The National Youth Agency - Ofsted inspections - Barking and Dagenham to Durham

Ofsted inspections - Barking and Dagenham to Durham

Barking and Dagenham 2005

Youth service key aspect grades: Standards of young people's achievement - 3; Quality of youth work practice - 3; Quality of curriculum and resources - 3; Strategic and operational leadership and management - 4 (Service described as adequate and providing satisfactory value for money).

Also of interest...

The table above shows overall grades about provision. Inspectors make judgements based on the following scale: Very Good (1), Good (2), Adequate (3) and Inadequate (4).

Barnet 2006

Youth service key aspect grades: Standards of young people's achievement - 2; Quality of youth work practice - 3; Quality of curriculum and resources - 3; Strategic and operational leadership and management - 2 (Service described as adequate and providing satisfactory value for money).

Grade 4: A service that delivers well above minimum requirements for users:

Grade 3: A service that consistently delivers above minimum requirements for users:

Grade 2: A service that delivers only minimum requirements for users:

Grade 1: A service that does not deliver minimum requirements for users.

Barnsley 2004

(Service described as satisfactory and providing satisfactory value for money).

Bath and North East Somerset 2008

Youth service key aspect grades: Standards of young people’s achievement – 3; Quality of youth work practice – 3; Quality of curriculum and resources – 2; Strategic and operational leadership and management – 2 (Service described as good).

Grade 4: A service that delivers well above minimum requirements for users:

Grade 3: A service that consistently delivers above minimum requirements for users:

Grade 2: A service that delivers only minimum requirements for users:

Grade 1: A service that does not deliver minimum requirements for users.

Bedfordshire 2005

Youth service key aspect grades: Standards of young people's achievement - 2; Quality of youth work practice - 2; Quality of curriculum and resources - 3; Strategic and operational leadership and management - 4 (Service described as inadequate and providing unsatisfactory value for money).

The table above shows overall grades about provision. Inspectors make judgements based on the following scale: Very Good (1), Good (2), Adequate (3) and Inadequate (4).

Bexley 2007

Youth service key aspect grades: Standards of young people's achievement - 3; Quality of youth work practice - 3; Quality of curriculum and resources - 2; Strategic and operational leadership and management - 2 (Service described as good and providing adequate value for money).

Grade 4: A service that delivers well above minimum requirements for users:

Grade 3: A service that consistently delivers above minimum requirements for users:

Grade 2: A service that delivers only minimum requirements for users:

Grade 1: A service that does not deliver minimum requirements for users.

Birmingham 2007

Youth service key aspect grades: Standards of young people's achievement - 2; Quality of youth work practice - 2; Quality of curriculum and resources - 2; Strategic and operational leadership and management - 2 (Service described as adequate and providing satisfactory value for money).

Grade 4: A service that delivers well above minimum requirements for users:

Grade 3: A service that consistently delivers above minimum requirements for users:

Grade 2: A service that delivers only minimum requirements for users:

Grade 1: A service that does not deliver minimum requirements for users.

Blackpool 2005

Youth service key aspect grades: Standards of young people's achievement - 2; Quality of youth work practice - 2; Quality of curriculum and resources - 3; Strategic and operational leadership and management - 3 (Service described as adequate and providing satisfactory value for money).

The table above shows overall grades about provision. Inspectors make judgements based on the following scale: Very Good (1), Good (2), Adequate (3) and Inadequate (4).

Bolton 2004

(Service described as unsatisfactory and providing unsatisfactory value for money).

Bournemouth 2005

Grade 4: A service that delivers well above minimum requirements for users:

Grade 3: A service that consistently delivers above minimum requirements for users:

Grade 2: A service that delivers only minimum requirements for users:

Grade 1: A service that does not deliver minimum requirements for users.

Bradford 2008

Youth service key aspect grades: Standards of young people’s achievement – 3; Quality of youth work practice – 3; Quality of curriculum and resources – 4; Strategic and operational leadership and management – 3 (Service described as good).

Grade 4: A service that delivers well above minimum requirements for users:

Grade 3: A service that consistently delivers above minimum requirements for users:

Grade 2: A service that delivers only minimum requirements for users:

Grade 1: A service that does not deliver minimum requirements for users.

Bracknell Forest 2008

Youth service key aspect grades: Standards of young people’s achievement – 3; Quality of youth work practice – 3; Quality of curriculum and resources – 3; Strategic and operational leadership and management – 2 (Service described as good).

Grade 4: A service that delivers well above minimum requirements for users:

Grade 3: A service that consistently delivers above minimum requirements for users:

Grade 2: A service that delivers only minimum requirements for users:

Grade 1: A service that does not deliver minimum requirements for users.

Brent 2005

Youth service key aspect grades: Standards of young people's achievement - 4; Quality of youth work practice - 4; Quality of curriculum and resources - 3; Strategic and operational leadership and management - 4 (Service described as inadequate and providing unsatisfactory value for money).

The table above shows overall grades about provision. Inspectors make judgements based on the following scale: Very Good (1), Good (2), Adequate (3) and Inadequate (4).

Brighton and Hove 2005

Youth service key aspect grades: Standards of young people's achievement - 3; Quality of youth work practice - 3; Quality of curriculum and resources - 3; Strategic and operational leadership and management - 3 (Service described as adequate and providing satisfactory value for money).

The table above shows overall grades about provision. Inspectors make judgements based on the following scale: Very Good (1), Good (2), Adequate (3) and Inadequate (4).

Bristol 2006

Youth service key aspect grades: Standards of young people's achievement - 2; Quality of youth work practice - 2; Quality of curriculum and resources - 3; Strategic and operational leadership and management - 2 (Service described as adequate and providing satisfactory value for money).

Grade 4: A service that delivers well above minimum requirements for users:

Grade 3: A service that consistently delivers above minimum requirements for users:

Grade 2: A service that delivers only minimum requirements for users:

Grade 1: A service that does not deliver minimum requirements for users.

Bromley 2005

Youth service key aspect grades: Standards of young people's achievement - 4; Quality of youth work practice - 4; Quality of curriculum and resources - 4; Strategic and operational leadership and management - 4 (Service described as inadequate and providing unsatisfactory value for money).

The table above shows overall grades about provision. Inspectors make judgements based on the following scale: Very Good (1), Good (2), Adequate (3) and Inadequate (4).

Buckinghamshire 2006

Youth service key aspect grades: Standards of young people's achievement - 3; Quality of youth work practice - 3; Quality of curriculum and resources - 4; Strategic and operational leadership and management - 4 (Service described as good and providing good value for money).

Grade 4: A service that delivers well above minimum requirements for users:

Grade 3: A service that consistently delivers above minimum requirements for users:

Grade 2: A service that delivers only minimum requirements for users:

Grade 1: A service that does not deliver minimum requirements for users.

Bury 2005

Youth service key aspect grades: Standards of young people's achievement - 3; Quality of youth work practice - 3; Quality of curriculum and resources - 3; Strategic and operational leadership and management - 2 (Service described as adequate and providing adequate value for money).

The table above shows overall grades about provision. Inspectors make judgements based on the following scale: Very Good (1), Good (2), Adequate (3) and Inadequate (4).

Calderdale 2006

Grade 4: A service that delivers well above minimum requirements for users:

Grade 3: A service that consistently delivers above minimum requirements for users:

Grade 2: A service that delivers only minimum requirements for users:

Grade 1: A service that does not deliver minimum requirements for users.

Cambridgeshire 2004

(Service described as unsatisfactory and providing poor value for money).

Camden 2008

Youth service key aspect grades: Standards of young people’s achievement – 2; Quality of youth work practice – 2; Quality of curriculum and resources – 2; Strategic and operational leadership and management – 2 (Service described as adequate).

Grade 4: A service that delivers well above minimum requirements for users:

Grade 3: A service that consistently delivers above minimum requirements for users:

Grade 2: A service that delivers only minimum requirements for users:

Grade 1: A service that does not deliver minimum requirements for users.

Cheshire 2007

Youth service key aspect grades: Standards of young people's achievement - 3; Quality of youth work practice - 3; Quality of curriculum and resources - 3; Strategic and operational leadership and management - 2 (Service described as good and providing good value for money).

Grade 4: A service that delivers well above minimum requirements for users:

Grade 3: A service that consistently delivers above minimum requirements for users:

Grade 2: A service that delivers only minimum requirements for users:

Grade 1: A service that does not deliver minimum requirements for users.

City of London 2007

Youth service key aspect grades: Standards of young people’s achievement – 3; Quality of youth work practice – 2; Quality of curriculum and resources – 3; Strategic and operational leadership and management – 3 (Service described as good).

Grade 4: A service that delivers well above minimum requirements for users:

Grade 3: A service that consistently delivers above minimum requirements for users:

Grade 2: A service that delivers only minimum requirements for users:

Grade 1: A service that does not deliver minimum requirements for users.

City of Peterborough 2004

(Service described as unsatisfactory and providing poor value for money).

City of York 2004

(Service described as satisfactory and providing satisfactory value for money).

Cornwall 2008

Youth service key aspect grades: Standards of young people’s achievement – 2; Quality of youth work practice – 2; Quality of curriculum and resources – 2; Strategic and operational leadership and management – 2 (Service described as adequate).

Grade 4: A service that delivers well above minimum requirements for users:

Grade 3: A service that consistently delivers above minimum requirements for users:

Grade 2: A service that delivers only minimum requirements for users:

Grade 1: A service that does not deliver minimum requirements for users.

Coventry 2006

Youth service key aspect grades: Standards of young people's achievement - 3; Quality of youth work practice - 3; Quality of curriculum and resources - 3; Strategic and operational leadership and management - 3 (Service described as good and providing good value for money).

Grade 4: A service that delivers well above minimum requirements for users:

Grade 3: A service that consistently delivers above minimum requirements for users:

Grade 2: A service that delivers only minimum requirements for users:

Grade 1: A service that does not deliver minimum requirements for users.

Croydon 2008

Youth service key aspect grades: Standards of young people’s achievement – 3; Quality of youth work practice – 2; Quality of curriculum and resources – 2; Strategic and operational leadership and management – 2 (Service described as satisfactory).

Grade 4: A service that delivers well above minimum requirements for users:

Grade 3: A service that consistently delivers above minimum requirements for users:

Grade 2: A service that delivers only minimum requirements for users:

Grade 1: A service that does not deliver minimum requirements for users.

Cumbria 2005

The table above shows overall grades about provision. Inspectors make judgements based on the following scale: Very Good (1), Good (2), Adequate (3) and Inadequate (4).

Darlington 2005

The table above shows overall grades about provision. Inspectors make judgements based on the following scale: Very Good (1), Good (2), Adequate (3) and Inadequate (4).

Derby 2005

Youth service key aspect grades: Standards of young people's achievement - 2; Quality of youth work practice - 2; Quality of curriculum and resources - 3; Strategic and operational leadership and management - 2 (Service described as good and providing good value for money).

The table above shows overall grades about provision. Inspectors make judgements based on the following scale: Very Good (1), Good (2), Adequate (3) and Inadequate (4).

Derbyshire 2004

Youth service key aspect grades: Standards of young people's achievement - 2; Quality of youth work practice - 2; Quality of curriculum and resources - 3; Strategic and operational leadership and management - 2 (Service described as good and providing good value for money).

The table above shows overall grades about provision. Inspectors make judgements based on the following scale: Very Good (1), Good (2), Adequate (3) and Inadequate (4).

Devon 2006

Youth service key aspect grades: Standards of young people's achievement - 3; Quality of youth work practice - 3; Quality of curriculum and resources - 3; Strategic and operational leadership and management - 3 (Service described as good and providing good value for money).

Grade 4: A service that delivers well above minimum requirements for users:

Grade 3: A service that consistently delivers above minimum requirements for users:

Grade 2: A service that delivers only minimum requirements for users:

Grade 1: A service that does not deliver minimum requirements for users.