Transcript Presentation Template for Children's Homes

10 November 2013
National Independent
LSCB chairs conference
Jacky Tiotto
Deputy Director , Social Care
Ofsted
 Overview
 New single inspection
 The review of LSCBs
 Discussion
overview messages
 Inspection improves lives and life chances
 The bar has been ‘raised’ – how well and what
difference are now central to inspections
 ‘Good’ is the minimum ALL children deserve – anything
less requires improvement
 Too many authorities are less than good
 ‘Adequacy’ is a vulnerable position given the
pressures on local authorities
 We ALL need to be more ambitious for children in all
settings
some hard questions…………..
 Are we raising the bar?
- Yes - BY looking at the experiences of children and the
effectiveness of professional practice, the bar is raised
- The Munro review posed this as a central observation to us all
about the past decade – stop looking at targets and look
at what happens to the children
- Judging performance in this country against others on the
number of child deaths is simply not ambitious for children
- We have a responsibility to judge the system that
protects children with a benchmark higher than
whether they live to survive the abuse and neglect that
they live with
some hard questions…………..
• The ‘single word’ judgement
- A single word or a paragraph? What matters is whether
the services we are inspecting are good enough for children
and young people
- We have a responsibility to tell a clear and simple story
about whether things are improving or getting worse in
the places we inspect using this framework
- The report contains the full explanatory narrative
• Is this a distracting debate from that which matters –
what is our ambition for children who do not choose their life
circumstance but who live with it forever
some of the spotlight is on…….

Children and young people missing from care,
education and risks of sexual exploitation

The promotion of education and schooling for
children who are looked after



Children living in residential care out of the area

The quality of work with families where the plan is for
children to return home


The quality of care planning for children looked after
The early help offer and assessment
Whether assessments are events or an engagement
with families
The quality of housing and support for care leavers
new single
inspection of
local authorities
the new framework – overview


Universal, unannounced and 3 year cycle - balanced
3 key judgements - (2 graded judgements – adoption and care leavers)
 Protecting children
 Looked after children and Achieving Permanence
 Leadership, Management and Governance


‘Good’ is the new lens


Requires Improvement – not enough characteristics of ‘good’
Outstanding – exceeding good, sustaining improvement, an
exceptional difference
Inadequate – widespread or serious concern – children at risk or
being harmed
overall inadequacy – when?
 inadequacy in any key judgement
limits overall effectiveness to inadequate
 it is possible to have good ‘leadership’
in inadequate places
 the graded sub-judgements influence
but do not ‘limit alone’
 widespread OR serious concerns –
children at risk of or being harmed
 protection AND/OR CARE
the breadth
1. Contact
2. Early help
3. Referral
4. Assessment
5. Child protection enquiry
6. Children in need
7. Children subject of a child protection plan
8. Children looked after
9. Young people leaving care
10. Children adopted

Potential and approved adopters
methodology


Unannounced - over a single month






Tracking, sampling and audit (minimum of 80 cases)
Set up (and contact, referral, assessment inspection evidence),
local authority case auditing, full team for 8 working days
Children living in children’s homes out of the area
Adoption and fostering – carers and prospective adopters too
Observations of practice, effectiveness, management oversight
Meeting with children, young people and families and carers
Talking to key stakeholders – no focus groups
annex A – what is already known

Sets out the information that is needed to support the
inspection – the case sample AND performance information

Important data and management information to inform
priorities and the delivery of protection and care to
children and young people in the area

Information should be provided in the format used locally –
GIVE US WHAT IS ALREADY USED TO MANAGE and
LEAD THE SERVICE

Are there questions in there that should not be known
and regularly reviewed?
improvement and next steps meeting
Inspectors agree provisional judgements on Tuesday afternoon (Wk 4)
Meet with the DCS, LSCB chair and key others (4) on Wednesday
morning to:

share the detail of the evidence that the team used to reach
judgements


take the opportunity to clarify any outstanding issues
have a clear dialogue about the areas for improvement that are
likely to follow the inspection.
Followed by formal feedback, with statutory partners, Lead Member,
Leader and Chief Executive
the report (1)

Key threshold / decision-making points (including any emerging
themes relating to specific age groups of children and young people
e.g. very young children or primary aged children)

Missing from home, care or education

At risk of sexual exploitation

Living out of the authority area

Achieving the right permanence option

Waiting for adoption

In need of adoption support services
the report (2)


Shorter, bulleted report





Areas for priority improvement and areas for development

Copies to HMIC, HMI Probation, CQC, HMI Prisons, with letter from
HMCI where there are concerns about particular professional practice
Summarised key findings written for children and young people as well
as the authority
Key findings for each judgement area
Draft within 15 days of inspection
Draft LSCB report sent to chair and partners
Inspection and review reports published as one document following
factual accuracy
Inspecting the contribution of
partners to care and protection

From April 2015 - with our partner inspectorates (CQC,
HMIP, HMIC and HMI Prisons), a framework that
ADDITIONALLY evaluates the contribution of core
statutory partners to the care and protection of children

This will not replace the single inspection

We (together with colleague inspectorates) will select a
sample of authorities to visit. The existing Ofsted
framework will be the spine of that inspection with
additional criteria to assess the contribution of partners
Add presentation title to master slide | 16
review of
the local
safeguarding
children
board
review of the
local safeguarding children board

S15 (A) Children Act 2004 – regulations laid – new power for
HMCI

In parallel with the inspection of the local authority and there
will be an overall effectiveness judgement

The single inspection and review can be undertaken
independently of each other

Introduced to identify the strategic and professional
commitment and contribution of all statutory partners
to help (particularly early), care and protection
consultation responses

Review is the right thing to do - though would be better if integral
to a multi – inspectorate approach


Preference for no judgement – given complexity of system

Some views that the programme should complete in less than three
years and that the inspection reports should not be published together


Clarity sought regarding the non – operational role of the board
Some challenge about the potential/scope for the judgement of
board effectiveness to be different to that of the local authority
Concern about the high bar and the capacity of the board –
particularly human resource to audit and evaluate effectiveness
accountabilities – are they clear?


Evaluate and Ensure – is there a difference? What are the levers?

The 2004 Act describes the role of the board as ‘ensuring the
effectiveness of what is done…..

Are these tasks different and do they require different authority and
have different outcomes?

We will undertake the review expecting that the role of the board
is evaluative and not operational – except that of course everyone
represented has an operational and statutory duty to protect

A question however remains for us – who really takes action if a
statutory partner is not complying with their statutory duty to protect
children in the area?
The 2006 regulations describe the role of the board as ‘monitoring
and evaluating the effectiveness of the contribution of…. ‘
inspection activity
Review:




Minutes of at least the last three Board meetings


The LSCB business plan
Sub-group minutes as appropriate
Evaluation of multi-agency safeguarding training
The policies and procedures produced in accordance with the
LSCB’s statutory functions
The LSCB annual report
AND:

Interview the LSCB chair, business manager and other board
partners
for evaluation by inspectors


Recent case file audits undertaken by the Board



Monitoring and evaluation of areas for improvement

Threshold criteria, training strategy, recruitment and
supervision, investigation of allegations, safety and welfare of
children who are privately fostered

Protection and care of children going missing, those living out
of the area
Learning, practice improvement and impact of any serious
case reviews
Impact and effectiveness of the child death overview panel
Understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of multiagency protection and care practice
what does good look like?

The LSCB co-ordinates the statutory work of partners to
help (including early), care and protect

There are mechanisms to evaluate the effectiveness of those
arrangements AND priorities for improvement are identified
and being implemented.

The multi – agency training programme is in place, regularly
evaluated for impact on management and front- line practice

Thresholds are clear, understood and properly
implemented

Audits of casework identify practice and management areas for
improvement - chair intervenes if no improvement
what does good look like?

Learning from serious case reviews, management reviews and child
deaths improves practice and management and therefore
children’s experiences of help, care and protection

Serious case reviews are initiated as required in statutory
guidance and they published.

Partners hold each other to account for their contribution to
the safety and protection of children and young people (including
children and young people living in the area away from their home
authority)


Safeguarding is a priority for all of the statutory Board members.
All Board partners make a proportionate financial and resource
contribution
what does good look like?
 The experiences of children and young people are used as a
measure of improvement
 The needs of children who are missing or at risk of or are
being sexually exploited are a strategic priority for board
members
 Members of the board draw on their assessment of multiagency practice to influence the planning and delivery of
services for children in all partner organisations
 The LSCB, through its annual report, provides a rigorous and
transparent assessment of the performance and
effectiveness of local services – including areas for
improvement
inadequacy


Improper discharge of statutory responsibilities

Failing to identify where improvement is needed
Not identifying the experiences of or quality of
practice for children and young people in need of
help, care and protection
before the 17 November ……….
 We need all LSCB chairs email addresses
 They must be secure addresses
 Please send by 17 November to:
 [email protected]
Thank you