Ofsted inspections - London region

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.

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.

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).

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).

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.

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.

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.

Ealing 2004

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 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).

Enfield 2005

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 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.

Greenwich 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.

Hackney 2006

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.

Hammersmith and Fulham 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 – 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.

Haringey 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.

Harrow 2007

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.

Havering 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 – 4 (Service described as good and providing very 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.

Hillingdon 2006

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 satisfactory 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.

Hounslow 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.

Islington 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 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.

Kingston upon Thames 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.

Lambeth 2004

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

Lewisham 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 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.

Merton 2004

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 poor 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).

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.

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.

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.

Sutton 2005

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 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).

Tower Hamlets 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 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).

Waltham Forest 2005

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 – 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).

Wandsworth 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 – 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.

Westminster 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 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.





Young Researcher Network website
Youth Work 4 Health
Find out more about Hear By Right and What's Changed
Youth Information