Offending Team did not all appear to appreciate that the Youth Offending Team could initiate a transfer within the secure estate 3. Caseworker based at Cookham Wood YOI a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person b) Although involved in the ACCT reviews the caseworker was unaware of the range of options available to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews c) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release Re: Cookham Wood YOI 1. Communication with outside agencies a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person 2. ACCT a) Officers were inconsistent in the recording of significant events; entries being made in either the wing observation log, ACCT ongoing record or not at all b) At least one officer did not appear to appreciate the importance of significant incidents/disclosures or report them c) Significant events in a lengthy ongoing record were not highlighted and therefore not obvious to officers reviewing safeguarding provisions d) Officers were unaware of the need to involve outside agencies in the ACCT review process, the range of options available to them to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews e) The safer regimes meetings were not provided with all relevant information and were not used to their full effect. The minutes of the meetings were not fully recorded f) A holistic approach was not taken to the safe management of the young person during ACCT reviews or Safer Regimes meetings when it was apparent that he was struggling with the regime and that interventions were not working 3. Conflict between Regimes a) Officers did not always seek advice before placing the young person on report for tattooing when there was an indication in the ACCT documentation that adjudication awards would lead to a heighted risk of self-harm b) There was a conflict between the use of a behaviour improvement plan and adjudications which was not recognised at the time 4. Early Release a) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release 5.Cell entry a) There appeared to be an inflexible approach to cell entry requiring the presence of three prison officers even though YOI was in patrol state and concerns were sufficient to require entry Re: Healthcare at Cookham Wood NB: the service provider has changed since the death of Alex Kelly. The new provider is in the process of determining the systems and procedures being put in place at Cookham Wood 1. Sharing of Information a) Officers concerned with the management of the young person were not informed in terms of his non-compliance with medication and the potential effect of the failure to take the medication 2. Medication management a) a)Medication was found stockpiled in the young person’s cell; staff dispensing medication had not ensured it had been taken when it was probably recorded as having been taken b) b)Any failure to take medication was not sufficiently flagged for healthcare/prison staff to deal with the issue 3.Recording of information a) Not all occasions when the young person was seen by the in-reach team were recorded on System One ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Medway Youth Offending Team; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to recognise conflict between behaviour plans and adjudications
Wider context from the report
“Re: Secretary of State for Justice Alex Kelly a vulnerable looked after child of 15 years with complex unresolved emotional issues and unmanaged mental health issues was sentenced to a Detention and Training Order to be served at a Young Offender’s Institution without the benefit of a forensic psychiatric assessment. Whilst I heard evidence from a psychiatrist associate of Cookham Wood YOI that the mental health in-reach team were able to address Alex’s mental health needs whilst in custody, I am aware of the deaths of a number of other children in custody who similarly had not had forensic psychiatric assessments and it is for this reason I am reporting the concern. Whilst hearing evidence in relation to lessons learned I heard from the Service Manager of Medway Youth Offending Team that they have now secured the services of a psychiatric mental health nurse to assist them in the effective management of the young people for whom they have responsibilities which I was told was proving effective and is to be continued. Alex Kelly was under an ACCT between the 23rd December 2011 and 3rd January 2012 and 6th January 2012 until his death. During the operation of the ACCT there was a continued conflict between the ACCT process and disciplinary procedures; outside agencies and carers were not asked to contribute; specific acts by Alex were seen as obstructive/challenging behaviour rather than signs of distress or a means of communicating that he needed help (his foster carers who had not been asked to contribute had some experience of Alex using non-verbal methods of communication); the ACCT reviews tended to focus on addressing specific or recent behaviours rather than the reason for the behaviour; although Alex was frequently mentioned at weekly safer regimes multidisciplinary meetings, a holistic approach was never adopted as to how he could best be supported or whether the YOI could support his needs. Re: Tower Hamlets 1. Allocation a) Alex Kelly was without a named social worker for a period of two months at a time when he was in danger of being sent to custody and after he was sent to custody. Difficulties in allocation were not escalated to senior management 2. IT a) Social workers did not transfer documentation including emails onto Framework in a timely manner or at all b) There was no system in place for ensuring that urgent electronic communications were flagged/diverted when the recipient was absent from work 3. Custody a) Social workers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities as Corporate Parent included a role in a looked after child’s welfare whilst in custody Re: Medway Youth Offending Team 1. Involvement with other agencies a) Shortcomings in other agencies which affected the ability of the YOT to manage the young person were not brought to the attention of management 2. Placement within the Secure Estate a) There were inconsistencies in recommendations as to placement in a STC/YOI which were not reconciled b) Youth Offending Team keyworkers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities included a role in the young person’s welfare whilst in custody c) Members of the Youth Offending Team did not all appear to appreciate that the Youth Offending Team could initiate a transfer within the secure estate 3. Caseworker based at Cookham Wood YOI a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person b) Although involved in the ACCT reviews the caseworker was unaware of the range of options available to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews c) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release Re: Cookham Wood YOI 1. Communication with outside agencies a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person 2. ACCT a) Officers were inconsistent in the recording of significant events; entries being made in either the wing observation log, ACCT ongoing record or not at all b) At least one officer did not appear to appreciate the importance of significant incidents/disclosures or report them c) Significant events in a lengthy ongoing record were not highlighted and therefore not obvious to officers reviewing safeguarding provisions d) Officers were unaware of the need to involve outside agencies in the ACCT review process, the range of options available to them to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews e) The safer regimes meetings were not provided with all relevant information and were not used to their full effect. The minutes of the meetings were not fully recorded f) A holistic approach was not taken to the safe management of the young person during ACCT reviews or Safer Regimes meetings when it was apparent that he was struggling with the regime and that interventions were not working 3. Conflict between Regimes a) Officers did not always seek advice before placing the young person on report for tattooing when there was an indication in the ACCT documentation that adjudication awards would lead to a heighted risk of self-harm b) There was a conflict between the use of a behaviour improvement plan and adjudications which was not recognised at the time 4. Early Release a) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release 5.Cell entry a) There appeared to be an inflexible approach to cell entry requiring the presence of three prison officers even though YOI was in patrol state and concerns were sufficient to require entry Re: Healthcare at Cookham Wood NB: the service provider has changed since the death of Alex Kelly. The new provider is in the process of determining the systems and procedures being put in place at Cookham Wood 1. Sharing of Information a) Officers concerned with the management of the young person were not informed in terms of his non-compliance with medication and the potential effect of the failure to take the medication 2. Medication management a) a)Medication was found stockpiled in the young person’s cell; staff dispensing medication had not ensured it had been taken when it was probably recorded as having been taken b) b)Any failure to take medication was not sufficiently flagged for healthcare/prison staff to deal with the issue 3.Recording of information a) Not all occasions when the young person was seen by the in-reach team were recorded on System One ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Medway Youth Offending Team; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure of YOT keyworkers to understand custodial welfare responsibilities
Wider context from the report
“Re: Secretary of State for Justice Alex Kelly a vulnerable looked after child of 15 years with complex unresolved emotional issues and unmanaged mental health issues was sentenced to a Detention and Training Order to be served at a Young Offender’s Institution without the benefit of a forensic psychiatric assessment. Whilst I heard evidence from a psychiatrist associate of Cookham Wood YOI that the mental health in-reach team were able to address Alex’s mental health needs whilst in custody, I am aware of the deaths of a number of other children in custody who similarly had not had forensic psychiatric assessments and it is for this reason I am reporting the concern. Whilst hearing evidence in relation to lessons learned I heard from the Service Manager of Medway Youth Offending Team that they have now secured the services of a psychiatric mental health nurse to assist them in the effective management of the young people for whom they have responsibilities which I was told was proving effective and is to be continued. Alex Kelly was under an ACCT between the 23rd December 2011 and 3rd January 2012 and 6th January 2012 until his death. During the operation of the ACCT there was a continued conflict between the ACCT process and disciplinary procedures; outside agencies and carers were not asked to contribute; specific acts by Alex were seen as obstructive/challenging behaviour rather than signs of distress or a means of communicating that he needed help (his foster carers who had not been asked to contribute had some experience of Alex using non-verbal methods of communication); the ACCT reviews tended to focus on addressing specific or recent behaviours rather than the reason for the behaviour; although Alex was frequently mentioned at weekly safer regimes multidisciplinary meetings, a holistic approach was never adopted as to how he could best be supported or whether the YOI could support his needs. Re: Tower Hamlets 1. Allocation a) Alex Kelly was without a named social worker for a period of two months at a time when he was in danger of being sent to custody and after he was sent to custody. Difficulties in allocation were not escalated to senior management 2. IT a) Social workers did not transfer documentation including emails onto Framework in a timely manner or at all b) There was no system in place for ensuring that urgent electronic communications were flagged/diverted when the recipient was absent from work 3. Custody a) Social workers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities as Corporate Parent included a role in a looked after child’s welfare whilst in custody Re: Medway Youth Offending Team 1. Involvement with other agencies a) Shortcomings in other agencies which affected the ability of the YOT to manage the young person were not brought to the attention of management 2. Placement within the Secure Estate a) There were inconsistencies in recommendations as to placement in a STC/YOI which were not reconciled b) Youth Offending Team keyworkers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities included a role in the young person’s welfare whilst in custody c) Members of the Youth Offending Team did not all appear to appreciate that the Youth Offending Team could initiate a transfer within the secure estate 3. Caseworker based at Cookham Wood YOI a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person b) Although involved in the ACCT reviews the caseworker was unaware of the range of options available to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews c) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release Re: Cookham Wood YOI 1. Communication with outside agencies a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person 2. ACCT a) Officers were inconsistent in the recording of significant events; entries being made in either the wing observation log, ACCT ongoing record or not at all b) At least one officer did not appear to appreciate the importance of significant incidents/disclosures or report them c) Significant events in a lengthy ongoing record were not highlighted and therefore not obvious to officers reviewing safeguarding provisions d) Officers were unaware of the need to involve outside agencies in the ACCT review process, the range of options available to them to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews e) The safer regimes meetings were not provided with all relevant information and were not used to their full effect. The minutes of the meetings were not fully recorded f) A holistic approach was not taken to the safe management of the young person during ACCT reviews or Safer Regimes meetings when it was apparent that he was struggling with the regime and that interventions were not working 3. Conflict between Regimes a) Officers did not always seek advice before placing the young person on report for tattooing when there was an indication in the ACCT documentation that adjudication awards would lead to a heighted risk of self-harm b) There was a conflict between the use of a behaviour improvement plan and adjudications which was not recognised at the time 4. Early Release a) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release 5.Cell entry a) There appeared to be an inflexible approach to cell entry requiring the presence of three prison officers even though YOI was in patrol state and concerns were sufficient to require entry Re: Healthcare at Cookham Wood NB: the service provider has changed since the death of Alex Kelly. The new provider is in the process of determining the systems and procedures being put in place at Cookham Wood 1. Sharing of Information a) Officers concerned with the management of the young person were not informed in terms of his non-compliance with medication and the potential effect of the failure to take the medication 2. Medication management a) a)Medication was found stockpiled in the young person’s cell; staff dispensing medication had not ensured it had been taken when it was probably recorded as having been taken b) b)Any failure to take medication was not sufficiently flagged for healthcare/prison staff to deal with the issue 3.Recording of information a) Not all occasions when the young person was seen by the in-reach team were recorded on System One ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Medway Youth Offending Team; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to use holistic safe-management planning when interventions are ineffective
Wider context from the report
“Re: Secretary of State for Justice Alex Kelly a vulnerable looked after child of 15 years with complex unresolved emotional issues and unmanaged mental health issues was sentenced to a Detention and Training Order to be served at a Young Offender’s Institution without the benefit of a forensic psychiatric assessment. Whilst I heard evidence from a psychiatrist associate of Cookham Wood YOI that the mental health in-reach team were able to address Alex’s mental health needs whilst in custody, I am aware of the deaths of a number of other children in custody who similarly had not had forensic psychiatric assessments and it is for this reason I am reporting the concern. Whilst hearing evidence in relation to lessons learned I heard from the Service Manager of Medway Youth Offending Team that they have now secured the services of a psychiatric mental health nurse to assist them in the effective management of the young people for whom they have responsibilities which I was told was proving effective and is to be continued. Alex Kelly was under an ACCT between the 23rd December 2011 and 3rd January 2012 and 6th January 2012 until his death. During the operation of the ACCT there was a continued conflict between the ACCT process and disciplinary procedures; outside agencies and carers were not asked to contribute; specific acts by Alex were seen as obstructive/challenging behaviour rather than signs of distress or a means of communicating that he needed help (his foster carers who had not been asked to contribute had some experience of Alex using non-verbal methods of communication); the ACCT reviews tended to focus on addressing specific or recent behaviours rather than the reason for the behaviour; although Alex was frequently mentioned at weekly safer regimes multidisciplinary meetings, a holistic approach was never adopted as to how he could best be supported or whether the YOI could support his needs. Re: Tower Hamlets 1. Allocation a) Alex Kelly was without a named social worker for a period of two months at a time when he was in danger of being sent to custody and after he was sent to custody. Difficulties in allocation were not escalated to senior management 2. IT a) Social workers did not transfer documentation including emails onto Framework in a timely manner or at all b) There was no system in place for ensuring that urgent electronic communications were flagged/diverted when the recipient was absent from work 3. Custody a) Social workers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities as Corporate Parent included a role in a looked after child’s welfare whilst in custody Re: Medway Youth Offending Team 1. Involvement with other agencies a) Shortcomings in other agencies which affected the ability of the YOT to manage the young person were not brought to the attention of management 2. Placement within the Secure Estate a) There were inconsistencies in recommendations as to placement in a STC/YOI which were not reconciled b) Youth Offending Team keyworkers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities included a role in the young person’s welfare whilst in custody c) Members of the Youth Offending Team did not all appear to appreciate that the Youth Offending Team could initiate a transfer within the secure estate 3. Caseworker based at Cookham Wood YOI a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person b) Although involved in the ACCT reviews the caseworker was unaware of the range of options available to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews c) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release Re: Cookham Wood YOI 1. Communication with outside agencies a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person 2. ACCT a) Officers were inconsistent in the recording of significant events; entries being made in either the wing observation log, ACCT ongoing record or not at all b) At least one officer did not appear to appreciate the importance of significant incidents/disclosures or report them c) Significant events in a lengthy ongoing record were not highlighted and therefore not obvious to officers reviewing safeguarding provisions d) Officers were unaware of the need to involve outside agencies in the ACCT review process, the range of options available to them to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews e) The safer regimes meetings were not provided with all relevant information and were not used to their full effect. The minutes of the meetings were not fully recorded f) A holistic approach was not taken to the safe management of the young person during ACCT reviews or Safer Regimes meetings when it was apparent that he was struggling with the regime and that interventions were not working 3. Conflict between Regimes a) Officers did not always seek advice before placing the young person on report for tattooing when there was an indication in the ACCT documentation that adjudication awards would lead to a heighted risk of self-harm b) There was a conflict between the use of a behaviour improvement plan and adjudications which was not recognised at the time 4. Early Release a) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release 5.Cell entry a) There appeared to be an inflexible approach to cell entry requiring the presence of three prison officers even though YOI was in patrol state and concerns were sufficient to require entry Re: Healthcare at Cookham Wood NB: the service provider has changed since the death of Alex Kelly. The new provider is in the process of determining the systems and procedures being put in place at Cookham Wood 1. Sharing of Information a) Officers concerned with the management of the young person were not informed in terms of his non-compliance with medication and the potential effect of the failure to take the medication 2. Medication management a) a)Medication was found stockpiled in the young person’s cell; staff dispensing medication had not ensured it had been taken when it was probably recorded as having been taken b) b)Any failure to take medication was not sufficiently flagged for healthcare/prison staff to deal with the issue 3.Recording of information a) Not all occasions when the young person was seen by the in-reach team were recorded on System One ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Medway Youth Offending Team; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Inflexible cell-entry requirements during urgent safeguarding concerns
Wider context from the report
“Re: Secretary of State for Justice Alex Kelly a vulnerable looked after child of 15 years with complex unresolved emotional issues and unmanaged mental health issues was sentenced to a Detention and Training Order to be served at a Young Offender’s Institution without the benefit of a forensic psychiatric assessment. Whilst I heard evidence from a psychiatrist associate of Cookham Wood YOI that the mental health in-reach team were able to address Alex’s mental health needs whilst in custody, I am aware of the deaths of a number of other children in custody who similarly had not had forensic psychiatric assessments and it is for this reason I am reporting the concern. Whilst hearing evidence in relation to lessons learned I heard from the Service Manager of Medway Youth Offending Team that they have now secured the services of a psychiatric mental health nurse to assist them in the effective management of the young people for whom they have responsibilities which I was told was proving effective and is to be continued. Alex Kelly was under an ACCT between the 23rd December 2011 and 3rd January 2012 and 6th January 2012 until his death. During the operation of the ACCT there was a continued conflict between the ACCT process and disciplinary procedures; outside agencies and carers were not asked to contribute; specific acts by Alex were seen as obstructive/challenging behaviour rather than signs of distress or a means of communicating that he needed help (his foster carers who had not been asked to contribute had some experience of Alex using non-verbal methods of communication); the ACCT reviews tended to focus on addressing specific or recent behaviours rather than the reason for the behaviour; although Alex was frequently mentioned at weekly safer regimes multidisciplinary meetings, a holistic approach was never adopted as to how he could best be supported or whether the YOI could support his needs. Re: Tower Hamlets 1. Allocation a) Alex Kelly was without a named social worker for a period of two months at a time when he was in danger of being sent to custody and after he was sent to custody. Difficulties in allocation were not escalated to senior management 2. IT a) Social workers did not transfer documentation including emails onto Framework in a timely manner or at all b) There was no system in place for ensuring that urgent electronic communications were flagged/diverted when the recipient was absent from work 3. Custody a) Social workers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities as Corporate Parent included a role in a looked after child’s welfare whilst in custody Re: Medway Youth Offending Team 1. Involvement with other agencies a) Shortcomings in other agencies which affected the ability of the YOT to manage the young person were not brought to the attention of management 2. Placement within the Secure Estate a) There were inconsistencies in recommendations as to placement in a STC/YOI which were not reconciled b) Youth Offending Team keyworkers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities included a role in the young person’s welfare whilst in custody c) Members of the Youth Offending Team did not all appear to appreciate that the Youth Offending Team could initiate a transfer within the secure estate 3. Caseworker based at Cookham Wood YOI a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person b) Although involved in the ACCT reviews the caseworker was unaware of the range of options available to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews c) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release Re: Cookham Wood YOI 1. Communication with outside agencies a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person 2. ACCT a) Officers were inconsistent in the recording of significant events; entries being made in either the wing observation log, ACCT ongoing record or not at all b) At least one officer did not appear to appreciate the importance of significant incidents/disclosures or report them c) Significant events in a lengthy ongoing record were not highlighted and therefore not obvious to officers reviewing safeguarding provisions d) Officers were unaware of the need to involve outside agencies in the ACCT review process, the range of options available to them to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews e) The safer regimes meetings were not provided with all relevant information and were not used to their full effect. The minutes of the meetings were not fully recorded f) A holistic approach was not taken to the safe management of the young person during ACCT reviews or Safer Regimes meetings when it was apparent that he was struggling with the regime and that interventions were not working 3. Conflict between Regimes a) Officers did not always seek advice before placing the young person on report for tattooing when there was an indication in the ACCT documentation that adjudication awards would lead to a heighted risk of self-harm b) There was a conflict between the use of a behaviour improvement plan and adjudications which was not recognised at the time 4. Early Release a) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release 5.Cell entry a) There appeared to be an inflexible approach to cell entry requiring the presence of three prison officers even though YOI was in patrol state and concerns were sufficient to require entry Re: Healthcare at Cookham Wood NB: the service provider has changed since the death of Alex Kelly. The new provider is in the process of determining the systems and procedures being put in place at Cookham Wood 1. Sharing of Information a) Officers concerned with the management of the young person were not informed in terms of his non-compliance with medication and the potential effect of the failure to take the medication 2. Medication management a) a)Medication was found stockpiled in the young person’s cell; staff dispensing medication had not ensured it had been taken when it was probably recorded as having been taken b) b)Any failure to take medication was not sufficiently flagged for healthcare/prison staff to deal with the issue 3.Recording of information a) Not all occasions when the young person was seen by the in-reach team were recorded on System One ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Medway Youth Offending Team; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of forensic psychiatric assessment before custodial placement
Wider context from the report
“Re: Secretary of State for Justice Alex Kelly a vulnerable looked after child of 15 years with complex unresolved emotional issues and unmanaged mental health issues was sentenced to a Detention and Training Order to be served at a Young Offender’s Institution without the benefit of a forensic psychiatric assessment. Whilst I heard evidence from a psychiatrist associate of Cookham Wood YOI that the mental health in-reach team were able to address Alex’s mental health needs whilst in custody, I am aware of the deaths of a number of other children in custody who similarly had not had forensic psychiatric assessments and it is for this reason I am reporting the concern. Whilst hearing evidence in relation to lessons learned I heard from the Service Manager of Medway Youth Offending Team that they have now secured the services of a psychiatric mental health nurse to assist them in the effective management of the young people for whom they have responsibilities which I was told was proving effective and is to be continued. Alex Kelly was under an ACCT between the 23rd December 2011 and 3rd January 2012 and 6th January 2012 until his death. During the operation of the ACCT there was a continued conflict between the ACCT process and disciplinary procedures; outside agencies and carers were not asked to contribute; specific acts by Alex were seen as obstructive/challenging behaviour rather than signs of distress or a means of communicating that he needed help (his foster carers who had not been asked to contribute had some experience of Alex using non-verbal methods of communication); the ACCT reviews tended to focus on addressing specific or recent behaviours rather than the reason for the behaviour; although Alex was frequently mentioned at weekly safer regimes multidisciplinary meetings, a holistic approach was never adopted as to how he could best be supported or whether the YOI could support his needs. Re: Tower Hamlets 1. Allocation a) Alex Kelly was without a named social worker for a period of two months at a time when he was in danger of being sent to custody and after he was sent to custody. Difficulties in allocation were not escalated to senior management 2. IT a) Social workers did not transfer documentation including emails onto Framework in a timely manner or at all b) There was no system in place for ensuring that urgent electronic communications were flagged/diverted when the recipient was absent from work 3. Custody a) Social workers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities as Corporate Parent included a role in a looked after child’s welfare whilst in custody Re: Medway Youth Offending Team 1. Involvement with other agencies a) Shortcomings in other agencies which affected the ability of the YOT to manage the young person were not brought to the attention of management 2. Placement within the Secure Estate a) There were inconsistencies in recommendations as to placement in a STC/YOI which were not reconciled b) Youth Offending Team keyworkers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities included a role in the young person’s welfare whilst in custody c) Members of the Youth Offending Team did not all appear to appreciate that the Youth Offending Team could initiate a transfer within the secure estate 3. Caseworker based at Cookham Wood YOI a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person b) Although involved in the ACCT reviews the caseworker was unaware of the range of options available to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews c) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release Re: Cookham Wood YOI 1. Communication with outside agencies a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person 2. ACCT a) Officers were inconsistent in the recording of significant events; entries being made in either the wing observation log, ACCT ongoing record or not at all b) At least one officer did not appear to appreciate the importance of significant incidents/disclosures or report them c) Significant events in a lengthy ongoing record were not highlighted and therefore not obvious to officers reviewing safeguarding provisions d) Officers were unaware of the need to involve outside agencies in the ACCT review process, the range of options available to them to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews e) The safer regimes meetings were not provided with all relevant information and were not used to their full effect. The minutes of the meetings were not fully recorded f) A holistic approach was not taken to the safe management of the young person during ACCT reviews or Safer Regimes meetings when it was apparent that he was struggling with the regime and that interventions were not working 3. Conflict between Regimes a) Officers did not always seek advice before placing the young person on report for tattooing when there was an indication in the ACCT documentation that adjudication awards would lead to a heighted risk of self-harm b) There was a conflict between the use of a behaviour improvement plan and adjudications which was not recognised at the time 4. Early Release a) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release 5.Cell entry a) There appeared to be an inflexible approach to cell entry requiring the presence of three prison officers even though YOI was in patrol state and concerns were sufficient to require entry Re: Healthcare at Cookham Wood NB: the service provider has changed since the death of Alex Kelly. The new provider is in the process of determining the systems and procedures being put in place at Cookham Wood 1. Sharing of Information a) Officers concerned with the management of the young person were not informed in terms of his non-compliance with medication and the potential effect of the failure to take the medication 2. Medication management a) a)Medication was found stockpiled in the young person’s cell; staff dispensing medication had not ensured it had been taken when it was probably recorded as having been taken b) b)Any failure to take medication was not sufficiently flagged for healthcare/prison staff to deal with the issue 3.Recording of information a) Not all occasions when the young person was seen by the in-reach team were recorded on System One ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Medway Youth Offending Team; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Conflict between ACCT and disciplinary procedures
Wider context from the report
“Re: Secretary of State for Justice Alex Kelly a vulnerable looked after child of 15 years with complex unresolved emotional issues and unmanaged mental health issues was sentenced to a Detention and Training Order to be served at a Young Offender’s Institution without the benefit of a forensic psychiatric assessment. Whilst I heard evidence from a psychiatrist associate of Cookham Wood YOI that the mental health in-reach team were able to address Alex’s mental health needs whilst in custody, I am aware of the deaths of a number of other children in custody who similarly had not had forensic psychiatric assessments and it is for this reason I am reporting the concern. Whilst hearing evidence in relation to lessons learned I heard from the Service Manager of Medway Youth Offending Team that they have now secured the services of a psychiatric mental health nurse to assist them in the effective management of the young people for whom they have responsibilities which I was told was proving effective and is to be continued. Alex Kelly was under an ACCT between the 23rd December 2011 and 3rd January 2012 and 6th January 2012 until his death. During the operation of the ACCT there was a continued conflict between the ACCT process and disciplinary procedures; outside agencies and carers were not asked to contribute; specific acts by Alex were seen as obstructive/challenging behaviour rather than signs of distress or a means of communicating that he needed help (his foster carers who had not been asked to contribute had some experience of Alex using non-verbal methods of communication); the ACCT reviews tended to focus on addressing specific or recent behaviours rather than the reason for the behaviour; although Alex was frequently mentioned at weekly safer regimes multidisciplinary meetings, a holistic approach was never adopted as to how he could best be supported or whether the YOI could support his needs. Re: Tower Hamlets 1. Allocation a) Alex Kelly was without a named social worker for a period of two months at a time when he was in danger of being sent to custody and after he was sent to custody. Difficulties in allocation were not escalated to senior management 2. IT a) Social workers did not transfer documentation including emails onto Framework in a timely manner or at all b) There was no system in place for ensuring that urgent electronic communications were flagged/diverted when the recipient was absent from work 3. Custody a) Social workers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities as Corporate Parent included a role in a looked after child’s welfare whilst in custody Re: Medway Youth Offending Team 1. Involvement with other agencies a) Shortcomings in other agencies which affected the ability of the YOT to manage the young person were not brought to the attention of management 2. Placement within the Secure Estate a) There were inconsistencies in recommendations as to placement in a STC/YOI which were not reconciled b) Youth Offending Team keyworkers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities included a role in the young person’s welfare whilst in custody c) Members of the Youth Offending Team did not all appear to appreciate that the Youth Offending Team could initiate a transfer within the secure estate 3. Caseworker based at Cookham Wood YOI a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person b) Although involved in the ACCT reviews the caseworker was unaware of the range of options available to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews c) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release Re: Cookham Wood YOI 1. Communication with outside agencies a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person 2. ACCT a) Officers were inconsistent in the recording of significant events; entries being made in either the wing observation log, ACCT ongoing record or not at all b) At least one officer did not appear to appreciate the importance of significant incidents/disclosures or report them c) Significant events in a lengthy ongoing record were not highlighted and therefore not obvious to officers reviewing safeguarding provisions d) Officers were unaware of the need to involve outside agencies in the ACCT review process, the range of options available to them to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews e) The safer regimes meetings were not provided with all relevant information and were not used to their full effect. The minutes of the meetings were not fully recorded f) A holistic approach was not taken to the safe management of the young person during ACCT reviews or Safer Regimes meetings when it was apparent that he was struggling with the regime and that interventions were not working 3. Conflict between Regimes a) Officers did not always seek advice before placing the young person on report for tattooing when there was an indication in the ACCT documentation that adjudication awards would lead to a heighted risk of self-harm b) There was a conflict between the use of a behaviour improvement plan and adjudications which was not recognised at the time 4. Early Release a) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release 5.Cell entry a) There appeared to be an inflexible approach to cell entry requiring the presence of three prison officers even though YOI was in patrol state and concerns were sufficient to require entry Re: Healthcare at Cookham Wood NB: the service provider has changed since the death of Alex Kelly. The new provider is in the process of determining the systems and procedures being put in place at Cookham Wood 1. Sharing of Information a) Officers concerned with the management of the young person were not informed in terms of his non-compliance with medication and the potential effect of the failure to take the medication 2. Medication management a) a)Medication was found stockpiled in the young person’s cell; staff dispensing medication had not ensured it had been taken when it was probably recorded as having been taken b) b)Any failure to take medication was not sufficiently flagged for healthcare/prison staff to deal with the issue 3.Recording of information a) Not all occasions when the young person was seen by the in-reach team were recorded on System One ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Medway Youth Offending Team; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Delays in allocating a named social worker and escalating allocation difficulties
Wider context from the report
“Re: Secretary of State for Justice Alex Kelly a vulnerable looked after child of 15 years with complex unresolved emotional issues and unmanaged mental health issues was sentenced to a Detention and Training Order to be served at a Young Offender’s Institution without the benefit of a forensic psychiatric assessment. Whilst I heard evidence from a psychiatrist associate of Cookham Wood YOI that the mental health in-reach team were able to address Alex’s mental health needs whilst in custody, I am aware of the deaths of a number of other children in custody who similarly had not had forensic psychiatric assessments and it is for this reason I am reporting the concern. Whilst hearing evidence in relation to lessons learned I heard from the Service Manager of Medway Youth Offending Team that they have now secured the services of a psychiatric mental health nurse to assist them in the effective management of the young people for whom they have responsibilities which I was told was proving effective and is to be continued. Alex Kelly was under an ACCT between the 23rd December 2011 and 3rd January 2012 and 6th January 2012 until his death. During the operation of the ACCT there was a continued conflict between the ACCT process and disciplinary procedures; outside agencies and carers were not asked to contribute; specific acts by Alex were seen as obstructive/challenging behaviour rather than signs of distress or a means of communicating that he needed help (his foster carers who had not been asked to contribute had some experience of Alex using non-verbal methods of communication); the ACCT reviews tended to focus on addressing specific or recent behaviours rather than the reason for the behaviour; although Alex was frequently mentioned at weekly safer regimes multidisciplinary meetings, a holistic approach was never adopted as to how he could best be supported or whether the YOI could support his needs. Re: Tower Hamlets 1. Allocation a) Alex Kelly was without a named social worker for a period of two months at a time when he was in danger of being sent to custody and after he was sent to custody. Difficulties in allocation were not escalated to senior management 2. IT a) Social workers did not transfer documentation including emails onto Framework in a timely manner or at all b) There was no system in place for ensuring that urgent electronic communications were flagged/diverted when the recipient was absent from work 3. Custody a) Social workers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities as Corporate Parent included a role in a looked after child’s welfare whilst in custody Re: Medway Youth Offending Team 1. Involvement with other agencies a) Shortcomings in other agencies which affected the ability of the YOT to manage the young person were not brought to the attention of management 2. Placement within the Secure Estate a) There were inconsistencies in recommendations as to placement in a STC/YOI which were not reconciled b) Youth Offending Team keyworkers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities included a role in the young person’s welfare whilst in custody c) Members of the Youth Offending Team did not all appear to appreciate that the Youth Offending Team could initiate a transfer within the secure estate 3. Caseworker based at Cookham Wood YOI a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person b) Although involved in the ACCT reviews the caseworker was unaware of the range of options available to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews c) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release Re: Cookham Wood YOI 1. Communication with outside agencies a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person 2. ACCT a) Officers were inconsistent in the recording of significant events; entries being made in either the wing observation log, ACCT ongoing record or not at all b) At least one officer did not appear to appreciate the importance of significant incidents/disclosures or report them c) Significant events in a lengthy ongoing record were not highlighted and therefore not obvious to officers reviewing safeguarding provisions d) Officers were unaware of the need to involve outside agencies in the ACCT review process, the range of options available to them to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews e) The safer regimes meetings were not provided with all relevant information and were not used to their full effect. The minutes of the meetings were not fully recorded f) A holistic approach was not taken to the safe management of the young person during ACCT reviews or Safer Regimes meetings when it was apparent that he was struggling with the regime and that interventions were not working 3. Conflict between Regimes a) Officers did not always seek advice before placing the young person on report for tattooing when there was an indication in the ACCT documentation that adjudication awards would lead to a heighted risk of self-harm b) There was a conflict between the use of a behaviour improvement plan and adjudications which was not recognised at the time 4. Early Release a) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release 5.Cell entry a) There appeared to be an inflexible approach to cell entry requiring the presence of three prison officers even though YOI was in patrol state and concerns were sufficient to require entry Re: Healthcare at Cookham Wood NB: the service provider has changed since the death of Alex Kelly. The new provider is in the process of determining the systems and procedures being put in place at Cookham Wood 1. Sharing of Information a) Officers concerned with the management of the young person were not informed in terms of his non-compliance with medication and the potential effect of the failure to take the medication 2. Medication management a) a)Medication was found stockpiled in the young person’s cell; staff dispensing medication had not ensured it had been taken when it was probably recorded as having been taken b) b)Any failure to take medication was not sufficiently flagged for healthcare/prison staff to deal with the issue 3.Recording of information a) Not all occasions when the young person was seen by the in-reach team were recorded on System One ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Medway Youth Offending Team; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Incomplete recording of mental-health in-reach contacts on System One
Wider context from the report
“Re: Secretary of State for Justice Alex Kelly a vulnerable looked after child of 15 years with complex unresolved emotional issues and unmanaged mental health issues was sentenced to a Detention and Training Order to be served at a Young Offender’s Institution without the benefit of a forensic psychiatric assessment. Whilst I heard evidence from a psychiatrist associate of Cookham Wood YOI that the mental health in-reach team were able to address Alex’s mental health needs whilst in custody, I am aware of the deaths of a number of other children in custody who similarly had not had forensic psychiatric assessments and it is for this reason I am reporting the concern. Whilst hearing evidence in relation to lessons learned I heard from the Service Manager of Medway Youth Offending Team that they have now secured the services of a psychiatric mental health nurse to assist them in the effective management of the young people for whom they have responsibilities which I was told was proving effective and is to be continued. Alex Kelly was under an ACCT between the 23rd December 2011 and 3rd January 2012 and 6th January 2012 until his death. During the operation of the ACCT there was a continued conflict between the ACCT process and disciplinary procedures; outside agencies and carers were not asked to contribute; specific acts by Alex were seen as obstructive/challenging behaviour rather than signs of distress or a means of communicating that he needed help (his foster carers who had not been asked to contribute had some experience of Alex using non-verbal methods of communication); the ACCT reviews tended to focus on addressing specific or recent behaviours rather than the reason for the behaviour; although Alex was frequently mentioned at weekly safer regimes multidisciplinary meetings, a holistic approach was never adopted as to how he could best be supported or whether the YOI could support his needs. Re: Tower Hamlets 1. Allocation a) Alex Kelly was without a named social worker for a period of two months at a time when he was in danger of being sent to custody and after he was sent to custody. Difficulties in allocation were not escalated to senior management 2. IT a) Social workers did not transfer documentation including emails onto Framework in a timely manner or at all b) There was no system in place for ensuring that urgent electronic communications were flagged/diverted when the recipient was absent from work 3. Custody a) Social workers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities as Corporate Parent included a role in a looked after child’s welfare whilst in custody Re: Medway Youth Offending Team 1. Involvement with other agencies a) Shortcomings in other agencies which affected the ability of the YOT to manage the young person were not brought to the attention of management 2. Placement within the Secure Estate a) There were inconsistencies in recommendations as to placement in a STC/YOI which were not reconciled b) Youth Offending Team keyworkers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities included a role in the young person’s welfare whilst in custody c) Members of the Youth Offending Team did not all appear to appreciate that the Youth Offending Team could initiate a transfer within the secure estate 3. Caseworker based at Cookham Wood YOI a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person b) Although involved in the ACCT reviews the caseworker was unaware of the range of options available to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews c) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release Re: Cookham Wood YOI 1. Communication with outside agencies a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person 2. ACCT a) Officers were inconsistent in the recording of significant events; entries being made in either the wing observation log, ACCT ongoing record or not at all b) At least one officer did not appear to appreciate the importance of significant incidents/disclosures or report them c) Significant events in a lengthy ongoing record were not highlighted and therefore not obvious to officers reviewing safeguarding provisions d) Officers were unaware of the need to involve outside agencies in the ACCT review process, the range of options available to them to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews e) The safer regimes meetings were not provided with all relevant information and were not used to their full effect. The minutes of the meetings were not fully recorded f) A holistic approach was not taken to the safe management of the young person during ACCT reviews or Safer Regimes meetings when it was apparent that he was struggling with the regime and that interventions were not working 3. Conflict between Regimes a) Officers did not always seek advice before placing the young person on report for tattooing when there was an indication in the ACCT documentation that adjudication awards would lead to a heighted risk of self-harm b) There was a conflict between the use of a behaviour improvement plan and adjudications which was not recognised at the time 4. Early Release a) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release 5.Cell entry a) There appeared to be an inflexible approach to cell entry requiring the presence of three prison officers even though YOI was in patrol state and concerns were sufficient to require entry Re: Healthcare at Cookham Wood NB: the service provider has changed since the death of Alex Kelly. The new provider is in the process of determining the systems and procedures being put in place at Cookham Wood 1. Sharing of Information a) Officers concerned with the management of the young person were not informed in terms of his non-compliance with medication and the potential effect of the failure to take the medication 2. Medication management a) a)Medication was found stockpiled in the young person’s cell; staff dispensing medication had not ensured it had been taken when it was probably recorded as having been taken b) b)Any failure to take medication was not sufficiently flagged for healthcare/prison staff to deal with the issue 3.Recording of information a) Not all occasions when the young person was seen by the in-reach team were recorded on System One ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Medway Youth Offending Team; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to share medication non-compliance and its potential effects
Wider context from the report
“Re: Secretary of State for Justice Alex Kelly a vulnerable looked after child of 15 years with complex unresolved emotional issues and unmanaged mental health issues was sentenced to a Detention and Training Order to be served at a Young Offender’s Institution without the benefit of a forensic psychiatric assessment. Whilst I heard evidence from a psychiatrist associate of Cookham Wood YOI that the mental health in-reach team were able to address Alex’s mental health needs whilst in custody, I am aware of the deaths of a number of other children in custody who similarly had not had forensic psychiatric assessments and it is for this reason I am reporting the concern. Whilst hearing evidence in relation to lessons learned I heard from the Service Manager of Medway Youth Offending Team that they have now secured the services of a psychiatric mental health nurse to assist them in the effective management of the young people for whom they have responsibilities which I was told was proving effective and is to be continued. Alex Kelly was under an ACCT between the 23rd December 2011 and 3rd January 2012 and 6th January 2012 until his death. During the operation of the ACCT there was a continued conflict between the ACCT process and disciplinary procedures; outside agencies and carers were not asked to contribute; specific acts by Alex were seen as obstructive/challenging behaviour rather than signs of distress or a means of communicating that he needed help (his foster carers who had not been asked to contribute had some experience of Alex using non-verbal methods of communication); the ACCT reviews tended to focus on addressing specific or recent behaviours rather than the reason for the behaviour; although Alex was frequently mentioned at weekly safer regimes multidisciplinary meetings, a holistic approach was never adopted as to how he could best be supported or whether the YOI could support his needs. Re: Tower Hamlets 1. Allocation a) Alex Kelly was without a named social worker for a period of two months at a time when he was in danger of being sent to custody and after he was sent to custody. Difficulties in allocation were not escalated to senior management 2. IT a) Social workers did not transfer documentation including emails onto Framework in a timely manner or at all b) There was no system in place for ensuring that urgent electronic communications were flagged/diverted when the recipient was absent from work 3. Custody a) Social workers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities as Corporate Parent included a role in a looked after child’s welfare whilst in custody Re: Medway Youth Offending Team 1. Involvement with other agencies a) Shortcomings in other agencies which affected the ability of the YOT to manage the young person were not brought to the attention of management 2. Placement within the Secure Estate a) There were inconsistencies in recommendations as to placement in a STC/YOI which were not reconciled b) Youth Offending Team keyworkers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities included a role in the young person’s welfare whilst in custody c) Members of the Youth Offending Team did not all appear to appreciate that the Youth Offending Team could initiate a transfer within the secure estate 3. Caseworker based at Cookham Wood YOI a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person b) Although involved in the ACCT reviews the caseworker was unaware of the range of options available to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews c) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release Re: Cookham Wood YOI 1. Communication with outside agencies a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person 2. ACCT a) Officers were inconsistent in the recording of significant events; entries being made in either the wing observation log, ACCT ongoing record or not at all b) At least one officer did not appear to appreciate the importance of significant incidents/disclosures or report them c) Significant events in a lengthy ongoing record were not highlighted and therefore not obvious to officers reviewing safeguarding provisions d) Officers were unaware of the need to involve outside agencies in the ACCT review process, the range of options available to them to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews e) The safer regimes meetings were not provided with all relevant information and were not used to their full effect. The minutes of the meetings were not fully recorded f) A holistic approach was not taken to the safe management of the young person during ACCT reviews or Safer Regimes meetings when it was apparent that he was struggling with the regime and that interventions were not working 3. Conflict between Regimes a) Officers did not always seek advice before placing the young person on report for tattooing when there was an indication in the ACCT documentation that adjudication awards would lead to a heighted risk of self-harm b) There was a conflict between the use of a behaviour improvement plan and adjudications which was not recognised at the time 4. Early Release a) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release 5.Cell entry a) There appeared to be an inflexible approach to cell entry requiring the presence of three prison officers even though YOI was in patrol state and concerns were sufficient to require entry Re: Healthcare at Cookham Wood NB: the service provider has changed since the death of Alex Kelly. The new provider is in the process of determining the systems and procedures being put in place at Cookham Wood 1. Sharing of Information a) Officers concerned with the management of the young person were not informed in terms of his non-compliance with medication and the potential effect of the failure to take the medication 2. Medication management a) a)Medication was found stockpiled in the young person’s cell; staff dispensing medication had not ensured it had been taken when it was probably recorded as having been taken b) b)Any failure to take medication was not sufficiently flagged for healthcare/prison staff to deal with the issue 3.Recording of information a) Not all occasions when the young person was seen by the in-reach team were recorded on System One ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Medway Youth Offending Team; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of a system for flagging or diverting urgent communications during staff absence
Wider context from the report
“Re: Secretary of State for Justice Alex Kelly a vulnerable looked after child of 15 years with complex unresolved emotional issues and unmanaged mental health issues was sentenced to a Detention and Training Order to be served at a Young Offender’s Institution without the benefit of a forensic psychiatric assessment. Whilst I heard evidence from a psychiatrist associate of Cookham Wood YOI that the mental health in-reach team were able to address Alex’s mental health needs whilst in custody, I am aware of the deaths of a number of other children in custody who similarly had not had forensic psychiatric assessments and it is for this reason I am reporting the concern. Whilst hearing evidence in relation to lessons learned I heard from the Service Manager of Medway Youth Offending Team that they have now secured the services of a psychiatric mental health nurse to assist them in the effective management of the young people for whom they have responsibilities which I was told was proving effective and is to be continued. Alex Kelly was under an ACCT between the 23rd December 2011 and 3rd January 2012 and 6th January 2012 until his death. During the operation of the ACCT there was a continued conflict between the ACCT process and disciplinary procedures; outside agencies and carers were not asked to contribute; specific acts by Alex were seen as obstructive/challenging behaviour rather than signs of distress or a means of communicating that he needed help (his foster carers who had not been asked to contribute had some experience of Alex using non-verbal methods of communication); the ACCT reviews tended to focus on addressing specific or recent behaviours rather than the reason for the behaviour; although Alex was frequently mentioned at weekly safer regimes multidisciplinary meetings, a holistic approach was never adopted as to how he could best be supported or whether the YOI could support his needs. Re: Tower Hamlets 1. Allocation a) Alex Kelly was without a named social worker for a period of two months at a time when he was in danger of being sent to custody and after he was sent to custody. Difficulties in allocation were not escalated to senior management 2. IT a) Social workers did not transfer documentation including emails onto Framework in a timely manner or at all b) There was no system in place for ensuring that urgent electronic communications were flagged/diverted when the recipient was absent from work 3. Custody a) Social workers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities as Corporate Parent included a role in a looked after child’s welfare whilst in custody Re: Medway Youth Offending Team 1. Involvement with other agencies a) Shortcomings in other agencies which affected the ability of the YOT to manage the young person were not brought to the attention of management 2. Placement within the Secure Estate a) There were inconsistencies in recommendations as to placement in a STC/YOI which were not reconciled b) Youth Offending Team keyworkers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities included a role in the young person’s welfare whilst in custody c) Members of the Youth Offending Team did not all appear to appreciate that the Youth Offending Team could initiate a transfer within the secure estate 3. Caseworker based at Cookham Wood YOI a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person b) Although involved in the ACCT reviews the caseworker was unaware of the range of options available to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews c) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release Re: Cookham Wood YOI 1. Communication with outside agencies a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person 2. ACCT a) Officers were inconsistent in the recording of significant events; entries being made in either the wing observation log, ACCT ongoing record or not at all b) At least one officer did not appear to appreciate the importance of significant incidents/disclosures or report them c) Significant events in a lengthy ongoing record were not highlighted and therefore not obvious to officers reviewing safeguarding provisions d) Officers were unaware of the need to involve outside agencies in the ACCT review process, the range of options available to them to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews e) The safer regimes meetings were not provided with all relevant information and were not used to their full effect. The minutes of the meetings were not fully recorded f) A holistic approach was not taken to the safe management of the young person during ACCT reviews or Safer Regimes meetings when it was apparent that he was struggling with the regime and that interventions were not working 3. Conflict between Regimes a) Officers did not always seek advice before placing the young person on report for tattooing when there was an indication in the ACCT documentation that adjudication awards would lead to a heighted risk of self-harm b) There was a conflict between the use of a behaviour improvement plan and adjudications which was not recognised at the time 4. Early Release a) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release 5.Cell entry a) There appeared to be an inflexible approach to cell entry requiring the presence of three prison officers even though YOI was in patrol state and concerns were sufficient to require entry Re: Healthcare at Cookham Wood NB: the service provider has changed since the death of Alex Kelly. The new provider is in the process of determining the systems and procedures being put in place at Cookham Wood 1. Sharing of Information a) Officers concerned with the management of the young person were not informed in terms of his non-compliance with medication and the potential effect of the failure to take the medication 2. Medication management a) a)Medication was found stockpiled in the young person’s cell; staff dispensing medication had not ensured it had been taken when it was probably recorded as having been taken b) b)Any failure to take medication was not sufficiently flagged for healthcare/prison staff to deal with the issue 3.Recording of information a) Not all occasions when the young person was seen by the in-reach team were recorded on System One ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Medway Youth Offending Team; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to seek advice before disciplinary action indicated increased self-harm risk
Wider context from the report
“Re: Secretary of State for Justice Alex Kelly a vulnerable looked after child of 15 years with complex unresolved emotional issues and unmanaged mental health issues was sentenced to a Detention and Training Order to be served at a Young Offender’s Institution without the benefit of a forensic psychiatric assessment. Whilst I heard evidence from a psychiatrist associate of Cookham Wood YOI that the mental health in-reach team were able to address Alex’s mental health needs whilst in custody, I am aware of the deaths of a number of other children in custody who similarly had not had forensic psychiatric assessments and it is for this reason I am reporting the concern. Whilst hearing evidence in relation to lessons learned I heard from the Service Manager of Medway Youth Offending Team that they have now secured the services of a psychiatric mental health nurse to assist them in the effective management of the young people for whom they have responsibilities which I was told was proving effective and is to be continued. Alex Kelly was under an ACCT between the 23rd December 2011 and 3rd January 2012 and 6th January 2012 until his death. During the operation of the ACCT there was a continued conflict between the ACCT process and disciplinary procedures; outside agencies and carers were not asked to contribute; specific acts by Alex were seen as obstructive/challenging behaviour rather than signs of distress or a means of communicating that he needed help (his foster carers who had not been asked to contribute had some experience of Alex using non-verbal methods of communication); the ACCT reviews tended to focus on addressing specific or recent behaviours rather than the reason for the behaviour; although Alex was frequently mentioned at weekly safer regimes multidisciplinary meetings, a holistic approach was never adopted as to how he could best be supported or whether the YOI could support his needs. Re: Tower Hamlets 1. Allocation a) Alex Kelly was without a named social worker for a period of two months at a time when he was in danger of being sent to custody and after he was sent to custody. Difficulties in allocation were not escalated to senior management 2. IT a) Social workers did not transfer documentation including emails onto Framework in a timely manner or at all b) There was no system in place for ensuring that urgent electronic communications were flagged/diverted when the recipient was absent from work 3. Custody a) Social workers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities as Corporate Parent included a role in a looked after child’s welfare whilst in custody Re: Medway Youth Offending Team 1. Involvement with other agencies a) Shortcomings in other agencies which affected the ability of the YOT to manage the young person were not brought to the attention of management 2. Placement within the Secure Estate a) There were inconsistencies in recommendations as to placement in a STC/YOI which were not reconciled b) Youth Offending Team keyworkers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities included a role in the young person’s welfare whilst in custody c) Members of the Youth Offending Team did not all appear to appreciate that the Youth Offending Team could initiate a transfer within the secure estate 3. Caseworker based at Cookham Wood YOI a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person b) Although involved in the ACCT reviews the caseworker was unaware of the range of options available to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews c) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release Re: Cookham Wood YOI 1. Communication with outside agencies a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person 2. ACCT a) Officers were inconsistent in the recording of significant events; entries being made in either the wing observation log, ACCT ongoing record or not at all b) At least one officer did not appear to appreciate the importance of significant incidents/disclosures or report them c) Significant events in a lengthy ongoing record were not highlighted and therefore not obvious to officers reviewing safeguarding provisions d) Officers were unaware of the need to involve outside agencies in the ACCT review process, the range of options available to them to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews e) The safer regimes meetings were not provided with all relevant information and were not used to their full effect. The minutes of the meetings were not fully recorded f) A holistic approach was not taken to the safe management of the young person during ACCT reviews or Safer Regimes meetings when it was apparent that he was struggling with the regime and that interventions were not working 3. Conflict between Regimes a) Officers did not always seek advice before placing the young person on report for tattooing when there was an indication in the ACCT documentation that adjudication awards would lead to a heighted risk of self-harm b) There was a conflict between the use of a behaviour improvement plan and adjudications which was not recognised at the time 4. Early Release a) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release 5.Cell entry a) There appeared to be an inflexible approach to cell entry requiring the presence of three prison officers even though YOI was in patrol state and concerns were sufficient to require entry Re: Healthcare at Cookham Wood NB: the service provider has changed since the death of Alex Kelly. The new provider is in the process of determining the systems and procedures being put in place at Cookham Wood 1. Sharing of Information a) Officers concerned with the management of the young person were not informed in terms of his non-compliance with medication and the potential effect of the failure to take the medication 2. Medication management a) a)Medication was found stockpiled in the young person’s cell; staff dispensing medication had not ensured it had been taken when it was probably recorded as having been taken b) b)Any failure to take medication was not sufficiently flagged for healthcare/prison staff to deal with the issue 3.Recording of information a) Not all occasions when the young person was seen by the in-reach team were recorded on System One ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Medway Youth Offending Team; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to understand available safe-management options
Wider context from the report
“Re: Secretary of State for Justice Alex Kelly a vulnerable looked after child of 15 years with complex unresolved emotional issues and unmanaged mental health issues was sentenced to a Detention and Training Order to be served at a Young Offender’s Institution without the benefit of a forensic psychiatric assessment. Whilst I heard evidence from a psychiatrist associate of Cookham Wood YOI that the mental health in-reach team were able to address Alex’s mental health needs whilst in custody, I am aware of the deaths of a number of other children in custody who similarly had not had forensic psychiatric assessments and it is for this reason I am reporting the concern. Whilst hearing evidence in relation to lessons learned I heard from the Service Manager of Medway Youth Offending Team that they have now secured the services of a psychiatric mental health nurse to assist them in the effective management of the young people for whom they have responsibilities which I was told was proving effective and is to be continued. Alex Kelly was under an ACCT between the 23rd December 2011 and 3rd January 2012 and 6th January 2012 until his death. During the operation of the ACCT there was a continued conflict between the ACCT process and disciplinary procedures; outside agencies and carers were not asked to contribute; specific acts by Alex were seen as obstructive/challenging behaviour rather than signs of distress or a means of communicating that he needed help (his foster carers who had not been asked to contribute had some experience of Alex using non-verbal methods of communication); the ACCT reviews tended to focus on addressing specific or recent behaviours rather than the reason for the behaviour; although Alex was frequently mentioned at weekly safer regimes multidisciplinary meetings, a holistic approach was never adopted as to how he could best be supported or whether the YOI could support his needs. Re: Tower Hamlets 1. Allocation a) Alex Kelly was without a named social worker for a period of two months at a time when he was in danger of being sent to custody and after he was sent to custody. Difficulties in allocation were not escalated to senior management 2. IT a) Social workers did not transfer documentation including emails onto Framework in a timely manner or at all b) There was no system in place for ensuring that urgent electronic communications were flagged/diverted when the recipient was absent from work 3. Custody a) Social workers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities as Corporate Parent included a role in a looked after child’s welfare whilst in custody Re: Medway Youth Offending Team 1. Involvement with other agencies a) Shortcomings in other agencies which affected the ability of the YOT to manage the young person were not brought to the attention of management 2. Placement within the Secure Estate a) There were inconsistencies in recommendations as to placement in a STC/YOI which were not reconciled b) Youth Offending Team keyworkers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities included a role in the young person’s welfare whilst in custody c) Members of the Youth Offending Team did not all appear to appreciate that the Youth Offending Team could initiate a transfer within the secure estate 3. Caseworker based at Cookham Wood YOI a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person b) Although involved in the ACCT reviews the caseworker was unaware of the range of options available to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews c) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release Re: Cookham Wood YOI 1. Communication with outside agencies a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person 2. ACCT a) Officers were inconsistent in the recording of significant events; entries being made in either the wing observation log, ACCT ongoing record or not at all b) At least one officer did not appear to appreciate the importance of significant incidents/disclosures or report them c) Significant events in a lengthy ongoing record were not highlighted and therefore not obvious to officers reviewing safeguarding provisions d) Officers were unaware of the need to involve outside agencies in the ACCT review process, the range of options available to them to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews e) The safer regimes meetings were not provided with all relevant information and were not used to their full effect. The minutes of the meetings were not fully recorded f) A holistic approach was not taken to the safe management of the young person during ACCT reviews or Safer Regimes meetings when it was apparent that he was struggling with the regime and that interventions were not working 3. Conflict between Regimes a) Officers did not always seek advice before placing the young person on report for tattooing when there was an indication in the ACCT documentation that adjudication awards would lead to a heighted risk of self-harm b) There was a conflict between the use of a behaviour improvement plan and adjudications which was not recognised at the time 4. Early Release a) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release 5.Cell entry a) There appeared to be an inflexible approach to cell entry requiring the presence of three prison officers even though YOI was in patrol state and concerns were sufficient to require entry Re: Healthcare at Cookham Wood NB: the service provider has changed since the death of Alex Kelly. The new provider is in the process of determining the systems and procedures being put in place at Cookham Wood 1. Sharing of Information a) Officers concerned with the management of the young person were not informed in terms of his non-compliance with medication and the potential effect of the failure to take the medication 2. Medication management a) a)Medication was found stockpiled in the young person’s cell; staff dispensing medication had not ensured it had been taken when it was probably recorded as having been taken b) b)Any failure to take medication was not sufficiently flagged for healthcare/prison staff to deal with the issue 3.Recording of information a) Not all occasions when the young person was seen by the in-reach team were recorded on System One ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Medway Youth Offending Team; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to highlight significant events in ongoing safeguarding records
Wider context from the report
“Re: Secretary of State for Justice Alex Kelly a vulnerable looked after child of 15 years with complex unresolved emotional issues and unmanaged mental health issues was sentenced to a Detention and Training Order to be served at a Young Offender’s Institution without the benefit of a forensic psychiatric assessment. Whilst I heard evidence from a psychiatrist associate of Cookham Wood YOI that the mental health in-reach team were able to address Alex’s mental health needs whilst in custody, I am aware of the deaths of a number of other children in custody who similarly had not had forensic psychiatric assessments and it is for this reason I am reporting the concern. Whilst hearing evidence in relation to lessons learned I heard from the Service Manager of Medway Youth Offending Team that they have now secured the services of a psychiatric mental health nurse to assist them in the effective management of the young people for whom they have responsibilities which I was told was proving effective and is to be continued. Alex Kelly was under an ACCT between the 23rd December 2011 and 3rd January 2012 and 6th January 2012 until his death. During the operation of the ACCT there was a continued conflict between the ACCT process and disciplinary procedures; outside agencies and carers were not asked to contribute; specific acts by Alex were seen as obstructive/challenging behaviour rather than signs of distress or a means of communicating that he needed help (his foster carers who had not been asked to contribute had some experience of Alex using non-verbal methods of communication); the ACCT reviews tended to focus on addressing specific or recent behaviours rather than the reason for the behaviour; although Alex was frequently mentioned at weekly safer regimes multidisciplinary meetings, a holistic approach was never adopted as to how he could best be supported or whether the YOI could support his needs. Re: Tower Hamlets 1. Allocation a) Alex Kelly was without a named social worker for a period of two months at a time when he was in danger of being sent to custody and after he was sent to custody. Difficulties in allocation were not escalated to senior management 2. IT a) Social workers did not transfer documentation including emails onto Framework in a timely manner or at all b) There was no system in place for ensuring that urgent electronic communications were flagged/diverted when the recipient was absent from work 3. Custody a) Social workers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities as Corporate Parent included a role in a looked after child’s welfare whilst in custody Re: Medway Youth Offending Team 1. Involvement with other agencies a) Shortcomings in other agencies which affected the ability of the YOT to manage the young person were not brought to the attention of management 2. Placement within the Secure Estate a) There were inconsistencies in recommendations as to placement in a STC/YOI which were not reconciled b) Youth Offending Team keyworkers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities included a role in the young person’s welfare whilst in custody c) Members of the Youth Offending Team did not all appear to appreciate that the Youth Offending Team could initiate a transfer within the secure estate 3. Caseworker based at Cookham Wood YOI a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person b) Although involved in the ACCT reviews the caseworker was unaware of the range of options available to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews c) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release Re: Cookham Wood YOI 1. Communication with outside agencies a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person 2. ACCT a) Officers were inconsistent in the recording of significant events; entries being made in either the wing observation log, ACCT ongoing record or not at all b) At least one officer did not appear to appreciate the importance of significant incidents/disclosures or report them c) Significant events in a lengthy ongoing record were not highlighted and therefore not obvious to officers reviewing safeguarding provisions d) Officers were unaware of the need to involve outside agencies in the ACCT review process, the range of options available to them to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews e) The safer regimes meetings were not provided with all relevant information and were not used to their full effect. The minutes of the meetings were not fully recorded f) A holistic approach was not taken to the safe management of the young person during ACCT reviews or Safer Regimes meetings when it was apparent that he was struggling with the regime and that interventions were not working 3. Conflict between Regimes a) Officers did not always seek advice before placing the young person on report for tattooing when there was an indication in the ACCT documentation that adjudication awards would lead to a heighted risk of self-harm b) There was a conflict between the use of a behaviour improvement plan and adjudications which was not recognised at the time 4. Early Release a) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release 5.Cell entry a) There appeared to be an inflexible approach to cell entry requiring the presence of three prison officers even though YOI was in patrol state and concerns were sufficient to require entry Re: Healthcare at Cookham Wood NB: the service provider has changed since the death of Alex Kelly. The new provider is in the process of determining the systems and procedures being put in place at Cookham Wood 1. Sharing of Information a) Officers concerned with the management of the young person were not informed in terms of his non-compliance with medication and the potential effect of the failure to take the medication 2. Medication management a) a)Medication was found stockpiled in the young person’s cell; staff dispensing medication had not ensured it had been taken when it was probably recorded as having been taken b) b)Any failure to take medication was not sufficiently flagged for healthcare/prison staff to deal with the issue 3.Recording of information a) Not all occasions when the young person was seen by the in-reach team were recorded on System One ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Medway Youth Offending Team; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to involve outside agencies and carers in safeguarding
Wider context from the report
“Re: Secretary of State for Justice Alex Kelly a vulnerable looked after child of 15 years with complex unresolved emotional issues and unmanaged mental health issues was sentenced to a Detention and Training Order to be served at a Young Offender’s Institution without the benefit of a forensic psychiatric assessment. Whilst I heard evidence from a psychiatrist associate of Cookham Wood YOI that the mental health in-reach team were able to address Alex’s mental health needs whilst in custody, I am aware of the deaths of a number of other children in custody who similarly had not had forensic psychiatric assessments and it is for this reason I am reporting the concern. Whilst hearing evidence in relation to lessons learned I heard from the Service Manager of Medway Youth Offending Team that they have now secured the services of a psychiatric mental health nurse to assist them in the effective management of the young people for whom they have responsibilities which I was told was proving effective and is to be continued. Alex Kelly was under an ACCT between the 23rd December 2011 and 3rd January 2012 and 6th January 2012 until his death. During the operation of the ACCT there was a continued conflict between the ACCT process and disciplinary procedures; outside agencies and carers were not asked to contribute; specific acts by Alex were seen as obstructive/challenging behaviour rather than signs of distress or a means of communicating that he needed help (his foster carers who had not been asked to contribute had some experience of Alex using non-verbal methods of communication); the ACCT reviews tended to focus on addressing specific or recent behaviours rather than the reason for the behaviour; although Alex was frequently mentioned at weekly safer regimes multidisciplinary meetings, a holistic approach was never adopted as to how he could best be supported or whether the YOI could support his needs. Re: Tower Hamlets 1. Allocation a) Alex Kelly was without a named social worker for a period of two months at a time when he was in danger of being sent to custody and after he was sent to custody. Difficulties in allocation were not escalated to senior management 2. IT a) Social workers did not transfer documentation including emails onto Framework in a timely manner or at all b) There was no system in place for ensuring that urgent electronic communications were flagged/diverted when the recipient was absent from work 3. Custody a) Social workers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities as Corporate Parent included a role in a looked after child’s welfare whilst in custody Re: Medway Youth Offending Team 1. Involvement with other agencies a) Shortcomings in other agencies which affected the ability of the YOT to manage the young person were not brought to the attention of management 2. Placement within the Secure Estate a) There were inconsistencies in recommendations as to placement in a STC/YOI which were not reconciled b) Youth Offending Team keyworkers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities included a role in the young person’s welfare whilst in custody c) Members of the Youth Offending Team did not all appear to appreciate that the Youth Offending Team could initiate a transfer within the secure estate 3. Caseworker based at Cookham Wood YOI a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person b) Although involved in the ACCT reviews the caseworker was unaware of the range of options available to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews c) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release Re: Cookham Wood YOI 1. Communication with outside agencies a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person 2. ACCT a) Officers were inconsistent in the recording of significant events; entries being made in either the wing observation log, ACCT ongoing record or not at all b) At least one officer did not appear to appreciate the importance of significant incidents/disclosures or report them c) Significant events in a lengthy ongoing record were not highlighted and therefore not obvious to officers reviewing safeguarding provisions d) Officers were unaware of the need to involve outside agencies in the ACCT review process, the range of options available to them to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews e) The safer regimes meetings were not provided with all relevant information and were not used to their full effect. The minutes of the meetings were not fully recorded f) A holistic approach was not taken to the safe management of the young person during ACCT reviews or Safer Regimes meetings when it was apparent that he was struggling with the regime and that interventions were not working 3. Conflict between Regimes a) Officers did not always seek advice before placing the young person on report for tattooing when there was an indication in the ACCT documentation that adjudication awards would lead to a heighted risk of self-harm b) There was a conflict between the use of a behaviour improvement plan and adjudications which was not recognised at the time 4. Early Release a) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release 5.Cell entry a) There appeared to be an inflexible approach to cell entry requiring the presence of three prison officers even though YOI was in patrol state and concerns were sufficient to require entry Re: Healthcare at Cookham Wood NB: the service provider has changed since the death of Alex Kelly. The new provider is in the process of determining the systems and procedures being put in place at Cookham Wood 1. Sharing of Information a) Officers concerned with the management of the young person were not informed in terms of his non-compliance with medication and the potential effect of the failure to take the medication 2. Medication management a) a)Medication was found stockpiled in the young person’s cell; staff dispensing medication had not ensured it had been taken when it was probably recorded as having been taken b) b)Any failure to take medication was not sufficiently flagged for healthcare/prison staff to deal with the issue 3.Recording of information a) Not all occasions when the young person was seen by the in-reach team were recorded on System One ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Medway Youth Offending Team; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to reconcile inconsistent secure-placement recommendations
Wider context from the report
“Re: Secretary of State for Justice Alex Kelly a vulnerable looked after child of 15 years with complex unresolved emotional issues and unmanaged mental health issues was sentenced to a Detention and Training Order to be served at a Young Offender’s Institution without the benefit of a forensic psychiatric assessment. Whilst I heard evidence from a psychiatrist associate of Cookham Wood YOI that the mental health in-reach team were able to address Alex’s mental health needs whilst in custody, I am aware of the deaths of a number of other children in custody who similarly had not had forensic psychiatric assessments and it is for this reason I am reporting the concern. Whilst hearing evidence in relation to lessons learned I heard from the Service Manager of Medway Youth Offending Team that they have now secured the services of a psychiatric mental health nurse to assist them in the effective management of the young people for whom they have responsibilities which I was told was proving effective and is to be continued. Alex Kelly was under an ACCT between the 23rd December 2011 and 3rd January 2012 and 6th January 2012 until his death. During the operation of the ACCT there was a continued conflict between the ACCT process and disciplinary procedures; outside agencies and carers were not asked to contribute; specific acts by Alex were seen as obstructive/challenging behaviour rather than signs of distress or a means of communicating that he needed help (his foster carers who had not been asked to contribute had some experience of Alex using non-verbal methods of communication); the ACCT reviews tended to focus on addressing specific or recent behaviours rather than the reason for the behaviour; although Alex was frequently mentioned at weekly safer regimes multidisciplinary meetings, a holistic approach was never adopted as to how he could best be supported or whether the YOI could support his needs. Re: Tower Hamlets 1. Allocation a) Alex Kelly was without a named social worker for a period of two months at a time when he was in danger of being sent to custody and after he was sent to custody. Difficulties in allocation were not escalated to senior management 2. IT a) Social workers did not transfer documentation including emails onto Framework in a timely manner or at all b) There was no system in place for ensuring that urgent electronic communications were flagged/diverted when the recipient was absent from work 3. Custody a) Social workers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities as Corporate Parent included a role in a looked after child’s welfare whilst in custody Re: Medway Youth Offending Team 1. Involvement with other agencies a) Shortcomings in other agencies which affected the ability of the YOT to manage the young person were not brought to the attention of management 2. Placement within the Secure Estate a) There were inconsistencies in recommendations as to placement in a STC/YOI which were not reconciled b) Youth Offending Team keyworkers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities included a role in the young person’s welfare whilst in custody c) Members of the Youth Offending Team did not all appear to appreciate that the Youth Offending Team could initiate a transfer within the secure estate 3. Caseworker based at Cookham Wood YOI a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person b) Although involved in the ACCT reviews the caseworker was unaware of the range of options available to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews c) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release Re: Cookham Wood YOI 1. Communication with outside agencies a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person 2. ACCT a) Officers were inconsistent in the recording of significant events; entries being made in either the wing observation log, ACCT ongoing record or not at all b) At least one officer did not appear to appreciate the importance of significant incidents/disclosures or report them c) Significant events in a lengthy ongoing record were not highlighted and therefore not obvious to officers reviewing safeguarding provisions d) Officers were unaware of the need to involve outside agencies in the ACCT review process, the range of options available to them to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews e) The safer regimes meetings were not provided with all relevant information and were not used to their full effect. The minutes of the meetings were not fully recorded f) A holistic approach was not taken to the safe management of the young person during ACCT reviews or Safer Regimes meetings when it was apparent that he was struggling with the regime and that interventions were not working 3. Conflict between Regimes a) Officers did not always seek advice before placing the young person on report for tattooing when there was an indication in the ACCT documentation that adjudication awards would lead to a heighted risk of self-harm b) There was a conflict between the use of a behaviour improvement plan and adjudications which was not recognised at the time 4. Early Release a) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release 5.Cell entry a) There appeared to be an inflexible approach to cell entry requiring the presence of three prison officers even though YOI was in patrol state and concerns were sufficient to require entry Re: Healthcare at Cookham Wood NB: the service provider has changed since the death of Alex Kelly. The new provider is in the process of determining the systems and procedures being put in place at Cookham Wood 1. Sharing of Information a) Officers concerned with the management of the young person were not informed in terms of his non-compliance with medication and the potential effect of the failure to take the medication 2. Medication management a) a)Medication was found stockpiled in the young person’s cell; staff dispensing medication had not ensured it had been taken when it was probably recorded as having been taken b) b)Any failure to take medication was not sufficiently flagged for healthcare/prison staff to deal with the issue 3.Recording of information a) Not all occasions when the young person was seen by the in-reach team were recorded on System One ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Medway Youth Offending Team; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to inform and involve agencies and carers in custodial welfare management
Wider context from the report
“Re: Secretary of State for Justice Alex Kelly a vulnerable looked after child of 15 years with complex unresolved emotional issues and unmanaged mental health issues was sentenced to a Detention and Training Order to be served at a Young Offender’s Institution without the benefit of a forensic psychiatric assessment. Whilst I heard evidence from a psychiatrist associate of Cookham Wood YOI that the mental health in-reach team were able to address Alex’s mental health needs whilst in custody, I am aware of the deaths of a number of other children in custody who similarly had not had forensic psychiatric assessments and it is for this reason I am reporting the concern. Whilst hearing evidence in relation to lessons learned I heard from the Service Manager of Medway Youth Offending Team that they have now secured the services of a psychiatric mental health nurse to assist them in the effective management of the young people for whom they have responsibilities which I was told was proving effective and is to be continued. Alex Kelly was under an ACCT between the 23rd December 2011 and 3rd January 2012 and 6th January 2012 until his death. During the operation of the ACCT there was a continued conflict between the ACCT process and disciplinary procedures; outside agencies and carers were not asked to contribute; specific acts by Alex were seen as obstructive/challenging behaviour rather than signs of distress or a means of communicating that he needed help (his foster carers who had not been asked to contribute had some experience of Alex using non-verbal methods of communication); the ACCT reviews tended to focus on addressing specific or recent behaviours rather than the reason for the behaviour; although Alex was frequently mentioned at weekly safer regimes multidisciplinary meetings, a holistic approach was never adopted as to how he could best be supported or whether the YOI could support his needs. Re: Tower Hamlets 1. Allocation a) Alex Kelly was without a named social worker for a period of two months at a time when he was in danger of being sent to custody and after he was sent to custody. Difficulties in allocation were not escalated to senior management 2. IT a) Social workers did not transfer documentation including emails onto Framework in a timely manner or at all b) There was no system in place for ensuring that urgent electronic communications were flagged/diverted when the recipient was absent from work 3. Custody a) Social workers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities as Corporate Parent included a role in a looked after child’s welfare whilst in custody Re: Medway Youth Offending Team 1. Involvement with other agencies a) Shortcomings in other agencies which affected the ability of the YOT to manage the young person were not brought to the attention of management 2. Placement within the Secure Estate a) There were inconsistencies in recommendations as to placement in a STC/YOI which were not reconciled b) Youth Offending Team keyworkers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities included a role in the young person’s welfare whilst in custody c) Members of the Youth Offending Team did not all appear to appreciate that the Youth Offending Team could initiate a transfer within the secure estate 3. Caseworker based at Cookham Wood YOI a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person b) Although involved in the ACCT reviews the caseworker was unaware of the range of options available to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews c) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release Re: Cookham Wood YOI 1. Communication with outside agencies a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person 2. ACCT a) Officers were inconsistent in the recording of significant events; entries being made in either the wing observation log, ACCT ongoing record or not at all b) At least one officer did not appear to appreciate the importance of significant incidents/disclosures or report them c) Significant events in a lengthy ongoing record were not highlighted and therefore not obvious to officers reviewing safeguarding provisions d) Officers were unaware of the need to involve outside agencies in the ACCT review process, the range of options available to them to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews e) The safer regimes meetings were not provided with all relevant information and were not used to their full effect. The minutes of the meetings were not fully recorded f) A holistic approach was not taken to the safe management of the young person during ACCT reviews or Safer Regimes meetings when it was apparent that he was struggling with the regime and that interventions were not working 3. Conflict between Regimes a) Officers did not always seek advice before placing the young person on report for tattooing when there was an indication in the ACCT documentation that adjudication awards would lead to a heighted risk of self-harm b) There was a conflict between the use of a behaviour improvement plan and adjudications which was not recognised at the time 4. Early Release a) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release 5.Cell entry a) There appeared to be an inflexible approach to cell entry requiring the presence of three prison officers even though YOI was in patrol state and concerns were sufficient to require entry Re: Healthcare at Cookham Wood NB: the service provider has changed since the death of Alex Kelly. The new provider is in the process of determining the systems and procedures being put in place at Cookham Wood 1. Sharing of Information a) Officers concerned with the management of the young person were not informed in terms of his non-compliance with medication and the potential effect of the failure to take the medication 2. Medication management a) a)Medication was found stockpiled in the young person’s cell; staff dispensing medication had not ensured it had been taken when it was probably recorded as having been taken b) b)Any failure to take medication was not sufficiently flagged for healthcare/prison staff to deal with the issue 3.Recording of information a) Not all occasions when the young person was seen by the in-reach team were recorded on System One ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Medway Youth Offending Team; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure of ACCT reviews to address reasons for behaviour
Wider context from the report
“Re: Secretary of State for Justice Alex Kelly a vulnerable looked after child of 15 years with complex unresolved emotional issues and unmanaged mental health issues was sentenced to a Detention and Training Order to be served at a Young Offender’s Institution without the benefit of a forensic psychiatric assessment. Whilst I heard evidence from a psychiatrist associate of Cookham Wood YOI that the mental health in-reach team were able to address Alex’s mental health needs whilst in custody, I am aware of the deaths of a number of other children in custody who similarly had not had forensic psychiatric assessments and it is for this reason I am reporting the concern. Whilst hearing evidence in relation to lessons learned I heard from the Service Manager of Medway Youth Offending Team that they have now secured the services of a psychiatric mental health nurse to assist them in the effective management of the young people for whom they have responsibilities which I was told was proving effective and is to be continued. Alex Kelly was under an ACCT between the 23rd December 2011 and 3rd January 2012 and 6th January 2012 until his death. During the operation of the ACCT there was a continued conflict between the ACCT process and disciplinary procedures; outside agencies and carers were not asked to contribute; specific acts by Alex were seen as obstructive/challenging behaviour rather than signs of distress or a means of communicating that he needed help (his foster carers who had not been asked to contribute had some experience of Alex using non-verbal methods of communication); the ACCT reviews tended to focus on addressing specific or recent behaviours rather than the reason for the behaviour; although Alex was frequently mentioned at weekly safer regimes multidisciplinary meetings, a holistic approach was never adopted as to how he could best be supported or whether the YOI could support his needs. Re: Tower Hamlets 1. Allocation a) Alex Kelly was without a named social worker for a period of two months at a time when he was in danger of being sent to custody and after he was sent to custody. Difficulties in allocation were not escalated to senior management 2. IT a) Social workers did not transfer documentation including emails onto Framework in a timely manner or at all b) There was no system in place for ensuring that urgent electronic communications were flagged/diverted when the recipient was absent from work 3. Custody a) Social workers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities as Corporate Parent included a role in a looked after child’s welfare whilst in custody Re: Medway Youth Offending Team 1. Involvement with other agencies a) Shortcomings in other agencies which affected the ability of the YOT to manage the young person were not brought to the attention of management 2. Placement within the Secure Estate a) There were inconsistencies in recommendations as to placement in a STC/YOI which were not reconciled b) Youth Offending Team keyworkers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities included a role in the young person’s welfare whilst in custody c) Members of the Youth Offending Team did not all appear to appreciate that the Youth Offending Team could initiate a transfer within the secure estate 3. Caseworker based at Cookham Wood YOI a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person b) Although involved in the ACCT reviews the caseworker was unaware of the range of options available to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews c) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release Re: Cookham Wood YOI 1. Communication with outside agencies a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person 2. ACCT a) Officers were inconsistent in the recording of significant events; entries being made in either the wing observation log, ACCT ongoing record or not at all b) At least one officer did not appear to appreciate the importance of significant incidents/disclosures or report them c) Significant events in a lengthy ongoing record were not highlighted and therefore not obvious to officers reviewing safeguarding provisions d) Officers were unaware of the need to involve outside agencies in the ACCT review process, the range of options available to them to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews e) The safer regimes meetings were not provided with all relevant information and were not used to their full effect. The minutes of the meetings were not fully recorded f) A holistic approach was not taken to the safe management of the young person during ACCT reviews or Safer Regimes meetings when it was apparent that he was struggling with the regime and that interventions were not working 3. Conflict between Regimes a) Officers did not always seek advice before placing the young person on report for tattooing when there was an indication in the ACCT documentation that adjudication awards would lead to a heighted risk of self-harm b) There was a conflict between the use of a behaviour improvement plan and adjudications which was not recognised at the time 4. Early Release a) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release 5.Cell entry a) There appeared to be an inflexible approach to cell entry requiring the presence of three prison officers even though YOI was in patrol state and concerns were sufficient to require entry Re: Healthcare at Cookham Wood NB: the service provider has changed since the death of Alex Kelly. The new provider is in the process of determining the systems and procedures being put in place at Cookham Wood 1. Sharing of Information a) Officers concerned with the management of the young person were not informed in terms of his non-compliance with medication and the potential effect of the failure to take the medication 2. Medication management a) a)Medication was found stockpiled in the young person’s cell; staff dispensing medication had not ensured it had been taken when it was probably recorded as having been taken b) b)Any failure to take medication was not sufficiently flagged for healthcare/prison staff to deal with the issue 3.Recording of information a) Not all occasions when the young person was seen by the in-reach team were recorded on System One ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Medway Youth Offending Team; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to understand YOT authority to initiate secure-estate transfers
Wider context from the report
“Re: Secretary of State for Justice Alex Kelly a vulnerable looked after child of 15 years with complex unresolved emotional issues and unmanaged mental health issues was sentenced to a Detention and Training Order to be served at a Young Offender’s Institution without the benefit of a forensic psychiatric assessment. Whilst I heard evidence from a psychiatrist associate of Cookham Wood YOI that the mental health in-reach team were able to address Alex’s mental health needs whilst in custody, I am aware of the deaths of a number of other children in custody who similarly had not had forensic psychiatric assessments and it is for this reason I am reporting the concern. Whilst hearing evidence in relation to lessons learned I heard from the Service Manager of Medway Youth Offending Team that they have now secured the services of a psychiatric mental health nurse to assist them in the effective management of the young people for whom they have responsibilities which I was told was proving effective and is to be continued. Alex Kelly was under an ACCT between the 23rd December 2011 and 3rd January 2012 and 6th January 2012 until his death. During the operation of the ACCT there was a continued conflict between the ACCT process and disciplinary procedures; outside agencies and carers were not asked to contribute; specific acts by Alex were seen as obstructive/challenging behaviour rather than signs of distress or a means of communicating that he needed help (his foster carers who had not been asked to contribute had some experience of Alex using non-verbal methods of communication); the ACCT reviews tended to focus on addressing specific or recent behaviours rather than the reason for the behaviour; although Alex was frequently mentioned at weekly safer regimes multidisciplinary meetings, a holistic approach was never adopted as to how he could best be supported or whether the YOI could support his needs. Re: Tower Hamlets 1. Allocation a) Alex Kelly was without a named social worker for a period of two months at a time when he was in danger of being sent to custody and after he was sent to custody. Difficulties in allocation were not escalated to senior management 2. IT a) Social workers did not transfer documentation including emails onto Framework in a timely manner or at all b) There was no system in place for ensuring that urgent electronic communications were flagged/diverted when the recipient was absent from work 3. Custody a) Social workers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities as Corporate Parent included a role in a looked after child’s welfare whilst in custody Re: Medway Youth Offending Team 1. Involvement with other agencies a) Shortcomings in other agencies which affected the ability of the YOT to manage the young person were not brought to the attention of management 2. Placement within the Secure Estate a) There were inconsistencies in recommendations as to placement in a STC/YOI which were not reconciled b) Youth Offending Team keyworkers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities included a role in the young person’s welfare whilst in custody c) Members of the Youth Offending Team did not all appear to appreciate that the Youth Offending Team could initiate a transfer within the secure estate 3. Caseworker based at Cookham Wood YOI a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person b) Although involved in the ACCT reviews the caseworker was unaware of the range of options available to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews c) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release Re: Cookham Wood YOI 1. Communication with outside agencies a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person 2. ACCT a) Officers were inconsistent in the recording of significant events; entries being made in either the wing observation log, ACCT ongoing record or not at all b) At least one officer did not appear to appreciate the importance of significant incidents/disclosures or report them c) Significant events in a lengthy ongoing record were not highlighted and therefore not obvious to officers reviewing safeguarding provisions d) Officers were unaware of the need to involve outside agencies in the ACCT review process, the range of options available to them to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews e) The safer regimes meetings were not provided with all relevant information and were not used to their full effect. The minutes of the meetings were not fully recorded f) A holistic approach was not taken to the safe management of the young person during ACCT reviews or Safer Regimes meetings when it was apparent that he was struggling with the regime and that interventions were not working 3. Conflict between Regimes a) Officers did not always seek advice before placing the young person on report for tattooing when there was an indication in the ACCT documentation that adjudication awards would lead to a heighted risk of self-harm b) There was a conflict between the use of a behaviour improvement plan and adjudications which was not recognised at the time 4. Early Release a) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release 5.Cell entry a) There appeared to be an inflexible approach to cell entry requiring the presence of three prison officers even though YOI was in patrol state and concerns were sufficient to require entry Re: Healthcare at Cookham Wood NB: the service provider has changed since the death of Alex Kelly. The new provider is in the process of determining the systems and procedures being put in place at Cookham Wood 1. Sharing of Information a) Officers concerned with the management of the young person were not informed in terms of his non-compliance with medication and the potential effect of the failure to take the medication 2. Medication management a) a)Medication was found stockpiled in the young person’s cell; staff dispensing medication had not ensured it had been taken when it was probably recorded as having been taken b) b)Any failure to take medication was not sufficiently flagged for healthcare/prison staff to deal with the issue 3.Recording of information a) Not all occasions when the young person was seen by the in-reach team were recorded on System One ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Medway Youth Offending Team; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to escalate interagency shortcomings affecting YOT management
Wider context from the report
“Re: Secretary of State for Justice Alex Kelly a vulnerable looked after child of 15 years with complex unresolved emotional issues and unmanaged mental health issues was sentenced to a Detention and Training Order to be served at a Young Offender’s Institution without the benefit of a forensic psychiatric assessment. Whilst I heard evidence from a psychiatrist associate of Cookham Wood YOI that the mental health in-reach team were able to address Alex’s mental health needs whilst in custody, I am aware of the deaths of a number of other children in custody who similarly had not had forensic psychiatric assessments and it is for this reason I am reporting the concern. Whilst hearing evidence in relation to lessons learned I heard from the Service Manager of Medway Youth Offending Team that they have now secured the services of a psychiatric mental health nurse to assist them in the effective management of the young people for whom they have responsibilities which I was told was proving effective and is to be continued. Alex Kelly was under an ACCT between the 23rd December 2011 and 3rd January 2012 and 6th January 2012 until his death. During the operation of the ACCT there was a continued conflict between the ACCT process and disciplinary procedures; outside agencies and carers were not asked to contribute; specific acts by Alex were seen as obstructive/challenging behaviour rather than signs of distress or a means of communicating that he needed help (his foster carers who had not been asked to contribute had some experience of Alex using non-verbal methods of communication); the ACCT reviews tended to focus on addressing specific or recent behaviours rather than the reason for the behaviour; although Alex was frequently mentioned at weekly safer regimes multidisciplinary meetings, a holistic approach was never adopted as to how he could best be supported or whether the YOI could support his needs. Re: Tower Hamlets 1. Allocation a) Alex Kelly was without a named social worker for a period of two months at a time when he was in danger of being sent to custody and after he was sent to custody. Difficulties in allocation were not escalated to senior management 2. IT a) Social workers did not transfer documentation including emails onto Framework in a timely manner or at all b) There was no system in place for ensuring that urgent electronic communications were flagged/diverted when the recipient was absent from work 3. Custody a) Social workers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities as Corporate Parent included a role in a looked after child’s welfare whilst in custody Re: Medway Youth Offending Team 1. Involvement with other agencies a) Shortcomings in other agencies which affected the ability of the YOT to manage the young person were not brought to the attention of management 2. Placement within the Secure Estate a) There were inconsistencies in recommendations as to placement in a STC/YOI which were not reconciled b) Youth Offending Team keyworkers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities included a role in the young person’s welfare whilst in custody c) Members of the Youth Offending Team did not all appear to appreciate that the Youth Offending Team could initiate a transfer within the secure estate 3. Caseworker based at Cookham Wood YOI a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person b) Although involved in the ACCT reviews the caseworker was unaware of the range of options available to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews c) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release Re: Cookham Wood YOI 1. Communication with outside agencies a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person 2. ACCT a) Officers were inconsistent in the recording of significant events; entries being made in either the wing observation log, ACCT ongoing record or not at all b) At least one officer did not appear to appreciate the importance of significant incidents/disclosures or report them c) Significant events in a lengthy ongoing record were not highlighted and therefore not obvious to officers reviewing safeguarding provisions d) Officers were unaware of the need to involve outside agencies in the ACCT review process, the range of options available to them to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews e) The safer regimes meetings were not provided with all relevant information and were not used to their full effect. The minutes of the meetings were not fully recorded f) A holistic approach was not taken to the safe management of the young person during ACCT reviews or Safer Regimes meetings when it was apparent that he was struggling with the regime and that interventions were not working 3. Conflict between Regimes a) Officers did not always seek advice before placing the young person on report for tattooing when there was an indication in the ACCT documentation that adjudication awards would lead to a heighted risk of self-harm b) There was a conflict between the use of a behaviour improvement plan and adjudications which was not recognised at the time 4. Early Release a) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release 5.Cell entry a) There appeared to be an inflexible approach to cell entry requiring the presence of three prison officers even though YOI was in patrol state and concerns were sufficient to require entry Re: Healthcare at Cookham Wood NB: the service provider has changed since the death of Alex Kelly. The new provider is in the process of determining the systems and procedures being put in place at Cookham Wood 1. Sharing of Information a) Officers concerned with the management of the young person were not informed in terms of his non-compliance with medication and the potential effect of the failure to take the medication 2. Medication management a) a)Medication was found stockpiled in the young person’s cell; staff dispensing medication had not ensured it had been taken when it was probably recorded as having been taken b) b)Any failure to take medication was not sufficiently flagged for healthcare/prison staff to deal with the issue 3.Recording of information a) Not all occasions when the young person was seen by the in-reach team were recorded on System One ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Medway Youth Offending Team; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to adopt a holistic approach to custodial support
Wider context from the report
“Re: Secretary of State for Justice Alex Kelly a vulnerable looked after child of 15 years with complex unresolved emotional issues and unmanaged mental health issues was sentenced to a Detention and Training Order to be served at a Young Offender’s Institution without the benefit of a forensic psychiatric assessment. Whilst I heard evidence from a psychiatrist associate of Cookham Wood YOI that the mental health in-reach team were able to address Alex’s mental health needs whilst in custody, I am aware of the deaths of a number of other children in custody who similarly had not had forensic psychiatric assessments and it is for this reason I am reporting the concern. Whilst hearing evidence in relation to lessons learned I heard from the Service Manager of Medway Youth Offending Team that they have now secured the services of a psychiatric mental health nurse to assist them in the effective management of the young people for whom they have responsibilities which I was told was proving effective and is to be continued. Alex Kelly was under an ACCT between the 23rd December 2011 and 3rd January 2012 and 6th January 2012 until his death. During the operation of the ACCT there was a continued conflict between the ACCT process and disciplinary procedures; outside agencies and carers were not asked to contribute; specific acts by Alex were seen as obstructive/challenging behaviour rather than signs of distress or a means of communicating that he needed help (his foster carers who had not been asked to contribute had some experience of Alex using non-verbal methods of communication); the ACCT reviews tended to focus on addressing specific or recent behaviours rather than the reason for the behaviour; although Alex was frequently mentioned at weekly safer regimes multidisciplinary meetings, a holistic approach was never adopted as to how he could best be supported or whether the YOI could support his needs. Re: Tower Hamlets 1. Allocation a) Alex Kelly was without a named social worker for a period of two months at a time when he was in danger of being sent to custody and after he was sent to custody. Difficulties in allocation were not escalated to senior management 2. IT a) Social workers did not transfer documentation including emails onto Framework in a timely manner or at all b) There was no system in place for ensuring that urgent electronic communications were flagged/diverted when the recipient was absent from work 3. Custody a) Social workers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities as Corporate Parent included a role in a looked after child’s welfare whilst in custody Re: Medway Youth Offending Team 1. Involvement with other agencies a) Shortcomings in other agencies which affected the ability of the YOT to manage the young person were not brought to the attention of management 2. Placement within the Secure Estate a) There were inconsistencies in recommendations as to placement in a STC/YOI which were not reconciled b) Youth Offending Team keyworkers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities included a role in the young person’s welfare whilst in custody c) Members of the Youth Offending Team did not all appear to appreciate that the Youth Offending Team could initiate a transfer within the secure estate 3. Caseworker based at Cookham Wood YOI a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person b) Although involved in the ACCT reviews the caseworker was unaware of the range of options available to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews c) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release Re: Cookham Wood YOI 1. Communication with outside agencies a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person 2. ACCT a) Officers were inconsistent in the recording of significant events; entries being made in either the wing observation log, ACCT ongoing record or not at all b) At least one officer did not appear to appreciate the importance of significant incidents/disclosures or report them c) Significant events in a lengthy ongoing record were not highlighted and therefore not obvious to officers reviewing safeguarding provisions d) Officers were unaware of the need to involve outside agencies in the ACCT review process, the range of options available to them to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews e) The safer regimes meetings were not provided with all relevant information and were not used to their full effect. The minutes of the meetings were not fully recorded f) A holistic approach was not taken to the safe management of the young person during ACCT reviews or Safer Regimes meetings when it was apparent that he was struggling with the regime and that interventions were not working 3. Conflict between Regimes a) Officers did not always seek advice before placing the young person on report for tattooing when there was an indication in the ACCT documentation that adjudication awards would lead to a heighted risk of self-harm b) There was a conflict between the use of a behaviour improvement plan and adjudications which was not recognised at the time 4. Early Release a) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release 5.Cell entry a) There appeared to be an inflexible approach to cell entry requiring the presence of three prison officers even though YOI was in patrol state and concerns were sufficient to require entry Re: Healthcare at Cookham Wood NB: the service provider has changed since the death of Alex Kelly. The new provider is in the process of determining the systems and procedures being put in place at Cookham Wood 1. Sharing of Information a) Officers concerned with the management of the young person were not informed in terms of his non-compliance with medication and the potential effect of the failure to take the medication 2. Medication management a) a)Medication was found stockpiled in the young person’s cell; staff dispensing medication had not ensured it had been taken when it was probably recorded as having been taken b) b)Any failure to take medication was not sufficiently flagged for healthcare/prison staff to deal with the issue 3.Recording of information a) Not all occasions when the young person was seen by the in-reach team were recorded on System One ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Medway Youth Offending Team; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to understand corporate parenting responsibilities for children in custody
Wider context from the report
“Re: Secretary of State for Justice Alex Kelly a vulnerable looked after child of 15 years with complex unresolved emotional issues and unmanaged mental health issues was sentenced to a Detention and Training Order to be served at a Young Offender’s Institution without the benefit of a forensic psychiatric assessment. Whilst I heard evidence from a psychiatrist associate of Cookham Wood YOI that the mental health in-reach team were able to address Alex’s mental health needs whilst in custody, I am aware of the deaths of a number of other children in custody who similarly had not had forensic psychiatric assessments and it is for this reason I am reporting the concern. Whilst hearing evidence in relation to lessons learned I heard from the Service Manager of Medway Youth Offending Team that they have now secured the services of a psychiatric mental health nurse to assist them in the effective management of the young people for whom they have responsibilities which I was told was proving effective and is to be continued. Alex Kelly was under an ACCT between the 23rd December 2011 and 3rd January 2012 and 6th January 2012 until his death. During the operation of the ACCT there was a continued conflict between the ACCT process and disciplinary procedures; outside agencies and carers were not asked to contribute; specific acts by Alex were seen as obstructive/challenging behaviour rather than signs of distress or a means of communicating that he needed help (his foster carers who had not been asked to contribute had some experience of Alex using non-verbal methods of communication); the ACCT reviews tended to focus on addressing specific or recent behaviours rather than the reason for the behaviour; although Alex was frequently mentioned at weekly safer regimes multidisciplinary meetings, a holistic approach was never adopted as to how he could best be supported or whether the YOI could support his needs. Re: Tower Hamlets 1. Allocation a) Alex Kelly was without a named social worker for a period of two months at a time when he was in danger of being sent to custody and after he was sent to custody. Difficulties in allocation were not escalated to senior management 2. IT a) Social workers did not transfer documentation including emails onto Framework in a timely manner or at all b) There was no system in place for ensuring that urgent electronic communications were flagged/diverted when the recipient was absent from work 3. Custody a) Social workers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities as Corporate Parent included a role in a looked after child’s welfare whilst in custody Re: Medway Youth Offending Team 1. Involvement with other agencies a) Shortcomings in other agencies which affected the ability of the YOT to manage the young person were not brought to the attention of management 2. Placement within the Secure Estate a) There were inconsistencies in recommendations as to placement in a STC/YOI which were not reconciled b) Youth Offending Team keyworkers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities included a role in the young person’s welfare whilst in custody c) Members of the Youth Offending Team did not all appear to appreciate that the Youth Offending Team could initiate a transfer within the secure estate 3. Caseworker based at Cookham Wood YOI a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person b) Although involved in the ACCT reviews the caseworker was unaware of the range of options available to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews c) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release Re: Cookham Wood YOI 1. Communication with outside agencies a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person 2. ACCT a) Officers were inconsistent in the recording of significant events; entries being made in either the wing observation log, ACCT ongoing record or not at all b) At least one officer did not appear to appreciate the importance of significant incidents/disclosures or report them c) Significant events in a lengthy ongoing record were not highlighted and therefore not obvious to officers reviewing safeguarding provisions d) Officers were unaware of the need to involve outside agencies in the ACCT review process, the range of options available to them to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews e) The safer regimes meetings were not provided with all relevant information and were not used to their full effect. The minutes of the meetings were not fully recorded f) A holistic approach was not taken to the safe management of the young person during ACCT reviews or Safer Regimes meetings when it was apparent that he was struggling with the regime and that interventions were not working 3. Conflict between Regimes a) Officers did not always seek advice before placing the young person on report for tattooing when there was an indication in the ACCT documentation that adjudication awards would lead to a heighted risk of self-harm b) There was a conflict between the use of a behaviour improvement plan and adjudications which was not recognised at the time 4. Early Release a) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release 5.Cell entry a) There appeared to be an inflexible approach to cell entry requiring the presence of three prison officers even though YOI was in patrol state and concerns were sufficient to require entry Re: Healthcare at Cookham Wood NB: the service provider has changed since the death of Alex Kelly. The new provider is in the process of determining the systems and procedures being put in place at Cookham Wood 1. Sharing of Information a) Officers concerned with the management of the young person were not informed in terms of his non-compliance with medication and the potential effect of the failure to take the medication 2. Medication management a) a)Medication was found stockpiled in the young person’s cell; staff dispensing medication had not ensured it had been taken when it was probably recorded as having been taken b) b)Any failure to take medication was not sufficiently flagged for healthcare/prison staff to deal with the issue 3.Recording of information a) Not all occasions when the young person was seen by the in-reach team were recorded on System One ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Medway Youth Offending Team; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Inconsistent recording of significant events across safeguarding records
Wider context from the report
“Re: Secretary of State for Justice Alex Kelly a vulnerable looked after child of 15 years with complex unresolved emotional issues and unmanaged mental health issues was sentenced to a Detention and Training Order to be served at a Young Offender’s Institution without the benefit of a forensic psychiatric assessment. Whilst I heard evidence from a psychiatrist associate of Cookham Wood YOI that the mental health in-reach team were able to address Alex’s mental health needs whilst in custody, I am aware of the deaths of a number of other children in custody who similarly had not had forensic psychiatric assessments and it is for this reason I am reporting the concern. Whilst hearing evidence in relation to lessons learned I heard from the Service Manager of Medway Youth Offending Team that they have now secured the services of a psychiatric mental health nurse to assist them in the effective management of the young people for whom they have responsibilities which I was told was proving effective and is to be continued. Alex Kelly was under an ACCT between the 23rd December 2011 and 3rd January 2012 and 6th January 2012 until his death. During the operation of the ACCT there was a continued conflict between the ACCT process and disciplinary procedures; outside agencies and carers were not asked to contribute; specific acts by Alex were seen as obstructive/challenging behaviour rather than signs of distress or a means of communicating that he needed help (his foster carers who had not been asked to contribute had some experience of Alex using non-verbal methods of communication); the ACCT reviews tended to focus on addressing specific or recent behaviours rather than the reason for the behaviour; although Alex was frequently mentioned at weekly safer regimes multidisciplinary meetings, a holistic approach was never adopted as to how he could best be supported or whether the YOI could support his needs. Re: Tower Hamlets 1. Allocation a) Alex Kelly was without a named social worker for a period of two months at a time when he was in danger of being sent to custody and after he was sent to custody. Difficulties in allocation were not escalated to senior management 2. IT a) Social workers did not transfer documentation including emails onto Framework in a timely manner or at all b) There was no system in place for ensuring that urgent electronic communications were flagged/diverted when the recipient was absent from work 3. Custody a) Social workers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities as Corporate Parent included a role in a looked after child’s welfare whilst in custody Re: Medway Youth Offending Team 1. Involvement with other agencies a) Shortcomings in other agencies which affected the ability of the YOT to manage the young person were not brought to the attention of management 2. Placement within the Secure Estate a) There were inconsistencies in recommendations as to placement in a STC/YOI which were not reconciled b) Youth Offending Team keyworkers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities included a role in the young person’s welfare whilst in custody c) Members of the Youth Offending Team did not all appear to appreciate that the Youth Offending Team could initiate a transfer within the secure estate 3. Caseworker based at Cookham Wood YOI a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person b) Although involved in the ACCT reviews the caseworker was unaware of the range of options available to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews c) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release Re: Cookham Wood YOI 1. Communication with outside agencies a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person 2. ACCT a) Officers were inconsistent in the recording of significant events; entries being made in either the wing observation log, ACCT ongoing record or not at all b) At least one officer did not appear to appreciate the importance of significant incidents/disclosures or report them c) Significant events in a lengthy ongoing record were not highlighted and therefore not obvious to officers reviewing safeguarding provisions d) Officers were unaware of the need to involve outside agencies in the ACCT review process, the range of options available to them to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews e) The safer regimes meetings were not provided with all relevant information and were not used to their full effect. The minutes of the meetings were not fully recorded f) A holistic approach was not taken to the safe management of the young person during ACCT reviews or Safer Regimes meetings when it was apparent that he was struggling with the regime and that interventions were not working 3. Conflict between Regimes a) Officers did not always seek advice before placing the young person on report for tattooing when there was an indication in the ACCT documentation that adjudication awards would lead to a heighted risk of self-harm b) There was a conflict between the use of a behaviour improvement plan and adjudications which was not recognised at the time 4. Early Release a) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release 5.Cell entry a) There appeared to be an inflexible approach to cell entry requiring the presence of three prison officers even though YOI was in patrol state and concerns were sufficient to require entry Re: Healthcare at Cookham Wood NB: the service provider has changed since the death of Alex Kelly. The new provider is in the process of determining the systems and procedures being put in place at Cookham Wood 1. Sharing of Information a) Officers concerned with the management of the young person were not informed in terms of his non-compliance with medication and the potential effect of the failure to take the medication 2. Medication management a) a)Medication was found stockpiled in the young person’s cell; staff dispensing medication had not ensured it had been taken when it was probably recorded as having been taken b) b)Any failure to take medication was not sufficiently flagged for healthcare/prison staff to deal with the issue 3.Recording of information a) Not all occasions when the young person was seen by the in-reach team were recorded on System One ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Medway Youth Offending Team; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to flag medication non-compliance for clinical and custodial action
Wider context from the report
“Re: Secretary of State for Justice Alex Kelly a vulnerable looked after child of 15 years with complex unresolved emotional issues and unmanaged mental health issues was sentenced to a Detention and Training Order to be served at a Young Offender’s Institution without the benefit of a forensic psychiatric assessment. Whilst I heard evidence from a psychiatrist associate of Cookham Wood YOI that the mental health in-reach team were able to address Alex’s mental health needs whilst in custody, I am aware of the deaths of a number of other children in custody who similarly had not had forensic psychiatric assessments and it is for this reason I am reporting the concern. Whilst hearing evidence in relation to lessons learned I heard from the Service Manager of Medway Youth Offending Team that they have now secured the services of a psychiatric mental health nurse to assist them in the effective management of the young people for whom they have responsibilities which I was told was proving effective and is to be continued. Alex Kelly was under an ACCT between the 23rd December 2011 and 3rd January 2012 and 6th January 2012 until his death. During the operation of the ACCT there was a continued conflict between the ACCT process and disciplinary procedures; outside agencies and carers were not asked to contribute; specific acts by Alex were seen as obstructive/challenging behaviour rather than signs of distress or a means of communicating that he needed help (his foster carers who had not been asked to contribute had some experience of Alex using non-verbal methods of communication); the ACCT reviews tended to focus on addressing specific or recent behaviours rather than the reason for the behaviour; although Alex was frequently mentioned at weekly safer regimes multidisciplinary meetings, a holistic approach was never adopted as to how he could best be supported or whether the YOI could support his needs. Re: Tower Hamlets 1. Allocation a) Alex Kelly was without a named social worker for a period of two months at a time when he was in danger of being sent to custody and after he was sent to custody. Difficulties in allocation were not escalated to senior management 2. IT a) Social workers did not transfer documentation including emails onto Framework in a timely manner or at all b) There was no system in place for ensuring that urgent electronic communications were flagged/diverted when the recipient was absent from work 3. Custody a) Social workers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities as Corporate Parent included a role in a looked after child’s welfare whilst in custody Re: Medway Youth Offending Team 1. Involvement with other agencies a) Shortcomings in other agencies which affected the ability of the YOT to manage the young person were not brought to the attention of management 2. Placement within the Secure Estate a) There were inconsistencies in recommendations as to placement in a STC/YOI which were not reconciled b) Youth Offending Team keyworkers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities included a role in the young person’s welfare whilst in custody c) Members of the Youth Offending Team did not all appear to appreciate that the Youth Offending Team could initiate a transfer within the secure estate 3. Caseworker based at Cookham Wood YOI a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person b) Although involved in the ACCT reviews the caseworker was unaware of the range of options available to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews c) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release Re: Cookham Wood YOI 1. Communication with outside agencies a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person 2. ACCT a) Officers were inconsistent in the recording of significant events; entries being made in either the wing observation log, ACCT ongoing record or not at all b) At least one officer did not appear to appreciate the importance of significant incidents/disclosures or report them c) Significant events in a lengthy ongoing record were not highlighted and therefore not obvious to officers reviewing safeguarding provisions d) Officers were unaware of the need to involve outside agencies in the ACCT review process, the range of options available to them to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews e) The safer regimes meetings were not provided with all relevant information and were not used to their full effect. The minutes of the meetings were not fully recorded f) A holistic approach was not taken to the safe management of the young person during ACCT reviews or Safer Regimes meetings when it was apparent that he was struggling with the regime and that interventions were not working 3. Conflict between Regimes a) Officers did not always seek advice before placing the young person on report for tattooing when there was an indication in the ACCT documentation that adjudication awards would lead to a heighted risk of self-harm b) There was a conflict between the use of a behaviour improvement plan and adjudications which was not recognised at the time 4. Early Release a) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release 5.Cell entry a) There appeared to be an inflexible approach to cell entry requiring the presence of three prison officers even though YOI was in patrol state and concerns were sufficient to require entry Re: Healthcare at Cookham Wood NB: the service provider has changed since the death of Alex Kelly. The new provider is in the process of determining the systems and procedures being put in place at Cookham Wood 1. Sharing of Information a) Officers concerned with the management of the young person were not informed in terms of his non-compliance with medication and the potential effect of the failure to take the medication 2. Medication management a) a)Medication was found stockpiled in the young person’s cell; staff dispensing medication had not ensured it had been taken when it was probably recorded as having been taken b) b)Any failure to take medication was not sufficiently flagged for healthcare/prison staff to deal with the issue 3.Recording of information a) Not all occasions when the young person was seen by the in-reach team were recorded on System One ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Medway Youth Offending Team; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to recognise or report significant incidents and disclosures
Wider context from the report
“Re: Secretary of State for Justice Alex Kelly a vulnerable looked after child of 15 years with complex unresolved emotional issues and unmanaged mental health issues was sentenced to a Detention and Training Order to be served at a Young Offender’s Institution without the benefit of a forensic psychiatric assessment. Whilst I heard evidence from a psychiatrist associate of Cookham Wood YOI that the mental health in-reach team were able to address Alex’s mental health needs whilst in custody, I am aware of the deaths of a number of other children in custody who similarly had not had forensic psychiatric assessments and it is for this reason I am reporting the concern. Whilst hearing evidence in relation to lessons learned I heard from the Service Manager of Medway Youth Offending Team that they have now secured the services of a psychiatric mental health nurse to assist them in the effective management of the young people for whom they have responsibilities which I was told was proving effective and is to be continued. Alex Kelly was under an ACCT between the 23rd December 2011 and 3rd January 2012 and 6th January 2012 until his death. During the operation of the ACCT there was a continued conflict between the ACCT process and disciplinary procedures; outside agencies and carers were not asked to contribute; specific acts by Alex were seen as obstructive/challenging behaviour rather than signs of distress or a means of communicating that he needed help (his foster carers who had not been asked to contribute had some experience of Alex using non-verbal methods of communication); the ACCT reviews tended to focus on addressing specific or recent behaviours rather than the reason for the behaviour; although Alex was frequently mentioned at weekly safer regimes multidisciplinary meetings, a holistic approach was never adopted as to how he could best be supported or whether the YOI could support his needs. Re: Tower Hamlets 1. Allocation a) Alex Kelly was without a named social worker for a period of two months at a time when he was in danger of being sent to custody and after he was sent to custody. Difficulties in allocation were not escalated to senior management 2. IT a) Social workers did not transfer documentation including emails onto Framework in a timely manner or at all b) There was no system in place for ensuring that urgent electronic communications were flagged/diverted when the recipient was absent from work 3. Custody a) Social workers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities as Corporate Parent included a role in a looked after child’s welfare whilst in custody Re: Medway Youth Offending Team 1. Involvement with other agencies a) Shortcomings in other agencies which affected the ability of the YOT to manage the young person were not brought to the attention of management 2. Placement within the Secure Estate a) There were inconsistencies in recommendations as to placement in a STC/YOI which were not reconciled b) Youth Offending Team keyworkers did not all appear to appreciate that their responsibilities included a role in the young person’s welfare whilst in custody c) Members of the Youth Offending Team did not all appear to appreciate that the Youth Offending Team could initiate a transfer within the secure estate 3. Caseworker based at Cookham Wood YOI a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person b) Although involved in the ACCT reviews the caseworker was unaware of the range of options available to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews c) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release Re: Cookham Wood YOI 1. Communication with outside agencies a) Outside agencies sharing responsibility of the welfare of a young person in custody and foster carers were not kept informed of significant events, asked to participate in ACCT reviews or asked for input into the management of the young person 2. ACCT a) Officers were inconsistent in the recording of significant events; entries being made in either the wing observation log, ACCT ongoing record or not at all b) At least one officer did not appear to appreciate the importance of significant incidents/disclosures or report them c) Significant events in a lengthy ongoing record were not highlighted and therefore not obvious to officers reviewing safeguarding provisions d) Officers were unaware of the need to involve outside agencies in the ACCT review process, the range of options available to them to safely manage the young person including requests to transfer to a different type of secure accommodation and the use of enhanced reviews e) The safer regimes meetings were not provided with all relevant information and were not used to their full effect. The minutes of the meetings were not fully recorded f) A holistic approach was not taken to the safe management of the young person during ACCT reviews or Safer Regimes meetings when it was apparent that he was struggling with the regime and that interventions were not working 3. Conflict between Regimes a) Officers did not always seek advice before placing the young person on report for tattooing when there was an indication in the ACCT documentation that adjudication awards would lead to a heighted risk of self-harm b) There was a conflict between the use of a behaviour improvement plan and adjudications which was not recognised at the time 4. Early Release a) Paperwork was not submitted for early release on the basis of non-compliance with the regime and concerns about absence of a placement without consultation with any person responsible for making decisions in relation to early release 5.Cell entry a) There appeared to be an inflexible approach to cell entry requiring the presence of three prison officers even though YOI was in patrol state and concerns were sufficient to require entry Re: Healthcare at Cookham Wood NB: the service provider has changed since the death of Alex Kelly. The new provider is in the process of determining the systems and procedures being put in place at Cookham Wood 1. Sharing of Information a) Officers concerned with the management of the young person were not informed in terms of his non-compliance with medication and the potential effect of the failure to take the medication 2. Medication management a) a)Medication was found stockpiled in the young person’s cell; staff dispensing medication had not ensured it had been taken when it was probably recorded as having been taken b) b)Any failure to take medication was not sufficiently flagged for healthcare/prison staff to deal with the issue 3.Recording of information a) Not all occasions when the young person was seen by the in-reach team were recorded on System One ”
Open source report

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Concerns raised28

Failure to provide complete information and records for safer regimes meetings

Failure to verify medication ingestion before recording administration

Failure to transfer documentation and emails onto Framework

Failure to recognise distress communicated through behaviour

Failure to recognise conflict between behaviour plans and adjudications

Failure of YOT keyworkers to understand custodial welfare responsibilities

Failure to use holistic safe-management planning when interventions are ineffective

Inflexible cell-entry requirements during urgent safeguarding concerns

Lack of forensic psychiatric assessment before custodial placement

Conflict between ACCT and disciplinary procedures

Delays in allocating a named social worker and escalating allocation difficulties

Incomplete recording of mental-health in-reach contacts on System One

Failure to share medication non-compliance and its potential effects

Lack of a system for flagging or diverting urgent communications during staff absence

Failure to seek advice before disciplinary action indicated increased self-harm risk

Failure to understand available safe-management options

Failure to highlight significant events in ongoing safeguarding records

Failure to involve outside agencies and carers in safeguarding

Failure to reconcile inconsistent secure-placement recommendations

Failure to inform and involve agencies and carers in custodial welfare management

Failure of ACCT reviews to address reasons for behaviour

Failure to understand YOT authority to initiate secure-estate transfers

Failure to escalate interagency shortcomings affecting YOT management

Failure to adopt a holistic approach to custodial support

Failure to understand corporate parenting responsibilities for children in custody

Inconsistent recording of significant events across safeguarding records

Failure to flag medication non-compliance for clinical and custodial action

Failure to recognise or report significant incidents and disclosures