An inspection of youth justice work with children and victims in Sandwell
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 Sandwell YJS across two broad areas: the quality of work done with children working with the YJS and the quality of work done with victims.
Overall, Sandwell YJS was rated as ‘Good’.
YJS leaders and practitioners were passionate, innovative and ambitious in supporting children to achieve positive change. Inspectors found an impressive commitment to ensuring that the voices of children, parents and carers were central to shaping service delivery. The YJS Partnership Board provided strong strategic leadership in responding to both the opportunities and challenges facing the service. This was critical given the increasing number of children requiring support, the complexity of their circumstances, and the challenges associated with youth violence and exploitation.
Assessing effectively identified children’s strengths, protective factors and opportunities for positive change. However, while the YJS had access to a wide range of information, this was not always brought together and analysed sufficiently to provide a holistic understanding of the factors affecting the safety of children and the community.
Planning to achieve positive change and to keep children and communities safe was impressive and supported by effective and collaborative partnership working arrangements. Children were meaningfully involved in planning, which was personalised and reflected their individual learning, communication and cultural needs. Effective multi-agency planning forums promoted coordinated responses to exploitation, youth violence and extra-familial harm.
The delivery of services to promote positive change was supported by a range of creative interventions, including online tools, virtual reality programmes, music projects, and culturally responsive youth forums. There was an opportunity to strengthen practice to promote the safety of the child and the community by ensuring more consistent coordination of services, including support for children approaching adulthood.
Work with victims was a notable strength. Practitioners and managers demonstrated genuine care and commitment to supporting victims. The YJS, partnership board and commissioned service had worked cohesively and at pace to develop a high-quality service. We found that victims were offered personalised support, restorative opportunities and access to specialist services.
Martin Jones CBE
HM Chief Inspector of Probation
Ratings (Back to top)
| Fieldwork started July 2026 | Score 9/12 |
| Overall rating | Good |
Work with children
| 2.1 Assessing | Requires improvement |
| 2.2 Planning | Outstanding |
| 2.3 Delivery | Good |
Work with victims
| V1 Work with victims | Outstanding |
Recommendations (Back to top)
As a result of our inspection findings, we have made five recommendations that we believe, if implemented, will have a positive impact on the quality of youth justice services in Sandwell. This will improve the lives of the children in contact with youth justice services and better protect the public.
The Sandwell Youth Justice Service should:
- improve assessing activity to ensure consistent and high-quality work that keeps children and communities safe
- strengthen the quality and consistency of management oversight so that it effectively drives improvements in the quality of assessing activity to achieve safety for the child and the community
- continue to develop an accreditation framework for reparation activities that formally recognises children’s work and achievements.
The Sandwell Youth Justice Partnership Board should:
- continue to monitor and respond to the increased demand on YJS services, ensuring that the service has sufficient resources to support the ongoing delivery of high-quality work to children and victims.
- continue to challenge the Probation Service to ensure that it fulfils its statutory duties and provides the necessary secondment provision to the YJS
Background (Back to top)
We conducted fieldwork in Sandwell YJS over a period of a week, beginning 06 July 2026. We inspected cases where the YJS had started work with children subject to custody, bail or remand, court disposals or out-of-court resolutions between 05 January 2026 and 06 March 2026. We also conducted 23 interviews with case managers.
We inspected the organisational arrangements for work delivered with victims and looked at cases where the YJS had undertaken contact with victims between 07 July 2025 and 08 May 2026. We also conducted interviews with staff and managers responsible for the delivery of this work.
Sandwell is a borough in the West Midlands, comprising six towns: Oldbury, Smethwick, Rowley Regis, Tipton, Wednesbury and West Bromwich. According to the Office for National Statistics, in July 2025, there were 353,860 residents, of whom 40,816 were children aged 10 to 17. Sandwell is an ethnically diverse borough, as 55.4 per cent of 10–17-year-olds are of Black and global majority heritage. At the time of the inspection announcement, YJS data showed that Black and global majority children made up 53 per cent of the YJS caseload – a reduction from 66 per cent. The YJS partnership board had undertaken extensive analysis of the factors linked to disproportionality.
The YJS sits within Sandwell Children’s Trust, an independent organisation that has been responsible for children’s social care in Sandwell since April 2018. The chief executive of Sandwell Children’s Trust is the chair of the Youth Justice Partnership Board. The head of service for the YJS and Interventions Hub also oversees DECCA (drug education, counselling and confidential advice), family group conferencing, the family solutions team, multi-systemic therapy, and Horizons (Harm Outside the Home (HotH) team). The YJS head of service reports to the director of Family Help and Protection, who in turn reports to the chief executive of Sandwell Children’s Trust.
Sandwell Children’s Trust used the ST*R Partnership Practice Model, a strengths-based, trauma-informed and relationship-based approach that aims to provide children and families with a consistent experience across the partnership network.
The youth justice annual plans 2025/2026 and 2026/2027 were developed in consultation with YJS practitioners, the YJS partnership board and children, and parents and carers. The plans identified five key priority areas: prevention and diversion; serious youth violence and exploitation; disproportionality; education, training and employment (ETE); and victims and restorative justice. A working group had been established for each priority area, and a member of the YJS partnership board had been appointed as a strategic lead to progress the respective action plans.
The YJS team consisted of a head of service, deputy head of service, and four team managers, each with responsibility for a specific area: out-of-court resolutions and court; statutory and post court work; specialist services; and Families First reform. The team also included four senior practitioners, a social worker, 10 YJS workers, a YJS worker supporting Families First reform, a resource coordinator, six sessional workers, three administrators, two speech and language therapists (covering one day each), a mental health practitioner, a seconded police officer, and two Remedi restorative justice practitioners.
The seconded probation officer post was vacant. In the interim, the Probation Service had agreed to provide funding for this resource. Although arrangements were in place with the Probation Service to support children’s transitions to adult services and to facilitate information-sharing, we identified instances where practice could be strengthened. Funding for the ETE mentor role through the shared prosperity fund had come to an end. The partnership had identified alternative funding and submitted a bid to secure a similar role in the future to support YJS children with their ETE needs.
In January 2025, Remedi were commissioned to undertake an external consultation on the YJS’s victim work. They were subsequently commissioned to deliver victim and restorative work on behalf of the YJS from 01 August 2025.
YJS data showed that the number of children requiring interventions had increased significantly since 2024. In addition to a rise in the number of referrals, the YJS was also supporting a cohort with increasingly complex needs. Resourcing had been increased to meet demand, and information provided by the YJS showed that staffing had grown by a third over the previous two years.
On the day of the inspection announcement, the YJS was supporting 147 children. Of these, 61 had received court disposals (56 community sentences, three in custody and two on licence); 69 had received out-of-court resolutions; five had received bail support packages; and 12 had been remanded to the care of the local authority or custodial establishments. The YJS and partnership board monitored and reviewed the number of children remanded or sentenced to custody, all of whom had been involved in serious offences, often involving a weapon.
The partnership had undertaken extensive multi-agency learning following serious incidents, and had implemented a coordinated approach to supporting communities, promoting early intervention, and engaging with children, parents or carers. The HotH panel had evolved from the multi-agency child exploitation meeting and had strengthened the partnership’s focus on contextual safeguarding approaches. The Horizons team supported children at risk of extra-familial harm by providing direct interventions to address exploitation, youth violence, harmful peer associations, weapon-carrying, missing episodes and online harms. During the inspection context visit, inspectors heard about the positive impact of Horizons, the YJS, community safety partners and the police in deploying disruption activities that supported the safety of children and communities. A Horizons support worker was based in a school to provide direct and early support for children at risk of experiencing harm outside the home. The partnership was also expanding the targeted preventative offer within schools.
The YJS and partnership had undertaken extensive work to understand and start to address the high number of first-time entrants (FTE), which stood at 176 per 100,000 population, compared to 126 per 100,000 population in England and Wales. Strategic work had been undertaken with the West Midlands police force area to understand the impact of policing approaches on outcomes for children.
During our fieldwork showcase meeting, the YJS demonstrated a range of creative and innovative approaches to delivering interventions. These included the use of virtual reality tools to help children understand the risks associated with carrying knives; engagement through the Midlands Art Centre music project; personalised reparation activities that met the needs of the child and victim; and the specialist support provided by Black Country Women’s Aid. We also met with a parent whose child had been the victim of a violent offence and heard their powerful reflection on the positive impact of Remedi’s restorative approaches.
Domain two: Work with children (Back to top)
We took a detailed look at 26 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. | Requires improvement |
Our rating2 for assessing is based on the following key questions:
| Does assessing sufficiently analyse how to: | % ‘Yes’ |
| achieve positive change for the child? | 92% |
| keep the child and the community safe? | 62% |
Assessing activity to support children in achieving positive change was a strength. The YJS had established partnership arrangements and effective information-sharing pathways. YJS practitioners drew on information from children’s social care services, the Horizons harm outside the home team, multi-systemic therapy team, the police, health services and education providers. We found examples where information had been obtained from the Probation Service. However, there were opportunities to strengthen this aspect of practice to ensure that practitioners had a consistent and holistic understanding of the Probation Service’s knowledge of key individuals involved in a child’s life.
Practitioners were committed and skilled at engaging with children. We found that children were actively and meaningfully engaged in their assessing activities. The voice of the child was captured, and this was supported by the use of child-focused questionnaires. Parents and carers were engaged in assessing activities, and where practice was strongest, this included the child’s primary caregiver and other significant carers involved in their life. Through its own audits of work with children, the YJS had identified the need to ensure the consistent involvement of both parents, particularly fathers living away from the family home, where it was appropriate to do so.
Analysis of children’s strengths and protective factors was commendable. Practitioners encouraged children to achieve by helping them to identify existing strengths and build on them. They also supported children to identify further goals, interests and hobbies, such as music, football, the gym, gardening, art and educational courses.
Children’s diverse needs were recognised and analysed in the large majority of instances. We found examples of sensitive assessing practice that considered children’s faith, ethnicity, disability and cultural identity. Practitioners identified the impact of children’s diagnosed neurodiverse needs and were responsive to recognising and responding to potential undiagnosed needs. Children’s experiences of trauma were frequently identified; however, there were opportunities to strengthen the analysis of how these experiences influenced a child’s presenting behaviours.
The quality of practice to keep the child and the community safe was inconsistent and required development. The YJS had access to a range of sources of information. However, this information was not consistently analysed to inform a holistic and cohesive understanding of the factors critical to achieving safety for both the child and the wider community. For example, previous incidents involving harmful sexual behaviours, aggression in the home, violence in the community, or abuse within personal relationships were documented but not always explored in sufficient depth. As a result, assessing activities did not consistently include a thorough analysis of the child’s current risks and the potential for future harmful behaviours.
Similarly, factors indicative of vulnerability and concerns linked to the safety of the child were known but not always sufficiently analysed to understand their implications for the child. Experiences such as peer violence, domestic abuse, bereavement and mental health concerns were not consistently integrated into assessing activity. This limited the YJS’s ability to develop a holistic understanding of how these experiences affected the child’s physical, emotional, and psychological safety.
Inspectors found several examples of strong assessing practice that identified and analysed concerns linked to exploitation. Where this was done well, practitioners drew together a range of relevant information, including intelligence about weapon-carrying, harmful peer associations, group assaults, incidents at school, and information shared by the child and their parents or carers. This resulted in comprehensive analysis that identified the interconnected effects of these issues on both the child’s wellbeing and the safety of the wider community. However, we also found instances where the assessing of some of these critical factors could have been strengthened by collating and analysing the available information more effectively.
The needs and wishes of direct victims were considered in the large majority of cases. Where this was done well, the victim’s voice and sense of safety were clearly taken into account, including by considering opportunities for restorative interventions. In a small number of examples, this had not occurred, resulting in missed opportunities to consider additional supportive measures to support the safety of the direct victim.
Management oversight was evident throughout assessing activity. However, its impact was variable. Inspectors found examples of detailed and effective management oversight that provided clear direction to improve the quality of assessing. We also found examples where management actions had been recorded but were not consistently followed up to ensure that practitioners had made the necessary adjustments and improvements to assessing activity.
| 2.2 Planning | Rating |
| Planning is well-informed, holistic and personalised, focusing on how to achieve positive change and keep children and communities safe. | Outstanding |
Our rating3 for planning is based on the following key questions:
| Does planning focus sufficiently on how to: | % ‘Yes’ |
| achieve positive change for the child? | 96% |
| keep the child and community safe? | 92% |
Children were actively and meaningfully involved in planning activities to achieve positive change. This was enhanced by dedicated planning meetings involving the YJS practitioner and the child and their parent or carer. These discussions and agreements were recorded in child-friendly plans. Children’s diverse needs were largely considered and appropriately reflected in planning activity. We found examples where arrangements enabled children to observe Ramadan, addressed the implications of physical disabilities, recognised caring responsibilities, and responded to children’s special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). In other instances, practitioners had taken time to understand the child’s and parents’ concerns about the perceived cultural stigma associated with referrals to mental health services.
Planning built on the strengths and areas of interest identified during the child’s initial assessing activities. Inspectors found examples of the use of sports-based activities, music, cooking, art, walks and talks, youth participation forums and mentoring support.
Planning was tailored to meet children’s individual needs and informed by an understanding of their preferred learning styles. Practitioners considered the length of sessions, use of visual aids, adaptations to language, and the need to take breaks. The location of sessions was also considered, with practitioners seeking children’s views about spaces in which they felt comfortable and safe. The potential impact of introducing additional professionals was considered sensitively. There were opportunities to introduce these gradually and to set up co-working arrangements to support the child and their parent or carer.
A strong partnership approach improved the effectiveness of YJS planning activities. The health triage panel, which included a mental health specialist, a speech and language therapist, the school nursing team and the DECCA service, supported collaborative planning to meet children’s health needs. This fortnightly forum enabled health professionals to share information and coordinate interventions.
ETE was a key element of YJS planning and focused on supporting children to either reintegrate into education or maintain their existing provision. The YJS recognised the critical role that ETE played in both promoting positive change and achieving safety. Planning for post-school provision was also evident, and we found several examples where joint work with colleges and training providers had been effective. However, we also found instances where stronger collaborative working with colleges could have ensured that decreasing levels of attendance and engagement were identified and responded to earlier.
There was evidence that planning appropriately identified factors linked to the safety of both the child and the community. We found examples where planning included interventions focused on knife crime awareness, exploring peer influences, exploitation, online safety, making positive choices, and understanding the impact of offending on victims. In several instances, collaborative work with the child and their parents or carers resulted in the creation of personalised safety plans.
Planning arrangements to promote the child’s safety and protect the wider community were closely aligned. This was a notable strength, particularly in cases involving harm outside the home, exploitation and serious youth violence. We found examples of timely, responsive and effective planning for children who were being exploited or identified as being at risk of exploitation. The HotH panels produced clear multi-agency plans that defined the roles and responsibilities of the YJS, police, Horizons team, health services, education providers, the community safety team, and children’s social care services. There was a strong focus on collaborative reviewing, responding to emerging circumstances, and adapting plans to promote the safety of the child and others.
Inspectors found examples where multi-agency mapping exercises had resulted in a coordinated approach to disruption activity. This was reaffirmed during the inspection fieldwork context visit, where we heard about the strength of partnership working both within Sandwell and across local authority boundaries to tackle locations and individuals posing a risk to children.
In addition to the HotH panels, the YJS was routinely invited to children’s social care planning meetings, including strategy discussions, child in need meetings, and child protection conferences. The YJS-led Risk, Safety and Wellbeing forum considered whether children’s needs and risks to themselves and to others were addressed through other multi-agency arrangements before agreeing on an appropriate course of action. Children’s social care and the YJS staff collaborated effectively, which gave them a shared understanding of their respective roles and responsibilities, helping to avoid duplication and reduce the likelihood of gaps in service provision.
In a small number of examples, we found that planning activities could have been strengthened through the direct involvement of the Probation Service in supporting children who were approaching adulthood.
| 2.3 Delivery | Rating |
| High-quality, well-focused, personalised and coordinated services are delivered, achieving positive change and keeping children and communities safe. | Good |
Our rating4 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? | 81% |
| keep the child and the community safe? | 73% |
Delivery of work with children was responsive to identified needs. Practitioners knew the children and their families well, and we saw the priority they gave to developing and maintaining effective working relationships with children. We found examples where they had used information about children’s interests to adapt work to promote engagement, including the use of music, art, technology, sports and access to mentoring services. Practitioners demonstrated persistence and tenacity in engaging with children and parents or carers who had struggled to engage with other professionals and services.
Overall, the delivery of services focused on supporting children to access and maintain ETE. Practitioners and YJS specialists advocated for children, and we saw several examples where this had enabled them to access work placements and training providers, and to reintegrate successfully into education. Children’s health needs were identified and supported, and we found examples where interventions had responded to concerns about the child’s anxiety, self-esteem and feelings of low mood. Substance use education sessions were delivered in ways that considered children’s learning style and personal circumstances.
Findings from speech, language and communication assessments informed adaptations to the delivery of services. Practitioners considered the length of sessions, use of simplified language, online interactive tools, scenario-based interventions, and the use of music and singing as engagement activities.
During the inspection showcase meeting, inspectors were presented with an impressive range of interventions available to children. We found evidence of the positive impact of these interventions through our inspection of casework. Children had accessed the Midlands Art Centre music project, virtual reality sessions focused on choices and the consequences of carrying weapons, Krunch mentoring support, and the Brotherland youth forum. We also found examples of effective collaboration with the Horizons team to deliver sessions focused on exploitation, peer influence and the importance of making positive choices. Victim awareness sessions were delivered sensitively by restorative justice practitioners. In several cases, these had led to restorative approaches involving both the victim and the child who had caused harm.
Practice to achieve positive change for children could be further strengthened by ensuring that coordination of the range of services delivering interventions is consistent and timely, including for community resolution cases, where assessing and delivery practices were undertaken by different teams. There was also an opportunity to further develop support for children as they approached the end of their involvement with the YJS, helping to ensure continuity of support.
Where delivery of services effectively promoted the safety of the child and the community, we found coordinated approaches where responsive information-sharing between the YJS, police, children’s social care, Horizons team and parents and carers resulted in timely action and adaptations to delivery of services to children. In several instances, information about children going missing, renewed associations with individuals posing a risk of harm, and intelligence relating to the carrying of weapons prompted a strong multi-agency response. This was further strengthened by the oversight and direction provided by the HotH meetings. Services often worked together to deliver interventions focused on knife crime and weapon awareness, healthy relationships, online safety and identity. Inspectors found several examples where the sequencing of these interventions had been purposely and sensitively considered to meet the child’s needs.
Inspectors found examples of impressive practice in promoting the safety of the child and the community. However, there were opportunities to achieve greater consistency by ensuring that the underlying factors contributing to a child’s harmful behaviour were always identified and remained a central focus of interventions. In addition, we found instances where information relating to changes in safety concerns were not shared in a timely manner to ensure that appropriate action was taken and relevant services engaged, including when children were in custody.
The safety of potential and actual victims was considered in a reasonable majority of cases. Where this was done well, interventions focused on developing the child’s awareness of the harm caused and exploring restorative approaches. We found examples where this had resulted in letters of explanation and shuttle mediation. In other instances, practice could have been strengthened by considering further the safety of potential victims, including family members and future partners.
Overall, management oversight supported the delivery of effective interventions. This was enhanced through multi-agency forums such as the YJS risk, safety and wellbeing panel, and the HotH meetings. However, greater consistency was required in respect of direct management oversight to ensure that actions identified to improve practice were implemented in a timely manner.
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 victims | Rating |
| Work with victims is high-quality, individualised and responsive driving positive outcomes and safety for victims. | Outstanding |
Our rating5 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 Sandwell YJS partnership board was well engaged and active in its contribution to, and resourcing of, work with victims.
- Remedi carried out a consultation on the YJS’s work with victims in January 2025. The YJS subsequently commissioned Remedi to deliver services. The YJS partnership board, YJS and Remedi had worked at pace to implement the findings of the consultation.
- The Sandwell youth justice plan identified work with victims as one of the service’s five key priorities. The partnership board had established working groups for each of these priorities, with a strategic lead appointed to drive improvement against the respective action plans. There were established links between Remedi, the partnership board and the range of strategic forums across Sandwell, including the Safer Sandwell Partnership Police and Crime Board and the Sandwell Children’s Safeguarding Partnership.
- A senior representative from Remedi was a standing member of the YJS partnership board. They presented quarterly performance data, which identified emerging trends and patterns, including any concerns related to over-represented or under-represented groups. The ongoing development of this area of work was underpinned by regular monitoring, evaluation and review of processes, services and outcomes for victims.
- Restorative justice practitioners and managers were passionate, reflective and empathic in their approaches to supporting victims. Inspectors found that operational activity to support victims was consistently high-quality, responsive and individualised. The needs of victims were well understood and the support offered effectively promoted victims’ safety and wellbeing. Victims who opted into services were supported to complete a victim impact statement and, where appropriate, a safety plan.
- Remedi had an existing information-sharing agreement with West Midlands Police. This enabled designated representatives from Remedi to access police systems to verify victim consent, victim contact details, preferred methods of contact, and information relating to individual and diverse needs.
- The Restorative Justice and Victims Policy and Procedure was reviewed in October 2025, jointly by the YJS and Remedi, shared with the victims working group, ratified by the YJS partnership board, and subsequently disseminated to the YJS team.
- Over the past 12 months, Remedi had strengthened relationships and processes with the Probation Victim Liaison Unit.
- Victims were provided with leaflets containing information about a range of universal and targeted support services available in Sandwell. Remedi and the YJS had positive working arrangements with Black Country Women’s Aid to ensure specialist support and interventions were available for victims and survivors of sexual violence, sexual assault and abuse through an independent sexual violence advisor or children’s independent sexual violence advisor.
- Practitioners working with victims were supported in a range of ways, including supervision provided by Remedi and the YJS, well-being supervision, counselling services, debrief sessions, team meetings, and an out-of-hours safeguarding support system facilitated by Remedi managers.
- Quality assurance and development processes included joint audit work undertaken by the YJS and Remedi, performance reviews, and observations of practice. Newly appointed restorative justice practitioners were supported through comprehensive induction arrangements, and there were extensive opportunities to undertake both role-specific and generic training.
- The YJS had developed a range of reparation projects, which were captured in a brochure and shared with victims to inform their views about reparation. Inspectors were impressed by the anecdotal examples of bespoke reparation activities created to meet victims’ needs.
- Feedback was actively and consistently sought from victims to ensure that their views and experiences informed service delivery and continuous improvement.
Areas for improvement
- Obtaining and recording of victims’ protected characteristics had been identified as an area requiring further development.
- There was a commitment to strengthening the analysis of consent rates and the profile of victims who did not consent to engagement with YJS victim services.
- Accreditation processes were not in place for reparation activities. However, work was progressing to implement a framework to ensure that these activities would be formally recognised and accredited in the future.
Participation of children and their parents or carers (Back to top)
Sandwell YJS demonstrated an impressive commitment to ensuring that the voices of children, parents and carers were central to shaping service delivery. The YJS Child and Parent Engagement Strategy was aligned to Sandwell’s Elevating Our Voice Participation Strategy (2026–2029). This set out a borough-wide approach to ensuring that children and families were informed about services, decisions and their rights; were actively involved in their assessment, planning and interventions; engaged in the co-production of services, interventions and environments; could influence decision-making at both operational and strategic levels; and see the impact of their contributions through feedback and change.
The YJS had established a range of structured and ongoing mechanisms for gathering feedback, including questionnaires, feedback collected at the end interventions and at the conclusion of the child’s involvement with the YJS, and an annual consultation that informed the YJS plan. The YJS had also produced an accessible version of the Youth Justice Plan 2025-2026: A Guide for Children and Young People and was keen to build on feedback from children and families to develop a similar resource to support the Youth Justice Plan 2026/2027.
YJS practitioners had worked collaboratively with children and parents or carers to redesign a dedicated office space and make positive child-friendly improvements to the police custody environment. Inspectors visited the YJS office and were impressed by the welcoming nature of the spaces, which included artwork created by children.
The YJS had established meaningful participation opportunities through the Unmute Us Justice youth forum, which had evolved from the YJS participation forum. Children had designed and renamed the group in recognition of the stigma that could be associated with the term ‘Youth Justice Service’. We heard that the forum provided an opportunity for children to come together, support one another, share their experiences and influence service design. Parents and carers were also invited to attend specific Unmute Us Justice sessions.
As part of the YJS’s annual survey, children were asked questions such as, ‘Why do you think some people commit violence?’ and ‘What can the YJS do to help?’ Responses were captured and communicated through a ‘You Said, We Did’ feedback approach for children and parents or carers. Survey findings indicated that children wanted support that felt more relevant and connected to their real-life experiences. In response, the YJS introduced more interactive learning opportunities, including the use of virtual reality headsets and online engagement tools.
Children also expressed a preference for services to engage with them in the places where they spent their time. In response, the YJS developed sessions for delivery through school assemblies and targeted group work in schools. In addition, the YJS worked in partnership with the youth service to strengthen its outreach offer and enhance the support available to children within their local communities. Feedback also highlighted that children wanted more opportunities to repair harm and make a positive contribution to their communities. In response, the YJS strengthened its restorative justice and reparation offer.
The YJS contacted, on our behalf, children who were or had been working with the YJS, to gain their consent and to enable them and their parents or carers to feed back on their experience of the YJS. We provided a variety of opportunities for children and their parents or carers to participate in the inspection process (text survey, one-to-one meetings, focus groups, and video or telephone calls). We received six responses to our text survey, facilitated telephone calls with a further three children and five parents, and met in person with a group of children and parents or carers.
Feedback from participants was overwhelmingly positive. We heard from children and parents or carers that they felt supported by the YJS, that they felt heard, and never felt judged. A child shared:
“They didn’t see me for the bad things, they saw me, for me.”
Parents told us that the YJS encouraged their children to identify goals and aspirations, which was a strength in the case work inspected. Children had been supported to try activities that they would not otherwise have accessed, such as boxing, music and joining a youth group. Children said that:
“They always knew I could do better.”
“The workers there are open and don’t make you feel like you’re constantly being judged and they frame questions around not just why you’re there but how they can help, the support you can receive, and they make the general environment more friendly than overall doom and gloom.”
During the showcase meeting, inspectors met a child who had been supported to access constructive activities and attend college. They spoke confidently about the work they had undertaken with the YJS to understand their behaviour and its impact on others. We also heard from another child who had benefited from developing new skills and increased confidence through their engagement in reparation activities. In both instances, it was evident that children had been supported to develop aspirations for their future.
Inspectors found a strong commitment to addressing disproportionality and delivering culturally responsive interventions. The Brotherland programme had been co-designed with children and was embedded within service delivery, providing a safe space for boys of Black heritage to share their experiences. Building on the success of the initial 2023 project, the YJS and participating children had developed an 11-week programme focused on exploring lived experiences, identity and empowerment through shared experiences. Inspectors heard that Brotherland was highly valued by children, who reported improvements in their confidence, communication and ability to express themselves. Children told us that the forum meant they could “talk freely with others who have experienced the same things”. A parent highlighted that “it’s positive that young black boys have this group to attend and share their thoughts.”
Consideration of safe places and spaces was a recurring feature of our feedback from children, parents and carers. We heard positive comments about the responsive approach taken by practitioners to facilitate sessions in home environments, schools, at the YJS office, and in the community.
Equity, diversity and inclusion (Back to top)
Sandwell Children’s Trust Equity Diversity and Inclusion Strategy 2025 to 2028 outlined its commitment to continue developing inclusive, diverse and equitable environments for staff, children, families and communities. The strategy outlined that the Trust had fully supported the approval of care experienced being a protected characteristic in Sandwell.
The YJS and its partnership board had an embedded commitment to equity, diversity and inclusion. Given the complexity and intersectional needs of children and families known to the YJS, addressing structural inequality was central to its strategic and operational objectives.
The youth justice plan 2026/2027 identified five key priority areas, including addressing the disproportionate number of Black and mixed heritage children involved in the youth justice system in Sandwell. A senior police representative chaired the multi-agency disproportionality working group and provided regular updates on progress against the action plan to the YJS partnership board. Achievements included the development of cross-partnership data sets, a detailed analysis of data to better understand patterns of over-representation and under-representation across YJS disposals and sentences, the establishment of community partnerships, and the commissioning of specialist training.
A strength of the disproportionality working group was its focus on evaluating the effectiveness of actions and their impact on addressing racial disparity. As a result, a systems change model was adopted in recognition of the scale of change required across agencies to address over-representation. The YJS partnership board, disproportionality working group and YJS leaders recognised that this was a long-term area of work requiring sustained commitment and investment to progress.
Sandwell YJS was part of the West Midlands Ethnic Disproportionality Pathfinder. Through this programme, Dignifi had been commissioned to deliver a coordinated package of workforce development. Senior leaders and members of the YJS partnership board had engaged in sessions focused on exploring the impact of racial trauma and compassionate leadership. YJS practitioners were scheduled to undertake targeted training by December 2026.
Inspectors were impressed with the evolution of the Brotherland project. As part of the YJS’s approach to addressing racial disproportionality and improving engagement with boys of Black heritage, a service was commissioned to work alongside children to develop a culturally responsive intervention. This resulted in the creation of Brotherland, a journal named and designed by children for other children.
The YJS outlined how the journal used culturally relevant materials and the use of art, creativity and reflective activities to promote engagement on topics such as identity, belonging, the influence of social media, peer pressure, masculinity, and future aspirations. Building on feedback from participants and learning from the project, the initiative had since evolved into the Brotherland group and the co-production of an 11-week programme. The programme combined structured topics with community-based experiences designed to strengthen cultural identity, promote a sense of belonging and enhance connections to positive local networks.
Data provided by the YJS on the day of the inspection announcement showed that the proportion of female children supported by the service had decreased from 19 per cent in 2024/2025, to 13 per cent. The YJS had analysed this and found that the increase had been linked to a specific co-offending group. The YJS had worked with children to create the sisterhood intervention, a gender-informed resource to support delivery of interventions with girls.
The specialist health triage panel enabled practitioners to be responsive to children’s emotional mental health and wellbeing, and speech, language and communication needs. We heard of how, with the guidance of the speech and language therapist, sessions had been adapted and were interactive to meet children’s learning styles.
Data provided by the YJS on the day of the inspection announcement showed that 46 per cent of children aged 16 and under were in full-time mainstream education, 34 per cent were in an alternative learning environment and 10 per cent were in part-time school. The number of children aged 16 and over who were not in education, training or employment was 41 per cent. We found examples where the multi-agency NEET (not in education, employment or training) panels had resulted in positive actions. However, this was an area of work that required further focus to ensure a consistent and holistic approach to meeting all children’s ETE needs.
The age profile of children supported by the YJS was primarily within the 15 to 17 age group. In our inspection case sample, 10 of the 26 inspected cases involved children aged 17 or above. While the YJS had benefited from practitioners with experience of working within the Probation Service, there was no seconded probation officer post to provide a formal bridge between the YJS and Probation Service’s young adults team. In addition, several children were not eligible for a formal transition to probation services. This created an opportunity to strengthen support for children to understand and prepare for the differences between youth-justice focused services and the support available in young adulthood.
As part of this inspection, we considered how the service responded to the diverse needs and protected characteristics of children and victims. The recording of victims’ protected characteristics was variable. However, once initial contact had been made with victims, inspectors found a personalised and tailored approach that supported victims to make informed choices about the services they received.
In the inspection of work with children, we found that assessing, planning and delivery considered the child’s diversity needs sufficiently in the majority of instances. Practitioners frequently demonstrated strong relational and responsive practice, tailoring their approach to meet children’s communication needs, maturity and emotional presentation. Where diversity was explored well, practitioners engaged children in meaningful conversations about their identity, including their heritage, culture, religion, experiences of trauma and experiences of discrimination. To further strengthen this work, the YJS had developed a diversity considerations guide to support practitioners to consistently consider and analyse children’s protected characteristics and wider needs related to diversity.
Data annexe (Back to top)
Press release (Back to top)
Further information (Back to top)
A glossary of terms used in this report can be found on our website.
This inspection was led by HM Inspector Caren Jones, supported by a team of inspectors and colleagues from across the Inspectorate. We would like to thank all those who helped plan and took part in the inspection; without their help and cooperation, the inspection would not have been possible.
Footnotes (Back to top)
- We carry out two types of inspections as part of the current youth inspection programme across England and Wales: inspections of youth justice work with children and victims (IYJWCV) and inspections of youth justice services (IYJS). Further information about these inspections can be found on our website Youth Justice Services – HM Inspectorate of Probation. ↩︎
- The rating for the standard is driven by the lowest score of the key questions, which is placed in a rating band, indicated in bold in the table. A more detailed explanation is available on our website Standards and ratings – HM Inspectorate of Probation. ↩︎
- The rating for the standard is driven by the lowest score of the key questions, which is placed in a rating band, indicated in bold in the table. A more detailed explanation is available on our website Standards and ratings – HM Inspectorate of Probation. ↩︎
- The rating for the standard is driven by the lowest score of the key questions, which is placed in a rating band, indicated in bold in the table. A more detailed explanation is available on our website Standards and ratings – HM Inspectorate of Probation. ↩︎
- The rating for the 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. ↩︎