The National Youth Agency - Ofsted inspections

Ofsted inspections - North East

Darlington 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).

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).

Durham 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 – 3 (Service described as good and providing good 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.

Gateshead 2006

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 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.

Hartlepool 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.

Middlesbrough 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 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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Stockton on Tees 2008

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.

Sunderland 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 – 3 (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).