An inspection of youth justice work with children and victims in East Riding of Yorkshire
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 East Riding 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, East Riding YJS was rated as ‘Outstanding’.
We found excellent work to achieve positive change for children and to keep children and the community safe. Assessing, planning and delivery were consistently strong across all areas. Practitioners, managers and partnership staff were committed and motivated to achieving positive change for children and knew them and their families well. They identified children’s strengths and worked creatively alongside them. This ensured that children’s opinions and voices were heard, and positively influenced the work undertaken with them.
Work to keep children and communities safe was also exceptional, with practitioners recognising the factors that affected safety. They considered changes in children’s behaviour and understood their vulnerability to exploitation. YJS staff promoted a child-first, trauma-informed approach. They understood the risks children faced to their own safety and balanced this with the need to keep communities safe. Practitioners had a depth of understanding of how children’s lived experiences impacted on their emotional wellbeing. It was positive to see the priority they gave to building trusting relationships with children from the start of their involvement with the YJS.
The collaborative work with children and parents or carers was impressive. The YJS used self-assessments to understand and explore the self-identity and context of children and their parents or carers. Practitioners created opportunities for children to take part in meaningful interventions to build their engagement and resilience. They enabled children to attend activities that were adapted to meet their needs, innovative, and tailored to engage them. At the end of their interventions, children helped to create their own Journey Boards to showcase the progress they had made.
Partnership working was strong. Planning and the delivery of interventions were aligned and well-coordinated across the partnership. Practitioners knew which services were required to support the child’s range of needs and used these well.
Work with victims was a significant strength and took an individualised, responsive, and sensitive approach. The YJS understood the importance of high-quality provision for victims and were passionate and committed to this area of work. Victims had a high profile in the service, and their safety, needs and wishes were considered consistently by all staff across the organisation.
Martin Jones CBE
HM Chief Inspector of Probation
Ratings (Back to top)
| Fieldwork started January 2026 | Score 12/12 |
| Overall rating | Outstanding |
Work with children
| 2.1 Assessing | Outstanding |
| 2.2 Planning | Outstanding |
| 2.3 Delivery | Outstanding |
Work with victims
| V1 Work with victims | Outstanding |
Recommendations (Back to top)
As a result of our inspection findings, we have made three recommendations that we believe, if implemented, will have a positive impact on the quality of youth justice services in East Riding. This will improve the lives of the children in contact with youth justice services and better protect the public.
East Riding Youth Justice Service Youth Board should:
- ensure that provision for speech, language and communication is prioritised and continues to be in place to meet YJS children’s needs
- make sure that YJS practitioners have appropriate access to Probation Service systems and relevant information is shared
- invite victims to the board to better understand their experiences and the work of the YJS.
Background (Back to top)
We conducted fieldwork in East Riding YJS over a period of a week, beginning 12 January 2026. We inspected cases where the YJS had started work with children subject to bail or remand, court disposals or out-of-court resolutions between Monday 14 July 2025 and Friday 12 September 2025. We also conducted 17 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 Monday 14 July 2025 to Friday 12 September 2025. We also conducted interviews with staff and managers responsible for the delivery of this work.
East Riding is part of the Yorkshire and Humber region of England. Around 90 per cent of East Riding is rural but there are some larger coastal and port towns, including Bridlington and Goole. It is one of the largest local authority areas in the country, covering over 930 square miles. It is not an ethnically diverse area. At the time of the 2021 Census, the population was 94.6 per cent White British, and 97.8 per cent were English language speakers. East Riding is one of the least deprived local authorities in England; however, there is significant variation within the area, including some of the most deprived communities in England. These areas feature low incomes, high unemployment, poor health, and low educational achievement.
During our inspection, East Riding YJS was part of the children and young people support and safeguarding service, which formed part of the children, families and school’s directorate. The head of service for targeted and intensive services had responsibility for the YJS, as well as child exploitation, missing children, youth services and the intensive family support service. There was a YJS area manager, supported by three YJS practice managers. The YJS was overseen by the youth board, which was chaired by the executive director for children, families and schools. The YJS was located at Beverley police station but accessed suitable venues across the area.
The partnership working was a strength. The health provision was multidisciplinary and included access to a child and adolescent mental health service (CAMHS) practitioner, a speech, language and communication therapist, and a substance misuse worker. We saw the importance that health practitioners gave to using the priority pathways for children. The service also worked alongside the Making a Change team (MACT), who worked with children who were at risk of exploitation and/or going missing, and children’s social care. There were many examples of joint working to identify risks around child exploitation and ensure appropriate safeguarding measures were in place. The YJS also had a seconded high harm reduction police officer. Their role was to work with children who were assessed as posing a high risk of harm to others or themselves. We saw examples of them delivering excellent individualised interventions, tailored to children’s specific needs.
The YJS had a seconded speech, language and communication therapist, who provided consultations and guidance as well as helping practitioners to create interventions to engage children based on their needs. They were also able to access priority pathways for YJS children, especially regarding children on the attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) diagnostic waiting list. However, at the time of the inspection this post was funded until March 2026. Should this post not continue, there would be a critical gap in the partnership’s ability to meet the speech, language and communication and emotional wellbeing needs of YJS children.
The seconded probation officer had recently left the YJS, and funding had been agreed to replace this resource. The YJS was considering piloting a transitions practitioner role to lead early planning and work collaboratively with adult services, the Probation Service and education providers. However, the success of this role depended on the Probation Service allowing access to its information systems, which was not in place at the time of the inspection.
We found the relational work with children and parents or carers was a significant strength. Using self-assessments was a high priority for the YJS and enabled children and parents or carers to reflect on their personal views and explore this with staff. The YJS staff promoted a child-first, trauma-informed approach. They understood the risks children faced to their own safety and balanced this with the need to keep communities safe. The YJS created opportunities for children to take part in meaningful activities to build their engagement and resilience. At the end of their interventions, children helped to create their own Journey Boards to showcase positive outcomes and the progress they had made.
Management oversight met the needs of the case in all the relevant inspected cases. This robust and proactive approach, which included regular quality assuring of children’s casework, meant there was a level of consistency of practice when assessing, planning and delivering positive change and the safety of children and the community.
At the time our inspection was announced, the YJS was working with 69 children overall including those who were part of the assessing process. There were five children subject to a community sentence, one subject to a youth caution, seven on a youth conditional caution, and 32 on a community resolution or other out-of-court resolution. No children were sentenced or remanded in custody. Four per cent of the children were from a Black, Asian and minority ethnic background; 14 per cent were girls; 35 per cent had an education, health and care plan (EHCP) or received special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) support; and 48 per cent had substance misuse issues. Seventeen per cent of the children were care-experienced and living within the area, and three per cent were care-experienced and living outside the area. Seven per cent had a child protection plan, and 10 per cent had a child in need plan.
Analysis of YJS performance data showed that the number of first-time entrants to the formal youth justice system was below the average for the Yorkshire region and for England and Wales. The proportion of children who reoffended and the frequency with which they reoffended were higher than the average for England and Wales, although trend data was affected by small numbers.
Domain two: Work with children (Back to top)
We took a detailed look at 21 cases where the YJS had worked with children, who were subject to bail, remand, community sentences, resettlement or out-of-court resolutions.
| 2.1. Assessing | Rating |
| 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? | 95% |
In every inspected case, inspectors found that assessing activity for achieving positive change was thorough and analytical, with the appropriate level of detail. The YJS consistently accessed information from agencies such as education, the police, children’s social care, and health, including substance misuse services. Additionally, practitioners gathered information about children’s EHCPs, religion, sexuality, and speech, language, communication, and neurodiversity needs. They used this information well to inform assessing activity.
We found the analysis of children’s personal circumstances, experience of education, family background and history of trauma was a strength. Practitioners had explored in detail the impact of children’s early adverse childhood experiences, witnessing of domestic abuse and experiences of exploitation. They recognised children’s diversity issues, including potential neurodevelopment needs, and analysed them well. This allowed them to gain a fuller understanding of how these factors had affected children’s behaviour. There were examples of practitioners sensitively exploring with children their sexuality and self-identity.
Practitioners prioritised and were proactive in involving children and their parents or carers in assessing activity. They asked considered and insightful questions, were professionally curious, and ensured their decisions and conclusions were supported by the information they received. This co-production ensured that the views of children and parents or carers were central in assessing activity and evident in every case inspected. Assessing activity also explored children’s strengths, what their interests and aspirations were, and how they spent their time, providing a detailed analysis of how to achieve positive change. In all the inspected cases, analysis of children’s capacity for change, engagement with the service, and community integration were strong.
In all the inspected cases, consideration of children’s levels of motivation and attitudes was a strength. The completion of a self-assessment for children and parents or carers was a high priority for the YJS. This enabled practitioners to develop an understanding of the child from the child’s own perspective, as well as the views of their parents or carers. Practitioners considered this information and included children’s and parents’ or carers’ thoughts and feelings throughout assessing activity.
The quality of assessing benefited from the established relationships the YJS had with its partners. Inspectors found clear protocols and arrangements to keep children and the community safe. Processes had been put in place to help practitioners to understand the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA), access forensic CAMHS and work alongside MACT and children’s social care when required. Intelligence packs provided by the police also informed the quality of assessment.
Assessing to keep the child and community safe was strong, and a comprehensive analysis was evidenced in nearly all the inspected cases. Practitioners provided a thorough explanation of the factors that directly impacted on the child’s safety. The YJS had access to a range of structured processes and tools to support this, including statutory children’s social care meetings, emotional mental health and wellbeing case formulations, risk of exploitation assessments, and mapping meetings in relation to contextual safeguarding. Practitioners used these multi-agency arrangements, which meant that risks posed to and from children were appropriately identified.
Practitioners acknowledged and understood the range of factors that affected children’s safety, such as the impact of undiagnosed neurodivergent needs, unsuitable education provision, peer associations, and exposure to traumatic incidents such as domestic abuse. We saw instances where assessing activity considered both the nature and context of risks, and identified key vulnerabilities such as exploitation, victimisation, and adverse childhood experiences. Changes in children’s circumstances and information about their activities in the community were also considered. This ensured that practitioners were up to date with what was happening in children’s lives.
The views and wishes of victims and their sense of safety were embedded in the work with children. The victim contact form completed by the victim worker practitioners was shared with YJS case practitioners to inform their initial assessments and ensure they understood the victim’s needs and wishes. From this comprehensive information we found assessing activity included a full analysis of the impact that the offending had on the victim and their sense of safety.
One aspect of assessing that required a closer focus was the importance of gathering information from the Probation Service to check adults known to children. This would enable practitioners to gain a fuller understanding of the key individuals involved in a child’s life, as well as the potential risks they presented to them. Risks to and from family members who had experienced violence within the home needed to be consistently considered to ensure that all those who needed to be kept safe were recognised and identified.
| 2.2 Planning | Rating |
| Planning is well-informed, holistic and personalised, focusing on how to achieve positive change and keep children and communities safe. | Outstanding |
Our rating3 for planning is based on the following key questions:
| Does planning focus sufficiently on how to: | % ‘Yes’ |
| achieve positive change for the child? | 100% |
| keep the child and community safe? | 100% |
The quality of planning was consistently strong. Inspectors found that all children were actively engaged in co-producing plans and practitioners explored creative ways to give children the opportunity to identify the work and activities required to help them achieve positive change. We saw practitioners using cards that listed behaviours and interventions, as well as using Canva4 to help children identify what help they needed. Other examples included the development of Pokémon5 cards where the characters’ behaviours had different concerns and strengths that children could use to identify what they wanted to be included in their own plan.
Inspectors found evidence of practitioners exploring what might hinder engagement with both children and their parents or carers. They considered children’s learning needs from the information in the EHCPs and discussed factors relating to ADHD, speech, language and communication, autism, and neurodiversity. Practitioners completed communication profiles and shared them across agencies so that they could plan how to engage the children. However, in a small number of cases planning was generic and needed to pay closer attention to how children’s specific diversity needs would be met.
Practitioners ensured that planning activity took account of the pace at which children could positively engage with interventions. They set appropriate timelines and considered when other professionals would become involved with children. This ensured that children did not feel overwhelmed. Given that the YJS had access to a broad range of services and practitioners involved with children, it was important that children felt able to build healthy relationships. We found that this aspect of work was done well.
Practitioners were aware of the structural barriers children faced due to their vulnerabilities and complex needs. The YJS did not have a specific education, training and employment worker. However, we found that practitioners were tenacious in building relationships with schools to ensure that children had access to appropriate educational provision. We also found evidence that planning activity had been informed by working alongside education welfare officers and by children’s EHCPs.
Planning of work with other agencies was a strength and we saw examples of joint supervision with children’s social care and MACT. Children’s case discussions showed that staff across the partnership knew YJS children well and worked together to produce comprehensive plans that took account of each other’s specialisms. Inspectors found examples of planning with the speech, language and communication therapist, CAMHS practitioner, and the substance misuse worker. Planning with children’s social care, early help and MACT was evident when considering children’s vulnerabilities and potential risk to exploitation. There were also examples of children who were on the ADHD diagnosis waiting list being seen more quickly, enabling them to receive specialist support so that their needs could be understood. Additionally, planning had considered what suitable services children could access once their time with the YJS ended. This approach to exit planning ensured that children and families were able to access services to build on the progress they had made.
As part of planning activity, practitioners explored how to build children’s resilience. Planning contained opportunities for them to engage with new activities that they were interested in, making use of services in the community such as sports activities, attending a gym, boxing, Our Place Youth Bus and youth centres. Practitioners across the partnership had invested time to make sure they understood children’s capacity to engage and their motivation to complete potential interventions successfully.
The quality of planning to keep children and the community safe was a strength. Planning activity identified how to achieve safety and stability for children and was consistently reviewed and adapted when children’s circumstances changed. It included a comprehensive review of all the information gathered and we saw all agencies taking responsibility for planning which was supported by professionals’ meetings. Examples included YJS risk management meetings, children’s social care statutory meetings, the Vulnerable Adolescents Risk Panel (VARP) and the neighbourhood police-led schedule of perpetrators and victims’ meetings. Planning work was also strengthened by practitioners exploring how it would be undertaken with children’s parents or carers to keep children safe. This enabled all involved to be responsive when circumstances changed and allowed parents and carers to be proactive in supporting their children.
Through the involvement of the victim work practitioners, planning activity addressed specific concerns and risks related to actual and potential victims. Practitioners addressed victims’ individual needs in the planning process. They ensured that the victim’s wishes and views were updated as appropriate through monthly meetings with the victim work practitioners. Planning activity included opportunities to consider restorative justice approaches, as well as how to keep actual and potential victims safe. Examples included restorative justice conferences between victims and children who had offended, the use of voluntary exclusion zones, and voluntary non-association agreements to help victims feel safe. These were signed by the child on a voluntary basis. If the victim reported a breach of the agreement, practitioners proactively discussed this with the child.
| 2.3 Delivery | Rating |
| High-quality, well-focused, personalised and coordinated services are delivered, achieving positive change and keeping children and communities safe. | Outstanding |
Our rating6 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? | 95% |
The quality of delivering services to achieve positive change and keep children and communities safe was high. Practitioners knew their children well and went ‘over and above’ to establish and maintain positive working relationships with them and their families. They were skilled in taking a flexible and personalised approach and encouraged children to participate and engage safely. Practitioners recognised the importance of children’s interests in determining the activities they would complete, and these took place alongside structured intervention sessions.
Practitioners recognised what children described as the strengths in their lives and built on this knowledge when delivering services. They sought a range of creative approaches and resources to support change, and these included sports activities, music programmes, graffiti art, golf sessions, work on a farm, and cooking, as well as access to leisure centres and gyms. Practitioners also delivered a range of interventions, including consequences of offending, emotional regulation, addressing trauma, peer influences and the impact of violent behaviour, which they adapted to children’s individual learning needs.
Practitioners understood and considered the context in which children were living. This included the quality of relationships children had with their immediate and extended families, and the obstacles they were facing in their social environment. It was clear that children and their parents or carers understood what practitioners expected of them and knew what to expect of practitioners. Regular communication with children and parents or carers supported their involvement in the delivery of work and helped children to make progress. Where relevant, practitioners engaged social workers and placement staff in their role as corporate parents to help support children to complete their interventions.
Practitioners were able to quickly identify structural factors that could block children’s participation. This approach enabled them to resolve any emerging needs early and amend work that needed to be completed to achieve positive change. For example, when children were missing school, practitioners held discussions with education welfare officers and schools so plans could be put in place for children’s reintegration. We found interventions were delivered appropriately in a range of locations, including indoor and outdoor venues, depending on children’s needs. Children had also contributed to discussions on the places and spaces where they felt safe.
When delivering interventions, practitioners applied the knowledge they had gained about the diverse needs of children. We saw examples of practitioners prioritising the need for children to understand their interventions, including what was being delivered and why. Practitioners used information from the CAMHS practitioner to better understand children’s mental health needs, and had consultations with the speech, language and communication therapist to see how best to achieve positive engagement. They also received guidance around working with children with neurodivergence needs. YJS staff understood the impact of adverse childhood experiences, post-traumatic stress disorder, and how children’s protected characteristics affected their daily lives. Staff had also been trained in dealing with bereavement when it was recognised that many of the children they worked with had been affected by personal loss.
The work completed by practitioners was aligned with other agencies’ delivery plans and coordinated well. Inspectors saw positive working with specialist providers, for example P.A.U.L for Brain Recovery,7 which provided the ‘One Punch’ programme; the Social Prescribing8 service, which helped children with their physical, social and mental wellbeing; Fishing for Wellbeing sessions to help improve children’s self-esteem; and Matthew’s Hub, which offered support for autistic people and those with ADHD. There was also evidence of effective communication and joint working with partnerships, including the neighbourhood policing teams and the high harm reduction police officer, MACT, early help, children’s social care, education welfare officers, and Ready to Work, which was a learning, skills and development workforce team for children who were past school age.
The work to achieve safety for the child and the community was a strength. We saw prompt and effective information-sharing between partners and found that in most relevant cases YJS practitioners had a clear focus and were vigilant to the signs that a child might be experiencing potential exploitation. They were responsive to increased risks to the child’s safety. Information and intelligence on this were shared, and actions agreed, at multi-agency meetings, including the VARP and the YJS risk management meeting.
One aspect of delivery that required a closer focus was services for children who displayed harmful sexual behaviour. There was a multi-agency harmful sexual behaviour panel for children who displayed concerning behaviours. However, we found examples of inconsistent referral to the panel. The panel has since been reviewed.
Work to keep communities safe was responsive to the emergence of new concerns, behaviours or offences, and we saw examples of interventions being adapted in response to children’s changing circumstances. This included examples of professionals responding promptly to safeguard children when their emotional mental health and wellbeing deteriorated, and the speech, language and communication worker advising on the best way to help children when their behaviour became increasingly dysregulated. There was also evidence of practitioners taking a holistic approach and responding to the needs of other family members, including parents and siblings. For example, they helped with managing mental health concerns and housing issues. When children’s interventions with the YJS were coming to an end, we found agencies jointly agreed the exit plan so that children and families would continue to be supported by partners and have access to universal provision.
Work with victims (Back to top)
We took a detailed look at 12 victim cases where the YJS has offered a service to victims who have consented for their information to be shared.
| Work with victims | Rating |
| Work with victims is high-quality, individualised and responsive driving positive outcomes and safety for victims. | Outstanding |
Our rating9 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
- Work with victims was a priority in the youth justice service strategic plan for 2025/2026.
- Victims had a high profile in the service, and their safety, needs and wishes were considered consistently by all staff across the organisation.
- There was a lead member for victims on the youth board and work with victims was strategically linked to several forums.
- The board had oversight of victim work and received regular, detailed performance reports. There was an annual report that collated performance data on victim work, and a supporting strategic action plan that detailed how to improve victim work.
- The board had a clear understanding of victims’ diversity needs and protected characteristics, victim consent rates, and victims’ sense of safety.
- A practice manager attended the youth board to represent the views of victims and keep board members up to date with victim work.
- The YJS had reviewed its comprehensive victim strategy and guidance document. This set out the arrangements and parameters for delivering restorative processes and work with victims and was supported by an understanding of the most recent code of practice for victims.
- There were two full-time victim work practitioners, and a practice manager with lead responsibility for this area of work. Additional resources had been approved for a third victim worker post.
- Staff who worked with victims had experience of restorative justice approaches and had completed restorative justice training. They also had access to specialist services for support and guidance.
- The arrangements for gaining consent from victims and for sharing victims’ details were clear.
- Contact with victims was prompt and comprehensive, providing sufficient information to enable victims to decide how they wished to engage.
- A victim assessment and safety status matrix were completed with all victims.
- There was a strong focus on victim safety, including the use of voluntary non-association agreements and voluntary exclusion zones. For victims with high-risk safety concerns, there was structured oversight through the YJS risk management meeting.
- Support to victims was not time-limited, and ongoing support was based on the victim’s needs.
- All practitioners were passionate and committed to victim work and motivated to provide a high-quality service to victims that was responsive to their needs.
- Children who were victims could mainly access the same services and activities as those who had offended. Specialist provision had been commissioned to help children who were victims with their emotional mental health and wellbeing.
- There were many examples of work with victims using an individualised, responsive, and sensitive approach.
- The victim work practitioners signposted and appropriately referred victims to other services.
- The YJS had a wide range of restorative and reparation options available so that victims had a varied choice when considering options for restorative processes. This included facilitating several restorative meetings.
- There was evidence of community-based victim initiatives and partnership work, and positive examples were given of work that was taking place with corporate victims.
- There were regular audits of the quality of victim casework using a specific victim audit tool and outcomes were reported to the board.
- The views of victims were sought in various ways and feedback was collated and monitored through an action plan to drive service improvements.
- All the inspected victim cases showed highquality, individualised and responsive work with victims. Cases included detailed needs assessments, attention to victims’ sense of safety, sensitive engagement, and personalised restorative approaches.
Areas for improvement
- Priority pathways with partner agencies were not consistently established to meet the needs of children who are victims.
- No victims had attended the board to help members better understand victims’ experiences and the work of the YJS.
Participation of children and their parents or carers (Back to top)
East Riding YJS had a strong commitment to hearing from children and families. Children’s and families’ services in East Riding had been designed and developed with input from children and their parents or carers and practitioners. The delivery of these services was supported by the work of the participation, innovation, and improvement service. The YJS had a participation and feedback strategy, which set out the various ways that it included children and families and gained feedback from them to help improve services. The YJS promoted a relational model, and this was a strength in the cases we inspected. We found examples of practitioners building strong working relationships with children by being creative and innovative in their approach to engaging children.
Participation included co-producing intervention plans with children, and practitioners were able to access Assessment and Qualifications Alliance awards for children who completed certain tasks. At the end of interventions, children helped create their personalised Journey Boards, which were a visual representation of what the child had achieved during their time with the YJS. The service also held annual children’s awards nights, where children were nominated for categories and their progress and achievements were celebrated. Children also attended the youth board to talk about their lived experiences, and the YJS had consulted with children about the youth justice plan. Children had also helped to design a new logo for the YJS.
The YJS gathered feedback through self-assessment questionnaires and online feedback surveys for children, parents or carers. These included the use of a QR code so that the surveys were easily accessible with a mobile phone. The YJS monthly audits also included contacting children and families for their views. Feedback reports were produced, bringing together themes, strengths and areas for improvement. Where actions were identified, these were included in an action log. The report was discussed at YJS performance review meetings and team meetings and was shared with the youth board.
The YJS contacted, on our behalf, children who were or had been working with the YJS, 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 (text survey, one-to-one meetings, focus groups, and video or telephone calls). The feedback to inspectors from children and parents or carers was overwhelmingly positive; all felt respected and valued by YJS staff and other people working with them. All had felt that the YJS had considered their safety and nearly all thought that their identity and needs had been recognised. When asked if the YJS had included them, one child replied:10
“I was listened to and always treated fairly”.
When asked what was done well, another child responded:
“I’d tell them I was struggling with my mental health, and they’d go off and research ways of how to deal with how I was feeling and give me coping mechanisms.”
When asked how the YJS could improve, one child said: “one fortnightly appointment wasn’t enough” and would prefer weekly visits with their YJS worker.
When asked how the YJS had helped them, one child said:
“They have really helped me to find better ways of managing my emotions, such as getting me a gym pass and boxing classes.”
Another child commented that they felt that the YJS had done everything they could to help them. They found being referred to “people to help me with my mental health and drugs” the most useful and that the YJS staff were “polite, nice, and good at what they do”.
Equity, diversity and inclusion (Back to top)
East Riding YJS had a strategic and operational commitment to understanding and meeting the diverse needs of children, victims, and staff. The YJS had a diversity analysis policy, which included its anti-racism statement, recognition of the importance of analysing the demographics of children, the diversity work being delivered, the service priorities, and the responsibilities for both the workforce and the youth board. There was also an equality, diversity and inclusion action tracker. This was monitored at the YJS performance review meetings, which also looked at disproportionality data and what the service was doing to improve its practice in this area. The YJS ethnicity data showed that the profile of children engaged with the YJS reflected the wider demographic characteristics of East Riding. The majority of children were recorded as White English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish or British, reflecting the 2021 Census data for East Riding, where 94.6 per cent of residents identified as White British. Minority ethnic representation remained low, with no single group exceeding two per cent.
The YJS monitored the protected characteristics of children, and data showed that gender distribution had remained consistent over several years, with most children involved in the youth justice system being male. Quarterly dashboards also considered if children had undergone gender reassignment. The data showed that 94 per cent of YJS children identified as heterosexual, two per cent identified as gay or lesbian, two per cent as bisexual, and two per cent as other sexual orientations. The YJS monitored the profile of children with disabilities and neurodivergent conditions. It found that, although nearly half of the cohort was recorded as having no diagnosed disability or neurodivergent condition, a significant proportion presented with additional needs.
The YJS also monitored the protected characteristics for victims and data showed that victims identified as White British (95 per cent) and this aligned with the demographic profile of East Riding. Over half of the victims supported by the service were children, 63 per cent were male and most identified as heterosexual, which was broadly representative of the local demographic profile.
The YJS recognised that care-experienced children, girls, and those with SEND or mental health needs remained overrepresented in the youth justice cohort, and it worked proactively with partners across education, health, and social care. It had also worked with the police and developed a SEND support card for children in police custody so that their behaviours could be better understood. Practitioners completed an equality and diversity form, which included children’s sexuality and experience of discrimination. A prompt on the form supported discussions with younger children.We saw examples of children being referred to Lollipop and the Step Out Group, which are LGBTQ+ support groups, as well as individualised interventions completed by the high harm reduction police officer.
The service recognised that there was limited transport, fewer community resources, and reduced access to specialist provision for children in coastal towns and rural areas. It had adapted its delivery model accordingly and offered outreach work and accessible locations and used technology where appropriate. Staff had also received training in cultural competence, unconscious bias, dealing with bereavement, and trauma-informed approaches.
As part of this inspection, we considered how the service responded to the diverse needs and protected characteristics of children and victims. Recording of protected characteristics of victims was clear in nearly all inspected cases and contact with victims was informed by an understanding of their individual needs.
In the inspection of work with children, we found that assessing considered the child’s diversity needs sufficiently in all but one case. Practitioners created safe spaces to facilitate conversations with children to understand their lived experiences, and we found practice examples of interventions that were adapted and delivered to respond to their individual and diverse needs. We saw instances of practitioners using their own experiences to better understand and engage the children they were working with. There were examples of how practitioners built a strong rapport with children and adapted interventions to the child’s context, strengths, and risks, including their experience of discrimination and understanding their neurodiversity needs. Other examples showed how children’s reparation activities reflected their creativity and interests, including attending projects, and working on a farm and at a local lifeboat station.
Data annexe (Back to top)
Press release (Back to top)
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 Pauline Burke, 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:
- There are two types of inspections as part of the current youth inspection programme across England and Wales: inspections of youth justice work with children and victims (IYJWCV) and inspections of youth justice services (IYJS). Further information about these inspections can be found on our website Youth Justice Services – HM Inspectorate of Probation. ↩︎
- 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. ↩︎
- 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. ↩︎
- Canva is an online graphic design tool. ↩︎
- Pokémon is a Japanese media franchise consisting of video games, animated films and trading card games. ↩︎
- 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. ↩︎
- P.A.U.L. for brain recovery is a free community service that provides support, guidance and education to individuals and families affected by acquired brain injury. ↩︎
- Social prescribing is a non-medical prescription where trained community link workers based at local GP surgeries meet people out in the community to discuss their health and connect them to the right services. ↩︎
- 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. ↩︎
- Quotes are directly from children. ↩︎