Inspectors criticise efforts to tackle youth reoffending in London borough

Following a visit earlier this year, HM Inspectorate of Probation handed the London borough its lowest judgement of “poor” in four out of six categories.

Inspectors were particularly critical of programmes to reduce reoffending, which were found to be so poorly organised that less than half of them took place.

In many cases the suitability of young people to carry out programmes was not assessed.

The service’s weapons awareness course was among programmes criticised, with inspectors finding confusion between police and the YOS as to which should be running it.

“Some of the recording of individual interventions was so poor that it was impossible to say what work had been carried out with children and young people,” the inspection report states.

"Where we could determine what had been delivered, the interventions were, too often, not consistent with the reasons for offending.”

Their report also noted that while the reoffending rate had fallen in Bromley, at 43.6 per cent it was still above the England and Wales average.

The area’s historically high reoffending rate was given as one of the main reasons inspectors visited Bromley.

Figures released last month show that across England and Wales 36.6 per cent of young people convicted of a crime go on to reoffend within 12 months.

High use of custody in the area was another concern raised. In Bromley 0.61 out of every 1,000 10- to 17-year-olds receives a custodial sentence, compared with 0.47 across England and Wales.

In addition, inspectors found a failure to share information with police and too many reports into young offenders failed to assess their vulnerability or risk of harm to the public.

Bromley’s work to protect the public and work in partnerships with other children’s professionals and police were labelled “poor”. 

Its work to protect children was judged to be “unsatisfactory”, while efforts to ensure sentences were served were “satisfactory”.

Paul Wilson, chief inspector of probation, was particularly critical of a failure of the service to manage programmes that suited the needs of young people.

“Children and young people were not assessed properly for interventions and generally had to fit in with what was being delivered at any one time,” he said.

He was also critical of a divided management system, with different managers having separate responsibility for the operation and strategic direction of the service.

“This arrangement was not working effectively either and resulted in little strategic partnership work,” he added.

Despite his concerns he praised work to improve the health of young offenders and improve their access to training, employment and education.

He also noted that the service’s workers had a good relationship with young offenders, “although this needed to improve with parents and carers”.

The service has been told to produce an improvement action plan. Inspectors are to also meet with the Youth Justice Board to discuss ways to improve its performance.

Youth Justice Board chief executive Lin Hinnigan said: “The YJB was informed of the findings earlier this year.

“We immediately accorded it ‘priority status’ and deployed experienced staff to support Bromley Council, as they take effective action to address the issues raised.  

“The YJB, together with Bromley Council, is committed to improve Bromley YOS’s
performance so it reaches the high national standards we have set.”