Abstract
This inspection examined the quality of assessment, planning, interventions and outcomes for those supervised within the community. The inspection team visited six Youth Offending Teams (YOT) and examined 24 cases in depth.
The average time between the disclosure and sentencing was eight months. Little consideration was given to why the offence had been committed, especially when the offence was denied, therefore neither risk of harm nor safeguarding needs were sufficiently assessed or managed.
Several young people were previously known to the authorities, sometimes repeatedly, for sexually harmful behaviour or other concerns, but little work had been undertaken about this behaviour: opportunities for early intervention had been missed. Some workers were reluctant to share information with education establishments. Schools were rarely included in multi-agency strategy meetings. Health services’ input varied considerably. When health staff had specialist knowledge or training regarding adolescent sexually harmful behaviour, responses were better.
Holistic, multi-agency assessments were very few, and frequently not shared. Health assessments were inconsistent and rarely shared with other professionals. Few specialist assessments were undertaken prior to sentence. There was a lack of robust quality assurance of assessments. Where children and young people were managed formally via child protection, MAPPA or Looked After Child procedures, there was better evidence of joint planning, communication and integration of plans. Children and young people and their parents/carers had been involved in assessments and understood the roles of the various workers.
Good holistic multi-agency interventions were rare. Necessary offending behaviour work was often not delivered. Interventions were not always informed by assessments. Initial denial of sexual offending was a major barrier to providing effective interventions. ‘The Good Lives Model’, focusing on strengths, goals and aspirations, had sometimes been used effectively. Where health and education had contributed effectively to assessments, some excellent interventions were delivered. Little action was taken to address complex family situations that sometimes linked directly to sexually harmful offending.
Management oversight and supervision of the quality and appropriateness of interventions was varied and insufficient. YOT staff appeared confused about the role of MAPPA and its thresholds.
However, outcomes appeared to be good. Clients benefited from workers’ child-focused practice. Most complied with their order and engaged well. Only one child or young person had been convicted of a further sexual offence. Many had attained qualifications, improved relationships with parents/carers, sustained independent accommodation, learned strategies to manage anxiety and depression as well as developing conflict resolution skills. However, effective risk management had not taken place in the majority of cases. Some excellent services were provided to victims, but many were not offered a service or only provided with help after conviction. Victims’ safety was not always given sufficient attention.
There was no evidence that implementation had been monitored or reviewed at a strategic level. The inspection team concluded a more robust response from the Youth Justice Board, MAPPA, Local Safeguarding Children Boards and YOT Management Boards is required, including:
improved information-sharing, assessments, and interventions by all involved agencies;
dissemination and commissioning of research to inform YOT practitioners;
provision of appropriate risk assessment tools;
MAPPA Chairs and coordinators to seek specialist advice about the potential risk of harm factors of this client group;
Local Safeguarding Children Boards and YOT Management Boards monitoring the effectiveness of the multi-agency response including liaising with MAPPA;
services to victims should be offered at the earliest possible stage;
health assessments, including cognitive assessments, should be completed consistently to inform effective interventions;
police services should support routine information sharing, risk assessment and management.
Examining Multi-Agency Responses to Children and Young People who Sexually Offend: A Joint Inspection of the Effectiveness of Multi-Agency Work with Children and Young People in England and Wales who have Committed Sexual Offences and were Supervised in the Community, A Joint Inspection by HMI Probation, Care and Social Services Inspectorate Wales, Care Quality Commission, Estyn, Healthcare Inspectorate Wales, HMI Constabulary, HMI Prisons and Ofsted (2013) is available on-line at http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmiprobation/joint-thematic/children-yp-who-sexually-offend-report.pdf