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 South Tees

Published:

Foreword (Back to top)

This inspection is part of our programme of inspections across youth justice services (YJS) in England and Wales.[1] In this inspection we have inspected and rated South Tees 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 done with victims.

Overall, South Tees YJS was rated as ‘Good’.

YJS leaders and staff were tenacious in their efforts to achieve aspirational outcomes for children. This was supported by a culture that promoted care, reflection and continuous learning. We inspected work undertaken with children and victims at a time of change within the YJS. We found that despite the impact of short term-funding arrangements and increased workloads, leaders and practitioners were motivated and had a ‘can do’ attitude towards their work. This was reflected in the high-quality work delivered to support children to achieve positive change. The YJS had a range of quality assurance processes in place. Its audits had identified the need to develop consistency in assessing, planning and delivery of services to keep children and communities safe.

YJS leaders had recognised the need to prioritise the development of work with victims, and this had resulted in several positive changes. The YJS had recruited an additional victim worker and reprofiled an existing role to provide additional support and oversight of work with victims. Victim policies and processes had been reviewed, and the service had commissioned additional case management functions to develop data analysis. Leaders were working at pace to implement their victim action plan, which aligned with the findings of this inspection.

The YJS’s governance arrangements needed development and commitment from all statutory partners from across both local authorities. The YJS had an inspirational leadership team who supported the activity of the management board, but the board’s actions and impact needed to be tangible. Despite escalating the need for a statutory probation resource to support children, the YJS management board had not secured this. Existing health pathways were not sufficiently meeting children’s physical, emotional and mental health needs.

Inspectors found strengths across the wider partnership. YJS leaders, Cleveland police and the Cleveland Unit for Reduction of Violence (CURV) had developed a child custody suite and commissioned custody navigator support workers to engage with children using trauma-informed approaches. The partnership had also developed harm outside the home processes, which were supported by specialist practitioners.

In this report, we make several recommendations that will enable South Tees YJS to build on its existing strengths and make important improvements in its delivery of services to children, communities and victims.

Martin Jones CBE

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

Ratings (Back to top)

Fieldwork started July 2025Score 7/12
Overall ratingGood

Organisational delivery

1.1 Governance and leadershipRequires improvement
1.2 StaffingGood
1.3 Partnership and servicesGood

Work with children

2.1 AssessingGood
2.2 PlanningGood
2.3 Implementation and deliveryGood

Work with victims

V1 Work with victimsRequires improvement

Recommendations (Back to top)

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

The South Tees Youth Justice Service should:

  1. ensure that assessing, planning and delivery of work to keep children and communities safe is consistent and high quality
  2. continue to implement the YJS victim action plan to ensure that services delivered to victims are individualised and will improve safety for victims
  3. consistently capture and analyse the voices of children, parents and carers, and victims to inform reviews of policies, processes and provision.

The Chair of the South Tees Management Board should:

  1. ensure all statutory partners are consistently represented on the management board, and are of sufficient seniority to provide effective oversight and strategic decision-making.

The South Tees Management Board should:

  1. continue to prioritise the strategic oversight of work with victims and ensure there are effective links between the range of victim services in South Tees
  2. continue to improve healthcare provision across the full range of mainstream and specialist health pathways, to ensure that children’s physical, emotional, mental health and wellbeing needs are met.
  3. continue to challenge the Probation Service to ensure that it meets its statutory duties and provides the appropriate secondment provision to the YJS.

Cleveland Police should:

  1. improve the information it provides about the diversity, protected characteristics and vulnerabilities of victims that consent to contact from the YJS.

Background (Back to top)

We conducted fieldwork in South Tees YJS over a period of two weeks, beginning 14 July 2025. We inspected cases where the YJS had commenced work with children subject to resettlement, bail or remand, court disposals or out-of-court disposals between 13 January 2025 and 14 March 2025. We also conducted 24 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 13 January 2025 and 14 March 2025. We also conducted interviews with staff and managers responsible for the delivery of this work.

South Tees YJS provided services to the local authorities of Middlesbrough and Redcar and Cleveland. Corporate governance arrangements were provided by Middlesbrough council. The YJS was part of the Middlesbrough education and partnerships directorate, which sat within children’s services. The head of partnerships had responsibility for the YJS and SHiFT[2] provision in Middlesbrough, and they linked in with the Redcar and Cleveland children’s services management team. The head of partnerships/head of service for the YJS reported to the director of education and partnerships. The executive director of children’s services became the chair of YJS management board in December 2024, and they were committed to developing governance arrangements.  

The geography and demographics of the two local authorities differed. Redcar and Cleveland had large rural communities, which had implications for transport links. Middlesbrough was a smaller local authority and had more diverse populations. Communities in both local authorities were impacted by a range of social, economic and environmental factors, with Middlesbrough identified as one of the most deprived local authorities in England.[3] The YJS and partnership had not normalised the impact of contextual factors and we found a universal approach to promoting high aspirations for all children.

The service worked mainly with boys aged 15 to 17 who identified as white. However, data supplied by the service at the time of the inspection announcement indicated that black and minority ethnic children were over-represented in the resettlement cohort. The service had a high first-time entrant rate compared with the national rate for England and Wales, and the YJS had undertaken an evaluation to understand the data. Notably, the YJS had seen an increase in the number of children remanded to youth detention accommodation or sentenced to custody as a result of serious offences. Data supplied by the YJS outlined that workloads had risen by 22.5 per cent and we heard that the vulnerability and complexity of need had increased. Within this context, the YJS was navigating the implications of short-term funding arrangements and the reduction of funding from Redcar and Cleveland council in 2023.  

In August 2024, Middlesbrough experienced significant incidents of violent disorder, and a number of children and young people were identified as involved. The YJS and Cleveland police had worked together to develop a measured and cohesive response to supporting children while keeping communities safe from further harm.

Domain one: Organisational delivery (Back to top)

To inspect organisational delivery, we reviewed written evidence submitted in advance by the YJS and conducted 13 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.Requires improvement

Strengths:

  • The South Tees Youth Justice Service (STYJS) plan was created in collaboration between the YJS management board, key stakeholders, YJS senior leaders, middle managers and practitioners. It was supported by a comprehensive service development plan, which was frequently reviewed and amended to be responsive to the changing needs of the service.
  • The YJS head of service was an inspirational leader. They were passionate and committed in their drive to achieve positive outcomes for children and victims. The head of service was well respected, and their work had been recognised locally, regionally and nationally.
  • We inspected a sample of work with children and victims at a time when there had been considerable change within the YJS. It is a credit to YJS leaders that, despite the challenges, we found that staff were highly engaged and motivated. YJS leaders had created a culture of openness and reflection, in which there was an eagerness to learn as a means of providing high-quality services to children and victims.
  • The YJS head of service provided an effective link to the YJS management board and ensured that relevant issues were escalated from the YJS leadership and staff teams.
  • The YJS leadership team operationalised the YJS vision and strategy and ensured robust monitoring and reviewing of the YJS service development plan.
  • There was an embedded culture of transparency, constructive challenge and innovation within the YJS leadership team, which supported service progression.
  • The chair of the board was insightful and motivated to drive improvement. They were aware of the board’s strengths and areas for development and keen to engage with staff and to hear directly from children, parents and carers.  
  • New board members were supported by a structured induction process, with opportunities for ongoing support from the YJS leadership team. The board had recently engaged in a Child First briefing event.
  • There was a consistent approach to organisational learning, which was supported by the local authority serious incident process.
  • We found an embedded approach to monitoring, evaluating and reviewing services linked to the YJS. The analysis of the impact of SHiFT and the custody navigators in achieving positive change and keeping children and communities safe was a strength.
  • YJS leaders analysed data and trends to respond to emerging concerns. This included an analysis of first-time entrants, children in police custody, knife crime and the partnership response to the 2024 disorder in Middlesbrough.
  • Joint auditing between the YJS and children’s social care added value to quality assurance processes and promoted a shared understanding of the role of each service in keeping the child and community safe.
  • Staff felt supported by their managers, and we heard positive feedback about the genuine care and emotional support provided to the teams. Individual circumstances and diverse needs of staff were responded to well, with evidence of reasonable adjustments in place.
  • Exceptional work was recognised by YJS leaders, with processes established to praise practitioners and to share examples of effective practice. South Tees YJS had been nominated for local and national awards for their ‘team spirit’ and the development of the child custody suite.
  • Relevant policies and guidance were in place, and they were regularly reviewed and shared at YJS service meetings and team meetings.
  • Lone working policies were established, operationalised and overseen by a YJS duty manager system.
  • YJS staff understood the complaints policy and process, and were aware of the support that was in place should they experience any form of discrimination.

Areas for improvement:

  • Governance arrangements needed development. We found an over-reliance on the steer provided by the YJS leadership team.
  • Attendance and engagement at the YJS management board was not always consistent. The chair of the board had identified the need to ensure that all statutory and relevant non-statutory partners were represented and of sufficient seniority to provide the right level of oversight and effective strategic decision-making.
  • Board members understood their roles and responsibilities; however, they were not consistently driving strategic improvement activity or providing effective governance arrangements for the YJS.
  • YJS leaders had escalated concerns about the absence of a seconded probation officer and health worker to the YJS management board. Alternative pathways had been developed with the Probation Service, but they were not consistently meeting the needs of children. Existing health arrangements were not sufficient to support children’s physical, emotional and mental health needs. The YJS management board needed to effectively resolve the gaps in statutory service provision to ensure that the YJS was sufficiently resourced to support children to achieve positive change and to keep children and communities safe.
  • YJS leaders presented reports and evaluations to the management board, but discussions and challenge did not always result in tangible actions by the partnership.
  • Performance data and audits presented to the YJS management board were comprehensive. However, board members needed to scrutinise these more closely to ensure they had a detailed understanding of the profile of children supported by the YJS, with specific focus on over-represented groups.
  • The board’s oversight and understanding of the increased numbers of children on remand and in custody needed to improve.
  • Board members were not routinely providing data from their own services to promote a holistic analysis of themes and trends across the partnership.
  • The board chair and board members were proactively involved in relevant strategic forums, but there was limited two-way flow of information to evidence a consistent positive impact on the YJS.
  • Connectivity between the management board and YJS staff needed to be strengthened to ensure that staff felt supported and had confidence in the YJS governance arrangements.
  • There was an aspiration and commitment to include the voices of children, parents and carers into the operation and function of the management board.
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.Good

Strengths:

  • YJS leaders and staff were committed and passionate about driving high-quality outcomes for all children. Staff felt supported by the leadership team and there was a strong sense of support and genuine care for colleagues’ wellbeing.
  • Workloads were described as busy but manageable. Staff acknowledged that the recruitment of an additional case manager and victim worker was alleviating some pressures.
  • Workloads were actively managed between the teams covering Middlesbrough and Redcar and Cleveland. Inspectors found that the teams worked cohesively to meet the needs of children in both local authorities.
  • The YJS management team worked collaboratively to ensure that consistent messages were provided to their teams. This was supported by regular management meetings and their own supervision arrangements.
  • Business support staff were integrated into the service, which promoted an understanding and knowledge of the work delivered by the service.
  • YJS leaders and staff possessed the skills, knowledge and experience required to deliver high-quality services to children and victims. We found an embedded culture of learning in which continuous improvement was actively promoted. Staff and leaders were provided with internal and external opportunities to develop and progress, and there were numerous examples where this has occurred.
  • There was a comprehensive mandatory and specialist training offer to staff and managers. Practitioners had completed the Assessment, Intervention & Moving-on 3 (AIM3) harmful sexual behaviours assessment training and the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) training. Child First training had been delivered to the service and management board, and there were plans to extend this learning to the wider partnership.
  • Supervision was frequent and balanced case discussions with a focus on practitioners’ well-being. Appraisals were routinely completed to support individual learning and development.
  • Induction processes were structured and combined mandatory training with opportunities to shadow practitioners and to link in with partner agencies.
  • The case allocation process was formalised and understood. The YJS had a service delivery model where the case manager completed the initial assessment and provided oversight and coordination, while the allocated support worker delivered interventions.
  • The YJS had a small cohort of volunteers supporting the referral order panels. Volunteers received a comprehensive induction and ongoing support by a restorative justice specialist.

Areas for improvement:

  • YJS practitioners working with children did not have access to clinical supervision. We found high levels of complexity and need within the YJS cohort, and the impact of vicarious trauma needed to be fully considered.
  • Management oversight of work was extensive and documented in case records, audits and quality assurance documents. However, it was not consistently improving the quality of work required to promote the safety of the child and community.
  • The YJS had recognised the need to develop volunteer recruitment processes and to extend the breadth of YJS activities available to volunteers, including mentoring.
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 collation and analysis of data, performance monitoring, quality assurance, and responsive evaluation activity had resulted in an analysis of the needs of children.
  • The partnership understood the YJS’s priorities, and the majority of the vulnerabilities and needs of children supported by the YJS.
  • YJS leaders were embedded within the partnership arrangements in Middlesbrough and Redcar and Cleveland, and respected by partners. This had resulted in the development of innovative projects and access to community provision to support children to achieve positive change.
  • Information-sharing pathways were embedded within the partnership. We found that the YJS’s assessments and planning routinely included information from the range of agencies.
  • There was an established connection with children’s social care in both local authorities, underpinned by joint working protocols and positive partnership work. YJS staff understood how to refer a child to children’s social care if they had safeguarding concerns.
  • Harm outside of the home arrangements had replaced previous exploitation processes. The partnership had worked at pace to develop harm outside the home screening tools, triage meetings and multi-agency forums. 
  • Partnership working between the YJS and the police was a strength, with the allocation of two seconded police officers and established processes for information-sharing. The YJS, CURV, and Cleveland police had worked effectively together to develop a child custody suite to ensure that children arrested and placed in police custody had a separate space away from adults, and that they were offered the support of custody navigators.
  • The custody navigators were part of the YJS team and based in the police station. They provided valuable trauma-informed support to children in the custody suite. We were told of instances where custody navigators had been instrumental in working with children’s services and parents and carers to secure appropriate accommodation for the child when they were released from police custody.
  • The provision of appropriate adult services was effective and enhanced by the support of the custody navigators. YJS staff provided appropriate adult support during working hours, and the emergency duty team provided out-of-hours cover. The arrangements were monitored by the YJS, with additional oversight provided by the children in police custody steering group, chaired by the YJS head of service. The group monitored children’s stays in police custody and appropriately addressed concerns about the availability of provision.
  • Education, training and employment support and advocacy for children was impressive. Staff made tenacious efforts to ensure that provision met children’s needs.
  • The YJS commissioned a part-time speech and language therapist and the positive impact of their work with children was notable.
  • The YJS were working with the commissioner from the Integrated Care Board. Funding had been secured to develop a complex trauma service and plans had been implemented to reduce waiting times for neurodevelopmental assessments. F-CAMHS provided consultation and advice for YJS practitioners.
  • The YJS contributed to a variety of internal and external multi-agency operational groups and panels for YJS children deemed to present high levels of concern to the safety of the community or where there was a high level of concern about their safety.
  • Out-of-court decision-making processes were well established. Staff applied the gravity matrix as a guide, using professional judgement to ensure the most appropriate outcomes for children.
  • The YJS had a dedicated court officer and there was an established and trusting relationship between the court and the YJS.
  • The service had developed a range of reparation projects that responded to the needs of children and their communities. Reparation activities were offered to all children to encourage them to develop skills and integrate into the community.
  • The YJS facilitated school holiday activities that were accessible to all children. Inspectors found that children had equitable access to the seconded and specialist staff in the YJS, as provision was based on need rather than intervention type.
  • Services were delivered to children in a variety of settings, including their homes, community hubs and schools. The YJS routinely provided transport to mitigate the diverse geography of Middlesbrough and Redcar and Cleveland. The YJS did not have a singular base to meet with children, but individual and group work sessions were held in safe spaces.

Areas for improvement:

  • Children, parents and carers were not contributing to a strategic needs assessment to inform the planning and commissioning of services.
  • The absence of a seconded probation officer had impacted on the effectiveness of transitions. The YJS and Probation Service had developed processes to mitigate the gap in provision, but arrangements were not consistently meeting the needs of children transitioning from youth to adult services.
  • Health services to support children’s physical, emotional, mental health and wellbeing were limited. Waiting times for neurodevelopmental assessments were lengthy and pathways to access support from the child and adolescent mental health service (CAMHS) did not consistently meet children’s needs.
  • Inspectors identified the positive impact of the work undertaken by the speech and language therapist. However, the post was funded by the YJS on a fixed-term and part-time basis. Additional capacity was required to meet the speech, language and communication needs of all children.
  • The partnership did not have a consistent understanding of the profile and demographics of all children supported by the YJS, including over-represented groups.
  • There were limited interventions or services to meet the needs of children and families with protected characteristics, particularly those from black and minority ethnic communities.
  • Practitioners from partnership agencies, including children’s social care, did not have a consistent shared understanding of the out-of-court decision-making process or the range of out-of-court disposals available, and their implications for children.

Domain two: Work with children (Back to top)

We took a detailed look at 29 cases where the YJS has worked with children who were subject to bail, remand, community sentences, resettlement or out-of-court disposals.

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 rating[4] for assessing is based on the following key questions:

Does assessing sufficiently analyse how to:% ‘Yes’
achieve positive change for the child?86%
keep child and the community safe?66%

Assessing to achieve positive change was comprehensive and analytical. This was enhanced by established information-sharing arrangements with partnership services. Practitioners accessed information from the police, children’s social care, early help, education, substance misuse service, custody navigators, SHiFT and the speech and language therapist. In cases where the information was analysed effectively, it provided a holistic overview of children’s strengths and needs. The YJS did not have a seconded probation officer, mental health worker or physical health practitioner. Inspectors found that existing pathways did not always result in timely access to probation and health information that would enhance assessing activity. 

Children were actively supported to participate in assessment processes. Children’s interests and hobbies were routinely identified and discussed, and we found a balanced approach to promoting positive factors while identifying areas of need and concern. In instances where the child struggled to engage, we found that practitioners responded with appropriate levels of encouragement and perseverance. This included contacting parents or carers to ascertain the best approaches to engage the child and linking with other professionals who had existing positive relationships. Inspectors found several examples where the engagement of the child’s wider network had a positive impact. However, not all parents or carers involved in providing care for the child were consistently asked to share their views with the YJS, nor to be part of discussions about the child’s safety and the safety of the community.

Children’s diverse needs were considered well in a reasonable majority of instances. Practitioners routinely considered the impact of adverse childhood experiences and trauma on a child’s presenting behaviours. Similarly, we found sensitive approaches to assessing children’s neurodiverse needs, and the absence of a formal diagnosis did not deter practitioners from holding conversations with children and parents or carers about how they could best support the child’s needs. This activity was enhanced by the input of the YJS speech and language therapist.

Diversity practice was not as strong when assessing a child’s ethnicity, culture, race, identity and heritage. We found missed opportunities for practitioners to hold conversations exploring the lived experiences of black and minority ethnic children.

Assessing activities to promote the safety of the child and safety of the community were variable. The YJS did not consistently analyse all factors linked to safety concerns. For example, practitioners routinely collated information from children’s social care strategy discussions, child and family assessments and child protection conferences, but they did not consistently analyse it to inform a holistic overview of the safety of the child and safety of the community. In several instances we found that information from other agencies was stored on YJS systems but not effectively incorporated into assessing activity. This created fragmentation and difficulties in determining the impact of the additional information on the child’s presenting behaviours.

Where the safety of victims was considered well, practitioners had liaised with the victim workers and the victim safety assessments had been incorporated into work with the child. This had resulted in the consideration of victim safety measures such as non-contact requirements and exclusion zones. However, further work was needed to ensure that these approaches were embedded across all casework and that there was sufficient focus on the safety of all actual and potential victims.

Inspectors found that assessing was responsive to change to keep the child and community safe in a reasonable majority of cases inspected. Where this worked well, practitioners had responded to emerging concerns in a timely manner and this had resulted in action. We found examples where children’s involvement in serious incidents in the custodial estate had resulted in dynamic reassessing and joint responses by the YJS, children’s social care and the secure estate to ensure everyone’s safety. In several instances, an escalation in concerns about exploitation had resulted in a partnership approach to screening, triaging and discussing safety concerns in the harm outside the home multi-agency forums. However, this did not happen consistently, and we also found examples when significant information about a child’s safety, or the safety of others, was not shared in a timely manner because all professionals involved in the child’s life were not aware of the relevance of the emerging behaviours. There were opportunities for the YJS to strengthen the consistency of information-sharing between the YJS case managers completing assessments and YJS support workers completing the delivery of interventions. This would ensure a timely and effective response to dealing with changing circumstances.

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

Our rating[5] 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?69%

Planning activity to achieve positive change was a strength. Practitioners had considered the child’s context, including their social environment and the broader family circumstances. Inspectors found examples of co-produced, child-friendly plans that sought children’s views on what they wanted to achieve. This resulted in tailored planning that built on children’s interests and positive aspects of their lives. Inspectors found examples of planning to support access to education and employment, joining a sports team, going to the gym and attending community support groups.

Planning activities to achieve positive change worked well when the practitioner had considered and responded to the child’s individual needs. We found instances where planning of interventions for children with neurodiverse needs considered regular breaks, the consistency of venue and staff, and the production of monthly timetables to ensure that the child had a firm understanding of longer-term plans. Planning activity to support the child’s individual needs were supported by the speech and language therapist, and practitioners benefited from access to children’s education, health and care plans (EHCPs).

In the large majority of instances, planning to achieve positive change was enhanced by collaboration with other services. YJS education specialists facilitated cohesive planning with schools and colleges to ensure that children could maintain or access appropriate provision. Planning with the substance misuse service ensured that the practitioner best placed to engage with the child was supported to deliver the interventions. Collaborative planning with early help ensured that the YJS supported, rather than duplicated, work with the child and family, and we found examples of joint planning with CAMHS to support a child’s therapeutic intervention.

Inspectors found tenacious efforts to engage with children who were struggling to participate in their disposal or order. This resulted in a responsive approach to revisiting planning and appropriately prioritising relationship-building activities. YJS planning activities worked well when the allocated case manager and support worker engaged in joint planning sessions with the child and parent or carer. This ensured they all had a cohesive understanding of the planned interventions and methods of delivery.

In several instances, planning to achieve safety for the child and for the community had been impacted by critical omissions in assessing.

Planning to keep the child and others safe was effective when YJS practitioners had oversight of the involvement of other agencies and there had been a collaborative approach to understanding and mitigating all concerns. Inspectors found numerous examples of cohesive planning with children’s social care, aspire and safer social care exploitation teams and SHiFT. These were enhanced by YJS-led multi-agency safety management forums and harm outside the home arrangements. Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) were used appropriately to support a strong collaborative approach to keeping the child and community safe.

Inspectors found that planning activities responded to changing circumstances in the large majority of cases inspected. We found examples of timely and effective responses to incidents in schools and colleges that resulted in YJS practitioners, the speech and language therapist and education specialists attending education forums and supporting safety planning to ensure that children could continue to engage with their education. Practice could be strengthened by ensuring that the YJS was responsive to all changing circumstances, including an escalation of behaviours within the home environment and changes to a child’s emotional well-being.

Planning to keep children and others safe within custodial establishments worked well when the YJS was fully cited on changing circumstances and actively involved in planning activities outside the formal planning forums. In these instances, the YJS was responsive to changing safety considerations and were able to support the child, their family and custodial establishment to keep everyone safe. However, this was not happening in all cases, and we found instances where joint planning between the YJS and custodial estate was limited and did not collaboratively consider the implications of changing family dynamics on the support required by the child in custody.

Planning to support transitions from youth to adult services was impacted by the lack of a seconded probation officer. Children and young people eligible for transition to probation services were identified in a timely manner, but this did not consistently result in the allocation of a probation officer to promote a staggered and supportive approach to transition planning.

Inspectors noted several examples of effective planning that focused on the needs and wishes of the victims. This had resulted in planning to deliver restorative interventions, including letters of apology, indirect reparation and seconded police officers attending restorative meetings to represent a harmed emergency worker. However, victims’ needs and wishes were not consistently considered in all cases and there were missed opportunities to plan for victim safety measures. Inspectors found that not all practitioners had oversight of existing external controls such as the details of exclusion zones and restraining orders.

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

Our rating[6] for delivery is based on the following key questions:

Does the delivery (and review?) of well-focused, personalised and co-ordinated services:% ‘Yes’
achieve positive change for the child?90%
keep the child and the community safe?79%

Practitioners were committed to developing positive relationships with children and we found a strong focus on promoting the child’s protective factors. Children were encouraged to have aspirational goals, and they were supported in identifying and accessing provision that could help them to achieve these goals, often beyond the duration of the disposal or order.

The delivery of services considered children’s diverse needs in the large majority of cases inspected. Practitioners collaborated with children to identify the spaces and places where they felt most comfortable to meet. Transport was routinely provided to promote engagement and to mitigate rurality and limited public transport. The scheduling of appointments considered children’s individual circumstances, such as their education, training or employment commitments and caring responsibilities. In instances where children struggled to engage, staff were responsive to adapting and adjusting services, and sought to balance a personalised approach with upholding boundaries to support future engagement.

YJS specialists effectively supported the delivery of interventions to achieve positive change. The YJS education workers, speech and language therapist, victim workers and seconded police officers delivered direct interventions with children to promote positive change and to keep children and communities safe. YJS practitioners were proactive in their approaches and engaged children in a range of constructive activities, including the school holiday programme, independent living skills sessions, and the Lady Bugs and Tough Tees gender-specific group-work sessions. Reparation activity also provided children with opportunities to engage in activities to develop their practical and social skills. Some children continued to attend the allotment after the end of their disposal or order, which was testament to the positive relationships YJS practitioners had built with them.

Services worked cohesively to achieve positive change in the large majority of cases inspected, and this had resulted in children receiving support for education, training and employment, speech and language, and substance misuse. However, in several instances, the physical and mental health needs of children had not been met and waiting times for neurodevelopmental assessments were lengthy. We were told of the health pathways available for YJS children, but we found that they were not consistently meeting the health needs of all children.

Delivery to keep the child and community safe worked effectively when agencies, including the custodial estate, worked cohesively and practitioners had a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities in the delivery of services to children. Inspectors found numerous examples of where this had occurred but in instances where cohesive partnership delivery was limited, critical new information was not shared to inform adaptations to the delivery of services that would keep the child and others safe.

The YJS delivered direct interventions addressing harmful sexualised behaviours, fire-setting and the carrying or use of weapons. Practitioners worked with children and parents or carers to understand the underlying reasons for the harmful behaviours and this often resulted in a holistic approach to addressing factors linked to exploitation. We found strong examples of effective co-delivery by the YJS, social care exploitation teams and SHiFT. In several instances this had resulted in a contextual approach to mapping individuals and locations which had caused concern. Practice to keep the child and community safe would be strengthened by ensuring that this approach was consistently applied to case work.

Work with victims (Back to top)

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

Our rating[7] for work with victims is based on the following key questions:

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

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

Strengths:

  • The YJS plan 2025/2026 identified work with victims as one of the four priority areas for the service. Senior leaders, YJS managers and staff were reflective and demonstrated insight into the areas of victim practice that needed development.
  • Practitioners involved in work with victims were passionate and driven in promoting the voice of the victim in all aspects of their practice.
  • The YJS was working at pace to progress work with victims. Reviewing and evaluation had resulted in several positive changes. These had included recruiting an additional victim worker and reprofiling an existing role to provide additional support and supervisory capacity within the restorative team. The YJS had commissioned additions to the existing case management system to support data reporting and analysis. YJS managers had undertaken audits of work with victims and the findings informed the development of a victim action plan. Inspectors found that the YJS victim action plan aligned with the findings and recommendations from this inspection.
  • Staff working with victims received regular formal supervision and ongoing informal support from YJS managers. In recognition of the impact of vicarious trauma, the YJS had commissioned an external provider to offer clinical and reflective supervision.
  • Victim workers had access to the range of training opportunities available to practitioners working with children. In addition, the two established victim workers had achieved accreditation by the Restorative Justice Council.
  • The quarterly regional forum provided an opportunity for restorative practitioners to meet with colleagues from across the network to share effective practice and benefit from peer support.
  • The YJS’s offer to victims included restorative justice conferences, direct reparation (as decided by the victim), shuttle mediation, a surrogate victim (particularly when the victim was an emergency worker), a letter of explanation, indirect reparation, and an opportunity to be updated on the progress of the child’s order/disposal.
  • The YJS directory of services provided a comprehensive overview of the reparation projects and support services available to children and families to address a range of universal and targeted needs.
  • Reparation activity was meaningful, and we found that projects provided a balance between reparative work and opportunities for children to develop skills.
  • While there were different referral routes and processes for victims of out-of-court and court disposals, all victims were contacted and had equitable access to the range of interventions and support.
  • Child victims had access to the same support as children open to the YJS if they needed or requested it. 
  • Policies and processes had recently been reviewed and contained all relevant information and considerations. The practice guidance document outlined processes for working with victims and the expectations placed on case managers and victim workers in considering victims’ wishes, feelings and safety.
  • The policy made specific reference to the duty to notify the probation victim liaison officer (VLO) of all statutory victim cases. There was an established pathway between the YJS and the probation VLO and a template had been created to share information.
  • Restorative practitioners attended all out-of-court decision-making forums and referral order panels to present the victim’s wishes and feelings, and to discuss their safety. We heard examples of the use of victim safety measures, including non-contact requirements and exclusion zones. Victim workers attended the YJS multi-agency safety management panels and MAPPA to inform pre-release from custody processes, including release on temporary licence and licence conditions. 
  • Seconded police officers delivered training to new police recruits to promote an understanding of YJS processes.
  • The partnership had come together to develop a day of positive, constructive and meaningful restorative activities on the anniversary of the disorder that occurred in Middlesbrough.

Areas for improvement:

  • The YJS management board did not have sufficient oversight of the quality of work with victims to assure itself that services provided were high quality, individualised, and responsive to the needs of all victims. The YJS management board did not include representation from victim services and there was an absence of a strategic lead to drive forward this area of work.
  • All individuals contacting the police control room for assistance were automatically opted in to the Victim Care and Support Service (VCAS), which was funded by the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner. VCAS had direct access to police systems, and could respond instantly by contacting callers or potential victims. There were opportunities for the YJS and VCAS to formalise joint working processes and information-sharing agreements to promote a holistic approach to meeting victims’ needs.
  • The victim consent form shared by Cleveland police with the YJS contained limited information about a victim’s protected characteristics and individual needs. In practice, we found that this had consistently impacted the YJS’s ability to tailor and personalise initial contact with victims.
  • Work with victims was not monitored as part of the management board’s quarterly performance report and there was an absence of demographic analysis of the victim cohort. This has been acknowledged and discussed at previous board meetings, with actions progressed to commission a case management module to ensure that victim data could be collated and analysed.
  • Monitoring and evaluation of victim consent and uptake rates needed to be formalised. We were not assured that the YJS and the management board had a comprehensive understanding of the consent process and that victims were explicitly consenting to support from the YJS.
  • A victim strategy was still in development and scheduled for discussion at the YJS management board meeting in September 2025.
  • The YJS recognised that it needed to improve the way it gathered and analysed victims’ feedback to inform service delivery. It had revised and updated current processes, and was committed to ensuring that feedback was monitored and analysed routinely.
  • The YJS had identified that the recording of victim processes and practices, and the management oversight of this work, needed to be strengthened.
  • There was a gap in provision in terms of the response to victims of adolescent to parent violence.

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

YJS leaders and practitioners were strong advocates for children and their parents or carers. The development of processes to promote the meaningful engagement and participation of children, parents or carers was one of the four service priorities, as identified in the YJS plan 2025/2026. Feedback mechanisms were already in place and underpinned by the YJS engagement and participation strategy 2024, but renewed focus had resulted in the allocation of additional resources to drive this area of work forward.  

The Cleveland child custody suite was developed by the YJS and Cleveland police in consultation with several stakeholders and with a group of children. Children’s views about the police cell design, the colours and environment were incorporated into the development of the custody suite. During the inspection showcase visit, inspectors attended the child custody suite and met with police, representatives from CURV and the custody navigators. We observed an enthusiasm and commitment to providing spaces and services that made a positive difference to children’s lives, while keeping everyone safe.

In April 2025, the YJS began to develop live feedback processes following each referral order panel. This involved a YJS leader meeting with a child and their parent or carer immediately after the panel to find out whether they felt included and listened to. The YJS had also redesigned the content of the closure questionnaires that children and their parents or carers were asked to complete at the end of their formal involvement with the service. The redesign had focused on better accessibility and the use of child-friendly language. The developments had been supported by the YJS speech and language therapist and the participation team within children’s services.

Children who attended YJS holiday activities completed feedback questionnaires that informed future sessions. Similarly, children provided feedback about constructive activities, and this had resulted in the YJS facilitating additional woodwork sessions.

The YJS had previously held focus groups with children to revise the service’s vision statement and to design a new logo to represent South Tees YJS.

The YJS was in the process of launching a QR code to encourage children, parents and carers to provide digital feedback. The responses would be collated and used to highlight areas of strength and areas for future service development.

The feedback provided to inspectors by children and their parents or carers was overwhelmingly positive.

As part of the inspection, the YJS contacted, on our behalf, children who were working with the YJS at the time of the inspection, 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. These included a text survey, one-to-one meetings, focus groups, and video or telephone calls. We received five responses to our text survey, with all participants rating the YJS as 10 out of 10 and ‘fantastic’. A parent said:

“We had never been in this situation before and we have both (son and mum) had so much help checking in on us knowing how much this affected us they have gone above and beyond in explaining things helping as much as they can.”

In addition, we spoke directly to four children, two parents or carers and one child in the company of their parent. They all felt respected and valued by YJS staff and they did not feel judged. A parent commented that:

“They’ve been brilliant. The only organisation that has really done anything. I feel like they really care. (It’s) not just the experience with one person, it’s been everyone in Youth Justice. I don’t feel like an inconvenience, they just do it, they take load off you. I think they are amazing, they don’t judge and they want the best for my son, and for me.“

Children and their parents or carers shared several examples of how the YJS had supported them with access to constructive activities, which provided structure beyond the end of their involvement with the YJS. This included access to sport and community activities. We heard that children had enjoyed attending the YJS allotment and, as part of the inspection context visit, inspectors joined children and staff at the allotment and observed that YJS practitioners had created safe spaces for children to develop social and practical skills, while simultaneously engaging in reparative work. All children, parents and carers that we spoke to felt ‘very safe’ in the spaces where they met with the YJS.

The input from YJS support workers was highlighted as a strength and we noted examples where children had responded positively to practitioners’ relational approaches. Parents and carers commented that, following YJS support, they had seen noticeable differences in the behaviour of their children, with comments including:

“they are calmer and happier” and that “this has improved family life”.

The work of YJS specialists was commended, and we heard several instances where the YJS education workers had supported parents and carers to remove barriers to children accessing school and college. The work of the speech and language therapist was also described as invaluable. A parent noted that:

“(the speech and language therapist) worked very well with me, information provided to me was amazing which has had a real positive impact on my child in helping me communicate with him. I felt it was professional. The speech and language therapist got in contact with school and asked to meet, so they can understand how to communicate with my child.”

Equity, diversity and inclusion (Back to top)

Performance data provided a breakdown of children’s protected characteristics and individual needs. Over-represented groups were identified as males between the ages of 15 and 17 years old, with high levels of school exclusions, special educational needs (SEN), current or previous involvement with social care and experiences of trauma. Data showed that 89 per cent of the caseload were white children and nine per cent were black and minority ethnic children, with three per cent unknown. While this data did not identify over-representation of black and minority ethnic children against the local population, at the time of the inspection announcement three out of the seven children who had been sentenced to custody were of black or minority ethnic heritage and further work was needed to review disproportionality in community sentences and resettlement.

The ‘Disproportionality in the YJS’ document was reviewed in May 2025 and provided an overview of general concerns about disproportionate outcomes for black and minority ethnic children. However, it was not localised to reflect the population of Middlesbrough and Redcar and Cleveland. There was an opportunity for the YJS to develop practice and knowledge, to ensure that all YJS practitioners were confident in holding conversations with children about their ethnicity, culture, heritage and identity.  

The inspection case data outlined variability in the YJS’s diversity practices. Inspectors found examples of effective assessing, planning and delivery, which were individualised to meet children’s diverse needs and considered their protected characteristics. However, this was not a consistent strength across all casework.

Data provided by the YJS on the day of the inspection announcement showed that 10.5 per cent of the caseload were female and that 11 out of the 12 girls were supported as part of out-of-court disposal arrangements. The YJS had developed gender-specific groupwork programmes in recognition of the different reasons why girls and boys offended.

The YJS had recognised that children with SEN were over-represented. It had taken action to ensure that YJS education workers could access information on SEN support and EHCPs to inform its assessing and planning activity. Inspectors found that these information-sharing processes had a positive impact on approaches to supporting children.

High levels of need and vulnerability were evident in the significant numbers of YJS children supported by children’s social care. On the day of the inspection announcement, 18.4 per cent of the YJS’s caseload were children looked after by the local authority and 14 per cent of these children were living in care provision outside Middlesbrough or Redcar and Cleveland. The partnership had targeted resources at preventing children from escalating to statutory care services, and had focused on returning children safely back to the home area. This initiative was also supported by the intensive input provided by SHiFT practitioners. We found that the YJS was attuned to understanding the impact of childhood trauma and changes in primary caregiver arrangements on children’s presenting behaviours.

The YJS was responsive to the geography of the two local authorities. Staff routinely conducted home visits or saw children or victims in spaces and places in the community where they felt safe. The YJS provided transport for children to mitigate against the impact of rurality, limited public transport and financial costs for parents or carers.

The YJS acknowledged that the limited information received from Cleveland police on victims’ diverse needs and protected characteristics was a barrier to personalising initial contact. We were encouraged to hear that work was being undertaken to review the police referral form.  

The diverse and individual needs of staff were supported effectively. The staff survey detailed that managers understood and responded to the diverse needs of staff and made reasonable adjustments in accordance with protected characteristics ‘very well’ or ‘quite well’ in 30 out of the 31 responses received.

Data annexe (Back to top)

South Tees Youth Data Annexe
(XLSX, 134 KB)

Press release (Back to top)

South Tees Youth Justice Service “tenacious in their efforts” and 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 Caren Jones, supported by a team of inspectors and colleagues from across the Inspectorate. We would like to thank all those who helped plan and took part in the inspection; without their help and cooperation, the inspection would not have been possible.

[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] SHiFT provides intensive support for children and young people with the highest levels of need, vulnerability and complexity.

[3] Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (2019). ‘The English Indices of Deprivation 2019’.

[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] 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.

[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 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.