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 Buckinghamshire

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 Buckinghamshire Youth Justice Support Team (YJST) across two broad areas: the quality of work done with children working with the YJST and the quality of work done with victims.  

Overall, Buckinghamshire YJST was rated as ‘Good’. 

Buckinghamshire YJST was a well-led partnership that placed children at the centre of its work and was committed to achieving positive change. We saw strong relational practice and meaningful co-production with children and families. Participation was clearly embedded and contributed to an environment where children felt listened to, respected and valued. Practitioners were skilled and dedicated, a finding reinforced by the positive feedback we received from children, parents and carers.  

Assessing activity was generally thorough and informed by partnership working, drawing on information from education, children’s social care and the police. Planning and delivery consistently focused on helping children access education, training and positive community opportunities. We were impressed by the range of constructive activities available to children to meet their diverse needs. Strong education support, access to specialist health provision, and a clear focus on tackling barriers to inclusion were evident throughout the inspection. 

There were, however, areas where the YJST needed to develop further. We found some inconsistencies in the assessing, planning and delivery of work to keep children and others safe. The YJST did not fully analyse all harm-related behaviour, and activity to address emerging concerns was not always sufficiently responsive. The YJST needed to ensure that safety-focused practice was delivered across all work, so that children, victims and communities received consistently high-quality support. 

Victims’ views were routinely incorporated into decision-making, there was a clear commitment to improving services, and practitioners worked hard to provide support and restorative justice opportunities. However, management oversight of victim work required strengthening, victim safety needed greater prominence, and the partnership needed to make better use of data to understand local needs and drive improvement. The recommendations in this report provide a clear framework to support the service in building on its many strengths. I am confident that Buckinghamshire YJST and its management board are well placed to take this work forward. 

Martin Jones CBE 

HM Chief Inspector of Probation 

Ratings  (Back to top)

Fieldwork started June 2026 Score 8/12 
Overall rating Good 

Work with children 

2.1 Assessing Good 
2.2 Planning Good 
2.3 Delivery Good 

Work with victims 

V1 Work with victims Good 

Recommendations  (Back to top)

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

The Buckinghamshire Youth Justice Support Team should: 

  1. improve the quality and depth of management oversight to ensure work with victims is of a consistently high-quality, and focused on achieving victim safety and support 
  2. ensure that practice to keep children and communities safe is of a consistently high quality across assessing, planning and delivery with children. 

The Buckinghamshire Youth Justice Management Board should: 

  1. work with Thames Valley Police to improve the gathering and sharing of protected characteristics of victims of youth crime and to ensure effective analysis and understanding of victim consent rates 
  2. develop reporting and analysis of victim data to give strategic leaders and operational staff a comprehensive understanding of the profile of victims, and drive the direction and delivery of high-quality work with victims. 

Background   (Back to top)

We conducted fieldwork in Buckinghamshire YJST over a period of a week, beginning on 22 June 2026. We inspected cases where the YJST had started work with children subject to bail or remand, court disposals or out-of-court resolutions between 23 June 2025 and 24 April 2026. We also conducted 14 interviews with case managers. 

We inspected the organisational arrangements for work delivered with victims and looked at cases where the YJST had undertaken contact with victims between 22 December 2025 and 20 February 2026. We also conducted interviews with staff and managers responsible for the delivery of this work. 

Buckinghamshire is a county in the south-east of England, bordering six local authorities and Greater London. According to the Office of National Statistics, in 2024 it had a population of 578,772 residents and 62,566 0–17-year-olds. Buckinghamshire joint strategic needs analysis (September 2025) indicated that four in five residents were White (79.9 per cent), which was similar to the England average (81 per cent). In the latest Buckinghamshire School Census (2025), two in three (63 per cent) pupils attending schools and living in the county were white British, with the next highest group being Asian, at 22.1 per cent. There were 16,803 children aged 10–17 from Black, Asian and minority ethnic groups (29.2 per cent). Overall, Buckinghamshire has relatively low levels of deprivation, as measured by the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), and was ranked seventh least deprived out of 151 local authorities nationally. Where there are higher levels of deprivation, these are concentrated within Aylesbury and High Wycombe, where the YJST has offices.2 

During our inspection, Buckinghamshire YJST was part of children’s services. It had strategic oversight from a service director with responsibility for special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) and inclusion. There was a service manager for youth justice and exploitation who managed two team managers and an early intervention and restorative justice coordinator. The YJST was overseen by a strong management board, which was chaired by the corporate director for children’s services. The YJST is supported by a performance review and information manager. 

A wide range of partnerships were available to support children in the justice system. These included multi-disciplinary health professionals such as a speech and language therapist, a mental health nurse, a liaison and diversion worker, a substance misuse worker and a specialist health nurse.  

The local probation service should provide a probation officer post; however, at the time of the inspection this position was vacant and had been for three years. Funding had been provided and used to recruit a practitioner, whose priority was to work with older children transitioning from the YJST to the probation service.  

Two police officers were seconded to the YJST, and they provided a valuable contribution to the work of the service. Their focus was on supporting the out-of-court resolution work, and they had a distinct role in contacting the victims of youth crime and ensuring victims’ voices were considered when making decisions. The YJST had taken an evidence-based approach to resourcing work with victims. This strategic and operational priority was reflected in the breadth of staffing and experience across those involved in the delivery of victim and restorative justice work. We saw consistent evidence of proactive work both internally within the YJST and externally across the wider partnership. 

Education support was a strength of the service, and we found many examples of how practitioners prioritised improving educational outcomes for children. The YJST had developed strong links with the Fair Access Board and relationships with local pupil referral units. It also had a dedicated in-house education worker, with teaching experience, who supported and prepared children to undertake exams on site. Inspectors recognised that this had been a clear area of progress for the YJST since the previous inspection, which was reflective of a coordinated partnership approach. 

Between April 2025 and March 2026, the YJST supported 233 children through voluntary, early intervention and statutory engagement. The YJST reported that it supported 72 children at the time of the inspection. Of these, 39 were on statutory interventions, one was in custody on remand and four were in receipt of a community resolution. The remaining children were supported through the ‘Act Now’ voluntary support programme,3 court bail, or youth diversion programmes, or were undergoing an assessment. The background information supplied by the YJST4 showed that 60 per cent of children open to the YJST were white and 34 per cent were from a Black, Asian and minority ethnic background. Six per cent were recorded as unknown. In the YJS organisational data, just over a quarter of the caseload were female. The majority of children were not open to children’s social care; however, 14 per cent were looked after, eight per cent were on a child protection plan, and seven per cent were on a child in need plan. 

Analysis of YJST performance data showed that, between January and December 2025, the number of Buckinghamshire children entering the system for the first time had reduced to its lowest point since 2017. This was lower than the Youth Justice Board south-east region average and the England and Wales average. Published reoffending performance remained lower than national averages, but there had been a steady increase in both the number of times children reoffended and the frequency of reoffending up to June 2024 (the latest reported period). 

There was a strong focus on relational practice, co-production and participation within Buckinghamshire YJST. This was evident in the office surroundings, which had been designed and decorated by children and young people through the ‘YP4ALL’ participation group (named by the young people). The environment was safe and welcoming, and a young person we spoke with expressed how it provided opportunities for self-development and expression. There was a breadth of positive and reparative activities available for children in the justice system in Buckinghamshire, and the YJST proactively sought a range of projects to meet the needs of children and support them to engage and integrate positively within their communities.  

As part of our fieldwork, inspectors visited another site in High Wycombe, where work was delivered with children. The workers we met at this location were passionate and clearly invested in their work, which was corroborated by speaking to a child who was present. This visit provided assurance that, despite challenges with rurality, the YJST was able to undertake its work with children effectively and in different locations – including home visits, community hubs and offices. The venue in Wycombe was impressive, with a range of facilities including sports areas, a gardening project, and breakout rooms for one-to-one or groupwork. It was evident that the venue and amenities had involved consultation and co-production with children. 

Domain two: Work with children  (Back to top)

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

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

Our rating5 for assessing is based on the following key questions: 

Does assessing sufficiently analyse how to: % ‘Yes’ 
achieve positive change for the child? 93% 
keep the child and the community safe? 71% 

Assessing for positive change was a strength of the YJST. In the vast majority of cases we inspected, practitioners demonstrated that they understood the needs of the children they supported. The voice of children, parents and carers was consistently heard and evident, and this collaborative approach to assessing activity ensured that strong professional relationships were formed early. Relational practice was a clear focus for the YJST in work with children, parents and carers. 

There was a steady flow of information from partners such as the police, education services and children’s social care. Clear pathways existed with health professionals in Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS), the substance misuse provider ‘Change, Grow, Live’, local NHS services, and speech and language therapy services. Information was gathered from a wide range of sources and analysed sufficiently to gain a depth of understanding of the child’s family and social context. This enabled the YJST to understand what was required to support children to achieve positive change.  

YJST practitioners explored the background of the children they worked with and understood the impact that adverse childhood experiences and history of trauma had had on their lives. We found examples where practitioners analysed children’s diversity and had in-depth discussions with them about their religion, culture and heritage, and how these had shaped their identity. However, this level of practice was not consistent across all cases inspected. 

Effective partnership working was evident within the assessing activity of the work we inspected. As part of the assessing process, social workers and youth justice workers worked closely together to share historical information and safety plans for children. There was a good relationship between YJST practitioners and police officers that supported timely and helpful intelligence-sharing. This contributed to assessing activity that was effective in keeping children and others safe. Local individualised arrangements were in place between YJST and probation to support young adults who were transferring between the two services. This enhanced the understanding of young adults’ diversity needs as part of their transition.  

Generally, assessing practice to keep the child and others safe was strong. Buckinghamshire YJST had adopted a case formulation approach to assessing that supported practitioners to consider the safety and needs of children through the lens of ‘5Ps’.6 We found that this approach was consistently used in the cases we inspected. To strengthen assessing activity further, the YJST needed to ensure that work to keep child and the community safe was of a consistently high quality. In a small number of cases, the YJST needed to ensure that peer and family networks were more fully explored to understand the risk of exploitation of children. It also needed to ensure that past behaviours, particularly those relating to violence, were better analysed and understood, to ensure assessing activity is in sufficient depth to keep children and the community safe.  

The voice of victims, known as ‘persons harmed’ in the YJST partnership, was consistently used to inform the assessing process. In the large majority of relevant cases, assessing activity considered the wishes, feelings and needs of victims, and considered ongoing concerns and the risk of re-victimisation. 

There was evidence of effective management oversight in the cases we inspected. The involvement of managers was recorded clearly and demonstrated that quality assurance activity drove forward progress. Actions were clearly set with timescales to improve practice. The holistic oversight approach7 added an additional layer of oversight to cases. Often completed by a senior manager, this approach considers a ‘helicopter view’ of the factors surrounding the child and allows for a fuller case review to take place every three months.  

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

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

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

Planning practice to achieve positive change was consistently strong. In all cases inspected, the planning activity included the active participation of the child. The YJST had undertaken an audit in 2025 to understand how much children had a role in decisions made about their lives. This led to activity that prioritised capturing children’s voices within YJST meetings, joint decision-making panels and safety panels, and we found children’s voices were evident and reflected throughout planning activity. We also found that parents and carers were active partners in creating and supporting planning activity. 

The YJST had embedded a child-first intervention plan based upon the AIR (activities, interactions, roles) model. This built on children’s strengths and supported the development of pro-social identities. We found plans were written in language children would use and understand. As part of planning, children, parents and carers also had the opportunity to identify how best to sequence interventions and activities and were given a choice in the type of reparation and positive activities that would go into their plans. 

Education was a key feature in the majority of planning activity we inspected. The YJST has responded well to our previous recommendations to improve educational outcomes for children, following our inspection in 2022. Planning activity took into consideration whether the child was missing education, needed to undertake exams, or needed to explore employment opportunities, for example. The YJST education worker was a qualified teacher and was able to provide bespoke support for children preparing for exams, or to help them return to a suitable mainstream school or alternative provision. Practitioners used speech and language assessments well and ensured other YJST activity did not interfere with education arrangements. 

Practitioners took time to understand the child’s needs and acted quickly to work with partners to secure suitable placements for children. We saw evidence that the YJST was able to influence the Fair Access Board and overcome barriers or challenges to support children back into education. Through the multi-agency case discussions undertaken during inspection fieldwork, we saw evidence of strong partnership working between the YJST and a local pupil referral unit. Proactive and positive decisions were made to choose the most appropriate provision for children. Coordinated partnership working prioritised understanding the identified needs of children and then partners worked together effectively to secure the most appropriate provision. 

Planning activity to build on children’s strengths and protective factors was consistently strong. The wide range of positive activities and reparation projects meant that plans could be tailored to the child’s interests and specific needs. This included activities at Aylesbury United Football Club, where children could provide support on match-day, and the Wild Mind Well-being Centre, where children could work on a farm caring for animals and undertaking other work in a supportive communal environment. 

In some cases, we inspected, we saw examples of planning practice where diversity and individual needs had been considered and done well. This included planning that considered religious commitments, cultural identity and other factors such as speech, language and communication needs, cognition and memory difficulties. However, in some instances we saw that there needed to be a more holistic consideration of the range of diverse needs of children, and greater focus on the intersectional aspects of children’s needs. For example, we saw cases where children’s special educational needs were planned for, but factors relating to their culture and identity needed greater focus and inclusion. 

Planning to keep children and the community safe was consistently strong. Where necessary, safety planning included strong partnership working with the police, children’s social care, the pupil referral unit and the exploitation team. Bail conditions and exclusion requirements were used effectively to keep victims and potential victims safe, and changing circumstances identified through new information from partners, such as the police, resulted in changes to these multi-agency plans. Planning appropriately identified direct pieces of work to address harm-related behaviour, such as illegal driving, alongside prioritising effective relational practice. The YJST safety panel provided additional oversight for children assessed as being high risk. It supported partnership planning when circumstances changed, and ensured oversight for children where their behaviour was causing concern. 

To strengthen practice, the YJST needed to ensure that victim safety was consistently and effectively considered alongside strengths-based planning in all cases. 

There was evidence that transition to the Probation Service was planned for well, although these arrangements would be improved by the secondment of a dedicated probation officer within the YJST. 

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

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

Does the delivery of well-focused, personalised and co-ordinated services: % ‘Yes’ 
achieve positive change for the child? 79% 
keep the child and the community safe? 71% 

The YJST used a relational practice model, and practitioners demonstrated significant skills in forming positive relationships with children and families. This was evident in the feedback we received from children, parents and carers, who talked positively about the relationships they had formed with practitioners. A variety of contact methods were used, including visits from children at both offices in Aylesbury and High Wycombe, home visits and the use of activities in different locations across the county. Practitioners took time to get to know the children they supported and were passionate and tenacious in their approach. YJST staff knew the children and their families well. 

Participation and co-production were some of the strongest aspects of delivery in Buckinghamshire YJST. The voice of the child was clear within delivery, and this was captured well, both in recording and how practitioners spoke of their children. The YP4All group enabled children to provide feedback on youth justice issues, and had worked hard to make the High Wycombe office a child-friendly and welcoming environment. This included decorating various aspects of the building and developing the garden area. Children also designed the YJST logo. 

There was a focus on positive activities for children that met their needs and interests. Children could choose from a wide range of activities and benefited from pro-social mentoring with dedicated project staff. Activities included Changes Barbershop, where children learned how to cut hair and keep the shop clean and tidy, and Stokenchurch Dog Rescue Centre, where children supported rescue dogs and got involved in fundraising. The Sports Activity and Transformative Holiday (SATH) Programme, named and created by children, was delivered in partnership with Wycombe Wanderers FC and used sport and other activities to develop confidence and self-esteem and improve the relationship between YJST children and local police. 

Education, training and employment practice was robustly delivered by the YJST and was a clear priority. There was a clear footprint across the inspected cases of the involvement and positive impact of the education worker, a qualified teacher. We saw strong advocacy for children who were not in education, and direct tutoring for exam preparation. The Aylesbury YJST office had been established as an official exam site, as it was recognised that children in the justice system may not always be able or best placed to sit exams within the school environment. Strategic arrangements in Buckinghamshire recognised the importance of education for children in the justice system and the YJST manager was an active member of the Fair Access Board. We also saw examples where the Fair Access Board worked quickly to identify new placements for children who were not on roll at school. 

Practice in response to the needs and diversity of children was variable. When this was undertaken well, practitioners understood the intersectionality of experiences and protected characteristics and adapted their practice accordingly. Inspectors saw positive examples of delivery reflecting children’s special educational needs, experiences of trauma and religious commitments. There were also elements of strong practice in relation to helping children explore their identity. However, where children had multiple diverse needs, in some instances we identified that not all factors were consistently responded to. 

Overall, the quality of work to keep children and the community safe was a strength. However, there was some variability in practice. Leaders needed to ensure that delivery to support safety was consistently implemented; for example, they needed to ensure that home visits and engagement were prioritised, and that delivery was consistently responsive when new or emerging risks were apparent, such as increasing concerns related to exploitation or concerns within the home.  

Delivery focused effectively on managing the safety of actual or potential victims in a majority of cases inspected. Where appropriate, the YJST used external controls and conditions, such as exclusion zones, to respond to victims’ concerns and to reduce the likelihood of further harm-related behaviour occurring. We also saw creative examples of the YJST seconded police officers completing effective victim-led safety work with children, such as reinforcing bail conditions, and victim awareness work.  

The YJST used a range of different types of direct work with children to manage harm-related behaviour and support safety. Examples included the Brake Driving Programme, a ‘one punch’ video resource, supporting parents to use and understand technological tools to enhance children’s safety, substance misuse sessions, and gambling awareness interventions. There were also a range of mechanisms in place in Buckinghamshire that were used well, including multi-agency child exploitation (MACE) arrangements, and the YJST safety panel for high-risk children. This demonstrated that partners were working in a coordinated and cohesive manner to support positive change and keep children and the community safe. 

Work with victims  (Back to top)

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

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

Our rating10 for work with victims is based on the following key questions: 

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

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

Strengths 

  • Victims had been regularly discussed at the YJST management board meetings over the past 12 months, including police-led victim consent data reports delivered by the chief superintendent. 
  • The YJST management board included representation from the director of ‘SAFE!’, a local charity that supports child victims of youth crime. They had been involved in auditing activity of YJST victim practice and acted as a critical friend in developing the YJST’s persons harmed policy.  
  • An audit of victim practice had been proactively carried out over the past 18 months, and the findings had been presented to the YJST management board. This activity had resulted in identified actions for the partnership to improve practice and data, which was being progressed. 
  • ‘Persons harmed’ was included in the YJST strategic plan in 2025-2026 and strengthened in the 2026-2029 draft revision. There was a clear strategic priority to develop a better service for people and communities who were harmed by crime. 
  • Information on protected characteristics was available to the partnership; the YJST maintained and tracked persons harmed data and records relating to the protected characteristics of child victims. However, this data needed to be collated, analysed, reviewed and proactively reported on.   
  • To mitigate initial gaps in relevant referral information relating to victims, the YJST seconded police staff had delivered briefings to police officers in Buckinghamshire and maintained close links with the operational policing teams. 
  • The YJST offered a full victim offer for police-only ‘street’ community resolutions. Victims were contacted by the seconded YJST police officers and offered the full range of victim services and support. 
  • The YJST had a clear policy that detailed practice in relation to persons harmed, which had been developed by a number of professionals of differing grades and roles in the service. The policy was positively regarded by staff as a helpful live guidance document. 
  • The restorative justice (RJ) lead attended safety panels for children assessed as high risk of causing harm and offending. They ensured that the voices of persons harmed were heard, and advocated on their behalf. They proactively ensured that safety measures, such as external controls and conditions, were put in place. 
  • The early intervention and RJ manager attended joint decision-making panels to ensure that the voice of victims was heard and considered and that they contributed to decision-making. 
  • There was a well-resourced team of staff within the YJST who were responsible for working with persons harmed, including two seconded police officers, an RJ officer, and a community engagement officer. Staff were trained in RJ, including the YJST police staff, and training was distinctly identified in the local youth justice role descriptions. These staff worked closely together and ensured their roles complemented and effectively supported each other, such as at times of increased workload or diminished capacity due to sickness or annual leave. 
  • The YJST delivered RJ training to key groups across the council, such as children’s services, schools and care homes, as part of supporting the wider prevention agenda. This was well received by the partnership. 
  • We saw evidence of skilled and creative work to source positive activities and reparation projects, as well as effective mentoring and engagement of children, which supported the building of social capital, community engagement and belonging. The YJST operated a suite of reparation projects that were embedded in the local community and had community capital and value. While there was a focus on reparative activity being meaningful to children, this was balanced with ensuring the harm caused by offending was repaired. 
  • The child’s voice was strong within the partnership – there was a strategic commitment across all partners to hear from children, parents and carers and to co-produce interventions and use feedback. This was evident for children who had been victims of youth offences and were being supported by the YJST.  
  • There was access to services for adults through Victim Support. However, there needed to be a greater focus on ensuring this pathway was being accessed and used effectively.  
  • A range of services were available for victims of youth crime. These included restorative justice, shuttle mediation, letters of explanation, reparation, access to external support services and providing victims with updates on a child’s progress with the YJST. Child victims could also access the same interventions and support as YJS children who had committed offences. This change in policy was implemented in 2025 and recognised as critical by the strategic partnership, who understood their responsibility and commitment to persons harmed. 
  • The YJST had recently developed a participation forum for children who had been the victims of crime. The group provided a space for children to undertake activities to build confidence and influence service delivery. 
  • Feedback from victims was sought through a QR code in a closure letter. Data from the YJST showed that all victims who engaged with the service provided positive feedback.  

Areas for improvement 

  • A clear record of victims’ protected characteristics was evident in less than half the cases we inspected. 
  • The partnership needed to improve its use and analysis of victim data and how it was recorded on the YJST database. Performance reports of victim practice, largely taken from the YJST database, were in their infancy. A wider range of victim data from across the partnership needed to be used to add greater depth to the board’s analysis and understanding of the victim profile in Buckinghamshire. 
  • The quality, recording and impact of oversight of victim work needed to improve. Although there was evidence of management oversight, managers needed to focus more on promoting reflective practice and ensuring effective action-setting, which drove positive outcomes for victims. While it was clear that those working with victims were supported with challenging work, and encouraged to problem-solve and make decisions, this was not always evident from case recording. Additionally, the importance of effective management oversight, including the holistic oversights approach with persons harmed, was largely absent from the policy. This lack of focus may have contributed to the less visible approach to the oversight of victim work within the case files. 
  • There needed to be greater emphasis on victim safety within practice and recording. The introduction of the holistic oversights approach to victim work was an encouraging start. However, further improvements were required to ensure victim safety was consistently prioritised. Training for staff on victim safety also needed to be prioritised. Evidence from the inspected work for victims and children working with the YJST revealed variability in the work to fully consider victim safety and articulate plans to keep people and communities safe. 
  • Although the findings of audit activity had created actions to improve practice, at the time of the inspection these had not yet resulted in consistent improvements in the quality of victim work, such as prioritising victim safety or achieving consistent high-quality oversight of victim work.  
  • Police information provided to the YJST on the YOT1 form was inconsistent and did not support practitioners to identify victims’ diverse needs or protected characteristics at the earliest opportunity. This hindered attempts by YJST to ensure their initial contact with victims was sufficiently personalised and tailored to their specific needs. However, once referrals were received, appropriate mechanisms were in place within the YJST to check, verify and confirm information relating to victims’ details. This helped to ensure that victims were contacted sensitively, which then enabled practitioners to better understand their diverse needs and characteristics.   
  • There needed to be a greater focus on identifying and reporting victim consent rates through collation, analysis, and interrogation of local police data systems.  
  • The YJST partnership needed to assure itself of delays between offences occurring and consent being received for victims of children who were subject to police-led community resolutions. 
  • Connectedness between the YJST management board and staff delivering victim services needed enhancing. There was lots of activity in both spaces, but greater join-up would facilitate timely and effective improvement. 
  • The partnership recognised some systemic delays between an offence occurring and a child receiving an outcome. Timeliness had been identified as a broader Thames Valley policing issue. This was being scrutinised at the Local Criminal Justice Board Children and Young People Subgroup, and had been raised at the YJST management board. 
  • The YJST gathered feedback from victims, and this was positive in all instances. However, it was based on a response rate of 50 per cent of the victims the YJST had worked with. Work needs to be undertaken to increase the response rate from victims about the services they have received. 

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

Our inspection found that participation with children and their parents or carers was an established strength within the YJST.  

Our inspectors had the privilege to meet a young person who was a member of the YJST participation group, YP4ALL, who talked about the importance of the group in developing skills and confidence. This group regularly met at the High Wycombe YJST office and was available for children from across Buckinghamshire. Their achievements included: the creation of the YP4ALL charter; designing murals and decorating the YJST office spaces to make them a more welcoming and young-person-friendly environment; designing the YJST logo; setting up activity programmes for school holidays, such as the ‘Sports, Activities, Transformative Holiday’ (SATH) sessions; and meeting with board members, including the police, to discuss the issues that mattered to them. The group had also contributed to co-producing the draft YJS strategic plan for 2026-2029. The sessions were run by the YJST community engagement officer and partners from Change, Grow, Live (CGL), who deliver substance misuse work.  

Following on from the success of the YP4ALL group, and through an aspiration to ensure that ‘persons harmed’ had the same opportunities as children open to the YJST, the YJST launched a participation group for victims. Although the group was in its infancy, this was a positive step for the partnership to ensure the voice of victims helped to shape and improve services. 

There was an established history of children open to the YJST being engaged in community projects. This included the Wycombe Wanderers FC programme, the Underpass Project with the community safety team to redesign dilapidated walkways, and the SATH project. There was a clear desire across the partnership to help children build social capital and feel a sense of belonging to where they lived. 

The YJST had adopted a model to generate co-produced intervention plans using the Fresh AIR approach of achieving roles and interactions. This ensured planning was written in the children’s and parents’ or carers’ words and gave them the opportunity to have a choice in the types of intervention they completed and the order in which they happened. 

The voice of children was routinely collected in a number of different ways, including a QR code for feedback, or through discussions with a manager when they came into offices. The case recording template that the team used had a dedicated section to ensure that the child’s thoughts and views were captured. Self-assessments for children, parents and carers were used at the start, review stage and end of interventions to inform assessing activity. 

The YJS contacted, on our behalf, children who were or had been working with the YJS, to gain their consent and to enable them and their parents or carers to feed back on their experience of the YJS. We provided a variety of opportunities for children and their parents or carers to participate in the inspection process (text survey, one-to-one meetings, focus groups, and video or telephone calls). This resulted in seven children and seven parents or carers providing feedback, which was overwhelmingly positive. Children and parents or carers reported that the YJST workers formed strong relationships with them: 

“I can always tell she’s listening, she cares and she’s taken in what I’m saying”. 

“My worker is so respectful. She has sessions after school, and she’ll pick me up and help me. She’ll reschedule her time to see me” 

When asked how the YJST has helped them, children commented:  

“I definitely have improved myself I’ve not done the things I previously did again.” 

“being there supporting me and giving me advice on things, making me improve myself and to prevent other things happening and not going back into old circles and old ways.” 

Parents also gave positive feedback about their experience working with the YJST. When asked if they felt included in the work being completed, parents commented: 

“Always feel respected and valued. In meetings mine and his [the child] voice are heard. When we have professional’s meetings the focus is also on what’s his voice and what would he say. They ensure its child focused and focused on him. He is the person going through it. He has been through a lot as an unaccompanied asylum-seeking child.” 

“She’s (case manager) been brilliant with accommodating us and changing appointments, but we communicate and that’s the main thing. She is brilliant, she works with all of us not just my child.” 

When considering the needs of their children, parents commented: 

”My child has complex needs so there is a lot of involvement with (case manager). We got the child into education, and they had never been in it before. They have been life changing. They helped us access CAMHS…pushed it forward and after eight years being on a waiting list for support.” 

“Now he is going to education and he’s got a routine. The work really is life changing. (Case manager) personally has changed everything.” 

“We’ve now found out he has speech issues and needs communication support. Now he has a team around him.” 

When considering the skills of the YJST team, these parents commented: 

“My child can be hard to engage with and can be reluctant to admit things, sometimes she will tell people what they want to hear to get them to go away but [case manager] goes around it in a different way.” 

“They did go above and beyond for my child’s safety to the point where the exploitation worker was given information from my child shared in relation to him being unsafe and they kept him safe by sharing information with the police. My child was cross at the time, but it was for all of our safety.” 

These parents added: 

“I have nothing but praise to say. She’s helping with my child’s EHCP (Education, Health and Care Plan), and she looks out for me too.” 

“I think they are great and advocate for the children. The are good at challenging injustices in the system and helping children flourish.” 

“I think it’s a brilliant service it’s a shame a child had to get into trouble to get the help, you think they are going to judge you but that’s not the case. They don’t tell me I’m a bad parent and that puts me at peace as it’s about working together to help that kid.” 

Equity, diversity and inclusion  (Back to top)

There was a commitment to equity, diversity and inclusion in the YJST management board and the wider partnership. In 2025, a strategic needs analysis required partners to provide ethnicity and disproportionality data that helped developed a more local picture. This piece of work resulted in the commissioning of anti-racism training for the management board in January 2026, and the creation of an action plan in May. The service had increased representation of diverse groups on their participation group YP4ALL and within their pool of referral order panellists. 

The YJST had a guidance policy for ‘Equality, Equity, Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging’. This document, written for children accessing the YJST and for staff that work there, had a statement of intent for the partnership and clearly identified out how children and staff should expect to be treated. It placed responsibility for action on all YJST staff members and the YJST management board. 

The team had received equity, diversity and inclusion training over the past two years. This has included anti-racism training, Gypsy, Roma and Traveller training, communication, and special educational needs training. The YJST had also provided an awareness document to solicitors at Aylesbury Police Station to inform them of disproportionate outcomes for children with Black and mixed ethnicity entering the youth justice system for the first time. The disproportionality action plan also identified an objective for child-first training to be delivered to police custody staff. 

The YJST partnership recognised that children in the youth justice system had presenting health and education inequalities and had a range of specialist services to identify and respond to children’s diverse needs. This included health professionals, such as specialist health nurses, substance misuse workers, speech and language therapists, mental health workers, and a trainee forensic psychologist, as well as liaison and diversion support. We saw examples of how these professionals managed to support children and families open to the YJST and overcome systemic barriers. Education was a priority and the YJST education worker had supported children with education, health and care plans to swiftly access appropriate education provision and help children to sit exams in year 11. 

According to the May 2026 performance report prepared by the YJST for the board, 82 per cent of the children supervised were over the age of 15 and 74 per cent were male, although the proportion of girls was slowly increasing. Children from global majority ethnicity made up 42 per cent of the children the service was working with. This represented significant disproportionality compared with the local population in Buckinghamshire, although it was noted the number of children was small. Analysis of the inspection data suggested a high proportion of Black and Asian children were receiving statutory interventions rather than voluntary support through Act Now, Turnaround, a community resolution or the youth diversion programme. The YJST management board needed to assure itself through continual monitoring of disproportionality trends that they had the right support in place for children and that they could influence the wider partnership to address discrimination at the earliest stage possible. 

As part of this inspection, we considered how the YJST responded to the diverse needs and protected characteristics of children and victims. Ethnicity and disproportionality data for victims was underdeveloped; efforts were underway to improve the way the YJST reported performance for this group. Work needed to continue at pace to improve how information was initially gathered from the police and then recorded on the YJST system. Better use of partnership data would enhance and support this.  

Data annexe (Back to top)

Buckinghamshire Youth Data Annexe FAC (XLSX, 126 KB)

Press release (Back to top)

Buckinghamshire Youth Justice Support Team “committed to achieving positive change” 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 Phil Rutherford, 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. We carry out 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. English indices of deprivation 2025: statistical release 17/11/25. ↩︎
  3. The ‘Act Now’ programme is a partnership initiative, operating seven days a week in Buckinghamshire, that aims to engage children at the earliest opportunity when they are arrested for specific violent offences. The YJST meets with the child in custody within 90 minutes of notification. ↩︎
  4. YJB. (January 2026). Youth Justice annual statistics: 2024 to 2025. ↩︎
  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 5 ‘Ps’ framework (Weerasekra, 1993) is multi-agency case formulation approach which considers important details in relation to risk factors. The 5 ‘Ps’ are Presenting, Predisposing, Precipitating, Perpetuating and Protective factors. ↩︎
  7. Holistic oversight is an approach where a YJS manager undertakes a full in-depth case review and subsequent reflective discussion with the practitioner. ↩︎
  8. The rating for the standard is driven by the lowest score of the key questions, which is placed in a rating band, indicated in bold in the table. A more detailed explanation is available on our website Standards and ratings – HM Inspectorate of Probation. ↩︎
  9. The rating for the standard is driven by the lowest score of the key questions, which is placed in a rating band, indicated in bold in the table. A more detailed explanation is available on our website Standards and ratings – HM Inspectorate of Probation. ↩︎
  10. The rating for the victims’ standard is derived from the scores from case inspection for V 1.1 and the qualitative evidence for V 1.2. Case inspection scores and a more detailed explanation of the rating process is available on our website Standards and ratings – HM Inspectorate of Probation. ↩︎