Ofsted inspections - Newcastle upon Tyne to Rutland

Newcastle upon Tyne 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 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.

Newham 2006

Youth service key aspect grades: Standards of young people's achievement - 2; Quality of youth work practice -1; Quality of curriculum and resources - 2; Strategic and operational leadership and management - 1(Service described as inadequate and providing unsatisfactory 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.

Norfolk 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 improving 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).

North East Lincolnshire 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 – 3(Service described as adequate 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.

North Lincolnshire 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.

North Somerset 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.

North Tyneside 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 – 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.

North Yorkshire 2004

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

Northamptonshire 2006

Youth service key aspect grades: Standards of young people's achievement - 1; Quality of youth work practice -1; Quality of curriculum and resources - 1; Strategic and operational leadership and management - 1(Service described as inadequate and providing poor 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.

Northumberland 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.

Nottingham 2004

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

Nottinghamshire 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 – 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.

Oldham 2004

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

Oxfordshire 2004

Youth service key aspect grades: Standards of young people's achievement - 1; Quality of youth work practice - 1; Quality of curriculum and resources - 2; Strategic and operational leadership and management - 2 (Service described as very good and providing very 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).

Plymouth 2006

Youth service key aspect grades: Standards of young people's achievement - 1; Quality of youth work practice -1; Quality of curriculum and resources - 1; Strategic and operational leadership and management - 1(Service described as inadequate and providing unsatisfactory 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.

Poole 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 with some good features).

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.

Portsmouth 2004

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

Reading 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 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).

Redbridge 2007

Youth service key aspect grades: Standards of young people’s achievement – 2; Quality of youth work practice –2; Quality of curriculum and resources – 1; Strategic and operational leadership and management – 1(Service described as inadequate and providing unsatisfactory 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.

Redcar and Cleveland 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 – 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.

Richmond upon Thames 2007

Youth service key aspect grades: Standards of young people’s achievement – 2; Quality of youth work practice –2; Quality of curriculum and resources – 1; Strategic and operational leadership and management – 1(Service described as adequate 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.

Rotherham 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 - 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.

Rutland 2006

Youth service key aspect grades: Standards of young people's achievement - 1; Quality of youth work practice -1; Quality of curriculum and resources - 1; Strategic and operational leadership and management - 2(Service described as inadequate and providing unsatisfactory 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.

• Bookmark with
• Facebook
• Reddit
• Delicious
• Digg
• Technorati