Ofsted inspections - North West

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).

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).

Bolton 2004

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

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).

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.

Cumbria 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).

Halton 2004

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

Knowsley 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 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.

Lancashire 2004

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

Liverpool 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.

Manchester 2006

Youth service key aspect grades: Standards of young people’s achievement – 2; 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.

Oldham 2004

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

Salford 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).

Sefton 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.

St Helens 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.

Stockport 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 – 2(Service described as good 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.

Tameside 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 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.

Trafford 2004

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

Warrington 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.

Wigan 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.

Wirral 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 – 3(Service described as good and provides 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