An inspection of youth justice work with children and victims in Stoke-on-Trent

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 Stoke-on-Trent Youth Justice and Support Service (YJSS) across two broad areas: the quality of work with children and the quality of work with victims.

Overall, Stoke-on-Trent YJSS was rated as ‘Inadequate’.

Stoke-on-Trent YJSS had the components needed for a high-quality youth justice service. While there had been changes in the management board, it had statutory partners of appropriate seniority alongside representation from relevant non-statutory agencies, who were committed to and prioritised youth justice children, families, and victims. There was a well-resourced, multidisciplinary team with access to a range of services and support. Staff were committed, motivated, and skilled at working with children and families to build and maintain trusted relationships. However, this was not currently translating into sufficient youth justice practice.

Work with children required strengthening across all our standards with significant shortfalls to keep children and the community safe. Assessing reflected children’s voices and identified their strengths, but it did not effectively use partnership information, and there needed to be a greater focus on ensuring children’s needs and safety were comprehensively analysed and understood. Planning was not consistently collaborative with parents, carers, and partners, nor did it respond to the risks presented to or from children. In delivery, we saw effective relational practice with children and families that enabled access to positive activities and education, training, and employment (ETE). However, the impact of interventions was limited as either they did not address safety for children, communities or victims, or they lacked the depth and quality to manage risks. Delivery was also undermined by silo working, which hindered sustainable coordinated support for children. Management oversight needed to be more robust and consistent.

Work with victims was embryonic but encouraging. There was a strategic focus to improve and develop the quality of victim work, which was complemented by strengths in operational practice including high consent rates, a commitment to restorative justice and evolving analytical work to inform service delivery. However, there was not enough understanding of the profile and needs of victims, initial contacts were not personalised and did not consider victim safety. There was also a lack of connectivity to the rich and diverse commissioned victim services within the city. While we found pockets of meaningful diversity practice, understanding how individual needs and protected characteristics shaped identity, lived experience, or exposure to discrimination was underdeveloped, as were concepts of adultification and intersectionality.

Despite our disappointing findings, there was a willingness to learn and a clear commitment from practitioners, managers and senior leaders to improve work with children and victims. In this report, there are 15 recommendations to support the YJSS on its improvement journey.

Martin Jones CBE

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

---

Ratings (Back to top)

Fieldwork started May 2026

Score 01/12

Overall rating

Inadequate

Work with children

2.1 Assessing	Inadequate
2.2 Planning	Inadequate
2.3 Delivery	Inadequate

Work with victims

V1 Work with victims

Requires improvement

---

Recommendations (Back to top)

As a result of our inspection findings, we have made 15 recommendations that we believe, if implemented, will have a positive impact on the quality of youth justice services in Stoke-on-Trent. This will improve the lives of the children in contact with youth justice services and better protect the public.

The Director of Children’s Services should:

1. ensure improved and consistent connectivity and joint working between the YJSS and children’s social care (CSC).

The Youth Justice Management Board should:

2. proactively and robustly oversee improvement activity in assessing, planning, and delivery, so it can be assured work with children is of a consistently high-quality and promotes safety
3. strengthen its oversight of work with victims and ensure there are comprehensive, diverse, and high-quality services for victims within the YJSS, which are effectively linked to victim services across the partnership
4. ensure strategic and operational management capacity is sufficient and effective to drive improvements in work with children and victims
5. develop a comprehensive, analytical dataset to inform and shape the direction and delivery of high-quality work with victims.

The Stoke-on-Trent Youth Justice and Support Service should

6. improve assessing, planning and delivery practice in relation to keeping children and the community safe
7. strengthen achieving positive change practice across assessing, planning, and delivery
8. ensure consistent, high-quality diversity practice across assessing, planning and delivery, which recognises, analyses, and responds to the intersectionality of all children’s protected characteristics and individual needs
9. develop and embed comprehensive, effective, and consistent victim safety practice across work with victims and children
10. review and diversify the victim offer to ensure there are a broad range of services to meet victims’ needs to support an increased uptake in services
11. ensure all practice with victims is personalised and responsive to victim’s needs, from initial contact to ongoing support
12. develop joint working protocols, policies, procedures, and guidance to provide a framework that supports YJSS staff to deliver high-quality work
13. improve management oversight so it is consistently applied, robust, and drives high-quality work with children and victims
14. review operational practice of out-of-court resolutions to ensure timely and purposeful delivery of interventions with children.

Staffordshire Police should:

15. improve the quality of information shared with the YJSS regarding victims’ individual needs and protected characteristics to facilitate a more personalised approach to initial contact with victims, enhance understanding of the victim profile, and inform service development and delivery.

---

Background (Back to top)

We conducted fieldwork in Stoke-on-Trent YJSS over a period of a week, beginning 11 May 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 12 May 2025 and 13 March 2026. We also conducted 31 interviews with case managers². We inspected the organisational arrangements for work delivered with victims and looked at cases where the YJS had undertaken contact with victims between 10 November 2025 and 09 January 2026. We also conducted interviews with staff and managers responsible for the delivery of this work.

Stoke-on-Trent is a city in the West Midlands, comprising of six distinct towns: Stoke, Hanley, Fenton, Longton, Burslem, and Tunstall. It has a strong industrial and cultural heritage, centred around pottery manufacture. The city has a population of 270,425,³ 10.6 per cent (28,660) of which are children aged 10 to 17. The diversity of the city is evolving as, while 83.5 per cent of the total population are of White British ethnicity⁴, this contrasts with 26.9 per cent of the population aged 10 to 17 who are of global majority heritage. At the time of the inspection announcement, global majority children comprised 25 per cent of the YJSS caseload, indicating an under-representation. However, local performance data indicates children of global majority heritage are disproportionally subject to higher tariff statutory disposals, although it is recognised this relates to a small number of children. There are high levels of social inequality and deprivation. This is characterised by 38.4 per cent of children being eligible for free school meals and the city ranking 25^th nationally for child deprivation⁵. Household incomes are 25 per cent below the national average, with nearly one-third of working age residents receiving benefits. The city is ranked as the 21^st most deprived area in England.⁶ Within the city, one in 58 children are care experienced, one in 22 are open to CSC and 19.4 per cent have special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). On the day of the inspection announcement, 14 per cent of YJSS children were care experienced, 21 per cent were on child protection plans or classed as children in need, indicating children known to CSC were over-represented in the YJSS. A further 20 per cent were SEND. Consequently, the YJSS operated in a context characterised by complexity, vulnerability, deprivation, and intersectionality.

The YJSS was integrated into Stoke-on-Trent CSC. The principal manager held strategic responsibility for the YJSS. There were two operational teams functioning on a locality basis, covering north and central Stoke and south-east and south-west Stoke. The teams included a youth justice coordinator (team manager), social workers and youth justice case managers, who held generic caseloads. Social workers had responsibility for children open to CSC or children with complex needs.

Specialist workers included a community justice officer, a substance misuse worker, a turnaround case manager and a specialist education officer, who acted up into the turnaround coordinator role and led on education. Seconded staff consisted of a probation officer who worked across the city and led on transitions, two police officers who led on out-of-court resolutions (OOCR) and high-risk children, a police victim liaison officer who contacted victims of OOCR offences, and a YMCA work coach who worked with post-16 children. The seconded health team comprised a health and justice team lead, a part-time speech and language therapist (SaLT, a vulnerable-children’s nurse who worked with children on court disposals, a violence reduction mental health practitioner who supported children linked to violent behaviour, and a liaison and diversion health navigator who engaged with children on OOCRs. A data and performance manager and two administration assistants supported the team.

The YJSS had worked with the educational psychology service (EPS) to develop a relational strengths-based practice model, alongside a child-first approach. The EPS had discussed the team’s needs, delivered comprehensive training and provided ongoing consultations to embed practice. The model used an ‘interactive factors framework’⁷ and the ‘circle of adults’⁸ approach to enable practitioners and the network supporting a child to formulate an understanding of a child’s functioning and behaviour. A future-focused, solution-orientated action plan which included a child’s strengths was then developed, implemented, and reviewed. Formal evaluation of the model was due to commence in June 2026. Educational psychologists also provided individual consultations to consider complex presentations in children or unstick thinking, a development group to share tools and guided interventions, co-working support with children where it was needed, and a reflective group that enabled staff to recognise strengths in their practice. A ‘Pre-7 project’ was about to start, which aimed to support primary to secondary school transitions, as it was recognised this can be a challenging time and a period of risk for some children.

We visited the Chell area family action group, a local building run by a large team of volunteers, which offered an inclusive safe space for all community members and supported families experiencing poverty. Services included a café, a charity shop, multiple networking groups for adults, a well-furnished gym, and workshops. YJSS children had access to the whole centre, which promoted sustainable long-term support. The YJSS worked with Dizzy Heights, a children’s mentoring and sporting activity organisation based in the centre, which had recently introduced a girls-only group with a female personal trainer. Reparation activities were linked to the services in the centre. This included a bike workshop where children fixed and rode bikes in the local area. It taught children practical skills while promoting a sense of identity and connection to their heritage and local community.

The YJSS worked mainly with White boys aged 15 to 17, although girls were significantly over-represented making up 23 per cent of the caseload compared to 14 per cent within the region and nationally. When the inspection was announced, the YJSS was working with 153 children: including 33 subject to court-ordered interventions and 105 OOCRs. First-time entrants (FTE) rates were high. Analytical work identified youth cautions as the most prevalent disposal, and motoring offences had influenced the high FTE rate. The YJSS, working alongside partners, had introduced a deferred outcome and driving diversion scheme in February 2026, both aimed at reducing FTEs. The percentage of children who reoffended (18.1 per cent) and the offending rate (0.88) were significantly below the national average. Data supplied by the YJS indicated the use of custody since 2021 had been relatively static. It had been reserved for serious violent or sexual offences or had occurred as sentencing options were limited when children were already subject to custodial sentences.

---

Domain two: Work with children (Back to top)

We took a detailed look at 37 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.	Inadequate

Our rating⁹ for assessing is based on the following key questions:

Does assessing sufficiently analyse how to:	% ‘Yes’
achieve positive change for the child?	54%
keep the child and the community safe?	35%

While assessing to achieve positive change was stronger than assessing to keep the child and community safe, both elements of practice needed significant improvement. There were pockets of effective and high-quality assessing activity, however, there was evidence of variable and weak assessing practice, including some examples where assessing activity was absent when a child started to work with the YJSS.

Assessing was informed by the views of children, parents, and carers, which supported an understanding of the context in which a child lived, the child’s perspective of their offending, and their strengths, goals, and aspirations. This enabled the consideration of positive and protective factors which provided opportunities for change, such as engagement in education, future career ambitions, positive activities such as football, or the role of family members to support a child.

We found there was inconsistency in the collation and use of partnership information. Where this was strong, practitioners worked collaboratively with agencies, such as CSC, police, education, and health, or used assessments, such as SaLT assessments or education and health care plans (EHCPs), to enhance assessing practice. However, there were examples of partnership information not being sought, the accuracy of information provided by children, parents, or carers not being checked with other agencies, or the evidence provided not being effectively analysed. This resulted in children’s perspectives dominating assessing practice, which compromised a balanced, comprehensive, and analytical understanding of a child’s circumstances and the factors contributing to their offending.

Diversity practice in assessing regarding children’s individual needs and protected characteristics was significantly variable. There were examples of a child’s ethnicity, culture, religion, neurodiversity, experiences of trauma, and care experience being recognised and considered in terms of the impact on their lived experience. Understanding children’s neurodiversity or learning needs tended to be stronger due to access to high quality EHCPs. In contrast, we saw that while children’s protected characteristics or individual needs may have been identified, they were not explored in any depth. Assessing lacked analysis on how a child’s ethnicity, heritage, religion, culture, neurodiversity or trauma may influence their identity. Experiences of discrimination were rarely explored in terms of their likelihood or impact. This shortfall in practice was linked to limitations in the skills and confidence required to explore these issues sensitively and competently. Further, concepts such as intersectionality and adultification were substantially underdeveloped and needed improvement.

Assessing practice to keep the child and community safe was weak and lacked professional curiosity. We saw evidence of factors relating to safety being identified, such as harm outside the home, previous trauma and adverse childhood experiences, domestic abuse both as a victim and perpetrator, emotional wellbeing or mental health needs, engaging in violence or aggression, harmful sexual behaviour, and weapon possession. However, these factors and behaviours had not been fully analysed to formulate an appropriate classification of risk and understanding of safety. Analysis was compromised by a lack of collaboration or intelligence sharing with partner agencies, such as CSC, police, probation, education or child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS). Most notably there was often a failure to undertake checks with probation or the police on adults known to or associating with children. Assessing of safety was also undermined by a tendency to only consider the index or most recent offence and not take account of or analyse previous offending or un-convicted behaviours. This resulted in patterns of behaviour not being identified and safety not being fully understood.

Practice regarding victims’ needs, wishes, and safety was inconsistent. While in some instances this was due to there not being a direct victim or because information was not available, consideration of victims needed strengthening. There were examples where assessing effectively reflected the impact on victims and their needs and wishes. However, this contrasted with evidence that victims’ needs and wishes were not consistently being considered, and no (or only partial) analysis of victim safety issues, including the risk to potential future victims.

Assessing did not consistently respond to changes, which undermined its efficacy. We saw some positive examples of assessing accounting for changes in a child’s accommodation, their engagement in education or with the work coach, and information exchange from a network email which included the parent. Conversely, there were incidents of assessing which did not respond to critical issues, such as changes in a child’s education provision, new missing episodes and developing exploitation risks, adaptations to family circumstances or further incidents or behaviours of concern.

Management oversight and quality assurance activity was either absent or limited, which resulted in shortfalls in assessing not being identified or addressed. For example, management oversight had not picked up the absence of written assessments which was critical given the complexity of presenting issues and needs of children. Similarly, quality assurance work had not identified gaps in partnership information gathering, the consideration of a child’s previous offending or behaviours and the robust analysis of these factors. These arrangements required strengthening to ensure assessing activity was consistently of high quality and reflected the needs of children, as well as their safety and the safety of the community.

---

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

Our rating¹⁰ for planning is based on the following key questions:

Does planning focus sufficiently on how to:	% ‘Yes’
achieve positive change for the child?	65%
keep the child and community safe?	35%

Practice to achieve positive change strengthened in planning; however, shortfalls identified in assessing permeated planning to keep the child and community safe. A lack of collaborative, detailed, and specific planning, poor recording and, in some instances, little or no evidence of written plans for children with complex needs and risks compromised practice.

While children were engaged in planning, this rarely reflected meaningful and collaborative activity, and there was little evidence of child-friendly plans. There were some examples of parents and carers constructively engaged in planning, such as the use of parental restrictions to support online safety, oversight of curfews, and supporting children to engage with the YJSS. However, this contrasted with an absence or limited parent and carer involvement, which in a few instances included parents being given roles and responsibilities to support children’s safety without having been consulted.

Planning activity was strongest when it promoted and built on children’s protective factors, as practitioners were skilled at identifying and responding to children’s strengths, goals, and aspirations. Planning incorporated the inclusion of positive and social activities, such as gym memberships, boxing, sports clubs, music projects, and cadets, and promoted engagement in ETE including referrals to the in-house work coach.

Planning for children’s individual needs and protected characteristics was varied and inconsistent. We saw examples of individually tailored planning which sensitively and constructively responded to children’s ethnicity, culture, religion, neurodiversity, learning needs, health requirements, and forthcoming transitions. This practice was supported by specialist assessments or guidance from the SaLT and seconded health staff or through EHCPs. However, this contrasted with children’s diverse needs not, or only partially, being considered, which impacted on their capacity to engage in planning. In some instances, specialist reports from educational psychologists or EHCPs were not used to inform effective engagement and delivery with children. Further, consideration of children’s identity, lived experience and intersecting needs tended to be absent. Given the disparity in practice, improvement activity was required to upskill and increase practitioner and manager confidence.

When considering joint work with partner agencies, there was significant variability. Where this worked well it was typified by collaboration across a range of partners that responded to children’s needs and safety. Examples of effective multi-agency planning included joint work with probation, secure estate providers, CSC, CAMHS, police, placement providers, schools, and the voluntary sector, in which each involved professional had clearly defined roles or responsibilities. Conversely, we saw examples of planning that were indicative of silo working. In these instances, planning lacked alignment with or was not cognisant of other agencies, or assumptions were made that partner agencies were responding to children’s needs or safety without this being effectively corroborated or coordinated. This was particularly evident in planning for safety.

Transition planning with probation was a strength as it was tailored to individual needs, sequenced, implemented in a timely fashion, and there was clarity in practitioner roles. However, this was not reflected in all transition planning such as accessing other adult services or children moving between schools or placements.

Planning to keep children and the community safe was not robust. It had been impacted by weak assessing, so was not fully cognisant of all safety factors and did not consider all behaviours of concern. We saw individual examples of comprehensive practice, however, more typically planning failed to sufficiently respond to and manage risks. Examples of poor planning included only responding to harmful sexual behaviour when this was the index offence, not addressing the impact of domestic abuse on children as victims or responding effectively to adolescent-to-parent violence, not planning for emotional regulation and impulse control work where children had engaged in violent or aggressive behaviours, and not considering a child’s carrying or use of weapons sufficiently. Planning in response to harm outside the home, and specifically child exploitation, was inconsistent. It was not always responsive to identified risk or new and emerging behaviours, and it did not accurately reflect the actions being undertaken by partners to promote safety.

Safety of actual and potential victims was underdeveloped. Victim safety was rarely evidenced or considered, which was reflective of shortfalls in assessing practice and the focus on index offences. Planning did not consider restrictive activities or liaison with key partners, such as education or CSC, to ensure contact between children and their victims was managed effectively. Neither did it ensure safety was considered within intrafamilial or personal and peer relationships. While there was evidence of some consideration of victims’ needs and wishes, more often restorative or reparative actions were either not considered or identified and not planned for.

There was variability in responsivity to change. In some instances, planning was reviewed and adapted to new or emerging concerns, such as being excluded from school, changes in family care arrangements, or following actions or new intelligence from police. However, this contrasted with limited or no revision when changes were known such as placement moves, ending of restrictive safety measures, or unexpected changes such as new behaviours in the community or in a care placement which indicated escalating risk. Exit planning was either absent or considered too late. This was particularly evident in OOCRs, where partner agencies who could provide ongoing support for children and families were not identified or engaged.

Management oversight in planning varied. Where it was strong, it was supported by internal and multi-agency planning forums including the YJSS management of risk forum (MoRF), multi-agency child exploitation (MACE), multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA), and CSC planning processes. In contrast, internal management oversight and quality assurance processes were either not evident or did not identify and address shortfalls in practice. Improvement of operational oversight of planning was needed.

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

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

Does the delivery of well-focused, personalised and coordinated services:	% ‘Yes’
achieve positive change for the child?	59%
keep the child and the community safe?	38%

Shortfalls in assessing and planning impacted delivery. While work to keep children safe was often stronger than delivery to keep the community safe, all safety practice needed significant improvement. Further, there were instances where planned activity was not delivered. This tended to relate to the safety of others. We saw individual examples of robust practice, which effectively managed the safety of children and the community, often where children presented with complex and high levels of needs and risks, but this was not consistently the case.

Practitioners were skilled at building trusted relationship with children, parents and carers, who presented with complex needs and mistrust of agencies. This reflected the relational practice model. Practitioners were tenacious, persistent, and flexible when working with children, parents, and carers. They used a variety of contact methods and mutually agreed locations and venues, which supported engagement. There was variability in parent or carer involvement to support safety. Where this worked well, parents were involved in activities like using and monitoring parental controls for online access, being part of a network email to share information, and interventions to strengthen parenting capacity. However, this was contrasted with examples of parents not being engaged or only partially supported to enable delivery.

Practitioners focused on engaging children in activities which reflected their strengths and protective factors. This included boxing, football, and cricket; providing gym memberships; helping children access youth provisions, like cadets; or using mentors. There was a focus on ETE with practitioners and the work coach, assisting children to gain employment by helping them research an employer and prepare for and attend interviews. Practitioners advocated for children to ensure schools adhered to guidance in EHCPs or that there was a timely review of EHCPs by the local authority. We also saw the impact of the local exclusion triage panel with children being fast-tracked to mainstream education following an exclusion.

Responding to children’s diverse needs was variable. There were examples of meaningful practice, including practical adaptations using SaLT guidance or EHCPs, ensuring YJSS and partners were mindful of religious observances, and the use of coloured pens to assist understanding of how interventions were prioritised. We saw some examples of open and responsive conversations with children to understand their ethnicity, faith and identity. Conversely, we found instances where children’s ethnicity, faith, learning needs, neurodiversity or care experience were identified but not fully understood and only partially responded to in delivery. For example, recognising neurodiversity but not adapting sessions to make them accessible or failing to use interpreters when English was not the child or parent’s first language. Developing an understanding of how children’s needs and protected characteristics shaped their identity, lived experience or exposure to discrimination was underdeveloped, as was the impact of adultification and intersectionality.

Effective collaboration with partner agencies was inconsistent. Where there was strong joint working between the YJSS and partners including education, police, probation, CSC, health, and voluntary sector providers, this was typified by regular communication including information sharing, joint or coordinated appointments, and clear lines of responsibility and roles. However, more typically we saw the YJSS working in isolation or not meaningfully linked into networks around children, parents, and carers. This resulted in a lack of understanding and coordination of the support and services delivered to children and families, without checks and verification that these managed needs and safety. This impacted exit planning, as agencies that could best meet children’s needs and provide long term support were not engaged.

Delivery to address the safety of the child and community was variable. We saw positive examples of interventions comprehensively managing risk, including evidence of strong transitions to probation. However, more frequently factors related to safety were not effectively addressed, particularly if they were not directly associated to the index offence. This meant risk specific interventions such as peer influences, emotional regulation, weapons awareness, intrafamilial violence, online safety, and harmful sexual behaviour, were not delivered or did not have the depth or intensity to facilitate change. Responding to harm outside the home needed strengthening, as there was inconsistency in recognising indicators of exploitation and responding effectively. This was exacerbated by silo working as effective responses to contextual safeguarding required a partnership approach. There was evidence of drift in delivery which undermined intervention efficacy. This was most notable in OOCRs where disposals remained open without clear purpose or value.

Practice in relation to the safety of actual or potential victims needed strengthening. For example, not undertaking checks with partner agencies, such as ETE providers or CSC, to ensure safety measures were in place particularly where risk existed within the family home or in school. Further, there were examples of opportunities for restorative interventions being missed and, in some cases, even when it had been requested by victims.

Delivery was not always dynamic in responding to new or emerging risks, which compromised safety practice. Specifically, we saw instances of new offences or behaviours which indicated escalating risk, such as online activity, threats on social media, accessing sexually explicit material, assaults or threatening behaviour, new allegations of harmful sexual behaviour, association with peers or known adults of concern, or deteriorating parental mental health. However, either no action was taken or there was delay and drift, and this rarely resulted in formal reviewing to ensure all presenting needs and safety were understood.

The YJSS did not have a comprehensive range of policies, protocols or guidance documents to support effective operational delivery. Internal management oversight was weak and had limited impact; it failed to identify gaps, drift or inertia in delivery, did not direct actions or adaptations to improve practice, and did not support effective safety management. Conversely, oversight from multi-agency forums, such as MoRF, MAPPA, MACE and CSC planning forums, supported and enhanced the delivery of effective interventions and information sharing which strengthened safety practice.

---

Work with victims

We took a detailed look at 18 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.	Requires improvement

Our rating¹² for work with victims is based on the following key questions:

V 1.1 Is work with victims high-quality, individualised and responsive?

V 1.2 Do organisational arrangements and activity drive a high-quality, individualised and responsive service for victims?

Strengths

• The YJSS management board was committed to developing and improving work with victims, demonstrated by the inclusion of victims in the vision for the service, specific victim priorities in the youth justice plan, the oversight of victim data (although limited), and the receipt of reports on victim practice.
• A dedicated strategic lead for victims on the YJSS management board had recently been identified. They were linked with and had knowledge of the commissioning of broader victim services within Stoke-on-Trent.
• The principal manager had recently joined the Staffordshire victim and witness commissioning and development board, which oversaw the identification and commissioning of victim services. They had also started to attend the Staffordshire police victims’ group.
• There was evidence of a commitment to the monitoring, evaluation, and review of work with victims through audit activity, developing performance data, the production of a victim needs analysis, and the completion of a self-assessment against the inspectorate standards for work with victims. This was encouraging, but embryonic, and required further development and embedding to inform strategic and operational practice.
• Reviewing activity and analytical data had informed the development of a victim action plan which focused on improving operational and strategic work with victims. This was overseen by the YJSS management board.
• Staff delivering services to victims were passionate and committed to their work, seeing the value and importance of listening to victims and advocating for them so their views and wishes were heard.
• Services provided to victims by the YJSS were victim led and not timebound by the order or disposal a child was subject to.
• High victim consent rates had been achieved. This had been supported by mandatory processes within Staffordshire police, alongside the training of new police recruits, ongoing regular briefings, and consultation support provided by the YJSS seconded police staff on YJSS practice and completion of police referral forms. Further, victim workers proactively clarified any referrals where victim consent was unclear or not completed.
• Staff working with victims worked collectively to manage the workload. Cover arrangements and mitigations were in place to ensure the delivery of prompt initial contacts with victims.
• There was a commitment to ensuring the voice and views of victims were heard at the joint decision-making panel for out-of-court resolutions.
• There was a focus and commitment to the delivery of restorative justice intervention for victims.
• Victim workers were embedded in the YJSS. This supported effective collaborative working with case managers to ensure the needs of victims were met when victims had opted into YJSS support and services.
• There was a range of creative and diverse reparation projects which had community capital and value within Stoke-on-Trent. Victims could influence projects children engaged in as part of the indirect reparation offer.
• Bi-monthly meetings between victim workers and the principal manager had commenced to support the development and improvement of victim work.
• Victim workers had access to the YJSS training offer to support their general skill development and needs.
• It had been recognised and demonstrated that the emotional wellbeing and trauma of children who were victims of crime was not being adequately responded to. Funding had been secured from the violence reduction alliance to develop a project to be responsive to the needs of child victims.
• There was a victim policy in place which provided a framework to guide and support the delivery of victim work in the YJSS. However, this approach had been implemented after the victim case sample period and was not evident in the victim cases inspected.
• There was a commitment to develop and improve victim feedback processes, with innovative projects planned for implementation.

Areas for improvement

• There was limited evidence of the YJSS management board driving the strategic direction for victim work and ensuring operational practice was of a high quality and responsive to all victim needs. However, recent board activity had demonstrated greater focus and a more proactive approach, which was positive.
• Understanding the profile and characteristics of victims referred to and engaged with the YJSS, including their protected characteristics, was underdeveloped. Work had started to collate a more comprehensive and analysed dataset to respond effectively to victim needs. This required the commitment and support from all partners, particularly Staffordshire police.
• The YJSS lacked analysis and evaluation of the reason for the low uptake of services by victims in contrast to the high consent rates.
• Vacancies in victim worker roles had resulted in the need to prioritise role responsibilities. While initial contacts with victims had not been compromised; the depth and quality of practice was not always reflective of individualised and responsive work with victims.
• While initial contacts with victims were prompt, they were not consistently personalised to victims’ needs. This was compromised by the lack of information regarding victims’ protected characteristic and individual needs, which were not consistently provided by police or explored by victim workers.
• Initial contacts with victims did not consider or respond to victim safety, which was of significant concern. This had been recognised and a new victim assessment tool introduced, however, close monitoring of the impact of this tool on recognising and responding to victim safety was required.
• There was no recorded evidence of management oversight in the victim case work inspected. Consequently, shortfalls in operational practice – specifically issues related to victim safety – were not being identified or addressed.
• There had been limited evidence of monitoring and quality assurance activity regarding victim work or the effectiveness of interventions provided. This was needed to ensure practice of high-quality and assisted future service delivery.
• The focus on the delivery of restorative justice interventions had compromised the YJSS ability to comprehensively respond to and support all victims’ needs. Activity was required to broaden and diversify the victim offer.
• The YJSS was working in isolation with limited connectivity to or use of the broader and richer victim provisions across Stoke-on-Trent. Improved linkage with these would assist the development of YJSS practice and support a more diverse and responsive offer to victims engaged with the YJSS.
• There was potential duplication in initial contact with victims by the YJSS and commissioned victim services. This required further investigation.
• There was disparity in the training, skills, and abilities of staff, which compromised the consistent delivery of high-quality, individualised, and responsive services to victims. While some staff working directly with victims had received specialist restorative justice training and were highly skilled, there had not been any recent specific training on work with victims, victim safety, or restorative justice for all staff to ensure a collective and consistent approach. There was a lack of parity in the support and supervision for staff working with victims. This required revision to ensure there was adequate support for staff to enable and promote the delivery of high-quality services.
• There was no evidence of access to clinical supervision or support for practitioners working with victims to address the impact of vicarious trauma.
• The current staffing capacity could compromise the planned development activity to increase victim engagement in support and services provided by the YJSS. This had been recognised by senior leaders and possible mitigations were being considered.
• The victim policy did not comprehensively cover the YJSS victim offer, victim safety, the wider provision of victim services in Stoke or management oversight and quality assurance processes.
• While victim feedback mechanisms had previously been in place, their use was limited. Consequently, victim feedback was not being captured or used to shape service delivery. This had been recognised and revised processes implemented including the use of QR codes, however, this had not yet elicited an improved response from victims.
• Police officers responding to victims were not providing detailed information of the YJSS victim offer, instead they indicated contact from the YJSS would provide this information.

---

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

The YJSS was part of Stoke-on-Trent CSC, which valued participation with children, parents, and carers. In 2025, a YMCA survey explored children’s thoughts about living in Stoke, with 2,200 responses from children. Their feedback had supported the development of the children and young people strategy and the youth strategy, which were overseen by the safeguarding children partnership (SCP) board. There was a dedicated participation officer, alongside youth champions and a care leavers’ group. The YJSS had worked with the participation officer to ensure their approach was aligned to the wider directorate.

Participation in the YJSS was undertaken on a needs-based approach. However, there was a commitment to embed meaningful participation activity with children, parents, carers, and victims, demonstrated by a dedicated priority in the youth justice plan. The YJSS had engaged in training with Peer Power Youth to strengthen the approach to co-production and participation in operational practice; developed ‘writing to the child’ in assessing and case recording; and consulted children on the operation of the summer activities programme, SPACE. A child had attended and provided feedback to the YJSS management board and children had contributed to the annual strategic youth justice plan. Through the Turnaround programme ‘Tell Joy’ cards had been developed and then extended across the whole service. These enabled children with the opportunity to feedback directly to the principal manager. Victim feedback had been reviewed and QR codes introduced to increase victim engagement.

Planned activity to enhance participation and engagement had included children engaged in feedback on referral order practice as part of a project led by education psychologists, a participation group of practitioners and managers who led and coordinated activity, and the planned development accessible versions of the youth justice plan for children and victims. Further, it had been recognised the feedback mechanism to the management board for children and victims needed strengthening.

The YJSS contacted children and their parents or carers on our behalf who currently or recently had worked with the service, in order to gain their consent to provide feedback on their experience. We provided a variety of opportunities for children, parents, and carers to participate in the inspection process. This resulted in six children and 12 parents or carers talking to inspectors through telephone calls, video calls, and face-to-face meetings.

In terms of their experiences and interactions with YJSS staff, the majority of children, parents and carers indicated they had a say on the things that affected them and felt listened to, respected, and valued. They told us¹³:

“They’ve always asked for my views about the work we’re doing, and I feel like I’ve had a say.”

“I was given a say. When the worker first visited our home… they asked me lots of questions and spoke with my son. We were able to talk about what affects us and the support we need. I felt respected and valued.”

“She’s really listened to what we’ve been saying, it’s the first time we’ve felt listened to, like someone is finally in our corner.”

Feedback from children, parents, and carers indicated YJSS staff were skilled at forming positive and trusted relationships, which reflected the relational practice observed during inspection activity. They said:

“[My worker] just gets me, he knows who I am.”

“The best part… has been the relationship and bond built between the worker and my son.”

“Relationship building was also a strength. They made him feel safe, valued and included.”

“Building relationships and helping him think before he acts have also been real positives.”

Most children, parents, and carers indicated they felt their identity and needs had been recognised and responded to. As identified in our inspection findings, there was a focus on ETE and strengths in responding to children’s neurodiversity. They stated:

“…He’s been helping me with careers to find full-time work as college didn’t work out for me… We also spoke about victims and stuff, and he helped me break it down as I didn’t see it from their perspective – that was really good.”

“The main thing I needed help with was my weed use. My worker put me in touch with someone who could support me… She’s really helped me at college, including with my applications… She’s also supported me and my mum with our move, helped us get new furniture, and supported my mental health…”

“…She opened up opportunities for ADHD and autism assessments, helped arrange home schooling, and he’s now thriving. She’s basically put everything in place for him, including sorting out a laptop for his home schooling.”

“In terms of my daughter’s needs, they recognised her mental health and depression, and that she may have traits of ADHD. She supported us to get counselling, took my daughter to appointments, helped with implants, and made sure she got support for her drug use. She’s been brilliant.”

“They considered things like over stimulation and how he might respond to lots of people and loud noises. They have taken this into account and made changes to support him…”

Although inspection findings identified significant shortfalls in safety practice, the group of children, parents, and carers we spoke to all advised they felt safety needs had been considered. They indicated:

“The main thing that’s helped me is support with my bail conditions; she’s helped me stay away from places I’m not supposed to go and avoid contact with people I shouldn’t meet.”

“They’ve supported him with his mental health and his cannabis use. They put a safety plan in place around his weed use and helped him understand his actions and the consequences.”

We asked children, parents, and carers what the YJS did well and what they could improve. Overwhelming feedback indicated there was ‘nothing’ the YJSS needed to do. However, a recurring theme expressed was the availability of services and support generally within Stoke-on-Trent. They reflected:

“[My worker] is like my best friend. He’s helped me at my lowest point and he’s always there for me, when I’ve been low he’s really helped me, he’ll just come through and have a chat with me.”

“The only thing I think could be improved is that there aren’t enough social clubs or things for young people to do around Stoke. There’s not much to do except hang around. It would be good to have places to go where you don’t end up getting into trouble.”

---

Equity, diversity, and inclusion (Back to top)

Stoke-on-Trent YJSS operated in a context of high levels of deprivation and diverse local communities, which reflected the children, families, and victims they support. There was a strategic commitment to address equity, diversity, and inclusion, which included monitoring of disproportionality related to ethnicity, gender, care experience, and alternative education needs. However, these aspirations were not consistently translated and embedded in effective operational diversity practice.

The youth justice plan demonstrated a focus on working with partners regarding the criminalisation of care experienced children, the over-representation of girls, and the monitoring of global majority children. The management board received quarterly performance reports that supported an understanding of the profile of children. Disproportionality and over-representation were reported at every board meeting, including specific consideration on girls, the factors linked to their over-representation, and the practice response. Quarterly performance data in March 2026 demonstrated an over-representation of Asian/Asian British and mixed heritage children. The board chair had recently introduced deep dive auditing by board members, as it provided a line of sight on practice, enabled multi-agency reviewing from different professional perspectives, and promoted learning across the partnership. The first deep dive was focused on disproportionality and harmful sexual behaviour in response to the March performance report. It had taken place just prior to fieldwork so findings had not yet been analysed, but there was commitment to act on recommendations.

The annual profile of the YJSS cohort indicated marginal over-representation of mixed heritage children across all YJSS interventions. However, granular detail evidenced over-representation of global majority children was more pronounced in higher tariff statutory disposals. While it was acknowledged the number of higher tariff court disposals were small due to prevalence of OOCRs, further analysis was needed to understand the contributing factors and if any partnership actions were required. Positively, a deferred outcome and driving diversion scheme had been introduced to the outcome options for OOCRs, which was aimed at having a positive impact on the over-representation of global majority children. The YJSS accessed a dedicated youth provision, Dizzy Heights, which could respond to the needs of global majority children and provided access to mentoring.

Offending by girls had increased since Covid-19 across FTEs, court disposals, and within the tracked reoffending cohort. As such, girls had been proactively monitored by the YJSS and responding to their needs considered. Performance data indicated offending related to violence and specifically assault of emergency workers. Deeper analysis identified girls were likely to be care experienced, or subject to child protection plans, and that offending took place when they had been stopped by police, police were responding to calls from parents or carers, or they were missing from care. Police reviewed all offences related to missing episodes and identified officer responses had been child focused. Further analytical work on the care and education status of girls was planned, alongside exploring practice in local residential homes. This work was being linked to the review of the national protocol to reduce the criminalisation of care experienced children.

The YJSS had worked with the violence reduction alliance to develop a specific girls work programme. There had been collaborative work with partners, including probation, to develop clear pathways and improved support for girls. The YJSS used a local project, Spark2Success, to provide self-esteem work and mentoring for girls. While this was a positive focus on work with girls, this was not evident in the case sample inspected.

Care experienced children were over-represented and local analysis identified they were more likely to be subject to court disposals. This correlated with the high rate of care experienced children in Stoke-on-Trent. The YJSS had completed a self-assessment against the ‘Safeguarding Futures’ report¹⁴, which examined links to social care involvement and exposure to the criminal justice system. This was presented to the management board with planned actions including; cascading learning to CSC; an audit of children open to the YJSS and CSC to inform a local protocol to guide and improve joint working; inviting social workers to the joint decision panel; training for solicitors on trauma; being care experienced and offending; and identifying the care status of children prior to court, so their needs were highlighted and responded to.

The partnership had recognised presenting health inequalities for YJSS children and built this into commissioning arrangements. This had resulted in a comprehensive health provision, which included a health and justice team lead, a SaLT, a vulnerable-children’s nurse, a mental health practitioner, and a liaison and diversion health navigator. All practitioners had distinct roles and worked collaboratively with YJSS staff to meet children’s needs, such as neurodiversity.

Diversity practice in work with children needed strengthening. There were examples of effective and sensitive practice that responded to children’s diverse and individual needs, but this was inconsistent. In assessing, children’s protected characteristics and individual needs were identified but not consistently or comprehensively analysed. This prevented practitioners having a full understanding of a child’s identity, lived experience or the impact of discrimination, and this in turn influenced effective planning and delivery. Shortfalls in practice were demonstrative of limited skill and confidence to have sensitive and meaningful conversations with children, parents, and carers. Assessing, planning, and delivery practice needed improvement to ensure the YJS was fully cognisant of and responsive to the concepts of intersectionality and adultification to support a holistic understanding of children’s diversity and what this meant for them.

Equity, diversity, and inclusion practice related to work with victims was embryonic. A quarterly victim performance report for the management board and an operational ‘victim tracker’ document, which collated protected characteristics and individual needs, were compromised in their efficacy due to gaps in information shared by Staffordshire police. However, improved completion of the mandated ‘victim contract’ within police recording systems and the introduction of the victim assessment tool to YJSS processes provided opportunities to resolve these issues. Limited information regarding victim’s protected characteristics undermined individualised and responsive initial contacts with victims. A victim strategic needs analysis had identified boys were most likely to be victims of peer violence, whereas females tended to be adults who were assaulted while undertaking their job role, for example, police staff or care workers. This had informed the development of a project to support child victims funded by the violence reduction alliance and consultation activity with female victims to ascertain how best to meet their needs.

Further information (Back to top)

A glossary of terms used in this report can be found on our website.

This inspection was led by HM Inspector Sara Pordham, supported by a team of inspectors and colleagues from across the Inspectorate. We would like to thank all those who helped plan and took part in the inspection; without their help and cooperation, the inspection would not have been possible.

1. There are two types of inspections as part of the current youth inspection programme across England and Wales. Inspection of youth justice work with children and victims (IYJWCV) and inspection of youth justice services (IYJS). Further information about these inspections can be found on our website Youth Justice Services – HM Inspectorate of Probation ↩︎
2. A further six interviews were conducted with the case manager’s line manager ↩︎
3. Office for National Statistics (July 2025) UK population estimates, mid 2024 ↩︎
4. Office for National Statistics 2021 Census Area Profile ↩︎
5. IMD – Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) district rank, 2025 – LG Inform ↩︎
6. IMD – Overall district rank, 2025 – LG Inform ↩︎
7. A holistic tool to develop a dynamic understanding of a child’s learning and behavioural development and create a next-steps plan through the analysis of biological, cognitive, behavioural and emotional factors. ↩︎
8. A facilitated group consultation where attendees think collaboratively to develop a hypothesis and strengths-based plan for children at risk of exclusion. Developed by Colin Newton and Derek Wilson. ↩︎
9. The rating for the standard is driven by the lowest score of the key questions, which is placed in a rating band, indicated in bold in the table. A more detailed explanation is available on our website Standards and ratings – HM Inspectorate of Probation. ↩︎
10. 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. ↩︎
11. The rating for the standard is driven by the lowest score of the key questions, which is placed in a rating band, indicated in bold in the table. A more detailed explanation is available on our website Standards and ratings – HM Inspectorate of Probation. ↩︎
12. The rating for the victims’ standard is derived from the scores from case inspection for V 1.1 and the qualitative evidence for V 1.2. Case inspection scores and a more detailed explanation of the rating process is available on our website Standards and ratings – HM Inspectorate of Probation. ↩︎
13. All quotes are directly from children and their parents or carers. ↩︎
14. Safeguarding Futures: Reducing the risk of criminal justice involvement for children in contact with the social care system | Centre for Justice Innovation ↩︎