Guidance

Joint targeted area inspections of the multi-agency response to serious youth violence

Updated 22 September 2023

Applies to England

1. This guidance is for inspectors carrying out a joint targeted area inspection (JTAI) of the multi-agency response to children affected by serious youth violence in a local authority area in England.

2. These JTAIs are carried out by inspectors from:

• Ofsted

• Care Quality Commission (CQC)

• His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS)

• His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP)

3. We carry out JTAIs under section 20 of the Children Act 2004.

4. For guidance on JTAIs on other topics, see the joint inspections of local area services collection.

Introduction

5. Serious youth violence is a major social concern that has dramatic effects on the lives of children and families. It can be devastating for those directly involved and has much wider significance and impact across communities. Evidence from research by the Youth Endowment Fund shows that across the UK it is reducing children’s sense of safety and well-being.

6. The causes of serious youth violence across different aspects of children’s lives and society are complex. To address the underlying causes, we need a well-coordinated cross-government approach, with clear policy directives that are implemented across all relevant partners at a local level. These JTAIs are therefore well placed to evaluate the effectiveness of local multi-agency responses to serious youth violence. The JTAIs aim to identify aspects of effective multi-agency responses that are making a real difference to the safety and well-being of children and aspects of multi-agency work that need to improve.

Scope of the inspection

7. The agencies within the scope of this inspection are the police, children’s social care, education, youth offending services and relevant health services.

8. For the purpose of this JTAI theme, when referring to serious youth violence we will include specific types of crime committed by and affecting children outside of the home. We will use the scope outlined in the government’s Serious Violence Strategy, which includes homicide and knife and gun crime, as well as emerging threats, such as the use of corrosive substances as weapons. We will also include intervention in localities in areas where violent crime is prevalent, for example in relation to county lines and drug-dealing activity.^{[footnote 1]} We will focus on children aged 10 and over in the scope of this methodology.

9. Our focus at a strategic level is on multi-agency partnerships’ responses to serious youth violence. We know that strategic arrangements may look different in different areas. Inspectors will evaluate how effectively the local partnership strategic arrangements are working to address and prevent serious youth violence. This will include looking at the role of the community safety partnership (CSP), the violence reduction unit (VRU), where relevant, and the multi-agency safeguarding arrangements (MASA).

10. The interrelated nature of criminal exploitation and serious youth violence is well understood. For the purpose of the JTAIs, we will also consider criminal exploitation when sampling and tracking children’s experiences and when reviewing interventions in places and spaces.^{[footnote 2]} We will consider the impact of strategic responses to criminal exploitation on frontline practice, where this is apparent through individual children’s cases.

11. All children who commit violence require a safeguarding response. However, partner agencies also need to work together to protect both the child and the wider community from further violence. In some situations, this means combining a safeguarding response and a law enforcement and criminal justice response. The JTAIs will explore that multi-agency response. They will consider how the police, youth offending services, health and children’s social care respond to all children affected by serious youth violence, including those who harm others through violence. They will also consider how multi-agency partners work to avoid children being unnecessarily criminalised.

12. The JTAIs will focus on recent practice: within the last 6 months. They will evaluate how well current practice takes account of relevant history in children’s cases.

Language and terminology in this guidance

13. We refer to ‘children affected by serious youth violence’. We use this to cover: children who are victims of violence, children who cause harm to others through violence, and children who are both victims and perpetrators of violence.

14. We recognise the challenges of using the term ‘perpetrator’ when referring to children. It is important to understand the context of children’s behaviours, including any experience of abuse and extra-familial harm that may contribute to their violent behaviour. We also recognise the importance of, where possible, avoiding criminalising children who are highly vulnerable and/or who have committed violence within the context of exploitation and threats of harm. We only use the term ‘perpetrator’, therefore, where it is required for clarity.

15. When considering serious youth violence at an individual or group-based level, there is often an association made with gangs and ‘gang membership’. There is then potential here for misunderstanding and misrepresentation of particular groups and cohorts of children. There is evidence that gang affiliation can be a driver of violence and a risk factor for children being involved in criminality, but there is also evidence that this can be overstated.^{[footnote 3]} Therefore, when our inspectors are gathering evidence and writing reports, they will be careful about linking gang membership with serious youth violence.

Background and current context of serious youth violence

The extent of serious youth violence

16. Recent data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) shows that there were 282 killings involving knives in the 12 months to March 2022. This is an increase of nearly 20% on the previous year. The same data shows that 51 of those killed by knives were 13 to 19 years of age and that the number of boy victims aged 16 and 17 more than doubled in a year, from 10 to 24. Therefore, the number of deaths by knives is increasing, especially for under 18s.

The impact of serious youth violence on children

17. Although the number of children directly affected by serious youth violence is relatively small, every death or injury is a tragedy and has far-reaching implications for family, friends, peers and communities. The consequences for children who are victims include death, life-changing injuries, poor mental health (including trauma) and, for some, long-term issues, including drug and alcohol misuse. (See Injury by knife crime amongst children is associated with socioeconomic deprivation: an observational study).

18. Evidence from a range of sources including a recently commissioned, nationally representative survey of 2,025 children by the Youth Endowment Fund (Children, violence and vulnerability 2022) has shown that the impact reaches well beyond those directly involved.

19. The survey found that 14% of teenagers had been a victim of violence, and 39% had been a victim or witness of violence in the last 12 months. Fifty-five per cent had seen real-life acts of violence on social media in the last 12 months, and 24% had seen children carrying, promoting or using weapons. Of those who had seen acts of violence on social media, some spoke of the fear they felt when subsequently seeing the perpetrator of the violence on the street in their locality.

20. Sixty-five per cent of children reported that they had changed their behaviour to keep themselves safe from violence in the previous 12 months. Fourteen per cent had been absent from school because of fear, a further 14% said they had lost concentration because of worry about violence, 16% had avoided a social event because of fear and 2% said their fear had led to them carrying a weapon.

Factors that influence serious youth violence

21. The causes of serious youth violence are complex and multi-faceted. It is important not to lose sight of the causes at a societal level, such as inequality, poverty and structural racism, which can make some children more vulnerable to being affected by serious youth violence. This is not to diminish tragic individual acts of violence or to suggest that those who commit violent acts should never be held responsible. Nor does this approach suggest that violence only occurs in certain sections of society. If we are to address the root causes of serious youth violence, we need to better understand how individual, community and societal factors interplay to affect children as they grow and develop.

22. The World Health Organisation identified 4 levels of interrelated factors that can increase the likelihood of someone being involved in violence, as a victim or perpetrator:

• individual

• relational

• community

• societal

23. At an individual level, we know that childhood experiences of harm and abuse can affect children’s development. For some children, they also increase the risk of being vulnerable to further abuse or exploitation and the potential to be a victim of violence or cause violence to others. Chronic stress in childhood (for example, as a result of neglect, abuse, parental mental ill health or substance misuse) can, without the intervention of supportive adults, affect important aspects of development. This includes the ability to self-regulate, build effective relationships, have good mental health and recognise risk. Children may therefore be more likely to react impulsively to perceived threats.

24. All these factors may result in children being more vulnerable to being a victim and/or to exhibiting violence towards others, including their peers. However, the causal pathways to violence or to being a victim are complex. They involve many other factors, and not all children who are victims of, or who cause violence, have a background of abuse and neglect.

25. Relationships are hugely significant for older children. Having trusted adults and healthy attachments in their lives is just as important as it is for younger children. Children’s psychological safety, as well as their physical safety, is important for professionals to consider when making decisions about children at risk of/subject to serious youth violence.

26. In terms of communities, we are further forward in our understanding of extra-familial harm and the role that communities can play in presenting risks to children or in keeping them safe. Engaging and working with communities is an essential part of any response to serious youth violence. Equally important is a better understanding of the way that communities can support and protect their young people.

27. At a societal level, it is important to understand inequalities that may affect children’s vulnerability to serious youth violence. The Youth Endowment Fund data suggests that some groups of children are disproportionately at risk of serious youth violence. These include: children from Black, Asian and ethnic minority groups, children with special educational needs and/or disabilities, looked after children and children who are eligible for free school meals. Some of these issues are likely to be linked to issues of poverty. For example, a 5-year research study of children presenting at UK major trauma centres found that the 139 children who were victims of knife crime during that period were more likely to come from areas of socio-economic deprivation than from the rest of England. Socio-economic status was measured in terms of income, education, and health and well-being.

28. The representation of different groups of children as victims and as those who cause violence needs to be better understood. For example, the Commission on Young Lives report ‘Hidden in plain sight’ found that ‘young women and girls who are affected by violence and gang-related activity often go unseen’. In addition, according to the Youth Justice Board statistics: 2021 to 2022, boys are significantly over-represented in the criminal justice system. Of all crimes in the year ending March 2022, 86% were committed by boys.

29. For some children, there are clearly issues of disproportionality in the criminal justice system. Census data shows that Black children (those of Black/African/Caribbean/Black British identity) account for approximately 6% of the 10- to 17-year-old population in England and Wales. Youth Justice Board statistics show that Black children were involved in 16% of stop and search episodes (where ethnicity was known). Of all children entering the criminal justice system in 2021–22, 16% were Black. Of those in youth custody, this figure was 28%. It is important to understand what approaches and strategies can challenge and reduce this disproportionality.

30. It is important that those developing local responses to serious youth violence are aware of these wider issues, as well as the local context for serious youth violence. The JTAIs can highlight themes that are relevant at a societal and governmental level and that will also support multi-agency partners in their local responses.

The policy context: Serious Violence Strategy and Serious Violence Duty

31. In 2018, the government published its ‘Serious Violence Strategy’. This aimed to bring together a range of initiatives and to support new proposals to tackle serious violence. While making clear that law enforcement is an important aspect of addressing serious violence, the government emphasises in both the strategy and subsequent ‘Serious Violence Duty’ that partnership work and good engagement and involvement with communities are essential. These include work across education, health, children’s social care, housing, and youth and victim services.

32. The interrelated nature of criminal exploitation and serious youth violence is well understood and addressed in the strategy. The violence, serious injury and potential loss of life associated with county lines disproportionately affect children who are transporting and holding the drugs for those at the top of the supply chain, who use those children to minimise risk of harm or prosecution to themselves. The government is clear that the county lines model of exploitation is partly ‘fuelling’ serious violence.

33. The government has invested in a range of measures, including enforcement activity and early intervention, to reduce the risk of children being groomed into county lines activity and serious violence. This includes developing VRUs, establishing the Youth Endowment Fund, funding dedicated task forces to tackle and pursue those running county lines, making funding available to support victims in emergency departments, and developing early intervention programmes in schools.

34. The Serious Violence Duty extends the scope and definition of serious violence to include domestic abuse, sexual offences, violence against property and threats of violence. It does not include terrorism. The duty came into effect in April 2023.

35. The duty spells out what authorities and partners are expected to do to prevent and reduce serious violence in their areas. The duty is based on a public health approach, which requires cooperation and collaboration, including data sharing, across a range of partners. A public health approach to tackling violence means looking at violence not as isolated incidents or solely as a police enforcement problem. It is about taking a multi-agency approach to understanding the causes and consequences of serious violence and focusing together on prevention and early intervention.

36. Throughout all these initiatives, at practice and policy levels, effective partnership work is recognised as essential. This JTAI theme will examine how different local areas approach preventing and reducing serious youth violence from a strategic perspective. This will cover interventions with children and those who perpetrate violence, and interventions in places and spaces to improve safety for children and communities.

Focus of the JTAIs

37. In order to understand the multi-agency response to serious youth violence, the JTAIs will focus on the following:

Strategic partnership responses to serious youth violence

This will include how partnerships:

• collate and share information and intelligence to understand risk and the implications of serious youth violence within the local community/ies

• use this information and engage with communities to inform their decision-making in relation to interventions and commissioning services

• engage meaningfully with children, parents and carers to understand their needs and views

• develop and implement approaches to prevention, including the role of education providers and multi-agency interventions in places and spaces to address risk and improve safety for children

• support the workforce, so they have the skills, the knowledge and the right working conditions to help and protect children

• evaluate and oversee their responses to serious youth violence

Intervention with individual and groups of children affected by serious youth violence and criminal exploitation

This will include how partners:

• respond to all forms of serious youth violence and child criminal exploitation at the point of identification

• assess, plan and make decisions in response to notifications and referrals of children at risk of/subject to serious youth violence and/or criminal exploitation

• protect, support and care for children who are at risk or have been harmed by serious youth violence and/or criminal exploitation, including looked after children

Intervention in places and spaces

This is an exploratory approach that we are taking as inspectorates to better understand how partners are making decisions about intervening in places and spaces to reduce serious youth violence and improve safety, and how they are evaluating the impact of those interventions. Interventions can happen in places and spaces where individual or groups of children are at risk of, or subject to, serious youth violence and/or criminal exploitation.

Inspectors will consider:

• what information and intelligence partners are using to inform their decisions about interventions in places and spaces

• whether this is a partnership approach, what methodology/approach they use and what the aim of the intervention(s) is

• how partners consult and engage children and communities in relation to this work

• how partners are making sure that children and places and spaces are safer

• what the outcome is and how partners evaluate their interventions

Evaluation criteria

38. Inspectors will evaluate evidence about the experiences and progress of children against the criteria set out below. The evaluation criteria (EC) numbers are a referencing system that inspectors use when recording their evidence.

EC number	Criteria
EC1	Agencies work together to identify children who are at risk of, or affected by, serious youth violence, including children who are exploited. They intervene to reduce risk and provide support for children; they monitor effectively the impact of interventions so that risk is reduced.
EC2	Children who are affected by serious youth violence or are exploited experience a child-centred approach from all professionals. Practice is based on a good understanding of children’s experiences, their background and identity, including any barriers to them accessing help and support, and their needs and strengths.
EC3	Professionals understand the importance of building trusting relationships with children. Professionals work together to ensure a strengths-based approach to engaging with children and their families. Partners have a shared understanding of the risks and needs of the child, and relationships are built on trust and respectful communication.
EC4	Assessments show that the experiences, strengths and needs of children are well understood. Their views are clearly recorded and central to a multi-agency response. Assessments are timely, include contributions from all relevant agencies and consider extra-familial harm, including risks online. They consider strengths and risks within the family and address risk to, and the protective capacity of, other children, including siblings and peers.
EC5	Assessments and plans are dynamic and adapt to changing risks and needs.
EC6	Children are protected through effective multi-agency arrangements. Key participants attend multi-agency meetings. These meetings are effective forums for timely information-sharing, planning, decision-making and monitoring. Actions happen within agreed timescales, and they help. Protection provided reduces risk and meets need.
EC7	Children and their families can access a range of effective services that are well coordinated, including therapeutic help. Where children are both victims and harming others, multi-agency responses address all their needs and reduce risks.
EC8	Professionals and support staff across agencies are well trained and supported, including receiving support with the emotional impact of working with children and families. They are confident and knowledgeable and understand the impact of serious youth violence on children’s health and well-being. They are aware of the importance of avoiding victim-blaming language and approaches as well as personal and institutional bias. This enables them to identify effectively how to help and protect children and to take action to do so.
EC9	Health practitioners, including those in ambulance services, show professional curiosity when children present with injuries that may indicate they are victims of, or at risk of, serious youth violence. They respond to their immediate needs, share information appropriately to reduce risk, and make sure that children are supported to access services to help them to stay safe and to meet their needs.
EC10	Agencies avoid unnecessarily criminalising children. Partners understand the experiences that can contribute to children being violent and/or exploiting other children. They reduce risks through appropriate support for all children involved.
EC11	Cases of serious youth violence and exploitation are investigated effectively. The safeguarding needs of all children are addressed.
EC12	Children and their families are listened to. Multi-agency practice focuses on their needs and experiences and is influenced by their wishes and feelings.
EC13	Schools/education providers have effective systems to identify children at risk of, or subject to, serious youth violence and/or exploitation and children who are missing from school. They make timely referrals to access appropriate support, including to early help or children’s social care. Schools and partner agencies share information appropriately and work effectively together to make sure that children get the support they need.
EC14	Schools/education providers are supported by local safeguarding partners to contribute effectively to multi-agency working, including joint work to ensure that children are protected from harm. They work to raise awareness and understanding of the risks of serious youth violence and exploitation. Partners work together to support children to remain in education.
EC15	Taking a multi-agency approach, leaders and managers across agencies understand the causes and consequences of serious youth violence, including factors that make children more vulnerable. They target resources on prevention and early intervention, using evidence-based approaches. This includes work with the community, businesses, education providers and parents and children.
EC16	Leaders and managers across agencies share and analyse information effectively so that partners know and understand: the prevalence of serious youth violence in their area; the localities where children may be at risk; the demographics of perpetrators and victims (including issues of disproportionality such as ethnicity, disability or gender); and the experiences of children. This leads to effective multi-agency strategy, planning and action, including commissioning services to meet local need.
EC17	Leaders and managers share information and intelligence to inform decisions about partners’ interventions in places and spaces. Relevant partners are involved and understand the aim of the intervention and the intended outcomes. Interventions mean that children and places and spaces are safer. Partners evaluate interventions and use that learning to continually improve.
EC18	Partners engage with communities, children, parents and carers to understand their needs in relation to and views about serious youth violence and to inform their decision-making about interventions and commissioning services.
EC19	Leaders and managers engage in critical reflection, and challenge and support practice. They promote continuous improvement in services for children at risk of serious youth violence.
EC20	Leaders in the local partnership, through the MASA, actively and effectively monitor and evaluate the work of the statutory partners. The local partnership works closely with other strategic partnerships and local organisations to make sure that children and their families get the help and support they need.
EC21	The local partnership promotes multi-agency learning about identifying, assessing and responding to serious youth violence. The partnership informs and improves practice, planning and the design of services, using feedback from children and families, as well as research and intelligence about effective multi-agency practice.

The inspection team

39. The inspection team will usually consist of:

• 3 social care inspectors from Ofsted; one will be the lead inspector

• 1 schools inspector from Ofsted

• 3 inspectors from HMICFRS

• 3 inspectors from CQC

• 2 inspectors from HMIP

40. A Senior His Majesty’s Inspector (SHMI) from Ofsted will be the quality assurance manager.

41. CQC, HMICFRS and HMIP may appoint extra quality assurance managers to the team if there are specific circumstances that require additional oversight.

Overview of the inspection

42. The JTAI will follow the structure set out below. The lead inspector will provide a detailed timeline when they notify the leaders in the local area of the inspection.

Activities in week 1

• Inspectors notify the local leaders of the inspection 10 working days before the fieldwork begins. This will usually be on a Monday but may take place earlier if there is a bank holiday in week 1 or 2 of the inspection.

• Inspectors request information to support the inspection. (This information is set out in Annex A of this guidance).

• Inspectors and local leaders hold a set-up discussion. (Inspectors are off site.)

• Inspectors and strategic leaders hold a meeting where local partners outline their strategic arrangements for multi-agency responses to serious youth violence.

• Local agencies share information to support the inspection.

• Inspectors select some children and ask the local agencies to evaluate those children’s experiences through an audit.

• Inspectors carry out planning and pre-inspection analysis.

Activities in week 2

• The local area evaluates children’s experiences and provides audits to the inspection team.

• Local agencies share information to support the inspection.

• Inspectors carry out pre-inspection analysis and review the information set out in Annex A.

• Inspectors work with the local agencies to agree a fieldwork timetable.

• Inspectors may meet virtually with local leaders to discuss arrangements for the inspection and to learn more about the local context.

Activities in week 3

• Fieldwork: inspectors gather evidence.

• Inspection findings are fed back to the local partnership.

Pre-inspection activity

43. The inspectorates will share with each other an analysis of relevant information that they hold about the local area.

44. An inspector from each of the inspectorates will review the information. They will meet to discuss arrangements for the inspection before they notify the local partners of the JTAI.

Week 1: notification, set up and information request

Notification

45. On day 1 (10 working days before the fieldwork), inspectors will contact the relevant leaders in the local area to notify them of the inspection.

• Ofsted will notify the director of children’s services (DCS).

• CQC will notify the integrated care board (ICB) chief executive, executive lead for safeguarding children and the chief nursing officer.

• HMICFRS will notify the chief constable and the force liaison officer.

• HMIP will notify the youth offending service manager.

46. The Ofsted lead inspector will ask the DCS to notify the person with responsibility for independent scrutiny of the local MASA.

47. Inspectors will ask local leaders to arrange for the information set out in Annex A to be shared with them. Inspectors will provide a timeline for this to happen.

Set-up discussion

48. Inspectors will arrange a multi-agency set-up discussion with local leaders and the person responsible for independent scrutiny of the local safeguarding arrangements. This is an opportunity for inspectors to explain the scope and methodology of the inspection and the practical arrangements for ensuring that it can be carried out smoothly. Local agencies can use this opportunity to ask questions about the inspection.

49. Inspectors will ask the local area to identify a link person to help arrange the inspection. The link person should have access to the senior leaders in the agencies and the authority to respond to the lead inspector’s requests.

50. Inspectors will ask whether there are any safeguarding incidents that they should be made aware of. These include significant and current investigations, publication of rapid reviews or child safeguarding practice reviews, or local issues of high media interest.

Strategic partnership meeting

51. Inspectors will arrange to meet briefly with strategic partners for them to explain the local arrangements for addressing serious youth violence. Local strategic arrangements will vary, depending on, for example, whether there is a VRU. This is an opportunity for partners to set out clearly the local arrangements for responding to serious youth violence, so that they can support inspectors to prepare for inspection, including reading relevant documents in week 2.

52. At this meeting, the lead inspectors will discuss with local partners the arrangements for reviewing 2 interventions in places and spaces.

Information request (Annex A)

53. Annex A sets out the information that inspectors will request and the timeline for the local agencies to share it. The information includes:

• child-level data, which inspectors will use to select the children whose experiences they will evaluate. (Inspectors will ask the local agencies to audit the experiences of some of these children)

• case records of the children whose experiences the local agencies have audited

• performance and management information that sets out how the local partnership works together

54. In exceptional circumstance, inspectors may ask for additional information not set out in Annex A and may agree to look at additional information provided by the local partnership. The inspector/local agency must demonstrate that the additional information is:

• necessary for an accurate understanding of children’s experiences and the effectiveness of the local partnership in relation to the scope of the inspection

• not already available through the request in Annex A

Selecting cases to audit

55. By the end of week 1, inspectors will select between 5 and 7 children and ask the local agencies to audit these children’s experiences. Inspectors will use the child-level data set out in Annex A to select these children.

56. Inspectors will ask for some of the child-level data lists from Ofsted’s inspections of local authority children’s services (ILACS). We will ask the local authority to include some additional information in these lists. (See Annex A for more information.)

Week 2: children’s case audits, off-site analysis and creating a fieldwork timetable

Children’s case audits

57. Starting in week 2, the local agencies should provide a multi-agency audit of the experiences of the children who the lead inspector selected at the end of week 1. Inspectors will also ask the agencies to share these children’s case records. They will ask the agencies to share the records electronically in week 2, if possible.

58. The local partnership should use its own methods to evaluate the children’s experiences, while taking the scope of the inspection into account. Inspectors will ask the local partners to submit multi-agency audits for each child. The multi-agency audits should involve all agencies, including health agencies that know of the child, as well as any education provider. If the local partnership has carried out a single- and/or multi-agency audit of any of these children’s experiences in the 3 months before the inspection, it may submit this as its evaluation for the inspection.

59. Inspectors will evaluate these cases and the local agencies’ audits. They will ask to meet with the practitioners involved in these children’s cases during the fieldwork week. At least 3 of these meetings will be multi-agency discussions. We refer to these activities collectively as case tracking.

Off-site analysis

60. In week 2, the local agencies should share the performance and management information set out in Annex A. Inspectors will refine their analysis based on the information that the local agencies share. Inspectors will also review audits of children’s cases carried out by the local agencies.

Off-site meetings with local agencies in week 2

61. Inspectors may meet remotely again with strategic leaders or representatives of relevant sub-groups in week 2, for partners to set out in more detail their strategic and operational response to serious youth violence.

62. More information on who inspectors may speak to is set out in the ‘Interviews with practitioners, managers and leaders’ and ‘Meeting with representatives of the CSP and/or VRU (where relevant), MASA, independent scrutineer and sub-groups’ sections.

Creating the fieldwork timetable

63. The Ofsted lead inspector will coordinate the creation of a fieldwork timetable. They will ask the lead inspectors from CQC, HMICFRS and HMIP to liaise with their respective agencies to help create it. This will include arrangements for meeting with practitioners, managers and leaders to discuss their work. Inspectors will also arrange keep-in-touch (KIT) and feedback meetings to share inspectors’ findings.

64. Inspectors may also ask local agencies to arrange opportunities to meet with children and their families to discuss their experiences.

65. When creating the timetable, the Ofsted lead inspector will:

• consider which activities should be carried out in person and which by phone or video call

• include enough time for inspectors to travel between appointments

• include time for inspectors to review and analyse their evidence, individually and together

• ensure that the timetable is flexible enough to be changed in response to emerging findings

• agree arrangements for the local area to provide any additional support to enable communication with children, young people, and parents and carers, when this is required (for example, by a social worker, advocate or family member)

• work with the link person in the local area to make sure that local leaders and practitioners are aware of the timetable and any changes to it

66. Inspectors will meet at the end of week 2 to discuss the plan for the inspection and any matters arising from their off-site analysis.

Week 3: inspection team meetings

67. Inspectors will meet when they arrive on site to review the arrangements for fieldwork.

68. Inspectors will meet regularly during fieldwork to discuss their findings. They may meet as a whole team or in smaller groups to consider findings from a particular part of the inspection scope. At these meetings, inspectors will:

• compare evidence from different inspectors and different parts of the inspection

• consider the impact of leaders, managers and the CSP and MASA on practice with children and families

• agree when the team has gathered enough evidence

• agree how best to gather further evidence in the time remaining

• ensure that the lead inspector has the information they need to coordinate the inspection effectively and keep the local agencies informed

69. Inspectors will meet at the end of fieldwork to review all the evidence they have gathered and agree provisional findings. Inspectors will review the evidence against the evaluation criteria and use their professional judgement to determine the weight and significance of their findings. They will identify any strengths, areas for improvement and areas for priority action.

Week 3: meetings with senior leaders

Initial on-site meeting with senior leaders

70. The lead inspector and a representative from each inspectorate will meet with senior leaders from the local agencies on the first day of fieldwork. At this meeting, attendees will review the matters discussed at the set-up discussion, and inspectors will answer any questions the local leaders have.

71. This is also an opportunity for the local agencies to set out in more detail their local context. This can include any key strengths or challenges the partnership faces and known issues of concern or public interest relating to the scope of the JTAI.

Keep-in-touch meetings

72. Inspectors will offer local senior leaders an opportunity to attend KIT meetings. KIT meetings are opportunities for senior leaders to hear emerging findings from the inspection. Leaders can use these meetings to ask questions about the findings and to help the lead inspector identify where further evidence is needed.

73. KIT meetings take place on the Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of the fieldwork week. They focus on the main findings arising from fieldwork. Inspectors may raise concerns about the help, protection or care of specific children for discussion at the meetings. They may ask the relevant local agencies to respond to these concerns in writing.

74. The lead inspector will chair these meetings. A representative from each inspectorate will usually attend. The lead inspector will ask the relevant local agencies to identify an appropriate senior leader from each agency to attend. Any additional attendees should be discussed with the lead inspector in advance.

75. Attendance at KIT meetings can be in person or by phone or video call. A local agency’s attendance at, or absence from, the meetings will not affect the inspection findings.

The feedback meeting

76. At the end of fieldwork, the lead inspector will invite all senior agency leaders and the person responsible for independent scrutiny of the MASA to meet inspectors to hear the provisional findings. The Ofsted lead inspector and at least one inspector from each inspectorate will attend. We will ask the local agencies to keep attendance to a minimum to help keep the discussions manageable and focused.

77. We encourage the local agencies to discuss the findings to help them:

• understand the evidence on which the findings are based

• understand any strengths, areas for improvement and areas for priority action

• build on their strengths and inform discussions about improvement

78. The lead inspector will set out the main findings and provide a summary of the evidence that demonstrates the local area’s strengths and areas for improvement.

79. If there are findings that may lead an inspectorate to take further action (for example, in its role as a regulator), the relevant inspectorate will offer to have a separate discussion with the relevant local agency.

80. The findings shared at this meeting are provisional, pending quality assurance after the fieldwork has finished.

Week 3: gathering and evaluating evidence

81. Inspectors will prioritise gathering evidence about direct practice with children and families and intervention in places and spaces. They will gather evidence by:

• evaluating the experiences of children through case tracking, case sampling and observations of practice

• evaluating interventions in places and spaces through document review and interviews with multi-agency professionals

• interviewing practitioners, managers, leaders and stakeholders

• evaluating the quality and impact of local multi-agency audits

• meeting with CSPs and other partnership boards overseeing responses to serious youth violence, including representatives of VRUs, where relevant, and representatives of the MASA (and relevant sub-groups)

• reviewing documents about the local partnership’s work that are relevant to the scope of the inspection

82. Each of these methods is set out in more detail below.

83. When inspectors select the children whose experiences they will evaluate, they will take into account:

• the child’s age, sex and ethnicity, and whether the child is disabled

• children at different stages of involvement with the agencies being inspected

• issues specific to the local area that are relevant to the scope of the inspection

84. Inspectors will gather personal information that is necessary to help them evaluate local services. Our privacy notices set out what data we collect, what we do with it, how long we keep it and people’s rights under the Data Protection Act 2018.

85. At all times, inspectors will focus on children’s experiences and how well practitioners have understood and taken account of their views in assessment, planning and intervention. Inspectors will evaluate how well leaders, managers and representatives of the MASA and CSP understand the experiences of children and families.

Hearing the views of children and their families

86. There are various ways for inspectors to hear the views of children and their families. These include:

• talking to children and their families directly, either in person or by phone or video call

• reading views recorded in case records and meeting minutes

• listening to views expressed by advocates on behalf of children

• listening to views expressed by practitioners based on their work with the child and their family

• analysing the responses to consultations with children, families and carers, particularly those the local partnership uses in order to evaluate and improve the help and protection it provides

87. The lead inspector may ask the local agencies to arrange for inspectors to talk to the children and their families and/or carers. These will usually be the children whose experiences inspectors have chosen to track. Inspectors will provide information to help children and their families/carers understand what their involvement in the inspection means. Children and their families/carers do not have to take part in the inspection if they do not want to. If a child, parent or carer does not want to speak to an inspector, the local agencies should inform the lead inspector of this. If there are reasons why the local agencies do not think it is appropriate for inspectors to speak to a particular child or their family/carer, they should inform the lead inspector of the reasons.

88. In all activities involving children and their families, inspectors will ask the appropriate practitioner/s in the local area to speak to the child and their family and explain the inspection to them before the inspector speaks to the child/family or observes any work directly with them. Before proceeding with any discussions or observations, inspectors will always check with the child and family that they have understood what their involvement means. Inspectors should note this in their record of the discussion/observation.

Case tracking

89. Tracking is an in-depth look at a child’s experiences in relation to the scope of the inspection. Case tracking will usually include the following activities:

• reviewing children’s records (including case supervision notes)

• reviewing any audits carried out by local agencies

• discussing children’s experiences with them and their parents/carers

• discussing children’s experiences with their social worker, health and education professionals and other practitioners involved with them

• observing the work of practitioners

• speaking to providers of commissioned services for children (when relevant)

Case sampling

90. Case sampling (also referred to as ‘dip sampling’) involves looking at the experiences of a larger number of children. It is not an evaluation of all the support provided to children and their families. Inspectors use sampling to focus on particular aspects of children’s experiences with local services. Inspectors use sampling to investigate areas of potentially strong and weak practice that they identify from other evidence gathered during the inspection. Inspectors may sample children’s cases alongside practitioners or by looking directly at case records.

91. The lead inspector may select some children’s cases for all inspectorates to sample (multi-agency sampling). Inspectors may also carry out single-agency sampling.

92. The lead inspector will decide when the inspection team has evaluated the experiences of a sufficient sample of children to arrive at clear inspection findings.

Tracking interventions in places and spaces

93. The lead inspector will discuss with local leaders what interventions in places and spaces have taken/are taking place to address local issues of serious youth violence including county lines activity. This could include intervention in, for example, schools, parks, shopping centres or specific streets. In discussion with the local partnership, the lead inspector will select 2 interventions to track. Tracking will involve reviewing any documentation and meeting with partners involved in this work to explore how partnerships are intervening in places and spaces to reduce the risk of serious youth violence. Inspectors will discuss with local partners which documents to share to support this work.

Observations of practice

94. Inspectors may gather evidence by observing meetings that are relevant to the scope of the inspection. These meetings could include:

• a multi-agency panel or board meeting

• a strategy discussion/meeting

• an initial or review child protection conference

• a looked-after children review

• a child-in-need or other planning or review meeting

• any other meeting that is relevant to the scope of the inspection

95. If meetings relevant to the inspection are taking place in week 2, inspectors may join these by video call to observe local practice.

Interviews with practitioners, managers and leaders

96. Inspectors will speak to practitioners and/or managers about the children who they are responsible for, the learning and development of professionals, and the support and supervision they receive. They will ask them about their view of any strengths and areas for development relevant to the scope of the inspection.

97. Inspectors will usually meet with the service leaders listed below:

• DCS

• head of social care

• chair of CSP

• representatives of the VRU, if applicable

• person responsible for independent scrutiny of the MASA

• police head of public protection or child protection and safeguarding

• police lead for the force or constabulary’s arrangements in relation to the scope of the inspection

• youth offending service manager

• head of safeguarding and/or designated nurse for safeguarding children in the integrated care board and provider organisations

If these individuals are not available, inspectors may talk to those who deputise for them. Where the local area has an alternative service model, inspectors will talk to the local equivalent of these service leaders.

98. Inspectors may speak to stakeholders who provide local services that are relevant to the scope of the inspection, such as providers of commissioned services or voluntary sector organisations. These discussions are to gather information about the effectiveness of the local safeguarding partners; they are not an inspection of the stakeholders.

Meetings with representatives of partnership arrangements and strategic groups

99. Inspectors will speak to representatives of the CSP and/or VRU (where applicable) and the MASA by phone or video call in week 1 before fieldwork, so that these representatives can set out the local strategic arrangements for responding to serious youth violence (see strategic partnership meeting). This meeting will provide an overview of the strategic arrangements in place, to support inspectors in their preparation for inspection and reading of documentation in week 2. It is not expected that leaders will go into detail about the effectiveness of strategic arrangements.

100. Inspectors may meet remotely again with strategic leaders or representatives of relevant sub-groups in week 2 for partners to set out in more detail their strategic and operational response to serious youth violence. (See off-site meetings with local agencies in week 2).

101. Inspectors will meet with the representatives of the CSP, the VRU and the MASA again during fieldwork. This will be a further opportunity to explore multi-agency responses to serious youth violence.

102. The lead inspector will meet with the person responsible for independent scrutiny of the MASA (the independent scrutineer) during fieldwork, to inform our understanding of how effective the MASA are in relation to the scope of the inspection.

103. Inspectors may decide to meet with any sub-groups of the MASA or CSP and other partnership boards that are relevant to the scope of the inspection.

Role of the schools HMI

104. The schools HMI will review children’s experiences for the cases that the local partnership is asked to audit. They will contact and meet with relevant schools/education providers that the children attend. They will evaluate whether schools contribute effectively to a well-coordinated multi-agency response to make sure that children get the right support, help and protection at the right time. They will meet with education representatives to evaluate how schools are working with others to ensure that preventative work is taking place and to evaluate the response to children missing education.

Issues of concern

105. Inspectors will notify a senior officer as soon as possible if they identify serious issues of concern during the inspection. Examples of these include a failure to follow child protection procedures or if inspectors identify a child who is at immediate risk of significant harm.

106. The lead inspector will provide a template for recording issues of concern and discuss the arrangements for managing this information at the set-up discussion. Inspectors will record their concerns on this template and ask the relevant senior officer(s) to provide a written response. The notifying inspector will inform the lead inspector, who will make sure that the response is received through the KIT meetings. The inspector who raised the concern and the lead inspector will evaluate the response and share their evaluation with the senior officer. The lead inspector and senior officer will sign this written record to confirm that they have seen the final version and that the process of review is complete.

Recording evidence

107. Each inspector will maintain a record of the evidence they gather. They should record the source of the evidence and the date and time when they gathered it. This includes the date and time of any meetings, discussions and interviews. Each inspectorate will retain its inspectors’ individual evidence records in accordance with its retention policies.

108. Inspectors will record evaluative summaries of their evidence in the inspection team’s shared evidence record. The summaries will set out the inspector’s view about the quality of practice and the difference this makes for children. Two or more inspectors may coordinate their findings and agree for one of them to record an evaluative summary on their behalf. The shared record will include the notes of team meetings and KIT meetings with the local agencies. Ofsted will retain the shared record on behalf of the inspectorates.

109. Inspectors should complete all evidence records by the end of the fieldwork week. This is so that an accurate record is available to support report writing and quality assurance.

110. The lead inspector will coordinate completion of the evidence record and will direct inspectors when further evidence is needed. All inspectors should review the shared evidence record regularly and advise the lead inspector when they identify gaps and when the team has gathered enough evidence.

111. When recording information about specific people, inspectors should use case reference numbers, people’s initials, dates of birth and job titles/roles. Inspectors should only record people’s names in the evidence record when this is necessary to accurately connect related evidence from across the local agencies. Inspectors should delete any names from the evidence record if they are no longer needed.

The letter of findings

112. The lead inspector will write up the inspection findings, drawing on the inspection team’s expertise as required. They will set out the findings in a letter addressed to the senior leaders in the local partnership and the independent scrutineer for the MASA.

113. The letter will set out any strengths, areas for improvement and areas for priority action. It will state the services, practice or arrangements that the findings relate to but will not state what action the local partnership should take in response to the findings.

Areas for priority action

114. Inspectors will include an area for priority action if they identify a serious weakness that is placing children at risk of inadequate protection or significant harm. Priority actions may result from particular or localised failings to protect children, as well as systemic failures or deficits. The inspectorates may take action individually after the inspection to respond to the areas for priority action they have identified. For further information, see Annex B.

Quality assurance manager

115. A quality assurance manager will be assigned to the inspection. They will ensure that the inspection guidance, methodology and criteria are applied consistently and correctly, and that any concerns raised by the local agencies about the inspection are resolved. They will review the findings in the final letter to ensure that they link clearly to the evidence from the inspection.

Arrangements for publishing findings

116. The quality assurance manager will support the lead inspector throughout the writing process. Senior managers in all inspectorates will review and agree the findings presented in the letter.

117. We will share the draft letter with the DCS and ask them to coordinate a shared review of the factual accuracy of the letter and a response on behalf of the local partnership.

118. Inspectors will share a timeline for writing, reviewing and publishing the letter when they notify the local area of the inspection.

Activity	Timescales
Draft letter sent to local partnership to review factual accuracy	15 working days after fieldwork
DCS has 9 working days to coordinate the partnership’s comments	24 working days after fieldwork
Final version of the letter sent to the local partnership (pre-publication, under embargo)	31 working days after fieldwork
Letter published	34 working days after fieldwork

After the inspection

Post-inspection feedback survey

119. When we send the final letter of findings to the local partnership, we will ask the DCS to coordinate a response from the partnership to an evaluation questionnaire. The inspectorates will use the feedback to improve future inspections.

Action plan after the inspection

120. The Children Act 2004 (Joint Area Reviews) Regulations 2015 allow HMCI to require a written statement of proposed action that responds to the findings. Ofsted will decide whether to require a statement of action in consultation with CQC, HMICFRS and HMIP. We will also decide which agency should lead and which agencies should cooperate in making the statement. We will include this decision in the letter of findings. The local partnership may choose to involve other partners in addition to those identified in the letter.

121. The local partnership must make the statement within 70 working days of receiving the final letter of findings.

122. The inspectorates will review the action plan and write a response to the local partnership. The purpose of the inspectorates’ review is to confirm whether the action plan shows that the local agencies have understood the findings. It is the partnership’s responsibility to agree the actions that it should take in response to the inspection findings.

Annex A: local information to support the inspection

123. This annex sets out the information that inspectors request when they notify the local partnership of the JTAI. It also sets out the arrangements for selecting the children’s cases that inspectors will ask the local agencies to audit. The flow chart below sets out the process and timeline for sharing this information.

124. Inspectors will provide details for accessing an online system that local agencies can use to share information. Ofsted configures and manages this system in line with guidance from the National Cyber Security Centre.

125. Inspectors will gather personal information that is necessary to help them evaluate local services. Our privacy notices set out what data we collect, what we do with it, how long we keep it and people’s rights under the Data Protection Act 2018.

Week 1: selecting children’s cases to audit and evaluate

126. By 5pm on Tuesday in week 1, the local authority, working with partner agencies, should provide 4 lists of child-level data. These lists are similar to the information requested in Ofsted’s framework for the inspection of local authority children’s services. For a JTAI, these lists should include some additional fields of data, as set out in the table below.

List	ILACS list number	Additional fields
All statutory assessment in accordance with section 17 or section 47 of the Children Act 1989 in the 6 months before the inspection	List 4 (assessment)	Is the child at risk of or subject to criminal exploitation? Is the child subject to physical abuse (child-on-child)?
All those in receipt of services as a child in need at the point of inspection or in the 6 months before the inspection	List 6 (children in need)	Is the child at risk of or subject to criminal exploitation? Is the child currently in receipt of full-time education?
All those who are the subject of a child protection plan at the point of inspection, including those who ceased to be the subject of a child protection plan in the 6 months before the inspection	List 7 (child protection)	Is the child at risk of or subject to criminal exploitation? Is the child currently in receipt of full-time education?
All children in care at the point of inspection, including all those children who ceased to be looked after in the 6 months before the inspection	List 8 (children in care)	Is the child at risk of or subject to criminal exploitation? Is the child currently in receipt of full-time education?

127. By 5pm on Tuesday in week 1, the local authority and partner agencies should also share separate lists of children, as set out in the bullet points below. For each child on these lists, the local authority should include the child’s unique ID, the agencies involved with the child and their family, and whether the child is a child in need, on a child protection plan or a child in care. The lists should cover:

• up to 10 children for whom the local authority and partner agencies think that serious youth violence and/or criminal exploitation is a current or significant factor and with whom at least 2 agencies are involved

• up to 10 children for whom the local authority and partner agencies think that serious youth violence and/or criminal exploitation is a current or significant factor and believe that there has been positive engagement with the child and their family to improve outcomes for the child

• up to 10 children with whom the youth offending team and children’s services are involved and for whom serious youth violence and/or criminal exploitation is a current or significant factor

Depending on the specific local arrangements for responding to serious youth violence, the lead inspectors may request additional lists to those listed above. For example, they may ask for a list of children known to have been harmed, to be at risk of harm, or to have caused harm to others in the context of serious youth violence and who are known to the youth offending team or a specialist multi-agency team.

128. By 5pm on Wednesday, the lead inspector will select 20 children from the lists provided and ask the local authority to provide additional information on these 20. By 5pm on Thursday, the local authority should provide the following information about each of the 20 children:

• whether the child is known to the police

• whether the child’s parents/carers are known to the police

• which health services the child has received support from (for example, universal, urgent emergency care, mental health, sexual health and substance misuse services)

• whether the child is known to the youth offending team

129. By 11am on Friday in week 1, the lead inspector will select 5 to 7 children from the 20. They will ask the local partnership to audit these children’s cases.

130. The lead inspector may phone the local authority to confirm that the cases selected include multi-agency involvement and current or recent work to address concerns about serious youth violence and/or child exploitation. The lead inspector may ask the agencies to review the cases on the electronic recording system to ensure this.

Week 2: children’s case records

131. The list below sets out the information that inspectors will ask for about the children whose experiences the local agencies have been asked to audit. Whenever possible, the local agencies should share this information electronically by 5pm on Tuesday in week 2. If this is not possible, the local agencies should liaise with the relevant inspectorate to give access to this information during fieldwork.

The local authority should share:

• the initial referral/contact/notification (if applicable)

• the child’s most recent assessment, including a common or early help assessment

• the strategy or other multi-agency discussion or equivalent

• the section 47 investigation documentation/initial child protection conference minutes (if applicable)

• the child’s most recent plan and/or the most recent review of the plan, including any healthcare plans

• the minutes of any multi-agency meetings about the child, such as multi-agency child exploitation (MACE) meetings or multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA) meetings

• the most recent pre-sentence report about the child or any relevant adult (where applicable)

• a chronology of significant events in the 6 months before the inspection; these may include:

  • episodes of the child going missing from home, care or education

  • any contact that the child or relevant adults has had with the police, as either a victim or suspect, such as reported incidents, crimes and investigations

  • information on events earlier than the 6 months before the inspection when this is necessary in order to understand the context of the child’s experience

The police force should share:

• incident logs

• crime/non-crime reports

• referrals to the multi-agency safeguarding hub (MASH) or equivalent, MACE meeting (or equivalent) and MAPPA

• relevant intelligence reports (redacted if necessary)

• custody records

Health services should share:

• assessments of need/risk and action taken

• analyses and evaluations of the impact of work carried out

• referrals to MACE meetings

• follow-up of referrals and evidence of feedback

• evidence of information-sharing with and from other health and multi-agency partners

• evidence of health agencies’ contributions to decision-making, including contributions at meetings (for example, initial child protection conferences)

• evidence of managers’ supervision/oversight of health practitioners’ work with the child

• evidence of escalation to multi-agency partners, including children’s social care, when there are professional disagreements about decision-making

The specific health agencies that help each child will vary. CQC will determine which agencies to request information from. The particular sensitivity of health information means that inspectors will usually ask to see these records when they are on site and not electronically before fieldwork.

The youth offending team should share:

• assessments, plans and details of services delivered for current or most recent intervention

• referrals to multi-agency meetings, such as MACE or MAPPA meetings

• chronology of incidents involving the child in the last 12 months

• previous convictions and information relating to any outstanding matters

• latest pre-sentence report for the child

• response to any non-engagement from the child

• evidence of escalation if there have been barriers to safeguarding and risk management

Week 2: local partnership audits

132. The local agencies should provide their joint evaluations of children’s experiences electronically by 5pm on Thursday in week 2.

133. Inspectors will ask to meet with the practitioners involved in these children’s cases during the fieldwork week for a discussion about their work. At least 3 of these meetings will be multi-agency discussions.

Week 1: other child-level lists and planned multi-agency meetings

134. By 5pm on Thursday in week 1, the local agencies should provide the lead inspector with details of the multi-agency meetings taking place during the fieldwork week that are relevant to the theme, such as MAPPA meetings, MACE meetings and other multi-agency meetings/panels relevant to the scope.

135. The local authority should also share the 2 child-level data lists in the table below.

List	ILACS list number	Additional fields
All referrals in the 6 months before the inspection	List 3 (referrals)	Is the child at risk of or subject to criminal exploitation?
All section 47 enquiries in the 6 months before the inspection	List 5 (s47)	Is the child at risk of or subject to criminal exploitation?

136. The local authority should also share a report on children for whom the local authority is responsible, who are of school age and who are not receiving full-time education at the time of the inspection. (This list is similar to item 2.05 of Ofsted’s ILACS framework). For each child, this report should include:

• the child’s unique ID or unique pupil number (UPN) and date of birth

• the type of education provision that they are receiving, including home tuition

• the number of hours of provision they are receiving per week (in particular, whether they are receiving more or less than 25 hours per week)

• the type of exclusion (if the child has been excluded)

• the date when alternative provision began

Week 2: performance and management information

137. By 5pm on Tuesday in week 2, the local agencies should provide the information set out below. Inspectors will use this information to understand how members of the local partnership work together.

138. The local partnership should not provide everything that it holds on each subject. The inspectors will want only the area’s best and most recent examples that relate to the scope of this inspection. Inspectors will not review information that they deem to fall outside the scope of the inspection, so the information provided must be relevant.

The local authority

Number	Item	Description
1.1	Local authority organisational structures	Organisational structures showing lines of reporting and accountability
1.2	Management information reports	Reports for those children within the scope of the inspection (serious youth violence and/or exploitation), at both a local and agency level
1.3	Threshold criteria	Assessment and threshold criteria for helping families and protecting the identified children
1.4	Practice audits	Practice audits, including multi-agency audits, over the 12 months before the inspection relating to the theme of the inspection (serious youth violence and/or criminal exploitation) and any action plans
1.5	Commissioned services	Details of any services in the area that have been commissioned from the community or voluntary sector for children who have been victim to/perpetrated serious youth violence and/or are at risk of/subject to criminal exploitation, including any evaluation
1.6	MASH	Terms of reference for the MASH or local equivalent

CSP

Number	Item	Description
2.1	CSP structure	Organisational structures showing lines of accountability and reporting links to other boards
2.2	Management information reports	Management reports relevant to the theme (serious youth violence/criminal exploitation)
2.3	Minutes of meetings	Minutes of CSP meetings in the 12 months before the inspection

Multi-agency arrangements to address serious youth violence

The arrangements to address serious youth violence will differ in different local areas. Therefore, the requests in this section will need to be discussed and agreed with the lead inspector, depending on local arrangements. Where there is a VRU, the information below will be relevant to the local area subject to inspection.

Number	Item	Description
3.1	Organisational structure (VRU where appropriate)	Outline of structure including governance and service level agreements showing lines of reporting and accountability
3.2	Strategic needs assessment	Assessment of local need and risk in relation to serious youth violence
3.3	Serious youth violence strategy	Serious youth violence strategy
3.4	Delivery and/or programme plans	Planning resulting from assessment of local need
3.5	Commissioned services/projects	Details of any services/projects in the area that have been commissioned/developed for children who have been a victim/perpetrator of serious youth violence, including any evaluation
3.6	Evaluations of outcomes and/or impact	Evaluations of outcomes and/or impact
3.7	Engagement with children, families and communities	Information about how the local partnership seeks feedback from children, families and communities and engages them in any evaluation of multi-agency responses to serious youth violence

Multi-agency safeguarding arrangements

Number	Item	Description
4.1	MASA structure	Organisational structures showing lines of accountability and reporting
4.2	Management information reports	Management information reports relevant to the theme: please inform the lead inspector if these are the same as the reports shared by the individual agencies
4.3	MASA meeting minutes	Minutes of the local safeguarding partners from the 12 months before the inspection (including executive board meetings where applicable)
4.4	Sub-group minutes	Sub-group minutes relevant to the scope of the inspection in the last 12 months (as requested by the lead inspector)
4.5	MASA audits	Audits that are relevant to the scope of the inspection and action plans
4.6	Reviews	Rapid reviews and practice reviews carried out in the 18 months before the inspection relevant to the theme and all relevant action plans
4.7	Engagement with children	Information about how the local partnership seeks feedback from children and engages them in evaluating and improving services for children affected by serious youth violence and/or exploitation

The police force

Number	Item	Description
5.1	Police organisational structure	Organisational structure showing lines of reporting and accountability for child protection, serious youth violence and criminal exploitation
5.2	VRU organisational structure (if relevant)	Organisational structure and service level agreements showing lines of reporting and accountability
5.3	Learning and development	Learning and development regarding vulnerability, criminal exploitation, serious youth violence and child protection
5.4	Referral document	Child protection referral document and any child exploitation referral/risk assessment
5.5	Serious youth violence	Policy and guidance on serious youth violence
5.6	Criminal exploitation	Policy and guidance on criminal exploitation
5.7	Strategies	Strategy, policies and guidance relating to serious youth violence and criminal exploitation
5.8	Problem profile (serious youth violence)	Problem profile or analysis relating to serious youth violence
5.9	Problem profile (exploitation)	Problem profile or analysis relating to criminally exploited children, including any children referred to the national referral mechanism and a copy of the policy or description of the process for making such a referral
5.10	Minutes on strategic governance	3 most recent sets of minutes for any force strategic governance meetings relating to serious youth violence and criminally exploited children
5.11	Audits and action plans	Any audits and action plan(s) relating to children who are or may be at risk of serious youth violence or criminal exploitation
5.12	Performance management	Performance management information/data for children who are or may be at risk of serious youth violence and/or criminal exploitation

Health partners

Number	Item	Description
6.1	Integrated care board (ICB)/provider organisational structure	Organisational structures of the ICB and provider organisations, showing lines of reporting and accountability, including details of local health commissioning and/or provider services and links between operational and safeguarding teams
6.2	ICB strategy	ICB strategy and joint forward plan and how these incorporate serious youth violence as part of the Serious Violence Duty
6.3	Commissioning arrangements	ICB and provider services, with details of who is providing commissioned services, including emergency department, ambulance trust, child and adolescent mental health services, young people’s substance misuse service, and contraceptive and sexual health services, including the commissioning of specific interventions as part of the Serious Violence Duty
6.4	Annual reports	Annual reports from CCG and provider services on safeguarding and child protection, including for looked after children
6.5	Provider policies	Provider policies relating to serious youth violence and/or children who are criminally exploited, including local primary care policies
6.6	Audits and action plans	Any commissioner or provider audits and action plans relating to child sexual exploitation and criminal exploitation of children
6.7	Data	Most recent data on health referrals to the MASH (or equivalent) and MACE meetings and voluntary and community sector
6.8	Training	Level 3 safeguarding training data by service, including topics, and training specific to serious youth violence and its prevention

Youth offending team

Number	Item	Description
7.1	Youth offending team organisational structure	Organisational structures showing lines of reporting and accountability
7.2	Policy – child protection	Policy/procedures on child protection and safeguarding
7.3	Policy – managing risk of harm	Policy/procedures for managing risk of harm to others
7.4	Policy – exploitation	Policy/procedures for managing responses to criminal exploitation
7.5	Youth justice plan	Annual youth justice plan showing how the team will provide and fund youth justice services in the area
7.6	Youth offending team board minutes	Management board minutes of meetings at which serious youth violence has been discussed (past 12 months)

Annex B: what the inspectorates will do if there is an area for priority action

When an area for priority action is relevant to more than one agency within the scope of the inspection or the MASA

139. The inspectorates will discuss how to coordinate our follow up with individual agencies (as set out below). We will share the final letter of findings with the Department for Education (DfE), Department of Health and Social Care, Home Office and Ministry of Justice before it is published. We may offer the departments a discussion to explain the findings so that they can coordinate any response they may take. The inspectorates will consider whether to carry out a JTAI with the same scope after the local partnership has had sufficient time to respond to the area for priority action.

If an area for priority action is relevant to the local authority

140. Ofsted will inform the DfE. The DfE may contact the local authority to discuss the findings. Ofsted will also follow the process set out in the ILACS framework, including asking for an action plan.

If an area for priority action is relevant to a health service

141. The CQC inspection team will immediately notify their manager, and a management review meeting will be called. This meeting may be attended by representatives from the regulation team and other key individuals as deemed necessary.

142. At the management review meeting, the inspection team will present the issues, and a decision will be made about whether regulatory action is required. The regulatory response may include arranging a meeting with providers, organising a further follow-up visit, and/or beginning enforcement activity according to CQC’s enforcement policy.

If an area for priority action is relevant to a police force

143. HMICFRS will report the area for priority action as a cause of concern. A cause of concern will always be accompanied by one or more recommendations. HMICFRS will recommend that the force(s) (and sometimes other bodies) make changes to alleviate or eradicate the concern. New and existing causes of concern are tracked through the force monitoring process.

144. There are 2 phases to the monitoring process: scan and engage. A force’s progress against a cause of concern is reviewed through the scan stage of the monitoring process. If a force is not responding to a cause of concern, or if it is not succeeding in managing, mitigating or eradicating the cause of concern, it will probably be moved to the engage phase.

145. At this stage, the HMI will meet with the chief constable and police and crime commissioner (or equivalent) to set out the causes of concern and identify actions that need to be taken. Based on these discussions, the chief constable will carry out a root cause analysis and use it to formulate an improvement plan. The HMI will set out the level of improvement required to be ‘disengaged’. They may also approach other organisations to organise support for the force.

146. HMICFRS may decide to revisit/reinspect a particular area of activity. This would focus on the cause(s) of concern identified in the initial inspection.

If an area for priority action is relevant to the youth offending service

147. HMIP would trigger the HMIP organisational alert procedure. An alert encompasses practice, or practice omissions, that require immediate remedial action to be taken (usually by the organisation responsible for the case) to reduce or contain an identifiable, significant and imminent risk.

148. In applying the procedure, HMIP lead inspectors on JTAIs consider:

• what might happen if no action is taken

• how serious the risk is

• when it might happen (that is, how imminent it is)

149. On inspection, the HMIP lead inspector will inform the head of the inspection programme that they think an alert is required and discuss this. If the lead inspector decides to raise this alert, they will inform the head of the inspection programme. They will explain what the concerns are and outline any immediate actions that should be taken.

150. Any incidents recorded through the individual alert system may inform the inspection findings or recommendations.

Annex C: complaints about JTAIs

151. If concerns arise during an inspection, the local partnership should raise these with the lead inspector or quality assurance manager as soon as possible during the inspection. This provides an opportunity to resolve the matter before the inspection is completed.

152. If it has not been possible to resolve concerns, the local partnership can make a complaint. There is a different process for:

• complaints about the inspection process and/or the findings

• complaints about an inspector’s conduct

153. The local partnership can make a complaint from when it receives the final letter of findings (the pre-publication stage) to up to 10 working days after the inspection findings are published.

154. We will not usually withdraw findings that we have already published unless there are exceptional circumstances. The local partnership can ask us to withdraw the letter of findings when it submits its complaint. The request should set out any exceptional circumstances that may be relevant. Ofsted’s National Director (Regulation and Social Care) will decide whether to withdraw the published findings in discussion with the relevant Ofsted Regional Director and the other inspectorates. There may be circumstances when a decision needs to be made urgently, and a discussion between the inspectorates is not possible. In these situations, Ofsted’s National Director will make the decision and advise the other inspectorates at the earliest opportunity.

Complaints about the inspection process and/or findings

155. Complaints relating to the inspection arrangements or findings should be submitted to Ofsted through our complaints form. Ofsted will appoint a lead investigator to coordinate an investigation with the other inspectorates. We will follow the timeline set out in the table below.

Milestone	Activity
From receiving the pre-publication report to 10 working days after the report is published	Local partnership submits complaint to Ofsted.
Within 5 working days of complaint being made	Ofsted sends an acknowledgement letter to the complainants, setting out the timeline for considering their complaint. The letter will confirm whether any request to withdraw the report has been agreed. Ofsted shares copies of the complaint with the other inspectorates.
Within 30 working days of complaint being made	The response letter will undergo final checks and sign-off by Ofsted. Ofsted will share the final response with all inspectorates before sending it to the complainant.

Complaints about inspectors’ conduct

156. Complaints about an inspector’s conduct should be submitted to the relevant inspectorate. The relevant inspectorate will use its own processes to investigate the complaint.

157. In order to maintain confidentiality, the details of the complaint and the outcome may not be shared across all inspectorates. However, inspectorates must share whether a complaint about an inspector’s conduct has been upheld so that any potential implications for the findings can be considered. The inspectorates have agreed the following milestones for keeping each other informed of the complaint progress:

Milestone	Activity
Within 5 working days of complaint being made	Acknowledgement letters will be sent to complainants and will confirm expected response deadlines; the letter will explain which inspectorate will carry out the investigation. All inspectorates will be informed that a complaint has been received.
Within 30 working days of complaint being made	All inspectorates will be informed of whether the complaint has been upheld. The relevant inspectorate will respond to the complainant.

Complaints about inspection process/findings and inspectors’ conduct

158. We will consider complaints about both the inspection process/findings and inspectors’ conduct on a case-by-case basis. In some cases, it may be appropriate for queries about inspectors’ conduct to be included in a broader complaint investigation. In other cases, for reasons of confidentiality, complaints about conduct might be considered separately.

159. Where this occurs, it is important to consider whether the outcome of an investigation into a complaint about conduct might affect how robust the inspection process is or the inspection outcomes are. The relevant inspectorates will be consulted in all such cases.

Print or save to PDF

To print this content, you can:

• use the ‘Print this page’ button under the Contents menu

• right-click or secondary click on the page and choose ‘Print’ in the menu

• press Ctrl + P on a Windows keyboard or Command + P on a Mac

You can also use these options and change the printer destination to save the content as a PDF.

Instructions may vary depending on which internet browser you use, such as Internet Explorer or Google Chrome, and the type of device you use, such as a phone or laptop. You can find your print and save options in your browser’s menu.

1. County lines is where illegal drugs are transported from one area to another, usually by children or vulnerable people who are coerced into it. ↩

2. In this framework, we use ‘places and spaces’ to refer to, for example, physical places like a school, a street, a local park or a shopping centre. ↩

3. Research based on Metropolitan Police data found that the gang element was identified in less than 5% of serious youth violence in 2015–16, a figure that had been fairly consistent since 2011–12 (London Assembly Police and Crime Committee, 2016). ↩