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 services in Lancashire

Published:

Foreword (Back to top)

This inspection is part of our programme of inspections across youth justice services in England and Wales1. In this inspection, we have inspected and rated work with children and victims in Lancashire Youth Justice Service (YJS) across three broad areas: the arrangements for organisational delivery of the service, the quality of work done with children working with the YJS, and the quality of work with done with victims.

Overall, Lancashire YJS was rated as ‘Good’.

This inspection took place in the context of significant public scrutiny following the tragic events which occurred in Southport in 2024 and the ongoing public inquiry. These events had, understandably, prompted important questions about the work of agencies responsible for supporting children, assessing risk, and protecting the public. It is right that such agencies were subject to thorough examination and that agencies appropriately identified learning and made improvements where needed.

As an independent inspectorate, our role is to provide assurance to government, partners and the public about the quality of YJS being delivered and the extent to which they met the needs of children, victims, and the community, measured against our standards. As with all YJS inspections, we assessed Lancashire YJS against our published youth justice inspection standards. These standards set the expectations regarding how YJS deliver services and focus on how effectively YJS work with children to keep them and others safe, how victims are protected and supported, and how partner agencies work together to safeguard the public and promote positive change.

As part of our inspection, we also examined how the YJS had identified, responded to, and embedded learning from serious incidents. Additionally, we considered how governance, leadership, staffing, partnerships, and services combined to provide the resources, oversight and support needed to undertake highly complex work. We found the YJS demonstrated a culture focused on learning and a clear commitment to continuous improvement.

We found strong leadership and a clear commitment to development and ongoing improvement. Senior leaders had established a positive organisational culture underpinned by a clear vision and a depth of understanding of local needs and priorities.

Lancashire YJS worked with children who presented complex needs and vulnerabilities. We found it had maintained a clear focus on supporting children to achieve positive change and keep them and the community safe, while also responding to changing patterns of offending, including exploitation and serious violence.

Work with children was a strength. Staff were well supported, motivated, and committed to achieving positive outcomes with children. Practitioners built effective relationships with children and their families, developed thorough understanding of children’s circumstances, and delivered interventions which encouraged engagement and supported sustainable desistance from offending. We saw thoughtful, responsive practice, delivered by staff who remained focused on the welfare of children and the safety of others.

The YJS demonstrated a commitment to supporting victims effectively. Victims’ needs and wishes were identified and considered, and appropriate support was made available for those victims wishing to engage with the YJS. Children who had caused harm were appropriately held to account and supported to understand the impact of their behaviour on others.

However, while the YJS had many strengths, there remained areas where improvement was required.

Governance arrangements needed to be strengthened through more consistent attendance and engagement from management board members. The board needed to take a more proactive role in oversight and challenge, particularly to address some of the barriers children faced in accessing services and support.

While we were assured that, where the YJS was supervising a child, practitioners made sustained and determined efforts to secure access to the services and interventions they needed, addressing long-standing systemic barriers required stronger support, greater governance, and collective action from the management board and partner agencies. Although the board recognised the importance of access to education, training and employment, and its role as a key protective factor, access to education, training and employment opportunities for children were inconsistent.

The partnership was developing its response to serious youth violence. However, this work needed to be more fully integrated with the YJS existing arrangements and operational practice.

We also found that although specialist support for children with neurodiverse needs was available, many children experienced significant delays in having their needs formally assessed and responded to.

We identified two groups of children for whom a stronger understanding of needs and risks was required: those who received community resolutions and were not referred to the YJS, and those placed in residential care in Lancashire by other local authorities. Developing a shared strategic understanding of these groups would support more targeted responses, help ensure that appropriate support was available at the right time, and strengthen agencies’ ability to manage potential risks. Support from national and regional partners, as well as local agencies, was required to successfully achieve this.

Overall, this inspection found the YJS was delivering consistently high-quality work with children and victims during a period of significant challenge and scrutiny. Strength in leadership, committed staff, and effective practice provided firm foundations for further development. By addressing the areas identified for improvement, Lancashire YJS will be well placed to strengthen outcomes for children and victims, enhance public confidence, and continue to develop and improve the quality and impact of its services. Given the significant scrutiny they have faced, staff and leaders in Lancashire deserve credit for ensuring a continued to focus on the day-to-day work of the YJS to help keep children and their communities safe. 

Martin Jones CBE
HM Chief Inspector of Probation

Ratings (Back to top)

Fieldwork started July 2026Score 9/12
Overall ratingGood

Organisational delivery

1.1 Governance and leadershipGood
1.2 StaffingOutstanding
1.3 Partnership and servicesGood

Work with children

2.1 AssessingGood
2.2 PlanningOutstanding
2.3 DeliveryGood

Work with victims

V1 Work with victimsGood

Recommendations (Back to top)

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

The Lancashire Youth Justice Management Board should:

  1. ensure that independent chairing arrangements drive effective leadership oversight and partner engagement which results in consistently high-quality delivery of YJS in Lancashire
  2. ensure that all relevant statutory and strategic partners are consistently represented at management board meetings, enabling effective scrutiny, timely decision-making and progress against the youth justice strategic plan
  3. actively address and reduce the number of YJS children who are not in suitable education, training or employment and ensure that access to appropriate education, training and employment is prioritised for all YJS children
  4. ensure that all children in care supervised by the YJS have equitable access to services and interventions that meet their needs, keep them safe, and manage the risk of harm to others
  5. review and improve transition arrangements to adult services so that any barriers to engagement are addressed, consent is proactively sought, and children and young adults receive timely and effective support to keep them and others safe.

The Integrated Care Board should:

  1. ensure that all YJS children with emotional and mental health needs can access timely, appropriate, and effective mental health assessment and support
  2. ensure the waiting times for the assessment of children with special educational needs, disabilities, and neurodevelopmental needs are reduced, and children receive timely and appropriate support.

The Ministry of Justice should:

  1. work with the Department for Education and Ofsted to address the high concentration of children’s homes in the area and ensure that local partnerships have the capacity and resources to meet the needs and manage the risks of all children placed in Lancashire.

The Probation Service should:

  1. ensure Lancashire YJS has sufficient seconded probation officer capacity to enable effective transition, information sharing, and improved communication to keep children and the community safe.

Background (Back to top)

We conducted fieldwork in Lancashire YJS over a period of two consecutive weeks, beginning on the 13 July 2026. We inspected cases where the YJS had commenced work with children subject to bail or remand, court disposals, or out-of-court resolutions between 12 January 2026 and 13 March 2026. We also conducted 35 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 12 January 2026 and 13 March 2026. We also conducted interviews with staff and managers responsible for the delivery of this work. During the second week of the inspection, we undertook focus groups with key stakeholders including meetings with the management board, the board chair, and staff.

Lancashire YJS covers a large and varied geographical area. The YJS is delivered in three locality areas: north, central and east. These areas are aligned to children’s services delivery areas. The north locality covers Lancaster, Wyre, and Fylde. The central locality covers Preston, South Ribble, Chorley, and West Lancashire. The east locality covers Pendle, Ribble Valley, Burnley, Rossendale, and Hyndburn. Each locality has principal towns, and rural and coastal areas. The locality areas have had to adapt service delivery to meet both Lancashire-wide and local issues and partnership arrangements.

At the time of our inspection, the YJS was situated in the Education and Children’s Services Directorate of Lancashire County Council. The YJS was managed by a head of service who also had responsibility for adolescent services, fostering, and adoption. The day-to-day operation of the YJS was managed by two experienced senior managers who were supported by a group of team managers.

Partnership arrangements were complex, with partner agencies covering large geographical areas including NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care Board, Lancashire Constabulary, and the North West Probation Delivery Unit.

There were also partnerships with numerous other providers at regional and local levels. These include 81 secondary schools, 29 special educational needs (SEN) schools, and 10 pupil referral units, alongside a range of commissioned and voluntary service providers.

Over the past five years the YJS had seen a rise in the number of children using violence, including in serious youth violence and children at risk of, or experiencing, exploitation.

At the time of the inspection the YJS was managing 227 children. Of these, 131 children were subject to a court order and 85 were receiving out-of-court resolutions. Two children were in custody, three were on remand, six were receiving bail support, and six were subject to licence conditions.

These children had a range of issues that required support; 57 per cent of the children had specific support needs, 29 per cent had social, emotional, mental health needs, 16 per cent had other identified needs such as diagnosed attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or were on the ADHD pathway, six per cent had diagnosed autism, and over half of the children had substance misuse issues that required support.

The concentration of children’s homes within the county was particularly noteworthy. At the time of the inspection, there were approximately 425 children’s homes in Lancashire, providing around 980 placements, which made it the local authority area with the highest number of children’s homes in England and Wales2. Children who were looked after were over-represented within the YJS cohort. This included children who were looked after by Lancashire local authority, as well as children who were looked after by other local authorities and had been placed in children’s homes based in Lancashire.

Having a high number of children from out of the area in placements concentrated within the local authority area presented a range of issues and challenges, and it had significant implications for the local authority and local services. Many of these children presented with complex and multiple needs, including trauma, exploitation, mental health difficulties, special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), and vulnerabilities associated with serious youth violence. Additionally, children placed at distance from their home area were at increased risk of family breakdown, social isolation, disrupted education, emotional wellbeing difficulties, going missing from care, and were at risk of, or experiencing, exploitation. These factors added to the complexity of safeguarding and supporting children.

The local authority and the YJS were required to respond to the needs of some of the county’s most vulnerable children, whilst having limited influence over placement decisions and the number of children placed within the county, or access to the additional resources required to provide effective services. The YJS demonstrated considerable strength in working with other YJS and local authorities to agree arrangements for the supervision and support of children placed in Lancashire. However, this required significant coordination across multiple agencies, differing local systems, and complex legal responsibilities. Practitioners were often required to navigate different referral pathways and service arrangements to secure support for children.

These challenges reflected wider systemic issues associated with the concentration of a high number of children in out-of-area placements. The scale of this issue created significant demands on Lancashire local authority, education, health, and the YJS, and in some instances limited access to locally commissioned provision and impacted upon effective safeguarding arrangements. We identified this needed urgent review, input, and support by national policy makers, government departments, and Lancashire-based placement providers, alongside Lancashire local authority. Consideration was needed to ensure that funding, accountability, partnership arrangements, and service provision adequately supported and reflected the needs of this cohort of children and safeguarded against children falling through potential gaps in provision.

Domain one: Organisational delivery (Back to top)

To inspect organisational delivery, we reviewed written evidence submitted in advance by the YJS and conducted 12 meetings, including with staff, managers, board members, and partnership staff and their managers.

Key findings about organisational delivery were as follows.

1.1. Governance and leadershipRating
The governance and leadership of the YJS drives a high-quality, service to achieve positive change and safety for children and communities.Good

Strengths:

  • The youth justice management board had established a clear and evidence-informed strategic direction for the YJS. It produced a comprehensive annual plan that set out the partnership’s priorities and provided a clear framework for improvement of activity. The plan was aligned to local needs, performance information, and national youth justice priorities. Workstreams focused on strengthening partnership working, improving governance and data quality, and ensuring that services responded effectively to children’s needs. These priorities were well targeted and underpinned by a strong understanding of local challenges.
  • There was clear evidence that planned activity had been undertaken.  The establishment of an operational board, which was designed to take forward the management board’s actions, had demonstrated progress against action plans. 
  • A key objective within the strategic plan was responding to learning from the Southport Public Inquiry. Strengthening the multi-agency approach to serious violence was identified as a priority. The YJS proactively reviewed all serious incidents and reports were provided to the board, with a focus on driving identified learning forward.
  • The board had taken steps to strengthen its effectiveness and improve its understanding of key areas of practice. Membership arrangements had recently been reviewed, and a programme of board development activity had been implemented. Themed board sessions on victims, education, and health increased members’ understanding of these areas and had informed the commissioning of additional resources to address identified needs. 
  • The board had awareness of disproportionality, particularly in relation to children from ethnic minority backgrounds and children in care. It had identified key areas of over-representation and had developed plans to
  • address them. It also recognised limitations in existing data and performance information, and work was underway to develop cross-partnership datasets. 
  • Board members and senior leaders were linked in with other strategic partnerships, and they ensured that the views, experiences, and needs of the YJS and YJS children were represented and heard at strategic forums.
  • Leadership of the YJS was a strength. Senior managers were highly visible, knowledgeable, and well connected across the partnership. They provided an effective bridge between the management board, head of service, and frontline teams, ensuring that strategic priorities remained informed by operational realities. 
  • The leadership team were successfully delivering and operationalising the vision and strategy. Senior managers were adept at bringing issues to the board and had strong communication with team managers to ensure emerging issues were effectively relayed and communicated to the board. Staff described senior leaders as approachable and accessible. The underpinning culture was one of collaboration, support, and constructive challenge, with children and victims at the heart of the YJS.
  • The YJS operated within a clearly defined set of shared values which promoted openness, reflective practice, constructive challenge, and continuous improvement. Child first, trauma-informed, and restorative approaches were clearly defined, well understood by leaders, and consistently implemented throughout the YJS.
  • Performance management and quality assurance arrangements were particularly impressive. Comprehensive audit, performance, and quality assurance arrangements provided clear oversight of practice and drove service improvement by leaders. These systems were delivered in collaboration with staff.
  • Performance data and the use of the locally developed ‘standards for children in the youth justice system’ were routinely monitored by the board and operational leads to inform service development and improvement.
  • Children’s views were routinely sought and used to inform service development. Participation activity increasingly informed strategic decision-making, with examples of consultation, co-production and engagement evident across the YJS. The board chair brought focus to the participation of children and a children’s board was in development.  
  • The board recognised education, training and employment as a key protective factor and understood the impact that educational exclusion and absence had on children’s outcomes. It had sought to strengthen the partnership response through themed board discussions, performance monitoring, and the appointment of a specialist education worker. Strategies to reduce the unnecessary criminalisation of children in care were in place. A multi-agency strategy and action plan C.A.R.E. (Children Are Respected Everywhere), to reduce the criminalisation of children in care and care-experienced young people, had been implemented.
  • Some partners, including health and education, had detailed insight into the profile of children, supported by the employment of specialist workers who tracked operational issues and then fed these back to the board and respective board members.

Areas for improvement

  • Although governance arrangements had improved, the effectiveness of the youth justice management board was undermined by inconsistent attendance from the nominated partner representatives. Frequent absences and use of representatives or deputies reduced the continuity of board members’ understanding, decision-making, accountability and strategic challenge. The board chair had undertaken some analysis of attendance and noted that statutory partners’ attendance was around 40 per cent. Board members needed to be more active in their roles, prioritise the work of the board and take greater collective responsibility for achieving its objectives.
  • The independent chairing arrangements required further development. The arrangements did not fully realise the benefits associated with independent leadership, scrutiny, and challenge, particularly between quarterly meetings. The board chair needed better sight of the ongoing work of partners so that progress could be monitored and challenged when needed. There was an overreliance on senior managers to progress objectives.  
  • Whilst the board demonstrated awareness of disproportionality and had developed plans to address known areas of over-representation, analysis remained underdeveloped and lacked sufficient measurable outcomes. A comprehensive action plan was in place and being progressed. However, the plan contained limited analysis of the scale, causes, and impact of disproportionality. The board needed to better understand the granular detail of disproportionality and its impact on local communities. 
  • Access to education, training and employment remained one of the most significant challenges facing the partnership. Too many children had experienced prolonged periods outside education or had not had access to their statutory educational entitlement. Much of the oversight in place was focused primarily on individual children rather than addressing the systemic barriers that contributed to poor educational outcomes. At the time of the inspection 58 per cent of children were not in education, employment or training. While the specialist education worker provided valuable support, wider strategic action was required to address systemic barriers and improve access to suitable provision. Greater strategic leadership and partnership challenge was needed to improve access to suitable and sustainable provision.
  • The monitoring and evaluation of partnership services was variable. Some partnerships were highly effective, well established, and integrated into the work of the YJS. However, the board did not consistently monitor service uptake, timeliness, or outcomes across all agencies. The board’s oversight of partner services required further development. It did not consistently receive sufficient information to adequately understand and assess the impact on outcomes for children. 
1.2 StaffingRating
Staff are enabled to deliver a high-quality, personalised and responsive service to achieve positive change and keep children and communities safe.Outstanding

Strengths:

  • The YJS benefited from a stable, skilled, and experienced workforce. Staffing levels were sufficient and managed flexibly to respond to changing demand, with workforce capacity and workloads actively monitored to support the delivery of a high-quality, personalised, and responsive service.
  • The effective use of child and youth justice workers, restorative justice and victim staff, specialist practitioners, and business support teams reduced pressure on case managers and enabled children to access support from a range of suitably skilled staff. Specialist staff reported manageable workloads and resources were deployed flexibly to address vacancies and service pressures.
  • The YJS benefited from four dedicated youth justice police officers, supported by wider police resources, including serious youth violence and child exploitation teams. Partnership working with the police was strong and supported by effective information sharing, joint home visits, and a shared understanding of children’s needs and public protection responsibilities.
  • An effective business support function and experienced data management resource supported the smooth operation of the YJS and contributed to strong performance monitoring and reporting arrangements.
  • Senior leaders successfully supported frontline staff to focus on delivering high-quality services and continue implementing service improvements during a period of high public scrutiny.
  • Using the effective case management oversight (ECMO) model, team managers provided consistent practice leadership, high-quality oversight, and a clear understanding of what constituted effective youth justice practice. Management oversight, performance monitoring, and quality assurance arrangements were well established and contributed to strong operational performance. Team managers demonstrated detailed understanding of the work of their teams, supported each other well, and drove consistently high-quality practice.
  • The ECMO model had supported the consistent roll-out of policies and working practice across the three locality areas. This resulted in children being provided the same high-quality support, irrespective of where they lived.  
  • Staff consistently demonstrated high levels of skill and commitment. Case inspections evidenced their ability to work effectively with children presenting diverse needs, vulnerabilities, and risks. Interventions were delivered with flexibility, professionalism, and a strong focus on individual circumstances.
  • Learning and development arrangements were comprehensive and well embedded. Staff and volunteers accessed a broad range of role-specific training, including on child first approaches, trauma-informed practice, autism awareness, harmful sexual behaviour, exploitation, and communication needs. A structured training programme supported continuous professional development, and the impact of learning was monitored through themed audits, quality assurance activity, and management oversight. Managers actively identified and developed staff potential. A strong learning culture was supported by reflective supervision and quality assurance.
  • Training needs were identified through supervision and from needs analysis, learning from serious incidents, service demand, and individual requests. The training matrix identified the links between specialist and council-wide training modules, alongside expected timescales for completion. Managers were expected to complete management training as part of their development.
  • Staff were able to undertake social work qualifications, giving them opportunities for progression and ensuring that there was an up-to-date understanding of social work practice.
  • All staff had developed effective relationships with other professionals involved with YJS children. There was a clear understanding of roles and responsibilities across teams, alongside careful consideration of who would undertake the various aspects of work with children.
  • Practice development workers supported staff practice. Working effectively within teams and with individuals they provided focused support, advice and feedback, which was responsive to the findings of quality assurance processes, promoted high-quality consistent delivery and ensured that learning was embedded into practice.
  • The YJS had a range of specialist workers who had provided effective support to children and case managers. Clinical psychology consultation and case formulation strengthened professional decision-making and understanding of risk and safety. Speech, language and communication therapists undertook assessments and improved communication with children. Courts noted the impact of communication passports and how this had led to an improved understanding of children’s presentation in court.
  • Volunteers were used as referral panel members; they reported good support and training. They were appreciative of the monthly support and training sessions that covered a wide range of topics. They had had presentations from specialist workers to understand harmful sexual behaviours, child exploitation, and children’s communication needs.
  • The strategic health lead undertook an operational and strategic role. This role provided oversight of the provision of health services to individual children and had been fundamental in the advising the board on the health needs of children.
  • An education worker was proactive in contacting schools and education providers to obtain children’s educational information, histories, and experiences. The worker was instrumental in supporting individual children to access provision and challenge unsuitable arrangements. There were effective links with local authority inclusion teams and with the electively home educated team.
  • The YJS had an effective performance and quality assurance framework, which contributed to consistently good standards in assessment, planning, and service delivery. Quality assurance and management oversight operated in complementary ways and were undertaken collaboratively with staff. Practice development arrangements supported the consistent implementation of policy, maintained high practice standards, and ensured that training responded to identified needs. 
  • Staff received regular child-focused supervision that incorporated case management, wellbeing, and professional development. Feedback from staff was overwhelmingly positive, and supervision was complemented by regular performance discussions, reflective practice, and head of service check-ins.   Appraisal processes supported reflective practice and development. Together, these arrangements promoted staff wellbeing, accountability, and effective case management.
  • Some staff described a mixed picture regarding the effectiveness of the induction they received. However, it was noted this was within a historical context, since many staff had been in post for a number of years. In recent years, the YJS had reviewed and strengthened its induction arrangements utilising feedback from staff.

Areas for improvement

  • Workforce diversity did not fully reflect the diversity of Lancashire’s population. Increased representation from minority ethnic communities across all levels of the YJS would strengthen the workforce and support the YJS understanding of the communities it serves. Work was underway across the local authority to improve workforce diversity.
  • Whilst specialist staff provision was generally positive, staffing resource was not equitable across all the localities or reflective of identified need and this required strengthening.
1.3 Partnerships and servicesRating
A comprehensive range of high-quality, personalised and responsive services is in place, achieving positive change and keeping children and communities safe.Good

Strengths:

  • The YJS had provided the board with a current understanding of the profile and needs of children known to the service, despite challenges with information management systems. Analysis was used effectively at strategic, operational, and locality levels to identify patterns of need, risk, and vulnerability across the cohort of children open to the YJS. There was a strong commitment to understanding the factors associated with positive change and desistance, alongside those linked to safety and risk of harm. Managers in each locality understood demand and local need well.
  • Real-time health data was used proactively to identify unmet needs and inform individual responses and wider health needs assessments. Analysis considered protected characteristics, factors linked to achieving positive change, and safety factors. This supported a detailed understanding of children across the partnership area.  
  • Analysis had been used well to inform YJS delivery and development. It had identified links between safety and wellbeing concerns and SEND needs, leading to the provision of additional resources and enhanced scrutiny through a focused, thematic board meeting. There was evidence that analysis had been translated into tangible service developments that aimed to improve outcomes for children and to keep communities safe. Examples included the establishment of a girls’ group, enhanced SEND support, the development of violence reduction initiatives, and targeted responses to substance misuse.
  • The YJS maintained a strong focus on serious youth violence, in response to a rise in prevalence over the past few years. A serious youth violence toolkit was being developed in partnership with the University of Lancashire. This work was informed by consultation with children. Intelligence and analytical information were also used effectively to support disruption activities and local responses. Beyond Home and Empower3 services had been developed to respond to harm coming from outside of the home and exploitation.
  • The YJS had strengthened its oversight of the disproportionality of children looked after in the criminal justice system. The C.A.R.E Group provided a multi-agency forum to review the experiences and outcomes of care-experienced children, identify emerging concerns and coordinate activity to improve outcomes. It enhanced partnership scrutiny of children at greater risk of poor outcomes and informed service development.
  • Children’s voices were well embedded within service development and used to inform well targeted, high-quality services. Participation activities had informed intervention delivery, communication approaches, restorative practice, and health pathways. The YJS demonstrated a strong commitment to participation, particularly through the quality of relationships between children and their workers.
  • The YJS provided a broad range of specialist, mainstream, and follow-on services that were generally accessible and responsive to individual needs. Services were delivered in line with child first and strengths-based principles. Children routinely received tailored interventions that reflected their strengths, needs, risks, and circumstances.
  • All children received comprehensive health assessments supported by effective partnership arrangements. Speech, language and communication needs were well understood, with assessments available to all children.
  • Feedback from children, parents, and carers was consistently positive and indicated that services were experienced as supportive, respectful, and focused on helping children achieve positive futures. 
  • Information relating to children who received police ‘words of advice’ without referral to the YJS had recently started to be shared with the YJS. It was intended this would assist the partnership in collating information on all out-of-court activity, including from partner agencies. The aim was to enable better analysis, monitoring, and understanding of police activity with children, to ensure appropriate application of guidance and practice, and to identify any trends.

Areas for improvement:

  • Access to education remained inconsistent across the partnership. Inspectors found variable engagement from education providers and difficulties securing appropriate placements for some of the most vulnerable children, particularly those with SEND, those assessed as presenting a high risk of harm to others, and children placed in Lancashire by other local authorities. While partners worked constructively to support individual children, and described plans to address the challenges identified, the partnership had not yet secured a sufficiently robust education offer to meet the needs of all children supervised by the YJS.
  • Gaps in emotional wellbeing and mental health provision had been exacerbated by staffing vacancies and variations in commissioned services across localities. Commissioning arrangements across the county had resulted in variation in service availability and inconsistency of provision for children. A strategic needs review, undertaken by the strategic health lead, was intended to support the integrated health board to reconsider resourcing arrangements, with the aim of ensuring provision of a consistent mental health offer for all children.
  • Arrangements to address extra-familial harm and support contextual safeguarding approaches were in place. However, activity was not always sufficiently or consistently evidenced, particularly in case recording and planning documentation. The partnership was continuing to embed the Beyond Home approach and, at the time of inspection, this was not yet consistently reflected in all relevant case planning and intervention activity.
  • Pathways into adult services lacked clarity. This created potential gaps in transitional support for some vulnerable children approaching legal adulthood.
  • Lancashire accommodated a significant number of children placed by other local authorities. The scale of this issue created significant demands on Lancashire local authority, education, health, and the YJS. It limited access to some locally commissioned provision and impacted upon effective safeguarding arrangements. We identified this needed urgent review, input, and support by national policy makers, including government departments, Lancashire-based placement providers and Lancashire local authority. This would ensure that funding, accountability, partnership arrangements, and service provision adequately support and reflect the needs of this cohort of children and safeguard against children falling through potential gaps in provision.
  • Partnership information sharing and analysis of out-of-court resolution trends and decision-making needed to be strengthened to provide a more comprehensive understanding of children’s pathways through the youth justice system. Improved information-sharing regarding children receiving police-led street-based community resolutions without referral to the YJS would enable the partnership to develop a fuller understanding of the needs, risks, and outcomes of this cohort.

Domain two: Work with children (Back to top)

We took a detailed look at 42 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.Good

Our rating4 for assessing is based on the following key questions:

Does assessing sufficiently analyse how to:% ‘Yes’
achieve positive change for the child?93%
keep child and the community safe?76%

Assessing was holistic and child centred. There was comprehensive analysis of children’s circumstances, which provided a clear understanding of the influence of family, peers, education, and community factors on children’s behaviour and outcomes. Assessing drew effectively on information from partner agencies and other specialist assessments, which assisted the YJS understanding of children’s strengths, needs, and circumstances.

Specialist contributions were used effectively. Speech, language and communication assessments helped practitioners to understand children’s communication needs, and the education worker obtained details of children’s educational histories and experiences to inform assessing activity. Detailed case formulations, completed by psychologists, provided valuable insight into children’s experiences, behaviours, and needs and were used by practitioners to inform assessing and help them to better understand their children.

Children were actively involved in assessing activity. Practitioners consistently secured children’s participation and co-production, and routinely captured their views, aspirations, and motivations. This reflected the YJS’s strong commitment to child first principles and relational practice.

Practitioners identified sources of resilience and carefully considered how to support children in maintaining the positive parts of their lives. Capacity for change, participation and community integration was analysed well. Assessing of children’s attitudes, motivations, and behaviour was consistently strong.

Practitioners reviewed and updated assessing when circumstances changed, helping to ensure that assessing remained up-to-date and accurate. Reviewing activity was undertaken dynamically as relationships with children were built and children were able to talk more openly about what was happening to them.

There was a consistent focus on analysing how parents and carers could contribute to positive change. In most cases, practitioners considered how family members could support progress, reinforce strengths, and help children achieve sustainable outcomes.

The YJS told us that workforce development plans had been focused on improving assessing and safety planning relating to serious youth violence, online harms, violence fixation, victims, and the safety of others. Although we found an improving picture, there was a need for greater consistency.

We saw some effective ongoing assessing activity about children’s safety which included drawing on information from partner agencies including the police, management of sexual or violent offender officers (MOSOVO), social care, and substance misuse services. Multi-agency risk meetings were used effectively to provide oversight and direction in managing the safety of the child and others and these assisted in informing assessing activity.

We found the YJS were stronger at identifying children’s vulnerabilities and strengths than they were at analysing the full extent of the risk posed to others and, although practitioners generally identified risks well, the YJS had recognised the need to improve the depth and consistency of analysis linking identified risks, protective factors and the actions required to reduce harm. The use of specialist assessment tools, including AIM35, provided a structured approach to analysing safety of the child and others. Assessing had incorporated the needs and wishes of victims in nearly all cases.

However, there was some underestimation of safety to others. Assessing occasionally placed too much emphasis on positive developments, such as remorse, improved family relationships, or indicators of desistance, without sufficiently considering ongoing risks and concerning behaviour. In some cases, judgements regarding concerns were not adequately evidenced and insufficient weight was given to violent behaviour, weapon use, persistent offending, or the impact on victims. This resulted in assessing activity that did not always provide a sufficiently robust rationale for the level of risk posed.

The YJS needed to ensure it had consistently drawn together all available information to inform professional judgements. Historical patterns of behaviour, including repeated out-of-court resolutions, intelligence, and wider contextual information, were sometimes overlooked or insufficiently analysed.

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

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

Does planning focus sufficiently on how to:% ‘Yes’
achieve positive change for the child?93%
keep the child and community safe?90%

Planning was highly personalised and responsive to children’s individual circumstances.

Planning was underpinned by a strengths-based child’s plan that placed the child’s voice, identity, and aspirations at the centre of intervention activity. The YJS had recently reviewed and strengthened the planning framework to place greater emphasis on co-production, identity development, and supporting positive change. Children contributed directly to their plans through the ’about me’ section and ongoing discussions with their case manager, which enabled them to articulate their goals, preferences, and the support they felt would help them achieve positive outcomes.

Diversity and additional needs were generally well considered. Practitioners routinely adapted plans to account for trauma, neurodiversity, communication needs, learning disabilities, ADHD, autism, and mental health concerns. There were multiple examples of planning being tailored using communication passports, speech and language therapist recommendations, psychological assessments, and using child-friendly materials. Planning was responsive to cultural needs, religious observance, gender identity, and trauma histories.

Children were actively involved in planning, and planning activity was co-produced. Referral order planning had been revised following consultation with children. The YJS ensured planning used accessible language, reflected children’s priorities and aspirations, and incorporated their views about what support would help them most. Practitioners were able to describe to us how children’s interests and future goals had informed planning, including education, employment, sport, music, and other positive activities. There were examples of practitioners building on children’s interests in football, boxing, music, outdoor activities, apprenticeships, and employment to support long-term desistance and positive change.

YJS practitioners worked closely with social care, education, health services, Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS), early help, children’s homes, mentoring services, and custodial establishments. Planning was often aligned with parallel plans, avoided duplication, and ensured that agencies understood their respective responsibilities.

Education, training and employment featured prominently within children’s plans and practitioners routinely identified educational engagement as a priority for positive change. In most cases, planning appropriately reflected the child’s educational circumstances and outlined actions to improve attendance, engagement, or progression.

More attention was needed to support exit planning, specifically for children who were about to turn 18 years old and who needed ongoing support to keep them safe.  We saw limited examples of adult services working with children to build on the relationships already forged by the YJS and limited recognition of the importance of effective transitional safeguarding practice. In some instances, the role of parents in planned activity could also have been strengthened.

Planning for the safety of others and the community combined risk management actions with interventions designed to support behavioural change. Practitioners routinely planned work around victim awareness and restorative justice. There was a focus on healthy relationships, exploitation, and peer influence, clearly linked to the factors that had contributed to children’s behaviours. Planning often supported children to develop greater emotional regulation.

Victim-focused planning was well developed. Practitioners worked proactively with victim workers, social workers, and other agencies to develop safety plans, understand victims’ wishes, and ensure that victims remained central to planning activity. Plans were frequently reviewed through multi-agency risk meetings and other multi-agency forums, ensuring that risk management remained responsive and coordinated.

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

Our rating7 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?86%
keep the child and the community safe?79%

Delivery of services to achieve positive change was a strength. Practitioners consistently demonstrated strong relational practice and were tenacious and persistent in engaging children, including those with complex needs or who were reluctant to participate. Children frequently described positive and trusting relationships with workers, who maintained contact through periods of custody, placement instability, family crisis, and non-engagement. These relationships provided a strong foundation for intervention and change.

Interventions were personalised and reflected children’s individual needs, strengths, and aspirations. Practitioners adapted delivery to account for neurodiversity, communication needs, trauma histories, and learning styles. Children were seen in locations where they felt comfortable, including homes, schools, community venues, and placements, and interventions were delivered using a range of approaches, including visual aids, games, and strengths-based methods. Inspectors saw examples of creative delivery that maintained engagement while avoiding unnecessary repetition.

There was a strong reparative and restorative offer. Children were provided with direct and indirect opportunities to repair harm and make positive contributions to their communities. Where appropriate, children achieved AQA qualifications that recognised their participation in restorative and reparative activities. Inspectors visited an allotment project developed with children, which provided opportunities to learn horticultural and practical skills, such as bricklaying, in response to children’s interests.

Victim-focused work was a notable strength, with practitioners routinely incorporating victims’ wishes into intervention delivery and supporting children to develop empathy, understand the impact of their behaviour, and take steps to repair harm. Work to support positive change was meaningful and focused on factors most relevant to individual children. Practitioners delivered interventions relating to healthy relationships, peer influence, emotional wellbeing, consequential thinking, online safety, exploitation, knife crime awareness, and future aspirations. In many cases inspectors found evidence of positive changes in children’s behaviour, thinking, and engagement. Practitioners also responded appropriately to new information, shared intelligence, and adapted interventions when circumstances changed.

The locality model strengthened accessibility and partnership working through co-location with services such as Empower and Child and Family Wellbeing Services. Practitioners worked effectively with social care, police, health, education, victim services, exploitation teams, and community safety partners to manage vulnerability and risk. Effective advocacy was evident where staff challenged barriers relating to education, health, housing, and social care provision.

Educational disengagement was one of the greatest barriers to positive change identified during the inspection. In many cases, children were not attending suitable provision or had experienced lengthy periods outside education. This limited opportunities to establish routine, improve social functioning, develop skills, and reduce the likelihood of further offending. Practitioners worked persistently to advocate for children and secure provision; however, educational outcomes were often constrained by factors beyond the direct control of the YJS, and children were not receiving their statutory educational entitlement.

In a number of cases, there was scope to strengthen the translation of identified exploitation and risk-to-others concerns into timely specialist intervention, dynamic planning, and enhanced multi-agency oversight. New arrests, intelligence, and safeguarding concerns did not always lead to dynamic intervention planning, revised interventions, or enhanced multi-agency oversight. Children placed in Lancashire by other local authorities were unable to access some specialist services, including Empower, and inspectors were not always assured that alternative arrangements met their needs. Wider gaps in safeguarding, transition support, and specialist interventions sometimes limited opportunities to reduce risk and strengthen protective factors for children.

A small number of children experienced delays or gaps in intervention where required partner services were not available or able to respond sufficiently quickly. Where external services were unable to respond, interventions did not always commence promptly or with sufficient intensity to address children’s most significant needs. Some practitioners and children also reported a lack of suitable child-friendly premises for direct work and one of the locality offices visited by inspectors required some investment and updating.

Work with victims

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

Our rating8 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? 

  • Individual work with victims was a notable strength. Victims received a responsive, individualised, and trauma-informed service delivered by highly skilled and well-supported staff. Strong engagement rates, effective restorative practice, a significant commitment to staff development, and learning from victim feedback contributed to a YJS that consistently placed victims at the centre of its work.
  • Work with victims had benefited from sustained investment and prioritisation by the YJS leadership over several years. The YJS had driven high-quality victim work and had focused on developing a responsive and individualised service. However, strategic oversight, partnership focus, and board ownership in providing direction of the victim offer and victim service provision was less developed and required strengthening.
  • Victim issues were not yet consistently embedded across all strategic discussions. There was scope for greater consideration of victim outcomes and experiences within discussions relating to serious youth violence, knife crime, and community safety.
  • The YJS achieved exceptionally high levels of victim engagement. The majority of victims who were offered a service chose to engage. Victims were contacted promptly, provided with clear information, and supported to make informed decisions about engaging with victim services.
  • Arrangements between the police and YJS to obtain victim consent were effective. Seconded police officers made personalised contact with victims at the earliest opportunity, explained the available support, and obtained informed consent. This ensured that restorative justice and victim workers were able to build relationships quickly and provide timely support.
  • Victims were placed at the centre of practice. Their views, wishes, and experiences routinely informed assessing activity, planning, out-of-court resolution decisions, referral order panels, and pre-sentence reports. This information was used to inform work with children, which supported them to better understand the impact of their behaviour and how victims were affected by their offending.
  • Practice was consistently victim centred, with support tailored to individual circumstances, levels of engagement, and desired outcomes. Victim safety was prioritised through effective risk assessment, safeguarding arrangements, safety planning, and multi-agency collaboration.
  • There was a comprehensive restorative justice offer that included direct and indirect restorative interventions, shuttle mediation9, conferencing, and participation in referral order panels. Victims were offered a range of options and were empowered to determine the nature and extent of their involvement. The YJS demonstrated innovation in the use of voice notes as alternatives to letters of explanation. These enabled victims to hear directly from children and better understand their age, maturity, and context of their behaviour.
  • Victim services were subject to effective quality assurance, regular evaluation, and independent scrutiny through Restorative Justice Council accreditation. This commitment to continuous improvement was reflected in a skilled and experienced workforce which was supported through specialist training, accredited practitioner status, regional networks, and ongoing professional development.
  • Victim staff were well supported. The dedicated victim and restorative justice team benefited from manageable workloads, regular supervision, wellbeing support, and effective management oversight. Managers were visible, accessible, and responsive to workload pressures, as well as cognisant of the potential impact of vicarious trauma.
  • Victim feedback was routinely gathered, analysed and used to improve services. Surveys and structured discussions informed YJS developments, including providing regular updates to victims when court delays affected case progression.
  • The victim policy was comprehensive and reflected strong practice. The policy contained clear management oversight arrangements but only limited detail regarding strategic governance and board oversight of victim and restorative practice. This area required strengthening. There had been a period when the board’s strategic focus and oversight was less prominent due to change in personnel.  A new board member had recently been appointed with a strategic lead for victim work.

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

Children’s participation was a strength within Lancashire YJS and reflected the wider Lancashire Children and Young People’s Participation Strategy. Participation was viewed as an ongoing process, rather than a one-off activity, and was embedded through a commitment to applying a clear evidence-based participation strategy. The YJS demonstrated these principles in practice through meaningful involvement of children in assessing, planning, and reviews. This was undertaken alongside wider consultation and co-production activity that informed intervention delivery, restorative practice, communication approaches, and service development. The YJS was also seeking to strengthen children’s participation at a strategic level through the development of a children’s board, creating opportunities for children to influence wider policy, commissioning, and decision-making arrangements.

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).

Feedback was obtained from 11 children and 13 parents and carers. All children, parents, and carers reported that they had a say in matters affecting them, and that they felt listened to, respected, and valued by the YJS.

Most respondents felt their individual circumstances were understood. In response to the question “How well were your identity and needs recognised?”, 91 per cent of children (10 of 11) answered “Very well”, while 92 per cent of parents/carers (12 of 13) reported that their own and their child’s identity and needs were recognised “Very well”. In addition, 91 per cent of children and all parents/carers felt the YJS considered safety, including what was happening in their lives and where meetings took place.

Interviews with children, parents, and carers demonstrated high levels of satisfaction with the YJS, with most respondents unable to identify areas for improvement. Parents and carers repeatedly stated there was nothing they would change about the YJS. Comments included:

“I think they were great. I am really surprised with how accommodating they are”, and “I couldn’t fault them.”

Staff were highly valued for their flexibility, empathy, communication, and relationship-building skills. Families described workers as responsive to changing circumstances and committed to supporting children and parents.

Children and families highlighted the positive impact individual practitioners had made. Feedback emphasised perseverance, advocacy, and practical support. A child reported:

“My worker was there for me at court and stuff to help me home… Very helpful service.“

A carer described a practitioner as “amazing” and noted that, through the relationship built, a child who previously had “no respect for women” had become significantly more respectful.

Practitioners were recognised for providing personalised support and helping children access additional services. A carer noted that workers went “out of their way to help and offer even more support” and praised their “dedication, communication and relationship building.” Several respondents felt the YJS had made a tangible difference to outcomes for children and families.

The few areas identified for improvement related primarily to wider system and partnership issues, rather than the quality of YJS delivery.

The most common area for improvement identified by children, parents, and carers related to education. Several respondents described difficulties accessing suitable provision, particularly where children had SEND or additional needs. Parents expressed frustration with delays in assessment processes and a lack of educational settings able to meet their child’s needs. While these concerns were directed primarily at the wider education system, respondents consistently praised YJS practitioners for advocating on behalf of children and trying to secure appropriate support.

One child described experiencing police investigation and court delays of “over two years“, which had a significant impact on their experience.

Equity, diversity and inclusion (Back to top)

Lancashire YJS demonstrated a strong commitment to equity, diversity and inclusion through its child first, trauma-informed, and restorative approaches. These principles were embedded throughout the YJS and were reflected in the way children’s identities, strengths, needs, and lived experiences informed assessment, planning, and intervention delivery. Practitioners consistently treated children with respect and adapted their work to meet individual circumstances and additional needs.

The YJS had a good understanding of the profile of children supervised by the YJS. At the time of inspection, 57 per cent of children had identified additional support needs, including social, emotional and mental health needs, ADHD, autism, and other neurodevelopmental conditions. Analysis of the cohort of YJS children was used to understand patterns of need, vulnerability, and disproportionality and had informed service developments, including specialist speech and language support, psychological input, substance misuse interventions, and a dedicated girls’ group.

Inspectors saw clear evidence that these approaches improved participation, engagement and service accessibility for children with SEND, neurodiverse needs, or communication difficulties.

The youth justice management board had identified disproportionality relating to children from ethnic minority communities and children who were looked after, and it had begun to strengthen oversight of these groups through improved data analysis and the C.A.R.E. Group. The partnership also recognised the significant over-representation of care-experienced children within the cohort and had established arrangements to improve scrutiny and outcomes for these children. However, disproportionality analysis remained underdeveloped and lacked clear outcome measures to demonstrate the impact of actions taken.

A disproportionality action plan had been developed and the board reviewed progress at its quarterly meetings. However, it was too soon to identify improvements in disproportionality as a result.

Operationally, inspectors found strong evidence that diversity and additional needs were understood and reflected in practice. Assessing and planning activity routinely considered communication needs, learning difficulties, neurodiversity, disability, mental health, trauma, cultural factors, religious observance, and gender identity. Practitioners made effective use of communication passports, speech and language assessments, and psychological formulations to adapt interventions and maximise engagement with children. Children were often seen in locations where they felt comfortable and safe, and interventions were tailored using visual resources, strengths-based approaches, and methods suited to individual learning styles.

There were, however, continuing inequalities in access to services. Children experienced lengthy waiting times for SEND, neurodevelopmental, and mental health assessments. Regional variation in commissioned services also affected equity of access, particularly in relation to emotional wellbeing and mental health provision. Inspectors found differences in service availability across localities, meaning children did not always receive consistent access to support regardless of where they lived.

Data annexe (Back to top)

Lancashire Youth Data Annexe FAC (XLSX, 135 KB)

Press release (Back to top)

Lancashire Youth Justice Service rated ‘Good’ 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 Yvonne McGuckian supported by a team of inspectors and colleagues from across the Inspectorate. We would like to thank all those who helped plan and took part in the inspection; without their help and cooperation, the inspection would not have been possible.

  1. There are two types of inspections as part of the current youth inspection programme across England and Wales: 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 ↩︎
  2. Lancashire’s Children in Our Care Sufficiency Strategy 2025 – 2028 ↩︎
  3. Beyond Home and Empower are specialist services in Lancashire focused on child exploitation and reducing harm to children from outside the home. ↩︎
  4. The rating for the standard is driven by the lowest score of the key questions, which is placed in a rating band, indicated in bold in the table. A more detailed explanation is available on our website Standards and ratings – HM Inspectorate of Probation. ↩︎
  5. Assessment, Intervention and Moving (AIM) is a structured framework used by trained staff with adolescents who display harmful sexual behaviours. ↩︎
  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 Standards and ratings – HM Inspectorate of Probation. ↩︎
  7. 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. ↩︎
  8. 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. A more detailed explanation is available on our website Standards and ratings – HM Inspectorate of Probation. ↩︎
  9. Where information is relayed between parties without them meeting. ↩︎