Joint inspection finds ‘fragmented and inconsistent’ system for children receiving out-of-court disposals

HM Inspectorate of Probation and HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) found that the criminal justice system has “not kept pace” with the changes to the use of youth out-of-court disposals (OoCDs).

OoCDs are alternatives to formal prosecution for children, designed to divert them away from the criminal justice system by addressing their behaviour and offering support to prevent further offending.

Martin Jones, Chief Inspector of Probation said: “Over recent years, there has been a substantial and sustained increase in the use of OoCDs for children, alongside a notable shift in the types of disposals being issued. The profile of children receiving them has also changed.

“We observed committed staff using creative approaches to engage children and families, but children require a more tailored and intensive approach than is currently being delivered to reduce reoffending and protect communities.”

Lead inspector for HMICFRS, Michelle Skeer, added: “It is clear that the criminal justice system has not kept pace with the changes to the use of OoCDs. We found the current system, including policing practice, to be fragmented and inconsistent.”

Inspectors found policing practices to be inconsistent and in need of greater oversight. The absence of a clear and consistent national framework has created varied approaches in local areas which raises concerns about fairness and public confidence in the system.

The inspectorates said diversion relies on strong partnerships to be effective; however, their inspection found many services to be under strain due to limited resourcing and increasing demand. Some children struggled to get the support needed, including mental health support or access to education.

Without coordinated and timely intervention, these children may be more likely to face further problems and become more deeply involved in offending behaviour, they said.

Mr Jones added: “This report highlights the need for stronger governance, clearer guidance, and greater consistency in the use of OoCDs for children. We have made 18 recommendations which, if implemented, are intended to achieve these aims.”

Ms Skeer said: “The police, youth justice services and other partners must work together to ensure fairness and consistency in the way OoCDs are used. The recommendations we have made could make a real difference to improve outcomes for children and help keep communities safe.”

While there was a broad consensus on the importance of avoiding the unnecessary criminalisation of children and national and local commitments to child-centred justice, the overall approach was fragmented and hindered by inadequate data and strategic direction.

A wide variation in the use of tools such as the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) gravity matrix and available disposal options has created a ‘post-code lottery’ in decision making and raises concerns about fairness.

Local youth justice partnership boards did not have a clear understanding of the overall volume of OoCDs or the effectiveness of interventions involving youth justice services (YJS) and other partners.

Turnaround funding was generally used effectively, but the short-term and uncertain nature of some funding streams made it difficult for services to develop long-term strategies.

The inspection found a significant number of children, including those involved in serious offences were sometimes dealt with by police alone and without YJS involvement.

Inspectors found cases where children were incorrectly told they had to complete interventions or face prosecution, which was inaccurate and potentially coercive.

Police officers did not routinely use the NPCC child gravity matrix and associated guidance, even in serious offences such as violent and sexual crimes. Occasionally, tensions were found between the police and partner agencies over final disposal decisions, inspectors said.

In some instances, Outcome 20 and Outcome 21 were used inappropriately for serious offences, which undermined the concerning nature of the crimes and the need for appropriate responses.

The use of Outcome 20 was “widespread and largely unmonitored”, which raised concerns about whether children and communities were kept safe, the inspectorates said.

Access to education and interventions for emotional health and wellbeing often remained unmet at the end of an OoCD. Support either arrived too late, ended too early or lacked proper exit and onward planning. Children on the edge of the justice system remained at significant risk of further escalation.

The inspectorates said victims’ services needed to improve to ensure effective engagement processes to uphold the Victims’ Code and amplify victims’ voices. This was particularly needed for child victims whose age and maturity must be carefully considered.

“Interventions were not always jointly planned, delivered, reviewed or sustained,” they added. “When services were available, referrals were not always made or were declined for unclear reasons. There was limited analysis of engagement and referral patterns.”

The inspection identified that a greater emphasis on safety for both the child and others was needed in all aspects of practice. Interventions tended to focus on the offence, rather than addressing underlying risks and safeguarding concerns which were closely linked to reoffending.

However, youth justice service staff demonstrated strong skills in engagement and their support was highly valued by children, their parents or carers.