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 Bridgend

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 Bridgend 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, Bridgend YJS was rated as ‘Outstanding’.

Bridgend YJS began operating in April 2019 following the disaggregation of Western Bay Youth Justice and Early Intervention Service, which we rated as ‘Inadequate’. An inspection of Bridgend YJS in February 2022 resulted in a rating of ‘Requires improvement’. The findings of our latest inspection demonstrated that the YJS management board, leaders, and practitioners had worked extremely hard and at pace to move the service forward. Bridgend YJS should rightly be proud of its exceptional progress. We found an enthusiastic, positive culture that embraced opportunities to reflect, learn, and improve. Leaders and practitioners showed genuine care for their work. They were passionate, creative, and dedicated to achieving ambitious outcomes for children, parents or carers, and victims.

Embedded trauma-informed approaches sensitively balanced achieving positive change with the safety of the child and community. The YJS trauma team led multi-agency formulation meetings which resulted in holistic assessing, planning, and delivery. Practitioners took time to build relationships with children, and we found tenacious, persistent, and consistent approaches to supporting children who were struggling to regulate and engage with services. Partnership working was embedded, although could be strengthened by ensuring consistent access to information held by the Probation Service.

Work with victims was aspirational and reflected the trauma-informed principles applied to work with children. Support was tailored to individual needs and prioritised victim’ safety. Child victims accessed a range of specialist support available through the YJS, including speech and language therapy, art therapy, health specialists, and education advocacy.

The YJS management board and service knew themselves well and were committed to addressing the substantial number of children not engaging with their education entitlement. The YJS had strong mitigations in place through the Building Skills project and education mentoring support. However, there was recognition that the YJS offer could not replace children’s formal education entitlement, and this was an area of work that required further focus.

Bridgend YJS should be commended for its impressive holistic offer of support to children, parents or carers, and victims. Moving forward, the YJS management board has an important role to play in ensuring that resourcing is sufficient to sustain the delivery of high-quality services.  

Martin Jones CBE

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

Ratings (Back to top)

Fieldwork started November 2025Score 12/12
Overall ratingOutstanding

Work with children

2.1 AssessingOutstanding
2.2 PlanningOutstanding
2.3 DeliveryOutstanding

Work with victims

V1 Work with victimsOutstanding

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 Bridgend. This will improve the lives of the children and victims in contact with youth justice services and better protect the public.

The Bridgend Youth Justice Service should:

  1. ensure that information from the Probation Service is consistently accessed and analysed to provide a holistic view of concerns impacting the safety of the child and the community
  2. continue to embed the exploitation strategy to promote consistent approaches to identifying and addressing harm outside the home.

The Youth Justice Management Board should:

  1. actively address and reduce the number of YJS children not accessing their full education entitlement
  2. continue to monitor the capacity and resourcing of the Youth Justice Service to ensure that leaders, staff, and specialists can continue to deliver high-quality work to children, parents or carers, and victims.

Background (Back to top)

We conducted fieldwork in Bridgend YJS over a period of a week, beginning 24 November 2025. We inspected cases where the YJS had started work with children subject to custody, court disposals, or out-of-court resolutions between 25 November 2024 and 26 September 2025. We also conducted 15 interviews with case managers or managers.

We inspected the organisational arrangements for work delivered with victims and looked at cases where the YJS had undertaken contact with victims between 25 November 2024 and 26 September 2025. We also conducted interviews with staff and managers responsible for the delivery of this work.

Bridgend County Borough Council is a local authority in South Wales with a total population of 147,530. Children aged 10 to 17 account for 9.5 per cent of the population. The 2021 Census detailed that 4.9 per cent of the youth population of Bridgend were Black and minority ethnic. The percentage of Welsh speakers in Bridgend had reduced from 9.7 per cent in 2011 to 9.2 per cent in 2021.

HM Inspectorate of Probation inspected Western Bay Youth Justice and Early Intervention Service in 2018. Bridgend was part of this service, alongside Neath Port Talbot and Swansea. The inspection report was published in March 2019, with an overall rating of ‘Inadequate’. The service disaggregated in April 2019.

Bridgend YJS, the early years and childcare teams, the education engagement team, and youth support services were located within the Education, Early Years and Young People (EEYYP) Directorate. The corporate director for EEYYP was the chair of the YJS management board. The YJS leadership team consisted of a strategic service manager, two operational managers, two senior practitioners (one full-time equivalent), a senior social worker, a trauma specialist, a restorative approaches coordinator, and the data, performance, and quality assurance officer. Bridgend local authority was a host authority to Parc prison and YJS senior practitioners were seconded into the establishment.

YJS leaders represented the service at local, regional, and national forums. The YJS strategic lead was the co-chair of YJS Managers Cymru. The YJS was represented at the Cwm Taf Morgannwg Safeguarding Board, which had developed the regional exploitation strategy and accompanying processes, guidance, and screening tools.

The YJS, youth development team, early help and edge of care services had received funding from the Youth Endowment Fund and Home Office to deliver the Relationship Building Together (RBT) project to support children who had experienced trauma. The YJS had established a trauma team to lead on formulation meetings, which promoted a holistic approach to understanding trauma and the lived experiences of children and their parents or carers. Trauma-informed approaches were supported within education provisions and there were plans to expand the training offer as a means of increasing children’s engagement with their full education entitlement. The YJS management board and senior leaders were committed to supporting the continued development of this project beyond the duration of the allocated funding.  

The YJS had access to a range of interventions and services to address children’s needs and safety, as well as promote positive change. The context visits and showcase slot during fieldwork evidenced this. Inspectors visited the Evergreen Youth Centre in Bridgend, which provided children with safe places and spaces to access support from a range of youth services. The YJS often used the venue to support relationship building activities and to deliver interventions. Inspectors were impressed with the Building Skills project, which provided children with opportunities to design and develop large-scale wooden play areas and equipment for schools and community groups, and enabled them to gain practical skills in construction, project design, and health and safety. The project aimed to provide children with structure, routine, confidence, and skills to support reintegration into education, training, and employment. Inspectors found examples where this had happened successfully. However, we also identified cases where extensive support provided by the YJS was not replicated by education provisions, resulting in children being turned away on their first day of reintegration.

Data supplied when the inspection was announced indicated that the YJS was working with 61 children; eight were subject to court disposals, and 53 to out-of-court resolutions. The YJS also worked with additional children on a preventative basis, providing extensive early support and intervention to those at risk of offending.

The YJS predominantly worked with 15–17-year-old boys. However, on the day of the inspection announcement, 26 per cent of the YJS’s caseload were girls, which reflected a recent rise in the number of girls referred to the service.

In response to an increase in first-time entrants, the YJS management board and leadership team had completed a review of children’s previous contact with the YJS and partner agencies, to analyse themes, patterns, and missed opportunities to intervene. The multi-agency EEYYP prevention panel was established to ensure that children’s needs were identified and supported at the earliest opportunity.

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 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 rating2 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%

Assessing activity to achieve positive change for the child was a strength in all cases inspected. The YJS had embedded child-centred practices and trauma-informed approaches to understanding children’s presenting behaviours. The RBT multi-agency timelining forums provided space for collaborative assessing among agencies, including the YJS, police, children’s social care, health, education, and representatives from specific services supporting the child. Assessing within these forums discussed a child’s presenting cognitive, social, and emotional ages when they were regulated and dysregulated. The multi-agency forums used this information to identify where the child was on the Trauma Recovery Model (TRM)3, and this informed approaches to working with the child. The multi-agency forum also explored parents’ or carers’ experiences of trauma and the impact this could have on their caregiving roles.

Inspectors found a holistic approach to supporting the child, their parents or carers, and the wider support network. YJS practitioners worked in collaboration with children to understand them as individuals, along with their strengths, goals, aspirations, and areas of need. We found instances where use of the ‘getting to know me’ exercise had promoted positive engagement with the child. Parents and carers were consistently and meaningfully involved in assessing activity and we found several examples where their own unmet needs had been identified and supported as part of the YJS intervention. This included support to access specialist medical advice, and advocacy for housing, employment, and finances.

Assessing activity was analytical and balanced the child’s strengths with areas of need. Assessments were written sensitively to the child in a style that considered their lived experiences. Diversity practice was consistently strong, with consideration of a child’s adverse childhood experiences, trauma, maturity, learning styles, health needs, and diagnosed or suspected neurodevelopmental needs. We found that practitioners were confident in facilitating conversations about a child’s culture, heritage, and identity. Children were actively offered access to services in Welsh.

Assessing for the safety of the child and of the community was consistent and inter-linked. Practitioners demonstrated a holistic understanding of how changes to the child’s safety could impact on the safety of others, and vice versa. For example, several YJS children were not engaging with their education entitlement, and we found examples where children had not been in school for substantial periods. Assessing considered the impact of the lack of education and structure on a child’s wellbeing and sense of belonging, and the potential implications for antisocial behaviour, offending, and exploitation.

The Cwm Taf Morgannwg exploitation strategy had been implemented recently, detailing revised processes and pathways for identifying and addressing contextual concerns. Inspectors found several examples where concerns about child exploitation had resulted in timely referrals and action by the partnership. However, there were opportunities to develop more consistent approaches to identifying early indicators of exploitation.

The safety of children and communities were assessed at the multi-agency timelining forums, and this provided a shared understanding of the concerns and actions needed to promote safety. Children who were not formally discussed at the timelining and formulation meetings benefited from established information sharing pathways across the partnership arrangements. However, there were opportunities to strengthen processes to ensure that information held by the Probation Service was routinely accessed and used to provide a holistic view of adults involved in a child’s life and the associated implications for the child’s safety.

Assessing was enhanced by consideration of the comprehensive victim impact statements. Inspectors found that assessing practices consistently considered the victim’s wishes, feelings, and safety. We found examples of assessing that considered sensitively the direct victim’s physical, emotional, and psychological sense of safety.

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

Our rating4 for planning is based on the following key questions:

Does planning focus sufficiently on how to:% ‘Yes’
achieve positive change for the child?87%
keep the child and community safe?87%

Strengths found in assessing flowed into planning practices. Children’s strengths, aspirations, and goals were incorporated into planning, with examples of the YJS identifying the importance of supporting children to participate in sporting activities, reintegrate into education, sustain positive family relationships, develop social skills, and engage in art therapy.

Planning activities were trauma informed, and the children discussed at the timelining and formulation meetings were aligned to a level on the TRM. We found examples of individualised approaches to planning which identified that the child needed the basics of consistency, predictability, and reliability to be able to regulate and engage with adults.

Planning was effectively informed by the recommendations of speech and language assessments, resulting in adaptations to plans created with the child, the use of specific language, bite-sized sessions, and fidget toys. Trauma-informed planning resulted in sensitive consideration of places, spaces, and people. YJS practitioners planned to meet children and parents or carers in spaces that were accessible and felt safe. This included home visits, meetings in the Evergreen child-friendly space, meetings in schools, and community activities such as ‘walk and talks’. Practitioners considered the need for consistent appointment times and there were staggered approaches to introducing new people to the child and their parents or carers.

Planning activity was enhanced by the out-of-court diversion outcome panel (DOP). The multi-agency panel included a YJS manager, YJS practitioners, a restorative approaches coordinator, and representatives from the police, children’s social care services, health care, education, the community safety partnership, and the youth development team. We found examples where collaborative planning at the DOP had ensured that children and their parents or carers could access the range of services to support their needs. The DOP also promoted timely exit planning strategies.

Planning for the safety of both the child and the community was considered. Children assessed as presenting high levels of safety concerns were discussed at the YJS-led multi-agency safety and wellbeing meetings. This resulted in collaborative planning and alignment of the range of plans held by the YJS, children’s social care services, the education provider, the police, and health care services. Professionals had a clear and shared understanding of their roles and responsibilities, which avoided the duplication of services.

Inspectors found effective examples of planning with parents and carers to support the safety of their child and/or the wider community. YJS practitioners worked with the child and their parents or carers to create safety plans in response to emerging concerns such as a deterioration in wellbeing, increase in substance use, missing episodes, and the carrying of knives. Planning was responsive to changing needs, and strengths in information sharing practices with the police, health care professionals, education, and children’s social care services resulted in timely action to keep the child and community safe. Inspectors found several instances of effective planning to keep the child safe from exploitation. However, planning practices would be strengthened by ensuring consistent responses to emerging contextual concerns.

Joint planning activity with the police and community safety partnership had resulted in measured approaches to addressing antisocial behaviour. We found examples where documented plans and contracts to address such behaviour were adapted by the speech and language therapist to ensure that the child and their parents or carers fully understood the expectations.

Inspectors found several examples of considered planning resulting in the imposition of external controls to safeguard direct victims of crime. This included the use of non-contact requirements and exclusion zones. Practices to promote the general safety of actual and potential victims was a strength. However, planning did not always explicitly include the wishes and feelings of direct victims, and there were opportunities to develop consistency in this area of practice.

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

Our rating5 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?87%
keep the child and the community safe?87%

Delivery of services to achieve positive change was tailored, personalised, and sequenced to meet the child’s needs. YJS practitioners and specialists were skilled in building relationships with children and their parents or carers. Inspectors found that practice considered the child within the context of their lived and living experiences. This resulted in a ‘whole family’ holistic approach to the delivery of services which provided support for the child, their siblings, and their parents or carers. Inspectors found examples where parents had been supported to access mental health treatment, neurodevelopmental assessments, and advocacy for housing, finances, and employment.

Trauma-informed practices considered the child’s ability and suitability to engage with specific interventions. Practitioners took time to build relationships with children, and we found tenacious, persistent, and consistent approaches to supporting children who were struggling to regulate and had a mistrust of services. Practitioners were responsive to changing needs, seeking advice and support from YJS specialist colleagues when needed. This often resulted in specialists either delivering direct work with the child or providing advice to support the practitioner in their delivery of work. There was recognition of the importance of consistency and not overwhelming the child and their parent or carer with the involvement of multiple professionals.

Delivery of services considered safe spaces, places, and people. The Evergreen Youth Centre provided a child-friendly environment to support relationship building. Inspectors found impressive examples of sessions delivered by a police officer, substance misuse workers, specialist health workers, speech and language therapists, education workers, art therapists, and the youth development team. Reparation projects were identified to meet the individual needs of the child, ensuring that restoration was balanced with opportunities to develop skills and community integration.

The YJS management board and service monitored the high numbers of YJS children not engaged with their education entitlement. The links between non-school attendance and the implication for achieving positive change and safety for the child were understood. Inspectors found that YJS practitioners and specialists were proactive in advocating for children at school meetings and they routinely escalated concerns to strategic education forums. YJS education specialists worked well to mitigate the gaps by supporting children to engage in constructive and skill-based activities such as the Building Skills project.

Delivery of services to support the safety of the child and of the community was often responsive to emerging concerns, resulting in timely referrals to children’s social care services and the YJS specialists. The police shared information and intelligence daily to provide a current and holistic picture of circumstances influencing the safety of the child and community. Inspectors found several examples of delivery focused on reducing concerns associated with exploitation, including direct sessions delivered to children and parents or carers, referrals to specialist services, referrals to safeguarding teams, and completion of National Referral Mechanism submissions. However, we also found examples where this practice could be strengthened by analysing the range of indicators linked to exploitation. Similarly, obtaining timely information directly from the Probation Service would enhance the YJS’s ability to respond to emerging concerns about the influence of known adults in a child’s life.

Inspectors found examples where actual and potential victims’ safety was considered well. This included the use of restrictions such as non-contact requirements, exclusions, and restraining orders. There were opportunities to develop consistency in evidencing the recording of work undertaken with the child to promote the safety of victims.

Management oversight of the delivery of work with children took place formally in supervision and safety and wellbeing management meetings. YJS practitioners spoke positively about the support and guidance provided by managers and articulated numerous examples where this had resulted in positive action to keep the child and community safe. Inspectors found that the recording of management oversight did not always sufficiently evidence the extent of the support offered to practitioners, and there were opportunities to strengthen this area of practice.

Work with victims (Back to top)

We took a detailed look at nine victim cases where the YJS had 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.Outstanding

Our rating6 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:

  • Inspectors found that work with victims was of high quality, responsive, and individualised in all cases inspected. A case management style of supporting victims meant that practitioners invested time in getting to know individual victims. This promoted a meaningful understanding of the impact of the offence, the victim’s wishes and feelings, and future safety considerations. Inspectors found examples where victims received proactive support over a three to six month period, including frequent home visits, telephone calls, and text communication. Victims determined the level and nature of the support provided by YJS practitioners.
  • The YJS and the management board were invested in the delivery of high-quality services to victims. The Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner funded Victim Focus across the South Wales Police force area. Victim Focus was able to offer support to anyone affected by crime or incidents that had caused harm. Victim Focus was a recent addition to the YJS management board.
  • The Bridgend Youth Justice Service plan 2025/2026 was underpinned by a comprehensive service development plan. Victim work was a management board priority, leading to a new restorative and victim subgroup with representation from the YJS restorative approaches coordinator (RAC), the police, the Probation Service, and Victim Focus.
  • The YJS management board met on a two-monthly basis and there was active engagement in promoting the development of work with victims. Board meetings had discussed the HM Inspectorate of Probation victims’ standards, a summary of the strengths and areas for improvement identified from published inspection reports, and the code of practice for victims of crime in England and Wales. Victims’ experiences and case studies were presented to the board sensitively.
  • There were effective arrangements with the police for obtaining consent and sharing victim details. The seconded police officer acted as an essential link between the police and YJS. Police officers submitted a referral form to the YJS seconded police officer, who made the initial call to the victim. The seconded police officer provided the victim with information about the YJS victim offer and ensured that explicit and informed consent was obtained before sharing details with the YJS RAC. The RAC followed up the initial contact by offering a home visit.
  • Information about age, gender, pronouns, ethnicity, and disabilities was recorded, along with relevant markers from the police system. This information was shared with the YJS RAC to inform their initial contact. Inspectors found that there was a clear record of the victim’s protected characteristics in all cases inspected.
  • The YJS offered a range of restorative approaches, including restorative conferences, face-to-face meetings, shuttle mediation, letters of explanation, direct and indirect reparation, ongoing support, and signposting to specialist services. Services offered to victims were needs led and responsive to changing circumstances; there were opportunities for the victim to ‘opt in’ to services at a later stage, should they wish. In all cases inspected, we found that victims had access to services to support their needs.
  • The offer for child victims was exceptional. Initial contact was made via the parent or carer, to determine whether the child victim wanted to engage with the RAC. Child victims and their parents or carers had access to the range of services available via YJS specialists. In practice, we found examples of child victims accessing support from the speech and language therapist, education workers, specialist health practitioners/child and adolescent mental health services, and the art therapist.
  • Victim safety was considered, irrespective of whether the direct victim opted into YJS services. The RAC attended out-of-court DOPs, referral order panels, and safety and wellbeing management meetings. We found several examples where this had resulted in the use of external controls to protect the victim, including the use of exclusion zones and non-contact requirements as part of youth conditional cautions, referral order contracts, and youth rehabilitation orders. Additional examples of victim safety measures included informing licence conditions, placing critical markers/flags on police systems, attendance at children’s services strategy meetings, and working alongside police community support officers.
  • Victims were consistently supported to make informed choices about access to services. The information provided to them about what they could expect from the YJS was clear.
  • The offer of reparation was varied and meaningful. It was aimed at balancing restoration with supporting the child to develop skills. There was an emphasis on achieving positive change, with opportunities to accredit reparation activities.
  • Staff working with victims had access to the range of training opportunities available to practitioners working with children, including restorative approaches, child-centred practice, trauma-informed approaches, safeguarding, and unconscious bias.
  • The RAC was part of the senior management team, which elevated the profile of victims within the service. Inspectors found a cohesive approach to supporting the development of victim work. Practitioners working with victims were embedded within the YJS team.
  • YJS leaders overseeing work with victims had extensive experience in this area of work. They were skilled and sensitive in supporting practitioners undertaking direct work with victims. A collaborative management and practitioner audit of work with victims informed the YJS’s service development plans. Inspectors found that management oversight was sufficient in all relevant cases.
  • Clinical supervision was available to practitioners and managers working with victims. Peer support was provided by participation in the South Wales YJS victim officer meetings.
  • The reviewing and evaluation of victim work was a strength. The Bridgend YJS victims and restorative justice policy was created in June 2022 and reviewed in September 2025. The revised policy had been informed by a service review of work with victims and there was ongoing evaluation to measure effectiveness. The YJS leadership team, the police, and the RAC had been involved in the review of the policy. Victims had been consulted about the ways in which victim feedback should be obtained.
  • Victim feedback had been collated by the YJS, and this had resulted in a ‘you said, we did’ plan. The YJS had since developed a feedback questionnaire and a QR code to gather the views of victims.

Areas for improvement

  • The holistic offer of support to child victims was a strength in the cases inspected. However, ongoing monitoring of resourcing and the capacity of YJS specialists was needed to ensure that the service could continue to meet the needs of all children.
  • The YJS had developed data analysis and recording practices, and there were opportunities to embed this aspect of work further.
  • The YJS victims and restorative justice policy could be strengthened by detailing the specific processes for statutory victim contact with the Probation Service, and by expanding on the YJS’s approach to supporting the range of protected characteristics and diverse needs.

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

Bridgend YJS was invested in participation and there was a strong commitment to empowering children and their parents or carers. The Bridgend County Borough Council participation strategy outlined the Welsh legislative context for promoting the voices of children. The Bridgend children’s rights and participation team ensured that children and young people had a say in what mattered to them.

The YJS management board routinely discussed the voices of children and their parents or carers. The YJS collated feedback via self-assessment questionnaires, ‘My Voice’ feedback processes, and the use of a QR code. The YJS had analysed the feedback received from 83 children and 69 parents and carers, and the themes were discussed at YJS team meetings and with the YJS management board. A ‘you said, we did’ plan outlined that actions were taken to develop more flexibility with appointment times, increase the use of outdoor spaces, and develop creative activities to promote engagement. The YJS had promoted participation through community projects, including the Building Skills project, bicycle maintenance workshops, and charity events. Children had engaged in art therapy, equine therapy, and sports sessions.

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 give feedback on their experience of the YJS. We provided a variety of opportunities for children and their parents or carers to participate in the inspection process, resulting in 11 responses to our text survey, seven telephone calls, and five face-to-face meetings.  

Collaborative approaches to working with children and their parent or carers were praised and all respondents felt that they had a say on things that affected them. The YJS’s trauma-informed practices and approaches to supporting the whole family/support network were commended. One parent shared:7

“Because the practitioner looked at our family history they had a good understanding of us all. They understood trauma and our trauma. They have looked [at] how they can do family therapy for us all and have really been an excellent support. They understood our needs from the very start.”

Another parent added that:

“My sons worker [REDACTED], has been fantastic with not only [REDACTED] but the whole family. She has helped in many ways and gone above and beyond in her role in our lives for the past 2 years.”

All the children, parents, or carers we spoke to said that they felt safe in spaces and places where they met the YJS practitioners. Several respondents praised the Evergreen Youth Centre, a venue which the inspection team visited, to attend the showcase meeting and to speak directly to children. Evergreen was a large space used by multiple services, which meant that children could attend to access support or spend time in a safe space to socialise with others. Evergreen was developed in response to children’s feedback, and they had contributed to the design of the building and created art displayed on the walls. The YJS facilitated appointments in Evergreen and children told us that they enjoyed attending the venue and appreciated opportunities to play pool and talk to practitioners. Private spaces, such as the trauma room, were used by the YJS to facilitate individual sessions. Inspectors observed that the Evergreen space was well used, busy, lively, and supported engagement with children. Practitioners from the YJS and youth development team worked together to ensure that staff members from both teams were always present to support children.

Children praised the YJS team and said that it had supported them to engage in positive activities. Art therapy was commended, with children saying that it was “fun” and an opportunity to talk through things that mattered to them. We heard that practitioners had accompanied children to their first gym session, to promote engagement and confidence. One child stated that “my mental health got better because of that”. The support provided by the speech and language therapist was described as “absolutely incredible” and “inspirational”. We heard examples where the child and family had been supported with their speech and language needs, using a one-page plan to assist the child in school, and a mood chart to help parents and their child recognise emotions.

The Building Skills project and the approaches used by practitioners to facilitate sessions were positively received by children and their parents or carers. Inspectors were shown examples of the impressive work completed. Sensitive approaches were used to support children who participated in creating a memorial space. One child told us that they had learned a lot from the Building Skills project and felt “proud” of what they had achieved, especially when they were thanked by members of the public. Many of the children we spoke to had been supported to develop skills, confidence, and a positive sense of identity. One child told us:

“I said I wanted to work in construction…and look to own a business one day. They [YJS] listened to this and have managed to get me attending every Monday to do my CSCS [Construction Skills Certification Scheme] course so that I can work towards that. And they helped me getting my provisional like I wanted to do.”

A parent added:

“They have worked very well with my son and have got him onto a good thing doing work with [REDACTED] and collage. He is really enjoying it and the support he gets from them all and [REDACTED] they are really amazing he’s come on loads and is changing his ways.”

Children and their parents or carers felt that the YJS was genuinely invested in wanting to make a positive difference to their lives.

Equity, diversity, and inclusion (Back to top)

  • Bridgend YJS had embedded equity, diversity, and inclusion practices at a strategic and operational level. Bridgend County Borough Council’s Equality Plan 2024–2028 outlined the commitment to deliver services in line with the Equality Act 2010 and the Well-being of Future Generations Act (Wales) 2015, which aimed to create a more equal Wales where everyone could participate and reach their full potential.
  • Bridgend YJS’s Disproportionality Policy 2024 outlined the importance of recognising protected characteristics, diversity, and individual needs. The policy was underpinned by the Criminal Justice Anti-Racism Action Plan for Wales.
  • The YJS was represented at the EEYYP equality group, and the YJS strategic service lead attended local, regional, and national forums contributing to the development of diversity practices in Wales.  
  • Bridgend YJS had a Welsh language protocol and action plan. Inspectors found that the ‘active offer’ to provide services through the medium of Welsh was consistently recorded and monitored by the YJS. 
  • As part of this inspection, we considered how the service responded to the diverse needs and protected characteristics of children and victims. Recording of the protected characteristics of victims was clear in all cases inspected and we found tailored approaches responding to victims’ individual needs.
  • In the inspection of work with children, we found that recording of the protected characteristics of children was consistent and that assessing, planning, and delivery considered children’s diverse and individual needs sensitively. Practitioners were confident in holding conversations with children, parents or carers, and victims about their lived experiences and identity.
  • Due to the consistent high-quality recording of children’s protected characteristics and diverse needs, both the YJS and management board understood the demographics and profile of the children they worked with. The YJS management board reviewed the performance framework and analysed data to identify themes and trends linked to overrepresentation.
  • Bridgend was not an ethnically diverse borough, and the children engaging with the YJS at the time of our inspection were predominantly White Welsh or White British. The YJS had seen an increase in the number of girls referred to the YJS. We heard examples of the service forming a girl’s group and the YJS shared reflections that individual trauma and gender-informed approaches appeared to meet the needs of girls in the YJS cohort effectively. The YJS strategic service manager was involved in forums discussing the Women’s Justice Blueprint for Wales, and pathways were established between the YJS, the probation integrated offender management teams, and the Women’s Pathway.  
  • The YJS management board and YJS were prioritising actions related to education. Monitoring of children’s education entitlement, the local authority offers, and the child’s engagement with the hours offered had resulted in some positive action. The YJS was delivering a trauma-informed ‘train the trainer’ model across the partnership, including with education providers, to promote a shared understanding of the impact of adverse childhood experiences and trauma on a child’s presenting behaviours. The aim was to reduce exclusions from school and promote a positive sense of belonging.

Data annexe (Back to top)

Bridgend Youth Data Annexe (XLSX, 133 KB)

Press release (Back to top)

“Exceptional progress” made at Bridgend Youth Justice Service, rated ‘Outstanding’ following inspection

Cymraeg (Back to top)

Arolygiad o wasanaethau troseddau ieuenctid Gwasanaeth Cyfiawnder Ieuenctid Pen-y-Bont ar Ogwr

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 Caren Jones, 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. 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. ↩︎
  3. The 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. ↩︎
  4. 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. ↩︎
  5. 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. ↩︎
  6. 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. ↩︎
  7. Quotes are directly from children, parents, and carers. ↩︎