Performance - YOT Inspection 2008
The latest report from the fourth phase of inspections of Youth Offending
Teams (YOT) in England and Wales was published today (7/1/2008). A
multi-agency inspection team carried out Kirklees Youth Offending Team
inspection in May and June 2007.
Click here to download a PDF of the full report.
Summary of the Report
Andrew Bridges, HM Chief Inspector of Probation, said:
“The staff of the Kirklees YOT were enthusiastic and well led, there was evidence of good governance and a commitment to staff training and development. There was a well run Intensive Supervision & Surveillance Programme and a broad range of interventions to deal with children and young people who had offended. The resources deployed for dealing comprehensively with the health needs of children and young people were particularly noteworthy.
Despite these strengths there remained areas for improvement, most notably the need to reduce the use of custody at remand and sentence stage, the need to develop a more strategic approach to preventative work, and to ensure that parenting interventions were developed. In addition insufficient numbers of victims became involved in restorative justice processes and planning and work to manage Risk of Harm also required improvement. However, the YOT manager and his staff were held in high regard and were well placed to tackle these areas for improvement. ”
The report’s main findings are:
Work in the courts
Courts were very satisfied with the services they received from the YOT. A range of bail support and supervision services were provided, together with an Appropriate Adult service. However, the use of custody was high both at remand and sentence stage and some pre-sentence reports needed to be more analytical.
Work with children and young people in the community
The Youth Inclusion Programme was a valued resource although there was a need to ensure that there was a comprehensive strategy across the whole area aimed at children and young people at risk of offending. The assessment of children and young people who had offended was timely and of good quality and a broad range of interventions was available. Risk of Harm assessments were generally sufficient; however, work to then address and manage Risk of Harm to others needed further attention.
The provision for addressing the physical and mental health needs of children and young people was especially impressive. Work to encourage and support children and young people in statutory education was good, although there was less success with post-16 year olds and there were few examples of work with parents/carers to help them deal with their children’s anti-social behaviour and offending.
Work with children and young people subject to custodial sentences
YOT workers worked hard to support and engage children and young people and their parents/carers during the custodial phase of their orders. There were good levels of contact by YOT staff with children and young people serving custodial sentences. Initial assessments were of generally good quality, although Risk of Serious Harm assessments required improvement. Training plans sometimes lacked detail and were unclear about those elements that were to be delivered in custody and those delivered in the community.
Victims and restorative justice
Priority was given by case managers to the needs of victims of crime and in the most of the cases that were looked at by inspectors the victims who expressed a view were satisfied with the work of the YOT. More work was needed to ensure that victims became engaged in restorative processes, contributed to assessments and work with children and young people, or attended referral panels.
Management
The YOT was well led and was integrated with the wider local authority structures. The YOT Manager and staff were held in high regard and there were a number of good examples of multi-agency partnership working. The YOT had invested heavily in the development of its staff, through a comprehensive training programme and as a result staff were enthusiastic, committed to their work and competent to undertake their roles.
Click here to download a PDF of the full report.
Summary of the Report
Andrew Bridges, HM Chief Inspector of Probation, said:
“The staff of the Kirklees YOT were enthusiastic and well led, there was evidence of good governance and a commitment to staff training and development. There was a well run Intensive Supervision & Surveillance Programme and a broad range of interventions to deal with children and young people who had offended. The resources deployed for dealing comprehensively with the health needs of children and young people were particularly noteworthy.
Despite these strengths there remained areas for improvement, most notably the need to reduce the use of custody at remand and sentence stage, the need to develop a more strategic approach to preventative work, and to ensure that parenting interventions were developed. In addition insufficient numbers of victims became involved in restorative justice processes and planning and work to manage Risk of Harm also required improvement. However, the YOT manager and his staff were held in high regard and were well placed to tackle these areas for improvement. ”
The report’s main findings are:
Work in the courts
Courts were very satisfied with the services they received from the YOT. A range of bail support and supervision services were provided, together with an Appropriate Adult service. However, the use of custody was high both at remand and sentence stage and some pre-sentence reports needed to be more analytical.
Work with children and young people in the community
The Youth Inclusion Programme was a valued resource although there was a need to ensure that there was a comprehensive strategy across the whole area aimed at children and young people at risk of offending. The assessment of children and young people who had offended was timely and of good quality and a broad range of interventions was available. Risk of Harm assessments were generally sufficient; however, work to then address and manage Risk of Harm to others needed further attention.
The provision for addressing the physical and mental health needs of children and young people was especially impressive. Work to encourage and support children and young people in statutory education was good, although there was less success with post-16 year olds and there were few examples of work with parents/carers to help them deal with their children’s anti-social behaviour and offending.
Work with children and young people subject to custodial sentences
YOT workers worked hard to support and engage children and young people and their parents/carers during the custodial phase of their orders. There were good levels of contact by YOT staff with children and young people serving custodial sentences. Initial assessments were of generally good quality, although Risk of Serious Harm assessments required improvement. Training plans sometimes lacked detail and were unclear about those elements that were to be delivered in custody and those delivered in the community.
Victims and restorative justice
Priority was given by case managers to the needs of victims of crime and in the most of the cases that were looked at by inspectors the victims who expressed a view were satisfied with the work of the YOT. More work was needed to ensure that victims became engaged in restorative processes, contributed to assessments and work with children and young people, or attended referral panels.
Management
The YOT was well led and was integrated with the wider local authority structures. The YOT Manager and staff were held in high regard and there were a number of good examples of multi-agency partnership working. The YOT had invested heavily in the development of its staff, through a comprehensive training programme and as a result staff were enthusiastic, committed to their work and competent to undertake their roles.
