By Susannah Hancock

The girls are not the problem. If anything, we - the professionals, are the problem. We need to come together to find a solution’  This independent review was commissioned by Minister Dakin, Youth Justice Minister, in November 2024. The terms of reference are attached [Appendix B]. As reviewer, I have been asked to consider the short-to-medium term placement options for girls in the Children and Young People Secure Estate (CYPSE) and to make recommendations about the most appropriate placement and care for girls in the CYPSE. Over the past 15 years the number of children (aged 10 to 17 years old) in custody has fallen significantly, down from 2180 in March 2010, to around 420 in November 2024. This has been one of the big successes of the youth justice system, delivered through a range of factors including effective prevention and diversion schemes and a strong focus on reducing the numbers of children entering the YJS. The number of girls in custody has also declined, with only about 10 in the CYPSE currently, making up less than 2% of the overall CYPSE population. These small numbers should have driven agencies to resolve the long-standing issue of appropriate placements for girls, yet the opposite has occurred. The system remains overwhelmingly designed for boys, leaving girls without strategic planning or genderresponsive services. While the new Women's Justice Board, chaired by Lord Timpson, addresses women's justice issues, it does not include girls, leaving this highly vulnerable group overlooked. Despite positive moves towards a child-first approach in the Youth Justice System, girls' distinct needs (including education, health and equality protections), are often neglected. Many have experienced significant trauma, gendered violence, and abuse. Lacking proper community support, their trauma-driven responses can lead to justice system involvement. Many of these girls should not be in custody in the first place but instead require intensive therapeutic care through social and health services. For those who do require placement into custody, evidence shows that small, trauma-informed, gender-responsive settings have the best outcomes. It is important to state that this is not about ignoring the needs of boys, many of whom are also highly vulnerable. But with 98% of the secure estate made up of boys, the needs of girls are too often overlooked. This review is clear that, despite the best efforts of committed staff across secure settings, YOIs are not able to provide girls with the therapeutic and trauma-informed environment and services that they need and that girls should no longer be placed in YOIs with immed  Similarly, STCs, despite the positive work of committed staff at Oakhill and more widely, are not best placed to meet girls' needs and placements into STCs should cease by the end of the current contract of Oakhill STC in 2029, if not before [recommendation 2]. The most appropriate placements for girls in the CYPSE are Secure Children’s Homes and the newly opened Secure School. The evidence I reviewed and most of the professionals and girls I spoke to pointed to SCHs as being best placed to meet the needs of girls, including the most vulnerable girls. While the Secure School is still in its early days, given the trauma-informed, whole system model in place, it should be well equipped to deliver for girls. Ongoing investment and coordinated support are essential to sustain and enhance these provisions. Therefore, this review recommends that the YCS transitions to a model where all girls are placed in either SCH’s or the new Secure School [recommendation 3]. It proposes that the YCS collaborate with a dedicated sub-group of SCHs and the Secure School, using a consortia model, to pilot a new approach for placing girls  I recognise that a bottom line for this review must be that the YCS are able to provide placements for every girl remanded or sentenced. This is critical for public protection and for the safety of the girls. Any new solution must be able to deliver this. And while SCHs and the Secure School are legally permitted to decline a placement if they cannot meet a child’s needs or those of the wider home, my conclusion is that, by collaborating as a consortium, we can reach a point where every girl in the CYPSE has a suitable placement. A similar model is in place in Scotland that we can draw learning from. Although improving placement processes and options for girls is critical, this alone is not enough. Urgent cross-government action is needed to further reduce girls in custody, using it only as a last resort for the shortest possible time (Article 37 of the UNCRC). Girls who have committed serious offences and are serving longer sentences for public protection should remain in the CYPSE, but others – given their high levels of vulnerability and victimisation – should receive support outside of the justice system. I also want to acknowledge upfront the victims of crimes committed by girls. For victims and their families, reviews such as this must be difficult. It is important that we acknowledge the harm that victims of crime experience because of offences committed by children and listen to their voices on what they want to see change. There are many studies which suggest that victims want rehabilitation and restoration and, above all, for crime to stop and for the perpetrator to stop committing further offences – they don’t want others to have to go through what they have. This means all efforts should be focused on preventing offending and reoffending and stopping crime from happening in the first place. The recommendations in this review must above all be about supporting girls out of crime and into positive and productive lives, and in doing so keep communities safe and ensure less victims. Finally, I recognise that I am not saying anything in this review that has not been said before, often many times, by professionals, researchers, organisations and girls themselves. I am grateful to so many people for contributing so constructively to this review, and to everyone who has shared reports, evidence and insights to inform it. The fact that there was a strong level of consensus about both the issues and the potential solutions is very encouraging. But now is the time for action. We owe it to the girls themselves, to the victims and communities who suffer because of crime, and to the professionals who work so hard across the CYPSE and wider youth justice system. We have a real opportunity to be innovative, imaginative and do things differently – and we should seize it without delay. 

London: Ministry of Justice, 2025. 54p.

By Matthew Van Poortvliet, Cassandra Popham, William Teager, Peter Henderson , et alThe Youth Endowment Fund’s vision is for every child to live a life free from violence. In the latest year, 40 children lost their lives to violence involving knives; 509 ended up in hospital; and 1 in 2 teenage children told us they changed the way they live because of the fear of violence. This is not okay. Each child affected by violence is a tragedy. Amid these tragedies lies a further injustice. While children from all backgrounds can face violence and deserve our full protection, children from certain ethnic backgrounds are less safe. Sometimes the statistics are deeply shocking. It should horrify all of us that a Black child growing up in our country is six times more likely to be murdered. It should also worry us when we hear that Black and Asian children are less likely to be referred for mental health support, or that Gypsy, Roma and Irish Traveller children face disproportionately high rates of school exclusions and suspensions. It doesn’t have to be like this. Sometimes, these terrible injustices are the consequence of appalling racial injustices rooted deep in our history. At other times, they are the result of recent, direct and unacceptable forms of racism — whether institutional or interpersonal. When compounded by other disadvantages, such as low income, unstable housing or higher risks of extra-familial harm, these inequalities create cycles of disproportionate harm that are difficult to break. Difficult, but not impossible. Ten years ago, Black children were 1.7 times more likely to be excluded from schools than White children. That is no longer true. Racial inequity does not have to be Ensure stop and search is fair and ‘intelligence-led’. Make Outcome 22 a positive outcome in the police outcomes framework. Monitor and improve access to psychological therapy. Deliver evidence-based support to children absent or excluded from school. Urgently reduce disproportionality and improve conditions in youth custody. This report sets out five actions that the new government can take to address racial disproportionality and keep our children safe: Ensure stop and search is fair and ‘intelligence-led’. Make Outcome 22 a positive outcome in the police outcomes framework. Monitor and improve access to psychological therapy. Deliver evidence-based support to children absent or excluded from school. Urgently reduce disproportionality and improve conditions in youth custody These recommendations are not exhaustive – there’s always room to do more. However, by acting decisively and urgently on these evidence-informed priorities, the new Labour government has an opportunity to deliver meaningful change, reduce violence and start to build a society where all our children can live free from violence.

London: Youth Endowment Fund, 2025. 47p.

By Kathy Hampson, Anne-Marie Day

Children who offend generally receive community sentences, to help them overcome difficulties whilst naturally addressing offending behaviour; however, children can also receive custody, which has a plethora of known harms. Children’s rights instruments call for custody to be reserved as a ‘last resort’ response to extremely serious offending. However, in England and Wales this is demonstrably not the case, meaning that children still receive short custody orders (in the form of a Detention and Training Order [DTO]) for relatively minor offences. We argue that legislative change should abolish the DTO because of the harms custody wreaks, from several different perspectives (their rights, moral treatment of children, sentencing guidelines, practical and financial considerations), to leave the use of custody only possible for very serious offending, and thus reaching the goal of ‘last resort’.

The British Journal of Criminology, 2025, XX, 1–18p.

By Mary McAuley.

Anglo-Russian Perspectives.. Despite their very different histories, societies, political and legal systems, Russia and the UK stand out as favouring a punitive approach to young law breakers, imprisoning many more children than any other European countries. The book is based on the author's primary research in Russia in which she visited a dozen closed institutions from St Petersburg to Krasnoyarsk and on similar research in England and Northern Ireland. The result is a unique study of how attitudes to youth crime and criminal justice, the political environment and the relationship between state and society have interacted to influence the treatment of young offenders. McAuley's account of the twists and turns in policy towards youth illuminate the extraordinary history of Russia in the twentieth century and the making of social policy in Russia today. It is also the first study to compare the UK (excluding Scotland because of its separate juvenile justice system) with Russia, a comparison which highlights the factors responsible for the making of 'punitive' policy in the two societies. McAuley places the Russian and UK policies in a European context, aiming to reveal how other European countries manage to put so many fewer children behind bars.

Bloomsbury Academic (2010) 263 pages.