Skip to content

All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated.

To view this licence, visit:
https://nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3

or write to:
Information Policy Team,
The National Archives,
Kew,
London TW9 4DU

or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.

This publication is available at:
https://hmiprobation.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk.

© Crown copyright

An inspection of youth justice work with children and victims in Camden

Published:

Foreword (Back to top)

This inspection is part of our programme of inspections across youth justice services (YJS) in England and Wales.[1] In this inspection, we have inspected and rated work with children and victims in Camden YJS across two broad areas: the quality of work done with children working with the YJS and the quality of work done with victims.

Overall, Camden YJS was rated as ‘Outstanding’.

Camden YJS has an authentic culture of care and innovation for the children, families, and victims it works with. The service is supported by a strong management board, which has ensured that the needs of YJS children and families are prioritised across the partnership. Inspirational and committed senior leaders have clear strategic sight and links to partner agencies, resulting in a wide range of services and specialist provisions, and an environment where creative opportunities are cultivated.

YJS senior leaders are aspirational and tenacious. When combined with a highly skilled and well-supported operational staff team, the outcome has seen consistently impressive work delivered with children and families. Strong assessing, planning, and delivery ensure that achieving positive change is effectively balanced with the safety of the child and the community. This is supported by comprehensive partnership working, which enables timely sharing of information, clarity in roles and responsibilities, and the provision of responsive interventions to address the identified needs of children.

A strong focus on education, training, and employment (ETE), alongside the voluntary YJS deferred exclusion programme, enables children to sustain mainstream placements or access engaging alternative provisions. The extensive post-16 offer includes paid work experience and innovative employability projects as credible alternatives for children. Transition practice is effective due to a range of partnership services, such as the Evolve team. However, timelier engagement of probation and the appointment of a seconded probation officer would improve practice further.

Diversity approaches with children, families, and victims were impressive, with consistently high-quality work which provided an understanding of individual lived experience. Practitioners skilfully identified protected characteristics and individual needs, responding practically, sensitively, and intelligently.

Victim work was consistently to a high standard, with an individualised, trauma-informed, and restorative practice approach. The plan to develop a partnership victim strategy emphasises the board’s perspective that ‘support for victims is everybody’s business’. However, this could be further enhanced with an improved analytical data set to understand the victim profile and a more effective mechanism to collate and analyse victim feedback.

Camden YJS is a strong and impressive partnership which is having a positive impact on children and victims, as well as promoting safety for the community.

Martin Jones CBE

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

Ratings (Back to top)

Fieldwork started April 2025Score 11/12
Overall ratingOutstanding

Work with children

2.1 AssessingOutstanding
2.2 PlanningOutstanding
2.3 Implementation and deliveryOutstanding

Work with victims

V1 Work with victimsGood

Recommendations (Back to top)

As a result of our inspection findings, we have made four recommendations that we believe, if implemented, will have a positive impact on the quality of youth justice services in Camden. This will improve the lives of the children in contact with youth justice services and better protect the public.

The Camden Youth Justice Service Management Board should:

  1. implement the planned development of the partnership victim strategy. This should be informed by the collation and analysis of comprehensive partnership data, including the protected characteristics and diversity needs of victims, as well as seeking input from victims and hearing their voice

The Camden Youth Justice Service should:

  1. continue to develop and improve how it gathers and analyses the feedback from victims and then use this to shape and enhance service delivery
  2. develop an understanding of the range of services supporting victims within the borough, so as to enhance the victim offer and ensure that it is responsive to victims’ needs.

The Probation Service should:

  1. work with the YJS management board to improve its involvement in the transitions of children to adult services, to ensure that they are more effective. This should include the appointment of a YJS seconded probation officer.

Background (Back to top)

We conducted fieldwork in Camden YJS over a period of a week, beginning 07 April 2025. We inspected cases where the YJS had started work with children subject to bail or remand, court disposals, or out-of-court disposals between 08 April 2024 and 07 February 2025. We conducted 15 interviews with case managers. We inspected the organisational arrangements for work delivered with victims and looked at cases where the YJS had undertaken contact with victims between 08 April 2024 and 07 February 2025. We also conducted interviews with staff and managers responsible for the delivery of this work.

Camden is a vibrant inner London borough, with a population of 220,903, of which 7.5 per cent (16,607) are children aged 10–17. It has a young, culturally diverse community, with 40.5 per cent of its total population being of Black, Asian, and minority ethnic heritage,[2] which increases to 55 per cent for the 10-17 population. At the time of the inspection, 68 per cent of the YJS cohort were of this heritage. As such, there is a strong commitment to improve outcomes for overrepresented children and address disproportionality. There are contrasting levels of wealth and poverty in Camden, with 40 per cent of children entitled to free school meals and 37 per cent of households experiencing poverty. There are stark contrasts in life expectancy between the wealthiest and poorest areas in the borough, with a boy born in Hampstead Town in 2020 expected to live 13.5 years longer than a boy born on the same day in Somers Town; the difference for girls is 9.6 years.

The YJS is part of the integrated youth support service (IYSS), in the children’s prevention, safeguarding, and family help division of the children and learning directorate. The IYSS head of service has strategic responsibility for the YJS and there is a dedicated service manager. There are four operational teams, which include a team manager, advanced practitioner, case managers, specialist staff, sessional workers, and peer advocates. Team managers oversee operational work and lead on areas such as out of court, court, victims, disproportionality, education, and participation. Case managers hold generic caseloads. Specialist and seconded staff include a speech and language therapist (SaLT), educational psychologist, child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) nurse, systemic therapist, substance misuse worker, Connexions personal adviser, two police constables, and a police sergeant. There are leads for victims, parenting and families, reparation and participation, quality and improvement, and data and performance.

The service predominantly works with boys aged 15–17, of ethnic minority heritage. Data supplied when the inspection was announced indicated that 30 children were subject to court disposals and five had out-of-court disposals. YJS data shows that first-time entrants are increasing, and a range of activity is aimed at addressing this. Custody has increased after a sustained period of no custodial sentences. Previously low reoffending data has recently increased, with the reoffending percentage now in line with the national average while the reoffending rate is higher.

The operating model is aligned to the directorate’s relational practice framework, while being psychologically trauma informed, embedded in ‘child-first’ principles, and cognisant of public protection. There is a strong focus on securing meaningful and credible ETE opportunities to support sustained change, while demonstrating investment and aspiration for children. Alongside this, is a genuine and embedded approach to engagement and participation with children, families, and victims.

Domain two: Work with children (Back to top)

We took a detailed look at 15 cases where the YJS has worked with children, subject to bail, remand, community sentences, resettlement or out-of-court disposals.

2.1. AssessingRating
Assessing is well-informed and personalised, effectively analysing how to achieve positive change and keep children and the community safe.Outstanding

Our rating[3] for assessing is based on the following key questions:

Does assessing sufficiently analyse how to:% ‘Yes’
achieve positive change for the child?93%
keep the child and the community safe?87%

Assessing was consistently comprehensive and of high quality. Practitioners routinely used strong analytical assessing practice, informed by the 4Ps psychological formulation framework[4] and good lives model,[5] which was reflective of the service’s trauma-informed, child-first practice approach. This ensured an appropriate balance of identifying children’s needs while being aware of the safety of others.

The active collaboration and participation of children and their parents or carers was a core strength in assessing practice. Practitioners were highly skilled at building meaningful relationships, and there was evidence of children being reallocated to the same worker, to maintain trusted relationships. This ensured a full understanding of children, the issues contributing to offending, their strengths and protective factors, and their aspirations. Assessing reflected the child’s voice and perspective, as language such as ‘X reports’ or ‘X thinks’ was prevalent. Practitioners knew their children, demonstrating that the relational practice model was embedded in the YJS. 

Gathering and analysing information were consistently evident, and from a range of partners, including children’s services, the police, early help services, education providers, health services, and the secure estate. Specialist assessments from the YJS SaLT and educational psychologist informed assessing. This collaborative working with partners supported dynamic assessing that was responsive to change.

Practitioners skilfully identified and analysed factors for and against offending, such as ETE, family relationships, positive activities and aspirations, peer influences, substance use, and the ability to regulate emotions due to previous trauma or neurodiversity. This included the recognition that factors could be both protective and detrimental to a child at the same time. For example, being electively home educated met a child’s neurodiversity needs but also isolated them from peer relationships and engagement in community or positive activities. The combined strengths in assessing enabled our inspectors to understand the rationale to a child’s behaviour, offending, and opportunities for change.

Assessing to keep the child and community safe was enhanced through prompt and regular information and intelligence sharing, and collaboration with partners – specifically, the police, children’s services, and the youth violence and exploitation analyst. Mapping activity supported assessing practice, as it identified networks and associations both within Camden and across borough boundaries. Collectively, these approaches enabled assessing activity to be responsive to change, in terms of both formal and informal reviewing activity, and strengthened an understanding of what was needed to keep children and the community safe.

Assessing activity identified the underlying factors and vulnerabilities contributing to the safety of the child and others, such as childhood trauma and harm, family relationships, domestic abuse, peer influences, exploitation, experiences of discrimination, and neurodiversity. This was then aligned to children’s presenting behaviours, such as weapon possession, emotional dysregulation, and involvement in violence. Practitioners were skilled at analysing the interconnectivity of some factors and behaviours, particularly in relation to serious violence and exploitation. Where necessary, this would result in further assessing activity through the local child exploitation screening processes or National Referral Mechanism (NRM) pilot.[6]

Assessing considered the needs and wishes of victims, where this was available, and practitioners articulated the impact of offending even when there was not a direct victim. For example, where a child had committed an offence of possession of a knife without a direct victim; the potential for harm to and from the child, the impact on communities, and the effect on families were considered and analysed. Assessing also explored and reflected children’s thoughts and feelings about the harm caused by their offending on victims.

Analysing diversity and individual needs was impressive and a particular strength. We consistently saw practitioners identifying the intersectionality of children’s diverse needs and applying this to gain a full understanding of children’s identity and lived experience. For example, using social GGRRAAACCEEESSS[7] to engage a child and their family supported an understanding of the impact of their Kosovan heritage, the importance of their Muslim religion for the whole family, and knowledge of their family values. Similarly, developing a full understanding of a child’s autism diagnosis, supported by the SaLT assessment, enabled consideration of how this might have an impact on engagement, provided an explanation for their preoccupations, and aided identification of the support they needed. Inspectors found that management oversight and quality assurance processes contributed to effective assessing practice.

2.2 PlanningRating
Planning is well-informed, holistic and personalised, focusing on how to achieve positive change and keep children and communities safe.Outstanding

Our rating[8] for planning is based on the following key questions:

Does planning focus sufficiently on how to:% ‘Yes’
achieve positive change for the child?100%
keep the child and community safe?80%

Planning was consistently detailed and impressive, responding to the needs and risks identified in assessing. Planning to achieve positive change was stronger than planning to keep the child and community safe, with the latter still of high quality.

Planning activity with children and their parents or carers was collaborative and, where appropriate, included wider family members. There were numerous examples of co-produced, child-friendly plans, which sought children’s views on what they wanted to achieve. Planning for reparation typified this, as activities were aligned to their interests and aspirations. For example, a child considering architecture as a career was supported to access the Wood What Works carpentry project, and a child interested in boxing as a positive activity had reparation at a boxing academy built into their plan. There was evidence of joint safety planning with children and their parents or carers, which used the YJS safety planning questionnaire and planning tools. This supported a contextual safeguarding approach, as the people, places, and spaces where children felt safe were identified and incorporated into planning.

Planning was strengthened by a partnership approach, including key agencies such as children’s services, ETE providers, CAMHS, the police, and aligned IYSS services such as the Evolve team.[9] Planning was enhanced by embedded YJS specialists such as the SaLT, educational psychologist, Connexions and substance misuse workers.  This collaborative approach ensured that planning was created and shared jointly, which provided clarity and understanding of individual or agency roles and responsibilities. Inspectors specifically identified effective practice regarding the liaison between YJS practitioners and the reducing youth violence and exploitation analyst. This promoted information sharing and assessing practice regarding children, their peers, and locations, which in turn enabled focused planning on specific needs or risks.

Strong assessing practice translated into high quality planning, as it resulted in the identification and sequencing of interventions and services to address children’s needs and safety. Inspectors consistently saw a focus on ETE in planning, including the sharing of specialist tools such as communication passports, which enabled individuals, agencies, and providers to understand how to engage effectively with children. The focus on engaging and securing ETE for children was reflective of the dedicated, innovative, and embedded partnership approach to providing credible alternatives to offending, which were aspirational and meaningful while building on strengths and offering sustainable opportunities.

Planning to keep children and the community safe addressed both external and internal controls. We saw evidence of the use of curfews, reporting requirements, non-association conditions, and the consideration of criminal behaviour orders. This was balanced with the planning of sessions to develop internal controls and address the underlying factors contributing to weapon and knife possession, peer influences, conflict resolution, and thinking and decision-making, as well as emotional regulation and wellbeing, substance misuse, and ‘keep safe’ work. In a very small number of cases, planning could have been strengthened by considering the potential for violence in a domestic setting, in terms of the safety of both the child and others.

Considering the victim’s needs, wishes, or safety in planning was strong. There was evidence of the use of external controls such as bail conditions or restraining orders to address the safety of specific victims, alongside victim awareness sessions to enhance children’s understanding of the impact of their behaviour. For example, a case manager worked with colleagues to plan the delivery of drama-based sessions to a group of
co-defendants to develop their understanding of the experiences of the victim, their parents, and people who had witnessed the offence.

Planning was dynamic and flexible, which supported adapting and responding to change. The strong partnership approach enabled this, as when new information or intelligence was identified, it was verified, with planning adjusted to reflect new concerns or issues. There was also evidence of planning being adapted to respond to children’s changing motivation or priorities. Exit planning was a strength and included access to the YJS voluntary support offer, the use of YJS specialist practitioners, or the involvement of partner agencies such as the Evolve team, CAMHS, or Connexions to secure sustainable support for children. In a minor number of cases, planning could have been enhanced if it had considered the child’s transition to adulthood more comprehensively and involved the Probation Service in a timely way. 

The recognition of diversity was a consistent strength in planning. This included being responsive to protected characteristics and individual needs, as well as considering the personal circumstances of the child. Of note, there were numerous examples where planning incorporated actions or approaches recommended by the SaLT or educational psychologist, or those listed within children’s education and healthcare plans. This supported engagement for neurodiverse children and involved adaptations such as defined session times, regular breaks, the use of fidget toys, or movement during sessions. Positively, the use of these types of adjustments was extended to children who presented with behaviours reflective of neurodiversity but who, at the time, were undiagnosed. There were also examples of planning being cognisant of cultural observances, and defining the time and location of sessions or contact to avoid disrupting educational or family commitments. 

Management oversight was effective, in terms of planning. This was supported by the YJS multi-agency high-risk and vulnerability panel (HRVP), strategy meetings, exploitation panels, and joint supervision with children’s services.

2.3 DeliveryRating
High-quality, well-focused, personalised and coordinated services are delivered, achieving positive change and keeping children and communities safe.Outstanding

Our rating[10] for delivery is based on the following key questions:

Does the delivery (and review?) of well-focused, personalised and co-ordinated services:% ‘Yes’
achieve positive change for the child?100%
keep the child and the community safe?80%

Inspectors consistently saw high-quality work with children, with delivery to achieve positive change being particularly impressive.

Practitioners developed meaningful and trusted relationships with children and their parents or carers, recognising it as a foundation to achieving positive change and safety. YJS staff knew their children and families, and there were many examples of a practitioner’s interactions facilitating positive outcomes in difficult or challenging circumstances. Examples included overcoming parental hostility grounded in previous poor experiences with professionals, maintaining high levels of contact with children placed out of the borough or in secure settings, and enabling children to engage in voluntary contact as part of exit planning to ensure sustained support. This reflected the systemic relational practice model and typified the embedded culture of authentic care and compassion for children and families within the YJS and wider directorate.

Effective relationships with children and their parents or carers were intertwined with strong diversity practice. Staff adapted contact to support cultural observances such as Ramadan, prioritise ETE commitments, or respond to changed physical healthcare needs – for example using home visits when a child broke their leg. Communication passports or specialist guidance were used to ensure that interactions were responsive to children’s neurodiversity, even when this was based on presenting behaviours rather than formal diagnoses. These included time-limited sessions, using kinesthetics approaches and regular breaks. There was evidence of diversity practice being particularly nuanced, skilled and sensitive, such as enabling neurodiverse children (and their parents or carers) to understand and articulate their diagnoses and the impact it had on their behaviour. Another example was where a practitioner took time to understand how being a Jehovah’s Witness affected family relationships, networks, and identity. The parent was supported to understand that, while their child was not attending services, their beliefs were strong and supported the child’s supervision goals. This enabled the parent and practitioner to work collaboratively.  

The strength of the youth justice partnership was apparent in delivery. We consistently saw joint working with children’s services, the police, ETE colleagues and providers, CAMHS, the Evolve team, the police gang’s team, and the secure estate. This included clearly defined roles and responsibilities. Collaborative approaches included key professionals such as social workers, leaving care workers, police officers or YJS specialists directly delivering sessions with children, alongside information sharing, peer mapping activity, and multi-agency meetings. This enabled the network supporting children and families to respond to change. For example, the identification of a threat to a child in the secure estate resulted in prompt information sharing, police reporting, the use of segregation to maintain safety, and transfer to a new secure provider. Throughout this period, the child was actively supported by the practitioner and custody resettlement worker. Similarly, when safety concerns for a child subject to a child protection plan elevated at the end of an out-of-court disposal, the practitioner and social worker worked together to transition the child safely to foster care. The YJS practitioner met the foster carer to explain the child’s needs, and also the child, to tell them about the foster carer. The child was resistant to the move and this preparatory activity was integral to facilitating the move.  

Delivery was responsive to children’s identified needs and risks. There was a strong focus on supporting children in ETE, including advocacy or support to prevent exclusions, and alternative provisions which reflected children’s interests. There was an innovative and credible post-16 offer, including a range of paid work experience placements where children were paid the London living wage, the most notable being Honest Grind Coffee.[11] We saw a range of interventions delivered effectively by practitioners, seconded staff, or partner agencies to address identified needs, including substance misuse, peer influences, relationships, emotional regulation, conflict resolution, weapons/knife crime, positive activities, and family and parenting support. This was supported by specialist assessments or interventions to address specific needs. Where appropriate, delivery was balanced with external controls, disruption activity, and enforcement action, including the use of engagement panels. There was a positive approach to exit planning, including the YJS voluntary support programme, with a structured three-month review. Children’s voluntary engagement was supported by the meaningful relationships built by practitioners and the efficacy of delivery. Transitions work to keep children and communities safe was delivered well due to the provision from the Evolve team, leaving care and the police gang’s team. However, the involvement of the Probation Service needed to be timelier and would have been strengthened by the involvement of a seconded probation officer.  

Inspectors saw examples of individual sessions with children and the victim worker, including written letters of explanation, the use of victim personal statements to inform work with children, and generic victim awareness interventions to enable children to understand victim perspectives. There were also examples of the use of external controls, such as non-association conditions, to support victim safety. 

Overall management oversight was effective. Internal processes such as supervision, quality assurance, and case discussions assisted decision-making and actions to support high quality delivery. In a small number of cases, safety could have been strengthened by the identification of risks in a domestic setting and more directive actions. Management oversight was enhanced through partnership activity such as the multi-agency HRVP, strategy, or professionals’ meetings in response to specific incidents, as well as joint supervision processes with children’s services.

Work with victims (Back to top)

We took a detailed look at nine victim cases where the YJS has offered a service to victims who have consented for their information to be shared.

Work with victimsRating
Work with victims is high-quality, individualised and responsive driving positive outcomes and safety for victims.Good

Our rating[12] for work with victims is based on the following key questions:

V 1.1 Is work with victims high-quality, individualised and responsive? 

V 1.2 Do organisational arrangements and activity drive a high-quality, individualised and responsive service for victims? 

Strengths:

  • Camden Youth Justice Management Board has appropriate strategic representation and linkage to associated strategic boards to ensure effective oversight and connectivity to support the development and strengthening of victim work within the borough.
  • While a partnership victim strategy that is responsive to all victims is in its infancy, there is strategic commitment and a clear timeline which is being driven by the YJS management board. This encompasses the analysis of data, a diagnostic systems review of the current support to victims, and the engagement and participation of children, young people, and the community to shape its development. 
  • There is a genuine and authentic commitment from the YJS management board and senior strategic leaders to ensure that victim work is strengthened and embedded within the YJS and wider partnership. This includes ensuring that victim voices are integrated into the development of the partnership victim strategy and inform the operation of the YJS management board.
  • The creation of a partnership action plan, detailing strategic and operational activity to support the priority to develop a partnership victim strategy within the new youth justice plan, demonstrates partnership commitment to victim work.
  • Staff involved in victim work are passionate, committed, and motivated to provide high quality services, which are personalised and responsive to individual victims’ needs. We saw evidence of sensitive, restorative, and trauma-informed delivery of work with victims.
  • Practitioners working with victims or delivering reparation are embedded and valued in the YJS. This supports an effective interface with colleagues delivering services to children, and a collective ownership of victim work.
  • All staff working directly with victims or delivering reparative interventions are supported in their operational practice and responsibilities through formal and informal mechanisms. This includes access to clinical supervision which is vital, given the potential impact of vicarious trauma in the context in which they are working.
  • The delivery of three-day restorative justice facilitator training to all YJS staff demonstrates the commitment of the service and the management board to develop and enhance work with victims, reinforcing that ‘support for victims is everybody’s business’.
  • Staff and managers responsible for the delivery of victim work and reparative activities can access a wide training offer, which supports their development.
  • Those responsible for the delivery of victim work within Camden have access to support and guidance from pan-London forums and are actively engaged in the development of cross-London victim practice.
  • Management oversight of victim work has been strengthened and embedded, which has resulted in consistent and effective oversight of operational practice.
  • Staff who have responsibility for delivering services to victims or undertaking reparative activity have manageable workloads and respond promptly to allocated work.
  • The YJS has an established and comprehensive victim policy, which has been created collaboratively, is routinely reviewed, and is reflective of current operational practice. It provides a framework for sensitive and inclusive diversity practice, which was reflected in the victim cases inspected.
  • The approach to victim work and delivery of services and interventions are victim led. Support to victims is not curtailed or time bound by the period in which the child is working with the YJS, and ongoing support is based on victims’ needs. 
  • Once referrals are received, initial contact with victims is prompt, providing comprehensive information on the process and offer to victims. This supports victims to make an informed decision about how they wish to engage, how they want their information shared, and if they want to access any further interventions or support. This was evident in the work of the victim worker and the seconded police officers, who contacted victims proactively and sensitively. This contributes to the high levels of victims consenting to have their information shared with the YJS. 
  • Within the inspected cases, there were examples of completed victim assessments that were of high quality, detailed, and thorough. These assessments analysed the impact of the offence on the victim sensitively, considered their needs and wishes, and assessed victim safety.
  • The YJS has a diverse and individualised offer for victims, with delivery of support and interventions being determined by the needs and wishes of the victim. The victim cases inspected provided positive examples of victims receiving the services on offer. This included being informed of children’s progress in a timely and sensitive manner, victims’ views being shared at panels and the impact of offences being considered in reports, and the use of appropriate and restorative shuttle mediation.
  • While there are different referral routes and processes for victims of out-of-court and court disposals, all victims have access to the range of interventions and support.
  • There is a range of creative and diverse reparation projects which have community capital and value. The variety of projects enables the matching of children based on their interests, and in some cases aspirations, as well as the opportunity to achieve qualifications and accreditation. There were examples of reparation activity providing a route to paid work experience placements.  
  • Victim safety is an integral part of the victim assessment process. The YJS has developed and embedded a victim safety risk form to analyse and inform actions required to support the safety and wellbeing of victims. There were examples of the victim safety risk forms being used effectively in the cases inspected, and in one case delivery of victim awareness work to a child by the victim worker mitigated ongoing risks to the victim.
  • There is an established pathway between the YJS and the probation victim liaison officer. This is integrated into YJS victim policy and the local working arrangement regarding transitions between the YJS and Probation Service.
  • The National Referral Mechanism pilot has supported the improved identification and response to children as victims of exploitation.
  • There is a genuine commitment from Camden YJS and the wider local authority to be a learning organisation which supports creative innovation. There is evidence of this approach extending to the development of victim work.
  • Review activity has resulted in developments and improvements in victim work which have been embedded into operational practice. These changes were observed during the inspection.

Areas for improvement:

  • The YJS management board and service have started to identify the profile and characteristics of victims accessing support. This requires further development, including a more comprehensive collation and analysis of the protected characteristics and diversity needs of victims to inform service delivery. The aspiration to improve the knowledge and understanding of the profile and needs of victims requires commitment and support from the whole partnership.
  • There is recognition that the gathering and analysis of victim feedback to inform service delivery need to be improved. There has been a revision and update of current processes, and there is a commitment to ensure that feedback is monitored and analysed routinely. This needs to be embedded in operational practice and used to inform service delivery.
  • There appears to be a limited understanding of potential community or grassroots organisations that could provide support to victims, as this tends to be explored on a case-by-case basis, rather than having a collated and evolving directory of services or established links to providers.
  • Given the singular nature of the victim worker role, building resilience and sustainability to maintain the current high quality, responsive, and restorative approach to victim work is required. This is being considered by senior leaders.
  • Quality assurance processes in respect of victim work have recently been established through thematic audits. This will support the service to maintain the delivery of high-quality victim practice. It needs to be embedded, with regular reporting to the YJS management board, so that it can oversee and assure itself that high-quality victim work is being delivered.
  • There is a lack of clarity regarding the quality of the information that police officers responding to incidents provide to victims about the YJS victim offer, to enable them to make informed decisions about giving consent to share their details.
  • While there are mechanisms in place to enable staff to support victims of serious violence, this could be enhanced through access to specialist training on sensitive and complex casework.

Participation of children and their parents or carers (Back to top)

The YJS has a strong commitment and embedded approach to participation. This is reflective of the wider local authority, where participation is valued in terms of governance arrangements, as it promotes community empowerment. Members of the YJS management board include peer advocates, voluntary organisations working with children and young people in Camden, and a young adult with lived experience of the justice system. This ensures the voices and views of children are represented and considered in strategic decision-making. Children with YJS experience contribute to a range of strategic forums, including the Camden safeguarding children partnership, the youth safety steering group, and the youth panel, which decide on the projects that the Camden community wealth fund should invest in.

Alongside a dedicated participation lead, the YJS employs peer advocates, who are paid staff members assisting in gathering feedback while developing employability skills. They support children to complete end-of-order feedback forms, undertake topic-based projects, and contribute to the revision or development of policies, interventions, and YJS materials. They have gathered feedback on reparation projects, resulting in adaptations to practice; provided feedback to the court user group and youth panel chair on children’s court experiences; collated disproportionality feedback on children’s experiences of the YJS and partner agencies, highlighting how best to meet needs; and led a consultation on CAMHS services and how barriers to engagement can be overcome. This approach provides a continuous mechanism through which children’s voices and experiences shape service delivery.

An example of participation has been the refurbishment of the YJS reception area, which was co-designed with children. This has resulted in a friendly, bright, and welcoming space where children have access to food, snacks, and drinks before their sessions. Children have engaged in creative projects, resulting in photographs of the borough, as well as a new mosaic logo and a commemorative table created as part of reparation projects, being displayed in the reception area. There is also a ‘You said, we did’ noticeboard, so that children are aware of how their feedback has been used to adapt service delivery.

The YJS contacted, on our behalf, children and their parents or carers who currently or recently had worked with the service, to gain their consent to provide feedback on their experience of the YJS. We provided a variety of opportunities for children and their parents or carers to participate in the inspection process, resulting in 10 children and 12 parents or carers talking to inspectors either through telephone calls or face-to-face meetings. When considering the contact that children and their parents or carers had had with the YJS, they indicated that the information they received was communicated clearly and helped them to understand what was expected of them. Comments included:

“My worker is always clear with me and helps me to understand things, the way she explains things is simple and to the point.”

“My son’s worker has been fantastic, explains everything carefully, is regularly in touch and always happy to answer questions.”

In terms of their experiences of their interactions with practitioners, all of those we asked felt respected and valued. They also indicated that they had been asked what help they needed, and involved in planning how this work would be delivered. They told us:

“We sat together and looked at what I needed to do and what I wanted to do, I felt listened to and respected.”

“Both my sons have received support from the service, and I was consulted throughout around what they planned to do and how.”

When considering the help and opportunities available from the YJS, there was an overwhelmingly positive response. Themes identified from the feedback of children and their parents or carers reflected findings from our inspection of work with children. The strong focus on ETE was evident, with examples of support received to remain in school or secure work opportunities, including paid work experience. This reinforced the service’s genuine commitment, aspirations, and investment in children. Comments included:

“Helped get me back in school for my GCSE’s, contacted the school and made it possible for me to go to school again.”

“My son wanted support getting into employment and was referred to the Honest Grind Coffee shop where he still works today.”

“Although my son has finished, he is still working with Connexions through YJS who have supported his application for an apprenticeship in youth justice which he is about to start.”

There were references to the support received to access health provisions and the specialist assessments provided by the YJS seconded staff, as well as children being linked into positive activities they were interested in.

“My son also got an ADHD assessment through the educational psychologist who is continuing to work with him on a voluntary basis now he’s finished.”

“I’m doing a coaching qualification around boxing because of them.”

Children, parents and carers highlighted the strength of practitioners to recognise and respond to diversity and individual needs, which again reflected the findings from our inspection of casework.

“They spoke to me about my upbringing, culture and stuff, always felt respected.”

“My sons’ workers were really good at understanding them, their commitments and how they communicate.”

“They always bring fidgets or let him walk around the room and play with different games, etc.”

We asked children, and their parents and carers to give examples about what was good about working with the YJS, and if there was anything they would change. They were consistently positive regarding their experience of the service. They said:

“Understanding, helpful, supportive of young people and parents, point you in the right direction i.e. got me an appointment with the drug misuse service to help my understanding of drugs and what to be aware of/look out for with my son.”

“My worker – couldn’t ask for more. Present at court, clear communication, friendly, welcoming, not judgemental, good at her job. Can always text her, and she also helped my mum who was worried, helped calm her down and stuff.”

“I was kept informed at every step and built a trust with the worker, who would always let me know when he missed an appointment or if there was a problem or situation that needed to be discussed or addressed.”

“The service has been like a father to my son, who was raised without one”.

Equity, Diversity and inclusion (Back to top)

Camden YJS and its management board have a strong strategic and operational focus on promoting equity, diversity, and inclusion for the children, families, and victims they work with. This correlates with the local authority commitment to inclusivity, anti-discriminatory and anti-racist practice, and championing social justice, in recognition of the inequalities experienced by children and families in the borough. This is exemplified by the development of the race equality action plan, which the YJS has contributed to; the commitment to ensure the diversity of senior leaders reflects the communities they work with; and the decision to adopt ‘care experienced’ as a protected characteristic. This latter action resulted in policies and practice to address the discrimination experienced by care-experienced individuals, including exemptions from council tax, priority housing, free Wi-Fi, grants to access higher education, and free access to leisure facilities.

There is a long-term and sustained footprint of equity, diversity, and inclusion practice in the YJS. The youth justice plan 2023-2025 includes continuing to tackle disproportionality and responding to social inequality as two of its eight priorities. This focus is underpinned by the analysis of performance data, quality assurance work, as well as being cognisant of national research and findings. It has supported dedicated resourcing and the development of innovative partnership working.

The YJS understands and monitors the profile and characteristics of the children it works with. It is alert to overrepresentation of ethnic minority children, children in care or subject to child in need or child protection plans, and children with special educational needs. This has resulted in activity to increase the diversion of ethnic minority children through the use of out-of-court disposals, and the identification and reduction of ethnic minority children being over-assessed for risk of serious harm. The service identified an increase in children defined in the ‘other’ ethnic category. Detailed analysis established that the children were mainly boys, of Arab heritage, from North Africa or the Middle East, and all bar one were first-time entrants. The YJS is monitoring children assigned with the ‘other’ ethnic status to establish if bespoke work is required to ensure that these children’s needs are met.

Comparative data across a range of services in Camden identified overrepresentation of ethnic minority children in other service areas, such as children in care, education exclusions, and exploitation and serious violence. Consequently, a richer, more comprehensive data set, to support a collective and systemic approach to addressing disproportionality, has been implemented by the partnership. 

The service and management board have dedicated resources to respond to the diverse needs of children. The commissioned educational psychologist and SaLT have had a positive impact for children and families, which was seen in the casework we inspected and the feedback from children and their parents or carers. Communication passports or guidance from these specialists has enabled practitioners, partners, and service providers to engage children effectively and sustain their involvement in the services and support they need. Further, it has ensured that children with neurodiversity diagnoses or behaviours receive specialist support or assessments, and enabled parents to meet their child’s needs effectively.

Services have been commissioned to respond to the needs of ethnic minority children, including the Ether programme[13] and specialist mentoring through MOPAC.[14]

The service hosts the London accommodation pathfinder, which provides intensive support and accommodation for boys aged 16 and 17 as a direct alternative to custody. A specific objective is to reduce the overrepresentation of ethnic minority children in custody. Camden YJS has successfully placed four children with the project, three of whom were of ethnic minority heritage.

The service works with a small number of girls. At the time of the inspection, girls made up three per cent of the overall cohort. There is a dedicated lead for girls, who develops gender-specific interventions and attends specific forums to share and develop resources. The service is trialling a female peer advocate to mentor and support girls working with it. Activity has also taken place to gather girls’ views of safety in the borough, to support the violence against women and girls’ work.

The YJS reception area has drinks, snacks, and food routinely available for children and families, as well as a mini food share. Vouchers are provided to support families to buy food, household items, and equipment. Financial support is available for trips and positive activities to nurture family relationships and experiences.

Staff in the YJS are representative of the ethnicity and culture of the community they work with. However, there are no male workers; this is significant as 96 per cent of the children supported by the service are boys. This was also highlighted as an issue by children and their parents or carers in their feedback. The service is planning targeted recruitment of men and told us of the option to use male workers from the wider IYSS to deliver interventions if this was critical to a child’s needs.

The management board and senior leaders have ensured that staff have the required skills to respond to individual diverse needs. There has been dedicated training on social GGRRAAACCEEESSS, identity, disproportionality, adultification, and intersectionality, as well as specific topics such as trans awareness and autism. Staff have access to seconded specialists and clinical supervision to assist in identifying and responding to children’s needs. A social GGRRAAACCEEESSS tool was introduced to support assessing, planning, and delivery with children and families. All this activity has resulted in highly skilled staff who identify, consider, and respond to the specific and individual needs of children, families, and victims. Diversity practice was seen at two levels. Firstly, physical adaptations to contacts or interventions to enable engagement, and, secondly, a deeper, more nuanced, and sensitive approach to practice. This saw practitioners developing meaningful relationships and a genuine understanding of how ethnicity, culture, religion, gender, age, neurodiversity, and individual living environments impacted behaviour and lived experience.

The victim policy specifically references equity, diversity, and inclusion, highlighting the importance of anti-racist and anti-discriminatory practice, and the application of the relational practice framework when delivering victim services. This includes practical responses such as the use of translation and interpreting services and being mindful of cultural observances. It also highlights the need to consider victims’ culture, heritage, and history, ensure that documents and interactions are developmentally age appropriate, and responsive to additional learning needs or disabilities. Within our inspection, we saw examples of individually tailored, sensitive, and restorative work with victims. The YJS is developing an understanding of the profile of the victims they work with, but the collation and analysis of victim data, particularly protected characteristics, need development to support and shape service delivery.

Data annexe (Back to top)

Camden YJS Data Annexe Final
(XLSX, 113 KB)

Press release (Back to top)

“Impressive” Camden Youth Justice Service rated ‘Outstanding’ in inspection.

References and further information (Back to top)

A glossary of terms used in this report can be found on our website.

This inspection was led by HM Inspector Sara Pordham, supported by a team of inspectors and colleagues from across the Inspectorate. We would like to thank all those who helped plan and took part in the inspection; without their help and cooperation, the inspection would not have been possible.

[1] There are two types of inspections as part of the current youth inspection programme across England and Wales. Inspection of youth justice work with children and victims (IYJWCV) and inspection of youth justice services (IYJS). Further information about these inspections can be found on our website Youth Justice Services – HM Inspectorate of Probation

[2] Census 2021, Office for National Statistics 2023.

[3] The rating for the standard is driven by the lowest score of the key questions, which is placed in a rating band, indicated in bold in the table. A more detailed explanation is available on our website Standards and ratings – HM Inspectorate of Probation.

[4] The 4Ps psychological formulation framework supports assessing practice by considering and analysing information in respect of four factors: predisposing, precipitating, perpetuating, and protective factors.

[5] The good lives model is a strengths-based practice framework. It is used in assessing to identify an individual’s strengths, needs, and goals, and how these are contributing to offending or can support desistance.

[6] The NRM pilot is a local multi-agency decision-making panel covering Camden and Islington to identify victims of modern slavery and exploitation and ensure that they receive appropriate support.

[7] Social GGRRAAACCEEESSS (John Burnham, 1993) is an acronym (gender, geography, race, religion, age, ability, appearance, culture, class, education, employment, ethnicity, spirituality, sexuality, and sexual orientation) and tool used to describe aspects of personal and social identity which afford people different levels of power and privilege.

[8] The rating for the standard is driven by the lowest score of the key questions, which is placed in a rating band, indicated in bold in the table. A more detailed explanation is available on our website Standards and ratings – HM Inspectorate of Probation.

[9] The Evolve team provide one-to-one case management support for young people aged 18–25 who are at risk of youth violence relating to groups, gangs, exploitation, and offending. They partner with the police gangs team.

[10] The rating for the standard is driven by the lowest score of the key questions, which is placed in a rating band, indicated in bold in the table. A more detailed explanation is available on our website Standards and ratings – HM Inspectorate of Probation.

[11] Honest Grind Coffee is a radical employability programme and specialist coffee roastery provided by Camden Council’s integrated youth support service. It offers bespoke employability training and paid work experience to vulnerable young people.

[12] The rating for the victims’ standard is derived from the scores from case inspection for V 1.1 and the qualitative evidence for V 1.2. Case inspection scores and a more detailed explanation of the rating process is available on our website Standards and ratings – HM Inspectorate of Probation.

[13] The Ether project is a dedicated eight-session programme for ethnic minority boys in Camden YJS, delivered by Wipers.

[14] MOPAC (the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime) is the office through which the Mayor of London oversees policing and community safety.