A reactive inspection of youth justice work with children and victims in Bradford

Published:

5 November 2026

Foreword (Back to top)

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

This inspection found a youth justice service with a desire to improve outcomes for children. Leaders and staff were working to embed child-first, restorative, and trauma-informed principles throughout the service, supported by some specialist provision and a focus on tackling disproportionality. The children and parents or carers that inspectors spoke to provided positive feedback about the support they received, describing respectful relationships with staff and interventions that had helped them make positive changes in their lives.

Despite these foundational building blocks, we found significant weaknesses in the ability of the YJS to keep children and communities safe. Governance and partnership arrangements lacked tenacity and had not provided sufficient oversight, challenge, or accountability to drive the improvements needed in frontline practice. This required urgent attention. Partnership working was not sufficiently effective, with agencies too often operating in silos and focused on individual service priorities rather than delivering a coordinated response to meet the needs of youth justice service children.

Although leaders received a wide range of management information, they did not have a sufficiently clear understanding of why weaknesses in assessing, planning, and risk management had persisted. As a result, strategic activity had not translated into consistently effective operational practice. Children have the right to be understood, yet inspectors found that this was not consistently the case.

Work to achieve positive change for children was generally stronger than work to understand and manage safety. We found that staff recognised many children’s strengths and personal circumstances. However, assessing and planning activity relating to safety were too often underdeveloped. Risks to children and others were not analysed consistently, responsive planning was weak, and management oversight was significantly variable. These shortcomings limited the ability of the YJS to respond effectively to changing circumstances and emerging concerns, leaving too many children with unmet safety and wellbeing needs.

Staff were committed to supporting children and demonstrated strong values and knowledge. However, workforce pressures, vacancies, high levels of sickness absence, and gaps in partner provision had contributed to excessive workloads and inconsistency in practice. While leaders had taken steps to increase capacity and strengthen quality assurance arrangements, there was insufficient evidence at the time of the inspection that these actions had resulted in sustained improvements in the quality of work delivered to children.

The challenge for Bradford YJS is to ensure, at pace, that governance, partnership activity, and management oversight are focused on improving the quality of assessing, planning, and delivery, particularly in relation to children’s safety and the safety of others. This will require a whole-system response from all partners. Only through stronger collective ownership, improved multi-agency working, and a greater focus on the quality of frontline practice will the YJS be able to achieve consistently positive outcomes for children while also keeping them, and communities, safe.

Martin Jones CBE

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

Ratings (Back to top)

Fieldwork started June 2026

Score 2/12

Overall rating

Inadequate

Organisational delivery

1.1 Governance and leadership	Inadequate
1.2 Staffing	Requires improvement
1.3 Partnership and services	Inadequate

Work with children

2.1 Assessing	Inadequate
2.2 Planning	Inadequate
2.3 Delivery	Requires improvement

Work with victims

V1 Work with victims

Requires improvement

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 Bradford. This will improve the lives of the children in contact with youth justice services and better protect the public.

The Youth Justice Service Management Board should:

take collective ownership of performance and implement a robust assurance framework to drive rapid improvements in work to keep children and communities safe
require all members to evidence how they have used their influence, resources, and services to improve outcomes for children known to the YJS
ensure that all statutory partners contribute consistently to the provision and delivery of services for children and are held to account where they fail to meet their responsibilities
ensure that the secured additional staffing and management resources translate into demonstrable improvements in practice, performance, and outcomes for children
develop an overarching victim strategy to strengthen services to victims and improve their safety and wellbeing.

The Youth Justice Service should:

improve the quality and depth of assessing, planning, and delivery work to keep children and communities safe
support practitioners to move beyond identification of diversity factors, to enable meaningful analysis of how lived experiences and identity influences children’s behaviour, engagement, and outcomes
strengthen coordination between all partners to ensure a joined-up approach to the assessing, planning, and delivery of work to children
ensure that management oversight of work to keep children and others safe is consistent, effective, and impactful in driving high-quality work.

Background (Back to top)

We conducted fieldwork in Bradford YJS over a period of two weeks. During the week of the 08 June 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 09 June 2025 and 10 April 2026. We also conducted 28 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 09 June 2025 and 10 April 2026. We also conducted interviews with staff and managers responsible for the delivery of this work.

We returned to Bradford for a second week on 24 August 2026 to undertake a reactive inspection of youth justice services. A reactive inspection of youth justice services (IYJS) takes place when we are either concerned by our findings from an inspection of youth justice work with children and victims (IYJWCV) or we have seen significant effective practice through the IYJWCV and wish to find out more about how this has been achieved. We return to the YJS after a short period to inspect the work against the domain one standards. This enables us to understand and report on the enablers of, and barriers to, the poor or effective practice that we have seen in our inspection of work with children and victims.

Following detailed discussions and a careful review of the available evidence from week one inspection activity, we had ongoing concerns about how effectively strategic governance and leadership were operating across the partnership. There were also indications of variability in the quality of practice when working with children and victims. This inconsistency raised questions about how reliably services were being delivered and the extent to which safeguarding outcomes were being achieved. In addition, some challenges were identified in how partners were working together, including issues around cohesion, shared ownership, and coordinated responses to risk. Taken together, our reactive inspection provided an opportunity to understand these challenges better and ensure a more cohesive and effective YJS partnership response moving forward.

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.

At the time of this inspection, Bradford YJS operated within the Bradford Children and Families Trust, serving a large and diverse urban population. The Bradford district had a population of over 570,000 residents, with a notably young demographic; almost a third of the population were under 20 years of age and over 142,000 were aged under 18. The area was characterised by significant diversity, including a large Pakistani community, alongside a White British majority. The district also experienced high levels of socioeconomic disadvantage, ranking among the most deprived local authorities in England, with elevated rates of child poverty, unemployment, and fuel poverty. Crime levels remained comparatively high, with over 67,000 offences recorded in 2025.

Bradford YJS delivered statutory youth justice services to children who had offended or were at risk of offending. At the time of inspection, 184 children were open to the YJS because of their offending behaviour. This cohort of children presented with multiple and often overlapping vulnerabilities. Many children were known to other services, including early help, children’s social care, and education support services. A proportion of children had education, health, and care plans, and there were notable challenges in education engagement. While most school-aged children remained on a school roll, attendance levels were low, and over half of those aged 16 and over were not in education, employment, or training (NEET).

The YJS worked within a broad and partnership framework. Key statutory and non-statutory partners included the police, Probation Service, children’s social care, education, health services (including child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) and speech and language therapy), and a range of voluntary and community sector organisations. However, these partnerships did not always support a coordinated approach to effective work with YJS children. In both multi-agency case discussions that were completed as part of the fieldwork process, inspectors found a range of gaps, including some partners not knowing or understanding fully what each other was doing or had done. These findings were further reinforced during the second week of inspection activity.

The YJS was overseen by a youth justice management board, which had a consistent chair and representation from all key partners, although attendance and engagement from some partners were variable. The board increasingly sought to embed child-first principles in its work and to strengthen the voice and influence of children in strategic decision-making. Initiatives such as board takeover events demonstrated a commitment to hearing directly from children and using their feedback to inform service development. However, children’s voices and influence were not yet fully embedded.

The YJS had adopted a delivery model that was relational, trauma informed, restorative, and grounded in child-first and victim-first principles. This approach aimed to focus on children’s strengths, promote meaningful engagement, and support desistance from offending. However, findings from practice showed that not all of these aims were being achieved consistently.

Inspectors visited two sites where children engaged in a range of activities: the Bike Project and an allotment in Bradford. Both facilities were impressive, offering excellent opportunities for children to develop social, emotional, and employability skills. The allotment provided not only an outdoor learning environment where children could complete reparation hours, but also an adjacent classroom space, offering a safe setting for discussions about emotional wellbeing. Inspectors spoke with four children present at the allotment. All spoke positively about both the staff and their learning experiences. They had completed artwork related to motoring offences and took pride in sharing their work, explaining how it had increased their awareness of the dangers of reckless behaviour.

Education and healthcare were recognised as critical protective factors in reducing reoffending and improving outcomes. The YJS had worked with education colleagues to recognise gaps in suitable provision. Education services had increased efforts to support access to appropriate provision, improve attendance, and address barriers to engagement. However, this was a work in progress. Health partners contributed to assessing and intervention, particularly in relation to mental health, speech and language needs, and neurodevelopmental conditions. While there had been improvements in access to some services, including reduced waiting times for mental health provision, we found that the level of demand and complexity of need remained as significant challenges for the partnership.

The YJS had undergone structural and workforce developments following inspection activity in 2019. Staffing arrangements had been aligned to provide both geographical coverage and specialism in out-of-court and post-court work. More recently, there had been investment in additional roles, including practitioners, restorative specialists, and management capacity, alongside improvements in data and practice development functions. The YJS had recognised some areas where the quality of practice needed to improve and had attempted to implement support and improvement measures. However, the YJS had experienced periods of significant staffing instability, including absences and vacancies, which affected continuity for some children, created pressures on workloads, and influenced the pace and impact of improvement. These issues had contributed to the variability in the quality of work, especially in keeping children and communities safe.

Quality assurance processes were in place to monitor and improve practice, but these had not yet resulted in the standard of work that the YJS was aspiring to achieve. There was evidence of audits taking place, dip sampling, live case reviews, and multi-agency scrutiny. However, these activities had not yet led to consistently better outcomes for children.

Domain one: Organisational delivery (Back to top)

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

Key findings about organisational delivery were as follows.

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

Strengths:

Bradford Youth Justice Service Management Board had established a three-year strategic plan (2024-2027) focused on five key priorities: education, serious youth violence, reducing reoffending, disproportionality, and reducing the number of children in custody. The strategy was underpinned by child-first principles, restorative practice, and diversion from the criminal justice system. The board’s vision demonstrated a commitment to improving outcomes for children, victims, families, and communities.
Strategic leadership arrangements consisted of a broad range of senior partner representation, including the police, probation services, children’s social care services, education providers, healthcare services, public health services, community safety partnerships, restorative services, elected members, and YJS leaders. The board had also strengthened specialist oversight through victim- and custody-related workstreams and had actively sought greater engagement from education partners and the virtual school.
The board had undertaken some activity which demonstrated a commitment to understanding and addressing disproportionality. It had identified the overrepresentation of Asian boys in motoring offences, and Eastern European children within the YJS cohort. The disproportionality subgroup had established a clear action plan and undertaken analysis of ethnicity, poverty indicators, special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), and offending patterns. Monthly ‘deep dives‘ into First Time Entrant and custody data provided ongoing scrutiny of potential disproportionality and emerging concerns. The board demonstrated a willingness to challenge local systems, including West Yorkshire Police processes relating to motoring offences and diversionary decision-making.
The board had developed a comprehensive participation strategy covering children, families, and victims. The board ‘Takeover Day’ provided children with a direct opportunity to challenge and influence board members, resulting in agreed actions and the development of a ‘you said, we did’ approach. Feedback from children and parents was improving, and beginning to be integrated into the annual audit programme. It was recognised that more work was needed in this area.
Senior leaders responded positively to our inspection findings from week one, by introducing weekly live auditing, strengthening management oversight, increasing scrutiny of practice quality, and implementing targeted workforce development. Given the time between week one and week two of our inspection, these activities had not yet had sufficient time to embed or demonstrate impact. Additional staffing investment, service redesign, and the planned co-location of a substance misuse practitioner further demonstrated leaders’ commitment to improvement.
Staff and managers remained resilient and committed, despite significant operational pressures. The board formally recognised staff professionalism during periods of high demand. Staff wellbeing arrangements included reflective supervision, psychological support, debrief opportunities, mindfulness sessions, and access to an employee assistance programme.
There was evidence that many staff understood their operational responsibilities. In HM Inspectorate of Probation’s staff survey, 14 of 18 respondents reported understanding their roles and responsibilities either quite well or very well. Eleven staff reported that strategic arrangements and activities were mostly monitored and reviewed.

Areas for improvement:

The board did not yet have a sufficiently developed understanding of the effectiveness of work undertaken to keep children and communities safe. While board members understood the broader profile and needs of children within the YJS, they did not have a sufficiently detailed understanding of why practice relating to safety and risk management was substantially less effective than work to support positive change. Oversight, challenge, and assurance regarding safeguarding and public protection required significant strengthening.
Governance arrangements were not working sufficiently well and there was limited evidence that board activities consistently led to improved practice or outcomes. Board members were unable to demonstrate consistently a shared understanding of the actions required to improve safeguarding, risk management, and public protection practice. A considerable amount of quantitative and qualitative information was collected through audits, dip sampling, performance reports, and assurance reviews. However, this information was not routinely triangulated to provide leaders with a coherent understanding of service effectiveness, risk, and improvement needs.
Performance discussions were often descriptive rather than analytical. Although board members reviewed key performance indicators and identified emerging concerns, there was insufficient analysis of the factors driving performance issues. ‘Vital signs’ reporting identified broad themes but lacked the detailed analysis necessary to understand recurring weaknesses in professional curiosity, safeguarding practice, contingency planning, and partnership working. As a result, leaders could not demonstrate consistently the impact of improvement activity.
Audit findings, independent reviews, and HM Inspectorate of Probation case inspections identified repeated weaknesses in assessing quality, responsive planning, and management oversight. The board’s own assurance activity and HM Inspectorate of Probation findings were consistent in identifying weaknesses in practice intended to keep children and others safe. Despite this, collective understanding and ownership of these concerns by partner agencies remained limited.
Collective ownership and accountability across the partnership were inconsistent. Despite ongoing challenge from the Board Chair, there continued to be a high level of deputising at board meetings, which limited continuity, accountability, and effective oversight. Engagement from some board members was weak, with limited evidence of meaningful challenge or contribution to governance activity. Staff described some board members as largely ‘invisible’ and questioned the extent of their contribution to supporting YJS improvement.
Not all board members demonstrated a clear understanding of their governance responsibilities or of the specific needs and experiences of children within the YJS cohort. In addition, partner engagement was variable, with inconsistent attendance and limited contribution from healthcare, substance misuse, Probation Service, and some education partners. There was little evidence of board members acting as enablers, committing resources or removing barriers to support the work of the YJS. This weakened strategic oversight, reduced opportunities for effective information sharing, and diminished the effectiveness of partnership working to improve outcomes for children and keep communities safe.
Strategic partnership arrangements did not consistently support effective operational delivery. Multi-agency ownership of safeguarding, risk management, and improving outcomes for children was not sufficiently embedded. Opportunities for coordinated problem solving and effective partnership intervention were not maximised consistently within strategic forums or in work with individual children.
While leaders had introduced a substantial programme of improvement activity, there was insufficient evidence that these actions had resulted in sustained improvements in practice quality, safeguarding outcomes, or community safety. Greater focus was required on evaluating impact, tracking progress, and ensuring that improvement activity translated into measurable outcomes for children and communities. While it was positive that additional improvement activity commenced following week one of our inspection, the board needed to assure themselves that this activity drove the required improvements.
Probation Service contributions remained limited, with no seconded probation staff and no information-sharing agreement in place. The Probation Service contributed funding for a 0.8 full-time equivalent (FTE) probation officer position, with an additional identified 0.6 (unfunded) FTE probation services officer post. There were gaps in probation provision, with the probation officer role covered by an agency worker and a vacant probation service officer post. This adversely affected information sharing, specialist expertise, and practice quality.
The board had not yet secured consistent multi-agency participation in audit activity. This restricted opportunities for collective learning, challenge, and shared ownership of improvement activity across the partnership.
Although the board captured feedback from children and families effectively, there was less evidence demonstrating how feedback directly influenced strategic priorities or board decision-making. Parent participation arrangements remained underdeveloped and formal reporting arrangements were still being established.
The understanding of disproportionality required further development. While analysis was improving, additional granular work was required to understand fully the experiences and overrepresentation of Eastern European children and to assess the impact of actions taken to reduce identified inequalities.
Leadership capacity and capability remained areas of concern. Senior leaders acknowledged ongoing performance issues within the YJS and recognised the widespread need to strengthen leadership skills, management confidence, and accountability across all staffing levels.
Leadership engagement with staff required substantial improvement. Interviews and focus groups, alongside HM Inspectorate of Probation’s staff survey, indicated some significant concerns about culture and engagement. While some staff considered the YJS culture to promote openness, constructive challenge, and ideas well or very well, 10 of 18 respondents felt that the YJS did not promote openness, constructive challenge, or new ideas ‘well’ and some indicated that this was not promoted ‘at all’. Some staff reported that staff feedback was not sought, analysed, or used effectively to improve services. Some staff also reported that leaders did not understand or promote the meeting of diverse needs sufficiently or consider reasonable adjustments for staff appropriately.
Policies and procedures were generally comprehensive; however, they were not understood consistently or applied well in practice. Some staff required greater support and training to ensure that safeguarding, safety planning, risk management, and other critical policies were implemented effectively and consistently. This was compounded further by staff capability issues, whereby policies and procedures were not followed consistently or utilised effectively to deliver high-quality services.
Interviews and focus groups, alongside HM Inspectorate of Probation’s staff survey, indicated that staff understanding of strategic leadership and governance was less developed than theirknowledge of operational roles. Some staff reported that they did not understand the direction and strategy of the YJS management board ‘well’ or ‘at all’.
Leaders were aware that organisational culture required significant attention. Staff survey findings, alongside interviews and focus groups, indicated low confidence in leadership, limited trust in organisational processes, concerns about openness and constructive challenge, and uncertainty about how staff feedback influenced decision-making. Longstanding cultural issues continued to affect morale, engagement, and the pace of improvement. This was also evident and impactful during a period when leaders were seeking to address practice concerns, strengthen accountability, and improve performance across the YJS.
While the YJS had taken additional steps to increase resource to undertake quality assurance activity, dip sampling, and coaching, leaders could not yet demonstrate that this investment had resulted in sustained improvements in safeguarding and safety-focused practice. Recurring weaknesses continued to be identified in assessing, safety planning, risk management, and partnership working, suggesting that learning had not yet been translated consistently into high-quality frontline practice.

1.2 Staffing	Rating
Staff are enabled to deliver a high-quality, personalised and responsive service to achieve positive change and keep children and communities safe.	Requires improvement

Strengths:

Leaders had a clear understanding of the significant workforce challenges facing the YJS and were taking some proactive steps to address them. Staff shortages arising from vacancies, sickness absence, and difficulties recruiting to specialist posts had been recognised as a strategic priority. In response, leaders had secured approval for additional practitioner, restorative, and management posts, made use of agency staff to maintain operational capacity, and introduced structural changes to strengthen management oversight. This demonstrated a clear commitment to improving workforce resilience and ensuring that staffing capacity was sufficient to meet the needs of children and victims over the longer term.
The YJS was made up of a diverse and multidisciplinary workforce. Staff included practitioners from a wide range of professional backgrounds and specialist services, including the police, safeguarding nurses, CAMHS practitioners, speech and language therapists, restorative practitioners, and education staff. This indicated a broad range of expertise and opportunities for children to receive support that was tailored to their individual needs. Leaders had also maintained a focus on workforce diversity and cultural competence. Recent recruitment activity had increased diversity within the management team, and training had been delivered on diversity, disproportionality, cultural competence, and intersectionality.
Some staff were generally confident in their professional competence. Of the 18 staff who responded to the staff survey, 15 reported feeling ‘mostly’ or ‘fully’ experienced and qualified to undertake their role. This confidence was supported by a comprehensive learning and development offer. Staff had access to mandatory and specialist training covering safeguarding, trauma-informed practice, child exploitation, domestic abuse, restorative practice, risk and safety, equality and diversity, and child-first approaches. Leaders had also taken some action in response to inspection findings and quality assurance activity by commissioning additional training and developing practice guidance in areas where weaknesses had been identified.
There were arrangements in place for identifying and developing staff potential. The YJS provided access to qualifications, apprenticeships, leadership programmes, and specialist training opportunities. Staff had progressed from foundation-level qualifications to degree-level study, and practitioners had advanced into practice development lead and management roles. This demonstrated a commitment to developing internal talent, supporting succession planning, and retaining skilled staff.
Volunteers reported positive experiences, and in response to our survey indicated that the support they received was either ‘good’ or ‘very good’.

Areas for improvement:

The YJS had a strong induction programme that introduced new staff to organisational values, restorative practice, and child-centred approaches. Equity, diversity, inclusion (EDI), and belonging were embedded within induction arrangements. New staff also received access to learning, wellbeing, and support services from the outset of their employment. However, there was considerable variability in the impact of this induction process on building high-quality foundations with staff and supporting them to deliver consistently high-quality work with children.
Workforce capacity remained a significant challenge and continued to affect the ability of the YJS to deliver work of consistently high quality. Although leaders had taken initial positive action to increase staffing levels, these measures had not yet mitigated fully the impact of vacancies, long-term absence, and difficulties in recruiting to specialist posts. Staffing levels were improving but were not yet consistently sufficient across all areas of the YJS. The full benefit of recent investment remained dependent on successful recruitment, targeted use of resources, consistent high-quality management oversight, and the retention and return of experienced staff.
Workload pressures remained a substantial concern for practitioners. HM Inspectorate of Probation staff survey findings were particularly negative in this area. Of the 18 respondents, 11 reported that their workloads were either ‘not at all’ or only ‘partly’ manageable, while only one respondent considered their workload to be fully manageable. Staff described routinely working beyond their core youth justice responsibilities, including pursuing education provision, escalating health referrals, supporting children’s social care activity, and delivering substance misuse interventions when partner services were unable to respond. This reduced the time available for direct work with children and increased the risk that youth justice interventions would not receive sufficient focus.
High levels of sickness absence had increased pressure on the workforce further. In one team, three of six staff members became absent during the same week, requiring the redistribution of approximately 30 cases. Such periods of instability placed considerable strain on remaining staff and on management capacity. Managers had to devote significant time to allocation management, wellbeing support, and maintaining operational continuity, limiting their capacity to focus on quality improvement and practice development. Proactive workload management needed to be implemented better at both a strategic and operational level to reduce the impact of staff absence.
Partnership capacity issues continued to have a significant impact on service delivery. Staff consistently reported delays in accessing CAMHS interventions, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism assessments, education provision, SEND support, and substance misuse services. These delays often resulted in children being unable to access specialist interventions within the timescales of their orders. In practice, practitioners frequently compensated for these gaps by undertaking work outside their areas of expertise. This increased workload pressures and reduced the effectiveness of specialist intervention planning.
Despite a diverse workforce and significant investment in training, inspection findings identified weaknesses in understanding and responding to children’s diversity needs. In just under 40 per cent of inspected cases, these needs were not understood sufficiently. Similar weaknesses were seen in service delivery, whereby interventions did not reflect or respond to children’s diverse experiences and identities consistently. This suggested that training and workforce diversity had not yet translated into consistently effective practice.
There was inconsistency in the quality of assessing, planning, and risk management work. While staff generally reported feeling qualified and competent, this confidence was not reflected sufficiently in casework outcomes, particularly in keeping children and others safe. The inspection identified variability in practitioners’ use of specialist services and consultation opportunities, which meant that specialist expertise was not always fully utilised to improve safety outcomes.
Although structures for supervision were well developed, supervision was not always effective in supporting relational and child-focused practice. Staff survey findings, alongside interviews and focus groups, indicated variability in the quality of supervision received. Of the 13 staff for whom the survey question was relevant, eight reported that supervision only ‘partly’ supported them to work in a relational way with children, and only four staff reported that supervision ‘mostly’ or ‘fully’ met this need. One staff member reported receiving no effective child-focused supervision. Some staff also reported variability in the frequency of supervision, alongside inconsistency in the quality received.
Management oversight and quality assurance arrangements required greater consistency. While the framework itself was comprehensive, inspection findings identified shortfalls in the quality and effectiveness of management oversight. Staff described differences in the advice provided by those overseeing the quality of work, creating uncertainty about practice expectations. Inspectors also found that management oversight had not consistently ensured high-quality work, particularly in relation to keeping children and others safe.
Some managers and staff demonstrated an overreliance on the safety panel as a mechanism for identifying and managing risk. Several believed that the panel effectively ‘caught’ high-risk children. However, inspection findings did not support this view. The panel was not always effective in coordinating responses for vulnerable children, particularly those assessed as being lower risk but with complex or escalating needs. This meant that some children did not receive sufficiently coordinated intervention and oversight.

1.3 Partnerships and services	Rating
A comprehensive range of high-quality, personalised and responsive services is in place, achieving positive change and keeping children and communities safe.	Inadequate

Strengths:

Bradford YJS had developed some understanding of the profile of children known to the service through quality assurance activity, thematic reviews, and partner intelligence. A dedicated research and data analyst supported leaders to monitor trends, including responses to offending patterns, serious youth violence, and first-time entrants.
Some children were able to access a broad range of specialist services and interventions. Internal provision included speech and language therapy, health services, CAMHS, and parenting support, complemented by a network of statutory, commissioned, and voluntary sector partners. Some specialist arrangements demonstrated effective targeting of resources, including the SALT triage model, which prioritised approximately 65 per cent of the cohort, and a dedicated SEND case officer with a caseload of around 100 children, compared with a standard caseload of approximately 500. However, we found some instances where there had been delays in accessing CAMHS interventions, ADHD and autism assessments, education provision, SEND support, and substance misuse services.
Health and education partnerships provided some notable examples of effective support. The service benefited from 1.8 FTE physical health nurses, while increased CAMHS capacity had improved access to autism assessments and specialist mental health support. Partnership working within education had also strengthened through dedicated ETE support, improved information-sharing arrangements, and additional staffing resources.
Child-first, strengths-based, and trauma-informed principles were embedded within the YJS strategic approach. Staff had received relevant training, and children were able to access interventions designed to build resilience, strengthen protective factors, and support positive outcomes. Service delivery was flexible and community based, with 11 of 18 staff survey respondents reporting that services were ‘always’ or ‘mostly’ delivered in safe and accessible locations.
Partnership managers generally described relationships with YJS leaders as positive and collaborative. There was evidence of some joint workforce development activity, established participation arrangements that were beginning to influence service development, and sufficient multi-agency arrangements for appropriate adult provision. In addition, the multi-agency out-of-court resolution joint decision-making panel provided a forum for collaborative decision-making involving YJS, police, and children’s social care representatives.

Areas for improvement:

Despite having available management information regarding the YJS cohort, the YJS did not translate this understanding consistently into effective partnership practice. Inspection findings identified that risks, safety concerns, and emotional wellbeing needs were not understood or analysed sufficiently in many cases. The quality of assessing and planning varied considerably, resulting in inconsistent responses to children presenting with similar levels of need, vulnerability, or risk.
Strategic and partnership analysis was more developed in relation to promoting positive change than to keeping children and others safe. While leaders monitored education, reoffending, diversion, and engagement outcomes routinely, there was less focus on understanding and evaluating risk, victim safety, community protection, and the effectiveness of safeguarding interventions. This limited the ability of the YJS to maintain a balanced approach between supporting children and protecting communities.
Diversity practice across partners remained underdeveloped. Although strategic reporting identified disproportionality and demographic trends, partners were not adapting their service delivery sufficiently to meet the diverse needs of children. This was also evident within casework. Diversity profiles in case records were often descriptive rather than analytical, with insufficient consideration of children’s lived experiences, cultural identities, socioeconomic circumstances, faith, adverse experiences, and intersectional needs. Management oversight did not challenge the quality of diversity analysis routinely, reducing assurance that interventions were tailored effectively.
‘Vital signs’ performance reports and performance information were not supported consistently by sufficiently robust analytical commentary. While partnership managers could identify trends and themes, there was limited evidence of systematic analysis to understand why patterns were occurring, which children were most affected, or which interventions were having the greatest impact. Opportunities to identify root causes and direct resources towards areas of greatest need were therefore not being maximised.
Multi-agency arrangements were variable when it came to ensuring that children received coordinated support. Although forums such as Multi-Agency Initial Planning Panel (MIPP), education panels, safety panels, and partnership governance structures were in place, inspection findings showed that these arrangements did not always result in integrated planning, effective coordination, or improved safety outcomes.
Practitioners reported variability in the application of children’s social care thresholds and a lack of confidence that professional disagreements were resolved consistently. We also saw evidence of this in cases we inspected. Although the Trust had implemented quarterly meetings across all its managers, intended to build relationships and connections across the Trust, further work was required. There needed to be strengthened collaboration and joint working between children’s social care services and the YJS, with a clear focus on proactive partnership in resolving challenge, shared accountability, and collaborative decision-making. By contrast, arrangements which were supported by clear service level agreements with children’s social care services, which practitioners and managers could reference, appeared to achieve more effective outcomes.
Partnership managers demonstrated limited understanding of the YJS’s quality assurance activity, performance findings, and the impact of partnership interventions. This reduced collective ownership of outcomes and weakened the partnership’s ability to evaluate effectiveness and drive continuous improvement.
Safety panel arrangements required significant strengthening. Practitioners reported inconsistencies in the alignment of multi-agency plans, and inspectors found insufficient evidence that discussions always translated into coordinated action. There appeared to be an overreliance on safety panels as a mechanism for managing risk, despite limited evidence that they identified, monitored, and coordinated responses consistently for all vulnerable children.
Access to services remained variable, despite the breadth of provision available. Staff survey findings were particularly concerning. Of respondents who completed the HM Inspectorate of Probation staff survey, 10 out of 18 staff reported that they only ‘sometimes’ had access to the right specialist, mainstream, and follow-on services, while two staff reported that they ‘never’ had access to the right provision. No respondents reported that services were ‘always’ available. These findings suggested that the challenge lay not in the availability of services, but in ensuring timely and equitable access to them.
Educational outcomes continued to present challenges. Despite significant investment in partnership arrangements, the proportion of children aged under 16 who were not in education remained high. In addition, there was limited assurance that alternative provision arrangements were sufficiently tailored to meet the specific needs of children known to the YJS.
There was limited awareness among practitioners and managers of the full range of community-based, culturally specific, and lived experience led services available across Bradford. Opportunities to utilise these services and strengthen support networks around children and families were therefore not maximised consistently.

Domain two: Work with children (Back to top)

We took a detailed look at 28 cases where the YJS had worked with children who were subject to bail, remand, community sentences, resettlement, or out-of-court resolutions.

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

Our rating² for assessing is based on the following key questions:

Does assessing sufficiently analyse how to:	% ‘Yes’
achieve positive change for the child?	64%
keep the child and the community safe?	39%

While there were several strong elements in assessing activity to support achieving positive change for the child, there was also notable variability in the quality and consistency in this aspect of work.

Children and their parents or carers had been involved meaningfully in the assessing process. There was clear evidence of co-production, including self-assessment and collaborative discussions about pathways to positive change. This had strengthened engagement with children and their parents or carers and supported assessing activity.

Assessing activity identified strengths and protective factors consistently, including supportive family relationships, engagement in education or employment, pro-social activities, and future aspirations. Practitioners demonstrated a clear understanding of how these factors could support desistance and sustain positive change. While family context was generally considered, some assessing activity had not fully explored the role and influence of wider family relationships, peer groups, or social environments. This had restricted insight into barriers to, and facilitators of, positive change.

While diversity factors were often identified, they had not always been explored in sufficient depth. This included limited analysis of the impact of culture, ethnicity, gender identity, discrimination, or language needs on the child’s experiences, behaviour, and engagement. As a result, opportunities to tailor interventions more effectively had been missed.

In a number of formal assessments, analysis lacked depth, with information presented descriptively rather than explored critically. This limited understanding of how key factors, such as trauma, neurodiversity, identity, and lived experiences, impacted on behaviour, motivation, and the child’s capacity to change.

In broader aspects of assessing practice, inspectors found gaps in information gathering, including limited engagement with key individuals (such as fathers, step-parents, or wider family members), insufficient follow-up of previous interventions, and missed opportunities to access relevant records or specialist input. In some cases, overreliance had been placed on parental accounts, without professional verification. In several cases, previous involvement with youth justice or other services had not been analysed sufficiently. This had resulted in missed opportunities to understand what had worked previously, what had not, and how subsequent interventions could be tailored better to support sustainable change. Additionally, while there was some evidence of multi-agency working overall, this was inconsistent. In over a third of cases, key agencies, such as education providers or children’s social care services, had not contributed sufficiently to assessing activity, limiting the robustness of assessing practice.

Overall, assessing activity to keep the child and the community safe was poor, with weaknesses in analytical depth, professional curiosity, and the exploration of wider contextual and exploitation-related risks. These gaps limited the effectiveness of a breadth of assessing practice and the ability fully to understand and manage safety to both the child and others.

In a significant number of formal assessments, analysis regarding what was required to keep the child and community safe lacked depth and was over-descriptive. Practitioners did not consistently demonstrate sufficient professional curiosity to explore concerns fully, particularly in relation to serious and worrying behaviours, patterns of harm or escalation of risk.

Although practitioners took time to understand how well collaborative work with the child’s parents or carers could be undertaken to keep the child and community safe, broader assessing activity did not always explore family relationships fully, including the role of non-resident fathers, siblings, or other significant adults. Risks within the home, including domestic abuse, parental substance use, or harmful dynamics, were often analysed insufficiently.

Assessing of exploitation risk, peer relationships, and wider associations was often underdeveloped. We found examples where significant indicators of exploitation, harmful peer influence, or county lines activity were identified but not explored or analysed fully. When risks to the community were identified, there was often limited analysis of the likelihood, imminence, and seriousness of harm to others. Potential victims were not always identified clearly, and the impact on victims, including their wishes and needs, was not always considered.

Although risks were often identified, there was limited analysis of how these translated into effective safety planning. This included insufficient exploration of how interventions would reduce risk or manage harm over time. In several cases, risks beyond the immediate family environment, such as online harm, community-based risks, or exposure to violence, were not explored in sufficient detail. This limited understanding of the full range of safeguarding concerns.

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

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

Does planning focus sufficiently on how to:	% ‘Yes’
achieve positive change for the child?	79%
keep the child and community safe?	43%

Planning was generally child centred and demonstrated a clear commitment to supporting positive change. Practitioners took account of the child’s wider context consistently, including family relationships, education, health, and social circumstances. Parents and carers were frequently identified as protective factors and were meaningfully involved in planning, supporting engagement when children did not want to attend appointments, and reinforcing positive changes in behaviour within the home environment. Strengths-based practice was evident. Planning often identified and built on children’s interests, aspirations, and existing skills, particularly in relation to education, employment, and pro-social activities. There was a strong focus on promoting desistance, including work on emotional regulation, decision-making, and victim awareness. In much of the work with children, there was effective co-production, with the child’s voice reflected clearly through child-friendly plans and active participation in setting goals.

Planning was tailored commonly to individual needs, with evident examples of adjustments for neurodiversity, learning needs, language barriers, and religious or cultural factors. Multi-agency involvement in planning for positive change was present in the majority of the cases reviewed, with appropriate referrals and joint working with services such as education, CAMHS, speech and language therapy, and community provision. In stronger examples, inspectors noted that planning was coordinated, sequenced, and responsive, with clear links between assessing, identified needs, and interventions.

However, exit and transition planning remained a recurring weakness in some of the inspected work. In several cases, planning was either underdeveloped, premature, or did not consider sufficiently how progress would be sustained beyond the intervention. This included limited focus on building longer-term support networks, community integration, and continuity of services. A notable strength demonstrated by practitioners in their planning was their ability to assess thoughtfully the child’s capacity and motivation to change. This enabled them to agree on what was realistic and achievable.

In stronger examples, planning took account of the child’s motivation and ability to change, drawing on review processes and changing circumstances to adjust interventions and controls. There was evidence of sequencing and prioritisation, with an appropriate balance between managing immediate issues (for example, accommodation and supervision arrangements) and addressing underlying factors such as trauma, neurodiversity, emotional regulation, and substance misuse.

However, planning was not always responsive to changes in engagement or circumstances. There were examples where formal and informal plans lacked adaptability when children disengaged from education or services, and where barriers to engagement (such as communication needs, cultural factors, or family influence) were not explored or addressed fully.

The quality of planning activity to keep the child and the community safe was weak. In the majority of inspected cases, planning lacked sufficient depth, coordination, and forward focus. A recurring issue was an overemphasis on the presenting offence, with insufficient attention to wider risks and vulnerabilities such as exploitation, harmful sexual behaviour, domestic abuse, adverse childhood experiences, and other patterns of behaviour. This limited the ability of planning to safeguard the child and others fully.

There was variable evidence of safety planning to manage risk to the child and others. In stronger examples, safety plans were co-produced, proportionate, and reviewed regularly, with a clear focus on risks both within and outside the home. Practitioners responded appropriately to changes in behaviour, revisiting interventions and reinforcing consequences following further incidents. However, in weaker cases, safety planning was either limited or overreliant on external controls (such as placement or parental oversight), without sufficient focus on addressing underlying risk factors. There was also limited contingency planning where engagement was low or circumstances changed.

Planning did not always cover all relevant contexts where harm might occur, such as school, community settings, or online environments. Key partners, particularly education providers, were not always fully involved in safety planning, resulting in gaps in oversight and risk management. However, encouragingly, practitioners were much better in setting out how work would be undertaken collaboratively with the child’s parents or carers to keep the child safe.

Victim considerations were variable. While some plans included restorative activity, there were missed opportunities to incorporate victims’ views, plan for indirect or potential victims, or implement protective measures such as exclusion zones.

Multi-agency planning was not always well coordinated. There were examples of silo working, unclear roles, and limited information sharing between partners. Responsive planning and risk escalation arrangements were often underdeveloped, particularly where engagement reduced or risks increased.

Transition and exit planning were also significant weaknesses. In several cases, there was insufficient planning for how safety would be maintained over time, particularly for children leaving custody, moving placement, or approaching the end of orders. This included a lack of clear arrangements for ongoing support, supervision, and risk management.

Professional curiosity was inconsistent. In nearly half of the inspected cases, risks were not explored fully or revisited, including emerging behaviours, intelligence from police, or historical concerns. This resulted in planning activity that was reactive, incomplete, and insufficiently responsive to the child’s changing circumstances.

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

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

Does the delivery of well-focused, personalised and co-ordinated services:	% ‘Yes’
achieve positive change for the child?	82%
keep the child and the community safe?	61%

Across all the inspected cases, delivery was underpinned consistently by effective relationship-based practice, which supported engagement with children and their families. Practitioners developed strong working relationships through regular contact, home visits, and clear communication, often maintaining involvement, despite challenges such as staff absence or family dynamics. Engagement was strengthened further where practitioners demonstrated persistence, explained processes clearly to parents or carers, and used family members as protective factors. In several cases, this resulted in children being more open, motivated, and willing to participate in interventions, contributing to positive change.

However, in weaker cases, although some relationship building was evident, this did not translate into meaningful engagement with interventions. In a small number of cases, allocation decisions or overidentification with parents or carers created barriers, limiting the child’s engagement and reducing the effectiveness of delivery.

Attention to delivering work that took account of the environment in which the child was being raised, including their wider familial and social context, was generally strong. This maximised the likelihood of interventions achieving positive outcomes.

Strengths-based approaches were evident consistently, with practitioners reinforcing protective factors such as education, employment, family relationships, and positive activities (for example, sports, youth groups, or vocational interests). Delivery focused generally on supporting positive change, with interventions (for example, victim awareness work, dealing with peer influences, harm minimisation discussions regarding cannabis use, and alcohol awareness) targeting attitudes, thinking, and behaviour linked to offending. Common areas of work included victim awareness, peer pressure, decision-making, safety awareness, and substance misuse. In many cases, children were supported to develop routines, build resilience, and engage in pro-social activities, including education, reparation, and community-based programmes.

Delivery to support positive change was frequently flexible and responsive, with practitioners adapting to new information, changing circumstances, and emerging risks. This included incorporating new offences into sessions, responding to substance misuse, and adjusting delivery in response to mental health deterioration.

In some cases, practitioners demonstrated persistence in overcoming barriers, such as limited education provision, by advocating through panels or revising plans.

There was mixed evidence regarding the consideration of diversity in delivery. In stronger cases, practitioners demonstrated cultural competence by incorporating religious observance, exploring identity (including sexuality), and adapting delivery to neurodiversity and communication needs. Tools such as speech and language assessments and formal education reviews were used to inform practice, and sessions were adapted to support engagement. However, diversity was often underexplored. In several cases, practitioners were aware of characteristics (for example, neurodiversity, care experience, or sexual orientation) but did not demonstrate sufficient curiosity or translate this into tailored delivery. This represented a missed opportunity to strengthen engagement and outcomes.

There was some positive emerging evidence in many cases of coordinated multi-agency working to support positive change. Practitioners liaised effectively with education providers, CAMHS, speech and language services, the police, and specialist programmes. Referrals were made to appropriate services, and information was shared to ensure a joined-up approach. However, coordination was inconsistent across cases. In some instances, gaps in partnership working limited the effectiveness of delivery, with delays in assessing, uncompleted referrals, or reliance on single-agency intervention. Where external services were declined or unavailable, there was not always sufficient adaptation to mitigate this, resulting in reduced impact.

There was some evidence of a focus on addressing offence-related behaviour and reducing risk of harm to both the child and the community. When done sufficiently well, inspectors found that practitioners delivered interventions targeting consequential thinking, decision-making, peer influence, anger management, and offence-specific issues such as dangerous driving, weapon use, and substance misuse. In stronger cases, this included structured programmes (for example, Behind the Blade and Virtual Reality-based interventions), which supported engagement and helped children understand risk and the impact of their behaviour.

However, where we found more variable and weaker practice, interventions were too generic and not tailored sufficiently to the child’s specific risks, particularly where there were complex behaviours such as sexually harmful behaviour, exploitation, or violence. This limited the effectiveness of delivery in reducing safety to the child or to others.

Victim awareness work, including apology letters and restorative justice, was used commonly to promote understanding of harm. However, in some cases, this work lacked depth or personalisation, reducing its overall impact. Additionally, in the opinion of inspectors, some of the apology letters were not entirely suitable and needed reviewing before being passed on to victims. For example, the explanations given by some children may have added to the victim’s trauma and anxiety.

There were insufficiencies in casework to address vulnerabilities, particularly in relation to exploitation, mental health, and adverse childhood experiences. In a minority of cases, practitioners identified vulnerabilities, made appropriate referrals, and incorporated this into delivery, including work on emotional regulation, wellbeing, and resilience. However, in half of the cases, there was insufficient professional curiosity or follow-up regarding emerging risks, particularly exploitation (including child criminal and sexual exploitation). Delivery did not always include targeted interventions to address these concerns.

Multi-agency involvement was variable in many cases and did not always contribute consistently to effective risk management. Where work was sufficient, practitioners liaised with the police, education providers, children’s social care services, CAMHS, and specialist services to share information and monitor concerns. In some cases, formal structures, such as multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA), dynamic support meetings, and education panels, supported coordinated oversight and planning.

Where coordination was strongest, professionals shared relevant intelligence, escalated concerns appropriately, and ensured continuity of intervention across services, contributing to both child and community safety. However, coordination was inconsistent. In several instances, there were gaps in information sharing, unclear sequencing of interventions, or overreliance on other agencies without clear oversight. Opportunities to engage key partners, such as police or specialist exploitation services, were sometimes missed, weakening the overall approach to risk management, including the safety of the child or others.

Inspectors found variability in practice when responding to change in the delivery of work. In the stronger cases, practitioners demonstrated responsiveness to changes in circumstances or behaviour. This included revisiting offence-focused work following further incidents, escalating safeguarding concerns, and adapting delivery to address new risks such as substance misuse or mental health deterioration. However, in too many cases, delivery was not sufficiently responsive to emerging concerns, including changes in relationships, school issues, or new incidents. There was limited evidence of follow-up action or escalation, and risk management did not adapt to reflect changing circumstances.

Work with victims (Back to top)

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

Our rating⁵ for work with victims is based on the following key questions:

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

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

Strengths

At a strategic level, there had been a commitment to the victim agenda across the partnership. Management board members had recognised the importance of victims’ services, with regular oversight evident through dedicated agenda items, presentations and the establishment of a multi-agency victim subgroup. This had provided a forum for focused discussion, shared learning and the development of improvement activity.
The board had supported the development of victim-focused practice, including strengthening links with partner agencies and improving the recording and use of victim data. There had also been evidence of investment in capacity, with the establishment and planned expansion of a dedicated team of restorative practitioners. This demonstrated an intention to deliver a high-quality, trauma-informed and restorative service to victims.
There were partnership arrangements in place with the police for obtaining consent and sharing victim details. These provided a clear procedural framework, including defined roles, formal recording processes and agreed timescales for referral and contact. This had contributed to high levels of victim engagement, with evidence that victims were being approached in a timely and appropriate manner.
The YJS had an up-to-date policy framework aligned to the Victims’ Code of Practice. This set out a clear and structured pathway for working with victims, including expectations for communication, safety assessment, and the provision of restorative opportunities. The policy reflected a commitment to individualised, trauma-informed and responsive practice.
There was also evidence that the partnership was increasingly seeking to capture the victim voice. Mechanisms had been introduced to gather feedback, including structured tools and plans to develop more innovative approaches such as lived experience groups and survivor panels. This indicated an emerging focus on using feedback to inform service development.
At an operational level, work with victims had generally met HM Inspectorate of Probation standards, with a majority of cases judged sufficient in terms of quality, individualisation and responsiveness.
Victims who engaged with the service had received timely contact from restorative practitioners and were supported to make informed choices about their participation. In almost all the inspected cases, victims were provided with clear information about what to expect at different stages of the child’s involvement with the YJS.
Practitioners had demonstrated a sound understanding of trauma-informed practice and restorative approaches. They had been appropriately trained, including through accredited restorative justice qualifications, and had the skills required to engage effectively with victims and tailor their approach to individual needs.
There had been a wide range of services available to victims, including restorative interventions and access to specialist support such as mental health provision, advocacy services and community-based organisations. This enabled a holistic response to victim needs, addressing both emotional and practical concerns.
Risk management arrangements had been well embedded, with structured processes and use of multi-agency forums such as safety panels and MAPPA. These arrangements had supported coordinated responses to victim safety, particularly in more complex or high-risk cases.
Practitioners had also been well supported through regular supervision, access to specialist expertise and ongoing professional development. Workloads had generally been manageable, which had enabled practitioners to build effective relationships with victims and deliver personalised interventions.

Areas for improvement

Despite the strengths above, strategic oversight had not been consistently robust. While board members had engaged with victim-related issues, there had been limited evidence of sustained challenge or of partners being held to account for delivering improvements. Discussions had often focused on processes rather than outcomes, and there had been insufficient scrutiny of the lived experiences of victims.
The absence of an overarching victim strategy had limited the service’s ability to take a coherent and systematic approach to development. Without a clear strategic framework, monitoring and evaluation activity had not been fully aligned or consistently used to drive improvement across the partnership.
Data quality remained an area of concern, particularly in relation to information received from the police. Inconsistencies in recording, including gaps in protected characteristic data, had limited the service’s ability to understand the needs of different groups of victims and to plan services effectively.
Although monitoring arrangements were developing, they were not yet fully embedded. There was limited analysis of key performance information, including the reasons why some victims did not engage with the service. This represented a missed opportunity to improve accessibility and increase participation.
Similarly, arrangements to systematically capture and use victim feedback at a strategic level were underdeveloped. While feedback was being collected, it was not consistently aggregated or used to inform service-wide improvement, limiting the impact of the victim voice on strategic planning.
At an operational level, there had been variability in the quality of practice. While many victims received a responsive and individualised service, inspectors found that the needs of victims were fully understood in just over half of cases.
There were inconsistencies in recording, communication and the depth of assessing. In some cases, practitioners did not sufficiently explore victims’ needs, wishes and safety concerns, which limited the effectiveness of planning and intervention.
The quality of safety and wellbeing work had also been inconsistent. There were examples where child victims had not been directly engaged, with information being obtained indirectly through parents or carers. This meant that the voice of the child was not always clearly captured or reflected in practice.
While a range of services was available, there were occasional delays and gaps in access, particularly where support relied on wider partnership provision. This had, at times, limited the timeliness or breadth of support available to victims.
In addition, although practitioners had gathered feedback from victims at an individual level, there had been limited evidence that this information was consistently used to inform ongoing casework or to adapt interventions in response to changing needs.

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

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). In total, we spoke to seven children and eight parents or carers. Two meetings were face to face and 11 via telephone calls.

Bradford YJS demonstrated a strategic commitment to participation and co-production. This was underpinned by a clear Participation Strategy (2024–2026), which placed children, parents or carers, and victims at the centre of service delivery and development. The strategy aligned with child-first principles and was informed by Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, alongside Lundy’s Model of Participation.

Leaders had recognised child participation within the service’s vision, with a clear intention to move beyond consultation towards meaningful co-production. A range of mechanisms were in place to capture the views of children and families, including surveys, audits, direct feedback in interventions, and opportunities to participate in structured activities such as referral order panels and recruitment processes.

There were promising examples of children influencing strategic thinking. For example, the Board Takeover Day had provided a valuable opportunity for children to engage directly with senior leaders, and this had been recognised as an impactful initiative. Plans were also in place to strengthen accountability through ‘you said, we did’ approaches, demonstrating how feedback translated into service improvements.

Governance arrangements supported participation, with oversight provided by the Youth Justice Partnership Board. There was a commitment to improving how feedback was captured, analysed, and used to inform service development. Planned developments, including the introduction of QR-code feedback tools and a young inspectors programme, reflected an emerging and proactive approach to strengthening participation and ensuring that it was inclusive and accessible to all children, including those with communication barriers.

However, participation was not yet fully embedded at a strategic level. While feedback was gathered routinely, systems for collating, analysing, and evidencing its impact were not yet developed sufficiently. The board had recognised that engagement with children was not always regular or sustained, and there was limited evidence to demonstrate how feedback from children and parents influenced strategic decision-making consistently.

Similarly, although engagement with parents and carers was positive, their voices were not always being used effectively to shape service delivery or inform wider service improvements. As a result, while the service demonstrated strong intent and developing structures, further work was required to ensure that participation was embedded consistently and evidenced clearly at a strategic level.

Within our inspection survey work, we found that participation activity had a positive and meaningful impact on children and their families at an individual level. Feedback from children and parents was consistently strong and highlighted the quality of relationships, communication, and inclusive practice delivered by staff.

Children reported feeling respected, listened to, and treated without judgement. One child explained:

“I’ve been treated with respect and have been shown kindness despite my offending. I was treated like ‘a normal person’.” Another reflected, “I did feel valued and respected, and I felt like if I wanted to say something, I would have been listened to.”

There was clear evidence that children felt able to express their views and engage meaningfully in interventions. Several children described trusting relationships with their case workers and the opportunity to discuss both offence-related and personal issues. One child stated:

“I’ve spoken to my YJS officer about personal issues and he’s always there to listen, advise, and guide me.”

At an individual level, participation contributed to improved understanding, reflection, and desistance. Children described how involvement in interventions helped them understand the consequences of their behaviour and make positive changes. For example, one child shared:

“The main thing they did to help me stay out of trouble was help me understand why I got into trouble in the first place… it’s made it easier for me to move forward.”

There was also some evidence that children’s identity and lived experience were recognised in participation activity. One child highlighted the importance of this, stating:

“I’m a Pakistani in Bradford… we speak different dialects and have different traditions… my YJS officer has taken this into consideration, and I can speak to him about this.”

Within our survey sample, parents consistently reported feeling listened to, respected, and supported. One parent explained:

“I felt very valued and respected throughout… I do feel confident that if I had disagreed, my views would have been listened to.”

Parents particularly valued the emotional and practical support provided. One parent described the impact of targeted parenting support, stating that it:

“changed my relationship with my son… it has worked wonders and changed my life.”

Participation approaches also strengthened trust and engagement. Parents noted that workers were approachable, flexible, and responsive, adapting interventions around family circumstances and needs. This relational approach enabled children who would typically struggle to engage to build positive and trusting relationships with staff.

Overall, participation work had an evident impact at the individual level, based on the sample of children and parents or carers that engaged with our inspection survey. They described positive experiences, improved engagement, and meaningful changes in behaviour and family relationships.

Equity, diversity, and inclusion (Back to top)

Bradford YJS demonstrated a commitment to EDI at a strategic level. There was some evident organisational focus on addressing systemic inequality, discrimination, and disproportionality, underpinned by a comprehensive EDI policy aligned to child-first and trauma-informed principles.

Leaders had developed a sufficient understanding of the diverse local population and the complex needs of children accessing the service. This was reflected in some examples of the use of data to monitor cohort characteristics, identify patterns of disproportionality, and inform strategic priorities. The board demonstrated a commitment to understanding and addressing disproportionality through dedicated analysis of ethnicity, poverty indicators, SEND, and offending patterns. Attention had been given to the overrepresentation of Asian boys involved in motoring offences, and Eastern European children within the YJS cohort. Monthly ‘deep dives’ into first-time-entrant and custody data supported ongoing scrutiny of emerging disproportionality concerns and informed challenge to wider partnership agencies, including police diversionary processes.

In part, governance arrangements supported this focus, with the Youth Justice Partnership Board maintaining oversight of EDI through regular performance reporting, thematic audits, and dedicated disproportionality activity. A disproportionality subgroup had been established, and ‘deep-dive’ activity, including work focused on specific communities, provided increasing insight into emerging issues.

There was emerging recognition at senior level of the structural and contextual factors impacting children, including poverty, special educational needs, trauma, and experiences of discrimination. The service demonstrated awareness of concepts such as unconscious bias, adultification, and intersectionality, and this was reflected in both policy and workforce development activity. Leaders maintained a focus on workforce diversity and cultural competence, with recent recruitment activity increasing diversity within the management team.

The YJS had also taken steps to improve accessibility and inclusion, including promoting flexible and outreach-based delivery to address barriers such as transport, rurality, and financial hardship.

However, despite these strengths, there remained areas for further development. Although the board’s understanding of disproportionality was continuing to develop, further work was required to understand fully the experiences and overrepresentation of Eastern European children and to evaluate the impact of actions taken to reduce identified inequalities. While analysis and scrutiny arrangements had improved, the board was not yet able to demonstrate the effectiveness of measures implemented to address disproportionality across all groups.

Leaders had recognised these gaps and had begun to respond through targeted action planning, training, and improved data analysis. While the direction of travel was positive, activity to strengthen understanding and develop more cohesive multi-agency responses was still at an early stage.

Overall, EDI was evident within strategic vision, governance, and policy, with leadership commitment and improving oversight. However, further work was required to translate this into a fully coordinated and consistently effective system-wide approach.

At an operational level, the quality of diversity-informed practice was variable. While diversity factors were usually identified, they were not explored consistently or integrated effectively into assessing, planning, and delivery.

In many cases, practitioners recognised key aspects of children’s identity, including culture, religion, neurodiversity, language needs, and social circumstances. There was some evidence of responsive practice, such as adapting appointments around religious observance, education commitments, or family circumstances, simplifying communication for children with additional needs, and involving families to support engagement.

Where practice was strongest, practitioners demonstrated a clear understanding of the child’s identity and experiences, using this to inform tailored and flexible interventions. This included culturally responsive approaches, appropriate adjustments for neurodivergent children, and effective engagement strategies such as home visits and creative or interest-based delivery. In these cases, diversity was integrated meaningfully into practice, with clear links between assessment, analysis, and intervention.

However, this level of practice was not consistent. In a significant number of cases, diversity was considered only at a surface level. Although characteristics were identified, there was often limited professional curiosity or deeper exploration of what these meant for the child’s identity, behaviour, and engagement. As a result, analysis was frequently underdeveloped and did not consistently inform interventions.

There were also gaps in how specific needs were addressed. The use of interpreters and translation services was inconsistent, and in some cases, reliance was placed on family members to translate, raising concerns about accessibility and understanding. Communication needs, including speech and language difficulties or learning needs, were not always assessed or explored fully.

Similarly, while neurodiversity and additional needs were often identified, planning and delivery were sometimes generic and not adapted sufficiently. The impact of trauma, care experience, and sociocultural background was not always considered fully, limiting practitioners’ ability to understand behaviour and tailor interventions effectively.

Exploration of cultural identity and heritage was inconsistent. In some cases, practitioners demonstrated sensitivity to cultural context and family dynamics; however, overall, there was insufficient depth in understanding how identity influenced the child’s experiences and engagement with services. Opportunities to use tools such as child profiles and structured frameworks to support this inquiry were not taken consistently.

Multi-agency working in casework did not always address diversity-related barriers effectively. While partnerships were well established generally, joint working to overcome issues such as disengagement, unmet speech and language needs, or limited access to services was not always coordinated or sufficiently assertive.

In a small number of cases, there was little or no evidence that diversity had been considered at all, representing missed opportunities to understand and respond to children’s individual needs.

Overall, although there was clear evidence that the service recognised the importance of diversity and inclusion, this was not reflected consistently in the quality of frontline practice. Inspection findings reinforced this conclusion. Despite the diversity of the workforce and substantial investment in training relating to diversity, disproportionality, cultural competence, and intersectionality, these strengths had not translated consistently into operational practice. In just under 40 per cent of inspected cases, children’s diversity needs were not sufficiently understood. Similar weaknesses were evident in-service delivery, with interventions not consistently reflecting or responding to children’s diverse identities, experiences, and circumstances.

These findings suggested that, while staff had access to appropriate training and specialist support, the YJS did not always demonstrate sufficient curiosity, analysis, or application of diversity-related information within assessments, planning, and intervention delivery. As a result, the YJS could not yet demonstrate that its investment in workforce development had resulted in consistently effective diversity-informed practice.

Data annexe (Back to top)

Bradford YJS Data Annexe

Press release (Back to top)

“Significant weaknesses” found at Bradford Youth Justice Service, rated ‘Inadequate’ following inspection

Further information (Back to top)

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

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

Footnotes (Back to top)

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. ↩︎
The rating for the standard is driven by the lowest score of the key questions, which is placed in a rating band, indicated in bold in the table. A more detailed explanation is available on our website Standards and ratings – HM Inspectorate of Probation. ↩︎
The rating for the standard is driven by the lowest score of the key questions, which is placed in a rating band, indicated in bold in the table. A more detailed explanation is available on our website Standards and ratings – HM Inspectorate of Probation. ↩︎
The rating for the standard is driven by the lowest score of the key questions, which is placed in a rating band, indicated in bold in the table. A more detailed explanation is available on our website Standards and ratings – HM Inspectorate of Probation. ↩︎
The rating for the victims’ standard is derived from the scores from case inspection for V 1.1 and the qualitative evidence for V 1.2. A more detailed explanation is available on our website Standards and ratings – HM Inspectorate of Probation. ↩︎

Cookies on HM Inspectorate of Probation

Table of contents

A reactive inspection of youth justice work with children and victims in Bradford

Foreword (Back to top)

Ratings (Back to top)

Recommendations (Back to top)

Background (Back to top)

Domain one: Organisational delivery (Back to top)

Domain two: Work with children (Back to top)

Work with victims (Back to top)

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

Equity, diversity, and inclusion (Back to top)

Data annexe (Back to top)

Press release (Back to top)

Further information (Back to top)

Footnotes (Back to top)