1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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)

6. 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