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 Trafford

Published:

Foreword (Back to top)

This inspection is part of our programme of inspections across youth justice services in England and Wales.[1] In this inspection, we have inspected and rated work with children and victims in Trafford Youth Justice Service (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, Trafford YJS was rated as ‘Requires improvement’.

Senior leaders, managers, and staff were motivated, committed, and passionate about securing positive outcomes for children. This had enabled the service to embed its relational practice model and develop meaningful and supportive professional relationships with children, parents or carers, and victims. Leaders had created a culture which promoted reflection, learning, development, and innovation.

We found that practitioners were confident in holding conversations with children about their diversity needs and lived experiences, including sensitively exploring how discrimination had impacted on their presenting behaviours and sense of identity. There was a strong focus on supporting children to achieve their goals and to facilitate access to constructive activities.

Casework to achieve positive change for children was a strength, but we found inconsistencies in the assessing, planning, and delivery of work to keep children and communities safe. Information was collated from a range of sources but was not consistently analysed to understand the context of the concerns related to the safety of the child or of others. Previous and current harmful behaviours were not always identified and analysed, and this resulted in gaps in the assessing, planning, and delivery of services to keep actual and potential victims safe.

Work with victims was an ongoing area of focus for Trafford YJS. The service had created a victim improvement plan, and the actions generally aligned with the findings from this inspection. The YJS recognised that victim diversity considerations did not routinely inform initial contact with victims, and that there was a need to improve victim safety processes to ensure alignment with processes for working with children supported by the YJS. Positively, victim work was evaluated, and the victim thematic audits were presented to the YJS management board. The reviewing of work with victims had resulted in tangible actions and strengthened processes for obtaining consent to contact victims. The YJS had also developed methods of collating feedback from victims to inform improvements to service delivery. 

We were inspecting Trafford YJS at a time of transition, with changes in the leadership team and a proposed service redesign. The service recognised that additional capacity was required to ensure that the oversight of work with children and victims was effective and that there was sufficient resourcing to implement the victim improvement plan.

Martin Jones CBE

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

Ratings (Back to top)

Fieldwork started March 2025Score 4/12
Overall ratingRequires improvement

Work with children

2.1 AssessingRequires improvement
2.2 PlanningRequires improvement
2.3 Implementation and deliveryRequires improvement

Work with victims

V1 Work with victimsRequires improvement

Recommendations (Back to top)

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

The Trafford Youth Justice Service should:

  1. improve assessing, planning, and delivery practices to ensure consistent and high-quality operational activity which keeps children and communities safe
  2. ensure that YJS managers have the capacity to provide consistent and effective management oversight of work with victims, and the assessing, planning, and delivery of work to keep children and communities safe
  3. ensure that victim safety processes are developed and are aligned with YJS case management processes for working with children
  4. develop victim processes to ensure that initial contact is informed by an understanding of the victim’s diversity needs and protected characteristics
  5. further develop the recording, analysis, and evaluation of victim provision and use this to shape service delivery.

The Trafford Youth Justice management board should:

  1. ensure that the YJS is sufficiently resourced to deliver high-quality services to victims and children. This includes building service capacity to implement the YJS victim improvement plan and to develop management oversight processes of work with children and victims
  2. develop oversight and scrutiny of work undertaken with victims and ensure that there is a strategic link between the range of victim provisions available in Trafford. 

Background (Back to top)

We conducted fieldwork in Trafford YJS over a period of a week, beginning 24 March 2025. We inspected cases where the YJS had commenced work with children subject to bail or remand, court disposals or out-of-court disposals between 23 September 2024 and 22 November 2024, and custody cases between the extended date range of 25 March 2024 and 24 January 2025. We also conducted 12 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 23 September 2024 and 22 November 2024. We also conducted interviews with staff and managers responsible for the delivery of this work.

Trafford is a borough of Greater Manchester which has contrasting areas of affluence and deprivation. It has a population of 235,052, of which 8.3 per cent are between the ages of 10 and 15 years, which is higher than the England and Wales average of 7.2 per cent. Data supplied by the YJS[2] outlined that the Black, Asian and minority ethnic population had grown to 22 per cent, and within the school-age population this was 38.9 per cent. Fifty per cent of children open to the YJS identified as Black, Asian or minority ethnic. Overrepresentation of care-experienced children was also a concern and 29 per cent of the YJS’s current caseload were children looked after by the local authority and placed outside of the Trafford area. The YJS had recognised that disproportionality was a concern, and extensive work had been undertaken by the YJS management board and with Greater Manchester Police (GMP).

Trafford YJS was part of the vulnerable adolescent service (VAS), which was established in 2021 following a review of children’s services. The VAS head of service had oversight of the YJS, complex safeguarding service (SHINE), missing from home or care service, youth engagement service, and children’s rights service. The VAS was part of the Children’s Services Directorate and the YJS management board was chaired by the statutory Director of Children’s Services.

Trafford YJS had sustained low numbers of first-time entrants (FTEs), which it attributed to its extensive preventative offer to children. The YJS was co-located with other services supporting children and young people’s needs, and shared access to the ‘talk shop’ multi-purpose venue had promoted safe places and spaces for children.

Trafford YJS supported children with a range of complex needs, 52 per cent of children had a special educational need or disability (SEND), 39 per cent had an education, health, and care plan, and 62 per cent had social care involvement. Trafford YJS worked in partnership with key services to address issues of youth violence and urban street gangs. Several high-profile and tragic incidents had resulted in a partnership response, which was focused upon disruption activities within specific localities to mitigate against further harm.

Trafford YJS benefited from being part of the Greater Manchester YJS consortium, which supports a collaborative approach to developing key areas of youth justice policy and practice.

Domain two: Work with children (Back to top)

We took a detailed look at 15 cases where the YJS has worked with children, subject to bail, remand, community sentences, resettlement or out-of-court disposals.

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

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

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

In the large majority of cases inspected, we found assessing activity for achieving positive change to be comprehensive and detailed. Practitioners had focused on meaningful participation and co-production with the child, resulting in a firm understanding of children’s strengths, aspirations, and goals. We found several examples of considered and sensitive engagement with parents or carers which enhanced overall assessing activity, including with parents or carers living away from the child’s home. Where this worked well, parents or carers were able to share information meaningfully about their child, the familial context, and wider networks, and this helped in informing the YJS’s engagement with the child.

The YJS had established pathways with other services to ensure that information was accessible and available to inform assessing activity. We noted that information from children’s social care services, the complex safeguarding team, the police, education providers, and health services was routinely collated and documented. However, we found that this was not consistently analysed to provide a holistic picture of the child’s needs. We identified missed opportunities to gather information from the Probation Service, and this resulted in gaps in the understanding of key individuals involved in a child’s life. It was anticipated that this practice would be improved following the appointment of a seconded probation officer.

Assessment of children’s diversity needs was a strength in the cases inspected. We found that practitioners showed genuine care in their approaches to understanding children’s lived experiences, and a confidence in discussing children’s experiences of racism and discrimination. As a result, practitioners had a better understanding of the child and were able to relate their lived experiences to the presenting behaviours. In most cases, practitioners were attuned and responsive to issues that may impact on a child’s ability to achieve positive change.

We found several examples of assessing activity that had been enhanced by input from the health and wellbeing triage panel. The forum was developed to promote a joined-up approach to understanding children’s physical health, mental health, emotional wellbeing, learning needs, and SEND. The panel was attended by the YJS nurse, counsellor, speech and language therapist, child and adolescent mental health services link worker, substance misuse practitioner, and education worker. During our inspection, we heard how the panel continued to evolve, and the intended aim was to ensure that every child was screened as part of the assessing process. 

When considering the safety of the child and the community, the quality of assessing activity was variable. We found that assessing did not consistently consider previous convictions, behaviours, incidents, or information shared by partner agencies. In discussion with practitioners, we found that there was a lack of clarity around the YJS’s approach to including previous convictions and behaviours within assessing activity. Patterns and trends in behaviours were therefore not identified or used to analyse the circumstances, nature, or context of potential harmful behaviour.

Assessment of the needs and safety of victims was considered in too few cases. We found examples of missed opportunities to keep actual and potential victims safe, particularly where violence had occurred within a personal or family relationship, or where the child and the victim were attending the same school. 

We found several examples of effective assessing with children’s social care services and the complex safeguarding team to promote the safety of the child. Where this worked well, professionals had worked together to analyse indicators of exploitation, including lack of structured time, school exclusions, and associates. We found examples of multi-agency mapping to understand the child’s social network, and assessments that considered the adultification of children. However, this was not a consistent feature of all the cases inspected and there needed to be a greater focus on exploring children’s risk of exploitation. 

Where we saw positive examples of assessing activity responding to change, there had been timely information sharing between the services involved in a child’s life, and the impact of this change had been analysed to understand the implications and future actions required to keep the child and the community safe.  

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 rating[4] 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%

The YJS made every effort to ensure that planning to achieve positive change was undertaken collaboratively with the child. We found examples of children meaningfully engaged with planning activities, and their opinions and voices were heard. Children had often contributed to discussions about the sequencing and timeframe of proposed interventions, and the places and spaces where they felt safe to meet. We found examples of sensitive planning around children’s education, training or employment, their family commitments, and caring responsibilities. We also found several examples when planning had considered children’s learning styles, maturity, and speech and language needs.

Planning promoted positive change by ensuring that children’s strengths and protective factors were considered, and that an appropriate focus was placed on building opportunities for participation in constructive activities. We found examples of planning to promote children’s engagement with music, sports activities, and educational courses. Practitioners considered whether children were able to engage in small group activities to develop their confidence and social skills, and we found that planning considered opportunities to accredit the work undertaken by children.

Planning to keep the child and community safe fluctuated and was impacted by gaps in assessing activity. Critical areas that impacted on safety were not fully identified and analysed in assessing and were therefore omitted from planning activity.

Collaborative planning with other agencies was variable in the cases inspected. The YJS-led multi-agency case planning forum discussed all children assessed as presenting with high safety and wellbeing concerns and/or high concerns for the safety of others. We found that the impact of this forum was variable and did not consistently result in tangible actions and follow-up. Where it was done well, professionals involved in the child’s life had a clear understanding of one another’s roles and their responsibilities in delivering actions against an agreed plan. In some instances, multi-agency planning had resulted in the identification of a lead professional to work directly with the child. The alignment of plans avoided duplication and ensured that there was a sense of shared responsibility for promoting safety. However, this was not reflected in all the cases inspected and we found several instances where the role of other services was unclear.

We found that children living outside of the Trafford area, either due to family or care arrangements, or when placed in a custodial environment, required extensive multi-agency collaborative planning involving all key services from Trafford and the host area or secure estate. While we found several examples where this was done well, we also found evidence of fragmented planning activity that did not pull all elements together in a cohesive manner or respond effectively to the changing circumstances of the child.

Planning to keep the child safe was stronger than for keeping communities safe. We found strengths in several cases where planning with the police, children’s social care services and the complex safeguarding team had been effective in disrupting the people and places promoting the exploitation of children. GMP’s ‘grab cards’ were created for children with multiple episodes of going missing, and the partnerships worked to create a profile of the child’s diversity needs, vulnerabilities, risks, and locations where they might be found in these circumstances. Partnership planning subsequently resulted in the creation of trigger plans and mapping exercises.

We were told of numerous multi-agency operations deployed, often at speed, to respond to community safety incidents. YJS managers had established relationships within the wider partnership and played a crucial role in informing partnership planning activity to promote the safety of the child and safety of others. We heard examples of the YJS contributing to collaborative and effective responses following incidents of serious youth violence and it was clear that there were strengths in the partnership which could be replicated across all casework.

Planning to keep victims safe required development. We found that planning did not address specific concerns and risks related to actual and potential victims, and that there were missed opportunities to consider safety planning and the use of external controls.

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

Our rating[5] for delivery is based on the following key questions:

Does the delivery (and review?) of well-focused, personalised and co-ordinated services:% ‘Yes’
achieve positive change for the child?87%
keep the child and the community safe?60%

The delivery of services to achieve positive change was a strength. Practitioners were skilled at developing positive working relationships with children and parents or carers. We found tenacious efforts to promote the engagement of children who were struggling to work with services. Practitioners quickly recognised barriers to children’s engagement and were proactive in their responses to resolve these.

Parents or carers were appropriately included in the delivery of services to children. We found several examples of the YJS facilitating a whole-family approach which ensured that the needs of others in the child’s household were supported by referrals to additional services. Practitioners showed genuine care for children and their families, and this was evidenced by examples of the YJS supporting with arranging access to food parcels, providing transport, and facilitating engagement with community activities.

Practitioners had a good understanding of the services available to support children and we found timely access to interventions focused on children’s physical and mental health, emotional wellbeing, and substance misuse. The importance of education, training, and employment opportunities was recognised, and practitioners supported children to maintain their school or college placements. In instances where there had been fixed-term or permanent exclusions, we found tenacious efforts to advocate for children and parents or carers. When children were not in education, training, or employment, the YJS supported them to access the Reconnect programme as a means of developing skills and confidence.

Children were supported to access individual or small groupwork activities. The YJS delivered a public interest programme and independent living course, aimed at improving children’s self-esteem, social skills, and problem-solving abilities. The YJS delivered most of its reparation at the bike cabin facility and this provided children with opportunities to develop ways of working with others, while simultaneously learning practical skills in fixing and maintaining bicycles, which were then donated to the community. Constructive activities with children were accredited and we found that several children in our inspection case sample had achieved multiple AQAs, which had been celebrated at a YJS awards ceremony.

The promotion of positive change was a strength, and while we found some strong practice in the delivery of services to keep children and communities safe, it was inconsistent. We found that delivery to keep others safe was not always responsive to the emergence of new concerns, behaviours, or offences indicative of increasing harm to others. Similarly, delivery to keep the child safe did not sufficiently adapt to changing circumstances, such as a deterioration in a child’s emotional wellbeing, increased substance misuse, or incidents of self-harming.

Where we found examples of positive practice in the delivery of work to keep children and communities safe, we saw timely and effective information sharing between the YJS, the police, children’s social care services, and the complex safeguarding team, and this resulted in a clear and proactive response to support the provision of services to children. Where delivery had been effective, there had been recognition of the interconnectivity between the range of safety concerns, serious youth violence, and exploitation of children. We found examples of this in the delivery of the virtual reality knife crime sessions, where children watched scenario-based examples and made choices as to what happened next. This promoted collaborative discussions with children about the risks associated with carrying a knife and the potential implications on both the child’s safety and that of others. YJS facilitators sensitively explored the influence of family and peers, and the unintended consequences of carrying a knife. The YJS was evaluating the virtual reality knife crime programme by collating feedback from children and tracking offending and reoffending rates.

The interlinks between promoting the safety of the child and of others were also discussed in the police care plans created for children arrested in the Trafford area who normally resided elsewhere. This was particularly pertinent given the location of the Trafford shopping centre and the number of children coming to visit it from out of the area. The care plans were subsequently shared with the police force area where the child resided, to promote a joined-up approach to keeping everyone safe.

Supporting children with key transitions was a strength in the cases inspected. We found examples of timely consideration for transitions to adult services and an individualised approach to ensuring that new professionals were introduced in a planned manner, often supported by the lead professional who had a positive relationship with the child. Arrangements to support children as they came to the end of their formal involvement with the YJS were also in place. Children were supported to access universal provision, and this was enhanced by the co-location of services at the ’talk shop’. Children also had opportunities to continue working with YJS practitioners on a voluntary basis and we found that several children and parents or carers opted to do so, often a testament to the value they placed on the YJS to support them.

In several cases, we found limitations in the recording of work undertaken with the child. It was critical that interactions with the child, and parent or carer, and information from other professionals was promptly recorded to ensure that those working with the child, and those overseeing the work of the practitioners, had a shared understanding of all factors related to safety. We found that management oversight was insufficient in the large majority of cases inspected. Managers were described as highly supportive, and they routinely undertook quality assurance and audit work. However, additional capacity was required to ensure that they could effectively complete the required breath of oversight activity to a consistently high standard.

Work with victims (Back to top)

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

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

Our rating[6] 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:

  • Practitioners and managers involved in the delivery and oversight of work with victims were committed and passionate about their work. They had insight into the importance of developing victim processes. They were motivated and invested to make improvements.
  • The YJS management board had oversight of work with victims, having discussed a review of victim work in September 2021. Since this time, victim data, findings from the victim audits, and the development of the victim improvement plan had been discussed at a further four board meetings.
  • The YJS ‘working with victims’ policy and procedure was created in May 2024 and updated in January 2025 to reflect changes to legislation, guidance, and learning from YJS audits. The YJS also reviewed the victim information pack to include the ‘A Guide to Restorative Justice: Information for Victims of Crime’ leaflet. This outlined the key principles of restorative justice and the offer to victims.
  • Arrangements to obtain consent from victims had strengthened recently, following an audit by the YJS. The YJS had identified that, while it was receiving victim contact details, explicit consent was not always evidenced. This led to an immediate review of processes, leading to the YJS police officer verifying consent details and following up on any omissions on the police forms.
  • Inspection of victim work found that all victims were contacted, and that initial contact was made through telephone calls and letters. Police officers who had been victims were contacted via email to ensure that their working patterns were taken into consideration, to improve the opportunities to engage with them.
  • The offer to victims included restorative justice conferences, direct reparation (as decided by the victim), shuttle mediation, a letter of explanation, indirect reparation, and an opportunity to be updated on the progress of the child’s order/disposal.
  • Contact with child victims was initially instigated via parents or carers, with opportunities for the child to engage directly, should they wish. The youth engagement service was co-located with the YJS, and child victims could access a range of available universal services, as well as support from the YJS counsellor.
  • Victims of sexual or serious violent offences were contacted. We found sensitive consideration about the personal impact of the nature of this work and a recognition that the YJS needed to support victims appropriately to access specialist services.
  • The training offer to those delivering work with victims was comprehensive and included recent examples of specialist restorative practice training. Staff and managers engaged in peer support activities, including attendance at the regional restorative practitioners forum and consultations with other YJSs. Formal and informal support for those undertaking work with victims was a strength.
  • Practitioners working with victims attended the out-of-court decision-making panel, referral order panels, case planning forums, weekly victim-focused meetings, and allocation meetings, and were able to represent the voice of victims.
  • Services to victims were regularly monitored, evaluated, and reviewed. The ongoing review of the victim improvement plan was informed by the annual thematic report of victim work, monthly reports to the director of children’s social care services, performance data presented to the management board, case audits, and weekly victim progress meetings.
  • Victims were asked to share their views at various stages during the victim contact process. The YJS had developed a QR code for victims, to promote the collation of digital feedback.
  • The YJS had already taken steps to develop its reparation offer and had secured funding to expand the range of available reparation activities.

Areas for improvement:

  • The YJS management board was sighted on the work undertaken with victims, but it was not driving this work forward. All victims of crime in the GMP force area were automatically referred to the Greater Manchester victim support service, but it was unclear how this aligned with the YJS’s offer to victims. YJS leaders recognised that this was an area for development and that there were opportunities to develop strategic links between the various services providing support to victims in the Trafford area.
  • The YJS acknowledged that the successful implementation of the victim improvement plan would require additional resourcing and added capacity at both operational and management levels. The YJS was reviewing and redesigning the YJS structure.
  • Victims were offered a range of services to support their needs, but victim safety processes required development. We found that victim processes were not consistently aligned with YJS case management processes and that there were missed opportunities to promote the voice and safety of the victim.
  • Information shared by the police and received by the YJS contained limited information about victims’ diversity needs and their protected characteristics. This impacted on the YJS’s ability to tailor initial contact consistently, to meet the individual needs of victims. A greater focus on obtaining, recording, and responding to protected characteristics and personalised needs was required.
  • The YJS victim policy referenced the Probation Service victim contact service, but did not detail a pathway to promote a shared understanding of policy and process among YJS and probation practitioners.
  • The YJS had identified that the recording of victim processes and practices, and the management oversight of this work, needed to be strengthened.

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

The YJS promoted a relational model for working with children and parents or carers, and we found that this was a strength in the cases inspected. The YJS context visit and showcase meeting provided inspectors with the opportunity to join children undertaking groupwork and individual sessions with YJS practitioners. It was evident that children had established authentic relationships with staff, and this enabled them to engage fully in sessions, using appropriate humour, seeking advice, and gaining support, when needed. Children were encouraged to be aspirational and were supported to access activities to promote positive change.

The YJS contributed to the overarching Trafford Participation and Engagement Strategy 2022–2025 and had also developed a YJS-specific Child, Parents and Carers Engagement and Participation Strategy 2024–2025. Children had been supported to share their views via a video blog and rap music, and two children attended the YJS management board in April 2024.

The YJS had a participation lead, who met children to hear their views, and they recognised that meaningful participation for all children could be difficult. The YJS responded by developing several means of collating feedback, including the introduction of a QR code and a process by which a manager could contact families directly to hear their views about the services delivered by the YJS. This feedback was used to enhance the quality of work delivered to children and parents or carers.

The YJS contacted, on our behalf, children who were working with the YJS at the time of the inspection, to gain their consent and to enable them and their parents or carers to give feedback 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, and five children initially agreed to participate. However, they did not proceed with meetings or telephone discussions. We received one response to our text survey, which outlined that the YJS was “fantastic” because of its:

“Great communication…advice and also helping me with other situations.”

The YJS had evaluated feedback provided by 52 children, parents and carers between February 2024 and January 2025. The YJS collated the main themes and presented the findings to the management board. This included a “you said, we did” overview of how the YJS had responded to the feedback. We were told that the YJS had implemented several changes, including: the introduction of AQA accreditation for reparation; designating a lead practitioner for accommodation support and working with girls; purchasing virtual reality interventions; developing a multi-agency health and wellbeing panel; creating a ‘voices for change’ group to support children from ethnically diverse communities; and improving exit planning and ongoing support for children and parents or carers.

Equity, Diversity and inclusion (Back to top)

The Trafford YJS Disproportionality and Diversity Policy 2024–2027 and corresponding action plan feeds into the Trafford Children’s Services Equality and Diversity Strategy 2021–2025.

The Trafford YJS strategic plan identified ongoing concern with disproportionality in relation to Black and mixed heritage children, those cared for, or care experienced, and those with SEND. Actions had been taken to understand and mitigate disproportionality by ensuring that specific details of the demographics of children accessing YJS services were presented to the YJS management board, to promote strategic discussions and scrutiny.

As a means of understanding the overrepresentation of Black and mixed heritage boys, the YJS and GMP had undertaken work jointly to analyse data pertaining to stop and search, arrests, overnight detention, bail, releases under investigation, and instances when no further action was taken. Regular meetings had been established outside of the management board forum which allowed the YJS and police jointly to scrutinise data and tends. The YJS had also completed a thematic audit on the use of remand and custody for overrepresented groups.

We found that the recording of victims’ protected characteristics and diverse needs was underdeveloped and, as a result, initial contact with victims was not consistently individualised or tailored. This was recognised by the YJS in its victim improvement plan, and we found recognition of the need to prioritise this area of work.

Recording of the protected characteristics of children supported by the YJS was stronger, and consistently considered age, sex, gender identity, race, ethnicity, and disability. In our inspection, we found that assessing activity sufficiently considered the child’s diversity needs in the majority of cases. Where this worked well, assessing of children’s diverse needs had seamlessly flowed into planning activities, and we found tailored approaches to supporting children’s needs. For example, assessing and planning of activities for neurodivergent children considered the pace, length, and content of sessions. The appropriateness of the venue and related sensory factors were considered and there was cohesive planning around the introduction of new professionals.

We found examples of practitioners creating safe spaces to facilitate conversations with children sensitively, to understand their lived experiences and the impact of discrimination on self-identity.

We found a variable response to the YJS’s and wider partnership’s understanding of the impact of trauma. We found several positive practice examples of professionals considering the number of services involved in a child’s life, and meaningful discussions with the child and professionals regarding the most appropriate person to lead on direct contact with the child. However, this approach was not consistent in all cases, and we found opportunities for the YJS to strengthen work undertaken, particularly with care-experienced children, by ensuring closer alignment and cohesion of assessing, planning, and delivery of services to children.

Data annexe (Back to top)

Trafford YJS data annexe
(XLSX, 120 KB)

Press release (Back to top)

“Some inconsistencies” found at Trafford Youth Justice Service

References and 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.

[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 in Our inspections.

[2] Data supplied by the YJS at the point of the inspection.

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

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

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

[6] The 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 is available on our website Standards and ratings – HM Inspectorate of Probation.