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 Derby City

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 Derby City YJS across two broad areas: the quality of work delivered with children working with the YJS, and the organisational arrangements and quality of work delivered to victims. Leadership and governance, staffing, and partnerships and services were considered through the lens of the work delivered to children.

Overall, Derby City YJS was rated as ‘Outstanding’.

Work with children across assessing, planning, and delivery was impressive and consistently strong. Similarly, work with victims was high-quality, individualised, and responsive, and it was driving positive outcomes and safety for victims. It was clear that staff utilised their professional skills to help children lead their best lives and to provide effective support to victims. Staff were humble in their approach, caring, and thoughtful. They cheered children on to achieve great things, and supported them to make positive changes to their lives.

Engagement with victims was personalised and driven by their needs and wishes. We found that victims were consistently supported to make informed choices and were provided with high-quality information about what to expect about the service and support that was on offer.

The YJS had access to a wide variety of services and interventions where co-location of providers was working well. Services included specialist mentoring, health, education, probation, public protection procedures, third sector provision, and interventions to address motoring crimes. Remedi, the commissioned provider of a range of services, was effectively supporting service delivery. To consolidate the consistently positive outcomes achieved by the YJS, it needed to work with the police to obtain and record victim’s additional protected characteristics details at the point of gaining consent. Additionally, the YJS needed to ensure that in all assessing activity, practitioners identified and analysed all risks to the child and the community, so that they were consistently assessing what was required to achieve safety.

The YJS partnership can celebrate with pride not just the outcome of this inspection, but the lasting change it has achieved to support victims effectively, and help children thrive, keeping them and others safe.

Martin Jones CBE

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

Ratings (Back to top)

Fieldwork started June 2025Score 12/12
Overall ratingOutstanding

Work with children

2.1 AssessingOutstanding
2.2 PlanningOutstanding
2.3 Implementation and deliveryOutstanding

Work with victims

V1 Work with victimsOutstanding

Recommendations (Back to top)

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

Derby City Youth Justice Service should:

  1. improve the quality of analysis in assessing activity to identify what work is needed to consistently achieve safety for the child and the community.

Derbyshire Constabulary should:

  1. put a more robust process in place for the collection of protected characteristics information from victims at the point consent has been provided.

Background (Back to top)

We conducted fieldwork in Derby City YJS over a period of a week, beginning 30 June 2025. We inspected cases where the YJS had commenced work with children subject to bail or remand, court disposals, or out-of-court disposals between 21 September 2024 and 24 March 2025. We conducted 24 interviews with case managers and undertook six interviews with managers, or senior practitioners where case managers were unavailable.

We inspected the organisational arrangements for work delivered with victims and looked at cases where the YJS had undertaken contact with victims between 30 December 2024 and 28 February 2025. We also conducted interviews with staff and managers responsible for the delivery of this work.

Derby City YJS had developed a clear vision “to help children and young people in Derby grow up safe, happy, and free from crime by building on children’s strengths and positives to help them achieve their goals.” Effective joint working had set a strategic and operational direction to achieve positive change for children and keep them and communities safe.

The population of Derby is younger, more diverse, and more deprived than the England average. In Derby, 16 per cent of the population identifies as Asian or Asian British, four per cent as Black or Black British, and 3.7 per cent as from mixed or multiple ethnicity groups. The rate of Year 12 and 13 children not in education, employment or training was 4.7 per cent compared to the national average of 5.3 per cent (end of March 2025). In 2021/2022, 33.7 per cent of children in Derby lived in low-income families. Derby has a higher rate of Looked After Children than the average national rate (90.7 children per 10,000 compared to 69.7 per 10,000). However, the rate of children subject to child protection plan was 41 children per 10,000, compared to the national rate of 41.6 children per 10,000.

The YJS partnership had a well-embedded, stable, and active management board that was supported by the appropriate level of senior managers with the authority to make critical decisions. The board was effectively integrated into children’s services and was appropriately sighted on key performance measures, quality, and impact of operational work for children. Information sharing protocols and service level agreements were in place. Commendably, this enabled practitioners to complete work with children which helped them to thrive. Leadership decisions were driven by data and evidence, and this ensured that the service provision matched the needs of children, many of whom had experienced hardship, trauma, and adverse childhood experiences.

Derby City YJS was achieving positively against the national averages for its three key performance indicators (KPIs): rate of First Time Entrants; those sentenced to custody; and rates of reoffending. There were fewer children from global majority backgrounds in the post-court system and, at the time of inspection, none of these children were serving secure remand or custodial sentences. The increased use of diversion outcomes in recent years had significantly reduced post-court outcomes.

The establishment of Stop and Search scrutiny panels, in which children took an active part, was helping to build trust between the police, children, and their parents or carers. This was especially important for children who had been marginalised or who had had different lived experiences.

Inspectors visited a local venue in Derby City centre where these panels took place. Developed from a local youth initiative, ‘Have your say’, the feedback and insights from children (many of whom were known to YJS) led to strategic and operational partnership work between leaders, the YJS, and Derbyshire Constabulary. We heard how the work of the Stop and Search youth scrutiny panels was also being utilised to influence policy, community engagement, and police processes such as training for new officers.

Between April 2024 and April 2025, 97 per cent of contactable victims engaged in restorative processes or were signposted for support. The rate of reoffending for Looked After Children had reduced. The YJS informed us that, as part of their focus on this, multi-partner work had been undertaken. Additionally, the YJS had identified that the use of Outcome 22 had supported more children from global majority backgrounds to access diversion outcomes. This had helped reduce the over-representation of global majority children receiving court disposals. Compared to 2023/2024, there were nine per cent fewer proven offences. Offences of higher gravity had also reduced by 64 per cent in the 12 months (3.5 per cent at Gravity 6 or above). Additionally, there had been a reduced use of secure remand (80 per cent fewer bed nights) and reduced volume and severity of offending post YJS intervention. At the time of inspection, Derby City YJS was supervising 82 children, compared with 131 in the 2023/2024. This was a reduction of 37 per cent. In addition, 111 interventions were open, compared with 176 in the previous year.

Domain two: Work with children (Back to top)

We took a detailed look at 31 cases where the YJS has worked with children, subject to bail, remand, community sentences, resettlement, or out-of-court disposals.

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

Our rating [2] for assessing is based on the following key questions:

Does assessing sufficiently analyse how to:% ‘Yes’
achieve positive change for the child?100%
keep the child and the community safe?81%

In all the inspected cases, inspectors found that assessing activity for achieving positive change was comprehensive and analytical, with the necessary level of detail. Practitioners used professional curiosity to understand the reasons behind a child’s offending and other relevant behaviours. To aid this process, they consistently accessed information from agencies such as education, children’s social care, and health. Additionally, they gathered information about children’s speech, language, communication, and neurodiversity needs. They then assessed the gathered information in depth to reach their decisions. This supported them to grasp what changes were needed to achieve positive change in the lives of the child and their parents or carers.

Practitioners were creative at involving children and their parents or carers in identifying the reasons for the child’s offending. They asked appropriately probing questions (such as how, why, tell me more) to ensure their conclusions were evidence-based. This co-production ensured that the voices and perspectives of children, parents and carers were prominent in assessing activity. Pictorial cards and images had been used creatively to find out the child’s experiences.

In the vast majority of inspected cases, analysis of the child’s personal circumstances, family background, history of trauma, and social environment was a strength. Practitioners had explored well the impact of the child’s early adverse childhood experiences, and of prejudice and discrimination they had experienced. This enabled them to formulate a fuller understanding of any recent and past experiences that had contributed to the child’s offending and lived circumstances. Practitioners recognised the child’s diversity needs and analysed them well to build a comprehensive picture of how the child’s lived experiences had affected them and contributed to their offending.

Assessing activity explored the child’s strengths (what they enjoyed, what their hopes for the future were, and what made them feel happy and secure) and protective factors, providing a comprehensive analysis of how to achieve positive change. In almost all of the inspected cases, analysis of children’s capacity for change and community integration was a strength. Practitioners focused on the child’s lifestyle, associations, positive use of leisure time, and living arrangements. This included asking children whether they thought there were things getting in the way of changes they wanted to make in their lives. Furthermore, in most of the inspected cases, consideration of the child’s levels of motivation and maturity to engage with, and complete, interventions and services was notable.

While the overall quality of assessment work was strong, inspectors found some learning for the YJS. A comprehensive analysis of how to keep the child and community safe was not evidenced in every inspected case. In the cases where there were some gaps, inspectors found that practitioners did not always provide a clear analysis or explanation of the factors that impacted safety for the child. Similarly, they did not consistently undertake assessments to analyse what was needed to keep other people safe. The YJS had produced a range of processes for conducting this work, such as mapping, contextual safeguarding approaches, and case formulations. However, practitioners did not always use these consistently, which meant that they did not always recognise the risks posed to and from children. Furthermore, to better understand patterns of behaviour, practitioners also needed to focus more of their attention to past incidents where the child had caused harm to others. We found instances where this information could have provided a clearer context to a child’s behaviour.

Practitioners acknowledged a variety of factors that affected children’s safety, such as the impact of peer associations, risky behaviour, a history of domestic abuse witnessed within their family, and alleged assaults on other children. However, in a minority of cases, risks were not always fully considered, criminal exploitation not altogether examined to form a cohesive assessment of achieving safety. Encouragingly, inspectors found instances where factors relating to both the child and the community had been consistently analysed or investigated. These included children known to be carrying weapons, associating with peers carrying knives, or displaying harmful sexual behaviour.

Practitioners were mostly responsive to change or latest information relating to safety. For example, when a child’s mental health deteriorated, advice was sought from the Health Hub and relevant referrals were made for specialist mentoring through the Al-Hurraya organisation (a peer-led, culturally specific charity that provides bespoke, personalised, and culturally sensitive interventions to meet the needs of ethnically diverse communities who are experiencing a range of challenges). Additionally, when new information was received from the secure unit about disclosures a child had made this was used effectively to explore a therapeutic intervention.

The YJS had formed effective relationships with its partners, and we found clear protocols and arrangements to keep children and the wider community safe, which were evident in the work we inspected. Positive arrangements had been put in place to help practitioners to better understand harm outside the family, risks to and from the child, harmful sexual behaviour, and contextual safeguarding. Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) were used appropriately, where required, to gather information from agencies to support the assessment of safety.

Inspectors found some excellent examples of assessing activity which had appropriately considered whether work to keep the child and community safe could be undertaken collaboratively with the child’s parents or carers. In one example, it had become clear to the practitioner that the potential for the child’s mother to become a victim had increased because of the child’s behaviour. Recognising that this may impact negatively on the work that was planned, the practitioner reviewed the assessment and made a referral to an agency which supported parents and carers with safety planning in the home when a child becomes more aggressive. This, in turn, helped both the parent and the child to engage with the YJS.

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 rating[3] for planning is based on the following key questions:

Does planning focus sufficiently on how to:% ‘Yes’
achieve positive change for the child?100%
keep the child and community safe?94%

Overall, planning activity to achieve positive change for the child was a significant strength. Inspectors found that practitioners had consistently considered the child’s individual context as well as their social environment and broader family circumstances. The way children were actively engaged in co-producing planning activity was particularly impressive. Practitioners also showed an appropriate level of skill in involving the child’s parents or carers. This enabled them to work together and agree shared goals. Practitioners ensured that planning activity considered the pace at which children could take part in interventions, and this laid down solid groundwork from which work could be purposefully completed. Planning activity also ensured it considered appropriate timeframes and clear sequencing for delivery.

Practitioners were sighted on the structural barriers children experienced due to their vulnerabilities. Practitioners prioritised planning activity to overcome these barriers and explored how children could build resilience. Planning identified opportunities for children to engage with new activities, enhance employment skills, and make use of services in the community that they felt were of interest to them, such as sports-related activities, attending a gym, abseiling, football, and joining a rap music project. Practitioners also ensured planning prioritised well-timed access to universal wellbeing services, the child and adolescent mental health service (CAMHS), mentoring, and services to support their education and training interests.

Practitioners effectively took account of how children’s diversity needs would be met. Inspectors found consistent evidence of practitioners taking care during planning to explore what might get in the way of their engagement with both children and their parents or carers. For example, they discussed needs relating to literacy, poor eyesight, anxiety, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), speech, language, communication, and neurodiversity. In several instances, effective cultural responsiveness from practitioners was evident through planned identification of targeted mentoring with culturally matched mentors.

Planning of work with other agencies was a strength and we found examples where multi-agency professionals’ networks had worked effectively. Inspectors found evidence of timely referrals to the speech and language therapist, CAMHS and the Substance Abuse Facts and Education (SAFE) programme. Inspectors found several examples of effective planning that had been suitably informed by children’s education, health, and care plans. Additionally, they had appropriately considered what services the child may be able to access once their supervisory period had ended. This approach to exit planning was effective and ensured that children were able to make use of specialist services, for example charities that provided support for vulnerable and marginalised communities.

Practitioners had invested time to make sure they understood children’s ability to engage with potential interventions. They also effectively considered children’s attitudes across a range of behaviours and their views on the impact of their offending and other relevant behaviours. This helped practitioners to plan more effectively. Furthermore, they concentrated on children’s motivation to change, which was evidenced in the self-assessment questionnaires undertaken with children and some of the direct feedback inspectors received from speaking with children.

In almost every inspected case, planning activity accurately pinpointed how to achieve safety and stability for the child, as the foundation stones for change. Examples included referrals to SAFE, access to mentors from Al-Hurraya, Stop and Search programme, Tools Down (a knife crime awareness programme) and CEASE (a domestic abuse programme). Inspectors found examples where multi-agency responsibility was supported by strategic professionals’ meetings and agencies were clear about their specific roles. Whenever necessary, partners had appropriately accessed MISPER (missing children reporting), completed a Child Abduction Warning Notice (CAWN), and made referrals to the Team around the Family (TAF).

Management oversight ensured that the quality of work conducted during the completion of planning activity was thorough and contributed to positive change and safety for children and the community. Practitioners’ analysis of critical areas that affected child and community safety was consistently strong.

In almost all the inspected cases, practitioners’ responsiveness to change in the personal circumstances and situations of children during planning was positive. Inspectors found examples where planning ensured arrangements had been identified to manage safety for the child and the community when things changed. For example, when children came to the notice of the police or there had been changes in their home or education experiences.

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

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

Does the delivery (and review?) of well-focused, personalised and co-ordinated services:% ‘Yes’
achieve positive change for the child?100%
keep the child and the community safe?97%

The overall quality of work to achieve positive change and keep the child and the community safe was consistently impressive. Practitioners were accomplished at developing and maintaining positive working relationships with children, parents, and carers. A flexible and individualised approach encouraged children to participate and engage. Children and their parents or carers understood what practitioners expected of them and knew what to expect of practitioners. Additionally, practitioners promptly identified areas that may get in the way of effective engagement. This proactive approach enabled them to resolve any emerging issues early and adjust work that needed to be completed to achieve positive change. Regular and clear communication with children, parents, and carers supported their investment in the delivery of work to attain progress.

Practitioners understood the context in which children were living, and this was considered well in the delivery of services. This included the support children had from their immediate and extended families, and the challenges they were facing in their social environment. Practitioners recognised what children described as the strengths in their lives and what helped them to succeed, such as educational attainment and healthy relationships with others, and built on this effectively when delivering services to achieve positive change. Their attention to addressing structural barriers was noteworthy and we saw instances of effective liaison with education to ensure access to learning opportunities.

Inspectors were impressed with the proactive way in which practitioners sought different opportunities to support change. For example, they accessed mentors, collaborated closely with partners, collaborated with schools, consulted effectively with the Health Hub, and used different board games and visual aids to generate conversation.

When delivering interventions to achieve positive change, practitioners applied well the knowledge they had acquired about the diverse needs of children. They effectively used the information and guidance they had received from the speech and language worker to maximise engagement. They also used communication passports appropriately to support work. Furthermore, inspectors found that practitioners had used their insight of the child’s cultural heritage sensitively. We also found examples where work had been completed with parents or carers to help them better understand and appropriately respond to their children’s neurodiverse needs. This supportive approach was confirmed in the feedback children and their parents or carers gave to inspectors.

Work completed by practitioners to achieve positive change was aligned consistently and coordinated well. There was evidence of a strong partnership (police, health, social care, education, probation) understanding how joint working and effective communication was essential in supporting children and their parents or carers.

Work delivered to achieve safety for the child and the community was a strength and services were consistently delivered to achieve safety and stability for the child as foundations for change. We saw a range of interventions which included understanding the impact of peer influences, conflict resolution in and outside of the home, work to reduce the risks associated with criminal exploitation, focus on safe social media use, the One Punch Kills programme, road safety modules, Street Doctors, substance misuse, reparation projects, identity, and weapon carrying. In all the inspected cases, services were delivered collaboratively with the child’s parents or carers to build safety and protection for the child and the wider community.

Where required, practitioners completed work with children effectively to help them understand the harm they had caused to others. We saw instances of the YJS collaborating with schools to identify areas to keep both the child and others safe, and evidence of victim impact work being completed with both a child and their parent when harm had been caused to a parent. Inspectors found evidence of direct safety planning work and collaboration with Early Help Services. The links with the Victim Liaison Officer from the Probation Service was effective.

Practitioners used their knowledge about a child’s diversity needs well to ensure that interventions were delivered in a way that would be relevant and lead to positive outcomes to keep children and others safe. Practitioners were responsive to children’s neurodiverse needs, work was tailored, and expedited community assessments were prioritised when required. Well-timed responses to a change in a child’s circumstances featured strongly in casework reviewed by inspectors.

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.Outstanding

Our rating [5] for work with victims is based on the following key questions: Our rating

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

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

Strengths

  • The ‘Derby City YJS Plan 2024-25’ had clearly identified a commitment to achieving positive outcomes for victims through the provision of services that were personalised and where the voice of victims was integrated into strategic and operational work.
  • Board engagement that embraced the prioritisation of the needs of victims had been an ongoing feature for many years and this had been supported by the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner and leaders from Remedi (commissioned provider). The management board had an informed understanding of the profile of victims and was consistently looking to improve services to victims. Additionally, they were sighted on the broad range of restorative justice options available to victims.
  • There were effective arrangements in place with the police for obtaining consent and sharing victim details. When ‘no consent’ had been recorded, the Restorative Justice Practitioner contacted the officer in charge to ensure that the victim had made an informed choice. Where the victim was under the age of 18, appropriate safeguarding policies were followed.
  • The Restorative Justice Practitioner collected and used protected characteristics information to inform service delivery which best matched the individual needs of the victim.
  • Derby City YJS had produced a comprehensive Victim’s policy with Remedi dated April 2025. This was supported by an effective understanding of what was required and included a focus on the Code of Practice for Victims (2024).
  • Work with the Victim Liaison Officer from the Probation Service, where required, was understood well. The policy contained a noteworthy emphasis on wellbeing, safety planning, and effective risk assessment. Where required, practice showed these processes being applied well.
  • Reviewing of tools used to assess, plan, and deliver services to victims featured strongly in operational delivery.
  • Engagement with victims was personalised and support was driven by their needs and wishes. The victim’s voice was largely well integrated into Prevention and Diversion, and Scrutiny panels.
  • We found that victims had been consistently supported to make informed choices. Information provided to victims about what they could expect from the YJS was clear. In all the relevant inspected cases, the support delivered to victims met their needs.
  • There were clear expectations on the need to provide enhanced services to victims who were assessed as vulnerable.
  • The co-location and embedding of the Restorative Justice Practitioner into the YJS benefited the partnership and supported the effective delivery of services to victims.
  • The Restorative Justice Practitioner had access to ChildView (the YJS case management system), and this allowed for seamless access to information.
  • The workload of those working with victims, or providing services to meet the needs of victims, was manageable.
  • Supervision received by staff working with victims was frequent, dynamic, regular, and effective in enhancing casework practice and providing wellbeing care. Clinical supervision was available. In all the inspected cases where management oversight was required, inspectors judged that this had been effective in meeting the needs of the case.
  • Overall, aggregated data from the review of victim work showed that in the majority of cases work with victims was of high-quality, responsive, and individualised.
  • Staff providing services to victims were skilled and had completed ongoing and relevant training. They were supported well in their professional development, were enthusiastic, and committed to protecting actual and potential victims.
  • The YJS had access to a range of services that it could directly offer to victims as well as services available in the community. This included indirect, direct restorative justice interventions, letters of explanation, conversation, shuttle mediation, reparation (direct and indirect), mediation, and family group conferencing. Remedi had produced a brochure that set out a range of reparation opportunities and interventions (environmental projects, arts-based activities, support for local charities, food banks, and supported accommodation).
  • Remedi held the contract for Derbyshire victim services and ‘Got your back,’ a specialist service for victims under the age of 18. This service was not time-limited and consisted of groupwork, one-to-one work, and had flexibility in being victim-led. From the police’s perspective, every child victim was automatically referred to the ‘Got your back’ service and there was a comprehensive offer to victims.
  • The risk management policy (dated December 2024) and MAPPA processes supported keeping victims safe. Remedi had implemented an effective safeguarding duty system in the evenings and weekends to ensure swift resolution of any safeguarding issues which had developed through contact with victims.
  • Inspectors found mature and considered approaches to addressing the diverse needs and wishes of victims across projects, interventions, and services.
  • Support to victims was not terminated or limited by the period the child was working with the YJS. Ongoing support was driven by the needs of victims. Inspectors found several examples where victims had contacted the Restorative Justice Practitioner months later to seek advice. This was appropriately provided and demonstrated a service that was responsive to need.
  • The effectiveness of services to victims was appropriately and regularly monitored, evaluated, and reviewed. Remedi used a range of tools to gather information, including a victim tracker. When information had been collated, reports were produced, learning identified, and changes made as required. Remedi also produced a ‘you said, we did’ document which was promoted on its social media platforms and newsletters. Where relevant, it directly spoke with victims to let them know what had been done because of their feedback.

Areas for improvement

  • Derbyshire Constabulary need to improve the quality of protected characteristics information sent to the YJS during the process of obtaining consent from victims.
  • Work needs to be embedded and reviewed to ensure operational practice remains of the highest quality, including reviewing the quality of recording within the victim contact record and embedding high quality recording practice.

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

Derby City YJS has an effective ‘Feedback and Participation Strategy’ supported by a multimodal approach to engagement and participation. The YJS sought to continually improve and develop the quality of services it delivered. This area of practice was informed by a range of methods, central to which were the wishes, feelings, and views of children and their parents or carers. Different approaches were used at various stages of their involvement with the YJS. These included questionnaires at the induction stage, during supervision, and at the exit stage, focus groups (targeting children from the global majority), ‘let us know…’ compliment, comment, or complaint forms, and feedback from calls made to children and their parents or carers by the Principal Service Manager.

Two dedicated members of the YJS team, a social worker and the Principal Service Manager led on this work. Direct feedback and consultation had resulted in the design of the YJS logo, the use and effective implementation of the ‘voice of the child’ toolkit, and the post-case supervision ‘my life, my journey’ letters provided to children to give them affirmations about the progress they had made.

During our inspection fieldwork, an inspector had the opportunity to visit a local art venue (‘The Quad’) in Derby city centre, where groupwork activity in undertaken in the form of the Stop and Search panel programme. This was an accessible and child-friendly building but is also a public universal venue that children can attend after their involvement with YJS ends.

The Stop and Search panel programme groups run every six to eight weeks and consist of around eight children. Delivery is flexible and adapted to meet the diverse needs of children by catering to different learning styles and providing snacks and fidget toys. sessions are no longer than 90 minutes, including breaks. Panels started in 2024 and have enabled children to engage and provide feedback on police approaches to stop and search, as well as learn their own rights. A speech and language therapist has reviewed material to ensure it is child-friendly, and panels are attended by pre-court and post-court children.

An inspector spoke to three children who had been stopped and searched in the past and had been through the programme. The children spoke of the positive impact and the consistency in which police and YJS staff had engaged with them. This had allowed children’s voices to be heard, action to be taken on some of their feedback and suggestions and enabled trusting and collaborative working arrangements to be established. As part of their feedback to inspectors, children used phrases such as “they’ve seen the good in me” and “I was listened to.”

The YJS contacted, on our behalf, children who were working with the YJS at the time of the inspection, to gain their consent and 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). Inspectors sent out 13 text surveys to children who consented and spoke with four children and four parent or carers on the telephone. Almost every child, parent, or carer who responded to the text survey gave overwhelmingly positive comments.

On the text survey, one parent commented:

“The member of staff was fantastic with my son who has ADHD and struggles to concentrate. She got him engaging and completing work.”

And one child said:

“I ain’t been arrested since I’ve had her” [youth justice practitioner].

The feedback provided by children and their parents or carers to inspectors was consistently positive. Quotes included:

“My worker helped me get CAMHS and ADHD and ASD assessments sorted. She was sound.”

“He has learned a lot about his behaviour and how to understand the consequences. He has done well since and has been staying out of trouble.”

“My worker always supported me through my custody sentence. She helped me with my leaving plan and helped me understand how to keep out of trouble in the future.”

“My son has shown better understanding of how his behaviour has affected others. He is more thoughtful and mature now.”

Equity, diversity, and inclusion (Back to top)

Derby City YJS had embraced and delivered an effective strategic and operational responsibility to fully understanding and meeting the diverse needs of children, victims, and staff. The partnership recognised the disproportionalities that existed in Derby City and how it was essential to achieve equity and justice for all.

At the time of inspection, the YJS had seen a reduced number (18 per cent) of girls in the post-court system. There were fewer children from a global majority background in the post-court system: a 25 per cent reduction for Asian children; 45 per cent reduction for Black children; and a 44 per cent reduction for mixed heritage children. These reductions had been achieved through intentional activity, including responses to the findings of the HM Inspectorate of Probation report A thematic inspection of Black and mixed heritage boys in the youth justice system (2021) and the application of learning from the Lammy Review (2017).

To build trust with children from different backgrounds and lived experiences, the YJS, with Derbyshire Constabulary, had designed a stop and search initiative and, in June 2024 introduced multi-agency scrutiny panels involving YJS children, which reviewed bodycam footage of how stop and search incidents were carried out. The images and interactions from the footage were then scrutinised and learning used to inform police training. YJS practitioners used a stop and search intervention to help children understand this aspect of the criminal justice process. This intervention was also delivered in other settings, including schools, to support prevention activity.

The YJS Business Plan 2024–2025 comprehensively identified the actions that would be taken to tackle discrimination and meet the needs of neurodiverse children. The partnership had successfully increased the use of early help offers for global majority children through prevention and diversion work. It had pursued the potential use of Outcome 22 as a further initiative of offering early help to children from global majority backgrounds, and ensured children’s voice and lived experience had informed how services were delivered. Additionally, it had ensured families understood key stages of the youth justice process by producing resources that had been designed and ratified by speech and language therapists. The YJS had seen reductions in the over-representation of Looked After Children.

Vulnerable victims were offered an increased level of service as identified in the Code of Practice for Victims (2020). The YJS held monthly diversity awareness clinics for practitioners to access expertise and interventions when working with children and families from global majority communities. Bespoke clinics and consultation events had been delivered to meet a service-expressed need, which in 2023/2024 included diversity and identity in youth justice assessments, and planning and assessment of children with harmful sexual behaviour. A court communication passport, co-produced with the Derbyshire Court Users Group, Midlands Crown Prosecution Service, and Defence Crime Committee, had been created to support children with additional learning needs.

The YJS had introduced the role of a diversity champion who contributed effectively to the criminal justice board disproportionality subgroup, promoting learning and developmental opportunities for the service, jointly delivered focus groups and identified resources and services for children from the global majority.

Data annexe (Back to top)

Derby City YJS Data Annexe
(XLSX, 132 KB)

Press release (Back to top)

Derby City Youth Justice Service rated ‘Outstanding’ and “helps children lead their best lives”

Further information (Back to top)

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

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

[1] We carry out two types of inspections as part of our current youth inspection programme across England and Wales: inspections of youth justice work with children and victims, and inspections of youth justice services. Further information about these inspections can be found in Our work (justiceinspectorates.gov.uk)

[2] 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.

[3] 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.

[4] The rating for the standard is driven by the lowest score of the key questions, which is placed in a rating band, indicated in bold in the table. A more detailed explanation is available on our website Standards and ratings – HM Inspectorate of Probation.

[5] The rating for the 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.