Inspectorate report critical of child protection procedures

Probation staff and youth offending teams needed to tighten up their child protection procedures and join up better with other agencies, said Paul McDowell, Chief Inspector of Probation.

His comments come as he published a new report on child protection work, both with young people at risk from adult offenders and young people whose own behaviour put them at risk.

The report, An Inspection of the work of Probation Trusts and Youth Offending Teams to protect children and young people was undertaken by HM Inspectorate of Probation in response to findings from mainstream inspections of youth offending and probation work which suggested that child protection work was not being consistently delivered well enough. The inspection focused on work to identify children at risk and to take action where necessary.

Overall, staff took their responsibilities seriously and inspectors found a number of examples of good practice where their contribution had been thorough and effective. However, for many, work to protect children and young people was not viewed as a core task.

Inspectors were pleased to find that:

• youth offending teams (YOTs) were well connected to children’s social care services and enquiries and referrals were made and information shared;
• YOTs carried out some excellent direct work with children and their parents/carers and some good partnership work; and
• there was some good work by individual probation staff.

However, inspectors were concerned to find that:

• probation systems to manage the identification and referral of children who were at risk were not robust enough to ensure confidence that all steps had been taken to protect children in every case;
• not all probation staff fully understood the purpose of the work or their role in it, particularly where children had witnessed domestic violence;
• there were shortcomings in management oversight for both probation trusts and YOTs;
• YOTs and probation trusts undertook little joint planning with other agencies;
• the roles of YOT staff and probation staff were not always understood by children’s social care staff and the expertise of probation staff was not always recognised;
• assessment and planning by YOT staff was not consistently of sufficient quality, parents and carers were not always involved and home visits not always undertaken;
• work by YOTs to combat child sexual exploitation was being developed in partnership and was at different stages; and
• the impact of Probation Trusts on the work of Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCB) was not always obvious, and the contribution of YOTs to the work of LSCBs varied.

In order to drive improvements, inspectors made recommendations intended to make the outcome of effective child protection more likely in every case. These included ensuring all staff understand their contribution to protecting children and ensuring staff work together with relevant agencies to assess, plan and intervene to protect children.

Paul McDowell said:“Child protection is not the sole responsibility of any one organisation, and the success of this important work is dependant on joint working arrangements between agencies. But our Inspection found that too often work took place in isolated organisational ‘silos’. We found that often where there was a need for joint working, for example in exchanging information and making assessments, this had not happened. If child protection arrangements are to work effectively, senior managers in probation services and youth offending services need to engage at a strategic level with other agencies.

“We publish this report before the planned introduction of integrated inspections of services for children in need of help and protection. We will be a partner in these inspections and will also continue to focus on the protection of children as part of our inspections.”

A copy of this report can be found on HM Inspectorate of Probation’s website:  http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation