Skip to content

All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated.

To view this licence, visit:
https://nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3

or write to:
Information Policy Team,
The National Archives,
Kew,
London TW9 4DU

or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.

This publication is available at:
https://hmiprobation.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk.

© Crown copyright

An inspection of youth justice work with children and victims in Tameside

Published:

Foreword (Back to top)

This inspection is part of our programme of inspections across youth justice services (YJS) in England and Wales.1 In this inspection we have inspected and rated work with children and victims in Tameside 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, Tameside YJS was rated as ‘Requires improvement’.

Tameside YJS and the broader partnership had faced a range of challenges which had impacted on the delivery of services to children and victims. We found an openness, transparency, and willingness to learn at all levels, combined with an aspiration for high-quality delivery to children, families, and victims. Senior leaders knew their service well, and a strengthening in stability and strategic grip meant there were foundations on which to build consistent effective practice. However, improvement in the commitment of the partnership and a maintained focus on driving improvement at pace were also required.

Practice to achieve positive change across assessing, planning, and delivery was a significant strength, achieved by skilled practitioners who formed trusted relationships and focused on building strengths. Children were engaged in education, training, and employment opportunities and positive community-based activities, reflecting their interests and aspirations. Access to specialist services, particularly speech and language therapy, and trauma-attuned interventions, supported this.

There was a clear distinction in the effectiveness of safety practice. Whilst safety of the child in planning and delivery was robust, safety of the child in assessing needed development. This was impacted by the need for prompt access to partnership information, to facilitate the identification and analysis of safety concerns. However, safety of the community, including victims, needed improvement across assessing, planning, and delivery. Too frequently, concerns relating to keeping others safe were overlooked or not sufficiently explored. The result was that key risks were not effectively considered, particularly in keeping potential or actual victims safe. Strengthening the quality and consistency in safety practice was a priority.

Staff working with victims were enthusiastic, committed, and focused on meeting victims’ needs. There was evidence of improvement activity through a dedicated victim action plan and a focus on victims in quality assurance. However, strategic oversight was underdeveloped, victim safety was inconsistent, and long-standing issues relating to victim consent and information sharing had not been resolved. Partners, the partnership board, and the YJS needed to better prioritise these factors to ensure victims received consistently high-quality, personalised, and safe services.  

Management oversight of work with children and victims was inconsistent in quality and at times absent. Improving oversight arrangements was critical to ensuring service delivery was effective and staff were well supported.  

In this report, we have made 11 recommendations to enable the YJS to build on its strengths and improve the delivery of services to victims, children, and families.

Martin Jones CBE
HM Chief Inspector of Probation

Ratings (Back to top)

Fieldwork started August 2026Score 3/12
Overall ratingRequires improvement

Work with children

2.1 AssessingInadequate
2.2 PlanningRequires improvement
2.3 DeliveryRequires improvement

Work with victims

V1 Work with victimsRequires improvement

Recommendations (Back to top)

As a result of our inspection findings, we have made 11 recommendations that we believe, if implemented, will have a positive impact on the quality of youth justice services in Tameside. This will improve the lives of the children in contact with youth justice services and better protect the public.

The Tameside Youth Justice Partnership Board should:

  1. oversee and drive the strategic direction of work with victims to ensure service delivery is comprehensive and of a consistently high quality
  2. improve information sharing and ensure consistent collaborative working by children’s services, education, health, and Greater Manchester Police with the youth justice service to promote high-quality work with children which is responsive to children’s needs and promotes safety.

The Tameside Youth Justice Service should:

  1. improve assessing, planning, and delivery practice in keeping the community safe to ensure consistently high-quality practice
  2. embed effective and consistent victim safety practice across all work with victims and children
  3. improve management oversight so it is consistently applied, robust, and drives high-quality work with victims and children
  4. embed with key partners, including the multi-agency complex safeguarding service, consistent high-quality practice in the identification and response to children who are at risk of criminal exploitation
  5. 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
  6. ensure a consistent approach which promotes and facilitates the positive involvement of parents and carers in assessing, planning, and delivery 
  7. improve the connectivity between the YJS and services for victims within Tameside and Greater Manchester.

Greater Manchester Police should:

  1. improve the police practice on victim consent and ensure victims are consistently aware of who their information is being shared with and fully understand the YJS victim offer
  2. improve the quality of information on victims’ individual needs and protected characteristics that is shared with the YJS to facilitate a more personalised approach to initial contact with victims, enhance analysis and understanding of the victim profile, and inform service development and delivery.

Background (Back to top)

We conducted fieldwork in Tameside YJS over a period of a week, beginning 03 August 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 04 August 2025 and 05 June 2026. We conducted 14 interviews with case managers, youth justice practitioners or the relevant line manager. We inspected the organisational arrangements for work delivered with victims and looked at cases where the YJS had undertaken contact with victims between 04 August 2025 and 05 June 2026. We also conducted interviews with staff and managers responsible for the delivery of this work.

Tameside is a metropolitan borough within Greater Manchester, located on the east of the city. It has a population of 239,643,2 10.4 per cent (24,965) of whom are children aged 10 to 17. Census data indicated that 78 per cent (17,817)3 of the 10 to 17 population identify as White, of whom 22 per cent indicated a minority ethnic heritage (5,014). Annual YJS data identified 10.7 per cent of the children with whom it worked as mixed heritage, compared to five per cent of children aged 10 to 17 in the borough, highlighting a significant overrepresentation.

At the time of the inspection, Tameside was ranked 44th in the index of multiple deprivation 2025, placing it in the 20 per cent most deprived boroughs in the country. Almost a third of children aged under 16, 32.5 per cent, were living in relative low-income families, and healthy life expectancy was below the national average, at 55.2 years for men and 56 years for women. The rate of one or more suspensions for secondary-aged pupils in Tameside, 13.41, was higher than the national rate of 7.32; the rate of permanent exclusions for school-aged children, 0.43 in 2024/2025, was higher than the national rate of 0.12 for the same period; and 21.5 per cent of secondary school age children had an education and health care plan (EHCP) or special education needs plan (SEN K) compared to 17.5 per cent nationally. Children known to children’s services were overrepresented in the YJS. Of the general population of children in Tameside, 4.62 per cent were children in need, 0.76 per cent were on child protection plans, and 1.1 per cent were cared for children, whilst YJS data indicated 12 per cent of children were children in need, 12 per cent were on child protection plans, and 15 per cent were cared for children. Consequently, the YJS operated in a context of complexity, vulnerability, deprivation, and intersectionality.

Prior to our inspection there had been a legacy of underperformance and instability in the senior leadership of children’s social care and education, evidenced by recent Ofsted and SEND inspections.4 A new strategic director for children’s services had been appointed in January 2025, with new assistant directors appointed through 2025, which meant there was a relatively new senior leadership team. There had also been instability in the YJS partnership board and youth justice head of service (HoS) role. A permanent HoS had recently been appointed, and there was increasing evidence of better strategic grip and improved oversight of the YJS.

The YJS was integrated into Tameside children’s services and part of the portfolio for the assistant director for early help, family help transformation, and youth partnerships. It was co-located with the cared for children, leaving care, fostering and adoption services, Tameside employment and skills, and ‘You Think’ sexual health care service. The YJS had a relational, trauma-informed, restorative practice model, which was aligned to child-first principles and had a strong focus on prevention.

The youth justice HoS held strategic responsibility for the YJS and managed two operational managers and two senior practitioners. A third operational manager joined in July 2026 to enhance management oversight in response to identified challenges in capacity. The operational managers had specialist lead areas and line-managed youth justice case managers and practitioners with generic caseloads. They also line-managed the youth engagement workers, with senior practitioners providing a supervisory and support role for these workers and the victim worker. Line management of the victim worker was provided by Remedi. Specialist workers included a police officer, probation officer, speech and language therapist (SALT), and child and adolescent mental health service (CAMHS) practitioner. An education, training, and employment (ETE) worker had recently been appointed, and the YJS commissioned support from the educational psychology service. There was a senior data analyst and dedicated business support.

There was a strong footprint of creative and effective SALT provision, offered on a graduated basis. Universally, the SALT provided case discussions and support to YJS staff, adapted intervention tools, created accessible information, provided training to staff in educational and care settings, supported parents or carers, and advised multi-agency YJS panels and forums. Targeted SALT support involved undertaking assessments, reviewing previous information on a child, developing communication passports, and educating parents, carers, and professionals working with a child on how to adapt their communication. This aimed to ensure every child could understand, participate, and be understood. Specialist SALT support was provided to a small number of children. This involved detailed assessments and reports that were shared with professional networks and supported other assessing or decision-making forums, such as EHCPs or courts. It also included developing communication passports, training professionals on communication strategies, individual interventions with children to build skills and understanding, and support transitions for children’s communication needs to be understood in future settings.

Trauma-informed practice was embedded, and enhanced by the seconded CAMHS practitioner, who provided consultations, assessments, case formulations, intervention planning, and acted as a conduit to other partner agencies. The ‘5Ps’ case formulation approach5 was used to understand children’s behaviour, both at an individual level and in the internal YJS risk management meeting. Youth engagement workers primarily worked on a preventative basis but would support children on out-of-court resolutions or court disposals if appropriate. By building trusted relationships with children, they facilitated engagement in positive activities. They had brokered strong links with community youth provisions which enabled children to access a wide variety of credible activities aligned to their interests and aspirations.

The YJS mainly worked with White boys aged 15 to 17. At the time of the inspection announcement, the YJS was working with 98 children: 13 were subject to court disposals and 23 to out-of-court resolutions, with the remaining children engaged in prevention or voluntary interventions. Annual YJS data reflected the strong preventative approach as 77 per cent of the caseload was prevention and diversion activity. Of the full youth justice cohort, 39 per cent of children were engaged in prevention work, 25 per cent in Turnaround support, 13 per cent had out-of-court resolutions, 13 per cent were subject to court disposals, five per cent bail or remand interventions, and one per cent resettlement. Reoffending of children subject to formal interventions was significantly lower than the national average and family group, and was decreasing, with the reoffending percentage at 19.2 per cent and a reoffending rate of 2.36. YJS data indicated that the use of custody had been consistently low for several years and was below the national and family group averages.

Domain two: Work with children (Back to top)

We took a detailed look at 14 cases where the YJS had worked with children, who were subject to bail, remand, community sentences, resettlement or out-of-court resolutions.

2.1. AssessingRating
Assessing is well-informed and personalised, effectively analysing how to achieve positive change and keep children and the community safe.Inadequate

Our rating6 for assessing is based on the following key questions:

Does assessing sufficiently analyse how to:% ‘Yes’
achieve positive change for the child?86%
keep the child and the community safe?43%

Assessing to achieve positive change was comprehensive. Practitioners consistently built trusted relationships with children, which enabled meaningful collaboration and ensured children’s voices and views were interwoven into assessing. This enabled a genuine understanding of children, the environment they lived in, and factors that had contributed to their offending. Where parents or carers were involved and supported assessing, it informed how relationships or changes in family dynamics impacted children and promoted awareness of their capacity to support their child to achieve positive change or safety. However, we saw examples of parents or carers not engaged in assessing, which undermined effectiveness; greater consistency was required.

Analysis of factors such as childhood trauma, experiences of care, family dynamics, relationships, mental health needs, neurodiversity, speech, communication and language needs, engagement in ETE, substance use, and peer relationships enabled a detailed knowledge of children’s lives, their context, and how this shaped behaviour, motivated offending, and connected to presenting risks. This also supported insight into a child’s capacity to change or the barriers they faced.

Identifying and analysing children’s strengths and protective factors was a consistent theme and central to effective assessing. Practitioners recognised the positive impact of children’s engagement in ETE, family or professional support networks, involvement in activities such as the gym, football or fishing, and their willingness to work with the YJS. They also explored and knew children’s aspirations, such as future education or employment or a wish for improved mental health and stability.     

The gathering and analysis of partnership information enhanced assessing. Where this was done well, it was informed by partner agencies such as children’s social care (CSC) and residential placements, and utilised specialist assessments, including SALT, EHCPs, CAMHS, AIM3,7 and previous YJS reports. This enabled a holistic understanding of children. However, at times inspectors identified that assessing had been compromised by absent, incomplete or delayed information sharing by partners, most notably the police, CSC, and education.

Assessing for safety was variable, particularly safety of the community. Factors contributing to safety were often identified, such as the impact of adverse childhood experiences, difficulties in emotional regulation, a lack of ETE, substance use, peer relationships or conflict, and unmet mental health or emotional wellbeing needs. However, these factors were not always fully considered or analysed. In some instances, children’s safety and vulnerability were prioritised and understood, but the interconnectedness of these risk factors to the safety of the community was not recognised. This was exacerbated by omissions in gathering partnership information or the lateness in sharing this with the YJS, specifically by the police, CSC, and education. This meant practitioners were not always fully aware of previous offending or behaviours of concern, which compromised a comprehensive analysis of the safety of others.

A more consistent approach to the identification and analysis of exploitation and harm outside the home was needed. While practice was stronger when considering children’s vulnerability to exploitation, this did not always translate into considering the risks children presented to others. There needed to be greater professional curiosity and exploration regarding incidents or behaviours attributed to exploitation, particularly where current or previous issues or concerns had been identified.   

There was variability in the consideration of victims’ needs, wishes, and safety in assessing practice. Although there were examples where assessing reflected the impact on victims and analysed the risk to actual or potential victims, this contrasted with instances where victims’ needs and wishes had not been considered, or where there was no or limited analysis of the safety of actual or potential victims. 

When assessing diversity, practitioners consistently identified children’s protected characteristics and individual needs. There was evidence of skilful analysis of the impact of trauma, being care experienced or neurodiverse, which was supported by access to specialist assessments or reports, including SALT, CAMHS and EHCPs. We also found some examples of sensitive and responsive practice, where the link between protected characteristics, lived experience, and identity were analysed. However, greater consistency and depth in understanding the impact of a child’s ethnicity, religion, heritage, culture, sexuality or gender identity on their lived experience, self-identity or experiences of discrimination was required. Assessing also needed strengthening to reflect the intersectionality of all diversity factors and individual needs.

Management oversight of assessing practice was variable. There were examples of effective activity in which oversight was analytical and reflective, identified gaps and directed further actions, and challenged safety judgements. The presence of
multi-agency forums such as child protection conferences, strategy discussion, and the YJS multi-agency risk and safety (MARAS) panel often, but not always, strengthened oversight of assessing. However, more frequently management oversight had limited impact. It did not identify omissions in partnership information or gaps in victim safety, and did not address the lack of, or limited, analysis regarding safety of the community. These arrangements needed strengthening to support consistently high-quality assessing practice.

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

Our rating8 for planning is based on the following key questions:

Does planning focus sufficiently on how to:% ‘Yes’
achieve positive change for the child?100%
keep the child and community safe?50%

Planning to achieve positive change was of high quality. There was strong evidence that children were actively engaged in planning, which was supported by the trusted relationship they had with practitioners. Open and honest conversations with children promoted collaborative and meaningful planning. There was evidence that parents or carers had been involved in planning, being both protective factors and supporting children’s engagement with the YJS and wider services. Where parental or carer involvement was absent, planning was weakened.

Planning reflected children’s interests, strengths, and protective factors. This included the planned engagement in positive activities such as the gym, football, baking, bicycle building via the ‘Cycle-ops’ project, and supporting creative interests through community projects, such as the ‘creative club’ and ‘Beats & Bars’, provided by Prime Active Communities community interest company. These planned opportunities supported children’s confidence and positive identity development, whilst providing sustained support beyond a child’s involvement with the YJS. Children’s engagement in ETE was central to planning, which reflected its role in supporting positive change and achieving safety. This included advocating for children’s attendance at school or college, often utilising SALT assessments or communication passports, identifying children’s aspirations and building these into the preparation for future employment, and ensuring any planned interventions did not conflict with children’s college or school timetables.

Where planning was collaborative with partners it was robust and responded to children’s needs and safety. This included joint working between the YJS, CSC, education providers, Branching Out substance misuse service, the leaving care team, and probation, alongside the SALT and CAMHS worker. Planning in these cases was characterised by clear roles and responsibilities which complemented each other and ensured effective communication to monitor progress. However, we also saw examples of fragmented planning with agencies working in parallel rather than together, the absence of key partners, the YJS not included in partnership planning, and a lack of ownership of planned interventions to promote safety. Primarily this related to CSC, the leaving care team, education, and health.

Planning for safety reflected assessing practice. The safety of children was stronger and considered. However, the safety of the community needed greater focus and prioritisation. There was evidence of planning to address factors such as emotional regulation, decision-making, anxiety and emotional wellbeing, family and peer relationships and influences, substance use, online safety and potential exploitation, healthy relationships, and consent. However, this contrasted with gaps in planning to address peer-on-peer violence and abuse, exploitation by peers to commit offences and cause harm, attitudes to violence,illegal driving and the associated risks, harmful sexual behaviour, and internet use. Where gaps occurred, this primarily linked to community or victim safety. Further, there was variability in the use of external controls to promote safety of the child and the community; greater consistency in their use would have enhanced planning.

Probation transition planning was a strength. It was supported by a locally developed toolkit which ensured planning was tailored and accessible to individual needs. However, this was not reflected in wider transition planning, particularly for care experienced children, where we saw significant delays in pathway plans and referrals to the transition panel for consideration of support from adult services.

Planning in relation to victims was inconsistent. There were examples of victims’ needs and wishes being considered, and indirect restorative interventions and victim awareness sessions planned, but this was not always evident. Planning for the safety of actual or potential victims was variable. Where there were shortfalls, safety was not considered in close personal relationships, there was an absence of protective measures regarding previous or current known victims, and no plans for controls or interventions to protect potential future victims.

Planning for children’s individual and diverse needs was variable. Practice was strong for neurodiversity, speech, communication and language needs, or experiences of trauma. This included the planned adaptation of resources, the use of communication strategies, and practical adjustments to the timing or length of sessions. This approach was supported by the SALT, through planned referrals or the use of SALT assessments or communication profiles. Practitioners were alert to children’s personal circumstances in planning, exploring the locations where children preferred to be seen and ensuring that planned sessions did not conflict with education or engagement in positive activities. However, planning for children’s ethnicity, religion, culture, heritage, sexuality or gender identity needs was inconsistent. While we saw examples of thoughtful planning, such as enabling a child to explore their culture and heritage, this approach was not consistent. Consideration of children’s lived experience, identity or exposure to discrimination relating to their protected characteristics was rarely considered. Planning also needed to ensure there was consideration of all the diverse and intersecting needs that the child presented.

Management oversight lacked consistency. Where it was strong, it rectified issues such as addressing victim safety or guided how interventions should be prioritised. In contrast, there were examples where management oversight and quality assurance processes had failed to identify or address shortfalls in planning, including missed opportunities to convene multi-agency professional meetings to escalate concerns and support planning that promoted safety. Multi-agency forums such as strategy and child protection meetings and the MARAS generally supported some effective planning. However, we saw examples where the MARAS had not identified gaps in planning or recognised instances where safety of the community needed to be strengthened.

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

Our rating9 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?93%
keep the child and the community safe?57%

Practitioners were skilled at developing and maintaining constructive and trusted relationships with children and parents or carers. They were able to have open, honest, and challenging conversations, which resulted in them knowing and understanding their children and families well. This enabled them to respond effectively to their needs. The approach was also evident in the interactions by specialist staff such as the SALT, CAMHS practitioner, and youth engagement workers. This reflected the relational and strengths-based approach to practice, which was the foundation to facilitating positive change as it enabled meaningful engagement and positive interactions with children and families.

Delivery reflected children’s needs, interests, and aspirations, which enhanced their strengths and protective factors. There was evidence of practitioners supporting or advocating for children to engage in positive activities such as cooking, Samson’s gym, the Cycle-ops project, football, and creative and arts-based projects, such as the ‘creative club’ and ‘Beats & Bars’. The strong focus on ETE translated into delivery with practitioners and the SALT advocating for children to maintain school or college placements or promoting the adaptation of provision which enabled children’s successful engagement. Children were supported to gain qualifications or engage in activities that supported their longer-term career aspirations, such as becoming a mechanic, working in construction or being a personal trainer. In some instances, this was enabled through the provision of youth mentors by Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service or the support of the youth engagement workers.

The partnership approach in delivery was varied. We saw evidence of some strong multi-agency practice, in which the professional network supporting children took responsibility for their elements of delivery, shared information promptly, collectively responded to new or emerging concerns, and monitored children’s progress. This included practitioners from CSC, schools and college, placement providers, Branching Out, secure estate providers, and probation, as well as the SALT and CAMHS practitioner. The SALT played a critical role in assessing and developing understanding of a child’s needs and functioning, which partners then used to inform their own practice with the child. In contrast, there were examples of professional networks where information was not shared or was provided late, delivery was disjointed, there were frequent changes in allocated workers, particularly children’s social workers, and there were significant delays in the provision of services such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) assessments or effective transitions. This was most prevalent in CSC (including leaving care), education, and health, which reflected the broader challenges within the partnerships in Tameside. There were also issues about access to police information, exacerbated by capacity issues. In instances where there were challenges in the multi-agency partnership, YJS practitioners were tenacious in their efforts to engage partners or access the services for children, and on occasion would compensate for the shortcomings of partner agencies. The variability in the operation of multi-agency partnerships also impacted the effectiveness of exit planning. 

Delivery in relation to transition was variable. We saw evidence of strong practice in probation transitions, facilitated by a locally developed toolkit, which resulted in individualised and responsive practice. However, transitions in care, education, and health settings or in transition to adulthood were less effective in meeting children’s needs or considered too late.

Shortfalls in assessing and planning permeated delivery in safety. While delivery was stronger in response to children’s safety, practice to keep the community safe needed to improve. There was evidence of interventions to address children’s experiences of trauma, substance use, emotional wellbeing and mental health, healthy relationships, consent, online safety, and experiences of domestic abuse. Whilst some of these topics supported the safety of others, this was not of sufficient depth or fully responsive to the presenting risks. We saw omissions in addressing violence, aggression and emotional dysregulation, the influence of peers on children’s propensity to commit harm-related behaviour, not fully responding to harmful sexual behaviour risks, and not focusing on driving related interventions, when this was a key factor for the safety of others.

Delivery to keep children safe was variable in dealing with exploitation. We saw some examples of effective practice where information from the complex safeguarding daily briefings supported a multi-agency and professionally curious response. This enabled an understanding of the risks, associated safety planning, and supported intervention delivery. However, there was also evidence that exploitation concerns – such as multiple missing episodes – were not fully explored, exploitation screenings or assessments were not completed despite indicators of risk, there was a lack of collaborative working with parents, no or limited interventions to promote safety, and failure to act on directed actions from managers or risk forums.  

Practice regarding victim safety also compromised the effectiveness of delivery to keep others safe. Whilst there were examples where victim safety was considered and responded to, this contrasted with victim impact statements not being acted on, insufficient understanding of the ongoing risks to victims, and a lack of activity to manage the safety of actual or potential victims.  

Diversity practice lacked consistency in delivery. Adapting practice and being cognisant of children’s neurodiversity, experiences of care, and trauma histories were a strength. The SALT was intrinsic to this as they provided consultations, completed assessments, and produced communication profiles that guided communication strategies and adaptations to delivery. These were shared with partner agencies to support their engagement with children. Responsiveness to care experience children was evidenced through transparent and sensitive conversations which explored the impact of care on identity, as well as practitioners actively challenging discrimination. We saw examples of culturally informed conversations and activities with children which enabled them to explore and develop an understanding of their religious and cultural heritage, alongside reflecting on their experiences of discrimination and racism. The basis for this practice was facilitated by practitioners having the confidence to have uncomfortable and challenging conversations with children. However, this approach was grounded in the skills and competence of individual practitioners rather than an embedded organisational approach. Improvements were also needed to ensure that diversity practice in delivery reflected the intersectionality of children and their families’ needs.

Inconsistency in management oversight continued in delivery. Where it was effective, progress on interventions was monitored, actions were set and followed up, and the rationale for decision-making was recorded. We saw examples where supervision provided space for reflection and there was a focus on safety for the child and community. In contrast, management oversight was not always recorded and, where it was, it did not necessarily have a positive impact in supporting and driving high-quality practice. Shortfalls included the limited identification of omissions in practice, failure to address drift and delays in intervention delivery, inconsistent tracking of actions to ensure they were completed and effective, and a lack of escalation to challenge and hold partners to account.

Work with victims (Back to top)

We took a detailed look at 12 victim cases where the YJS had offered a service to victims who consented for their information to be shared.

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

Our rating10 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

  • There was a commitment to developing and improving work with victims, demonstrated by a dedicated strategic priority in the three-year youth justice plan, 2024-2027, and a specific victim action plan.
  • Two dedicated strategic leads for victims on the partnership board had recently been identified. These board members were of sufficient seniority and in a strong position to drive a focus on work with victims and address challenges in current operational police practice.
  • The YJS and Remedi had jointly undertaken a comprehensive self-assessment of victim work against the Inspectorate victim standard. The identified areas for development had been incorporated into a detailed victim action plan. This was monitored quarterly at an operational and senior leadership level.   
  • The YJS had implemented a new quality assurance framework which gave parity to the auditing of work with victims alongside auditing work with children. It included a ‘victim thread’11 aimed at ensuring the needs, wishes, and safety of victims were considered in supervision, quality assurance of assessing and planning with children, and dedicated audit work. Joint auditing activity had been undertaken by the YJS and Remedi.
  • The combination of the victim self-assessment, the victim action plan, and the quality assurance framework meant the YJS knew its strengths and areas for development well. 
  • There was an authentic learning culture throughout the service, which extended to developing and improving the quality of work with victims.
  • The YJS had delivered training to police officers within the Tameside borough about the YJS victim offer and the importance of gaining and recording victims’ consent to share their information with the YJS.
  • Mitigations to address the issues of consent had resulted in an increased victim contact rate following referral and facilitated a high level of victim engagement.  
  • Staff working with victims were enthusiastic and committed practitioners who were keen to learn and develop their practice. They were skilled at facilitating engagement and building relationship with victims and demonstrated tenacity when trying to access support for victims.
  • Staff working with victims had a comprehensive induction and training programme which supported them to develop the necessary skills to work effectively with victims. This included access to the YJS training offer, which enhanced their skill development.
  • There had been acknowledgement that the range of responsibilities for practitioners working with victims were extensive. Consequently, victim champions had been identified for victim awareness work and reparation to add value and capacity to service delivery.
  • There had been a focus on developing and improving operational practice in victim safety for all YJS staff. This had included the delivery of victim safety training by Remedi and the YJS. It had been recognised that further work was required to embed learning into practice, but it was encouraging that this had been identified, prioritised, and delivered. 
  • The YJS victim offer was wide-ranging and complemented by access to the CAMHS and ETE specialist. Where victims engaged in support provided by the YJS, this was victim led and determined by their needs; it was not curtailed by the disposal or intervention provided to the child who had caused the harm.
  • The initial victim contact assessment tool was effective at shaping initial assessing activity with victims. This needed to be applied consistently and reflected in victim case recording.
  • Staff working with victims were integrated and embedded into the YJS. This facilitated the sharing of victim impact statements, enabled collaborative working to deliver indirect restorative work between victims and children who had caused harm, and in some cases promoted access to specialist support for victims. 
  • A comprehensive victim and restorative justice policy was launched in March 2026 which provided a framework for operational practice. This would be strengthened by greater clarity on performance monitoring, quality assurance, line management responsibilities, and connectivity to victim support services.
  • The footprint of victim work and safety within wider YJS policies demonstrated a commitment to consider and prioritise the needs of victims at every stage of youth justice service delivery. 
  • There was a commitment to develop and improve victim feedback processes, including aligning these to the approach in place for supporting children’s participation, so victims’ views and experiences were gathered throughout the duration of their contact with the YJS.

Areas for improvement

  • The YJS partnership board’s focus on the strategic direction and oversight of victim work to ensure it was of high quality and responsive to victim’s needs was underdeveloped. Because oversight was by the operational delivery group, rather than the partnership board, victim work did not attract the appropriate level of scrutiny or strategic priority.
  • The partnership board did not have a comprehensive understanding of the victim profile, the quality of services or challenges in work with victims. It had recognised that reporting of demographic information, performance data, and quality assurance work to the partnership board was needed to enable it to drive the strategic direction actively and oversee improvement activity.
  • A more comprehensive and analysed dataset to understand the victim profile and victim needs, including information on victims’ protected characteristics, individual needs, and the uptake of services, was required. Work had started but it required the commitment and support from all partners, particularly Greater Manchester Police.
  • There was a lack of understanding regarding the reasons why victims had not consented to or engaged with the YJS victim offer.
  • There was a lack of clarity on victim consent arrangements, and victims had not necessarily fully understood what they were consenting to when they agreed for their information to be shared. Although mitigations had been instigated and activity planned at a regional Greater Manchester level to resolve this, there needed to be an urgent focus to expedite a resolution. 
  • While the challenges in consent arrangements were known and understood at a Greater Manchester level, they had not been escalated to the partnership board to ensure this critical aspect of victim work had the appropriate level of scrutiny and action.
  • Management oversight and supervision of practitioners working with victims was ineffective and insufficient. There was no recorded evidence of management oversight in the victim cases inspected. Significant improvement was needed to ensure victim work was effective and of high quality, particularly given the nature of the offences that victims had been subjected to and their vulnerabilities.
  • Assurances were needed that all practitioners and managers involved in the oversight of victim work had the necessary skills, knowledge, and experience to ensure high-quality and effective work with victims.  
  • Practitioners were highly motivated to meet the needs of victims, which was commendable. However, activity was required and effective oversight needed to ensure that workers understood the practice framework, the boundaries to their role, and the availability of other victim services or support that best met and responded to victims’ needs.
  • Whilst it was indicated that practitioners working with victims had manageable workloads, there was evidence of drift and delay in the victim cases inspected. This suggested there were competing priorities and limitations in effective oversight. 
  • Initial contacts with victims had been prompt but were not consistently personalised. This was compromised by the quality of the information and lack of detail on victims’ protected characteristics and individual needs in the referral information received from Greater Manchester Police. This had been recognised and activity to address this was planned at a regional Greater Manchester level. 
  • Victim safety practice in the direct work with victims was inconsistent. While we saw some examples of sufficient practice, more frequently victim safety was not identified and responded to, or where it was considered, corresponding activity did not sufficiently address the presenting risks.
  • The YJS was not effectively linked to strategic victim forums within Tameside or Greater Manchester. This hindered improvement activity and effective links between the YJS to other victim services within the borough.
  • Although there were a wide range of victim services available across Tameside and the Greater Manchester area, the YJS was not always aware of these, and there was limited connectivity to, or use of, these broader victim provisions. 
  • There was a gap in provision for children who were victims of sexual harm when the investigation had been concluded and the child who committed the offence had been made subject to youth justice disposals.
  • Whilst there was a reparation offer and victims were consulted on and could influence the projects in which children were engaged, the availability of meaningful community reparative work was limited. This had been recognised and a champion identified to increase capacity and diversify the reparation offer. 
  • There had been no recent training on restorative practice or restorative justice facilitation for all YJS staff to ensure a collective and consistent approach to work with victims.
  • The victim and restorative justice policy had not been fully embedded in operational practice; further activity was needed to ensure alignment to the policy and its consistent application in service delivery.
  • Although there was a documented pathway between the YJS and probation victim contact scheme, the infrequency in its use meant that a consistent and shared understanding of how to apply this to practice was needed.
  • There were victim feedback mechanisms to collate victims’ views on the service and support they had received. However, it had been acknowledged that the limited response rates had hindered their use to shape service delivery, and improving victim feedback was a priority in the victim action plan.

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

Tameside YJS was integrated into the children’s services directorate and contributed to the development of a directorate-wide children and young people’s participation strategy. The YJS had its own focus on embedding meaningful participation and had implemented a dedicated participation strategy. There was an aspiration for children to influence service delivery at individual, operational, and strategic levels. It had six priorities centred on: consultation and co-design; recruitment; workforce development and culture; accessible information; promoting credible and valued opportunities for children’s development; and gathering and using feedback. An action plan had been created which tracked progress against the priorities.

At each partnership board the voices and achievements of children were heard, with examples demonstrating the impact and value of the YJS. A youth advisory council that comprised justice-involved children had recently been created, supported by the SALT who guided engagement methods and helped facilitate the session. The initial focus had been on the importance of respect and practitioners’ skills to build trusted relationships. A dialogue between the partnership board and the advisory council was planned so that children could be involved in service co-design and strategic decision-making. Regionally, children had been consulted on the Greater Manchester police and crime plan, resulting in the addition of a priority on children’s experiences of police custody. Children also contributed to a Greater Manchester youth justice voice and influence group.

YJS staff were trained in participatory youth practice,12 and had recently been trained in the ‘Lundy’ model of participation.13 This provided the framework and culture to participation in the YJS. A participation champion and manager had been identified to lead on developing practice, with the SALT integral to any activity. The YJS was working with Manchester Metropolitan University on having conversations with children about their risk; this included consultation with the researcher. While in the initial stages, the aspiration was to develop a collaborative approach to risk management with children in assessing, planning, and any oversight panels.

Children were embedded in recruitment at all levels, from operational staff to senior leaders, including the recent appointments of three assistant directors, the HoS, an operational manager, and the ETE practitioner. The SALT had created accessible information and documents including a visual interview to inform the development of the strategy, new referral order contracts, revised compliance paperwork, and one-page staff profiles that were sent to children before they met their worker. Feedback mechanisms were developing with the use of QR codes and volunteers calling children at the end of their disposals. A ‘you said, we did’ feedback loop was planned. Initial analysis of feedback by the YJS was positive; it had received an average star rating of 4.92 from children.

The YJS, on our behalf, contacted children, parents or carers with whom it had currently or recently worked with, for consent to provide feedback on their experiences. We provided various opportunities for children, parents or carers to participate in the inspection process. We received eight responses to our text surveys, in which we asked two questions, ‘how do you rate your YJS?’ and ‘how much has the YJS helped you stay out of trouble?’, using a scale of one, the lowest rating, to 10, the highest. The lowest response was seven with most respondents rating the service between eight and 10. Comments included:14

“I feel respected when I am there.”

“I go on activities like football which distracts me and stops me from getting in trouble.”

We spoke to six children and nine parents or carers through telephone calls or face-to-face meetings. All respondents indicated that they had got a say on the things that affected them and they felt listened to, respected, and valued. They said:

“My worker talks to me and asks for my opinion. I feel listened to.”

“Due to my child’s needs, contact was always made with me, I got asked my opinion and got to have a say in everything, including the support my child may need.”

Children, parents or carers indicated that their individual identity and needs were met either ‘very well’ or ‘quite well’. Everyone said that their children’s safety, what was going on in their lives, and where they were seen had been considered. They stated:

“I am a Muslim and they helped me understand my culture and identity. I wanted to explore my religion, and a staff member took me to Mosque which I had never done before. They change sessions when I am on Eid and Ramadan, and my curfew so I could celebrate Eid. They helped me pray and now we go together regularly.”

“ …  has been struggling with identity as we live in a predominantly White area, so [my child] has struggled to fit in. YJS have ensured they allocated an Asian worker.”

“they’ve helped me by regulating my anger and stuff, and social media management a lot of stuff on that as well. I have started some sexual health work.”

Themes identified in feedback from children, parents or carers reflected findings in our inspection of work with children. This includes the impact of the SALT, a focus on ETE, and efforts to engage children in positive activities. They said:  

“After SALT screening and assessment, they helped me chase up CAMHS for a diagnosis … SALT gave advice on how to communicate better, so we have all adapted our way of communicating. The report has been shared with school. [My child] has not been in school for over one year as the school were unsure how to manage him. He will be going back in September, which is positive.”

“SALT got involved and has supported EHCP meetings. They have built trust and just been really amazing getting [my child] involved in hiking, fishing, bike workshop.”

“I have accessed a mentorship with GMFRS [Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service], got a Level 3 Diploma in Mechanics and they are helping me get my GCSEs.”

“[My child] was struggling in ETE and not wanting to attend. The service referred to Tameside Futures and [my child] will start maths and English in September.”

“They have tried to get him out of the house and engaged in positive activities and provided support with sorting out education.”

We asked children, parents or carers to give examples of what was good about working with the YJS, and if there was anything they would change. They were consistently positive regarding their experiences. They reflected:

“The YOT in Tameside has been brilliant. It’s not for everyone but it’s helped me massively and people I know. I still mess up a tiny bit, but I have not been arrested for the past 2.5 years.”

“They helped me find out who I am. I used to be bullied and struggled with my mental health. I have lived lots of different lives. If I didn’t have them, I’d probably be in cells.”

“The worker is genuine, sincere and very understanding. I really appreciate the help and support. It has been a family approach, rather than just working with my child.”

Equity, diversity and inclusion (Back to top)

There was a strategic commitment to addressing disproportionality evidenced by a dedicated priority in the youth justice plan 2024-2027. However, progress against this was limited, and so the response to disproportionality was underdeveloped. This was attributed to instability in the senior leadership of the YJS and the wider partnership. The partnership board and strategic leaders had recognised that this was an aspect of practice where greater focus was needed. One area where improvements had been made was the partnership performance dashboard. Whilst this was still developing, there had been significant improvements in the breadth and depth of the data collated to inform an understanding of the profile of YJS children. The dashboard now encompassed data on age, gender, ethnicity, neighbourhood, ETE status, CSC status, health needs for neurodiversity, mental health, substance misuse, and vulnerabilities including exploitation, school exclusion, and EHCPs. More detailed analysis of the data and what this meant for overrepresentation was required to inform and shape the partnership and YJS response. Positively, it had been planned to utilise this data, combined with an understanding of children’s experiences from the current participation activity, to develop an overarching disproportionality strategy. This strategy would be enhanced if it considered victims.

Operationally, there had been a stronger response to equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) but this still required development. A comprehensive EDI policy had been developed and implemented at the start of 2026. This set out the principles and aims for the YJS, considered diversity in its broadest context, recognised marginalised and overrepresented groups of children and victims, as well as identifying the impact of intersectionality. It provided a framework for practice which covered the approach to working with children, language communication, challenging discrimination, workforce development and representation, partnerships and commissioning, and governance and monitoring. A particular strength was a detailed and dedicated section on victim work. Embedding this policy in practice was embryonic, but signs of its impact were emerging.

The introduction of the policy had been complemented by the identification of EDI champions who promoted and supported practice development. There had been focused training to upskill staff on topics including ‘social graces’,15 anti-racist practice, adultification, working with LGBTQ+ children and young people, incels, the manosphere and misogyny, understanding trauma and neurodiversity in children, and understanding EHCPs. The impact of this training had been reflected in some of the diversity practice inspectors saw in the work with children. We saw examples of staff having the confidence to have conversations with children about their protected characteristics, their identity, and experiences of discrimination and racism, as well as how best to support and advocate for them. Further work was required to ensure this was intrinsic to the practice of all staff working with children and victims.

At an operational level, the YJS had resources to respond to children’s diverse needs. The SALT and CAMHS practitioners provided consultations, assessments, and direct interventions which responded to children’s identified and unmet needs. They provided advice and guidance on strategies and adaptations to interventions to ensure they were accessible to children and supported effective engagement. This included the use of communication passports, adapted tools using storyboards or visual aids, talking mats, and the use of the 5P’s approach to case formulation. These techniques and tools were shared with professionals and organisations working with children to secure effective support and engagement in a range of settings. The strengths seen in diversity practice in neurodiversity, speech, communication and language needs, trauma and working with care experienced children reflected these embedded specialists.

As part of a pilot, the SALT had delivered dedicated training to Tameside alternative provision using a whole-setting approach. This promoted a collective responsibility across the organisation in respect of children’s communication needs. The impact of the training was that staff confidence had increased, practice had changed, children’s behaviour was better understood, and children had made better than expected progress in their education. The training had promoted a more inclusive environment in which children’s needs were met. The wider application of this preventive approach in other settings was being explored.

The specialist needs of girls had been recognised. A dedicated girls’ champion facilitated the sharing of effective practice and provided advice and guidance to the wider staff team. They attended quarterly meetings as part of the Greater Manchester working with girls protocol, which sought to reduce overrepresentation, listen to the voices of girls, and share effective evidence-based resources. A dedicated resource for girls had been developed which focused on online safety, identity and self-esteem, recognising misogyny, gender stereotyping, intimacy, and healthy relationships. The group had planned further activity to develop an intervention for boys on positive masculinity.

EDI practice in work with victims was variable. The EDI policy had a dedicated section on victims which provided a comprehensive practice framework, but this was not operationally embedded. There had been attempts to collate data on victims’ protected characteristics and individual needs, but this was limited and hindered by shortfalls in the quality of information received from Greater Manchester police. Data that was collated had not been analysed or shared effectively at strategic or operational levels. The personalisation of initial contacts with victims had been compromised by the limited information in police referrals about victims’ protected characteristics or individual needs. The impact of the quality of police information had been recognised and regional activity was planned. There were inconsistencies in the response to victims’ diverse needs when they received ongoing support from the YJS, due to limitations in the access to the YJS specialist staff and limited connectivity to wider community-based services.

Future planned activity to enhance the response to EDI included: a rolling programme of learning and a reflective practice session to support staff development and confidence; work with the Youth Endowment Fund’s race equity associate to provide support and workshops on race equity in diversion approaches; a review of all YJS policies to ensure there was an EDI focus; and enhanced quality assurance to enable consideration and reporting on cultural responsiveness and anti-discriminatory practice in service delivery. The creation of a new multidisciplinary case panel was also planned, to review all new referrals of children to ensure prompt identification and response to any unmet health needs and vulnerabilities.   

Data annexe (Back to top)

Tameside Youth Justice Service data annexe (XLSX, 130 KB)

Press release (Back to top)

Tameside Youth Justice Service, rated ‘Requires improvement’ following inspection

Further information (Back to top)

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

This inspection was led by HM Inspector 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.

Footnotes (Back to top)

  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. Office for National Statistics (July 2025). ‘UK population estimates mid-2024’. ↩︎
  3. Office for National Statistics, ‘Census 2021’. ↩︎
  4. Ofsted independently inspect the quality of local authority children services departments in respect of their leadership, ability to protect vulnerable children, support families, and care for looked after children and care leavers. Special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) inspections are conducted by Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission to assess the quality of education, health, and care provisions for children and young people aged 0-25. ↩︎
  5. 5Ps psychological formulation – a framework that supports assessing practice by considering and analysing information in respect of five factors: presenting, predisposing, precipitating, perpetuating, and protective factors. ↩︎
  6. 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. ↩︎
  7. Assessment, Intervention and Moving On (version 3) is a specialist, dynamic assessment and support framework for adolescents who display harmful sexual behaviour.  ↩︎
  8. 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. ↩︎
  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 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. ↩︎
  11. The YJS had developed a quality assurance framework in which there was a ‘victim thread’ – when a victim case was audited, the impact of the offence, as well as the victim’s wishes, needs, and safety, was tracked into an audit of the case related to the child who had caused the harm to ensure these had been reflected in the work with the child.  ↩︎
  12. Participatory youth practice is an evidence-based, research-informed framework for youth justice practice, developed through co-creation and participatory research with justice-involved children in Greater Manchester. ↩︎
  13. The Lundy model conceptualises a child’s right to participation and consists of the four elements of activity, including space, voice, audience, and influence. ↩︎
  14. All quotes are directly from children and their parents or carers. ↩︎
  15. Social graces (John Burnham, 1993) is an acronym (gender, geography, race, religion, age, ability, appearance, culture, class, education, employment, ethnicity, spirituality, sexuality, and sexual orientation) and tool used to describe aspects of personal and social identity which afford people different levels of power and privilege. ↩︎