Bristol Send Issues Raised in Serious Youth Violence Report
Provision for SEND was described by professionals as ‘a major source of frustration for both education and social care colleagues.’
Last week, a review into a series of violent incidents and deaths involving teenagers in Bristol was released by the Keeping Bristol Safe Partnership (KBSP).
The partnership is formed of Bristol City Council, BNSSG Integrated Care Board and Avon and Somerset Constabulary. It also includes members from other groups working in the community. This includes people from health and education as well as those in the voluntary sector.
The partnership was formed in the summer of 2019, with the aim of discussing the best ways to keep Bristol ‘safe’. This includes looking at ways children and adults are safe as well as whole communities.
Following a series of shocking murders in early 2024, the KBSP commissioned a review into what happened. This took place between August and November of that year.
It was led by independent consultant Anna Racher and Caroline Boswell.
In January 2024, Mason Rist and Max Dixon were killed in Knowle West. Darrian Williams was killed in Rawnsley Park just weeks later. It was the circumstances of these three murders, along with a ‘serious injury’ on a fourth young person within three weeks of each other that led to the review.
The final paper – Keeping Bristol Safe Partnership Thematic Local Child Safeguarding Practice Review into Serious Youth Violence was embargoed until Thursday 11 September 2025.
Systemic issues around Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (Send) feature in the report. A whole line of inquiry is dedicated to the education perspective.
We are taking a look at the report from a Send perspective, but for those interested in systemic issues, its worth reading the whole report.
The review itself does not look at each case incident in a detailed manner. It focuses on ‘whole systems learning’.
It’s not easy to locate on the KBSP website so the full report is uploaded below.
Initial Rapid Reviews into the three incidents found that all of the young people involved, both victims and perpetrators, were known to and supported by ‘multiple’ partners across children’s social care, policing, health, education and the voluntary and community sector. They were not ‘unseen’ or ‘unknown’ children. They were from minoritised communities, whether this was areas of structural inequalities, racial inequality, poverty or exclusion.
The report says: ‘A considerable volume of information is held across the partnership in relation to all ten of the young people, covering a significant range of vulnerabilities. The young people were all from communities who were all minoritised in different ways, characterised by structural inequalities including racial inequality and bias as well as through poverty and exclusion. They had low levels of school attendance, were children missing education (CME) and/or had experienced multiple suspensions, managed moves or exclusions. A number also had undiagnosed or suspected Special Education Needs and/or had been assessed for an Educational, Health and Care Plan. Some of the young people also had a history of child protection support, including experiences as Children in Care.’
At the time the deaths took place, Bristol did not have any form of Multi Agency Safeguarding (MACE) panel which would have coordinated approaches with ‘inter-agency collaboration’ or ‘strategic planning’ to address the ‘complex nature’ of child exploitation. The review says that it ‘recognises’ that ‘significant reform activity’ is taking place across the KBSP. This includes with education leaders and providers. The changes are ‘relatively recent’, noting that a ‘stable’ leadership team is now emerging and ‘driving a shared vision’.
There were also at least five separate forums, meetings and reviews at which children were routinely discussed. But there was no relationship, cross-checking or rationalisation taking place between them.
The review covers 77 pages and looked at four lines of inquiry. The authors say this offers a ‘whole-system’ lens on how Bristol is tackling serious youth violence. Strategic direction was a significant focus. No names or blame is apportioned at any point, with the exception of the former Labour mayor Marvin Rees.
The review found a ‘significant instability of senior leadership across the partnership. Any ‘expert, highly skilled and knowledgeable work’ was taking place in siloes. The city was operating in a system that is reactive rather than responsive.
Bristol professionals told the review that city-wide concerns in relation to both exploitation and serious youth violence ‘have been known for a number of years’.
Who was in charge of education?
Executive Directors whose portfolio included education. From Autumn 2019 – September 2025: Jacqui Jensen, Hugh Evans, Abi Gbago, Reena Bhogal-Welsh (Interim) and Hannah Woodhouse.
Directors of Education from Autumn 2019 – September 2025: Alan Stubbersfield (Interim) Alison Hurley, Richard Hanks, Reena Bhogal-Welsh and Vik Verma.
Political Cabinet leads for education during the same period has been Labour councillors Anna Keen, Helen Godwin, Marvin Rees, Asher Craig and currently, Green Party Christine Townsend.
Bristol City Council Political Leads from September 2019 – September 2025: Marvin Rees then Gren Party Tony Dyer.
Chief Executives of Bristol City Council 2019 – September 2025: Mike Jackson, Stephen Peacock and Nick Hibberd.
East Bristol
Darrian came from East-Central Bristol. Professionals described the area as ‘lively and culturally very rich. But also acknowledged issues with gentrification, deprivation, poverty, exclusion, housing issues and racism.
Professionals raised concerns regarding the ‘disproportionate representation’ of young Black and Brown males experiencing criminal justice and social care interventions as well as adultification.
Two ‘urban street gangs’ based between North and East Central Bristol were identified in the report. Professionals working in these communities said that there were ‘children and young people effectively being ‘groomed’ into conflict and violence by the behaviours and culture created by the adults around them.’
There were concerns about exploitation, the carrying and selling of knives and weapons and postcode rivalry.
Professional concern was also raised around young Black boys who were both vulnerable and exploited and how they were reported on through the media and politics. This has led to a perception that Black boys from East Central Bristol are ‘dangerous’. This was ‘anecdotally’ feeding into ‘high rates of exclusion’ in education for this group of young people.
The grieving communities around Darrian want justice. But they said ‘structural racism’ meant people felt unable to talk to the police. They felt that because of this racism, they did not have the same ‘effective justice response’ that families in other parts of the city did. This racism was ‘echoed’ in the press and the press reporting, which had an ‘impact’ on both the communities affected and their grief.
The reviewers said there were ‘specific concerns’ that ‘space is not being well-held’ for equity, equality and diversity challenges. This included at ‘high-level boards and panels’. Discussion was ‘shut down’ instead of being ‘responded to’ with ‘necessary curiosity.’
The report said: ‘Colleagues articulated frustration that their views and concerns weren’t always taken on board, with education colleagues citing an example where they felt ‘shut down’ when they looked to bring difficult conversations around racialised conflict and perceived ‘gang’ affiliations to the table. Equally heath colleagues raised challenge around how well intersectionality’s are really understood across agencies, including their own, and so questioned how culturally competent responses could be when professionals working to support minoritised communities cannot even accurately record their identity. All agencies raised the lack of visible diversity at a senior level as problematic, especially when challenging the impact of endemic bias throughout a system takes those holding privilege to be able to invite and explicitly hold space for challenge.’
South Bristol
Max Dixon and Mason Rist came from South Bristol.
Professionals working in this area described it to the reviewers as having ‘significant’ levels of inter-generational poverty. They also said that this part of Bristol had ‘poorer infrastructure and transport links’ more so than other parts of the city. This was a barrier to families in South Bristol travelling outside of their local area.
South Bristol was described as a ‘closed’ community, with youth violence linked to ‘serious’ organised crime, drug dealing and exploitation.
There was not the same ‘levels of concern’ regarding the gang culture in East Central. But, there was ‘significant concern’ about a ‘street culture’ which has evolved directly from children and young people who are missing from education or who have not been properly supported in education. Antisocial behaviour was a gateway to street culture – to involvement in organised crime and drug dealing.
Systemic issues in South Bristol were said to have frustrated professionals, who said that generations of South Bristol communities have continued to face ‘significant’ socio-economic challenges.
‘Much of the frustration’ concerned education. This was around schools not recognising or meeting the needs of young people. This was ‘especially’ so when it came to Special Educational Needs and/or Disabilities (Send) as well as school attendance support.
The report said: ‘The communities around Max and Mason in South Bristol are grieving white families who want to talk and be heard in relation to the discrimination and exclusion they see in their children not having the access and support they need in education. They see schools as not meeting the needs of adolescent boys with low literacy levels who disengage from learning and school. Communities in South Bristol see this as directly linked to violence asking ‘Why are you surprised this happens? What hope can they have?’
Education and Send
The education system in Bristol let down their children, families told the review. They said schools were ‘not sufficiently’ seeing ‘vulnerability or reading changes in behaviour’ as a need for increased support. Instead, they were fining families, responding with punitive actions and using managed moves and exclusions.
The report stated: ‘Family members voiced some frustration and distress at feeling their attempts to advocate for the boys, within what they experienced as an opaque and overly complicated education system, went unheeded. They raised whether childhood experiences of trauma – including where known to professionals – were appropriately understood and learning in relation to this applied when responding to behaviour and situations the young people experienced as triggering.’
The families ‘welcomed’ recommendations to look at how the ‘whole system’ operated. The said that health, police, education and social care were ‘not working closely enough’ to respond to the lived experience of children and young people in their communities.
Families also said that understanding the context of children also required much better understanding from professionals: ‘They felt children’s behaviour, when concerning, needed to be better understood in the context of their personal histories, their experiences of poverty, racism and discrimination, of educational attainment and exclusion and in terms of their mental health, emotional wellbeing and any special educational needs or disabilities.’
In the report, the inclusion of Send related issues jumps around somewhat.
Professionals in education say they want to be included alongside children’s social care and health and the police. The relationship between education and the partnership was described as ‘very fractured’.
It was a ‘consistent’ view that previous Executive Directors ‘didn’t get schooling’. This left social care ‘struggling to understand and respond to a process of academisation.’
‘Strategic instability’ was said to have a big impact within Children’s Social Care. As was the impact of an ‘increasing turnover of staff’ within social care, police and education.
Community relationships, already described as ‘fragile’, were made worse with fresh changes being made by each new leader. Professionals said that this had ‘compromised their integrity’ because they were having to explain changes or did not even understand what was going on.
The loss of experienced education leaders created pressure on school leaders – especially so around managing post-Covid. There were fresh ‘attendance challenges’ and ‘lengthy’ waits for Send assessments.
School leaders said that the ‘frequent changes in senior leadership’ at Bristol City Council impacted on a ‘lack of consistency in strategy, loss of organisational knowledge and ‘a lot of moving onto the ‘next big thing’.’
Work on the Belonging Strategy and Bristol’s Anti-Racisim in Education as well as work on behaviour guidance, was both ‘stalled’ and ‘largely lost’. It was not properly embedded across the whole school system.
The report says that a more ‘stable’ senior leadership team is forming. This gives potential for a ‘newly energised and determined culture’ which will ‘drive forwards effective strategic vision.’
Politics and Whole System Accountability
Political leaders are the ones ‘crucial for driving strategic vision…’ the report says. The are ‘ultimately’ holding services to account.
From 2016 – 2024, Marvin Rees was the Labour Mayor of Bristol and the political lead.
Asher Craig was Deputy Mayor and Cabinet Lead for Education from October 2021.
Rees remained the elected Mayor until Bristol voted to replace the mayoral system with a committee system.
This subsequently saw Green Councillor Tony Dyer become political lead for Bristol City Council from May 2024.
The report said it was not going to delve into the ‘relative efficacy’ of local governance, they acknowledged issues under the previous Mayoral system. Issues were raised by ‘multiple senior leaders’ who were contributed to the review.
Senior leaders told the review that the mayoral system had been a ‘highly political system’ with a ‘highly centralised policy agenda.’ This created a ‘very specific leadership culture.
‘Overall, this review heard that ‘normal’ lines of accountability were felt to be weakened, with strategic direction and improvement activity in relation to safeguarding described as not being subject to the same levels of either support, or routine and robust scrutiny, as was felt to be needed.’
SEND
Due to Bristol’s failures to get to grips with the 2014 Send reforms, the city failed its joint Ofsted and CQC inspection back in 2019. The inspection found four out of five areas had ‘significant weakness’. This included the relationship with parents and carers. It also affected co-production between professionals and families.
The city was forced to produce a Written Statement of Action (WSOA) – a detailed plan of improvements.
Whilst the follow-up in November 2022 found that Bristol was improving, Send provision was still a ‘major source of frustration’ for education and social care professionals. Strategically, ‘whole partnership work’ needed to be undertaken over the ‘disconnect’ between education and the rest of the partnership.
Some of this strategic work was a new Schools Partnership Board and a ‘revised’ KBSP board. A Quality and Improvement Board and Inclusion Board was established to drive improvement and join up services across children’s and education services. This also aims to tackle Bristol’s low school attendance. One of the issues it would be improving was Elective Home Education and Children Missing Education (CME). This would also sit with an established SEND board.
NHS Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire Integrated Care Board told the reviewers that they have also been on an ‘improvement journey’ in recent years. They said that the structural impact of Covid and Covid-recovery, had a knock-on-effect with their services. They cited waiting lists in all areas, but particularly so in their Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS). Services ‘in relation’ to SEND were also ‘of concern’.
Provision for SEND was described by professionals as ‘a major source of frustration for both education and social care colleagues.’
Racism and Equity
Young people and their local communities raised equity, equality and diversity as an issue. They felt there were low levels of representation from minoritised communities in the different agencies they came across. Particularly in the wider work force of the police, social care and health. The council itself had increased concerns around adultification.
Adultification is a bias against children and young people from Black, Asian and other minoritised communities where they are perceived as being more grown up and streetwise than white children. This impacts on Black children in particular, who might firstly be viewed as a threat rather than a child who needs support.
Classism for both Black and white communities was flagged. As was the questions surrounding the understanding and respect for working class cultures.
Operation Hardy was set up as a response to the 2024 incidents. But concern was raised by communities that it was disproportionately focusing on racially minoritised children in East Central Bristol. Again, falling into racial bias and adultification. Were children in South Bristol viewed in the same way communities asked?
Professionals were also concerned that East Central Bristol was ‘homogenously’ and casually referred to as ‘Black’, meaning people were failing to see the many varied individual and community experiences.
Improving Education Attendance and Inclusion
The report was further broken down into a series of Key Lines Of Enquiry (KLOE). It is KLOE4 – Improving educational attendance and inclusion correlating to harm outside the home – which went into issues surrounding that of education.
All of the ten young people involved in the incidents – either as victims or perpetrators – had a range of ‘educational vulnerabilities’.
These were: low levels of school attendance, Children Missing Education (CME), multiple suspensions, managed moves or exclusions.
Some of them had undiagnosed or suspected Special Educational Needs. Some had been assessed for an EHCP. However, the provision for the children with the EHCPS did not always appear to meet the child’s needs. Or, their needs were identified ‘much later’ due to them being a Child Missing Education.
At the end of KS2 in primary school, there was a widening gap between the numbers of pupils meeting expected standards in school compared to the national average. The largest gap between Bristol and the national average was found to affect Black Caribbean children.
School attendance in Bristol has for a long time ‘low levels of attendance’ in comparison to the national average. This was particularly the case in secondary schools and specialist schools. It all culminates in more than 15,000 children in Bristol being persistently absent.
Attendance rates for Bristol pupils with Special Educational Needs is lower than the national average. This is 81.3 per cent compared to 86.7 per cent.
It’s the same story with pupils who have an EHCP, children on Free School Meals, Care Experienced children, those of global majority communities and the most deprived wards in Bristol.
The authors referenced a recent report from The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) – Making The Difference: Breaking the link between school exclusion and social exclusion. The report sets out findings around the impact of exclusion and lost learning, saying: ‘Yet our education system is profoundly ill-equipped to break a cycle of disadvantage for these young people’
Looking across the different types of exclusion, the report found that those experiencing ‘lost learning’ were disproportionately experienced by children growing up in poverty, children in contact with social services, children with Send, children experiencing a mental health crisis and children experiencing racism.
The report found that Bristol had been ‘successful’ in reducing permanent exclusion through its Inclusion Panel and Fair Access Panels. But school leaders and council managers raised concerns that an increased use of Managed Moves meant that children and young people were facing more disruption and increased travel distances which could increase their risks of exploitation.
Concerns were also raised about the ‘lack of transparency and data’ around Managed Moves. Concerns were raised by both school leaders and local authority leaders that some schools were excluding children ‘too easily’. They were also claiming to be full to ‘avoid’ taking children with ‘high levels of need.’
The whole system was not responding adequately or even in the best interests of the children and young people concerned.
Bristol City Council and Secondary Schools Guidance on Off Site Direction and Managed Moves September 2024 documents a ‘new approach’ to make it a priority for keeping a child at their ‘established setting’.
School leaders were said to have expressed ‘broad support’ for this, though it would ‘take time’ for this to ‘bed in’. They also said there are ‘ongoing challenges’ around the sufficiency of ‘high quality’ Alternative Provision. The pressure it was causing Pupil Referral Units meant that ‘further investment’ was needed.
Mainstream schools say they have seen a rise in Send support needs following the Covid pandemic. But, cuts to top up funding by former councillor Asher Craig and former Mayor Marvin Rees, has resulted in a ‘considerable increase’ in the numbers of children waiting for an EHCP. The council has been using ‘transitional top up’ and an Early Intervention Fund to support the lengthy waits.
But ‘responding effectively’ to the city’s Send population has been noted as a ‘considerable area of frustration’ by all professionals. This was particularly so with resource constrains and waiting times for EHCPs.
Children with both diagnosed and undiagnosed Send were vulnerable to poor attendance, exclusion and over represented in the criminal justice system.
The majority of mainstream settings said they had a child on roll whose EHCP required a specialist school place, but there was a lack of specialist provision available locally.
Despite earlier apportioning some blame to the former mayoral system, the report also said there was a need to improve Send provision and school inclusion but that ‘Bristol is not alone in facing this challenge’.
The report said: ‘Both nationally and in Bristol there is a recognition of the need to improve relationships and collaborate more effectively across the school system, local authority and wider partnership to improve support to mainstream settings and achieve a more inclusive system.’
Bristol’s school leaders said they were ‘optimistic’ about the ‘potential for improvements’.
The report found that with new senior leadership appointments – Hannah Woodhouse and Vik Verma – there was new governance arrangements in place in Bristol to improve oversight and performance in Send – as well as making the education system more inclusive. This was proven by the development of a new Send board, the plans for a new Keeping Children Safe Partnership Board and plans to improve engagement with parent carers. There was also the forthcoming Send and Inclusion Strategy 2024 – 2028.
The report authors said that ‘some of the messages’ being delivered by the local authority are ‘quite challenging’. This was in relation to school places, Send funding and support and school places.’ But, Bristol headteachers ‘broadly welcomed’ this ‘more active engagement’. They ‘recognised’ the need to work together to ‘improve outcomes’.
Local authority senior leaders said that there did appear to be an ’emerging consensus’ around the improvements that could be made through ‘locality-based’ inclusion groups and schools leading on ‘early intervention and prevention’. But for that to ‘successfully’ they needed ‘further national reform and investment.’
Professionals working across education, children’s social care and policing expressed ‘considerable concerns’ about ‘high numbers’ of young people in secondary and specialist settings out in the community who are at risk of exploitation.
It was seen as a priority to reduce managed moves and permanent exclusions. A better overview of children missing education and children experiencing ‘persistent and severe absence’ was also seen as a priority.
The young people that took part in the review said that the carrying of weapons was the result of their ‘constrained choices’. They did so either because they felt ‘profoundly unsafe’ themselves or that they had to ‘comply’ with what others expected of them. For some children, this was ‘often both’.
Children and young people also said that professional responses was a ‘reactive nature’. They only got involved with issues once ‘something has happened’.
A ‘notable’ number of young people were ‘hyper aware’ of violence, saying that their bedroom was the place they felt most safe.
What young people said they needed in ‘order to feel safer’ was available help and support from a trusted adult. Those who were already accessing youth provision said that their relationships with staff was of ‘real personal value’. They were adults who ‘routinely saw them in a positive light and as someone to turn to when needed.’
They also said there was a ‘need’ for schools and colleges to ‘respond less punitively to low attendance or poor behavior’. Instead, they should focus on understanding what might be ‘driving behaviours’.
Young people found when they began to struggle – including with school attendance – there is a ‘limited youth offer’ across Bristol with early support.
Professionals said that the ‘prevention resource’ is ‘largely unknown’ to referring services, particularly in youth provision. Bristol needed to become more co-ordinated and education inclusive. Education professionals said there was ‘considerable soft intelligence’ regarding local families and communities, with schools needing to contribute to the ‘wider system’.
Whilst schools said the work by the Safeguarding in Education Team was ‘strong’ there was a ‘lack of connectivity’ with work at the ‘strategic level’.
Education practitioners said they needed to be more ‘closely tied-in’ to ‘receiving support’. They needed to automatically be ‘at the table’ when concerns are discussed. Getting external agencies involved ‘early enough was too hard. They were also ‘frustrated’ at what they say is ‘too much form filling’.
The educational welfare, Safer Options approach and inclusion and early help teams were described as ‘helpful’. But, education professionals said the thresholds for statutory intervention were ‘too high and often inconsistent’. Those working in mainstream primary schools said they also needed ‘more’ early intervention and ‘clearer pathways and processes’ for support.
Safer Options is the city’s Violence Reduction Partnership. It takes a multi-agency approach to tackling Serious Youth Violence (SYV), Child Criminal Exploitation (CCE) and Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE).
The partnership works closely with local Voluntary and Community organisations, young people and communities. It creates plans to reduce risk to vulnerable young people and support those young people who are involved in Serious Youth Violence or Child Criminal Exploitation.
Safer Options commission a number of community organisations across the city to deliver a variety of interventions to young people to respond to their needs.
Additionally, the Safer options team and professionals in each locality are involved in developing relevant projects, procedures, practices and community initiatives to respond to the needs of the young people in their locality.
The report found that although there is support in the system to address issues of ‘inclusion and attendance’ the ‘significant increase’ in education support following the pandemic showed a ‘widening gap’ and disproportionate outcomes. This was ‘directly linked to concerns around exploitation and harm outside of the homes.’
A new Inclusion Board, chaired by Vik Verma, has been established to ‘oversee’ Children Missing Education, low attendance and suspensions and to ‘address the needs of priority groups.
In 2021, a previous thematic review into CSPR into Cross-Border Peer-on-Peer Abuse and Child Criminal Exploitation was produced by the KBSP. This came up with over 20 actions resulting in new programmes put into place in education settings. The report authors found there was a ‘wide variety’ of programmes being funded as well as commissioned community services. But there was there was ‘little apparent overview’ of the total spending, the outcomes or even value for money or impact.
The previous review also found the need to ‘strengthen’ the offer of speech and language therapy for primary school children. As well as this, the improvement of assessments for children with Send needs such as ADHD and children at risk of Childhood Criminal Exploitation and knife crime was needed.
The 2021 proposed interventions were described as ‘still very much relevant and needed.’ But despite ‘repeated requests and assurances’ the review has been ‘unable to see any evidence of evaluations or evidence-informed assessment of how successful or otherwise they had been.’
The report said: ‘Given the large financial investment made in interventions post 2021 and the critical nature of effective early intervention and prevention in this area, there needs to be much greater robust and transparent oversight of what has been delivered. It is essential that well designed implementation processes are put in place, with the right level of scrutiny and accountability, before progressing with the design and delivery of major new programme interventions.’
Families contributing to the review all raised how important education was to effectively tackle youth violence. It was seen as the ‘most powerfully protective factor.’
Crucially, when children started to experience difficulties with school attendance, it was not ‘pastoral responses’ that families got.
They also had ‘considerable concerns’ that the mental health of young people had an impact on both their behavior and attendance at school.
The report stated: ‘There can be no greater moral imperative than the deaths of Max, Mason and Darrian to urgently take forward the clear cumulative learning that meaningful prevention is core work and not a ‘nice to have’ within a well-funded system. All the families who spoke to the review questioned why more could not be done earlier when so much was ‘known’ by partners.’
The report followed with seven recommendations to support ‘ongoing improvement’.
The authors said: ‘Finally, it is important to note that the specific improvements identified in this review do not in any way minimise the challenges faced by all child safeguarding partnerships in relation to tackling serious youth violence and harm outside the home. The availability of knives and weapons to young people, particularly the ease with which they can be purchased online, was raised to this review by all partners and families. It is an issue that requires a national response: this review underlines the need for urgent and decisive national action.’
Twitter: https://twitter.com/ChopsyBristol
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/chopsybaby
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/chopsybristol.bsky.social
TikTok: www.tiktok.com/@chopsybristoltt