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 Warwickshire

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 Warwickshire Youth Justice Service (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, Warwickshire YJS was rated as ‘Good.’

Inspectors found a stable and motivated workforce in Warwickshire. Practice was consistent, particularly work undertaken with children, and this resulted in positive outcomes. Practitioners focused on ensuring children received the appropriate support at the right time. Furthermore, we saw inquisitive staff who were highly committed to continuously developing and improving practice.

We found many strengths in assessing activity, which was completed in a consistently effective and detailed manner. Strategic priorities focused on comprehensively understanding children’s needs, and were operationalised through the work undertaken by staff. For example, we saw practitioners consider the impact of trauma, neurodiversity and communication difficulties, and use this knowledge to get a better understanding of the children they worked with.

The overall picture for planning was positive. Plans were co-produced with children, families, and relevant services. However, to strengthen planning, the YJS needs to ensure that victims are consistently considered, particularly with other agencies, at points of transition to other services for the child.

Delivery was strong. Interventions were personalised and well-coordinated, supporting identity shift for the child. The diverse geography and demographics of the county were considered well. Practitioners used venues such as the Bloxham Centre and co-located justice centres effectively to ensure targeted support was always available.

The service recognised that it was on a journey in its delivery of victim services. While individual work with victims was sufficient and the restorative justice offer was notably strong, organisational arrangements and oversight needed improving. Processes had not been scrutinised enough to ensure consistency at the point when victims were contacted or when their safety needs had to be considered. Police engagement in the delivery of services to victims also needed to improve, particularly the clarity and timeliness with which they shared victim information with the YJS.

In this report, we make four recommendations to help support the YJS in developing its work with children and victims further.

Martin Jones CBE

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

Ratings (Back to top)

Fieldwork started October 2025Score 9/12
Overall ratingGood

Work with children

2.1 AssessingOutstanding
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 four recommendations that we believe, if implemented, will have a positive impact on the quality of youth justice services in Warwickshire. This will improve the lives of the children in contact with youth justice services, and better protect the public.

The Warwickshire Youth Justice Service should:

  1. ensure planning is of a consistently high quality and focuses on how to keep the child and community safe
  2. ensure victims’ safety is considered in all instances where the YJS offers them support.

The Warwickshire Youth Justice Service and Warwickshire Police should:

  1. review processes for initial contact with victims to ensure these are consistent across both out-of-court resolutions and court orders.

The Youth Justice Management Board should:

  1. review and evaluate victim consent rates and the quality of content and timeliness of YOT12 forms completed by the police to ensure that victims are being afforded the best opportunity to engage with available offers of support from the YJS.

Background (Back to top)

We conducted fieldwork in Warwickshire YJS over a period of a week, beginning on 20 October 2025. We inspected cases where the YJS had started work with children who were subject to bail or remand, court disposals, out-of-court resolutions or released from custody between 24 March April 2025 and 20 June 2025. We also conducted 23 interviews with case managers.

We inspected the organisational arrangements for work delivered with victims and looked at cases where the YJS had contacted victims between 21 October 2024 and 22 August 2025. We also conducted interviews with staff and managers responsible for the delivery of this work.

Warwickshire YJS provides interventions for children, families and victims living in the ceremonial county of Warwickshire, split across the five districts of North Warwickshire, Nuneaton and Bedworth, Rugby, Warwick, and Stratford-upon-Avon. The county is largely rural, though service delivery is coordinated within office bases in two of the larger settlements in the county: Nuneaton in the north and Leamington Spa in the south.

Warwickshire has an estimated 171,000 residents aged 0–25 years old, who make up 28.5 per cent of the population.​ There is more ethnic diversity among Warwickshire’s children than among other age groups in the county. Nearly 86 per cent of children and young people in Warwickshire reported their ethnicity as ‘White’, compared with 92.8 per cent for those aged 26 years and over. There is considerable demographic variation both across and within the five districts, though levels of affluence are generally higher in the southern districts.

The most recent annual Youth Justice Board data3 indicates that there is some disproportionality relating to ethnicity in the percentage of children cautioned or sentenced. The YJS’s own analysis has identified that this is more pronounced for Black and mixed heritage children receiving court orders. Annual data also identified significant over-representation of girls in the offending cohort compared with the regional and national averages. However, the proportion of girls in the caseload at the point the inspection was announced was much lower, suggesting that it can vary, possibly because the number of girls who offend is small.

At the point of the inspection, 40.4 per cent of the children under 16 open to the YJS were in full-time education. Annual data presented to the board reflected a more positive overall picture, and confirmed there was a focus on ensuring children and young people received their full entitlement to education, training, or employment (ETE).

The YJS sat within the children and young people directorate and was overseen by the lead for safeguarding communities. Her portfolio also included oversight of youth justice, youth work, the emergency duty team, Family Connect (front door), the multi-agency child protection team (MACPT) and the family and adolescent support team (FAST). This gave her a clear line of sight over services that provided interventions and support to vulnerable adolescents, including those at risk of exploitation. Warwickshire children’s services was selected as one of the Department for Education’s pathfinder local authorities, to test the government’s proposals for social care reform.4

Operational activity was overseen by two service managers. They line managed eight team managers between them, five within youth justice. One service manager also line managed three team managers in the youth service . While staff were separated geographically, team managers had lead responsibility for specific areas of work, such as victims or out-of-court resolutions. Therefore, roles and responsibilities ensured county-wide coverage and oversight for these specific areas of work. Case management responsibilities for children and victims lay with practitioners and victim workers. They were supported by secondees from the probation service, the police, and health services. There was also a dedicated education worker, sessional workers delivering reparation services, and volunteers providing support. The YJS youth court was based out of the area, in Coventry. While there would be value in more localised court access, Coventry was central and it was easy for children across the local authority to get there.

​Out-of-court resolutions operated to a standard model of delivery, although deferred prosecution through Outcome 225was not yet available to the partnership. Warwickshire sat within the YJB’s West Midlands region; however, the police force with responsibility for the YJS was Warwickshire. The bigger, neighbouring West Midlands force had issued guidance on potential outcomes when considering out-of-court resolutions for knife crime, but this was not in effect. Warwickshire police force had taken a less rigid and more localised approach to implementing national guidance, working alongside the YJS.

Interventions before and after court were typically trauma-informed and there was a clear child-first approach in place. Services across the partnership worked collegiately, and we saw examples where multi-agency case discussions were facilitated to support the work with children.

The YJS had seen a long-term downward trend in the number of first-time entrants (although there had been recent increases), and the proportion of children who reoffend was below the national average. However, there had been a recent spike in custody rates. Details of these and other performance indicators were analysed and reviewed at a well-attended management board, which was chaired by the executive director for children and young people.

Strategic priorities for 2025 to 2026 included a focus on serious youth violence, improving the physical health offer, developing victim work, and improving ETE attendance and outcomes. We saw examples of activity to address these areas in the children’s casework that we inspected. This reassured us that strategic priorities were being operationalised and were having a positive impact. The YJS provided additional evidence on its contextual safeguarding approach, which provided assurance that this aligned with its approach to addressing serious youth violence.

During our fieldwork context visit and showcase slots, the YJS demonstrated its approach to reparation activity, emotional wellbeing, substance misuse, sessional work, life skills, and the effective use of the Bloxham Centre venue. The showcased work was reflected in a number of the children’s files that we inspected.

Domain two: Work with children (Back to top)

We took a detailed look at 23 cases where the YJS had worked with children who were subject to bail, remand, community sentences, resettlement, or out-of-court resolutions.

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 rating6 for assessing is based on the following key questions:

Does assessing sufficiently analyse how to:% ‘Yes’
achieve positive change for the child?100%
keep the child and the community safe?87%

Warwickshire YJS reaped the benefits of an experienced and skilled workforce, and we saw high levels of competence in assessing activity, which was undertaken consistently. Practitioners were reasoned, insightful, and thoughtful when coming to their decisions and explaining these to inspectors. Activity was well recorded, and this enabled inspectors to have a good understanding of every child in the casework that we inspected.

Assessing activity to achieve positive change for children was a notable strength. In particular, practitioners’ consideration of the impact of equity, diversity and inclusion factors was robust and well evidenced. For example, the service had access to a skilled speech and language therapist (SALT), who screened all children as part of assessing activity. This gave the YJS a comprehensive understanding of each child’s speech, language, and communication needs (SLCN), which in turn helped it to develop the support  for children with speech and language difficulties. For example, because SALT screening and assessment had helped the YJS to understand children’s needs, similar activities were applied in the work of the children in care team.

Appropriate attention was also given to impact of neurodiversity on children. Practitioners were able to reflect on feedback from timely health screenings and analyse how diagnoses of neurodiversity affected functioning, thinking and behaviour, and how they impacted on or contributed to children’s offending. Staff also considered parental neurodiversity, where applicable, and the impact this could have on the efficacy of the proposed intervention as well.                                         

The YJS had worked hard to implement a trauma-informed approach to its work. It had also invested energy in embedding the ARC framework7 into its practice. We saw evidence of this in assessing activity. Practitioners always considered how trauma was linked to any adverse lived experiences of the child they were working with and analysed the impact these were still having on the child’s decision-making and behaviours.

Activity was collaborative in nature, and written assessments were co-produced with children and their parents or carers. Practitioners used multiple relevant sources to corroborate information, and we saw evidence of detailed information-gathering from a variety of sources, such as children’s social care records. This collegiate approach gave practitioners a clear understanding of the areas where positive change was needed, such as help with substance misuse, emotional wellbeing, and engaging in constructive activities. This in turn helped practitioners to develop plans and target activity that would lead to positive change during subsequent interventions. The YJS was co-located with the police, the probation service, and the liaison and diversion service in the criminal justice centres in both Leamington Spa and Nuneaton, which further supported joint assessment.

Assessing activity to keep the child and community safe was also a strength. We saw an appropriate balance between the YJS’s child-first approach and the importance of analysing potential risk, safety, and harm factors that were crucial to facilitating a child’s identity shift. This was particularly important given that violence was the most common offence type that we saw during fieldwork and just in under a third of the cases we inspected, the child was linked to knife crime as part of current or previous offending behaviours. Staff were skilled in analysing relevant factors that emanated from such offences and any associated behaviours that might put the child themselves at harm. Practitioners showed skill and an understanding of the intersectionality of harm when considering how best to achieve safety for everyone. For example, substance misuse and poor emotional regulation were seen as factors that could impact on the child’s safety, but could also be triggers for harmful behaviours towards others.

We found that the needs and wishes of victims had been considered during assessment when details had been obtained. While this was positive, and no significant issues were overlooked by practitioners when incorporating this information, there was sometimes limited understanding across the broader partnership about the importance of including the victim’s voice in assessing activity.

In a small number of instances, we considered that safety concerns had not been assessed consistently. This was primarily linked to the need to analyse the available information in greater depth, and to ensure that assessing activity was responsive to changes in the child’s circumstances. However, in the majority of the inspected cases we found that practitioners were thorough and dynamic in their approach to analysis and review.

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 for planning is based on the following key questions:

Does planning focus sufficiently on how to:% ‘Yes’
achieve positive change for the child?96%
keep the child and community safe?74%

Planning to keep the child and community safe was a strength. It was characterised by a dynamic approach to reviewing and responsivity to change, to ensure plans remained relevant and up to date. Practitioners carefully considered what the initial activity should be and would reference plans already in place, such as in pre-existing child protection and safety planning arrangements. Actions relevant to the YJS intervention would then be linked and aligned across relevant services that were working with the child. Planning was also reviewed and updated at multi-agency meetings at regular intervals. Contingency planning was robustly considered to identify how to respond to potential changes in the child’s safety. We found this was appropriately followed up and responded to when circumstances changed.

We identified consistent collaboration between services. This was evidenced in the out-of-court decision-making panels, for example, where the panel came together to analyse an initial assessment and identify and plan for the right type of intervention and actions required to meet the child’s needs. Out-of-court resolutions are often short term, so it is vital that plans are created quickly, with actions that are clear. We found that arrangements in Warwickshire facilitated this.

Co-production with children was apparent in much of the work that we saw. For some interventions, a child friendly ‘My Plan’ was used to develop objectives with the child. The template used for these plans had been developed with children and this provided assurance that children were using a tool that had meaning and relevance for them. This collegiate approach was beautifully evidenced in one child’s case records, where they had asked to take the lead in planning activity. The child’s support needs were written in their own language and the child also identified the most effective way to finish the intervention once the planned offending behaviour sessions had been delivered in full. Planning such as this reflected the relational approach to working with children.

While planning to keep the child and community safe was done well, we saw some limited examples of inconsistency, where planning to address all concerns and risks relating to actual and potential victims was not evident. For example, practitioners’ work with victims  was not always well coordinated with other services working with the child, particularly at points of transition within interventions. Information needed to be shared consistently at these critical junctures, and greater priority given to communicating across the partnership what was required to keep victims and potential victims safe.

However, the YJS facilitated its own multi-agency risk management meetings when a high level of potential harm to a child had been identified. We saw evidence that the YJS used these meetings to coordinate a joint approach, and that it took appropriate action following the meetings. We found that actions were planned in a coordinated manner and, as with assessing, we saw staff who understood the intersectionality of risk, and recognised that harm to children and the community needed to be considered together in the round. So, while a practitioner might refer a child for emotional wellbeing support, they would also implement external controls such as contact restrictions and ensure that police intelligence checks were carried out.

Planning to achieve positive change was also a strength. In every case we inspected, we found that planning took sufficient account of the child’s context, including their wider familial and social environment. Practitioners were able to identify how to use family, peer, and broader support networks to build on children’s strengths. The service recognised that the work to facilitate a child’s identity shift could not be undertaken in isolation, and that recognition of their personal circumstances was critical if progress were to be made. This work was particularly impressive.

Planning sufficiently included and considered all the child’s diversity factors in a large majority of inspected cases. Staff were confident in having sensitive conversations about children’s protected characteristics. As with assessing, it was evident that practitioners had a depth of understanding of children’s neurodiversity. We also saw detailed consideration of children’s heritage and maturity. Additionally, practitioners ensured that children could easily be transported to interventions when required. This was a crucial consideration in planning, given the sprawling geography of the local authority.

Due to the relatively short time that the YJS may spend with children, particularly those subject to out-of-court resolutions, it was crucial that planning was carried out with other services, including for exit planning and referral to mainstream services. Although this was mainly undertaken sufficiently, we did note that it had not occurred for some children. Practitioners had identified the child’s relevant needs and motivations, but did not always sufficiently coordinate or integrate work with identified services who could assist. This was an area that the YJS could build on.

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

Our rating9 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?96%
keep the child and the community safe?91%

Challenges resulting from the diverse geography and population demographics in Warwickshire were successfully targeted by the YJS. For example, co-location at the justice centres in the north and south of the county helped practitioners to cover the whole area. These arrangements also meant that staff had easy access to the policy custody suite when a child entered custody and an opportunity to begin delivery and offer support immediately. Resources for children at both suites were developed following advice from the SALT. The custody inspector had embraced this approach. In addition to a child-friendly environment, decoration, and the provision of fidget toys, we saw a drive to implement wholesale culture change with colleagues who used the custody suite.

The Bloxham Centre was a positive venue for delivering targeted support for children, who were transported here from across the county. The venue acted as a delivery hub, with a range of services, including reparation (cooking, allotment, and woodwork), and facilities for life skills work. Sessional staff supported reparation and had a range of skills to facilitate various groups. This meant that reparation projects could be matched to the needs and wishes of young people and victims. The approach supported a genuine attempt at developing ‘community capital’.10

Delivery was well-focused, personalised, and coordinated, supporting positive identity shift for the child. The YJS prioritised building strong relationships with children through regular contact, and made efforts to overcome structural barriers, such as access to education. Support was tailored to the child’s needs, including emotional wellbeing and communication support, where required. Multi-agency collaboration was evident, and strengths such as the child’s motivation to engage were actively prioritised to support progress. Crucially, service delivery was a dynamic process and the quality of the work with the child was reviewed and adapted where necessary in every case inspected.

Interventions were normally delivered according to the child’s plan; however, this did not happen in all cases. We heard of examples of significant delays in neurodiversity pathways and practitioners were not always clear about what resources, external to YJS support, were available for particular groups, such as girls and Black, Asian and minority ethnic children. The YJS needs to consider partnership priority pathways for children receiving support, allowing them consistent and easier access .

We saw appropriate services delivered to keep children safe and achieve stability as foundations for change. For example, we saw work delivered through one-to-one case manager sessions and children being signposted to external services, such as bereavement counselling or RISE11 to support their emotional wellbeing. Substance misuse work was delivered effectively by the commissioned Compass substance misuse service. We saw evidence of harm minimisation and awareness-raising activity being used to reduce drug use.

There was evidence that regular multi-agency risk meetings were taking place that focused on ensuring appropriate activity was delivered to keep the child safe. We saw clear efforts by the YJS to work alongside children’s social care. YJS managers appropriately escalated matters when they felt that activity undertaken by children’s social care did not sufficiently support the children’s safety.

Service delivery to keep the community safe was also a strength, and appropriate services were delivered to sufficiently manage risks. Practitioners were skilled and offered one-to-one support for children to address issues of emotional regulation, anger management, problem-solving and consequential thinking, as well as the impact on others of offending and of using weapons. Referrals to external support were made when specific areas of risk needed to be addressed; for example, sessions on harmful sexual behaviour were available with a specialist worker. Practitioners considered exit strategies that ensured interventions could be completed and ongoing work supported after the YJS’s involvement. Children who set fires were supported by a fire setters course, provided by the fire brigade, to help them understand the consequences of their behaviour.

Interventions took account of the available timescales and the need for sequencing in nearly all of the children’s cases we inspected. Practitioners had a good understanding of how to prioritise activity that addressed safety concerns and recognised when a multi-partnership approach was required. They appropriately considered factors such as the length of time remaining on the YJS intervention, levels of engagement and how many other services or agencies were involved, to ensure delivery was sufficient.

Work with victims (Back to top)

We took a detailed look at 15 victim cases where the YJS has offered a service to victims who had 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 rating12 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

  • There was strategic recognition of the importance of victim work, with engagement from the management board and links to other forums.
  • There had been a concerted focus on developing data sets to understand victim demographics and performance indicators, though the qualitative analysis of this information needed to improve.
  • The planned development of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner’s victim board provided assurance of a concerted attempt to strengthen oversight and services.
  • There was access to comprehensive, up-to-date policies and procedures, co-developed by practitioners, which emphasised personalised and relational support for victims.
  • Self-evaluation had led to the development of a victim action plan; progress with actions in the plan was noted, although the timeliness of police information-sharing with the YJS still needed to improve.
  • External oversight from Remedi13 had helped to improve recording practices. This enabled managers to collect better data and helped staff to get a more detailed  understanding of victim needs.
  • Victim work was well resourced, with experienced staff and manageable workloads. A wide range of restorative justice options were available for victims, both before and after court. Youth justice victim practitioners were skilled and tried to personalise contact with victims in line with needs.
  • There had been increased engagement in face-to-face restorative conferences between children and victims in recent months.
  • Weekly meetings had been introduced to address victims’ needs and keep them safe. These were beginning to have a positive impact on activity and service delivery.
  • Access to reflective supervision and support for vicarious trauma was in place.
  • Staff demonstrated a strong learning culture and wanted to know how they could improve services.

Areas for improvement

  • Consideration of victims’ safety was minimal outside of formal restorative justice conferencing. This impacted on the support offered to victims regarding their safety. This theme was also reflected in planning activity with children, and needed to be improved.
  • Police outside the YJS had a limited understanding of the YJS’s victim offer. We also noted a reluctance by some police staff to engage in restorative justice, and a disconnect between the police and YJS. Senior police engaged positively at the management board, but we did not see evidence that this was translating into more effective tactical and operational delivery.
  • Police information-sharing through the force’s YOT1 forms needed urgent improvement; progress had been slow, even though its importance had been recognised over 12 months ago.
  • There was a lack of understanding about the reasons for low consent rates from victims and disengagement after they had consented; better and more nuanced data analysis was needed to better identify and understand the causes.
  • Initial processes for contacting victims were not clear enough, particularly regarding the roles of the police (before court) and YJS practitioners (after court); further review was required to ensure that contact was consistent.
  • Dual roles for restorative justice practitioners, which included case management, had not affected the quality-of-service delivery. However, these arrangements required review to ensure that formal governance arrangements and safeguards were in place.
  • There was a disparity between the quality of training for police and YJS staff  working with victims. There needed to be a standardised induction and consistent training for everyone who worked with victims.
  • There was limited awareness among practitioners of specialist support for victims of hate crime or adolescent-to-parent violence; better connectivity and understanding of external services was needed.
  • Practitioners were inconsistent in the extent to which they considered equity, diversity and inclusion; we saw examples of ineffective practice (such as the use of Google Translate). Recording of victims’ protected characteristics was clear in only 20 per cent of the cases we inspected.
  • The victim offer was limited to the duration of the child’s intervention; this raised the risk of unmet needs at the end of short interventions. A focus on developing consistency, with signposting to other services at end of the intervention, was required.
  • Operational staff and victims were not involved in the victim standard self-assessment or development of other documents. A more inclusive approach was required, and would help to improve service design and provision.
  • Quality assurance and oversight were improving but not fully embedded. The impact of recent work to improve them had only recently become visible, and efforts to ensure they were sustainable were required.

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

There was a wide-ranging child and families participation offer in the wider local authority, based on the Lundy model of child participation.14 This focused on ensuring children’s and families’ voices were heard and ensuring that the people who could influence decisions heard those voices. There were a range of groups and forums in place, such as the Youth Council and Care Leavers Forum. Issues raised by these groups included reflection on emotional and mental health, experiences of school, and crime and safety. There was an annual youth conference, which was designed and led by children. 

Additionally, children were encouraged to participate in recruitment activity for new staff. The ‘Young Inspectors’ initiative involved care-experienced children planning and developing an inspection of two children’s home providers in the county.

This wider approach was reflected in bespoke activity undertaken by the YJS. We saw an emphasis on listening to children and acting on what they had said. For example, children were offered one-to-one feedback opportunities with managers and practitioners. Children actively fed back to other services within the partnership. They had provided valuable reflections to the police force’s ‘stop and search’ panels, which were being considered in the review of procedures for children. Other feedback, such as about the lack of sanitary products for girls in the custody suite, had resulted in provision now becoming available. Overall, there was a real sense that children’s voices were being heard and acted upon. Opportunities to engage were meaningful and children could see positive changes  that were made in response to their feedback.

This was reflected in the casework that we inspected. Assessing activity included active participation and co-production with the child in nearly every case inspected. Similarly, planning was collaborative in nearly every case inspected, and delivery had a clear focus on developing and maintaining a working relationship with the child, with their active participation being central. This encouraged and enabled positive engagement by children.

The YJS contacted, on our behalf, children who were working with the YJS at the time of the inspection, to gain their consent and to enable them and their parents or carers to feed back 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 (for example, through a text survey, one-to-one meetings, focus groups, and video or telephone calls). We spoke to four children and four parents or carers. We also received text feedback from seven children.

Feedback was positive and children and their parents or carers spoke effusively about staff. One carer said that the case manager was:

“A wonder lady. Very caring and understanding. [My child] really likes her and listens to her. Always at the end of the phone if I have concerns. She goes above and beyond to engage with him. She also calls me and I her. She is honest and he values her opinion.” 15

Nearly every participant that spoke with us indicated that they had had the opportunity to have a say on the things that had affected them. Everyone said that they had felt valued during their involvement with the YJS.

Our inspection of children had highlighted a strong consideration of equity, inclusion, and diversity. This was reinforced by those we spoke with; they felt their identity and needs were recognised and that nothing was missed by practitioners. One parent or carer noted that the case manager understood the child very well, especially his neurodiversity. She gave an example of where language had been changed to make sure that the child understood clearly what was going on, especially around knife crime. She stated that:

“He did not understand that all blades could count as a weapon including scissors, so his worker spent a lot of time exploring this to make sure he understood.”

While the feedback was positive, most children, parents and carers we spoke with had suggestions for making things work more effectively. One child told us that they did not really understand the purpose of their intervention and it needed to be explained better:

“There should be less focus on ‘pointless stuff’. It felt like I had to talk a lot about what is not related to my offence or why I am with the YJS. I find this really frustrating.”

Another parent or carer considered the relational approach taken by the YJS as being ‘too soft,’ not fully understanding why the service was taking the approach it was. Another felt there was too much focus on the police’s view of events rather than their child’s perspectives. Better or clearer communication would have supported these individuals to understand the rationale for the YJS approach more easily.

Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (Back to top)

The YJS had a good understanding of relevant data and areas of both strength and challenge. Attempts to address racial disproportionality were underpinned by a strategic action plan. However, work to achieve positive outcomes for children affected by these disproportionalities were still to be systematically embedded.

Elsewhere in the partnership, we were made aware of significant external activity to address racial disproportionality. For example, the probation service was using a race action programme and courts were monitoring children’s diversity. This work needed to be more clearly embedded in the YJS disproportionality action plan to ensure there was evidence of coordinated and cohesive planning and action. We also found work with education required a stronger partnership focus. While there were genuine attempts to reduce exclusions, the links between the risk of school exclusion and risk of offending were not explored or understood sufficiently across the partnership. National concerns relating to Black children being excluded are well documented, but we saw limited evidence that such concerns had been fully considered in the local approach. A collegiate approach to tackling potential exclusion risks at an earlier stage, which included scrutiny of racial profiles, needed to be explicitly explored in the action plan to ensure that opportunities were not being missed.

Work to support children with needs relating to neurodiversity was a particular strength in Warwickshire. Despite some long waiting times for assessment, which reflected national difficulties, we saw a strong and considered offer of support, which also extended to children awaiting formal diagnosis. RISE workers were used well, and their support included liaising with custodial provision if needed.

There was a very clear understanding of children’s speech and language needs. The SALT had assessed 118 children between April 2022 and March 2025. Of these, 116 had SLCN identified and only three had accessed SALT support previously. Every child assessed by the SALT had their report shared with their school or alternative provision to ensure the education setting had a better understanding of the child’s needs. This presented tangible evidence of impact for these children. Communication passports for children had been developed. If used correctly these provided an invaluable tool for children interacting with professionals. However, these were not always shared with all relevant partners. Ensuring this was done consistently would further improve the positive practice that we had seen.

Female offending was beginning to be better understood by the service. At the point when the inspection was announced, 36.36 per cent of the out-of-court caseload were girls, a far higher proportion than were represented in the overall caseload. YJS leaders had identified specific patterns of dysregulated behaviour with these girls. They recognised that a broader and more systematic deep-dive analysis of the girls open to the YJS needed to take place. This would help the partnership to better plan services and resources for this cohort of children.

The work that we saw undertaken with children was strong. It was clear that staff had a good understanding of children’s identity and demonstrated cultural competency. Children’s needs were actively assessed and, in many instances, clear responses to children’s protected characteristics were recorded in AssetPlus and the prevention and diversion tool. However, consideration of the most appropriate way to address these characteristics was not always evident in subsequent activity and delivery was not always consistent. Sometimes this was due to a lack of understanding about what provision was available in the wider community. We also saw some areas where this could be developed in relation to support for victims, particularly to understand what was available for victims of hate crime.

Data annexe (Back to top)

Warwickshire Youth Data Annexe (XLSX, 128 KB)

Press release (Back to top)

Warwickshire 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 Jon Gardner, 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 (Back to top)

  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. YOT1 is a referral form used by Warwickshire police to identify victims with the YJS. It contains information on vulnerabilities and protected characteristics. ↩︎
  3. YJB. (January 2025). Youth Justice annual statistics: 2023 to 2024. ↩︎
  4.  Department for Education (2024). Keeping children safe, helping families thrive. ↩︎
  5. Outcome 22 is one of the Home Office administration codes that the police use. ↩︎
  6. 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. ↩︎
  7. The ARC (Attachment, Regulation, and Competency) model is a trauma-informed framework designed for intervention with youth and families who have experienced complex trauma. For more information, see arcframework.org. ↩︎
  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 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. ↩︎
  10. ‘Community capital’ refers to the combined social, human, natural, cultural, political, built, and financial assets of a community, which promote wellbeing and resilience. ↩︎
  11. Warwickshire’s emotional wellbeing and mental health services for children and 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. Remedi is a national organisation that supports restorative justice across youth and adult criminal justice services. ↩︎
  14. This model was developed by academic Laura Lundy at Queen’s University of Belfast. Her model, detailed in a 2007 publication in the British Educational Journal, provides a way of conceptualising a child’s right to participation, as laid down in Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. ↩︎
  15. Quotes are taken directly from children, parents, and carers. ↩︎