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 Bedfordshire

Published:

Foreword

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 Bedfordshire YJS across two broad areas: the quality of work delivered with children working with the YJS, and the organisational arrangements and quality of work delivered to victims.

Overall, Bedfordshire YJS was rated as ‘Requires improvement.’

Staff were consistently enthusiastic, committed, and caring, and demonstrated a strong determination to support victims and help children achieve their potential. They spoke warmly and respectfully about the children they worked with, reinforcing a culture of hope, encouragement and belief in every child’s ability to make progress.

The YJS paid close attention to children’s strengths and protective factors. Practitioners explored children’s early life experiences and recognised the wider structural barriers affecting their lives. When done well, we found examples of goals and planned activities being co‑produced with children and their parents or carers, which helped to maximise their engagement and promote meaningful progress. However, this needed to be achieved with greater consistency. Inspectors found several examples where multi‑agency professional networks were functioning effectively, contributing to timely and well‑coordinated support for children. There was evidence of prompt referrals to specialist services, including speech and language therapy (SaLT) and child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS).

However, work to keep the child and the community safe required improvement. Practice was inconsistent, particularly across assessing and delivery, and although arrangements were in place to promote safety, these were not applied reliably. Inspectors found examples where the YJS did not respond sufficiently to changes in circumstances that could affect a child’s safety or the safety of others and, in some cases, children’s safety needs were not fully considered. Additionally, a more forensic and consistent approach was required to ensure that safety related work was delivered to a high standard, that management oversight was effective, and that the right interventions were identified and implemented.

Direct work with victims was a clear strength, with interventions tailored well to individual needs and circumstances. However, strategic oversight of this area required strengthening. More robust monitoring and evaluation arrangements were needed so that the partnership board could assure itself that victim services were consistently informed by victims’ experiences, needs and wishes, and that learning was captured and used to drive continuous improvement.

Martin Jones CBE

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

Ratings (Back to top)

Fieldwork started March 2026Score 6/12
Overall ratingRequires improvement

Work with children

2.1 AssessingRequires improvement
2.2 PlanningGood
2.3 DeliveryRequires improvement

Work with victims

V1 Work with victimsGood

Recommendations (Back to top)

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

The Bedfordshire Youth Justice Service should:

  1. strengthen the quality of management oversight to ensure that assessing, planning, and delivery of work consistently address the safety needs of children and the wider community
  2. ensure that services are delivered consistently and without delay, so that interventions improve the child’s safety and help to protect others from harm.

The Bedfordshire Youth Justice Service Partnership Board should:

  1. prioritise strengthening strategic oversight of work with victims to ensure consistent governance, scrutiny, and direction across the partnership
  2. develop a clear and systematic approach to gathering, analysing, and using data and management information about victim work so that learning is routinely applied to improve the quality and impact of services.

Background (Back to top)

We conducted fieldwork in Bedfordshire YJS over a period of a week, beginning 02 March 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 01 September 2025 and 31 October 2025. We also conducted 29 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 01 September 2025 and 31 October 2025. We also conducted interviews with staff and managers responsible for the delivery of this work.

Bedfordshire Youth Justice Service operates across Bedford Borough and Central Bedfordshire, two areas with markedly different demographic profiles, safeguarding pressures, and levels of diversity. Bedford Borough is highly diverse, with 34.9 per cent of the population from Black, Asian and minority ethnic groups. There are notable levels of need, including 5.2 per cent of children with an education, care, and health plan (EHCP) and 61.9 children in care per 10,000. Central Bedfordshire is more rural. Fifteen per cent of children are from minority ethnic groups, 17.7 per cent of children have special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), and 113 languages are spoken in schools, highlighting a broad linguistic landscape across the county.

The YJS works with 110 to 160 children at any one time. Around 20 per cent are female, and there is significant disproportionality – one‑third of the caseload are global majority children. The YJS delivers its work through a fully integrated multi‑agency model, which includes the police, CAMHS, SaLT, public health, early help, liaison and diversion, SEND services, and substance misuse support. Evidence from the multi‑agency case discussions held during fieldwork showed that professional relationships were mature and well established. Partners demonstrated a strong ability to engage meaningfully with children and their parents or carers, and they approached discussions with a clear commitment to learning, development and improving outcomes. However, this needed to be demonstrated more consistently across all of the work inspected.

Through the context sessions and showcase presentations, we were shown a multi‑agency approach to problem‑solving and case formulation, including thoughtful consideration of children’s speech, language, and communication needs.

Importantly, inspectors found that the full range of support services available to children through the YJS was also accessible to children who had been victims. This ensured a consistent and equitable offer, as victims were able to benefit from the same provision, specialist pathways, and multi‑agency resources as the other children, which supported their safety and wellbeing. Victim engagement was strong, with an 87 per cent consent rate. Well‑established restorative practice was supported by strengthened links with the Bedfordshire Victim Partnership Board. Strategic oversight for work with victims was improving, but more work was needed.

At the time of our inspection the YJS had recently moved into a purpose‑built, child‑friendly building, which had improved accessibility. This provided dedicated space for creative, therapeutic, and practical interventions, including reparation workshops, outdoor activity areas, and a music recording studio.

Outcomes included a reoffending rate of 18.4 per cent, significantly below the national average of 31–34 per cent, and a reduction in first‑time entrants in Bedford Borough from 219 to 131 per 100,000. The service had also achieved SEND Quality Lead Status, with a Child First Commendation (December 2025) for excellence in communication‑supportive, trauma‑aware practice and its transformative co‑located SaLT pathways, which increased identification of speech, language, and communication needs from 19 per cent to 73 per cent in two years.2

Domain two: Work with children (Back to top)

We took a detailed look at 29 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.Requires improvement

Our rating3 for assessing is based on the following key questions:

Does assessing sufficiently analyse how to:% ‘Yes’
achieve positive change for the child?76%
keep the child and the community safe?59%

While we found some strong aspects of assessing activity to support achieving positive change for the child, we also identified elements of this work that were variable. When done well, there were clear strengths, and we found examples of the YJS practitioners drawing together information from the police and from education, health, and children’s social care services to inform their assessing activity. We also saw instances where information from EHCPs was used effectively to aid assessing activity. However, when this work was done less well, we saw gaps in practitioners’ understanding of the factors that impact on a child’s behaviour. We found the YJS did not consistently access information from other agencies or sources and, while relevant information about the child and their family history was available, it was not always meaningfully incorporated into assessing activity. Practitioners did not always consult with children’s social care to obtain information on the child’s previous involvement with them. In some instances, inspectors found a lack of consistency and clarity in analysis to understand the child’s needs, circumstances, or the behaviours underpinning their offending. This required further development.

Analysis of the child’s personal circumstances, family background and social environment was stronger. Practitioners had explored the impact of the child’s early adverse childhood experiences, trauma, and discrimination well. This enabled them to gain a fuller understanding of any current and past experiences that had contributed to the child’s offending and personal circumstances. We saw some examples where children’s heritage, cultural identity and speech, language and communication needs were considered. However, the practitioners did not always recognise all the child’s diversity needs. They needed to consider factors such as ADHD, gender, and neurodiversity more closely to gain a comprehensive picture of how all of the child’s lived experiences had affected them.

Assessing activity explored the child’s strengths and protective factors. This included asking children what activities they would find helpful to achieve more fulfilling lives. Analysis of children’s capacity for change and community integration was evident in most of the inspected cases, but not all. Practitioners focused on the child’s lifestyle, peers, positive use of leisure time, and living arrangements. We saw examples of positive conversations with children about whether they thought there were structural barriers in their lives getting in the way of change.

Practitioners took a proactive approach to involving children and their parents or carers in assessing activity. This collaborative work ensured that the voices and perspectives of children and their families were central to the assessment process. This could be strengthened by ensuring that both parents were proactively and meaningfully involved, when present in children’s lives. Practitioners took a strengths-based approach, which provided a solid foundation from which to encourage the child. Assessing activity was largely responsive to change and ensured that effective arrangements continued to be in place to manage identified issues to achieve positive change.

However, the quality of assessing activity to keep the child and the wider community safe was inconsistent and required improvement. The YJS did not always provide a clear analysis of the factors affecting the child’s safety, nor did they routinely assess what was needed to keep other people safe. Although the YJS had a range of risk management and safeguarding processes available, these were not always applied effectively. Additionally, available information to inform work to keep children and the community safe was not consistently analysed or used.

The YJS identified some factors that affected children’s safety, such as the impact of substance misuse and the presence of domestic abuse within the family. However, in a number of cases, practitioners did not fully consider or understand risks or integrate information on risk into a cohesive assessment of what was critical to achieve safety. Risk factors relating both to the child and to the wider community, such as children’s peers and associations, self-harm, or mental health concerns, were not consistently analysed or explored in sufficient depth.

While there was some evidence of positive liaison with children’s social care, key aspects of the child’s environment, particularly living arrangements, and relationships with siblings, were overlooked. We also saw instances where concerns were identified but not investigated, and information was shared without appropriate follow-up activity or action. This meant that risks linked to exploitation, vulnerability and possible retaliation were not fully understood or analysed. It also limited the effectiveness of safety planning and reduced the service’s ability to take timely, proportionate action to protect the child and others.

Inspectors identified significant gaps in analysis, often linked to limited use of available information sources. For example, education records and information from children’s social care had not been used consistently to understand the impact of parental substance misuse, lack of engagement, or the child’s exposure to domestic abuse. This contributed to an incomplete assessment of children’s safety and wellbeing. We also saw cases where concerns had been escalating, behaviours had deteriorated, or social care had initiated assessment and enquiries, but this had not resulted in reviewing or reassessing activity that effectively considered the latest information. Practitioners needed to pay more attention to the child’s changing circumstances and to analyse what might be needed to keep them and the community safe. They also needed to be more consistent in responding to new, emerging, or changing information.

In contrast, inspectors also found some positive examples where latest information was used effectively. For instance, when a child was arrested for a further knife‑related offence, practitioners responded promptly. The professional network initiated strategy discussions in assessing activity, the YJS contributed appropriately, and a contextual safeguarding plan was implemented. This showed that when practice was responsive, risk factors were suitably assessed through coordinated multi‑agency action.

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 rating4 for planning is based on the following key questions:

Does planning focus sufficiently on how to:% ‘Yes’
achieve positive change for the child?86%
keep the child and community safe?69%

Overall, planning to support positive change was a notable strength. Inspectors found that practitioners routinely considered the child’s wider context, including their social environment, peer associations, and broader family circumstances, in planning. The active and consistent involvement of children in co‑producing their plans was particularly evident. Practitioners also demonstrated skill and confidence in engaging parents and carers, enabling them to have a shared understanding and agreement of goals.

Plans were appropriately shaped around the child’s pace, ensuring that expectations were both realistic and achievable. This thoughtful approach provided a solid foundation for meaningful and sustained engagement. Where planning was done well, it included clear sequencing, proportionate and well‑timed actions, and a coherent structure, enabling purposeful work that supported sustainable positive change.

Practitioners demonstrated a strong understanding of children’s strengths and the aspects of their lives that provided a positive foundation for change. They recognised the structural barriers that children faced and prioritised planning activity to help overcome these obstacles, while also supporting children to develop resilience.

Planning also created meaningful opportunities for children to engage in new, pro-social activities and to build skills that would improve their future education, training, and employment prospects, such as achieving their construction skills CSCS card. Planning that used the ‘keeping young people engaged’ practitioner was particularly impressive, especially in making effective use of the Job Club. Practitioners appropriately considered access to the holiday activities and food programme, art, crafts, cooking, and sessions at the music studio, where relevant.

Practitioners ensured that children were able to access universal wellbeing services in a timely manner, including CAMHS and appropriate education provision. This integrated approach meant that planning focused not only on reducing offending but also on supporting the child’s wider development, wellbeing, and longer‑term aspirations.

It was clear that practitioners took time to talk to children about their lived experiences (and they were skilled in calling out racism, for example), but not all the children’s diversity needs were considered when planning how work would be undertaken or conducted. In a small number of instances, we saw factors such as mental health or educational needs overlooked.

Planning with other agencies was generally conducted well. Inspectors found several examples where multi‑agency professional networks were functioning effectively, contributing to timely and well‑coordinated support for children. There was evidence of prompt referrals to specialist services, including SaLT and CAMHS, and practitioners maintained constructive liaison with residential homes, ensuring they had up‑to‑date information to inform planning. In a number of cases, planning was effectively underpinned by children’s EHCPs, which strengthened practitioners’ understanding of needs and priorities.

Practitioners also considered the services available to children once their period of supervision had ended. When completed well, exit planning was thoughtful and effective, helping children continue to access community‑based support beyond their involvement with the YJS. However, this was not consistent across all cases. Some children told inspectors they were unsure why they were still meeting with their case manager, believing that their intervention had already ended. This highlighted a need for clearer communication and more consistent planning around case closure and transition.

Practitioners took care to understand each child’s capacity to engage with interventions, as well as their attitudes across a range of behaviours and their views on the impact of their offending. This informed more effective and individualised planning. They also paid attention to children’s motivation to change, drawing on information from self‑assessment questionnaires and from feedback gathered directly during discussions with children, parents, and carers. This helped practitioners to tailor planning and intervention more closely to the child’s readiness and potential for positive change.

Planning activity generally set out well how safety and stability would be achieved for the child, recognising these as the essential foundations for meaningful change. Inspectors saw examples where plans appropriately identified the areas requiring attention and incorporated the involvement of specialist services. This included consulting effectively with the police to share and obtain intelligence, monitoring risks linked to exploitation and potential gang’ affiliation, increasing oversight of weapons in the home, and making timely referrals to the National Referral Mechanism if indicators of trafficking or exploitation were considered to be present.

There was also positive evidence of planning being regularly reviewed and adapted in response to latest information, including updates from the police, escalations from children’s social care, and emerging risks such as further knife‑related offending. Where this occurred well, planning was dynamic, proportionate, and reflective of the child’s changing circumstances.

We also saw examples of planning that clearly set out the interventions required to keep other people safe. These included the use of appropriate exclusion zones, targeted disruption activity, anger management, technology restrictions, knife crime interventions, and work focused on boundary‑setting and emotional regulation. Parents and carers were often engaged in monitoring routines and reinforcing boundaries, adding further protective capacity. Inspectors found evidence of multi‑agency responsibility being well coordinated, supported through strategic professionals’ meetings where agencies were clear about their respective roles. For example, there was purposeful safety planning in place to manage episodes of emotional dysregulation for a child living in a care home, demonstrating effective joint working to protect both the child and others.

However, we found some instances where the quality of planning to achieve safety for both the child and the wider community was variable, and several aspects of casework required stronger management oversight to ensure it was completed to a consistently high standard. Planning was weakened by gaps in assessment, meaning that the YJS did not always identify or analyse the critical factors affecting safety. As a result, key issues were sometimes omitted from planning activity. In several examples, important risks were not identified or acted upon, including unsafe living conditions, unmet basic needs, exploitation concerns, mental health difficulties, or indicators of self-harm. Planning was sometimes vague, lacked specificity, or failed to sequence actions, resulting in drift and limited clarity about how risks would be reduced. Furthermore, factors such as children’s mental health, substance misuse, parental violence and abuse, violent behaviour, risks of exploitation, and use or carrying of weapons were not consistently planned for, and this reduced the effectiveness of planned actions designed to protect the child and others. In these cases, plans lacked contingencies for predictable changes, such as the removal of bail conditions, release from custody or escalating peer pressures.

In a small number of cases, the specific needs of victims were not sufficiently recognised or considered in detail, which placed both known and potential victims at increased risk. It was essential that the harm caused by children was fully considered in planning activity, and inspectors found that greater attention to this aspect of the work was required to ensure that victims were adequately protected.

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

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?72%
keep the child and the community safe?62%

Practitioners were generally skilled at building and sustaining positive working relationships with children, parents, and carers. However, some children told inspectors that they had experienced periods of inconsistency in their supervision. They reported having several different case managers over relatively short timeframes, which made it harder for them to build trusting relationships. A small number also described delays in being able to meet with their worker following a change in allocation. These experiences, while not widespread, highlighted the impact that staff turnover and allocation delays could have on children’s engagement and the continuity of support.

Overall, practitioners maintained healthy and appropriate boundaries while adopting a flexible, personalised approach that supported children’s participation and engagement. Most children and their parents or carers had a clear understanding of what was expected of them, as practitioners were quick to identify barriers to engagement and respond proactively. This helped to address issues early and redirect work where necessary to support positive change. Regular, purposeful communication further strengthened these relationships and promoted sustained investment in the delivery of interventions.

Practitioners mostly considered the context in which children were growing up and applied this insight in their interventions. They took account of the support available within children’s families, as well as the challenges presented by their wider social environment, including peer influences, community factors, and access to pro‑social opportunities. Practitioners also recognised the strengths that children identified in their own lives – such as positive relationships, educational achievements, and aspirations – and used these constructively to promote resilience and motivation to change. This strengths‑based focus was evident in how practitioners planned and delivered work to help children achieve positive outcomes. Importantly, their attention to addressing structural barriers, such as limited access to services or social inequalities affecting engagement, was a notable feature of practice.

In work with some children, the YJS needed to demonstrate greater consistency in delivering services that supported positive and sustained change. Inspectors found that, in a number of cases, interventions had been disrupted by periods of ‘catch‑up’ contact, often resulting from changes in the allocated practitioner. In these instances, actions were not always followed through effectively, which limited the momentum of work. Strengths‑based interventions were also delivered inconsistently, meaning some children did not benefit from approaches that built on their existing protective factors and personal resources. In addition, there were cases where children were repeatedly absent from appointments. These absences needed to be met with a positive, tenacious response, but this did not consistently happen, reducing opportunities to maintain engagement and reinforce expectations. Together, these gaps in practice reduced the overall quality and continuity of support for some children.

When delivering services to support positive change, practitioners generally applied their knowledge of each child’s diverse needs well, although there remained scope for greater consistency. In the cases where they did this well, they drew appropriately on information provided by specialist services, such as speech and language therapy, to tailor their approach and enhance engagement. They made effective use of communication passports to adapt their methods and ensure that children were able to understand and participate meaningfully in the work.

Inspectors also found examples of practitioners using their understanding of a child’s cultural heritage sensitively and respectfully, helping to create an environment in which children felt recognised and understood. In addition, there were instances where practitioners worked proactively with parents and carers to build their awareness of their children’s neurodiverse needs, supporting them to better respond to these in daily life. This supportive, needs‑led approach was reflected in the positive feedback children gave to inspectors about the quality of their relationships and the help they received.

Work delivered by the YJS to support positive change was generally well aligned and coordinated. Inspectors saw examples where children were intentionally matched with practitioners who shared similar lived experiences, which helped to build trust and increase participation. There were also examples where children benefited from targeted education support through programmes such as Youth Inspired, as well as planned reparation activities that were completed and subsequently accredited through Assessment and Qualifications Alliance (AQA) qualifications.

Alongside this, practitioners delivered focused one‑to‑one sessions addressing children’s attitudes towards offending, while also supporting their involvement in positive and constructive activities. Reviews of work were typically completed well, with practitioners adapting intervention plans appropriately as children’s circumstances changed. This flexible and responsive approach helped to ensure that services remained relevant and continued to promote progress.

However, work delivered to promote the safety of the child and the community was inconsistent and required improvement. In too many cases, the level of activity was insufficient to create the foundation of safety and stability needed for supporting the child’s wider wellbeing. This limited practitioners’ ability to manage risk effectively and to put in place the conditions necessary for sustained positive outcomes.

Services delivered did not consistently address issues related to vulnerability, victimisation, or exploitation, and we found instances where concerns had not been explored, acted upon, responded to effectively or addressed through intervention. We also saw some evidence of drift in relation to liaison with children’s social care. In a minority of cases, practitioners did not always put in place the right services to keep other people safe, with suitable arrangements to manage risk. For example, actions identified in planning were not consistently being delivered and responses to significant changes, such as arrests for serious offences, were insufficient. Not enough services were consistently delivered to ensure actual and potential victims were always sufficiently protected. However, when victim work was completed well, children made progress in understanding the impact of their offending on others. We also saw evidence of this in the direct feedback inspectors received from children.

The YJS had not always made sufficiently strong or consistent efforts to deliver services collaboratively with children and their parents and carers to achieve safety for the child and others. In several cases, opportunities to involve families meaningfully in the design and delivery of work were missed. This limited the extent to which children and their parents or carers could contribute to shaping interventions, understanding expectations, and taking shared responsibility for progress. This area of practice requires improvement to ensure that children, supported by their parents and carers where appropriate, are fully involved in completing work that promotes their safety and wellbeing and contributes to protecting the wider community. A collaborative, participatory approach would strengthen engagement, ensure that interventions are more relevant, and support more sustainable positive outcomes.

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 have consented for their information to be shared.

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

Our 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

  • The Youth Justice Strategic Partnership Board demonstrated a clear commitment to victim‑focused practice. Restorative work and victim issues were regularly considered at board meetings, and partners were beginning to provide stronger multi‑agency scrutiny, particularly in relation to disproportionality, decision‑making in out‑of‑court resolutions, and reoffending by children in care.
  • Consent-gathering and information‑sharing processes were well established and legally compliant. Police notifications (PENY)7 and the individual victim needs assessment ensured early identification of victims’ wishes, vulnerabilities and safety needs. Seconded police officers added further oversight of safeguarding, resolving gaps where consent was unclear and ensuring that accurate, timely information reached the victim contact worker.
  • Work with victims practice guidance provided a robust, rights‑based framework aligned with statutory expectations, including the Victims’ Code, youth justice standards and the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. Victim triage was completed in every case where consent was received, supporting consistent identification of needs, accessibility requirements, and restorative justice preferences. Restorative justice was delivered safely and with appropriate oversight from trained practitioners, supported using the risk assessment and support plan.
  • The victim contact worker was highly trained, holding specialist qualifications in restorative practice, AIM8 work, safeguarding, trauma‑informed practice, and disproportionality. Participation in regional networks strengthened reflective practice and contributed to continuous learning.
  • Our inspection found the quality of direct work with individual victims to be consistently high. Work was tailored, responsive and individualised. Victims had access to a broad range of specialist services, including domestic abuse support, sexual violence services, bereavement provision, exploitation pathways, emotional wellbeing support, and personal safety interventions. These partnerships and services enabled personalised safety planning and improved outcomes for victims.
  • The YJS used a range of approaches to collect and act on victims’ views, including surveys, triage data, and established feedback loops.

Areas for improvement

  • Victim work was not yet embedded as a standing agenda item at the board, resulting in variable strategic attention and insufficient strategic direction. Victim‑specific performance data, outcome measures and satisfaction metrics were underdeveloped, which limited the board’s ability to monitor the quality and impact of victim work.
  • Engagement from some partners at the board, particularly health, education and probation, was inconsistent. This limited whole‑system oversight and weakened strategic priority‑setting for victim work.
  • The practice guidance did not set out clear thresholds for the use of the risk assessment and support plan, immediate safeguarding pathways, or escalation requirements in higher‑risk situations. This lack of clarity was reflected in feedback from some victims, who reported ongoing feelings of being unsafe. Guidance relating to trauma‑informed expectations and complex victim situations, including child victims and victims within peer or sibling groups, was insufficient and required strengthening.
  • While workloads were manageable, contingency arrangements during staff absence needed improvement to maintain timely and consistent contact with victims. Additional administrative support was also required to protect practitioners’ time and sustain the quality of direct work.
  • Further training in mediation and victim safety would broaden the range of safe restorative justice options and support more confident decision‑making in complex cases.
  • The supervisory footprint was limited. Recorded management oversight and reflective analysis were insufficient in some cases. Oversight was assessed as absent or ineffective in 40 per cent of the cases we reviewed. Quality assurance processes also required development to provide meaningful assurance about the quality of victim work being delivered. The introduction of an end‑of‑contact review would strengthen quality assurance and reduce the risk of gaps at case closure. Existing processes did not routinely include victim‑specific elements, such as assessing the impact of the work or suitability for restorative interventions.
  • Monitoring of victim‑related activity was improving but remained inconsistent. Despite strong operational structures, some victims did not always feel fully safe or sufficiently informed. Victims were not consistently updated on the child’s progress when they had requested this information.
  • Feedback from victims was not sufficiently analysed or used to identify patterns or drive improvement. Trend analysis remained limited.

Participation of children and their parents or carers

Participation was a well‑established strength within Bedfordshire YJS, underpinned by a clear strategic commitment and a broad range of mechanisms for capturing the views and experiences of children and their families. The YJS had secured three years of funding from the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner to sustain its engagement and participation post, with a focus on long‑term investment in ensuring children’s voices across all levels of its work were embedded. Senior leaders, including the chair and deputy chair of the Youth Justice Strategic Partnership Board, had met directly with children to co‑design how their views should be represented at board level. Children opted for a blended engagement model that consisted of a shadow board and direct representation from the participation practitioner.

The YJS used an extensive suite of tools to ensure children could express their views in accessible and flexible ways. These included snap feedback calls, to obtain live feedback on emerging issues/concerns, SurveyMonkey questionnaires, the ‘Mind of My Own’ digital application, periodic review feedback, and the use of QR‑code surveys. Inspectors found these methods working well, as evidenced in the ‘you said, we did’ feedback and the production of regular newsletters to children advising them of the changes that had been made because of feedback they had provided.

Children had engaged meaningfully with the youth justice strategic plan and had provided detailed feedback on each strategic priority. They asked for more staff training on the real‑life issues affecting them, including social media, bullying, peer pressure, and knife crime. Children wanted more regular consultation, clearer updates on changes arising from their feedback, and varied ways to share their views. They recognised the YJS’s efforts to reduce reoffending and valued opportunities such as the holiday activities and food programme and education, training, and employment activities. However, they also identified wider pressures, such as peers, gangs, and family, as influencing their behaviour. Notably, children said they did not fully understand what the YJS was doing to reduce racial disparities, and some said that earlier intervention, particularly through schools, may have prevented their offending. They also raised concerns about arrest and custody processes, especially for low‑level offences, and emphasised the need for better explanations as to why they had been arrested, as well as reduced time in custody.

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, such as text surveys, one-to-one meetings, focus groups, and video or telephone calls.

During fieldwork, inspectors spoke with seven children and seven parents or carers. Thirteen of these contacts were on the telephone and one was in person.

In response to a question about whether children were included in determining the content of their intervention, one child said,

“Yes, I definitely felt included in discussions about things that affected me. The youth justice service have shown me respect, and I’ve felt valued. We talked about what was important to me, and I had a good say. For example, I want to join the Marines, and I was worried that working with CAMHS might affect this. The youth justice service arranged for the sessions to count as youth justice sessions instead, and I’m still working with the CAMHS worker on my feelings.”9

When asked what work the YJS had delivered, a child responded,

“They’ve helped me understand what I’ve done, look to the future, and realise I’m not my mistakes, I’m a good person. Talking about what’s on my mind has really helped, and I feel comfortable speaking to my worker.”

When a parent was asked what the YJS had done to support them and their child, they responded by saying,

“The youth justice service have done a great job with my child and me. They helped him stay out of trouble by getting him into college, supported his anger management, and are always on the phone when I need advice. It’s been a joy working with them, I can’t fault them.”

Some children and parents told inspectors that repeated changes in case managers made it more difficult to build trusting and secure relationships. Reducing practitioner turnover wherever possible would help children feel safer, better understood, and more able to engage meaningfully in their work. Where staff changes were unavoidable, transition planning needed to be strengthened to ensure continuity and minimise disruption.

A number of carers also highlighted the need for improved communication, particularly around the timely sharing of information to support joint decision‑making and coordinated action. Strengthening these arrangements would improve the youth justice service’s ability to respond effectively to risk and ensure that safeguarding activity was aligned across agencies. Some parents told inspectors they needed greater clarity about the work being delivered; in some instances, it was not always clear which interventions had been completed or what impact they had achieved. Providing consistent explanations of the purpose, progress and outcomes of interventions would support transparency and build trust.

Several parents further reported that reflective sessions with case managers would help them better understand the youth justice approach and enable them to reinforce their child’s progress at home. Offering opportunities for parents to build their knowledge and confidence would strengthen their role in supporting positive change. Finally, greater consistency in education support was required.

Equity, diversity and inclusion (Back to top)

Bedfordshire YJS operated in a highly diverse local context and demonstrated a clear commitment to recognising and responding to the individual needs of children. Bedford had an increasingly multicultural population, and the YJS had invested significantly in improving its identification and understanding of children’s communication and neurodiversity needs. The speech and language therapist played a vital role in this approach, with communication needs identified in the majority of children. The YJS had a substantial proportion of children referred for autism or ADHD assessments in the cases we inspected. This work had also strengthened the YJS’s ability to tailor interventions and reduce barriers to engagement.

Practitioners had benefited from anti‑racist and anti‑oppressive practice training, which had increased their confidence in exploring issues of identity, power, racism, and discrimination. They called out oppressive behaviours for what they were and were not afraid to do so. The introduction of communication passports for use by the police and courts had further supported a more inclusive and child‑centred approach. Creative, culturally responsive programmes, such as music studio sessions, arts‑based interventions and virtual reality work, had contributed to engaging children with different lived experiences to learn in a non‑stigmatising way.

The YJS also demonstrated a developing maturity in its response to disproportionality. Quality assurance data was routinely used to identify inequalities at key points across the youth justice pathway, including first‑time entrants, out‑of‑court resolutions, court sentencing, and custody. Black and mixed‑heritage children continued to be over‑represented at several of these stages, and the YJS had responded by establishing a multi‑agency disproportionality group and undertaking workforce training to promote a deeper understanding of structural inequalities. While this reflected a strong organisational commitment, there was not yet a fully articulated targeted action plan to reduce disparities, and this required development. Children reported that they were unsure what the YJS was doing to address disproportionality, which indicated that communication with them also needed to improve.

The YJS had also recognised the increasing number of girls entering the youth justice system and had begun to prioritise this group. However, there was more to do. Girls shared their experiences openly and highlighted risks linked to social media, bullying, exploitation, peer pressure, and knife‑related behaviour. Their feedback demonstrated that they felt heard, and their views had influenced priorities such as safety, education, and early help. The YJS showed a developing understanding of the gendered nature of risk and the importance of trauma‑informed and relational practice. However, the work remained at an early stage, and there was no dedicated strategy or specialist partnership offer to address the complex needs of girls, including those linked to harmful relationships, coercion, and exploitation.

Overall, the YJS demonstrated a strong values‑based approach and clear intent to deliver culturally competent, equitable and gender‑responsive practice. Its strengths in participation, SEND recognition and anti‑racist workforce development provided a solid foundation for further improvement.

The quality of diversity work found in our reviews of practice was variable. Practitioners often demonstrated strong relational and adaptive practice, tailoring their approach to each child’s communication needs, learning style and emotional presentation. In several cases, practitioners proactively deepened their understanding of neurodiversity, such as pathological demand avoidance, and adjusted their interactions to sustain engagement. Strong practice included creating communication passports, offering sensory breaks, using quiet spaces, and adapting appointment times and locations to reduce anxiety and improve accessibility.

Where diversity was explored well, practitioners engaged children in meaningful conversations about identity, including heritage, culture, religion, trauma history, and experiences of discrimination. In some cases, we saw thoughtful analysis of how these factors had shaped the child’s worldview, confidence, and behaviour. There were strong examples of culturally aware practice, such as flexible engagement with traveller families, avoidance of appointments on religious days, and arranging culturally matched mentors.

Where practitioners engaged parents or carers well, this helped to build a fuller understanding of the family network. However, we saw some instances where practice could be strengthened by engaging with both parents consistently, where appropriate. Referrals, for example for SaLT assessments, showed professional curiosity about hidden barriers to learning or communication.

However, across many other cases, diversity and identity were not explored in sufficient depth, and important factors such as mixed heritage, religion, gender, trauma, and care experience were only mentioned briefly or not analysed at all. In some assessments, practitioners recognised identity factors in interviews, but this was not reflected in written records.

In several cases there had been insufficient analysis of how diversity influenced risk, vulnerability, engagement, and behaviour. Trauma, neurodevelopmental needs, and past experiences were sometimes acknowledged but not used to inform planning or intervention choices. Gender was a recurring gap. In cases involving girls, there was limited exploration of gender-specific vulnerabilities or experiences of exploitation.

In a number of examples, the YJS relied heavily on basic descriptions rather than structured analysis. Opportunities were missed to explore family dynamics, cultural pressures, the impact of discrimination, or how intersecting needs (such as care experience and neurodivergence) shaped the child’s lived experience.

Data annexe (Back to top)

Bedfordshire Youth Data Annexe (XLSX, 126 KB)

Press release (Back to top)

Bedfordshire Youth Justice Partnership rated ‘Requires improvement’ 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 Avtar Singh, supported by a team of inspectors and colleagues from across the Inspectorate. We would like to thank all those who helped plan and took part in the inspection; without their help and cooperation, the inspection would not have been possible.

  1. We carry out two types of inspections as part of our current youth inspection programme across England and Wales: inspections of youth justice work with children and victims, and inspections of youth justice services. Further information about these inspections can be found in Our work (justiceinspectorates.gov.uk) ↩︎
  2. All the data in this section provided by Bedfordshire YJS, which covers Bedford Borough and Central Bedfordshire. ↩︎
  3. The rating for the standard is driven by the lowest score of the key questions, which is placed in a rating band, indicated in bold in the table. A more detailed explanation is available on our website Standards and ratings – HM Inspectorate of Probation. ↩︎
  4. The 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. PENY (Police Electronic Notifications to YJS) is a police notification document completed by a police officer following contact with a victim. ↩︎
  8. AIM – a tool used by practitioners to assess, manage and address harmful sexual behaviour. ↩︎
  9. Direct quotes from children and or their parents and carers are noted by speech marks. ↩︎