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 Neath Port Talbot

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 Neath Port Talbot YJS across two broad areas: the quality of work done with children working with the YJS and the quality of work done with victims.

Overall, Neath Port Talbot YJS was rated as ‘Requires improvement’.

YJS practitioners and leaders were passionate and committed to achieving positive outcomes for children. We found a culture of reflection and transparency that embraced opportunities for learning and continued development. YJS leaders had extensive spans of control and responsibilities and were working hard to meet both strategic and operational demands. Moving forward, the management board had a crucial role in ensuring that the YJS and its leadership team had sufficient capacity to carry out their duties to a consistently high standard.

There were strengths in the assessing, planning, and delivery of work to achieve positive change. Practitioners were skilled at engaging children and supporting their participation in activities that built confidence, self-esteem, and social skills. Speech and language easy‑read reports enhanced assessing activity and led to adaptations in the planning and delivery of services for children.

However, we found inconsistencies in the practice and oversight of casework to promote the safety of the child and the community. Assessing was not consistently analytical or sufficiently curious. At times, key information shared by the child and their parents or carers was not corroborated with relevant services, leading to an overreliance on self-disclosure. In several instances, insufficiencies in assessing had impacted the effectiveness of planning and delivery.

At the time of the inspection announcement, none of the children supported by the YJS were in full-time mainstream school. The YJS recognised the crucial importance of education in supporting positive change and promoting the safety of both the child and the community. It made extensive efforts to support reintegration, advocated for children and their parents or carers, and escalated concerns within the local authority. However, substantial work was still required at both management board and senior strategic levels to ensure that YJS children could access their statutory education entitlement.

Work with victims required significant operational and strategic development. We found that the organisational arrangements for victim work were being led by YJS leaders, with limited drive from the YJS management board. At the time of the inspection, there was no identified board-level strategic lead for the proposed victim workstream, and action to strengthen resilience and capacity within the victim worker role had only recently been taken.

Martin Jones CBE

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

Ratings (Back to top)

Fieldwork started January 2026Score 5/12
Overall ratingRequires improvement

Work with children

2.1 AssessingRequires improvement
2.2 PlanningRequires improvement
2.3 DeliveryGood

Work with victims

V1 Work with victimsRequires improvement

Recommendations (Back to top)

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

The Neath Port Talbot Youth Justice Service should:

  1. improve assessing and planning to ensure consistent, high-quality work that keeps children and communities safe
  2. strengthen the consistency and impact of management oversight so that it effectively drives improvements in the quality of work to keep children and communities safe.

The Youth Justice Management Board should:

  1. prioritise the development of its workstreams to ensure that the board, rather than the YJS, is driving forward key areas of partnership working
  2. review the spans of responsibility for YJS leaders to ensure that workloads and management expectations are reasonable, and that the leadership team has sufficient capacity to complete its role to a consistently high standard
  3. lead and prioritise the strategic oversight of victim work, ensuring that accurate analysis and evaluation are in place
  4. continue to review the resilience of victim work within the service and ensure that it is sufficiently resourced to drive improvements and deliver high-quality work to victims
  5. ensure consistent education representation to lead the strategic response to improving education access, attendance, and outcomes for YJS children
  6. continue to work with South Wales Police to develop processes that provide a better understanding of the profile and diversity needs of victims.

The Chief Executive of Neath Port Talbot Local Authority should:

  1. lead a collaborative, cross‑partnership approach that actively addresses the barriers preventing YJS children from accessing their statutory education entitlement.

Background (Back to top)

We conducted fieldwork in Neath Port Talbot YJS over a period of a week, beginning 26 January 2026. We inspected cases where the YJS had started work with children subject to bail or remand, court disposals, or out-of-court resolutions (OOCRs) between 27 January 2025 and 28 November 2025. We also conducted 11 interviews with practitioners, including some with operational managers.

We inspected the organisational arrangements for work delivered with victims and looked at cases where the YJS had undertaken contact with victims between 28 July 2025 and 26 September 2025. We also conducted interviews with staff and managers responsible for the delivery of this work.

Neath Port Talbot County is located in South Wales. It shares its boundaries with Swansea, Bridgend, Powys, Carmarthenshire, and Rhondda Cynon Taf. The county is geographically diverse and consists of two main towns, Neath and Port Talbot, which are densely populated. By contrast, there are five valleys which typify areas of rurality and can be impacted by limited access to public transport.

At the time of inspection, Neath Port Talbot had a population of 143,249, with children aged 10 to 17 accounting for 9.5 per cent of this population. The 2021 Census detailed that 4.9 per cent of the youth population were Black or minority ethnic. The percentage of Welsh speakers in Neath Port Talbot had reduced from 15.3 per cent in 2011 to 13.5 per cent in 2021.

HM Inspectorate of Probation inspected Western Bay Youth Justice and Early Intervention Service in 2018. Neath Port Talbot was part of this service, alongside Bridgend and Swansea. The inspection report was published in March 2019, with an overall rating of ‘Inadequate’. The service disaggregated in April 2019.

At the time of this inspection, the YJS was part of the children and young people directorate, which had recently completed an extensive review of how it delivered services. The review was undertaken in response to an increasing complexity of needs and demand, at a time when both the department and the wider local authority were required to make substantial financial savings. As a result of the review, the plan was for the principal officer for the YJS to become the strategic lead for adolescents from 01 April 2026, retaining the leadership of the YJS. The strategic lead for adolescents reported to the head of children and young people’s services, who was also the responsible individual for Hillside Secure Children’s Home (SCH). The YJS management board was chaired by the director of social services, housing, and community safety.

The YJS leadership team consisted of the principal officer/strategic lead for adolescents; an operational manager; two senior practitioners; a consultant social worker; a policy, performance, and information manager; and a business manager. Spans of control and responsibilities were extensive, and leaders were working hard to meet both strategic and operational demands.

The YJS team benefited from secondments and specialist roles which included a police officer, probation officer, education worker, child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) specialist nurse, and substance misuse workers. A dedicated youth to adult transitions worker provided holistic support to individuals moving from children to adult services, as well as to those who required additional input to avoid escalation to statutory adult services.

The identification and support of children’s speech, language, and communication (SLC) needs were impressive. The YJS had a joint agreement with Swansea YJS and Hillside SCH to fund several speech and language therapists and a speech and language assistant. This meant that children’s SLC needs were screened and assessed routinely, with the easy-read child-friendly reports shared with the child, their parents or carers, and others working with the child. The role of the speech and language assistant supported the crucial delivery of interventions to the child. The speech and language therapists also delivered the EngageED pilot project, a project to support schools to identify children’s SLC needs as a means of reducing exclusions.

At the time of the inspection announcement, none of the children supported by the YJS were in full-time mainstream school. Many had not been attending school, had experienced multiple exclusions, or were on part‑time timetables. A representative from the local authority’s education department, at a sufficiently senior level, had attended only one of the four management board meetings between January and October 2025, and we found that the educational needs of children open to the YJS were not being met by the local authority.

The YJS worked collaboratively with children’s services and had access to their case recording systems. ‘Risk outside the home’ pathways had been reviewed and were being embedded across the partnership.

At the time of the inspection announcement, data supplied by the YJS outlined that the service was working with 64 children, which included those supported by preventative programmes, statutory community sentences, and OOCRs. The YJS delivered preventative workshops in schools and worked alongside the partnership to deliver targeted outreach work. The early intervention panel promoted a multi-agency approach to identifying need early and ensuring that children were allocated to the most appropriate service. The YJS had seen a spike in first-time entrants (FTEs) during 2023/2024, which resulted in analysis and discussion at the YJS management board. FTE figures had since reduced substantially to 107 per 100,000 population, compared with the England and Wales average of 138 per 100,000 population.

The YJS had worked alongside youth justice colleagues and South Wales Police to finalise a regional OOCR policy and process, and to review the police referral form to ensure a consistent approach to capturing and sharing victim contact details.

At the time of the inspection, data provided by the YJS did not identify an overrepresentation of girls. However, the YJS had responded to previous increases by creating a trauma-informed girls’ pathway and developing gender-informed interventions.

During our fieldwork context visit and showcase meetings, the YJS demonstrated the extensive range of services and interventions available to children, including gender-specific groupwork sessions, the employability group, equine assisted learning, and outdoor activities. We saw the effective use of Base 15, the YJS’s child-friendly venue, which had been adapted in response to children’s feedback. Children had access to a dedicated wellbeing room, kitchen, conference room with pool table and games, hairdressing studio, music room, and spaces for arts and crafts. The YJS had also adapted the outside space to accommodate the in-house delivery of forest schools.

Domain two: Work with children (Back to top)

We took a detailed look at 15 cases where the YJS had worked with children who were subject to bail, remand, community sentences, or OOCRs.

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

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

Does assessing sufficiently analyse how to:% ‘Yes’
achieve positive change for the child?73%
keep the child and the community safe?60%

In the majority of inspected cases, assessing activity to achieve positive change was detailed and captured the child’s voice. Children’s engagement was supported by child‑friendly self‑assessments and screening tools. Assessing activity was enhanced by consideration of specialist reports, particularly those identifying children’s SLC needs, and findings from CAMHS consultations.

Where children had previously been supported by the service through preventative programmes, out‑of‑court resolutions, or community orders, efforts were made to allocate the same practitioner, to promote consistency and continuity. In several cases, this approach resulted in positive engagement from children and their parents or carers who had previously mistrusted professionals and services.

Assessing of children’s strengths and protective factors was considered consistently. We found several impressive examples where assessments were written directly to the child, and, where this was done well, it brought their interests, personality, and identity to life. However, both practitioners and YJS leaders acknowledged that further training and support were needed to embed fully the practice of writing to the child.

Children’s diverse needs were identified and analysed in the large majority of inspected cases. Where this was done well, we saw sensitive understanding of the impact of children’s lived experiences and individual circumstances. In several instances, children’s culture and heritage were explored with them, which led to meaningful conversations about self-identity and a sense of belonging. However, this was not always evident, and there were missed opportunities to develop more consistent approaches to exploring all children’s diverse and individual needs.

The wishes and feelings of direct victims had been considered in all but one relevant case, and, where available, information provided by the victim liaison worker was incorporated into assessing activity.

In their quality assurance activity and audits of work with children, the YJS had identified the need to improve the depth and consistency of analysis, which aligned with the findings of this inspection. At times, analysis was limited, focused solely on the current offence, did not consider the range of previous behaviours, and did not capture the underlying reasons for the child’s offending. Inspectors also found instances where assessments included statements such as “The child had displayed inappropriate behaviour”, without any further exploration to understand the nature, severity, context, or impact of the behaviour. This had resulted in missed opportunities to analyse information in a way that would identify concerns to the child or to potential or actual victims.

The YJS had established information sharing pathways with the partnership, which supported access to data held by the police, children’s services, and healthcare, education, and probation staff. However, this information was not accessed consistently, and when it was, it was not always analysed to understand its significance for the child. This led to gaps in assessing activity and a limited understanding of the child’s needs, as well as the implications for their safety or that of others. For example, while children with previous involvement from children’s social care services were identified, there was limited curiosity to understand the circumstances that had led to this involvement, or the impact on the child and their family.

Crucial information shared by the child and their parents or carers was not always corroborated with relevant services, resulting in an overreliance on self‑disclosure about factors such as a child’s mental health, associations with older peers, and alleged behaviours within care provisions.

The response to children’s changing circumstances was varied. Several examples evidenced timely and effective multi-agency assessing in response to emerging concerns such as increased substance misuse, a further offence, assault within the home, or indicators of exploitation. However, this was not consistent and there were instances where the response to similar concerns had not been prioritised or verified appropriately with other agencies.

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

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

Does planning focus sufficiently on how to:% ‘Yes’
achieve positive change for the child?80%
keep the child and community safe?60%

Practitioners were skilled at engaging children in planning activities to determine the nature of support and interventions to be delivered. We saw examples where the speech and language easy‑read reports had led to adaptations in planning, including the use of picture cards and fidget toys, as well as sensitive consideration of language and the use of pauses to allow children time to process information.

Planning activity took account of children’s neurodiversity needs, learning styles, and individual preferences. It also considered the personal circumstances of the child and their parents or carers sensitively, including caring responsibilities and the impact of emotive life events such as loss and grief. The YJS acknowledged that practice would be strengthened through more consistent approaches to considering diversity needs, including the use of independent interpreters when required.

It was encouraging to see that building trusting relationships with children was an embedded part of planning activities. Parents and carers were encouraged to participate actively, and we found several examples where this had contributed to strengthening family relationships.

Planning activities built on children’s strengths, goals, and aspirations consistently. Children were encouraged and supported to try new pursuits, including engagement with sports, groupwork programmes, music, arts, cooking, and outdoor activities.

Children’s education, training, and employment needs were incorporated into YJS planning activities. The YJS education worker was proactive in supporting planning with schools and post-16 education providers. We found several examples where speech and language assessments had been shared with schools, resulting in adaptations such as access to a wellbeing room and the use of safe places and people, which supported several children to reintegrate successfully into education provision.

Since the last inspection, the YJS had reviewed the OOCR decision-making processes. The OOCR panel had evolved to include representatives from the YJS, the police, children’s services, and speech and language, healthcare, and education providers. This had had a positive impact, often resulting in multi-agency planning that identified effectively the most appropriate OOCR to meet the needs of the child. The panel discussed support options available from the partnership and identified opportunities for signposting and exit planning activities. The panel, including the YJS victim liaison worker, discussed the impact of the offence on the victim consistently, and we found that planning considered the victim’s wishes and feelings in all relevant inspected cases.

In several instances, insufficiencies in assessing for the safety of the child and community had impacted the effectiveness of planning. Inspectors found examples where limited analysis of children’s behaviours and their needs had resulted in key omissions from planning, particularly in regard to concerns outside the home and indicators of exploitation.

Where planning to keep the child and community safe was done well, we saw effective multi-agency working that was collaborative and responsive to emerging concerns. In these instances, each professional was clear about their responsibilities, and there was a shared understanding of which agency was leading on specific aspects of the plan. Inspectors saw examples where children’s services-led care and support plans served as the overarching framework for the child, incorporating YJS objectives, and this was communicated clearly to the child and their parents or carers, providing consistent information and messaging about roles and responsibilities.

By contrast, we also found examples where the YJS did not have sufficient oversight or understanding of plans held by other key agencies. Difficulties in collaboration and working to shared objectives were particularly notable where children assessed as posing high safety concerns did not reach the threshold for children’s services involvement and were also not discussed at the YJS-led safety management forums. This often meant that the coordination of services for vulnerable children was led by an individual YJS practitioner, rather than through the collaborative approaches promoted within multi-agency safety management forums.

Planning to keep the community safe was variable. Where we saw it work well, there was cohesive and timely partnership planning that responded to emerging concerns identified through the police daily tracker, information shared by other agencies, or disclosures from the child or their parents or carers. We found examples where further offending, increases in substance misuse, and deteriorating emotional wellbeing had led to timely information sharing and adaptations to plans, including the reprioritisation and sequencing of interventions. Practice would be strengthened by developing greater consistency in this area of work.

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

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

Does the delivery of well-focused, personalised and co-ordinated services:% ‘Yes’
achieve positive change for the child?87%
keep the child and the community safe?67%

The delivery of services to achieve positive change was a strength. Practitioners were committed and skilled in building meaningful working relationships with children and their parents or carers, successfully engaging families who previously had been reluctant to work with other services. YJS practitioners and specialists were effective in promoting children’s interests, goals, and aspirations.

The YJS offered a wide range of activities designed to build children’s skills, confidence, and self‑esteem. Children were supported to participate in the summer activities groupwork programme, and this had had a positive impact on their self-identity, ability to work as part of a team, and to be able to relate to others. In accordance with feedback provided by children, the YJS had developed gender-specific summer activities, and this complemented the interventions delivered as part of the ‘Perfectly Imperfect’5 girls group.

Delivery to support children’s diverse needs was a strength and this included consideration of neurodiversity, physical disabilities, and SLC needs. Trauma-informed approaches underpinned the equine assisted learning programme, which was a form of experiential learning that involved horses and a facilitator working together with a child to support the processing of emotions, and to identify goals to promote positive change.

Children’s ability to work in a small group was considered and there was careful consideration of group dynamics. Children were transported to activities by YJS practitioners and this ensured access to opportunities that otherwise would not be available because of the impact of rurality and limited public transport.

Practitioners had a depth of understanding of the services available to support children, and inspectors found examples where children had benefited positively from specialist support focused on emotional and mental health, substance misuse, and SLC provision. The YJS had access to consultation and support from Barnardo’s Better Futures, which had impacted positively on the service’s approach to addressing harmful sexualised behaviours.

The YJS was impressive in its efforts to support children with their education needs. We found instances where the education officer, case managers, operational and YJS strategic managers had worked tirelessly to ensure that children were reintegrated into their education provision. This process was often supported by SLC assessments, which provided schools with a clear overview of how best to support the child.

The YJS facilitated an employability group, which had evolved into a rolling programme where participants could continue to attend until they secured a post-16 education, training, or employment opportunity successfully. Children who had limited structure to their day were supported to attend activities such as the gym, and those approaching the end of their formal involvement with the YJS were signposted to universal services or offered opportunities to engage in YJS preventative support, where this was identified as an ongoing need.

The delivery of services to keep children and the community safe was variable. Inspectors found several strengths in the delivery of substance misuse interventions, which were responsive to children’s changing needs and involved support from other agencies, such as children’s services, appropriately when concerns escalated. However, we also found instances where responsiveness was not timely or proportionate to the emerging concerns and this had resulted in missed opportunities to deliver interventions to mitigate against exploitation. The YJS worked closely with the Be Safe exploitation team and the police to identify places, spaces, and children at risk of exploitation. We heard of examples of effective disruption activity and instances of impressive multi-agency responses. However, in the inspected cases, we found that this area of practice could be strengthened by developing a consistent approach to identifying emerging behaviours indicative of exploitation.

Positively, parents or carers were supported to engage with the YJS to promote the safety of their child and of others. We found several examples where this had resulted in the co-production of safety plans which considered online safety and the identification of strategies to support emotional regulation. Safety plans and bail conditions had been adapted by the speech and language therapist and shared with the child and their parents or carers to promote a consistent understanding of expectations.

Practitioners were complimentary about the quality of supervision and support provided by YJS managers. Management oversight was evident in casework with children, but inspectors found that this did not result consistently in the necessary impact to keep the child and the community safe. Actions arising from management oversight was not always followed up, which had resulted in drift in several of the inspected cases.

Work with victims (Back to top)

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

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

Our rating6 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:

  1. The YJS leadership team was insightful, understood the actions required to progress work with victims, and had taken steps to strengthen processes.
  2. The youth justice service strategic plan 2025/2026 identified the development of victim work as a key service priority.
  3. The YJS presented an annual victim report to the YJS management board, detailing the number of victims who consented to share information, those who opted into the YJS victim offer, the relationship between victims and the children who caused harm, and the support provided. Quantitative data was supported with case studies and victim feedback.
  4. A review of the police F11 referral form had taken place, which was intended to improve the YJS’s ability to access information about victims’ protected characteristics and diverse needs.
  5. Representatives from Victim Focus, funded by the OPCC, attended a management board development day and were committed to becoming standing members of the board. Inspectors observed that these representatives, the YJS, and the police were motivated to strengthen partnership working and eager to develop shared practices. Several training events were planned with the police to update them on the victim offer and ensure that they could distinguish between the different services offered by the YJS and Victim Focus.
  6. Policies and procedures aligned with the code of practice for victims of crime, and a victim engagement process map provided a shared understanding of expectations.
  7. The YJS offered a full range of restorative approaches, including conferencing, mediation, shuttle mediation, letters of explanation, ongoing support, signposting, and both direct and indirect reparation. The victim leaflet had been reviewed by the speech and language therapist and was available in English and Welsh.
  8. A broad range of reparation projects was available, with processes in place to consider victims’ wishes when allocating activity. Reparation was accredited and balanced restoration with meaningful opportunities for children.
  9. Practitioners working with victims had access to the range of training opportunities available to practitioners working with children. Several practitioners were trained Non-Violent Resistance programme facilitators, which supported mediation and restoration between children and their parents or carers.
  10. Practitioners working with victims had access to regional meetings to support practice development and to promote peer support.
  11. Victim work was integrated into case management processes. The victim worker attended OOCR panels, referral order panels, and safety management meetings. In all inspected cases, victims’ views were considered in decision‑making panels.
  12. There were individual examples of work to address victims’ safety, including the use of multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA) and referrals to child and adult safeguarding services. External controls such as non‑contact conditions and exclusion zones were considered.
  13. Established arrangements were in place with the probation victim liaison officer, and, although infrequent, relevant examples of joint work were shared with inspectors.
  14. The YJS had adapted its methods to improve opportunities for victims to provide meaningful feedback, and they were developing a QR code. Feedback was collated, analysed, and reported to the management board.

Areas for improvement:

  • The development of services for victims was being led by YJS strategic and operational managers, with limited ownership or steer by the YJS management board. At the time of the inspection, there was no identified board-level strategic lead for the proposed victim workstream.
  • The management board needed to ensure that the YJS was sufficiently resourced, both strategically and operationally, to deliver high-quality, individualised, and responsive services to victims. Until recently, the management board had not taken proactive steps to strengthen resilience and capacity within the victim worker role.
  • The overall quality of victim work needed to improve. The YJS did not routinely obtain or record the victims’ protected characteristics or diverse needs. Recording and oversight of victim work needed strengthening. Case records did not reflect the quality of practice, and oversight activity was not sufficiently evidenced.
  • Practitioners working with victims did not have access to clinical supervision.
  • There were opportunities to develop more effective collaborative processes with Victim Focus, to prevent victims being retraumatised by multiple contacts from different services.
  • The YJS was keen to develop equitable support for child victims but had not yet undertaken an analysis of the resources required to implement the support.
  • The restorative justice and restorative approaches policy and procedure 2024–2027 needed to strengthen its focus on victim safety processes and outline the service’s approach to supporting the diverse needs and protected characteristics of all victims.
  • Victim safety processes needed to be implemented consistently.
  • Partnership commitment and support were required to ensure that the profile and characteristics of victims were understood, with this information then used to inform and shape service delivery.
  • Monitoring of victim consent rates was limited, and no analysis had been undertaken to understand why some victims did not consent to contact from the YJS.

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

The YJS participation policy for children and families detailed the service’s approach to collating and acting on views in a transparent, inclusive, and safe way. The YJS valued the voices of children and their parents or carers and had developed a range of feedback mechanisms to ensure that the service evolved continually.

Children’s services teams, including the YJS, benefited from the ‘most significant change’ (MSC) method, through which children were supported to share experiences that had made a significant positive or negative difference in their lives, and to explain how this affected their interactions with professionals. Children’s services reviewed the MSC stories to identify opportunities for learning and improvement. We heard powerful MSC stories, including the experiences of children and young people who had transitioned from youth justice to adult services, and the exceptional work undertaken by YJS and probation practitioners to support this period of change.

YJS children were involved in recruitment activity and participated in interview panels. The service had devised an accessible guide containing top tips for preparing and involving children in recruitment.

The YJS worked alongside the participation team to develop meaningful opportunities to hear children’s voices. We heard about the positive impact of the Hope Group, a youth-led initiative that championed girls’ rights and empowered the voices of care-experienced children.

Children had attended the YJS management board to share their experiences of involvement in the justice system. Feedback from children and their parents or carers was also captured in the YJS participation report, which was discussed at the management board. Feedback was gathered following children’s involvement in court proceedings, OOCR panels, and groupwork activities. This had resulted in several ‘you said, we did’ actions, including changes to the layout and privacy of the panel rooms, creation of a girls-only summer activities group, revisions to the YJS transport policy, and submission of a written request to the court for a child-specific waiting area.

Positive feedback from children who had attended an outdoor activities project had led to the YJS training two members of staff in forest school approaches, and the outdoor space around base 15 had been developed to enable this activity to take place on-site.

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). We spoke to seven children, and one parent or carer. We also received text feedback from four children and their parents or carers.

Children shared that staff were kind and that this was very important as it helped them to talk about sensitive matters. All children and their parents or carers that we spoke to said that they had felt listened to, respected, and valued. The YJS had supported one child by:

“talking with me, being friendly and helping me talk about problems”.

Participants said that their identity and needs had been recognised. Children shared several examples of how this had led to adaptations in the way that sessions were delivered. For example, children who did not feel confident in joining groupwork activities first engaged in one-to-one sessions, and many were then supported to join a small group, culminating in their engagement with the summer activities and girls’ groupwork sessions.

Children spoke positively about Base 15, commenting that the facilities were excellent and that they always felt welcomed and safe there. They felt supported to develop a range of skills, and we heard about the positive impact of the employability group and opportunities to obtain a construction skills certification scheme card. One child said:

“They’re an amazing team, very welcoming and they have helped me grow since being with them.”

Another commented:

“They have communicated with me extremely well and showed me different ways to cope in different situations.”

During the inspection showcase meeting, we heard from several children who had benefited from YJS support. We were particularly impressed by the group of children who had come up with the idea of raising funds for charity by completing a hiking challenge. The YJS had supported their ideas and worked with partnership agencies to develop a plan, which had culminated in several children completing a charity hike up Yr Wyddfa (Snowdon). The children described a strong sense of accomplishment and explained how the training programme leading up to the hike had improved their physical health and emotional wellbeing. They were inspired to develop the project further and to raise additional funds for charity, suggesting that a two-day hike with a residential element should be the next step. The YJS supported the initiative and had secured additional funding. A child who had completed the hike was keen to return as a mentor for the next project.

Our understanding of the local context was enhanced by a video clip which had been produced by a child. The video highlighted key locations in Neath Port Talbot, venues where children engaged in activities, and the walk from the bus stop to the office. This helped inspectors understand some of the challenges posed by rurality and limited access to public transport. Children and their parents or carers told us that they appreciated the support put in place to mitigate rurality, including the use of home visits and the service’s approach to transporting children to and from Base 15.

Equity, diversity, and inclusion (Back to top)

The YJS diversity and inclusion policy 2025–2028 recognised the barriers faced by overrepresented and minoritised groups such as Black and minority ethnic children, Gypsy, Roma, Traveller communities, girls, care-experienced children, and children with neurodiverse needs. The policy outlined how YJS processes and practices should be adapted to meet children’s individual and diverse needs.

The YJS had devised an anti-racist strategy and action plan 2025–2028, which was underpinned by the Wales anti-racist action plan. Neath Port Talbot was not an ethnically diverse county, but the local authority had recognised increasing diversity within the school-aged population. Data showed that 8.4 per cent of all school-aged pupils in Neath Port Talbot were Black or minority ethnic, representing a 5.1 per cent increase since 2015.

As part of this inspection, we considered how the service responded to the diverse needs and protected characteristics of children and victims. Recording of children’s protected characteristics consistently included age, sex, gender identity, race, ethnicity, and disability. The YJS management board received information about children’s protected characteristics and diverse needs, and they reviewed the performance data to analyse trends that would indicate concerns linked to disproportionality.

Victims’ protected characteristics were not clearly recorded in any of the inspected cases, which meant that neither the YJS nor the management board had a holistic understanding of the profile of victims. In response, the YJS and police had revised the police referral form to improve processes for capturing victims’ protected characteristics and diverse needs.

In the inspection of work with children, we found that assessing, planning, and delivery considered children’s diversity needs sufficiently in most cases. Practitioners were confident in having conversations with children to understand their lived experiences and were responsive to individual needs. The YJS considered the child’s and their parent or carer’s previous contact with the service and ensured reallocation to practitioners with existing relationships as a means of promoting positive engagement.

The YJS screened children for SLC needs routinely. Where appropriate, this resulted in timely assessing and support by the speech and language therapists. These practitioners produced accessible and easy-read reports which were shared with the child and their parent or carer. Where consent was provided, the report was also shared with education providers and other professionals working with the child. Inspectors found numerous examples where this had had a positive impact on outcomes for children. The YJS had identified that, in 2024/2025, 88 per cent of children involved with the service had had identified SLC needs. However, 96 per cent of this cohort had not been referred to a speech and language therapist prior to their involvement with the YJS. Data provided by the service outlined that 36 per cent of these children had had a disrupted school history, including multiple fixed-term and permanent exclusions.

As a means of reducing exclusions and the use of part‑time timetables, the YJS had developed a pilot project with a secondary school in which pupils at risk of exclusion were referred to the speech and language therapist. The therapist produced a report with tailored recommendations, which had been evaluated as having a positive impact on children’s emotional regulation and their ability to manage within an education setting.

The YJS understood fully the correlation between the high numbers of exclusions and children’s involvement in the justice system. The YJS and wider children’s services teams were keen to work alongside education colleagues to develop child-centred and trauma-informed approaches to reduce fixed-term and permanent exclusions.

The YJS had acknowledged previous increases in the number of referrals of girls to the service. In response, it had developed a ‘girls in the youth justice service pathway policy’, which recognised the distinct experiences, needs, and vulnerabilities of girls involved in the youth justice system, and outlined a gender-responsive and trauma-informed approach. The policy emphasised the importance of planned, supportive, and psychologically safe transitions and exit strategies, including transitions from youth to adult services. In consultation with girls, the YJS had developed a girls group, which participants had named ‘Perfectly Imperfect’. Girls informed the content of the groupwork sessions, and their feedback contributed to the ongoing evolution of the programme.

Children’s high levels of needs were identified, and the YJS and children’s services routinely collated and analysed data about the number of YJS care-experienced children and those supported by child protections plans, care and support plans, and the ‘team around the family’.

The YJS worked in accordance with the wider council Welsh language standards employee guidance. At the time of the inspection, no children open to the YJS had opted to receive services in Welsh. On the day of the inspection announcement, data provided by the YJS indicated that 25 per cent of the workforce were Welsh speakers.

In response to the local geography, rurality, and limited public transport, the YJS had adapted its processes and practices to ensure that children were transported to appointments or seen within their local communities. The YJS also worked alongside partners to staff the ‘hangout and about’ adapted police van, which offered support to children, including those in isolated communities, during evenings, weekends, and school holidays.

Data annexe (Back to top)

Neath Port Talbot Youth Data Annexe (XLSX, 125 KB)

Press release (Back to top)

Neath Port Talbot Youth Justice Service rated ‘Requires improvement’ following inspection

Cymraeg (Back to top)

Arolygiad o waith cyfiawnder ieuenctid gyda phlant a dioddefwyr yng Nghastell-nedd Port Talbot

Further information (Back to top)

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

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

Footnotes

  1. There are two types of inspections as part of the current youth inspection programme across England and Wales. Inspection of youth justice work with children and victims (IYJWCV) and inspection of youth justice services (IYJS). Further information about these inspections can be found on our website Youth Justice Services – HM Inspectorate of Probation ↩︎
  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 group was developed by the YJS in collaboration with girls accessing support from the service. Participants named the group, and their feedback informed the ongoing development of the programme. ↩︎
  6. 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. ↩︎