Inspecting to provide assurance and promote improvement Looked After Children An inspection of the work of YOTs with C&YP who are looked after and placed away from home Julie Fox HMI Probation Publication: December 2012

Inspecting to provide assurance and promote improvement Inspection methodology: 60 cases across six YOTs, for each YOT, five of which they were supervising on behalf of other local authorities and five of their own cases being supervised by other YOTs 42/60 were boys, majority (67%) between 15 and 17 living in either children’s homes or independently most were white British (78%) read records, interviewed case managers, social workers and other staff directly involved with the young person and spoke to the children and young people

Inspecting to provide assurance and promote improvement Initial criminal justice outcomes n=60 31 had been recorded as offending within the care environment 27 re-offended during the period of YOT supervision 10 had harmed other residents 34 had not complied with the sentence restorative justice had been attempted with only four 11 had been victims themselves

Inspecting to provide assurance and promote improvement Safeguarding outcomes We considered two thirds had not been effectively safeguarded – need to be protected AND work to help them stop offending 11 had been victims of crime whilst under YOT supervision Less than half had their emotional or mental health needs met Over three-quarters had more than one placement during the YOT supervision Two-thirds were placed > 50 miles away from home Over one-third > 100 miles from home, without clear explanation why

Inspecting to provide assurance and promote improvement Strengths Examples of good joint work between YOTs e.g. Leeds and Halton & Warrington Fostering good relationships with placement providers to improve RJ and compliance with court orders YP overwhelmingly positive about their YOT workers YOTS worked actively with parent/carer to maintain contact (55% cases)

Inspecting to provide assurance and promote improvement Areas for improvement Agencies working in isolation and on own agency requirements Few joint assessments or long term plans by children social care services, preparation and support inadequate, low aspirations Delays in home YOTs providing good quality, timely, up to date information to host YOTs Little understanding of the impact of the child’s life experience within the YOT assessment process e.g. being in care YP rarely diverted from CJS through RJ Other agencies rarely understood the role of the YOT YOT views not prominent – work on being more assertive and robust about issues e.g. risk of harm, especially in multi-agency settings. NB avoid jargon, confirm terminology