An inspection of youth justice work with children and victims in Plymouth

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 Plymouth 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, Plymouth YJS was rated as ‘Good’.

The YJS prioritised developing an understanding of the children it worked with, and its operational practice supported effective assessing activity. Strong relational approaches and multi‑agency collaboration helped practitioners to analyse children’s needs, strengths, and triggers for offending. Where information was gathered effectively, it supported an accurate understanding of how to achieve safety. However, where children were assessed as displaying less complex needs, we identified some underestimation of the factors contributing to risk and safety. There needed to be greater professional curiosity to provide assurance that all relevant factors to achieve safety for the child and the community had been considered.

Planning for positive change and safety was generally strong, child‑centred, and co‑produced with families, with clear attention paid to equity, inclusion, and diversity needs. Practitioners tailored goals to children’s abilities, ensured thoughtful exit planning, and collaborated effectively with multi‑agency partners, particularly when risks outside the home were present.

Support and interventions to achieve both positive change and safety were largely delivered as planned. Strong, trusting relationships were developed and practitioners built effectively on children’s strengths, protective factors, and community connections during delivery. Practitioners adapted their approaches in response to changes in children’s motivation or wellbeing. However, children’s engagement in voluntary, consent‑based interventions was inconsistent, and this was an area requiring focus.

The YJS provided sensitive, collaborative, and victim-centred practice. However, a more systematic focus on strategic oversight, quality assurance, use of performance data, and understanding of victim participation would enhance its ability to fully evidence effectiveness, equity of access, and continuous improvement of victim work.

In this report we make four recommendations to help support the YJS in developing its work with children and victims further.

Martin Jones CBE

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

---

Ratings (Back to top)

Fieldwork started January 2026

Score 8/12

Overall rating

Good

Work with children

2.1 Assessing	Good
2.2 Planning	Good
2.3 Delivery	Good

Work with victims

V1 Work with victims

Good

---

Recommendations (Back to top)

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

The Plymouth Youth Justice Service should:

1. ensure assessing, planning, and delivery of work with children are of a consistently high quality and focus on how to keep the child and community safe
2. review approaches to engaging children and victims within interventions requiring consent, to streamline processes and improve engagement.

The Plymouth Youth Justice Management Board should:

3. develop a suite of local performance indicators and datasets that enhances understanding of victims’ consent, engagement, need, and protected characteristics, which can be used to monitor operational delivery and drive strategic focus more effectively
4. coordinate quality assurance activity across all services working with victims to gain a better understanding of the efficacy of support provided to victims living in Plymouth.

---

Background (Back to top)

We conducted fieldwork in Plymouth YJS over a period of a week, beginning 19 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 between 01 May 2025 and 19 September 2025. We also conducted 15 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 21 July 2025 and 19 September 2025. We also conducted interviews with staff and managers responsible for the delivery of this work.

Plymouth is a port city and unitary authority in south-west England. It is the most populous city in the south-west and at the time of our inspection the YJS provided interventions for children, families, and victims living within the city boundary. Plymouth was second only to Torbay for levels of deprivation in the south-west; 19.5 per cent of children under 16 years old were living in ‘absolute’ low-income families.

At the time of inspection, 52,113 children aged between 0 and 17 lived in the city, making up 19.2 per cent of the overall population. There was a low percentage of Black, Asian, and minority ethnic children living in the city and at the point of the last Census this stood at eight per cent. Data available to the Plymouth YJS management board prior to fieldwork indicated that these children were not represented disproportionally within the YJS caseload. Analysis by the city council’s children, young people, and families service had identified increasing levels of complex need for children in the city, such as targeted support from children’s social care, and child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS). At the point of the inspection announcement, only 10.2 per cent of children under 16 years old on the YJS caseload were in full-time education. Whilst this low figure was for a specific moment and did not reflect annual data, it highlighted the challenges the YJS faced in engaging this complex cohort of children.

At the time of the inspection, most children with whom the YJS worked were boys. The most recent annual Youth Justice Board (YJB) statistics indicated higher numbers of boys open to the service than comparable regional and national rates. The service also worked with more children aged 10 to 14 than comparable annual regional and national rates.

The YJS sat within the children, young people, and families service (CYPFS) of Plymouth City Council and was overseen by the head of service for targeted support and youth justice service. Her portfolio also included the adolescent support team and ‘Be Safe’, the service working with children at risk of exploitation. This meant there was a strong alignment and congruence within the services delivered to complex adolescents at risk of offending and exploitation.

The YJS was overseen by a relatively recently appointed service manager, who oversaw a team manager and a YJS business manager. Operational delivery was also supported by a practice manager. Some staff within the YJS held social work qualifications and others had generic job descriptions undertaking a variety of roles, including targeted activity, participation, and family work. In addition, the YJS benefited from seconded police and probation officers and co-located practitioners specialising in substance misuse, education, training and employment, emotional and mental health, and speech, communication, and language need. The service also employed a psychologist to support a trauma-informed case formulation² approach to service delivery.

Services for victims had benefited from an increase in staff resourcing, following the recommendations of our previous inspection. There was now a dedicated full-time victim worker and three members of the YJS team worked regularly with victims, which extended resource and capacity beyond the dedicated victim worker. Restorative justice interventions were overseen by ‘Make Amends’, an organisation commissioned by the Devon and Cornwall Police and Crime commissioner (OPCC).³

The YJS worked collaboratively with several partners in the city and used its ‘showcase slot’ to focus on the efficacy of activity. Partners involved included the exploitation service (Be Safe), the community safety partnership, the serious violence prevention officer, the child centred policing team (CCPT), and the adolescent edge of care and homeless team. The CCPT was developed to ensure children encountering the police experienced a ‘child first’ approach. ⁴Four members of the YJS had co-located access to the Devonport police station, which facilitated early triage and case management discussions, supported information sharing and risk assessment activity, and helped in the development of child-focused, targeted interventions. The police told us that decision-making was now timelier because of this collegiate approach. It was anticipated that the approach would also reduce first-time entrant rates by ensuring prompt delivery of community resolutions outside of the local joint decision-making panel process.

The Be Safe and edge of care and homeless teams were situated in the same building as the YJS and had a collaborative approach to working with complex adolescents. This facilitated a greater understanding of children, and integrated return home interviews and housing assessments. Allocation of work involving children took place across adolescent services, which assisted information sharing within weekly mapping exercises to explore peer relationships and communication with the community safety partnership. These activities enhanced and supported professionals’ understanding of exploited children.

At the time of the inspection, first-time entrant rates for Plymouth were higher than national and regional rates, although a focus on diversion and prevention meant that the proportion of post-court interventions had decreased significantly over the last few years. Reoffending rates had been on a downward trend and, at the point of inspection, the percentage rate for children who reoffended was below the national average. These and other local and national performance indicators were overseen by the youth justice management board. Scrutiny, challenge, and review of strategic and operational delivery had improved since CYPFS’s director of children’s services had become chair of the management board around six months previously.

---

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, resettlement or out-of-court resolutions.

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

Our rating⁵ Wider social and community relationships for assessing is based on the following key questions:

Does assessing sufficiently analyse how to:	% ‘Yes’
achieve positive change for the child?	93%
keep the child and the community safe?	67%

The quality of assessing to achieve positive change for children was sufficient in all but one instance. The YJS had a stated vision to treat children fairly and help them build on their strengths so they could make a constructive contribution to society. We saw that practitioners worked well to achieve this ambition within assessing activity. Analysis of how positive change could be facilitated was well thought through, and practitioners used a relational approach to support children to identify their triggers for offending behaviour and how ‘identity shift’⁶ might be achieved.

There was a clear focus on collaborative assessing and the YJS worked with partners to develop a comprehensive, multi-agency understanding of children. Factors relevant to children’s offending, such as their history of trauma, and communication requirements were explored well, and this work was enhanced and supported by the contributions of the speech and language therapist (SALT) and psychologist. Additionally, practitioners drew on a wide range of information, including police, social care, education, health, and historical youth justice records, to support their assessing. There was also evidence of effective participation and collaboration with the child and parents or carers in many instances.

Assessing need was a dynamic activity. For example, very few children whose cases we inspected had diagnosed neurodiversity or learning disabilities. However, once practitioners identified that children presented with possible undiagnosed additional needs, their understanding of the child further developed, they adapted their approaches, and this supported children’s engagement with assessing activity.

We saw a strong focus on analysing children’s strengths and protective factors, including key structural factors. Practitioners analysed the challenges children faced in their family environment, their education experiences, and their health outcomes to determine what pro-social and positive activities could be encouraged to promote sustained identity shift.

Assessing by the YJS to achieve safety for the child was less consistent. Analysis of risks to children’s safety and wellbeing, and of issues related to vulnerability, victimisation, and exploitation, was not consistent. Whilst there was positive evidence of appropriate information gathering, analysis was not consistently robust or sufficiently developed. There needed to be greater professional curiosity when considering historical information and assessing whether safety concerns remained. We saw instances where police intelligence or information on children’s social care systems were not sufficiently analysed, and this led to an underestimation of the factors linked to achieving safety and misclassifications of identified risk.

Practitioners identified and analysed what was needed to achieve safety for other people, considering risk sufficiently in most instances. Practice was enhanced by effective intelligence sharing, and the quality of communication with the police to inform assessing was a strength. Activity was well coordinated with the child centred police team, who worked closely with the YJS to help it understand the risks posed by children. We also saw strong collaboration with the co-located ‘Be Safe’ exploitation team, and appropriate liaison with probation when relevant information was sought.

The YJS’s collaborative approach with children and parents or carers was also evident when assessing what was needed to achieve safety. Inspectors found comprehensive analysis of children’s family dynamics and wider contextual factors, which supported practitioners to understand children’s interconnected vulnerabilities and risks to others. This approach was crucial as it ensured that practitioners did not view the child in isolation but instead supported targeted planning activity based on relevant protective factors or pertinent triggers for inappropriate behaviours.

Where information was obtained from victims, assessing generally incorporated their needs and wishes. This was enhanced by a consistent approach to understanding children’s attitude towards their victim. Practitioners explored whether children understood the impact of their behaviour on victims and the wider community. Ongoing potential safety concerns were considered, and relevant protective factors identified.

---

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 rating⁷ for planning is based on the following key questions:

Does planning focus sufficiently on how to:	% ‘Yes’
achieve positive change for the child?	93%
keep the child and community safe?	67%

Planning to achieve positive change was a consistent strength. Planned goals and objectives reflected a child-centred approach. Practitioners actively considered and planned for environments that could facilitate positive identity shift. Staff took time to build relationships with children and their families to understand what would work and what needed to be delivered to build on pre-existing strengths.

Consideration of equity, diversity, and inclusion needs was central to planning. Children presenting with diagnosed or potential neurodiversity were referred for support. Communication passports were available to help others understand how best to support children with speech, communication, and language need. We saw written plans adapted to the age of the child to help them understand objectives, and practitioners actively took time to assess where and how interventions were delivered. We also saw consideration of pre-existing analysis, such as case formulations, to help develop adaptations to planning commensurate with the child’s experiences of previous adverse childhood experiences.

In most instances, planning was clearly co-produced with children and families and contained detail about their wishes, feelings, and reflections. This approach was deliberate, case recording was personalised, and formal plans were written directly to the child, helping them to understand and remember why a particular action or objective had been developed. This approach supported children to engage with the planning process.

A further area of strength was practitioners’ ability to pitch planning activity at a level commensurate with the child’s ability and motivation. Objectives were well thought through and realistic. For example, one written plan that we inspected acknowledged how small achievements – such as improved communication and contact with family – could support resilience and positive change; there was a deliberate attempt to make gradual changes rather than overload the child at the start of the intervention.

Many of the children we inspected were on short duration community resolutions. Exit planning was key, given the limited time that staff could work with the children. We noted that exit planning was generally well considered and tried to build on existing community resources, including involvement in positive activities such as football and boxing. This ‘step down’ approach was explicitly stated in the YJS’s out-of-court resolution guidance, and it was reassuring to see it put into practice.

Planning to achieve safety for the child and the community was less consistent and was somewhat affected by earlier underestimations of risk and safety concerns. In these instances, where the YJS had identified less complexity within the child’s circumstances, professional curiosity was limited, and this reduced the effectiveness of multi‑agency collaboration. We saw some instances where there needed to be greater collaboration and discussion with other relevant services working with a child and family, such as children’s social care, to review how safety was being planned for, and to ensure potential future risks were understood, particularly when children disengaged.

Where structured multi-agency arrangements were in place, such as with children subject to multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA) oversight or child protection proceedings, a collegiate re-evaluation of concerns and approaches was evident. Planning for these children was dynamic, effective, and purposeful. Attention to the available timescales, coordination with other agencies’ planning, and sequencing were also important where children were open to different services, and inspectors noted that this coordinated approach was undertaken consistently.

Planning for children experiencing risks outside of the family home was a notable strength. All potential new concerns were raised at a daily online multi-agency intelligence briefing coordinated by the police and aligned with children’s social care planning activity. Attendees at this meeting included representatives from Be Safe, the CCPT, children’s social care, and a homeless and serious violence prevention officer. The YJS played a proactive role in this forum and provided information about known children where required. Co-location and collaboration with the Be Safe team and the CCPT meant emerging concerns raised at this briefing could be planned for immediately. In-depth information to assist with planning was then exchanged at regular multi-agency mapping exercises exploring children’s links with other children or adults of concern. Robust, targeted actions were allocated to appropriate services during these mapping exercises and actively reviewed, giving staff working with these children a clear understanding of increasing or decreasing areas of concern and how to plan to address them. Support was therefore tailored and effective.

We saw evidence that, where required, the needs and the wishes of victims were considered in planning. This included consideration of possible restorative interventions and the victim’s safety. We saw practitioners support children to gain an understanding of the impact of their behaviour on others, although considered victim awareness work could be strengthened and more dynamic in some instances.

---

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

Our rating⁸ 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?	73%

For most of the children whose casework we inspected, support and interventions to achieve positive change were delivered as planned. Practitioners built strong relationships with children, particularly with those displaying higher levels of complexity and who had experienced multiple adverse childhood experiences.

Practitioners took sufficient account of the child’s strengths and protective factors, including the key structural factors affecting them, and sought to reinforce or develop these to support building resilience. Practitioners identified and utilised protective factors, such as access to education, training, and employment opportunities, well. We also saw evidence that children were involved in community projects and reparation, and there was an emphasis on helping children access sports activities, including once formal support had ceased. This approach helped to develop pro-social identity shift and increased community capital⁹ for both children and the wider community.

Delivery was reviewed and adapted where necessary, and the consideration of the most appropriate ways to support positive change was responsive, where required. When children’s motivation or emotional wellbeing deteriorated, we saw examples of appropriate adaptations, such as convening a ‘team around the child’ meeting or reviewing the scope and expectations of reparation activity. In other instances, where children declined consent to work with services such as CAMHS or the Children’s Society¹⁰, the YJS delivered interventions to address concerns and support engagement.

One challenge faced by the YJS in delivering activity was the significant number of voluntary, consent-based interventions provided or referred. In some instances, we saw children decline to engage with support. Whilst such disengagement was not unusual, the YJS needed a greater focus on utilising motivational approaches that could be more effective in encouraging children to engage. We also found that initial discussions with children for them to consent to voluntary involvement lacked clarity and needed to be positively framed more consistently. A different, more motivational approach would have encouraged more systematic engagement and facilitated the sustainability of exit plans when YJS interventions stopped.

Overall, inspectors noted the YJS worked well with partners to ensure that risk and safety were managed effectively. Generally, the right services were provided, with appropriate collaboration with parents and partners to build protection.

However, delivery of services to address vulnerability, victimisation, and exploitation required greater consistency, particularly as interventions progressed. Whilst some initial delivery supported safety, there needed to be greater dynamism and responsivity to change. We saw that crucial factors were not sufficiently explored, such as considering missing episodes or responding to changes in engagement and understanding the reasons why. There were also missed opportunities to engage protective family members as safeguarding partners. This sometimes affected the efficacy of support offered and gave limited assurance that safety considerations were central to delivery. This was more notable when children did not have an extensive multi-agency wraparound offer of support.

Delivery of services to keep others safe was stronger and far more consistent. For more complex children, their risks, strengths, and future needs were routinely considered through multi-agency forums, including MAPPA and risk management meetings. Such forums helped to ensure interventions focused sufficiently on the safety of the community and that effective work with children was delivered. Outside of these forums, ongoing interagency information sharing supported the monitoring and managing of community safety. Risks to others discussed at exploitation mapping exercises, for example, meant that services could develop effective disruption activities where concerns had been raised. With several children, we noted disruption activity had helped to support their stability during interventions, which had had a positive impact on their behaviours.

Interventions delivered by the YJS and partners to support safety were sequenced effectively and paid sufficient attention to the available timescales. Children, both in the community and in custody, were supported by well-coordinated professional liaison between the YJS and services such as education and children’s social care. The YJS ensured it delivered support that complemented the activity provided by partners; this meant children were given a better chance to engage and comply with requirements positively and were not overwhelmed.

---

Work with victims (Back to top)

We took a detailed look at nine victim cases where the YJS offered a service to victims who 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 rating¹¹ 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

• Victim work had been a regular management board agenda item for over 12 months, raising its strategic profile. Board discussions evidenced developing attempts to understand victim experiences, data, and performance.
• There were links with local strategic forums such as the local criminal justice victim board and community safety partnership, supporting wider oversight of the regional landscape of victim work activity.
• Policy and guidance were reviewed regularly and collaboratively with a strong victim focus. Implementation of the policy was well applied, with eight out of nine inspected cases showing high-quality, individualised support.
• Initial victim contact methods were flexible and personalised. A strong relationship with the victim care unit enabled the sharing of information and enhanced knowledge of the victim prior to contact.
• The victim’s voice was present at decision‑making and planning forums. An understanding of safety considerations was developed within the ‘My Voice Matters’ assessment, which identified victims’ needs and risks. This information contributed to relevant safety planning forums.
• Victim work was well‑resourced, and capacity had increased following the 2022 inspection recommendations. There was one dedicated victim worker and up to three staff supporting victims. Workload was manageable, with time for meaningful activity and case record updates. Staff rotation of victim work reduced single‑point‑of‑failure risks.
• Victims could access a wide range of support services both within the local authority and through the third sector. Reparation was creative and victim‑led, tailored to victim wishes.
• Restorative practice was facilitated by the OPCC-commissioned ‘Make Amends’ service. It offered quick contact with victims and reported no waiting list for support. Staff were well‑trained and experienced in restorative practice.
• Staff rotation within the victim worker role supported the building of practitioner competency and confidence. Generic job descriptions allowed staff to be flexible across roles, increasing organisational resilience.
• Managers provided positive and effective support; monthly reflective supervision was available, and case records showed clear management oversight where needed.
• Quality assurance activity was ongoing, and a victim action plan was created to address areas for development, including engagement, feedback, specialist support, workforce development, and evaluation.

Areas for improvement

• Scrutiny of victim work at the management board lacked forensic analysis and had provided limited critical challenge. The new Board Chair had developed expectations for strategic oversight and challenge, but improvements were not yet fully embedded.
• The absence of Make Amends representation at the board limited understanding of operational restorative practice and challenges, although OPCC representation did ensure feedback from a commissioner’s perspective.
• The management board’s analysis of performance metrics was narrow, with underdeveloped datasets. The limited scrutiny of performance did not provide assurance that strategic planning for victim service resourcing was fully understood or that the board knew which services or interventions were most effective. For example, the victim drop-off rate once consent has been given for YJS contact remained unexplored.
• The board had a limited understanding of victim demographics and protected characteristics and how these might impact on or influence service design. The YJS recorded protected characteristic information inconsistently.
• There was an underdeveloped understanding of how effective the police were at gaining consent. In addition, consent processes needed to be streamlined; they were repetitive, potentially requiring multiple points where consent was needed after it had initially been gained by the officer in charge.
• Workforce development was inconsistent. Whilst there was a plan in place and training was delivered, it was not clear if it equipped all staff with sufficient understanding of restorative justice.
• Quality assurance activity was fragmented and not drawn together to provide a coherent evaluation of practice by all agencies working with the victim.
• The collection of victim feedback could be strengthened, especially for victims signposted to other agencies. Information sourced for victim closure forms was under-analysed, limiting understanding of victim outcomes across services.
• Victim involvement in service development was minimal; they had no input into policy creation. A recently developed victim framework acknowledged the service was still at an early stage of embedding the victim voice in all activity.

---

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

A self-assessment by the YJS had highlighted the need to develop participation and we noted a rapidly developing focus on engaging children and parents or carers over the previous 12 months. A participation framework, based on the Lundy model,¹² had been created with an accompanying action plan focusing on co-production of assessment and planning activity, increasing engagement, and producing an annual report detailing successes and challenges. A child advisory group was also planned to ensure more systematic feedback to senior leaders at a strategic level.

The recent recruitment of a dedicated participation practitioner was positive. The service intended to use this resource to take forward Plymouth’s participation strategy. The additional recruitment of a family worker into the service following feedback from parents was also positive and demonstrated not only a willingness to act upon feedback but a genuine commitment to the development of more robust ‘in house’, whole-family approaches to YJS interventions.

We saw evidence of bespoke participation activity with children; there had been a report reviewing the effectiveness of support for children open to both the YJS and children’s social care permanency service, and another reviewing children’s involvement in anti-immigration disturbances in 2024. Although both reports helped develop an understanding of children’s perspectives, there was limited evidence of ongoing impact and changes to practice or operational delivery resulting from them. The new framework and resource were intended to build on these foundations to ensure participation activity consistently produced meaningful outcomes for children.

The YJS contacted, on our behalf, children who were or had been working with it 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 one child and five parents. We also received text feedback from five parents. Although feedback was positive, all but one child who we contacted chose not to engage with us. This perhaps reflected the service’s own self-assessment of the need to develop more effective participation and engagement strategies with children, and our inspection of our delivery standard that children did not always seem motivated to engage consistently with consent-based activity.

Nonetheless, the parents who engaged with us were unequivocal in their praise of the YJS and many comments reflected our observations of practice during fieldwork. For example, one parent commented how the YJS had developed a personalised approach with their child, taking their diversity needs into account.¹³

“They have taken the time to get to know my son, breaking meetings down to shorter times so my son can manage them better due to being ADHD and autistic. They have really helped my son by being kind, but firm, constant, and positive. They have been so encouraging to my son. I feel there has been a positive effect from having their involvement.”

The collaborative, relational approaches that we saw in assessing, planning, and delivery resonated with those with whom we spoke. They all agreed that they had had a say on the things that affected them and that they felt listened to, respected, and valued. One parent noted:

“I have always been involved. I speak to the YJS almost every day and I am kept well informed on what’s going on. My child sees a number of different people; all speak with me where needed.”

Most importantly, all the parents we spoke with believed that the YJS had had a positive impact by recognising the needs of their child. One parent noted that this had led to tangible outcomes that she had been attempting to achieve previously.

“We have been trying to get an ADHD assessment for years. YJS have helped escalate this and we are now going through the process.”

Finally, everyone we spoke with agreed that the YJS considered safety, including what was going on in children’s lives and where they were seen. One parent commented:

“I always feel that my son is safe with YJS workers; it’s when he goes out with his friends that I worry!”

---

Equity, diversity, and inclusion (Back to top)

The YJS faced several notable challenges within its work with children, including increasing levels of child poverty, significant proportions of children excluded from education, and a disproportionate representation of children in social care and those with special educational needs and disability (SEND). Overall, the YJS had a strong understanding of relevant data relating to work with children where equity, diversity, and inclusion considerations were key.

Structured attempts to ensure equity of support for children had been enhanced by a review of the service’s diversity and inclusion policy in the last six months. Whilst the policy was sufficient, it could have been strengthened by the development of a broader multi-agency action plan to be delivered alongside it, ensuring factors for children both before and after they had contact with the YJS were addressed proactively and systematically. Nonetheless, we saw evidence of work undertaken to address specific areas of concern, and in some instances, this activity was starting to have an impact.

For example, although Plymouth had a low proportion of resident Black, Asian and minority ethnic children, children from this background had previously been disproportionately represented within the YJS cohort. This had been acknowledged and there had been a focus on challenging practices and attitudes with partners, which had helped contribute to reductions in ethnic disproportionality. When the last youth justice strategic plan was produced for 2025/2026, local data indicated the number of Black, Asian and minority ethnic children open to the service had reduced from 14.2 per cent the previous year to 3.7 per cent. Quarterly performance data since then indicated some increase in representation but not disproportionately so.

An analysis of girls who had offended, following a noted spike in violent offences committed by them in 2024, was detailed and comprehensive. This review found no friendship or peer links between the girls involved. Offences were opportunistic and committed in isolation, with girls being ‘drawn into’ events. Only six per cent of this cohort had had no children’s social care involvement and 56 per cent were care experienced. This analysis gave the YJS the opportunity to tailor support on one-to-one interventions focusing on identified needs, such as emotional regulation, employment, training, and employment, and victim empathy. Whilst inspectors did not always see this bespoke approach fully implemented with girls in our inspected cohort, the most recent YJB annual statistics¹⁴ at the point of fieldwork indicated lower percentages of females as a proportion of caseload compared with national and regional averages. This suggested there had been some efficacy in the work delivered, although the low numbers of girls who offended meant small increases could lead to short-term spikes in data.

At the point of the inspection announcement, 58 per cent of YJS children had a learning disability, learning difficulty or were subject to an education, health, and care plan, consistent with the longer-term data available to the YJS. We saw and heard evidence of strategic plans to support children with these needs, including developing and delivering targeted SALT support, better identification of SEND, work with magistrates to educate them on the impact of these factors, and the systematic use of communication passports; the service was also on track to gain the YJS SEND kitemark. We saw evidence of activity such as the use of communication passports and consultation with the SALT in children’s case files, providing assurance that these plans were being implemented effectively.

More recently, shortly before the inspection announcement, the YJS had reviewed children with a disability open to the service. Many of the children identified were older adolescents, and amongst the recommendations from the analysis were actions to prioritise ADHD pathways, embed communication pathways, facilitate transitions, make reasonable adjustments, share assessments with health professionals, and develop multi-agency coordination. Many of these actions were multi-agency in scope and there was a need to ensure that the pathways and systems supported children at risk of offending both before and after YJS intervention. Consideration of developing a multi-agency action plan to address the equity, diversity, and inclusion needs of YJS children could enhance the positive work already being undertaken.

The staff working with children and victims were representative of the children they worked with, both in terms of ethnic representation and gender. There was an almost 50/50 male and female split in staff working for the YJS and this provided assurance that children would be able to work with both positive male and female role models if needed to support engagement.

A comprehensive workforce development plan ensured staff received appropriate diversity training. Staff had requested additional learning and development opportunities. Whilst they were committed to ensuring inclusivity within interventions, it was recognised that some lacked confidence in initiating and undertaking the sensitive conversations that arose when exploring a child’s diversity needs; this was a potential area for development.

The YJS understanding of the diversity needs of victims was not as well developed as it was for children. There was a limited understanding of victim demographics and protected characteristics and how these might impact on service design. The YJS recorded protected characteristic information inconsistently – we saw it clearly recorded on only four of the nine victim case records that we reviewed. Both the YJS and management board acknowledged that this was an area that needed to be developed.

---

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 Jon Gardner, 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. Case formulation, derived from clinical psychology and counselling, is a process to develop a comprehensive understanding of an individual’s presenting problems. In a youth justice context, it serves as a tool for making of a child’s story, turning the partnership’s varying assessments and analyses into a single narrative that sense informs intervention choices. ↩︎
3. A project of the Plymouth charity Shekinah, Make Amends delivered restorative justice across this area, providing support to people affected by crime, conflict, antisocial behaviour or harm caused by the actions of others. ↩︎
4. Child first is the guiding principle of the youth justice system in England and Wales. It means seeing children as children, focusing on their rights, needs, and potential, and diverting them from the criminal justice system. ↩︎
5. The rating for the standard is driven by the lowest score of the key questions, which is placed in a rating band, indicated in bold in the table. A more detailed explanation is available on our website Standards and ratings – HM Inspectorate of Probation. ↩︎
6. A key element of the child first approach to youth justice, which promotes children’s individual strengths and capacities to develop their pro-social identity for sustainable desistance. ↩︎
7. 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. ↩︎
8. The rating for the standard is driven by the lowest score of the key questions, which is placed in a rating band, indicated in bold in the table. A more detailed explanation is available on our website Standards and ratings – HM Inspectorate of Probation. ↩︎
9. ‘Community capital’ refers to the combined social, human, natural, cultural, political, built, and financial assets of a community, which promote wellbeing and resilience. ↩︎
10. Plymouth’s substance misuse service. ↩︎
11. 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 are available on our website Standards and ratings – HM Inspectorate of Probation. ↩︎
12. Developed by academic Laura Lundy at Queen’s University, Belfast, the model, detailed in a 2007 issue of the British Educational Research Journal, provides a way of conceptualising a child’s right to participation, as laid down in Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1080/01411920701657033). ↩︎
13. All quotes are directly from children, parents, and carers. ↩︎
14. YJB (January 2025), Youth Justice annual statistics 2023 to 2024. ↩︎

---