An inspection of youth justice work with children and victims in Peterborough
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 Peterborough 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, Peterborough YJS was rated as ‘Good’.
The YJS was child‑centred and outcome‑focused, with effective arrangements in place to achieve positive change for children and to manage safety. Children were supported by skilled practitioners who had high aspirations for them. The YJS demonstrated a clear focus on helping children recognise their potential and working with them effectively to support positive change.
Strengths‑based assessing was informed by relevant information from a range of partners, who made proactive contributions. This ensured that assessing activity was cohesive. Practitioners had a detailed understanding of the effects of trauma and early experiences, and used this knowledge effectively to consider how these contributed to children’s vulnerabilities and influenced their decision-making.
Planning was well coordinated and developed in a manner that addressed children’s individual needs and wider safety concerns. Staff across the partnership had a shared understanding of the activities planned for children, and carefully considered how to sequence and implement these.
Practitioners worked effectively with partner agencies to ensure interventions focused on meaningful outcomes. Children, families and carers benefited from strong partnership working, which gave them timely access to a wide range of interventions and specialist support. Communication across the partnership was given priority and this led to timely responses when changes were needed.
Work with victims had been developed following a review by the YJS. We found the victim policy had been revised and this improved engagement and the quality of work with victims. The YJS demonstrated a clear understanding of where work needed to be prioritised, and this was supported by a well‑targeted and realistic action plan. The YJS was aware that it needed to work with the police to improve information-sharing, as this would provide a better understanding of the diverse needs of victims.
We found a well-led YJS, with a shared understanding across the partnership of Peterborough’s child-first approach, which was consistently communicated and embedded in practice. There was a positive learning culture, where performance information, quality assurance, and reviews were used constructively to drive service development and improvement.
Martin Jones CBE
HM Chief Inspector of Probation
Ratings (Back to top)
| Fieldwork started April 2026 | Score 10/12 |
| Overall rating | Good |
Work with children
| 2.1 Assessing | Outstanding |
| 2.2 Planning | Good |
| 2.3 Delivery | Outstanding |
Work with victims
| V1 Work with victims | Good |
Recommendations (Back to top)
As a result of our inspection findings, we have made three recommendations that we believe, if implemented, will have a positive impact on the quality of youth justice services in Peterborough. This will improve the lives of the children in contact with youth justice services and better protect the public.
The Peterborough YJS management board should:
- proactively implement the disproportionality action plan and assure themselves that progress is being made to reduce the disproportionate number of children from the global majority who are made subject to YJS outcomes
- review the caseloads of restorative justice and victim workers to ensure they have sufficient capacity to undertake the role.
Cambridgeshire Constabulary should:
- improve the quality of information shared with the YJS about victims’ individual needs and protected characteristics to ensure there is a personalised approach to working with victims, to enhance understanding of the victims who come into contact with the YJS, and to inform the development and delivery of services for victims.
Background (Back to top)
We conducted fieldwork in Peterborough YJS over a period of a week, beginning on the week of 13 April 2026. We inspected cases where the YJS had started work with children subject to bail or remand, court disposals or out-of-court resolutions between 14 April 2025 and 13 February 2026. We also conducted 17 interviews with case managers.
We inspected the organisational arrangements for work delivered with victims and looked at cases where the YJS had undertaken contact with victims between 13 October 2025 and 12 December 2025. We also conducted interviews with staff and managers responsible for the delivery of this work.
Peterborough City Council is the local authority for Peterborough, a local government district in the county of Cambridgeshire, in the East of England. It has a growing and changing demographic. Peterborough is the fifth fastest growing city in the UK. Between the last two censuses (held in 2011 and 2021), its population increased by 17.4 per cent, from around 183,600 in 2011 to around 215,700 in 2021.2
Peterborough’s population saw the third-largest percentage increase in the East of England, increasing by 8.3 per cent compared to the general population of England (6.6 per cent).
Almost a quarter (24.5 per cent) of the population of Peterborough come from global majority backgrounds. At the time of our inspection, children from the global majority were overrepresented across the YJS cohort, accounting for 50 per cent of statutory court orders and 66 per cent of those subject to bail or remand. The board were aware of this overrepresentation, and a disparity action plan was in place to address it.
The YJS was overseen by the executive director of children and young people’s services, who was the newly appointed chair of the YJS management board. The experienced head of service had responsibility for the YJS, risk outside the home team (ROtH) and young people’s safeguarding service.
Peterborough YJS disaggregated from Cambridgeshire YJS approximately three years ago. As a distinct YJS, it quickly consolidated existing partnership arrangements and developed new partnership working where needed. The YJS was closely aligned with the ROtH team. At the time of the inspection, 29 per cent of YJS children were supported by either a child protection or a ROtH plan. Information provided by the YJS for the inspection indicated that 3.6% were subject to a child protection plan and 25.6% were on a child in need plan (including ROtH plans).
Immediately before the fieldwork for our inspection, a tragic incident occurred in which a 16-year-old child was murdered. Throughout the period of our inspection, the YJS was operating in a context shaped by the death of a child and its immediate aftermath. This included increased operational demand and an intensive multi-agency response.
At the time of the inspection, the YJS was supporting 66 children. The majority of these (71 per cent) were on out-of-court resolutions. The YJS first-time entrant rate was above both the regional and national average, over a sustained period. Girls made up 7.1 per cent of the YJS caseload, half the national average.
The YJS was served by Cambridgeshire Constabulary. There were shared objectives across the partnership to safeguard children and young people, including the development of ‘harm outside the home’ pathways to support a contextual approach to safeguarding.
Approximately 11 per cent of Peterborough YJS children were children in care, half of whom were children placed in residential homes in the area by other local authorities. The YJS had developed strong links with the residential sector and was working with them to improve placement stability for children and support staff who had been assaulted. Supporting children in residential care was a priority for the YJS and we saw a clear focus on improving outcomes and maintaining regular contact with these children.
Ofsted rated children’s social care as ‘Inadequate’ in December 2023, and had carried out regular monitoring visits since then. The local authority had put improvement actions in place and was making progress, as evidenced in recent monitoring visits.
Domain two: Work with children (Back to top)
We took a detailed look at 17 cases where the YJS 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. | Outstanding |
Our rating3 for assessing is based on the following key questions:
| Does assessing sufficiently analyse how to: | % ‘Yes’ |
| achieve positive change for the child? | 94% |
| keep the child and the community safe? | 88% |
Assessing activity that identified and recognised children’s needs was a strength. The YJS and its partners worked together to develop a comprehensive understanding of the factors needed to support children to achieve positive change. The YJS effectively balanced a focus on children’s needs with consideration of victim and community safety. We saw detailed analysis of what was required to support positive change for the child, alongside a comprehensive understanding of what was needed to keep children and the community safe.
Practitioners understood their children well and demonstrated thorough knowledge of the children they were working with. The YJS had adopted a child-first approach to working with children and this was well embedded across the YJS. Practitioners working with children prioritised building trusting relationships. This enabled them to have open and honest conversations with children about their worries, the changes they wanted to make, and how best to achieve them.
Assessing was analytical and focused on the critical factors to best understand how children could achieve positive change. Formal and informal assessments were also shared with children, their parents and carers to facilitate a collaborative approach to assessing.
The views of children, parents and carers were incorporated into assessing activity and informed decision-making. Practitioners undertook home visits and invested time in building relationships to ensure parents and carers could contribute meaningfully. Parents reported that they felt listened to and that their concerns were taken seriously.
Assessing activity was well informed by a wide range of factors in children’s backgrounds. Information about children’s exposure to domestic abuse, separation from parents and social care involvement was analysed well and linked to children’s ability to regulate their emotions and reactions to other people.
The offending of many of the children was influenced by their relationships with friends and peers. Case managers established who the peer group was, and determined which friendships were positive and which were having a negative effect. We saw the use of mapping and cross-referencing of groups of children. This included the use of police intelligence and details of specific police operations linked to serious youth violence.
Concerns relating to the safety of children and risks to the community were well assessed and understood. Potential exploitation was carefully considered and supported by effective links with multi-agency child exploitation teams (MACE) and ROtH teams. The expertise of these services strengthened understanding of the risks and potential harm to and from children. Practitioners analysed information effectively to identify immediate, medium and long-term risks to children and issues such as exposure to domestic abuse, separation from family, and substance misuse. Wider factors, such as serious youth violence and access to substances, were appropriately and sensitively explored. However, there was less consistent analysis of the role played by parents and carers in keeping children and the community safe, and this was an area that could be further developed.
Access to specialist workers and their involvement in assessing was a notable strength. Psychologists and speech and language therapists (SaLT) made significant contributions to assessing activity, helping practitioners to understand children’s behaviour in the context of trauma, neurodevelopmental needs, and speech, language and communication needs. Communication needs were identified appropriately, and access to interpreters and translated materials was available to inform assessing. The insight provided through case formulations provided a nuanced understanding of the situations and circumstances where children were most likely to make poor decisions and what their behaviour was communicating.
Practitioners who worked with children consistently identified children’s strengths and protective factors. This approach supported children’s aspirations and helped them to recognise alternative, positive pathways. Our discussions with case managers showed that they knew the particular interests of children and these were included in assessing activity, so that these could be supported.
Practitioners regularly considered evidence of changes and responded when these became known. They incorporated new information from partners, children, and families and shared significant changes with relevant agencies. The majority of offences involved violence against other people, so the importance of identifying new information was critical to both the safety of the child and the community. New information from the police and from other sources was followed up quickly and assessing was reviewed as a result. Information provided by children was analysed to inform the understanding of peer groups and any tensions. Where this raised concerns for safety, we saw a strong multi-agency response.
Risk management panels supported the effective review of changing circumstances for children and victims. YJS staff contributed constructively to multi-agency assessments and provided appropriate challenge where required.
Restorative justice and victim work were well integrated into assessing. The impact of offending on victims was usually known and used well to inform analysis. Risks posed by children to others were routinely considered and appropriately analysed to inform understanding of what was required to keep the community safe.
Children’s diverse needs were consistently assessed and considered. Practitioners explored a wide range of needs, including cultural identity, migration experiences and experiences of discrimination. The interaction of multiple protected characteristics was analysed, and practitioners understood the intersectionality of children’s needs. Protected characteristics were routinely identified and discussed with children and partner agencies, and their impact on children was analysed well.
Where children had displayed harmful sexual behaviour, timely specialist assessing using assessment, intervention and moving on (AIM) was used. We saw that risks to others were responded to and balanced against the ways that such behaviours could be managed and reduced.
Management oversight was effective in identifying any shortfalls and proactive in addressing these to improve the quality of assessing activity. Managers were approachable and supportive, and oversight arrangements were both formal and responsive.
| 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 rating4 for planning is based on the following key questions:
| Does planning focus sufficiently on how to: | % ‘Yes’ |
| achieve positive change for the child? | 88% |
| keep the child and community safe? | 76% |
The YJS had undertaken quality assurance activity and identified areas for improvement in relation to the quality of planning activity. The subsequent improvement activity had a positive impact, and we found that planning activity to achieve positive change was of a consistently high standard. There was a clear and logical line of sight from assessing to planning, with identified risks, needs, and strengths generally reflected well in plans.
Planning addressed a wide range of children’s needs and was often complex, due to children experiencing multiple vulnerabilities and intersecting harms from within the family and the wider community. Children were frequently subject to more than one plan, requiring coordination across agencies. In the main, practitioners and partners worked effectively together to produce coherent plans with shared priorities. This was supported by regular communication, a shared understanding of roles and responsibilities, and partner engagement. Training provided by the YJS had contributed to improved confidence and consistency in joint planning.
Planning for positive change was an area of strength. In most cases, children were actively involved in developing their plans and were able to influence decisions about sequencing and prioritising the work in plans. Strengths-based planning built on children’s aspirations in most cases. Children were encouraged to identify interests and goals, which were routinely reflected in plans. We saw examples where plans focused on engaging and enabling children to participate in activities that supported confidence and skill-building and enhanced their future prospects and employability.
Practitioners planned adaptations to meet the diverse needs of children. Where they had identified a child’s learning needs, planning aligned with the findings and recommendations in education, health and care plans and communication passports, offering a consistent approach to working with the child. Planning also considered the age and maturity of the child, and we saw examples of language being changed in response to communication needs.
Planning often included work to support children in understanding and exploring their identity, making use of specialist and community‑based services. Examples included plans that reflected support for Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller communities, as well as religious and faith‑based interventions. Children could access a wide range of organisations that would support their understanding of their culture, ethnicity and religion. However, these could have featured more prominently in exit planning. Many children were from dual‑heritage families, and planning included actions to help them understand and explore all aspects of their ethnicity and culture. However, although practitioners explored children’s experiences of discrimination, planning did not always provide the detail of how the effects of this would be addressed. This was of particular importance when the discrimination was a factor in offending.
Parents and carers were appropriately engaged in planning. Planning showed clear consideration of how they would be kept informed about their child’s progress, how their child was responding to interventions, and if any concerns arose, how these concerns would be shared. Where needed, plans were translated into the language used within the family. This supported consistency and transparency in planning.
Multi-agency planning was generally effective and benefited from contributions from social care, SaLT, psychology, schools, and residential provision. Plans appropriately included referrals to specialist services, where required, supported by established referral pathways. Communication passports were used to support understanding of individual needs and to adapt planning and interventions accordingly.
Planning to manage children who presented a high level of safety concerns (including harmful sexual behaviour) towards victims and the community was overseen through multi‑agency child, community and victim safety panels. YJS practitioners retained oversight, alongside psychological support and expertise. There were effective links with multi-agency public protection arrangements and conferences for domestic abuse when needed.
Although various plans were in place when multiple professionals were involved, we found that planning activity was generally coordinated well and collectively responsive to changes in children’s circumstances. Children were recognised and praised for engaging with plans. Exit planning was realistic and focused on sustaining the child’s progress through community and universal services after their involvement with the YJS.
In a small number of cases, planning did not sufficiently address how actual or potential victims would be kept safe. We saw some instances where risk management planning lacked detail or clarity, and schools were not consistently involved to the extent required. In a small number of cases, we also found the exact steps to be taken when children were vulnerable, being exploited or victimised needed to be clearer and planned for. While ROtH plans were in place, some of these needed to be better aligned with YJS plans, particularly to clarify the steps to be taken to respond to and locate children when they were missing.
Planning for transition from the YJS to the Probation Service was a strength. Joint working between YJS practitioners and the seconded probation officer ensured transitions were needs‑led and reflected children’s maturity, support networks, relationships, protective factors, and likely future impact of offending.
| 2.3 Delivery | Rating |
| High-quality, well-focused, personalised and coordinated services are delivered, achieving positive change and keeping children and communities safe. | Outstanding |
Our rating5 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? | 82% |
| keep the child and the community safe? | 82% |
Children benefited from a wide range of high-quality services that were well targeted and personalised. Interventions were delivered in line with assessing and planning, and were responsive to children’s maturity, communication needs, and lived experiences. Delivery effectively balanced work to support positive change with proportionate actions to manage and reduce risk. This contributed to the safety of children and the community.
Practitioners consistently established positive and trusting relationships with children, including where engagement was short-term or complex. Work was appropriately adapted to meet individual needs, including responses to take account of children’s neurodiversity and emotional and mental health. Children reported that relationships with practitioners were positive and that the support they received was helpful.
Delivery was underpinned by psychologically informed and strengths-based, relational practice. Practitioners demonstrated flexibility in how interventions were delivered, which also enabled children to exercise appropriate choice over the pace and focus of work. This supported engagement and contributed to positive progress.
All children benefited from the support of specialist workers, either from direct work or through consultation and advice to practitioners and the professional network.
Interventions were generally well coordinated and outcome focused. Children accessed a range of timely and appropriate specialist services, including ‘EmPower6, education support, restorative justice, and specialist work with children who displayed harmful sexual behaviour. EmPower also supported children beyond the end of their involvement with the YJS, providing voluntary support with mentors on an ongoing basis. We saw the benefit of this service in a number of cases we inspected.
The YJS responded well to children who found it difficult to form relationships with adults. The trusted adult scheme (TAS), delivered in partnership with Anglia Ruskin University, provided safe and structured opportunities for engagement. It had a positive impact on children’s confidence, wellbeing, and relationships, and this was reflected in feedback from parents.
‘Stable Futures’, a service specifically for girls, was an equine-based group where girls were able to develop teamwork, emotional regulation, empathy and relationship skills.
Victim awareness work was delivered effectively and supported children to better understand the impact of their behaviour on others. Practitioners appropriately involved parents and carers and prioritised work to strengthen relationships where this would support progress and stability. YJS staff worked proactively with partner agencies and advocated well for children to ensure their needs were understood and addressed. This supported continuity of delivery and access to appropriate services.
This was of particular importance for children who had lived in, or were moving into, other local authority areas. Where children had experienced attachment difficulties or placement breakdowns, the professional network agreed the most appropriate practitioner to undertake direct work, with the aim of reducing unnecessary contact. Children were given clear information about who would be working with them. This included the YJS prioritising support so that children were able to develop safe and supportive relationships with social workers.
Where children experienced difficulties with education, the YJS used the education specialist well. Alternative education was sourced that matched children’s aspirations and built on their strengths. Reintegration into education routinely involved a range of partner agencies. The insight into children’s behaviour and communication needs provided by the psychology and SaLT team was helping schools to adapt their work and resulted in children accessing suitable and individual support. This led to positive outcomes, where some children had positive experiences of education, increased attendance and were able to achieve qualifications and skills.
Contact with children was offered at home and at a variety of venues in the community. This was a considered approach to maximise the engagement of children, to respond to safety considerations and for workers and children to have confidential discussions. For those who were transitioning to the probation service, increased use of office-based contact prepared them for the change in supervision and optimised the chances of compliance.
Activity-based contact was used well, especially for children who were neurodivergent. These often provided the option for children to engage with practitioners in a predictable environment. Work was well-paced and delivered in a way that avoided children becoming overwhelmed and then disengaging.
If children’s engagement changed, this was given careful attention. Discussions with managers helped practitioners to examine why it was happening and then to adapt to the situation. On the occasions when children were not attending their appointments, feedback was sought so that the exact reasons were known. We found that the timings, structure and location of appointments were adapted to make it easier for children to undertake interventions.
For other children, changes in their engagement signalled increased maturity and the development of trusting relationships. Responses to this helped these children see that they were making progress and that practitioners were reflecting these improvements by feeding back to them, changing the nature of interventions.
To manage the safety of victims and the community, the YJS made timely and appropriate use of breach action, when needed. Transfers to probation were managed well, as was resettlement of children who were released from custody. Referrals to multi-agency risk forums were undertaken and the YJS made an active contribution to sharing critical information and risk management activities.
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 rating7 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 were supported to understand YJS processes and how the YJS could support them. A newly developed information leaflet set out the services available and how victims could contribute their views to inform the work of the YJS with children.
- The YJS management board had prioritised work to support victims. This priority was clearly set out in the YJS action plan and supported by a dedicated delivery plan, with regular oversight of progress.
- The YJS management board had effective links with the Peterborough safeguarding board and the Cambridgeshire criminal justice board (CCJB). As part of this board, the head of service was a standing member of the CCJB victim and witness subgroup. This group oversaw audit activity, action planning and improvement activity for victims across the wider Cambridgeshire area.
- A review of victim services had led to changes in delivery and the introduction of a revised action plan. Victims generally understood the processes and the support available to them through the YJS. Organisational arrangements supported consistent relational practice, and victims were treated with respect and sensitivity.
- There had been significant investment in developing restorative justice approaches and ensuring that the victim team had relevant and current knowledge and skills. This area of work was overseen by an operational manager. Restorative approaches were based on the evidence and experience of New Zealand, having been adapted to work in the British criminal justice system. This supported the development of the policy and practice, setting a clear and consistent culture.
- Restorative justice had been used to support the stability of placements for children in private residential homes, and this was a notable strength. This work helped repair relationships between residential staff (as victims) and the children they cared for. It contributed to better relationships and more effective communication.
- Findings from victim casework indicated that the YJS had appropriately balanced the safety of victims and the community with work to support positive change in children. Practitioners demonstrated a sound understanding of trauma-informed practice and took appropriate account of diversity. They addressed the identified needs of victims in most cases.
- Communication between restorative justice and victim workers and YJS case managers was generally effective and supported coordinated delivery where required. However, it was not always clear how victims’ views had been represented at out-of-court resolution panels.
- A range of systems were in place to protect victims, including the child, community and victim safety panels. These multi-agency forums provided a focus on the safety of victims, allowing the partners to contribute to the planning and delivery of services.
- When children were victims, contact was made through their parents or carers, and services could be accessed through referrals to early help and the targeted youth support services.
Areas for improvement
- The additional operational responsibilities undertaken by the victim workers had a negative impact on their capacity to undertake their roles. Time to contact victims and assess their needs was limited. For the YJS to meet its ambitions, leaders needed to consider workload capacity.
- The victim policy was not yet applied consistently in all cases. Recent developments, including the introduction of a performance dashboard, are intended to strengthen oversight through improved data quality and analysis.
- Information provided by the police did not always include sufficient detail on victims’ individual needs and protected characteristics. Access to a broader range of community-based services would further support some victims’ longer-term needs and facilitate a personalised approach from the first contact with victims.
- Further development of mechanisms to gather and use victims’ feedback would strengthen practice. The YJS was prioritising plans to give the board greater insight, through improving consultation with children and victims to better inform service delivery.
Participation of children and their parents or carers (Back to top)
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).
Participation of children, parents and carers was a strength. The YJS had developed a proactive approach and invested resources in supporting positive engagement and participation. Children contributed meaningfully to strategic priorities, with a clear model for representation at board level. Multiple accessible methods were used to capture children’s views, with evidence of analysis and impact. Feedback from children, parents and carers was analysed on a thematic basis and considered by the board. Inspectors were provided with numerous examples where changes had been made as a result of children’s feedback and experiences. However, the YJS recognised that it needed to further develop, collate and analyse feedback from victims.
A positive example of how children’s experiences had helped to develop interventions was ‘Caught Slippin’. This intervention had been created by a young person following a driving offence. Drawing on his lived experience, the project aimed to challenge the glamourisation of underage driving and highlighted the real‑life consequences through honest storytelling and visually engaging digital media.
We spoke to five parents and carers as part of this inspection, three by phone and two in person. We had planned to speak to a number of children who had given consent to be spoken to. However, as result of the serious incident that occurred the day before the inspection started, we worked with the YJS to review who we should contact. Priority was given to making sure that children spoke to practitioners, so that support could be given directly to children who may have been impacted by the incident and we therefore did not speak with any children directly.
The parents and carers we spoke to were overwhelmingly positive about their involvement and interaction with the YJS and case managers. Parents felt that once the YJS was involved their views were sought and listened to.
One parent told us the practitioner talked to her about her son, “taking time to understand their family”. She expressed concerns that her son did not have a positive father figure, which had impacted negatively on his behaviour, and stated that she felt the YJS had taken her concerns seriously and worked positively with her.
We asked what had been done well by the YJS and received positive feedback from those we spoke with. It was clear that practitioners had taken a personalised approach to working with children, their parents and carers.
A parent told us about how a practitioner had worked with sensitivity to help manage her anxiety. She said that the worker:
“understands my anxiety and will explain to me why she is calling, she will tell me ‘this is not a worrying call’ and that makes me relax straight away. She helps me to calm down and make sense of things in my head. She will read out letters to me so I can understand what is going on. She know how to interact with [my child], they have a laugh and joke and that puts [my child] at ease”.
Clear communication with parents and carers was a theme of the feedback. One parent explained this to us:
“They listen, they give good advice and they don’t sugarcoat things and that is what you need. When [my child] was due to be sentenced and it was looking ugly, [practitioners] prepared him and us for the worst, they did not give him false hope. They were straight with him and us, and you need that to prepare yourself. They involved the whole family and they actually care, they really do. They worked hard to build a good relationship with [my child], me and my daughter. They would check in about my daughter too and would ask how she was, it meant a lot to me.”
Two parents offered constructive feedback and expressed their worries about what would happen when the YJS involvement ended. We fed back to the YJS that they may want to consider parents’ views on exit planning and handover to community support services.
We sent 22 text surveys to children, parents and carers and received 13 responses.
We asked them to rate the YJS on a scale of one to 10, with one being poor and 10 being fantastic. Seven rated the YJS as 10, two as nine, and two as eight. One rated the YJS as four.
Comments from the text survey were mainly positive, with one parent or carer saying they did not understand the work being done with their child and that the child had not understood the seriousness of the offence.
One child told us why they had rated the YJS as 10.
“The reason I had given them a 10 is because I have had numerous YJS workers who have all shown me kindness, compassion and have been very understanding and flexible with me which shows that they don’t just see it as a job but they genuinely look at us as the children putting aside the crimes we have committed.”
Equity, diversity and inclusion (Back to top)
The YJS demonstrated a clear commitment to equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI), underpinned by its youth justice plan. This set out a strong value base, including a focus on anti-racist practice and tackling disproportionality, which was prioritised by the partnership board.
The YJS demonstrated a well-developed understanding of disproportionality and had used a range of data, including on ethnicity, disability and wider protected characteristics, to inform strategy and planning.
A youth justice disproportionality statement and supporting disparity analysis had been developed and presented to the board, enabling improved oversight. A local disparity plan and multi-agency working groups were established, with progress reviewed quarterly.
There was evidence of investment in understanding and responding to disproportionality. Leaders and practitioners demonstrated a depth of understanding about the changing local community and used this to inform service delivery. There was evidence of partnership working to support a whole-system response to inequality. Police and health partners contributed relevant data on stop and search, custody, emotional health and speech and language needs, which strengthened oversight and scrutiny of outcomes for children. At seven per cent, the proportion of girls in the YJS cohort was half that of regional and national comparators (both at 14 per cent). There were specific interventions based on the needs of girls.
Tracking of outcomes showed that children from global majority backgrounds were more likely to have received court orders than out-of-court resolutions and were more likely to be subject to bail and remand. Children from minority ethnic backgrounds were over-represented in more serious offending and custodial outcomes. An ethnic disparity analysis showed that, in 2024, 78 per cent of children receiving custodial disposals being from minority ethnic groups. There was also evidence that these children were under-represented in community-based disposals, indicating unequal access to less intensive outcomes. While the board had identified these issues and put appropriate plans in place, the impact of this work on reducing disproportionality was not yet fully realised.
The YJS had invested in workforce development. All staff had completed EDI and cultural competence training, alongside specialist input on trauma-informed practice, neurodiversity, special educational needs and disability, and communication needs. This supported a shared understanding of discrimination, identity and inequality. Managers told us that participation in an anti-racist staff conference and ongoing reflective discussions had improved practitioners confidence throughout the YJS in recognising and addressing discrimination.
There were strengths in the YJS’s response to children with additional needs. Investment in psychological and SaLT provision, alongside embedded trauma-informed approaches, supported a nuanced understanding of children. Investment in psychology and SaLT provision supported effective engagement with children with complex needs, particularly given the high proportion of children with identified disabilities (75 per cent). Inspectors also found that access to interpreters and translated materials was readily available and used in the majority of cases when needed.
Practitioners demonstrated the ability to adapt communication and tailor interventions, reducing barriers to engagement. SaLT pathways were well established and widely used, and there was a clear commitment to recognising and responding to neurodiversity. However, some parents told us about significant waiting time to access ADHD assessments.
Planning and interventions were personalised and responsive to children’s lived experience, including contextual risks such as exploitation and peer influence. There was a strong focus on children who were care-experienced, and steps were taken to reduce their unnecessary criminalisation. We found effective links with some residential homes to reduce assaults on staff.
While there were many positive aspects of practice in relation to diversity, the quality and consistency varied. For example, we saw some strong examples where there had been meaningful discussions with children about heritage, ethnicity and culture. However, although practitioners explored children’s experiences of discrimination, planning did not always provide the detail of how the effects of this would be addressed.
The YJS response to the diverse needs of victims was less well developed and required a greater focus. Information was not always sufficiently comprehensive to understand and address the full range of victims’ needs. There were also gaps in the data. Information on some protected characteristics, particularly sexual orientation and details about victims, was not consistently recorded. This limited the YJS’s ability to fully understand and respond to the needs of all groups.
Leaders recognised these areas for development. The disparity action plan included appropriate actions to strengthen data quality, improve analysis across all protected characteristics, and enhance community engagement and representation within governance arrangements.
Data annexe (Back to top)
Press release (Back to top)
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 Yvonne McGuckian, 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 (Back to top)
- There are two types of inspections carried out 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. ↩︎
- Taken from Census 2021, Office of National Statistics. ↩︎
- 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. ↩︎
- 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. ↩︎
- 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. ↩︎
- EmPower is the name of the exploitation and missing team. It offers targeted support to safeguard children who go missing or are at risk from harm outside the home. ↩︎
- 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. ↩︎