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 South Gloucestershire

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 South Gloucestershire 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, South Gloucestershire YJS was rated as ‘Good’.

South Gloucestershire YJS had the critical components to support effective youth justice practice. We found passionate and effective leaders who understood youth justice, with a clear focus on achieving positive change and keeping children and communities safe. They were supported by a skilled and committed staff team. The partnership board had senior leaders from statutory partners, combined with relevant non-statutory partners, and had recently appointed a representative of victim services. Performance data was analysed, and quality assurance activity was undertaken to inform service delivery to children.

However, strategic and operational work with victims required development and needed greater oversight from the partnership board. The YJS needed to ensure all initial contacts with victims were personalised and promoted engagement with services. There needed to be a greater understanding of the profile of victims and their protected characteristics, alongside a review of resourcing to ensure it was sufficient to meet the needs of victims. A robust approach to oversight, monitoring, and evaluation of services to victims was required.

Assessing practice for work with children was supported by strong collaboration with children, families, and partners, which contributed to a comprehensive understanding of children’s strengths, needs, and safety. We saw high-quality delivery of activities and interventions. Practitioners were skilled at building trusted relationships with children and families, and this facilitated their delivery of effective interventions to achieve positive change and promote safety. There was a strong focus on education, training, and employment.

Inspectors saw sensitive practice across assessing, planning, and delivery for children’s neurodiversity. However, this needed to be strengthened in terms of understanding a child’s ethnicity, culture, or identity. The recognition of, and response to, exploitation also requires review to ensure there is a consistent approach which contributes to keeping children and the community safe.

There was a meaningful approach to participation with children and families which was embedded in service culture. This ensured children’s voices were heard to inform service delivery in the YJS and wider partnership, as well as shape practitioners’ engagement with children.

In this report, we make nine recommendations to enable the YJS to build on its strengths and improve the delivery of services to children, communities, and victims.

Martin Jones CBE

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

Ratings (Back to top)

Fieldwork started September 2025Score 8/12
Overall ratingGood

Work with children

2.1 AssessingGood
2.2 PlanningGood
2.3 Implementation and deliveryOutstanding

Work with victims

V1 Work with victimsRequires improvement

Recommendations (Back to top)

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

South Gloucestershire Youth Justice Partnership Board should:

  1. proactively drive improvement work with victims, including holding relevant partners to account and ensuring adequate resourcing and capacity to support the delivery of work with victims  
  2. assure themselves the YJS victim development plan and operational practice is resulting in the delivery of high quality, individualised, and responsive services to victims.

South Gloucestershire Youth Justice Service should:

  1. implement and embed the victim development plan and initiate improvement activity to ensure the initial contact with victims is of consistently high quality, individualised, and responsive to victims’ needs
  2. improve the quality of planning practice so it consistently identifies how to keep the child and community safe
  3. improve the quality of planning practice so it is collaborative with parents and carers
  4. ensure consistent high-quality diversity practice across assessing, planning, and delivery, which recognises, analyses, and responds to children’s ethnicity, culture, lived experiences, and identity
  5. ensure practitioners are consistently skilled at identifying and responding to potential and actual exploitation concerns relating to children.

Avon and Somerset Police should:

  1. improve the information it provides about the diversity, protected characteristics, and vulnerabilities of victims that consent to contact from the YJS
  2. ensure all police staff understand, and can articulate, the YJS victim offer to victims, to support victims in making informed choices about consent to share their information.

Background (Back to top)

We conducted fieldwork in South Gloucestershire YJS over a period of a week, beginning 08 September 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 02 September 2024 and 04 July 2025. We also conducted 14 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 03 March 2025 and 02 May 2025. We also conducted interviews with staff and managers responsible for the delivery of this work.

South Gloucestershire is in the west of England. It has a diverse geography with contrasting areas of affluence and rurality to the north, east, and centre of the county, whilst the southern edge bordering Bristol is a more diverse and densely populated area with pockets of deprivation.

South Gloucestershire has a population of 306,332 of which 9.4 per cent (28,663) are children aged 10-17.2 Based on the last census data, 87.5 per cent of the 10-17 population identified as White (22,707), and 12.5 per cent of children (3,252) identified as being from Black or global majority heritage backgrounds.3

In contrast, at the time of the inspection announcement, 27 per cent of the YJS caseload came from Black and global majority communities, indicating a significant over-representation. Similarly, the number of children in care known to the YJS was 8.1 per cent, in comparison to 0.57 per cent of the South Gloucestershire 10–17 population. The disparity of Black and global majority children and children with care experience in the youth justice cohort was recognised by the partnership board and YJS, and there was a strong strategic and operational focus on these areas. 

South Gloucestershire YJS is part of children’s social care (CSC) and preventative services within the people department of South Gloucestershire Council. It had a strengths-based, trauma-informed, relational practice model, which is aligned to child-first principles and focused on prevention and positive outcomes for children. The team manager was responsible for the YJS and the young people’s support team. There were three operational teams, each led by a practice manager who supervised youth justice workers and specialist staff. Two of the teams focused on the support and supervision of children subject to out-of-court resolutions, whilst the third oversaw delivery of court disposals.

The YJS was a well-resourced, multi-disciplinary team supported by seconded staff and specialist workers. Seconded staff included a police officer, probation officer, primary mental health specialists, and a speech and language therapist. Specialist workers included a substance misuse worker; education liaison officer; harmful sexual behaviour specialist; early intervention worker; a youth justice support worker (who led on reparation); a combined court, bail, and harmed party worker; and an African heritage project worker. The YJS also had an information and performance coordinator, business support officers, and volunteers who supported the operation of referral order panel and education work.

The YJS had access to range of interventions and services to address children’s needs and safety, as well as promote positive change. The context visit and showcase slot during fieldwork evidenced this, and we heard about the south-west regional enhanced case management project.4 This comprises four youth justice services, including South Gloucestershire, and forensic child and adolescent mental health services (fCAMHS), providing psychologically informed interventions to children and families based on the trauma recovery model.5
Inspectors also saw how the YJS supported staff creativity and innovation, through the development and roll-out of the ManKind programme. The programme seeks to address gender stereotypes, male identity, and toxic masculinity, whilst promoting a pro-social identity shift for boys. The value placed in reparation projects was seen through our visit to Kingsmeadow at MadeForever, a charity which supported skills development for children and promoted connectivity to their community, whilst enabling them to repair the harm caused by offending.

Education, training, and employment (ETE) was integral to the YJS, both in terms of ensuring access to suitable provisions for children and preventing exclusions. The education liaison officer worked tenaciously to secure opportunities for children. This included representation at, and escalation to, strategic forums such as the education escalation panel which reviewed “stuck cases” with strategic leaders in education, CSC, special educational needs (SEN) teams, health, and YJS, as well as the education high risk group plus which provided oversight and allocation of resources to high-risk children at risk of exclusion. The officer also led on the education inclusion project, focused on preventing permanent exclusions and managed moves by providing targeted support to children and schools. This impacted positively on exclusions and has enabled the officer to form constructive relationships with schools, which supported the advocacy for YJS children when needed.

The YJS predominantly worked with 15–17-year-old boys of White ethnicity. Data supplied when the inspection was announced, indicated the YJS was working with 30 children; 14 were subject to court disposals and 16 were subject to out-of-court resolutions. There had been a recent increase in first-time entrants, but the YJS rate was still lower than all comparators. The vigilant monitoring of performance data by the YJS and partnership board means they understood the factors contributing to this increase, such as knife-related offending and adherence to the child gravity matrix6 and inconsistencies across Avon and Somerset Police in the use of exceptional circumstances in out-of-court resolutions for knife-related offences. National reoffending data indicated the YJS was performing comparatively well in terms of the percentage of children reoffending, however the reoffending rate had increased. The YJS proactively tracked reoffending data locally and had identified this was caused by a small number of children with complex needs within the relatively small youth justice cohort. The custody rate had increased due to a small number of custodial sentences linked to serious violence.

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.Good

Our rating7 for assessing is based on the following key questions:

Does assessing sufficiently analyse how to:% ‘Yes’
achieve positive change for the child?87%
keep the child and the community safe?73%

Assessing to achieve positive change was strong and of a consistently high quality. It was supported by initial partnership screening activity and established information sharing pathways with a range of agencies including schools, CSC, preventative services, police, and health, and enhanced by the wide range of specialist workers within the YJS. Practitioners used the information gathered from partner agencies to identify and analyse the factors contributing to children’s involvement in offending, such as family or peer relationships, lifestyle, issues with ETE, the link between neurodiversity and emotional regulation, or substance use.  

Assessing was strengthened by the use and consideration of specialist assessment tools or reports, in particular speech communication and language needs (SCLN) assessments or education and health care plans (EHCPs). This enabled a comprehensive understanding of children’s functioning and how it influenced their thinking or behaviour.

Active collaboration with children and their parents or carers was a core strength in assessing activity. Practitioners were skilled at engaging children, parents, and carers which enabled them to understand a child’s history and context, their strengths, and aspirations, as well as protective factors, such as engagement in community activities like football or boxing, having an apprenticeship, or parental support. This collaborative approach to assessing activity supported practitioners to be aware of parental relationships with children, as well as how parents or carers could actively and effectively support children’s safety and the safety of the community.

Assessing to keep the child and community safe, whilst comprehensive, was not as strong as assessing to achieve positive change. Practitioners were effective at identifying and analysing factors which influenced safety such as trauma history, adverse childhood experiences, the impact of physical and emotional harm, peer relationships and influences, the circumstances and propensity to use of violence, and the triggers for and response to emotional dysregulation. Effective information sharing within the partnership supported assessing for safety, including the prompt sharing of new incidents and arrests by the seconded police officer, liaison with CSC and preventative services, joint working with the fCAMHS team, and collaboration with YJS specialist workers.

However, we found there needed to be a more consistent approach to the recognition and analysis of exploitation and risk outside the home. There needed to be greater professional curiosity and exploration regarding incidents or behaviours which could be attributed to exploitation. This was particularly relevant where current, or previous, issues or concerns regarding exploitation had been identified.

There was a strong victim footprint in assessing practice which typified consideration of the impact of the offence and representation of the victim’s needs and wishes. Restorative training had been undertaken by the YJS, and it was evident that the needs and wishes of victims were central in assessing activity.

Practitioners and partners efficiently shared information on new incidents or emerging concerns relating to children, which ensured issues were responded to promptly and effectively. There was evidence of formal and informal reviewing activity which ensured assessing practice for positive change and keeping the child and community safe was current, dynamic, and responsive.

Analysing diversity was consistently strong in terms of children’s neurodiversity or learning disabilities. Inspectors frequently saw examples of EHCPs, SCLN assessments, or liaison with SEN teams enhancing the analysis and understanding of children’s functioning. The impact of children’s trauma experiences on their identity and lived experience was also effectively analysed, including an example where this was supported by enhanced case management consultation.

Conversely, assessing practice in relation to children’s ethnicity, culture, and experiences of discrimination was inconsistent. While inspectors saw some examples of comprehensive assessing practice regarding children’s race, cultural needs, and experiences, there were also instances where the understanding of a child’s ethnicity lacked depth and there was no consideration of the impact this had on the child’s identity or lived experience. Inspectors also saw examples of children’s ethnicity, culture, and heritage being overlooked and not explored. Diversity practice would be strengthened if it consistently considered and analysed the intersectionality of all factors and their influence on children’s identity and lived experience.

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

Our rating8[8] for planning is based on the following key questions:

Does planning focus sufficiently on how to:% ‘Yes’
achieve positive change for the child?93%
keep the child and community safe?67%

Planning to achieve positive change was impressive and comprehensive. Building on assessing practice which identified the key factors to achieve positive change, practitioners then ensured planning was responsive to these needs.

A consistent strength was the partnership approach to planning, including joint working with CSC and preventative services, education (including schools), police, and health. This also included the specialist workers within the YJS, specifically the substance misuse worker, education liaison officer, and the primary mental health specialists. This collaborative approach to planning ensured there was alignment across agency plans, the roles and responsibilities of each professional were clear and, most importantly, children and families understood which practitioner was delivering or leading on specific services or interventions. Consideration was also given to who had the strongest and most trusted relationship with children, parents, and carers, and as such was best placed to deliver interventions.

Planning was responsive to children’s needs, strengths, and protective factors, which including a focus on promoting children’s engagement in positive activities and services that would provide support beyond the life of the YJS intervention. This included community groups like Empire Fighting Chance 9 and the young victims service 10, as well as statutory services such as preventative services including families plus and the young people’s support team. There was a strong focus on ETE as an avenue to achieve positive change for children. Examples included planning being focused on securing the right education placement for children and using EHCPs to support this, joint work with schools to support safety planning for children and their peers, and a coordinated approach between the YJS and school to enable children to continue in mainstream education or take their GCSEs.

There was evidence of children and parents or carers being supported to engage in planning activity and, where this occurred, it resulted in meaningful and child-friendly plans. However, this was not always consistently seen, particularly in relation to the involvement and engagement of parents and carers. In some cases, this resulted in children and parents not understanding why they were involved with the YJS.  

Planning to keep the child and community safe was not as strong as planning to achieve positive change. Additionally, although small in number, we saw some variability in the quality of planning for safety in court-ordered disposals.   

Planning activity for the safety of children and the community addressed both external and internal controls. We saw evidence of the effective use of bail conditions, markers on police systems relating to specific addresses or risks to specific individuals, and the use of restriction requirements on orders. This was balanced with the planning of sessions to develop internal controls and address the underlying factors contributing to a child’s safety or the safety of the community. This included planning for interventions such as substance use, emotional wellbeing and mental health, engagement in ETE, weapon possession, violence and emotional regulation, and peer relationships and influences.

While planning for safety of the child and community was generally responsive to the factors identified in assessing, this was not as effective or robust in terms of addressing exploitation and extra-familial harm. These shortfalls also permeated planning. This resulted in planning, both in terms of the safety of the child and the community, not being responsive to the identified exploitation risks or to new and emerging behaviours or issues regarding risk outside the home.

Planning practice for safety included collaboration with key partners such as police, CSC, preventative services, education, and health, as well as the involvement of YJS specialist workers. There was also evidence of joint working with parents to support safety planning or monitor specific behaviours. Multi-agency collaboration relating to planning activity incorporated monitoring and oversight by multi-agency forums and processes such as Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements. This partnership approach supported planning to be responsive to change as prompt sharing of information and intelligence resulted in planning being adapted to address any new or emerging risks. Examples of this responsivity in planning activity included ensuring the inclusion of the primary mental health specialist when need was identified and the inclusion of the ManKind programme in response to identified issues that required support.

Within planning activity, there was evidence of the consideration of victims’ needs, wishes, and safety. This included responding to victims’ wishes and the incorporation of restorative processes such as letters of apology or the use of compensation. When victims did not want to engage directly in services, victim awareness sessions were considered and appropriately included.

Consideration of neurodiversity and learning disabilities was a strength in planning and we saw evidence of planned interventions being shaped and tailored to meet children’s neurodiversity or learning needs. This was supported by the active use of EHCPs, SCLN screening tools, and communication profiles. However, there were limited examples of consideration being given to children’s ethnicity and culture in planning, and this required strengthening.

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

Our rating11 for delivery is based on the following key questions:

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

Services and support to children were consistently of high quality and responsive to need, with delivery to achieve positive change being a significant strength.

Practitioners were skilled and tenacious at building and maintaining strong and trusted relationships with children, parents, and carers. There was a culture of “working with” rather than “doing to”, which supported engagement and reflected genuine relational practice, alongside care and aspiration for children. This approach to working with children and families promoted the delivery of meaningful interactions and interventions to address children’s needs and safety, as well as sensitively balancing the use of enforcement action when necessary. Practical aspects, such as helping children to attend appointments were also evident.

The strength of the youth justice partnership was evident in delivery, with YJS practitioners working closely with professionals from statutory and community organisations. We saw effective collaborative work with social workers, preventative services practitioners, schools, fCAMHS, Empire Fighting Chance, and Sporting Chance 12 mentors. The footprint of YJS specialists was also evident, most notably the substance misuse worker, education liaison officer, and primary mental health specialists, who were persistent and impressive in their efforts to support children. Importantly, the partnership approach considered the most appropriate individuals to deliver interventions to children and families, taking a team around the practitioner approach, to ensure children were not overwhelmed with multiple professionals.

Interventions delivered to children and families focused on meeting identified needs to achieve positive change and safety, as well build strengths and protective factors. External controls such as bail conditions, requirements on disposals, and parental oversight of individual safety plans, were used in response to victim safety as well as the child’s safety. We saw a clarity in delivery, with YJS practitioners and other key professionals adhering to the delineation of roles and responsibilities, including instances of YJS practitioners delivering and coordinating interventions to a child, whilst other practitioners focused on support to the wider family and younger siblings. YJS practitioners and specialists creatively delivered sessions to address the factors linked to safety or need, such as substance use, emotional wellbeing and mental health, weapons awareness, peer relationships and influences, and emotional regulation to reduce violence. Practitioners also focused on building longer term sustainable support for children through referral and support to engage with positive activities such as fishing, cadets, Empire Fighting Chance, community mentors, and the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award. Delivery was responsive to change and supported by efficient partnership information sharing and practitioners being alert to, and inquisitive of, differences in children’s behaviour.

Inspectors saw examples of collaborative working with social workers to ensure identified risks to the child were addressed and mitigated through direct interventions, disruption activity, and oversight by both line managers and the relevant partnership forum. However, development activity is required to ensure the consistent identification and response to children’s risk of exploitation.

Supporting children’s engagement in education was a particular strength in terms of securing or maintaining mainstream or alternative provisions. This consistently focused on ensuring children had the right provision to meet their needs. We saw determined pursuit of appropriate provision for children, which included the review and sharing of EHCPs and the challenge and escalation to senior leadership forums, such as the education escalation panel and the education high risk group plus. There were numerous examples of this approach securing the right or best fit educational provision for children, including a child accessing an out-of-area specialist education provision appropriate to their needs within months of being excluded from mainstream school.

Inspectors saw examples of effective victim work with children. This included the delivery of victim awareness sessions which covered the impact, harm, and consequences of an offence, as well as the creation of letters of apology. In some instances, letters were shared with victims, which was in line with their expressed wishes and resulted in impactful reparative activity for both the victim and the child.

Diversity practice in terms of delivery was stronger than in assessing and planning. Inspectors saw interventions being meaningfully adapted so they could be understood and accessed by children with neurodivergent needs or learning disabilities. This included the use of distraction toys during sessions to support concentration and having shorter sessions or including breaks. There was also evidence of conversations or interventions regarding specific needs or risks being facilitated through playing games such as Uno, undertaking activities such as cooking, or using children’s interests, such as TikTok.

The use of EHCPs, information from SEN teams, SCLN assessments, or communication profiles, were used to adapt interventions and were shared across the professional network to ensure all individuals working with a child could engage with them effectively.

While practice to meet children’s cultural needs was variable, inspectors saw evidence of sensitively delivered interventions to explore and understand children’s culture and lived experiences, for example gaining an understanding of a child’s heritage and identity through the exploration of Caribbean food. Development was required to ensure consistent operational practice and delivery in terms of responding to race, ethnicity, and culture.

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.Requires improvement

Our rating13 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

  • The youth justice partnership board had appropriate representation and connectivity to local strategic partnership forums.
  • There was commitment and enthusiasm from the partnership board and YJS to improve the delivery of victim work as evidenced by the strategic priority in the youth justice plan 2025/2026, the current victim development plan, and the recent addition of a representative from a provider of victim services to the partnership board.
  • Staff delivering services to victims were passionate and committed to their work, seeing the value and importance of advocating for victims’ views, wishes, needs, and safety.
  • Staff working with victims, or delivering reparative activities, were embedded in the wider YJS team, which supported effective information sharing and collaborative practice.
  • Consent rates for victims to have their information shared with the YJS were high.
  • The YJS was undertaking work to improve the offer to, and initial contact with, victims to ensure these are better personalised.
  • When victims engaged with the YJS, they had access to a diverse offer which included direct delivery of interventions, support by the harmed party worker, or referral to specialist external providers, including the young victims’ service.
  • There was a range of creative and diverse reparation projects which had community capital and value within South Gloucestershire. Victims could select the projects children engaged in as part of the indirect reparation offer.
  • Delivery of three-day restorative justice training to YJS staff, and the subsequent reflective practice session and online consultations, had supported staff to develop appropriate skills and abilities to engage in restorative justice approaches and practice. Inspectors saw evidence of such practice in the work delivered with children.
  • Staff working with victims or delivering reparative activities were fully embedded in the YJS and had access to a wide training offer to support their skills development and needs.
  • The harmed party worker accessed regional meetings to support practice development and promote peer support.
  • Recent development activity recognised the importance and need for consistent supervision and management oversight of victim work.
  • There was a strategic commitment to ensure victims’ voices were integrated into the development of victim work and used to inform the partnership board.
  • The YJS took a proactive approach to improving police officers’ understanding of the service and its offer to victims through the delivery of specific training sessions to trainee officers. This included highlighting the importance of accurate recording on police referral forms and the value of police officers engaging in restorative activities.
  • The working with harmed parties and restorative justice policy was aligned to the legislative framework and reflected restorative justice principles. It clearly detailed operational victim practice across different youth justice disposals and provided guidance on the delivery of restorative justice interventions.
  • Dissemination of the working with harmed parties and restorative justice policy, and the victim development plan, was due to be shared at the next YJS development day to ensure they were fully understood and operationalised.
  • There was recognition that the gathering and analysis of victim feedback to inform service delivery needed to improve, and a new feedback process had been recently introduced. The intention was to embed this in operational practice, so it could inform service delivery as well as be reported to the partnership board.

Areas for improvement

  • The development of services to victims was being led by YJS strategic and operational managers, with limited input from the partnership board. At the time of the inspection, there was no identified strategic lead on the board to promote and drive improvements in delivery of work with victims.
  • Partnership commitment and support was required to ensure the profile and characteristics of victims were understood, with this information then used to inform and shape service delivery.
  • The partnership board needed to ensure the YJS was sufficiently resourced strategically and operationally to deliver high-quality, individualised and responsive services to victims.
  • The harmed party worker role had not been formally reviewed to ensure there was sufficient capacity to promote the delivery of effective and high-quality services to victims.
  • The harmed party worker role has multiple responsibilities, which presented competing demands and potential conflict of interests. This needed review to ensure the quality and responsiveness of service delivery to victims were not compromised and that victims were satisfied their needs and wishes were being effectively represented and met.
  • Initial contact with victims was limited and not personalised. Inspectors saw examples of cases being closed within one to two days after contact was initiated, if the victim did not respond. No subsequent information, whether written or electronic, was provided to victims following the initial contact to explain the support or services on offer or the value of engaging with the YJS.
  • The lack of sharing of information, such as the protected characteristics of a victim, undermined the YJS’s ability to effectively engage victims and ensure initial contact was personalised and responsive to need. Joint work with Avon and Somerset Police and neighbouring youth justice services was seeking to resolve this.
  • Victim case recording did not reflect the quality of work with victims, nor did it provide an accurate account of the assessing activity undertaken to gather the views, needs, and safety of the victim.
  • There was limited evidence of management oversight in the victim case sample and further work was required to improve, strengthen, and embed routine monitoring of operational practice.
  • The practice manager leading on the development of victim work, including the creation of policies, processes, and the victim development plan, did not supervise the harmed party worker. They had, however, consulted with them to undertake this task.
  • There was limited monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of victim work or analytical data to shape and inform service operation. Additionally, there was a lack of analysis and evaluation of the low uptake of services by victims compared to the high consent rates.
  • There had been an absence of quality assurance activity regarding the delivery of services to victims. This was due to be reported to the partnership board in December 2025 alongside other developmental activity.
  • There was a lack of clarity regarding the quality of information police provided to victims about the YJS victim offer. It was not clear if victims were given sufficient information to make informed decisions about their consent to share their details with the YJS.
  • Victims could only access support and services from the YJS for the duration of the disposal the child was subject to.
  • There were no governance and oversight arrangements in place when children or parents indicated they would like to make compensation payments to victims, despite the YJS facilitating this.
  • The link between the YJS and the probation victim contact scheme was embryonic and needed strengthening. It had recently been reinstated as part of the victim development work.
  • There were missed opportunities to develop effective working relationships with Lighthouse Support Unit of Avon and Somerset Police, which could enhance and improve practice and delivery to victims. This was recognised and regional work was planned.
  • The working with harmed parties and restorative justice policy required strengthening to clarify the joint arrangements with Avon and Somerset Police.  The policy needed to better consider victim consent; equity, diversity and inclusion; how victims exit support from the YJS; staff supervision and support; case recording; monitoring and evaluation of the quality of service delivery; and governance arrangements.
  • Staff were not sufficiently provided with the skills or support to work with victims of serious or violent offences and would benefit from access to specialist training on sensitive and complex casework or clinical supervision.

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

There was a genuine and committed approach to participation, which sought to promote meaningful engagement of children and families in the development of the YJS and wider partnership. Participation was led by a practice manager who had been instrumental in its development and was aspirational to enhance it further. The approach to participation had been revised in June 2024, was embedded in operational practice, and formed part of the current participation policy.

Children’s feedback activity was central to participation. It was co-designed with the YJS speech and language therapist and piloted by children before implementation. Towards the end of their disposal, children were invited to a one-to-one discussion with an independent worker to consider their experience of the YJS, what they had learnt, what had changed for them, and to reflect on their case worker. Their feedback was shared with their case manager and their line manager, enabling children to feel valued and heard whilst also highlighting to practitioners the importance of their relationship with children and its impact.

Children were sent a personalised letter from the practice manager summarising their feedback and how it would be used. Feedback was collated and analysed on a six-monthly basis by a group of youth justice children, who were supported to present key themes to strategic leaders at a feedback panel. Senior leaders on the panel included service directors for education and CSC, the lead member for children and young people, and the YJS team manager. Themes included the use of isolation rooms in school, support for children aged 14–15 to get jobs, and affordable activities. All issues had been taken forward. The quality and impact of this approach was seen in case inspection activity, as inspectors saw evidence of personalised letters on children’s files. Inspectors also saw an instance where a child was supported to analyse the findings and presented this to senior leaders.

Children were involved in recruitment and, in January 2025, a parent and carer feedback process had been implemented. Links were also in place with the local authority participation team. Findings from the feedback process and all participation activity were presented to the partnership board annually, and board members attended the feedback panels.

On our behalf, the YJS contacted children, parents, and carers who had currently or recently 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. This resulted in five children and nine parents or carers talking to inspectors either through telephone calls, video links, or face-to-face meetings.

When considering the contact children and their parents or carers had with the YJS, they indicated the information they received was communicated clearly and helped them to understand what was expected of them. Comments included: 14

“My worker explained it to me in a way I could understand.”

“Could not have been clearer, I repeatedly asked questions at the initial meetings with my son’s case manager. He was very clear with his communication via both email and when I spoke to him at home or on the phone.”

In terms of their experiences and interactions with practitioners, all of those we asked had felt respected and valued. The majority also indicated they felt they had been able to have a say on the things that affected them. Children and their parents and carers said the YJS had helped them to address the factors influencing their behaviour and, as such, increased their safety. They told us:

“I felt like my worker was listening to me and had good conversations.”

“Anything I have ever asked for support with has been met with willingness to explore ideas or options. For [my child], he wanted to do reparation outside of where he lived, that was planned and organised and has meant he is doing reparation in a project that is linked to his interests in football.”

“Before working with [my practitioner] I was running away and this has changed now. I also couldn’t sleep and was not going out or socialising. This has all changed for the better now. [My practitioner] has helped me with this.”

“The YJS worked with [my child] on his level. They did not judge. His workers were really interested in his progress. They built a good rapport, and this helped [my child] after he had lost his way. The service gave us support.”

Our inspection identified YJS practitioners were skilled at recognising and working with children’s neurodiverse needs and this was reflected in the feedback we gained from children and their parents and carers. They said:

“[Our practitioner] has been great and got the mental health worker out to share ideas about how to communicate with [my child], based on their knowledge of neurodiversity. The YJS workers really understand him.”

“Consistency of worker and their understanding of my child’s ADHD and how it impacts his thinking and behaviour.”

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

“My worker is respectful.”

“I do genuinely think had they not been involved, I would have lost [my child]. He would have been locked up (…) If it wasn’t for them, I wouldn’t still have him home with me, and he wouldn’t have made the progress he has made. I cannot thank them enough.”

“The case manager was really supportive and helped us continually, everyone needs a [named practitioner].”

“There isn’t anything I would change, it’s all been great, and I think they do a fantastic job with children.”

Equity, diversity and inclusion (Back to top)

South Gloucestershire YJS and its partnership board had an embedded strategic and operational focus on promoting equity, diversity and inclusion for children and families. This was grounded in the comprehensive data analysis and thematic quality assurance work, which resulted in the board and YJS understanding the profile and needs of its children well. This supported the development of a range of regional, partnership and service action plans and activities to drive improvements to secure better outcomes for over-represented children in the youth justice system.

Over the past two years there had been a clear focus in the youth justice plan to promote equity, diversity and inclusion. This was evidenced by the adoption of two separate strategic priorities for Black and global majority children and children in care, which focused on reducing the use of formal youth justice outcomes for both over-represented groups.

The YJS had a detailed disproportionality policy, which clearly stated the YJS commitment to addressing disparity and promoting equality, diversity, and inclusion. It reflected child-first principles, the national context in terms of research and thematic inspections, and the local picture informed by YJS data. It was aligned to local strategic plans including South Gloucestershire Council’s tackling inequalities plan; the CSC and preventative services equality, diversity, and inclusion action plan; and the regional local criminal justice board (LCJB) tackling disproportionality programme. It referenced activity undertaken and planned, the importance of hearing the views of over-represented groups to inform operational practice, and the YJS race action plan. While comprehensive, the policy would be enhanced if it reflected activity to address the over-representation of children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) in the YJS.  

The youth justice pillar of the LCJB tackling disproportionality programme, which sought to understand and address ethnic disparity, was chaired by the YJS team manager. It had four priority areas: education inclusion, education exclusion, voice of the child, and out-of-court resolution panels.

As part of this work, a disproportionality thematic audit in November 2024 had been led by the YJS in collaboration with SARI.15 The findings, alongside national thematic inspection recommendations, informed the YJS race action plan 2025/2026. The plan focused on the role of the partnership board in oversight and challenge; identified required improvements in YJS practice such as ensuring identity development was evident in assessing and planning including management oversight of this; and the engagement in Black and global majority children in feedback mechanisms to shape service delivery. It considered partnership work with education and police, including collating and analysing data on exclusions and exploring links to offending or entry to the justice system, the profile of offence types and any links to disproportionality, children’s experiences of the justice system, and the impact of diversion. Consistent tracking, monitoring, and evaluation of data to identify themes and trends was also central to the plan. The partnership board oversaw progress against the plan.

The YJS had a service level agreement with SARI. This included the provision of support to victims and perpetrators of hate crime, consultation support to practitioners to support their work with Black and global majority children and families, the identification and delivery of staff training, and involvement in audit activity of operational practice. The YJS recognised consultations were not being used by YJS practitioners. Improving uptake was part of the race action plan.

SARI had delivered cultural awareness sessions to YJS staff about: eastern European communities; men, fathers, and boys; class and poverty; Romanian and eastern European Roma; and Gypsies and Travellers. Future training was planned to focus on Judaism and Anti-Semitism, Islam and Islamophobia, refugees and migrants, and poverty and class. A partnership disproportionality workshop, facilitated by SARI with the YJS, CSC, and education was planned.

In April 2025, a new African heritage project worker was appointed. This practitioner was based in the YJS but worked across CSC and education. The role was created following a pilot study where Black and mixed heritage children expressed a wish to understand their heritage. The worker helped practitioners to strengthen their knowledge and understanding of Black and mixed heritage children and families.

Addressing disparity and improving outcomes for children in care was a corporate responsibility for South Gloucestershire Council, reflected by care experienced being adopted locally as a protected characteristic. The corporate parenting board led work to address the disparity of children in care in the youth justice system and had adapted their dataset to include YJS data. A partnership protocol to reduce the criminalisation of children in care and care leavers had been introduced with its efficacy being tracked and monitored. Data analysis work had identified key themes such as an increase in children in care being subject to statutory disposals and girls in care being over-represented in out-of-court resolutions. Multi-agency audits had identified learning regarding involvement of children in care in the justice system and what good practice looks like. Consequently, activity had taken place to promote closer working between the YJS and CSC, to ensure there was effective understanding on the impact of children in care entering the youth justice system within the workforce and, where possible, the promotion of prevention or diversion.

The YJS had actively tracked and analysed offending by girls due to historic concerns about a disparity related to their involvement in violence. Analysis presented to the partnership board in March 2025, provided reassurance that this was no longer an issue. It identified girls were not over-represented in first-time entrants, were under-represented in court, and were more likely to be diverted using non-statutory outcomes. It highlighted an over-representation of girls in care as first-time entrants and focused on diversion, where appropriate, and ongoing monitoring.

Although addressing the over-representation of children with SEND in the YJS was not a formal strategic priority, case inspection activity identified children’s needs were recognised and met. The timely and prompt review of EHCPs supported children’s access to the most appropriate education provision and, in some instances, the involvement of the YJS resulted in children accessing education for the first time in a significant period. This was also supported by the tenacity of the education liaison officer, close and effective working relationship with SEN teams, clear pathways and escalation routes, and effective strategic partnership panels.

There was limited evidence of equity, diversity and inclusion practice in relation to work with victims. It was not considered in the working with harmed parties and restorative justice policy, and the lack of victims protected characteristics data meant the profile of victims was not understood so practice was not adapted to be responsive to their needs. This was recognised in the victim development plan and improvement work was planned with Avon and Somerset Police.  

Data annexe (Back to top)

South Gloucestershire YJS Data Annexe
(XLSX, 129 KB)

Press release (Back to top)

“Skilled and committed” South Gloucestershire Youth Justice Service rated ‘Good’ following inspection

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.

Footnotes:

  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. Office for National Statistics (July 2025). UK population estimates, mid 2024. ↩︎
  3. Census 2021, Office for National Statistics, 2023 ↩︎
  4. Enhanced case management is a trauma-informed youth justice approach which uses a psychological case formulation to inform the delivery of interventions to meet the psychological and social needs of children. ↩︎
  5. Trauma recovery model is a structured, trauma-informed framework developed by Dr Tricia Skuse and Jonny Matthew to support children – particularly those in the youth justice system – who have experienced significant adversity and trauma. ↩︎
  6. NPCC Child Gravity Matrix – A tool used across England and Wales that ranks common offences involving children on a scale from 1 (low gravity) to 5 (high gravity) based on offence seriousness. It is used to support decision making for out of court resolutions. ↩︎
  7. 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. ↩︎
  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. Empire Fighting Change is a charity in Bristol that uses the power of boxing to fight the impact of equality on young lives. ↩︎
  10. The young victims’ service supports children aged 5 to 18 years old who have been victims of crime, antisocial behaviour or domestic abuse. It is funded by Avon and Somerset Police and Crime Commissioner. ↩︎
  11. 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. ↩︎
  12. Sporting Chance Project is an alternative learning provider that offers mentoring, education and life skills coaching to children and young people with special education needs or and EHCP. ↩︎
  13. 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 ↩︎
  14. All quotes are directly from children and their parents or carers. ↩︎
  15. SARI (stand against racism and inequality) is a charitable organisation based in Bristol which supports victims of hate crime and aims to combat racism and inequality through support, education, and advocacy. ↩︎