Review of Ofsted LSCB Inspection Reports

September 2016

2

Contents

Introduction 3

Methodology 3

Quantitative Findings 3

Qualitative Findings 5

Joint Targeted Area Inspection (JTAI) 5

Summary 6

Appendix 1 Analysis of Ofsted Inspections published

1st May 2015 – 31

st Jul 2016 8

Appendix 2 Comments made by Ofsted re LSCB Chair, Mar to Jul 2016 13

Appendix 3 LSCB Sections of JTAI letters, Apr to Aug 2016 18

Appendix 4 Findings of AILC Survey of LSCB Chair experiences of JTAIs 20

3

Review of Ofsted LSCB Inspection Reports

Introduction

This is the fifth report commissioned by the Association of Local Safeguarding Children Board Chairs

(AILC) in respect of Ofsted inspection judgements of LSCBs and covers the period March 2016 - July

2016. As with previous reports its aim is to inform LSCB chairs, AILC and interested parties of Ofsted

inspection judgements and to identify the main themes arising from recent LSCB inspections.

This report, and the four previous ones, have been commissioned as part of AILCs Effectiveness

workstream (see ‘Effectiveness’ in ‘Policy’, http://www.lscbchairs.org.uk), and aim to support the LSCB

chair’s role in contributing to effective safeguarding arrangements. This current review, containing analysis

of eighteen Ofsted reports, builds upon the findings of previous reviews published by AILC in January,

May and October 2015 as well as March 2016. AILC’s previously published reviews have collectively

considered the findings of 54 Ofsted Inspection reports against the Ofsted LSCB inspection criteria, thus

the Association has now reviewed a total of 72 Ofsted reports.

Methodology The LSCB ‘section’ of all eighteen inspection reports published in the period 1st March 2016 – 31st July

2016 were reviewed to identify the similarities as well as differences in judgements and findings. The

findings were compared to the analysis of the 54 Ofsted Inspection reports previously reviewed and

referred to above.

A decision was made to continue to use the Ofsted inspection criteria for LSCBs to analyse findings so as

to provide a consistent approach to these reports and allow the themes to be easily transferred into AILCs

Overarching Effectiveness Framework. The analysis has again been broken down by LSCB Inspection

judgment to allow LSCB chairs to benchmark/self-assess their LSCBs against individual areas of the LSCB

Ofsted Inspection criteria. Furthermore, and at the request of the commissioner, a review of the full text of

the 18 inspection reports was carried out to identify comments made in respect of the leadership and

performance of the LSCB chairperson.

This report also includes analysis of the standalone LSCB section from the 5 Joint Targeted Area

Inspections that were published between April and August 2016 as well as the views and comments of 6

LSCB chairs who have experienced this form of inspection methodology. A set of standard questions

regarding JTAIs was used in telephone interviewing by AILC to gather data from LSCB chairs and

responses were provided using a common scoring matrix thus allowing the reader to compare and contrast

the responses provided.

Quantitative Findings

For the 18 inspections reports that were published between March and July 2016, the LSCB judgment was

the same in 5 cases (28%) as the overall judgment for the Local Authority, higher than the overall

judgement for the Local Authority in 6 cases (33%) and lower than the overall judgement for the Local

Authority in 7 cases (39%). For the first time, two Local Authorities were judged as Outstanding and the

LSCBs were judged as Good. The inspection judgements are set out in the table overleaf.

4

Table 1 Children’s Services overall judgment compared to LSCB judgement (March–July 16)

Children’s Services LSCB Gateshead Good Requires Improvement Westminster Outstanding Good Luton Requires Improvement Requires Improvement Kensington and Chelsea Outstanding Good Hammersmith and Fulham Good Good Dudley Inadequate Inadequate Northumberland Requires Improvement Good Northamptonshire Requires Improvement Requires Improvement Durham Requires Improvement Good Bury Requires Improvement Good Dorset Requires Improvement Inadequate Thurrock Requires Improvement Good Sefton Requires Improvement Inadequate Isles of Scilly Good Requires Improvement Bromley Inadequate Requires Improvement Southend on Sea Requires Improvement Requires Improvement Solihull Requires Improvement Good Cornwall Good Requires Improvement

Table 2 below, illustrates that for the reports published between March and July 2016, for the first time since AILC began these analyses, the most common inspection judgement in this cohort for a LSCB was ‘Good’ (44%), with 39% of LSCBs being judged as ‘Requires Improvement’, and 17% as

‘Inadequate’.

Table 2 Judgements of LSCBs in AILCs cohort December 2014 – July 2016

Dec 14 –

Jan 15*

Feb 15 –

Apr 15

May 15 –

Sep 15

Oct 15 –

Feb 16

Mar 16 – Jul

16

Total (AILC

cohort) Inadequate 2

(17%)

2

(28.5%)

4

(20%)

2

(13%)

3

(17%)

13

(18%)

Requires Improvement 6

(50%)

3

(43%)

10

(50%)

9

(60%)

7

(39%)

35

(49%)

Good 4

(33%)

2

(28.5%)

6

(30%)

4

(27%)

8

(44%)

24

(33%)

*Includes review of 6 reports published Aug– Sept 14

5

The fifth column in the table above sets out the findings of the 72 Ofsted reports published between

December 2014 and July 2016 that have been considered by AILC. Across all 72 reports reviewed by

AILC, ‘Requires Improvement’ remains the most common LSCB inspection judgement by Ofsted, at 49%,

‘Good’ stands at 33%, and ‘Inadequate’ at 18%. These percentages are very similar to the breakdown of

LSCB judgements set out in the previous report. No LSCBs had yet been judged as ‘Outstanding’ during

all five cohort periods - but during publication of this report, the first LSCB has now received an Outstanding

judgement.

Qualitative Findings

The learning and analysis of the 18 reports published between March and February 2016 is consistent

with that found in previously published Ofsted reports considered by AILC. The themes and learning in

this cohort are largely similar to previous reports, and are set out at Appendix 1.

The authors continued to observe a strong focus in inspection reports on the quality of the Board’s

performance management and quality assurance arrangements, and its ability to evaluate front line

practice/safeguarding activity and so identify areas for improvement.

Oversight of the findings of single agency audits as well as tracking improvement activity arising from multi-

agency audits are indicators of a strong performance culture. Boards are also required to be able to

evidence the impact of their scrutiny and assurance activity on front line practice and safeguarding

arrangements. Similarly, Boards are expected to be able to evidence that the learning from serious case

and child death reviews is actioned, tracked and understood by frontline practitioners.

Inspection reports routinely consider the Board’s governance arrangements and inspectors look for

evidence of the Board’s impact in influencing the work and priorities of other strategic bodies including the

Health and Wellbeing Board. The LSCB should be able to evidence that safeguarding priorities are aligned

across the various strategic partnerships.

Comments throughout the Ofsted reports continue to refer to the significant leadership role of the LSCB

chair in relation to the Board’s challenge and influence role and the extracts from the inspection reports

are positive about the performance and impact of LSCB chairpersons, including those who have been

recently appointed to their role.

Appendix 2 contains comments made in the inspection reports in respect of the leadership and

performance of LSCB chairpersons, grouped within LSCB Inspection judgement categories. A very large

majority of the comments about chairs are positive.

Joint Targeted Area Inspection (JTAI) Findings

Six JTAI inspections have been carried out to date; one of which was a pilot inspection. Four of the five

letters published following the JTAI have a small standalone LSCB section and these can be found at

Appendix 3. CSE and Missing as the theme of the deep dive feature in these sections alongside

commentary in relation to other areas of LSCB activity e.g. training and performance management.

Conversations with the chairs of the 6 LSCBs who have been inspected using the JTAI framework indicate

that this type of inspection produced clear findings that have assisted individual agencies as well as the

partnership to prioritise improvement activity.

Three chairs reported that inspectorates focused more on the social care front door/MASH whilst the other

three felt the focus of attention was more equal.

6

Some chairs reported evidence of inspectors working together and triangulating evidence with each other

and also in case files, however some also identifed that the inspection could be a more integrated process.

The questions asked of chairs, along with summary responses provided by chairs, can be found at

Appendix 4.

The demands of the JTAI audit methodology was commented upon by several chairs and some areas had

prepared in advance by piloting the JTAI audit methodology whilst others now plan to amend their audit

process to better reflect the JTAI methodology.

Some chairs raised the issue of the role of the LSCB in the JTAI given for example the DCS receives the

initial phone call and is required to sign off the action plan, the Local Authority coordinates the inspection

timetable and the letter appears to be written for partners rather than the LSCB.

Summary The review of the 18 inspection reports published between 1st March 2016 - 31st July 2016 leads the

authors to conclude that the analysis of what a good LSCB looks like has not significantly changed as a

result of recently published Ofsted inspections. In concluding, a ‘Good’ LSCB should:

a. Have clear lines of accountability with other strategic partnerships including the Health and Well

Being Board, and be able to demonstrate its influence on the work of those partnerships;

b. Operate a robust business planning and outcomes focused approach to its work and use feedback

from children, young people and their families to inform its work and evaluate service provision;

c. Be adequately resourced and business like in its approach;

d. Rigorously track any actions agreed and hold each other to account;

e. Use performance data, audits and feedback from front line staff to ensure effective oversight of

vulnerable groups of children and safeguarding practice; including early help and thresholds;

f. Have a coherent strategy and deliver an action plan to address CSE and Missing Children, including

links to the CME agenda;

g. Ensure learning from audits, case reviews, Serious Case Reviews and child death reviews reaches

frontline practitioners, is tracked and used to develop practice and service provision and test the

desired change has taken place;

h. Ensure the provision of high quality multi-agency safeguarding training, informed by a needs

assessment and evaluate the impact on practice of such training;

i. Be able to evidence the impact of its work on improving practice and outcomes; including the

maintenance of up to date procedures;

j. Be visible to all stakeholders; including by publishing an evaluative and analytical annual report and

maintaining an accessible and up-to-date website.

7

Comments regarding the independent LSCB chair’s role continue to be very positive throughout this

period, citing their leadership role, challenge and influence with the Board and partners – “The independent

chair of the LSCB actively promotes safeguarding issues across the partnership and community, and

provides appropriate challenge. As a result, extensive engagement by partners has been secured across

the full range of safeguarding work. Partners are encouraged and enabled by the chair to raise issues and

challenges constructively”

AILC’s analysis of the LSCB sections of Joint Targeted Area Inspections, and its small survey of chairs

experiences and perspectives on JTAIs, indicate that clear findings from these inspections help Boards

and partners to prioritise improvement activity – “The JTAI framework has provided a model for multi-

agency audits across the partnership – to support inspection readiness as well as local learning”

Some chairs observed that the co-ordination of the JTAI rested more with the Local Authority than the

LSCB, the initial call being made to the DCS, who is also expected to sign off the action plan.

Liz Murphy, Independent Safeguarding Consultant. Sarah Webb, Policy Adviser, AILC. September 2016

8

Appendix 1 Analysis of Ofsted Inspection reports published 1st May 2015 – 31st July 2016 against Ofsted inspection criteria

Ofsted LSCB Inspection criteria Inadequate Requires Improvement Good

The governance arrangements enable LSCB partners (including the Health and Well-Being Board and the Children’s Trust) to assess whether they are fulfilling their statutory responsibilities to help (including early help), protect and care for children and young people. The LSCB effectively prioritises according to local issues and demands and there is evidence of clear improvement priorities identified that are incorporated into a delivery plan to improve outcomes.

• Appropriate governance arrangements set out in a protocol but not sufficiently established

• Process focused as opposed to SMART outcome focused business plan

• Review of Board functioning usually led by Chair and improvement activity identified and in progress

• Revised Board structure recently agreed

• Governance structure meets statutory requirements however require strengthening

• Gaps in engaging with Voluntary and faith communities and LFJB

• Business Plan identifies appropriate priorities however is not sufficiently focused to enable the Board to evaluate the quality of services/impact of its work

• Clear governance framework that meets statutory requirements and appropriate and constructive relationships between LSCB and other strategic partnerships; including HWBB

• LSCB is purposeful and business like in its approach

• Well considered business planning cycle, appropriate priorities that accord with local need and are delivered effectively through the business plan

Regular and effective monitoring and evaluation of multi-agency front-line practice to safeguard children identifies where improvement is required in the quality of practice and services that children, young people and families receive. This includes monitoring the effectiveness of early help.

• Poor and ineffective performance management arrangements

• Gaps in oversight of key aspects of front line practice e.g. looked after children, LADO arrangements and private fostering

• Multi-agency dataset in place however needs further development

• Insufficient rigour in performance arrangements to enable understanding of front line practice from early help to statutory intervention

• Comprehensive multi- agency dataset and/or performance information is combined with qualitative analysis to help understand the experiences of children and families.

• Monitoring of all relevant aspects of multi-agency safeguarding practice

9

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), facilitated by the chair.

• Chair introducing a stronger culture of challenge

• Some examples of partners holding each other to account/stronger culture of mutual challenge with evidence of impact

• Challenge log

• Mutual challenge amongst Board members leading to improvements in a number of areas

• Significant evidence of Board holding partners to account e.g. sector specific challenge sessions and evidence of impact

Safeguarding is a priority for all of the statutory LSCB members and this is demonstrable, such as through effective section 11 audits. All LSCB partners make a proportionate financial and resource contribution to the main LSCB and the audit and scrutiny activity of any sub-groups.

• Delays with S11 audits or their rigour, some showing signs of increasing rigour/reach

• Local Authority dominated Board or lack of engagement of partners to progress Board work

• For some LSCBs, insufficient resources

• S11 audits completed include challenge of evidence

• Board partners support the work of the Board

• Partner agency contributions to support LSCB. For some LSCBs, budget insufficient

• Robust S11 audits completed - reach, scope and validation of evidence

• Board activity supported by the commitment of partner agencies

• Contributions to support the work of the Board made by all agencies, including at a senior and political level

The LSCB has a local learning and improvement framework with statutory partners. Opportunities for learning are effective and properly engage all partners. Serious case reviews are initiated where the criteria set out in statutory guidance are met and identify good practice to be disseminated and where practice can be improved. Serious case reviews are published.

• Delay in acting on SCR/case review learning or SCR/case review learning being widely disseminated and staff not readily able to articulate learning and how it impacts on their work

• CDOP functioning effectively

• SCR/case review learning widely disseminated – varying degrees of tracking or impact

• CDOP functioning effectively and evidence of action to reduce likelihood of future child deaths

• Learning from case reviews/SCRs central to Board activity – clear system of tracking

• Improvements in practice evidenced

• CDOP functioning effectively and evidence of action to reduce likelihood of future child deaths

The LSCB ensures that high-quality policies and procedures are in place (as required by Working together to

• Lack of clarity amongst professionals of early help pathways and thresholds

• Threshold understood by professionals or further work needed to embed thresholds

• Threshold document is clear and appropriately used in practice

10

safeguard children) and that these policies and procedures are monitored and evaluated for their effectiveness and impact and revised where improvements can be made. The LSCB monitors and understands the application of thresholds locally

• Fit for purpose procedures or development required in some areas

• LSCB not assured itself that thresholds are being applied consistently

• Clear and fit for purpose procedures that are subject to regular review and revision and address emerging issues e.g. FGM

• Some understanding of the application of thresholds at all levels of need

• Procedures are fit for purpose and regularly reviewed/address emerging issues e.g. FGM

• Application of thresholds is closely monitored

The LSCB understands the nature and extent of the local issues in relation to children missing and children at risk of sexual exploitation and oversees effective information sharing and a local strategy and action plan

• Leadership and in some areas good coordination of CSE and missing agenda

• Limited understanding of trends, themes and hot spots

• Evidence of engagement with local businesses, licensed premises and taxi drivers

• Leadership, and in some areas good coordination, of CSE and missing agenda

• Varying levels of knowledge and understanding of CSE and missing

• Evidence of engagement with local businesses, licensed premises and taxi drivers

• CSE and missing arrangements are coordinated and delivered well

• Good understanding of the nature and scale of CSE and in some areas themes from welfare return interviews

• Evidence of engagement with local businesses, licensed premises and taxi drivers

The LSCB uses case file audits including joint case audits to identify priorities that will improve multi-agency professional practice with children and families. The chair raises challenges and works with the local authority and other LSCB partners where there are concerns that the improvements are not effective. Practitioners and managers working with families are able to be involved in practice audits, identifying strengths,

• Multi-agency auditing is not used to systematically improve multi-agency practice

• Poor or developing arrangements to engage with children and young people

• Multi-agency auditing of varying quality takes place on a regular basis including follow up audits to test learning has been embedded and some evidence of impact

• Varying quality of action plans arising from audits/under developed system to track improvement activity

• Robust programme of multi-agency audits, good case sample size, actions tracked and impact evaluated

• Stronger arrangements to secure and use the voice of the child – although this is an area for development in several LSCBs.

11

areas for improvement and lessons to be learned. The experiences of children and young people are used as a measure of improvement

• Voice of the child not yet consistently heard at the Board

The LSCB is an active and influential participant in informing and planning services for children, young people and families in the area and draws on its assessments of the effectiveness of multi-agency practice. It uses its scrutiny role and statutory powers to influence priority setting across other strategic partnerships such as the Health and Well-being Board

• LSCB is not a key influence in the planning of services for children

• LSCB Chair not engaged in all relevant strategic partnership forums

• LSCB is beginning to exert greater influence and in some areas good examples of influence

• LSCB Chair attends relevant strategic partnerships

• LSCB Chair attends relevant strategic partnerships

• LSCBs influence is evident and examples of LSCB being instrumental in service planning/work of other strategic partnerships

• Strategic priorities aligned across the partnership landscape

The LSCB ensures that sufficient, high-quality multi-agency training is available and evaluates its effectiveness and impact on improving front-line practice and the experiences of children, young people, families and carers. All LSCB members support access to the training opportunities in their agencies

• Range of training provided and usually well attended

• Embedding systems to evaluate the impact of training on practice

• Range of training provided and usually well attended

• Training needs analysis required to inform training programme

• Some evaluation of the impact of training on practice and for other LSCBs, this needs development

• Range of highly regarded training provided with good take up with some areas using a training need analysis to inform programme.

• Evaluation of the impact of training on practice- this needs development in some areas

The LSCB, through its annual report, provides a rigorous and transparent assessment of the performance and effectiveness of local services. It

• Varying quality of analysis contained in reports. Gaps include lack of analysis of safeguarding

• Report covers all required areas however not sufficiently rigorous or transparent in its assessment of the

By and large, evaluative and analytical report

12

identifies areas of weakness and the causes of those weaknesses, and evaluates and where necessary challenges the action being taken. The report includes lessons from management reviews, serious case reviews and child deaths within the reporting period

arrangements/vulnerable groups, multi-agency performance data, SCR learning and JSNA data

performance and effectiveness of local services

13

Appendix 2 Comments made in relation to LSCB chairperson, in Ofsted inspection reports published 1st March – 31st July 2016

The table below sets out comments made by Ofsted in relation to the leadership and performance of the LSCB chairperson in the 18 inspection reports published 1st March 2016– 31st July 2016 and is broken down by inspection judgement.

Inadequate Requires Improvement Good

The experienced new interim chair of the LSCB is a strong appointment. Since his arrival in December 2015, he has demonstrated a clear understanding of strengths and development areas required of the agencies and individual members of the board. His approach of focusing on a small number of key areas has brought greater clarity and sense of purpose to the board, but is at too early a stage to have made a demonstrable difference to the efficacy with which the board discharges its statutory functions.

LSCB members’ express confidence in the independent chair, who is highly skilled and knowledgeable across all areas of the business.

The independent chair of the LSCB, who is long established in the role, actively promotes safeguarding issues across the partnership and community, and provides appropriate challenge. As a result, extensive engagement by partners has been secured across the full range of safeguarding work. Partners are encouraged and enabled by the chair to raise issues and challenges constructively. This is well evidenced in the minutes of the board and its subgroups

The chair of CDOP reports that, since the recent appointment of the new independent chair of the DSCB, both the quality and promptness of communication between the board and CDOP have improved markedly.

In the short time that they have been in office, the newly appointed independent chair and business manager have already had a significant impact on the LSCB’s work

The chair of the LSCB has been in post since May 2015 and is well-respected by colleagues from partner agencies. She also chairs the Safeguarding Adults Board and is a member of the H&WBB. She works closely with the local authority chief executive, the director of children’s services and the council’s elected members to ensure that safeguarding children and adults is afforded the highest priority. The chair appropriately raises issues, exerts challenge and enables partners to do so. Since November, she has ensured that the

14

minutes of the Board meetings record challenges made. These are followed through until resolution

Following the appointment of the new DCS in October 2015, a review of the work of the LSCB by an independent consultant was jointly commissioned by the DCS and the chair.

Of particular note were the appointments of a new independent chair in September 2015 and a new business manager in December 2015. With a brief to increase the impact and effectiveness of the board, they have made a very positive start. As well as meeting with key partners to explore their roles and respective contributions, the new independent chair and the new business manager quickly recognised the need for a renewed focus on the collective response to neglect. They have begun to bring greater clarity to the various board sub-groups to ensure that sub-groups’ activity accurately reflects the board’s priorities.

There is a culture of openness and challenge and the chair of the board has been instrumental in leading and facilitating the developments

The LSCB chair recognises that the board’s performance scorecard does not yet include robust data on child sexual exploitation and children who go missing and that, to date, its review of practice has been limited to a single audit of referrals to the child sexual exploitation panel. The LSCB chair has plans in place to address both issues

The independent chair of the board also chairs the Safeguarding Adults Board (SAB) and has been in post since October 2014. She has been instrumental in steering the board developments, setting a culture of openness and challenge and developing constructive working relationships across the partnership. The chief executive has established appropriate links with the chair through which she is held accountable and there are regular meetings with the corporate director of children and adult’s services

The chair is highly regarded by partners for his pragmatic approach and his ability to ensure improvements through effective challenge.

The LSCB chair chairs the children’s and young people’s reference group, which has given presentations to the board

15

Attendance by some has been problematic and required the chair to successfully challenge irregular attendance

The board is well chaired by an independent chair who maintains links with other independent chairs though regional and national organisations. The independent chair has regular meetings with both the chief executive of the council and the DCS. As these meetings are not recorded, it is not possible to assess their impact. The chair also conducts annual individual reviews with board members. These are a useful opportunity for members to share their views on the board’s strengths, challenges and their own contribution to the effectiveness of the board.

The independent chair is an adviser to the Health and Well Being Board and the LSCB annual report is presented to this board to ensure that it tackles the key safeguarding issues for children and young people

Delays in producing a domestic abuse strategy were escalated by the chair of the board to the chair of the community safety partnership.

The challenge from the independent chair has secured a dedicated health resource to address this. (Health passports for children and young people leaving care)

The board is chaired well by an influential chair who both supports and challenges partners, and accountability is high.

The chair undertakes regular case audits of early help and social work practice but has not yet facilitated a comprehensive multi-agency auditing programme to evaluate the quality of practice.

The chair has also challenged when there has been poor attendance at subgroups and the lack of a report from MARAC for the past two years.

The chair is tenacious in his challenge of partner agencies’ shortfalls in safeguarding arrangements identified in the scrutiny panel programme. The

Challenge within the board is strong, with agencies held to account through the main board,

16

chair corresponds with and visits senior managers to address any delayed progress.

and the chair demonstrating a strong and assertive style

Since the chair was appointed in April 2015, there have been a number of improvements to board organisation and a greater focus on safeguarding priorities

There is a clear challenge to make improvements, if needed, in individual agencies, and the chair demonstrates a strong challenge to the performance of partners.

The chair of the LSCB does not attend the Children’s Board and this is a gap, given that this group has a focus on outcomes for children at risk in the community. This means that the LSCB is not as influential as it should be in scrutinising and challenging safeguarding activity.

The majority of partner agencies make a proportionate financial contribution overall, and the chair requested a review with one agency when this was not the case, and a constructive solution was found

The Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB) has an experienced and well respected chair who appropriately holds partners to account

The chair is very clear with partners that board business is part of everyone’s work. Suitably senior and influential partner representatives attend the board, and are able to take back lessons and challenges to their individual agencies. This has been challenged by the chair previously to ensure that appropriate membership is now in place.

The LSCB has an experienced and longstanding chair, who is also the chair of the adult safeguarding board (ASB). The chair has built up significant relationships with all partners, and maintains effective independent oversight to ensure that the board meets statutory safeguarding responsibilities

Ably supported by a very capable business manager, the independent chair of the LSCB provides clear direction and guidance.

17

The chair corresponds with and visits senior managers to address delayed progress. These have been particularly prominent in the chair’s pursuit of shortcomings and delays by the CCG and police to safeguarding deficits highlighted in their recent regulatory inspections.

To date, SCR work has been well managed by the independent chair but, looking ahead, she is unlikely to have the capacity to combine this with her primary role as chair of the board.

As a result of this, and robust challenge by the independent chair, the local authority took appropriate action to ensure that young people continue to receive support after turning 18.

18

Appendix 3 LSCB Sections of Joint Targeted Area Inspection letters published Apr to Aug 2016

LSCB A

“The quality of performance data received by the LSCB is neither sufficiently comprehensive nor robust. This means that the partnership does not have effective oversight of all areas of practice, in particular the ‘front door’ of services. Consequently, the quality of the work, outcomes for children and demands for service is not sufficiently well understood by all senior leaders. The development of a more effective performance and quality assurance framework, to support improved understanding and decision making across the partnership in relation to initial responses to all forms of child abuse at the point of identification, will aid development and improvement of service delivery. The LSCB began working on a new performance management framework in February 2016 and this has been recognised by the newly appointed LSCB chair as a key area that requires development.

The MASH sub-group of the LSCB is not demonstrating the levels of leadership that are required to effectively monitor and challenge the performance of the MASH. The sub-group lacks SMART action plans that are informed by robust data which is specific and tailored to the requirements of Croydon.

Partnership meeting structures and engagement between professionals in forums such as MASE are in place. However, this does not always result in an overall documented multi-agency plan to ensure a coordinated response to children’s needs.”

LSCB B

“The quality of multi-agency training provided through the LSCB is generally good and linked to board priorities. However, the understanding of the complexities of child sexual exploitation among service providers remains too variable, and the training around the risks and prevention has not resulted in improved decision making. Financial commitment by key partner agencies to training has ensured that it is also accessible to the voluntary sector, encouraging take-up and leading to those agencies reporting improvement in practice. However, this was not seen in all services. For example, health practitioners have undertaken training in awareness of child sexual exploitation and use of toolkits and assessments but there is little evidence to demonstrate that this is embedded in practice.

All agencies would benefit from much more rigorous training in relation to listening to children, to include not only what children say, but also what they do not say and what cues they give with their behaviour. This is of particular relevance in addressing issues of consent in relation to young people who have been sexually exploited. This lack of understanding led to police failing to fully investigate an allegation in one case seen, and referring in some case records to children who have been exploited as making ‘lifestyle choices’.

The NPS and the CRC are now separate probation providers, with smaller numbers of staff and managers than the previous Probation Trust. As a result, they have no resource to track the number of referrals they make, or the response of children’s services. In addition, they cannot assure themselves that all the right referrals are made. This limits multi-agency oversight of the application of thresholds through the LSCB.

Currently NPS and CRC contribute to the work of three separate safeguarding children’s boards. This limits their capacity to fully participate in the work of the board in Central Bedfordshire. While NPS is currently still managing to engage in the board meetings and subgroups, CRC has struggled. Additional scheduled changes are likely to further limit capacity in both services. Although the LSCB chair has met with both organisations to consider these changes, their implications both operationally and strategically are not yet fully understood or planned for by the board. Further work is required to ensure that their effective contribution to the work of the board can be assured.”

LSCB C

“Currently, the LSCB does not set baselines and targets to measure against when they are monitoring partners’ performance. Partners gather a wide range of information to aid their understanding of current performance. When concerns are identified, the LSCB report these to the agencies concerned. However, the lack of a baseline makes it difficult to monitor the effectiveness of any action taken. In the case of the MASH, this is reducing the LSCB’s ability to monitor how solutions being pursued by the local authority, the police and health partners will improve the situation.“

19

LSCB D

“There is a lack of clarity amongst social workers and health practitioners about the role of the Missing and Sexual Exploitation and Trafficked (MSET) group and inconsistent practice to ensure that outcomes from the MSET meetings are shared across all agencies. The lack of understanding of the remit of MSET has led to delays. For example, in one case, a worker had not completed a risk management plan as she thought this was the role of MSET. Despite clear terms of reference, more work is needed across the partnership to clarify the role of MSET and ensure consistent and regular feedback to practitioners and managers when cases are reviewed in this meeting.

The LSCB dataset is not yet fully robust or comprehensive. For example, assessment outcomes are not captured and reported, and there is no information on early help. There is very limited analysis in performance reports to explain performance outcomes, for example the reason for relatively high levels of repeat referrals is not understood by the partnership and there is limited use of target setting to improve performance. The limited quality and scope of performance information impedes the strategic partners’ ability to have a comprehensive understanding of those areas of practice that require improvement, both at the front door and in response to children at risk of child sexual exploitation and who are missing.”

20

Appendix 4: AILC Survey of LSCB chair views and comments on Joint Targeted Area Inspections- FindingsScoring 0 Not at all 1 A little 2 Somewhat 3 Quite a lot 4 Fully Question LSC

B 1

Comments LSCB

2

Comments LSCB

3

Comments LSCB

4

Comments LSCB

5

Comments LSCB

6

Comments Total- (average-

rounded up to the

nearest .5) 1. To what degree

was there a sense of triangulation in inspection activity as opposed to separate processes combined at the end?

3-4

Lack of triangulation was not an issue. Of course, inspectors had different work streams however these came together well in briefing and feedback sessions

2 Each inspectorate presented their feedback separately at briefing and feedback meetings

3 Triangulation was apparent e.g. KIT meetings

2/3 Quite a lot of activity and judgement from one of the inspectorates evident during the process

1/2 They were working as individual inspector but you could tell they were coming together

4 Clear evidence of triangulation by inspectorates in cases – this was impressiv e

3

2. To what degree did the inspectorates work together as opposed to in parallel?

3-4 Inspectors had to work separately but came together reasonably well

0-1 Pairing of inspectors not visible. Appeared to be working to own KLOEs.

3 LSCB Chair engaged with a group of inspectors

3 Appropriate balance

2/3

Operated as a group but doing their own individual things

3 Inspectors were working separately but they made it hang together

2.5

3. How integrated was the inspection?

3-4 See above comments

1 Report indicates that inspection was integrated; think this is about how the report was

3 There was a sense we were being inspected by a team. They looked at our collaboration as a partnership

2 Didn’t feel massively integrated; clearly Ofsted led

1/2 Individual inspectorates were inspecting their own specialism.

2 Evidence whilst on site that not all inspectorates were working together

2

21

constructed rather than the process itself

and not any one aspect in isolation

4. What was the balance between the targeted area of inspection and more general review of front door and assessment/ planning arrangements?

50-50

Inspected a range of cases and drilled down into 6 CSE cases. Not a disproportionate focus on either.

60-40 Big emphasis on social care front door

Primary focus was CSE

The balance was focused, linked and proportionate

A lot more focus on front door than deep dive theme

Much more about front door than specifics of CSE and missing

Focus of inspection was CSE, missing and front door

Very focused on these areas

80-20 The extent of the focus on the front door was the biggest surprise.

Some balance, but slightly more focus on “front door”.

5. To what degree did the inspection identify clear findings for individual partners and/or for the whole system?

3.5 Clear findings which enabled us to develop our own action plan. Letter described as “fair and accurate”

3 Priorities for the whole safeguarding system were identified and JTAI triggered action to address these issues

4 JTAI has had a highly positive impact on how we focus our efforts. Clear and measurable objectives identified for inclusion in action plans. A more constructive model of inspection that helped us develop and learn. Narrative is better than a blunt and pointed judgement

4 Single agency actions, across a range of agencies, as well multi-agency findings identified

3/4 Clear findings in relation to the system and across agencies. Good practice and areas for development identified.

2 Findings were predominately LA focused yet the issues require a multi-agency response e.g. social care front door. Felt like the inspectors missed a trick.

3.5

22

6. To what degree will the inspection help the local area partnership make multi-agency progress on the priority area of service?

3/4 JTAI considered to be “fairly significant” as it accelerated planned activity and also more ambitious activity was incorporate din the resulting action plan.

4 JTAI provided focus. Challenge is to pick out the priority actions from the letter

4 JTAI inspired a constructive and critical narrative and as a result a range of actions have been taken

3 Mixed answer: Issues clearly identified and accepted and so will help partnership move forward but… Process neglects half the equation i.e. how can demand for services realistically be stemmed.

3 Provided challenge to partners

4 Really supportive model and good way to look at front line practice across the partnership.

3.5

7. Is there anything else you would wish to add about your experience or the impact of the JTAI on the work of the LSCB?

• Important to manage the process as a partnership activity e.g. DCS and LSCB chair delivered presentation on day 1, invites to focus group were sent out on behalf of LSCB chair and action plan was approved by LSCB (as well as DCS)

• Key partners contributed to presentation on day 1 • Resource intensive for Local Authority who coordinate the timetable for approximately 20 inspectors • Inspectors recognised action taken by Local Authority in respect of matter raised during inspection – evidence of Ofsted’s improvement role • Need a shared strategy to plan how to present performance challenges identified by partner agencies/LSCB to inspectors. • Completing good quality multi-agency audits in the time frame is a challenge • Audits were intense, focused and constructive • The JTAI framework has provided a model for multi-agency audits across the partnership – to support inspection readiness as well as local learning • Audit process has made LSCB change the way we audit – new approach is driven by Ofsted methodology • Preparation for multi-agency auditing process is essential • Small numbers of cases tracked in depth and inform the inspection findings (5 cases in 1 area and 4 cases in another area) • JTAI has strengthened partnership working and reinforced the significance of openness and transparency across LSCB partnership • JTAI was a challenge for individual partners and provided critically constructive challenge to the LSCB; as a result, there is a higher level of focused collaboration

and so we are in a stronger and better position • Need to plan how to capture the verbal feedback from inspectors at the end of the formal feedback session e.g. minute takers • Findings have informed how we will use independent inspections to quality assure our s11 audits – there can be a tendency to be overly optimistic when self-

assessing. • Letter written for partners and not LSCB; raises question about LSCB role in these inspections (chair was advised “we’re not focusing on the LSCB”). Initial phone

call is to DCS and not LSCB chair • Intense and robust process for all partners that enquires into front line practice and reaches out to front line staff • JTAI has the potential to create a new approach to inspection; is there a way we can combine the forensic approach of SIF and the collaborative approach of

JTAI?