Despite some good work by individual case managers in Doncaster Youth Offending Service (YOS), other aspects of work were not carried out well enough, often enough, said Paul Wilson, Chief Inspector of Probation. Today he published the report of a recent joint inspection of the work of Doncaster Youth Offending Service.

This joint inspection of youth offending work in Doncaster is one of a small number of full joint inspections undertaken by HM Inspectorate of Probation with colleagues from the criminal justice, social care, education and health inspectorates. Inspectors focused on six key areas: reducing reoffending, protecting the public, protecting children and young people, ensuring the sentence is served, the effectiveness of governance and court work and reports.

Inspectors were concerned to find that:

• work to reduce reoffending was unsatisfactory. Education, training and employment work was a strength. Overall, however, planning was not good enough and interventions did not always follow on from either the assessment or the plan;
• work to protect the public and actual or potential victims was unsatisfactory. Some good public protection work was carried out by individual case managers but the assessment of the risk of harm posed to others and the plans to manage that risk were not always carried out well enough;
• work to protect children and reduce their vulnerability was unsatisfactory. There was little joint work with children’s social care services. Assessments of vulnerability lacked understanding of the potential consequences of identified factors;
• the effectiveness of governance and partnership arrangements was poor. The YOS Management Board had been ineffective and there was sporadic attendance by some agencies. There was no evidence of scrutiny, challenge or joint problem solving and little performance data, either requested or submitted; and
• the work in court and on report writing was unsatisfactory. The dedicated court team were knowledgeable and valued by the court. Information was available swiftly due to good IT links. Court work was process driven, however. Pre-sentence reports were largely too long and contained irrelevant information.

However, inspectors were pleased to find that:

• work to ensure that the sentence was served was satisfactory. Engagement with children and their parents was a strength during the assessment stage of the work. Compliance work was carried out efficiently but there as not always a sufficient exploration of the reasons for non-compliance.

Inspectors made recommendations to assist the YOS to make continuing improvements, including: commissioning data to evaluate and improve outcomes, using police intelligence routinely in relevant cases, ensuring management oversight and assurance are effective and improving custodial work
Paul Wilson said:

“There was some good work in Doncaster by individual case managers and other staff to reduce reoffending, protect the public and safeguard the child. Other aspects of the work were not carried out well enough, often enough. Assessment, planning and work to manage both the risk of harm to others and vulnerability needed to improve, as did interventions. Court work and pre-sentence reports needed to become more effective to ensure that the child received the most appropriate sentence.

“Many of these issues had already been recognised and work to address them had started. The YOS Management Board had been ineffective. This had been recognised by the new Chair and the YOS Manager who were both keen to improve the work of the Board.”

– ENDS –
NOTES TO EDITORS

1. The report is available at https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/ from 30 September 2015.
2. The inspection programme of youth offending work, based on a risk-proportionate approach, was agreed by ministers in December 2011. Under this programme, full joint inspections are targeted primarily on areas where there are significant concerns about the effectiveness of youth offending work, based primarily on the three national youth justice indicators, supplemented by other measures, such as recent inspections. Occasional inspections are undertaken in areas that report high performance, in order to maintain a benchmark for good practice. Inspectors chose to inspect Doncaster primarily because of issues with the quality of custodial data and high custody rates which were above national averages.
3. These inspections focus on issues not subject to other forms of external scrutiny: work to reduce offending and re-offending by young people; the management and minimisation of the risk of harm that a young person may pose to other people; safeguarding young people from harm (from their own actions and others); and work to ensure they serve their sentence.
4. There are four ratings which can be given: good, satisfactory, unsatisfactory and poor.
5. The inspections are led by HMI Probation, with participation by Ofsted, CQC and HMI Constabulary (and in Wales by the corresponding Welsh inspectorates, Healthcare Inspectorate Wales, Estyn and Care and Social Services Inspectorate Wales).
6. For further information, please contact Jane Parsons at HM Inspectorate of Probation press office on 020 3681 2775 or 07880 787452.