Skip to content

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

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

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

or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.

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

© Crown copyright

An inspection of youth justice work with children and victims in Barking and Dagenham

Published:

Foreword (Back to top)

This inspection is part of our programme of inspections across youth justice services (YJS) in England and Wales.1 In this inspection we have inspected and rated work with children and victims in Barking and Dagenham YJS across two broad areas: the quality of work done with children working with the YJS and the quality of work done with victims.

Overall, Barking and Dagenham YJS was rated as ‘Good’.

Since our last inspection in 2018, the YJS had worked hard to improve its work with children. An active and committed management board and responsive partnership had ensured the needs of YJS children were prioritised. Comprehensive performance data, complemented by quality assurance activity, was analysed to inform and shape operational practice with children and families.

Practitioners were skilled and motivated. They understood their children well and engaged them effectively in activities to achieve positive change and promote safety. They were supported by knowledgeable and passionate leaders, and a wide range of specialist services and provision. This resulted in a YJS that was aspirational for its children, and focused on supporting them to move forward, flourish and achieve.

Work with victims required significant development. The management board needed to set and oversee the strategic direction for improvement work. The development of a comprehensive data set, which analysed YJS and partnership information was required. There needed to be a better understanding of consent, uptake rates, the effectiveness of initial contacts, and the delivery of services to victims, so the board could be assured all victims were prioritised and had access to services they needed.

Assessing, planning and delivery was carried out in collaboration with children, families and partners. This helped the YJS to get a comprehensive understanding of children’s strengths, needs and safety. While assessing for the safety of the child would have benefited from greater professional curiosity and analysis, this did not compromise subsequent planning and delivery. Practitioners were skilled at building and maintaining trusted relationship with children and families, which support effective interventions. There was a strong focus on education, training and employment, which reflected the improvement activity undertaken since the last inspection. This resulted in children having access to provision that reflected their needs, goals and ambitions.

We saw effective and sensitive diversity practice across assessing, planning and delivery for children’s individual needs, such as neurodiversity, cognitive or learning needs or the impact of trauma. However, improvements were required to ensure consistency in practice when considering children’s race, ethnicity and culture.

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

Martin Jones CBE

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

Ratings (Back to top)

Fieldwork started November 2025Score 9/12
Overall ratingGood

Work with children

2.1 AssessingGood
2.2 PlanningOutstanding
2.3 DeliveryOutstanding

Work with victims

V1 Work with victimsRequires 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 Barking and Dagenham. This will improve the lives of the children in contact with youth justice services and better protect the public.

The Barking and Dagenham Youth Justice Management Board should:

  1. devise and implement a victim strategy and proactively drive improvement in work with victims within the YJS and across the partnership
  2. develop a comprehensive, analytical data set to inform and shape the direction and delivery of victim work.

The Barking and Dagenham Youth Justice Service should:

  1. analyse initial contacts with and services to victims to ensure their consent is gained, promote an increase in the uptake of victim services, and be assured of the quality and effectiveness of interventions for victims
  2. improve the quality of assessing practice so it consistently identifies and analyses how to keep the child and community safe
  3. improve the quality of assessing, planning and delivery so that it is responsive to the needs and wishes of victims
  4. ensure consistent high-quality diversity practice across assessing, planning, and delivery, which recognises, analyses, and responds to children’s race, ethnicity, culture, lived experience and identity
  5. improve recording practice so it consistently reflects the quality of contact and delivery of work with children and victims
  6. strengthen and ensure high-quality and consistent management oversight of work with children and victims.

The Metropolitan Police should:

  1. improve the information it provides the YJS about victims’ individual needs and protected characteristics, so that initial contact with victims can be personalised to encourage victim engagement with the YJS offer.

Background (Back to top)

We conducted fieldwork in Barking and Dagenham YJS over a period of a week, beginning on 17 November 2025. We inspected cases where the YJS had started work with children subject to bail or remand, court disposals or out-of-court resolutions between 18 November 2024 and 19 September 2025. We also conducted 21 interviews with case managers or team managers. We inspected the organisational arrangements for work delivered with victims and looked at cases where the YJS had undertaken contact with victims between 18 November 2024 and 19 September 2025. We also conducted interviews with staff and managers responsible for the delivery of this work.

Barking and Dagenham is a diverse east London borough with a complex and rapidly changing context. It has a population of 232,747,2 12.8 per cent (29,711) of which are children aged 10–17. The population grew by 17.7 per cent between the 2011 and 2021 censuses, the third highest growth in England. It is an ethnically diverse borough: 55.1 per cent3 of the population are of Black or global majority heritage, which increased to 66.7 percent for 10–17-year-olds. The YJS caseload reflected this, as data supplied at the time the inspection was announced indicated that 65 per cent of children identified as being of Black or global majority heritage. Deprivation and inequality were significant issues. At the time of the inspection, Barking and Dagenham was ranked the 20th most income-deprived local authority in England, and was the highest ranked in London. Lone parent households with dependent children made up 12.8 per cent of the population and 46 per cent of children lived in poverty, the third highest rate in England and Wales. The prevalence of domestic abuse in the borough was the highest in London, with 15.1 domestic abuse offences per 1,000 people from April 2024 to March 2025.

The adolescent and youth justice service was part of the children’s care and support (CCS) service in the children’s and adult’s directorate. The practice framework encompassed the CARES values of compassion, accountability, respect, empowerment and sharing. This complemented the ‘children first’ principles and trauma-informed practice of the YJS. The adolescent and youth justice service comprised the YJS, a statutory social work team for adolescents, the youth at risk matrix (YARM) team, which provided early intervention for children at risk of entering the criminal justice system, an exploitation lead and a national referral mechanism (NRM)4 coordinator.

Strategic responsibility for the YJS was held by the head of service, with a dedicated operational service manager. Team managers led two operational teams made up of senior practitioners, practitioners, specialist or seconded staff and volunteers. All practitioners with case management responsibility had generic caseloads. Senior practitioners had reduced caseloads, as they also led on specialist areas. The YJS was a well-resourced, multi-disciplinary team that included seconded staff and specialist workers. This reflected the strong youth justice partnership. Seconded staff included a child and adolescent mental health service (CAMHS) clinical lead, a CAMHS nurse, a speech and language therapist (SaLT), a probation officer, two part-time police officers and a police sergeant. Specialist staff included an education worker, careers advisor, resettlement worker, victim worker, reparation coordinator and three reparation workers, and a parenting officer. Two Spark2Life5 mentors and a Subwize6 substance misuse worker were linked to the YJS. The YJS also had a dedicated performance analyst and business support.

The YJS had access to range of interventions and services to address children’s needs and safety. Some of these were evidenced in the context visit and showcase slot during fieldwork. Of note was the Ben Kinsella Trust,7 which provided a meaningful knife crime intervention using an immersive and experiential approach. The programme used interactive sessions, including story board scenarios, medical facts and the law, and a mock-up prison cell. It encouraged a connection with and empathy for the lives of Ben Kinsella and other children who had been victims of knife crime in the borough. Sparks2Life was an inspiring voluntary organisation that provided mentoring support to high-risk and vulnerable children and young people aged 13–25. Mentors were skilled at building trusted relationships, and supported access to education, training and employment (ETE). We met a young person at university, who told us that their mentor was instrumental in this achievement.

The development of ETE provision for children since the last inspection of the YJS was impressive, with a truly aspirational commitment to supporting children to achieve. A dedicated education lead and careers advisor had been appointed and was integrated effectively with the YJS and education partners. They monitored children’s engagement in education and met with all children to develop individually tailored plans that reflected their interests and aspirations. They had built relationships with providers, including schools and colleges, as well as local authority education teams, which meant they advocated for and secured appropriate provision for children. They also worked closely with the reparation team, which ensured that children accessed and achieved qualifications. The impact of this work was evident, as 85 per cent of children were in ETE at the announcement of the inspection.

Annual data indicated that the YJS worked mainly with boys aged 15–17. Just over half were of Black and global majority heritage, and the other half were of White ethnicity. Data supplied when the inspection was announced indicated that the YJS was working with 93 children; 80 were subject to court disposals and 13 to out-of-court resolutions. The YJS’s first-time entrant (FTE) rate was consistently high. This was monitored by performance data, quality assurance activity, and a quarterly multi-agency FTE sub-group chaired by the head of service. Efforts to address the FTE rate had included support from the YARM team for children identified as being at risk of criminality or exploitation, audit activity linked to the stop and search pilot, and the planned prevention partnership pilot to offer early support to children following stop and search contact with the police. National reoffending data indicated that the YJS was performing well. Both the reoffending percentage (26.1 per cent) and the reoffending rate (0.64 per cent) were below the national average. While the current custodial rate was higher than the national and London average, over the past six years the YJS had seen an 84 per cent reduction in the use of custody. The YJS closely monitored the use of custody and support for children in custodial settings through the cusp of custody and resettlement panels.

Domain two: Work with children (Back to top)

We took a detailed look at 21 cases where the YJS has worked with children, subject to bail, remand, community sentences, resettlement or out-of-court resolutions.

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

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

Does assessing sufficiently analyse how to:% ‘Yes’
achieve positive change for the child?90%
keep the child and the community safe?67%

Assessing to achieve positive change was strong and comprehensive. This was enabled by practitioners consistently gathering and using a wide range of partnership information from agencies, including children’s care and support, education, police, and CAMHS. Assessing activity was strengthened by practitioners working actively and collaboratively with children to gain an understanding of their perception of their involvement in offending and the context and circumstances in which they were living. The combination of these elements enabled practitioners to recognise the factors contributing to a child’s involvement in offending, such as their family circumstances or peer relationships, experiences of trauma, lifestyle, engagement in ETE, substance use, and emotional wellbeing. It also ensured that assessing reflected children’s strengths and protective factors, such as significant trusted relationships, hobbies and interests, and engagement in positive activities, and how, if supported, these factors could facilitate positive change.

The engagement of parents and carers enhanced assessing practice as it gave practitioners a holistic knowledge of the issues affecting children and an awareness of how a child’s relationship with their parents could support or influence their behaviour and engagement with the YJS. However, in instances where inspectors did not see joint working with parents and carers, this undermined the efficacy of assessing practice. This was particularly evident in relation to fathers, even when they were the primary carer for their children.

Assessing to keep the child and community safe required strengthening in some instances. Practitioners were able to identify the factors related to the safety of the child and the community, such as the impact of trauma and adverse childhood experiences, emotional wellbeing, the impact of domestic abuse, experiences of neglect, possession of weapons (including knives), peer or gang influences, emotional dysregulation and the use of violence, or not being in ETE. However, while factors were recognised, there was a need for greater professional curiosity and more detailed analysis of the presenting risks and safety needs of the child and the community. For example, where there were identified concerns about family members or adults known to the child, assessing activity did not always result in appropriate checks being undertaken with probation or the police to inform assessing practice. Neither were the relationships with these adults comprehensively explored to give assurance about children’s safety.

Inspectors saw effective assessing in relation to exploitation and risk outside the home. This was supported by information-sharing from the adolescent service, the police and the gangs unit, as well as multi-agency risk management forums. The embedded approach to contextual safeguarding, and co-location of the YJS with the adolescent service, exploitation practice lead and NRM coordinator, also promoted this strength in practice. However, development work was needed to ensure there was a similar effective response to recognising and analysing intra-familial harm.

The consideration of victims’ needs and wishes in assessing required strengthening. In some instances, this was because information on victims was not available. The quality of assessing practice in relation to victims’ safety was variability. Some assessing practice comprehensively considered and analysed the actual or potential risk to victims. However, we saw instances where this felt superficial, or where concerns were not recognised. Given the nature and severity of the offending that the YJS was responding to, greater consistency was required.

Positively, assessing practice was effective in terms of responding to change. Often, reviewing activity in response to new or emerging incidents or behaviours, or to required reviews in relation to changes in circumstances or specific processes, such as pre-sentence reports, had led to improvements in assessing. Reviewing activity tended to result in assessing practice becoming more comprehensive, holistic, analytical and of higher quality.

Practitioners were consistent in identifying children’s diverse individual needs and protected characteristics. They demonstrated skill and sensitivity when considering and analysing the impact of trauma, being care experienced or neurodiverse in their assessing practice. However, this depth of practice was not always reflected when considering children’s ethnicity, religion or culture. Inspectors saw isolated examples of comprehensive assessing practice; however, there needed to be greater consistency and depth of understanding of the impact a child’s ethnicity, religion, heritage or culture had on their lived experience or self-identity. Assessing practice also needed development to consider and respond to the intersectionality of all diversity factors and individual needs.

Management oversight arrangements did not always identify shortfalls in the quality of assessing. This related to a lack of or limited analysis in assessing practice, which was more evident in terms of children’s safety and diversity needs. These arrangements needed strengthening to support the delivery of consistent high-quality assessing activity.

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

Our rating9 for planning is based on the following key questions:

Does planning focus sufficiently on how to:% ‘Yes’
achieve positive change for the child?90%
keep the child and community safe?81%

Planning practice was comprehensive and effectively addressed children’s needs and safety.

Practitioners actively and skilfully engaged children, parents and carers in planning. We saw evidence of the locally developed ‘my plan, my way’ approach, which promoted meaningful engagement of children, parents and carers. This resulted in planning that was bespoke, individualised and aspirational for children. This joint approach to planning ensured parents and carers were involved in decisions about referrals or interventions to best address their own needs, such engaging with the parenting officer, when this was necessary to promote positive change and safety for children.

Planning was strengthened by a collaborative partnership approach, which in some instances compensated for shortfalls in individual children’s plans. It incorporated key statutory agencies, such as education and schools, children’s care and support, the adolescent service, probation and the secure estate, as well as voluntary sector partners such as Spark2Life, Subwize and Be Heard as One.10 YJS specialist practitioners, such as the education lead, careers advisor, CAMHS practitioner, SaLT and resettlement worker, were also involved in planning to address and support specific identified needs. Additionally, we saw effective transition planning with probation and secure estate providers for children moving into the young adult estate.

Planning had a strong focus on building and supporting protective factors, strengths and being responsive to children’s interests. This included promoting children’s engagement in positive activities and services that supported them beyond the term of their disposal and involvement with the YJS. Examples included referral to and involvement of mentors from Spark2Life and Be Heard as One, or engaging in positive activities such as the gym, boxing or music. Critically, children’s engagement in appropriate ETE provision was central to achieving positive change and supporting safety, and this was consistently seen planning practice. For example, practitioners worked collaboratively with schools or colleges and shared information, they ensured planning reflected children’s own ETE goals and aspirations, and reparation activities provided opportunities for children to learn new skills, achieve qualifications or develop interests.

Planning for the safety of the child and community was robust and effective. We saw evidence of external controls such as curfews, exclusion zones, and GPS location monitoring being used as part of disposal requirements and bail and licence conditions. This was also supported by the involvement of parents through activities such as monitoring where their children were, conducting room searches and reporting any concerns. The use of external controls was balanced effectively with the planning of interventions to develop internal controls and address the underlying factors contributing to safety of the child and the community. This involved planning sessions on subjects such as weapon and knife possession including referral to the Ben Kinsella Trust, peer relationships, emotional regulation and the use of violence, fire awareness, effective decision-making, addressing underlying trauma, emotional wellbeing and mental health support, substance use, and healthy and safe relationships. Children’s safety was also supported by peer mapping and safety planning with key partners, such as the adolescent service and police, to identify places, spaces and individuals of concern, as well as those that promoted safety.

Consideration of the safety of actual or potential victims was robust. Practitioners used external controls and conditions such as exclusion zones, location monitoring and involvement of the probation victim liaison officer, where required. We also saw evidence of planning for generic victim awareness work. However, consideration of victims’ needs and wishes in planning was limited by a lack of information on victims. This required strengthening.

Planning for children’s individual and diverse needs was variable. Practice was stronger when practitioners considered specific needs such as neurodiversity, speech, communication and language needs, or trauma experiences, and made adaptations to ensure interventions or services were accessible. However, planning was limited in terms of children’s ethnicity, culture, heritage and lived experience. For example, practitioners did not always know about or respond to the diverse needs of parents and carers, to enable them to support the work delivered by the YJS and partners. As with assessing, planning practice needed improvement to ensure practitioners considered all the diverse and intersecting needs that children, parents and carers presented with.

Management oversight and holistic planning, particularly regarding the safety of the child and the community, was enhanced through various partnership risk and safety planning forums. These included formal children’s care and support processes, such as child in need or child protection planning, as well as the multi-agency YJS risk management and resettlement panels and attendance at the multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA) panel.

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

Our rating11 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?90%
keep the child and the community safe?90%

Delivery to achieve positive change and keep children and communities safe was consistently of high quality, with services and support responding to children’s needs.

Practitioners were skilled and effective at building and maintaining trusted and positive relationships with children, parents and carers, which reflected the relational approach to practice in the YJS and wider directorate. This was the foundation to facilitating positive change and promoting safety, as it resulted in credible interactions and meaningful interventions with children and families. It was apparent that practitioners knew their children well, and that they cared for and were aspirational for them. While this approach promoted children’s engagement, it did not detract from practitioners effectively balancing and taking enforcement action if necessary.

The strength and richness of the youth justice partnership was apparent in delivery. We saw YJS practitioners working closely with colleagues from statutory and voluntary sector agencies. This included the adolescent service, ETE providers, including schools and colleges, CAMHS, the leaving care service, probation, secure estate providers, substance misuse workers and mentors. YJS specialists were also engaged in delivery with children, most notably the careers advisor, education lead, CAMHS practitioner, SaLT, and resettlement and reparation workers. This approach supported effective transitions both in the community and custody, as we saw YJS practitioners, leaving care workers, mentors, probation officers and secure estate providers supporting children to understand the process of moving to adult services and securing appropriate provision to meet their needs.

Interventions delivered to children focused on building strengths and engagement in positive activities. We saw examples of children being encouraged and given practical support to engage in range of pro-social pursuits such as music and sporting activities, including boxing and the gym. Children’s involvement in ETE was consistently prioritised. It was facilitated by the YJS careers advisor and education lead, who worked promptly, flexibly and efficiently to identify and secure appropriate provision that reflected the children’s interests and goals. We saw evidence where a college placement was quickly secured for a child. This was achieved through the careers advisor working closely with the case manager, advocating with the safeguarding lead at college, and providing practical support to help the child attend an induction. There was evidence of the open college network12 being used for children to gain qualifications, develop portfolios, and achieve their CSCS card.13 This was also associated with reparation, ensuring that, as well as repairing harm, children were engaged in meaningful activities that they valued.

We saw a range of interventions to address children’s identified needs and safety. These were delivered effectively by practitioners, seconded staff, and statutory or voluntary partners. They included responding to experiences of trauma, healthy relationships, parental support, emotional wellbeing, substance misuse, possession of weapons, peer relationships and influences, and raising awareness of and responding to exploitation for both children and parents. Notably, children’s safety in relation to possession of weapons (including knife crime), serious violence and exploitation was enhanced through use of the programme provided by the Ben Kinsella Trust and mentoring relationships provided by Safer London,14 Spark2Life and Be Heard as One. Children’s safety was also managed through external controls such as curfews, exclusion zones, home visits, police address checks and GPS tracking. This was supported by collaborative work with parents and carers, which included information-sharing, involvement in safety planning, supporting boundary setting and location monitoring using applications such as Life 360. Delivery was dynamic and responsive to change in terms of new incidents or where children had started to disengage.

Inspectors saw examples of effective victim work through generic victim awareness sessions. However, practitioners limited knowledge of victims’ needs and wishes, reduced the prevalence of restorative practice. Practitioners considered and responded to victims’ safety through the use and oversight of external controls. This area of work was a strength.

Diversity practice strengthened in delivery, primarily in terms of individual needs such as neurodiversity, learning needs, or the impact of trauma. This was supported by SaLT or CAMHS screenings to identify any undiagnosed or underlying needs. There were examples of sessions that had been meaningfully adapted to make them accessible. For instance, if a child had difficulties with memory and recall, sessions were shortened, previous discussions summarised, and prompts provided to help them remember information. Similarly, visual cards were used to promote the engagement and understanding of a child with ADHD and anxiety. We saw examples of practical adaptations, such as the use of interpreters, although this was not always extended to parents or carers to support their involvement. Responding to children’s race, ethnicity and culture was variable and not always effective. This included the need to strengthen practitioners’ confidence and experience in discussing race, ethnicity and culture with children. While we saw evidence of children being engaged in dedicated provision such as the ‘Unapologetically Black’15 project for boys or Spark2Life mentoring, greater consistency and consideration was required. Further, improvements were needed to respond effectively to children and families from eastern European communities.

Overall, management oversight was effective in terms of delivery. It was enhanced through the range of effective multi-agency oversight forums and processes. In the YJS, this included the risk management, resettlement and ending gang and youth violence panels; externally, it related to the NRM decision-making panel, MAPPA, and child protection and child in need panels. However, we identified some inconsistency in the quality of supervision in the YJS. We saw some examples of generic case summaries, actions set but not monitored effectively, and poor-quality recording of work with children not being sufficiently addressed. In contrast, we saw instances where oversight of practice was comprehensive, with clear instructions and actions followed up. To strengthen this further, the YJS needs to ensure there is consistency across management oversight.

Work with victims (Back to top)

We took a detailed look at 15 victim cases where the YJS has offered a service to victims who have consented for their information to be shared.

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

Our rating16 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

  • Barking and Dagenham youth justice management board had appropriate partnership representation to promote and drive improvements in victim work.
  • A recent position statement on victim work presented to the management board correlated with the findings from this inspection. It indicated that the board and YJS knew themselves well and were focused on improving strategic and operational practice.
  • A victim champion had been identified to ensure the voices of victims were heard in future board activity and to oversee evolving practice.
  • The YJS had a strong focus on seeing all children they were working with as victims, given the complexity and severity of their context.
  • Staff involved in service delivery to victims were passionate, committed and creative, particularly when directly engaged with victims. We saw examples of tenacious and sensitive practice that was responsive to individual needs and promoted the repair of harm caused by offending.
  • The support and services provided to victims by the YJS were not determined by the disposal a child was subject to. Instead, delivery was victim-led and determined by their needs.
  • There was a diverse and comprehensive offer to victims from the YJS and partner agencies, which ensured that support and interventions were responsive and individualised, and that they reflected victims’ needs and wishes.
  • We saw evidence of sensitive, compassionate and effective support that enabled victims to engage in court processes before the conviction or sentencing of children. This included attending court hearings, trials and sentencing, as well as completing victim personal statements. This was a positive and inspiring approach to work with victims.
  • The response to victims’ safety was a strength. The victim worker attended a range of risk management forums and there was a robust partnership approach to safety planning.
  • The planned launch of the young people affected by crime (YPAC) group was encouraging and reflected the partnership response to supporting child victims.
  • During the initial contact with victims, practitioners sought to gain their consent, considered the impact of the offence, provided information on the YJS victim offer, explored their support needs, and advised on next steps or the disposal given to the child. Recording did not reflect the quality of this contact.
  • Staff and managers responsible for delivering victim work had access to a wide training offer, which helped them to develop their skills and abilities to work with victims. They also had access to specialist restorative justice and complex and sensitive casework training.
  • Staff working with victims had regular and supportive supervision, complemented by access to ad-hoc guidance from the wider management team when required.
  • Clinical supervision was available to staff. This was vital given the possibility of vicarious trauma due to the nature and severity of the context of victim work.
  • Staff working with victims accessed the pan-London victim and restorative justice forum to support practice development and gain support from peers.
  • Staff responsible for the delivery of victim work had manageable workloads, which enabled them to respond promptly to allocated work in most instances.
  • The YJS operated a range of creative reparation projects which had community capital and value. The involvement of victims could be strengthened by consulting with and enabling victims to influence the reparative activities undertaken by children.
  • The strategic partnership approach to contextual safeguarding enabled children to identify places and spaces of safety and risk within the community and online, through the annual child safety summit. Children could highlighted actions and activities to promote safety and reduce crime to strategic leaders. The YJS were strongly connected to this work.
  • The NRM pilot had supported the improved identification and response to children as victims of exploitation.
  • The victim and restorative justice guidance provided clear information on the operational delivery of restorative interventions, specifically direct or virtual restorative meetings between victims and children.
  • It was reassuring that victim work had been included in audit activity and was embedded into the quality assurance approach within the YJS.

Areas for improvement

  • There was limited evidence of the management board driving and promoting the strategic direction and focus of work with victims. There was no victim strategy and limited reference to the development and improvement of work with victims in the youth justice plan 2025/2026.
  • The collation and analysis of data relating to victims and their uptake of services was underdeveloped. The management board recognised the need for a comprehensive and analysed data set to understand the profile of victims and their needs. This required commitment and support from all partners, particularly the Metropolitan Police.
  • Analysis, monitoring and review of interventions and support for victims were needed to ensure the YJS understood the effectiveness of practice and could use this knowledge to inform and shape service delivery.
  • The YJS had not analysed or evaluated consent and uptake rates for victims to inform adaptations to service delivery and improve victim engagement.
  • The YJS board and strategic leaders needed to assure themselves that the identification and offer of support and safety to adult victims was equitable to that provided to children.
  • While staff had received some specialist training, there had been no specific training for all staff on victim work or facilitating restorative justice to ensure a collective and consistent approach.
  • The police provided minimal information about victims, which compromised the YJS’s capacity to engage with them effectively and individualise initial contact. This made it difficult to deliver a reflective and responsive approach to victims’ individual needs and protected characteristics.
  • There was an inconsistent approach to initial contact with victims and providing them with relevant information about the YJS victim offer. Use of the YJS victim assessment form and a standardised information leaflet would support consistency in practice and may improve engagement with or uptake of services.
  • The arrangements for recording initial contact with victims, combined with lack of access to the YJS case management system for some staff, had a negative impact on the quality of recording. The quality of support and services provided to victims was also not consistently reflected in the recording practice.
  • Supervision of staff working with victims needed strengthening to ensure that it focused on the review and oversight of operational work with victims.
  • There was limited evidence of effective management oversight in the victim cases inspected. In most instances, there was a generic statement of circumstances rather than exploration and reflection on practice. Actions to address shortfalls in practice were not identified, nor was the recording of management oversight specific or reflective of victims’ needs. Work to improve and embed high-quality management oversight of victim work was needed.
  • The victim and restorative justice guidance did not reflect the partnership’s approach to work with victims. There was limited alignment with current legislation, national guidance, or the victim code of practice, and it did not reflect local policy or practice.
  • There needed to be greater analysis of the level of hate crime, and better knowledge of the available services to meet the needs of victims of hate crime.
  • There were mechanisms in place to gather feedback from victims on their experience of the services or support provided by the YJS. However, this was not used to shape service delivery. While we heard anecdotal examples of individual responses to victims’ feedback, there were no adaptations at an organisational or strategic level.
  • The Metropolitan Police needed to provide more clarity about the change to an ‘opt-in’ approach to victim consent, to ensure this was understood at an operational and strategic level.
  • The differential pathways for gaining consent for out-of-court and court processes, as guided by current Metropolitan Police policy, were not being followed. Positively, this was identified and rectified during fieldwork.

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

The YJS was embedded in the children’s care and support service, which valued the participation of children and families. This was typified by the directorate commitment of ‘nothing about you, without you’, which was devised with children. Participation was based on the Lundy model17 and sat at two levels: individual, where children engaged in decisions affecting their lives; and collective, through forums and groups to shape and improve service delivery. This was exemplified by the annual children safety summit, where children from schools, community groups and services identified places of safety and risk in the borough and online. Children learned about safety and communicated to those in authority about spaces that needed to be made safer and how best to do this from their perspective. YJS children were involved, including a child who acted as a youth facilitator.

Participation by children and families to inform service development was a priority in the current youth justice plan. The YJS management board included a child and parent representative, who shared views and ideas, ensuring their voices influenced decision-making. Children had been involved in YJS development days and helped create the youth justice plan. A children’s participation group had recently been developed. While this was still at an early stage, the aspiration was for children to share opinions on service issues, co-design and co-develop service delivery, and inform strategic decision-making. Children were also actively involved in staff recruitment.

The ‘my plan, my way’ planning approach engaged children, parents and carers in decisions about how to work with them. It promoted meaningful involvement and resulted in bespoke plans with unique goals for children and families. Feedback processes had been developed to gain insight into children’s, parents’ and carers’ experiences of the services they received. This was analysed by a lead practitioner and business support, with findings presented to the management board and operational staff team. Children engaged in creative activities to express their views and experiences, most notably for Black History Month, with their work displayed in Barking Town Hall. Children’s art was also displayed in the YJS office.

The YJS contacted, on our behalf, children and their parents or carers who currently or recently had worked with the service, to gain their consent to provide feedback on their experience of the YJS. We provided a variety of opportunities for children, parents or carers to participate in the inspection process, resulting in 11 children and two parents or carers talking to inspectors through telephone calls, face-to-face meetings and a focus group.

The children engaged in the focus group were candid about the YJS. They reported feeling safe, understood and supported by their workers, who built positive relationships and communicated effectively with them. Children felt they engaged in interventions that responded to their needs and there was flexibility in the delivery of sessions. Possible improvements could include the provision of more community and activity-based interventions by the YJS, and they said that the limited group spaces and local activities in the area restricted positive peer interactions and constructive leisure pursuits. They also highlighted that they considered management board meetings inaccessible and that representation from children needed to be increased. Positively, all the children reported meaningful improvements in their lives since they engaged with YJS.

Through the interviews conducted with children, parents and carers, when considering the contact they had with the YJS, all of those asked indicated that the information they received was communicated clearly and helped them to understand what was expected of them. They said:18

“My referral order was explained to me at the very start. I was clear about what I had to do for my order.”

“They provided my family with clear, regular updates via email and WhatsApp. We also attended fortnightly meetings with the full team supporting my child. The YJS worker was especially helpful in guiding me and my wife through the challenges we faced.”

Regarding their experiences and interactions with practitioners, all respondents we asked felt respected and valued. The majority also indicated that they had been able to have a say on the things that affected them. They said that they had been asked what help they needed and had been involved in the planning process. They told us:

“I needed help with improving my life and friends and relationships. Me and my mum were involved in the panel meeting to talk about this.”

“The YJS worker asked what support my family needed, especially around education, employment, and protecting my child from exploitation. I was actively involved in planning with the YJS, children’s services, and the wider team.”

When considering the help and support provided by the YJS, there was a consistently positive response. Themes identified from children, parents and carers reflected the findings from our inspection of work with children, specifically the strong focus on ETE. Comments included:

“They helped me get into college, find work, become a mentor and join a boxing gym.”

“It’s been pretty good, helped me a bit with work experience with the financial times for a week which will look great on my CV. Careers advisor helps me to apply for jobs and I can engage well with my worker, speak to them about life, tell them what’s happening – the truth”

“…she needed education and employment to avoid further exploitation. The YJS worker was pivotal in securing both. When college initially refused her due to her criminal record, the worker attended a meeting and successfully negotiated her placement.”

Feedback to inspectors overwhelmingly demonstrated the impact the YJS had on children and families, in some instances undertaking activities outside their formal responsibilities. Children and parents said:

“Before working with the YJS I felt lost. My sessions with my worker helped me realise what kind of person I would like to be and who I should be avoiding. My relationship with my mum has also improved since working with the YJS.”

“The YJS worker and social worker have been invaluable. They helped us relocate to a safer area, supported us through court appearances, arranged prison visits, and guided my child from a dangerous path to a positive future. I don’t know where we’d be without their support.”

“Beyond their core role, YJS assisted me in exploring job opportunities and even provided Christmas gifts and homemade treats for my family.”

Equity, diversity and inclusion (Back to top)

Barking and Dagenham YJS and its management board had a strong and embedded strategic and operational approach to promoting equity, diversity and inclusion in their work with children and families. Given the richness and diversity of the borough, the local authority had a long-standing commitment to promoting fairness and inclusion, reflected in the corporate equality, diversity and inclusion strategy 2025/2026 and the current revision of its anti-racist framework. YJS activity was cited in the strategy, demonstrating corporate connectivity and alignment.

The management board had an active role in directing and overseeing practice to address disproportionality. This was underpinned by a comprehensive analysis of data and quality assurance activity, as well as being aware of national research and findings. They strengthened their mission statement to reference anti-racist practice and the commitment to eradicating racism, discrimination and injustice. Priorities in the youth justice plan 2025/2026 included recognising and responding to the impact of racism and racial trauma for Black and global majority children and ensuring children with special educational needs and disabilities had the best opportunities by working collaboratively with partners. A thematic board meeting on Black History Month focused on issues relevant to global majority children and highlighted their achievements. This included consideration of the Metropolitan Police race action plan, an update on the stop and search pilot project, feedback from a national roundtable discussion on Black children’s experiences of safeguarding and a video showcasing YJS children’s creative contributions to a Black History Month exhibition.

There was clear understanding of the profile and characteristics of YJS children through the analysis of a comprehensive data set. The introduction of a new disparity tool, while still embedding, had enhanced capacity as it provided greater granularity and active monitoring. Consequently, the YJS were aware that White and mixed heritage children were overrepresented, that just over half of children with White ethnicity were not White British, and that Black children were disproportionally sentenced to custody. It was envisaged that this improved and dynamic data set would enhance the YJS and partnership’s ability to develop and improve services for overrepresented children and provide more opportunities to divert them. For example, data analysis and quality assurance work undertaken regarding theft offences and first-time entrants, enabled disproportionality issues to be highlighted and addressed. It identified links to child trafficking and exploitation of Romanian children, and that care home offences receiving referral orders had been suitable for out-of-court resolutions. As a result, the YJS improved its connections with key partners to understand and respond to local issues relating to exploitation, and the local protocol to reduce the criminalisation of children in care was recirculated.

The YJS had resources to respond to children’s diverse needs. The SaLT and CAMHS practitioners provided screening assessments and guidance that supported effective engagement or adaptation of interventions, making them accessible to children. The education lead and careers advisors were strongly connected to a range of education teams and provision, most notable the education health care team. This ensured SEND children and those with education, health and care plans accessed provision that met their needs. The YJS worked with organisations like Spark2Life and Be Heard as One, who provided mentors that reflected children’s own identity, diverse needs and lived experience. The YJS had two dedicated specialist groups in response to identified needs, ‘Go Girls’ and ‘Unapologetically Black’. Go girls supported girls’ personal development through focused sessions on self-image, resisting pressure and making good decisions, developing goals and aspirations, healthy relationships, staying safe, dealing with risk and safety, and gender, sexism and feminism. The Unapologetically Black boys group focused on identity, positive influences and resetting stereotypes, the exploration of Black history and its influence on culture and developing future goals and ambitions. While there were strengths in practice, inspection activity identified shortfalls in the response to children and families from eastern European communities. This had been identified as a strategic development need for the local authority.

Consistency in diversity practice across assessing, planning and delivery needed strengthening. We saw examples of sensitive and effective practice, but this was not evident in all work with children. While diversity needs were identified in assessing, in some cases this lacked a deeper analysis and understanding of the impact on a child’s identity and lived experience. In planning and delivery, responding to children’s individual needs, such as neurodiversity or cognitive functioning, was strong; however, consideration of children’s race, ethnicity and culture was variable. Practice would have been improved if it reflected the intersectionality of diverse needs for children and families.

The YJS had been involved in phase four of the pan-London stop and search pilot, an innovative partnership to safeguard children, recognise the traumatic impact of stop and search, promote early intervention and address disproportionality. This involved multi-agency audits of 10 children identified through stop and search records, to gain an understanding of their experience and shape learning across the partnership. Learning from the pilot was disseminated to the management board, YJS staff and partner agencies. It was recognised that children needed to be supported at an earlier stage in their contact with the criminal justice system. Consequently, a rapid early help response to children and families following a stop and search was planned.

Deprivation and poverty were significant issues for children and families in the borough, which the YJS was alert to. They had previously worked with a charity, ‘Dear Santa’, to distribute financial vouchers to victims and their siblings at Christmas and had taken on this activity for the victims they worked with when the charity could no longer meet need. Produce grown on the community allotment as part of children’s reparation was donated to a local community projects and foodbanks, and children helped to distribute food parcels. We saw examples of children being provided with clothing and families supported to access foodbanks, which had a significant and positive impact on their emotional wellbeing.

There was limited evidence of equity, diversity and inclusion practice in relation to work with victims. It was not considered in the victims and restorative justice guidance and there was no reference to how the YJS responded to victims’ individual needs or protected characteristics. Data on protected characteristics was limited and the victim data the YJS already had (such as offences committed, the effectiveness of victim interventions and the disposal children were subject to) had not been analysed. This meant the victim profile was not fully understood and adaptations to practice were limited. Encouragingly, the management board and senior leaders had recognised this, and had begun work to improve it. This required partnership support, notably from the Metropolitan Police.

There was limited knowledge on the occurrence or frequency of hate crime and the availability of services to support victims. It was indicated that this was not a specific issue in the borough; however, this was not substantiated by analysed data or evidence. Improvement activity was needed to understand the nature, prevalence and response to hate crime.

Data annexe (Back to top)

Barking & Dagenham Youth Data Annexe (XLSX, 130 KB)

Press release (Back to top)

“Aspirational for its children” Barking & Dagenham Youth Justice Service, rated ‘Good’ following inspection

Further information (Back to top)

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

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

Footnotes:

  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. [2] Office for National Statistics (July 2025). UK population estimates mid-2024. ↩︎
  3. Office for National Statistics – Census 2021. How life has changed in Barking and Dagenham. ↩︎
  4. The NRM decision-making panel is a local multi-agency panel that identifies victims of modern slavery and exploitation and ensures they receive appropriate support. ↩︎
  5. Sparks2Life is a community inspired Black-led charity that empowers and advocates for people to successfully navigate key aspects of life to reduce and prevent the risk of offending. ↩︎
  6. Subwize is a young people’s substance misuse service working with under 25-year-olds in Barking and Dagenham, provided by the Via charity. ↩︎
  7. The Ben Kinsella Trust is a charity that tackles knife crime through education and campaigning. ↩︎
  8. The rating for the standard is driven by the lowest score of the key questions, which is placed in a rating band, indicated in bold in the table. A more detailed explanation is available on our website Standards and ratings – HM Inspectorate of Probation. ↩︎
  9. The rating for the standard is driven by the lowest score of the key questions, which is placed in a rating band, indicated in bold in the table. A more detailed explanation is available on our website Standards and ratings – HM Inspectorate of Probation. ↩︎
  10. Be Heard as One is a grassroots charitable organisation based in East London that provides mentoring and outreach work to young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. ↩︎
  11. 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. ↩︎
  12. Open College Network is a UK-based awarding organisation that provides accredited qualifications and learning opportunities to individuals who might otherwise face barriers to formal education. It uses a flexible, credit-based system aligned with the National Qualifications Framework, offering courses from entry level to level 3 through schools, colleges, training providers, and community organisations. ↩︎
  13. The Construction Skills Certification Scheme card is an identification card in the UK construction industry. It proves that a worker has the required training, qualification and health and safety knowledge for their role. ↩︎
  14. Safer London is a charity that helps children affected by violence and exploitation through trauma-informed, community-based support to create safer futures. ↩︎
  15. The ‘Unapologetically Black’ project aims to create self-awareness, encourage and empower attendees with life skills, and build self-belief and ambition, to avoid pro-criminal behaviour, gangs and serious youth violence. ↩︎
  16. The rating for the victims’ standard is derived from the scores from case inspection for V 1.1 and the qualitative evidence for V 1.2. Case inspection scores and a more detailed explanation of the rating process is available on our website Standards and ratings – HM Inspectorate of Probation. ↩︎
  17. The Lundy model conceptualises a child’s right to participation and consists of the four elements of activity, including space, voice, audience and influence. ↩︎
  18. All quotes are directly from children and their parents or carers. ↩︎