10 November 2013 National Independent LSCB chairs conference Jacky Tiotto Deputy Director , Social Care Ofsted

1. 10 November 2013 National Independent LSCB chairs conference Jacky Tiotto Deputy Director , Social Care Ofsted

2. Overview • New single inspection • The review of LSCBs • Discussion

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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 early help offer and assessment • Whether assessments are events or an engagement with families • 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 quality of housing and support for care leavers

7. new single inspection of local authorities

8. 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 • Outstanding– exceeding good, sustaining improvement, an exceptional difference • Requires Improvement – not enough characteristics of ‘good’ • Inadequate – widespread or serious concern – children at risk or being harmed

9. 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

10. the breadth • Contact • Early help • Referral • Assessment • Child protection enquiry • Children in need • Children subject of a child protection plan • Children looked after • Young people leaving care • Children adopted • Potential and approved adopters

11. methodology • Unannounced - over a single month • Set up (and contact, referral, assessment inspection evidence), local authority case auditing, full team for 8 working days • Tracking, sampling and audit (minimum of 80 cases) • 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

12. annex A – what is already known • Sets out the information that is needed to support the inspection – the case sample AND performance information • Importantdata 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?

13. 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

14. 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

15. the report (2) • Shorter, bulleted report • Summarised key findings written for children and young people as well as the authority • Areas for priority improvement and areas for development • 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 • Copies to HMIC, HMI Probation, CQC, HMI Prisons, with letter from HMCI where there are concerns about particular professional practice

16. 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

17. review of the local safeguarding children board

18. 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

19. 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 challenge about the potential/scope for the judgement of board effectiveness to be different to that of the local authority • 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 • Concern about the high bar and the capacity of the board – particularly human resource to audit and evaluate effectiveness

20. accountabilities – are they clear? • Evaluate and Ensure – is there a difference? What are the levers? • The 2006 regulations describe the role of the board as ‘monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the contribution of…. ‘ • 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?

21. inspection activity Review: • Minutes of at least the last three Board meetings • 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 business plan • The LSCB annual report AND: • Interview the LSCB chair, business manager and other board partners

22. for evaluation by inspectors • Recent case file audits undertaken by the Board • Learning, practice improvement and impact of any serious case reviews • Monitoring and evaluation of areas for improvement • Impact and effectiveness of the child death overview panel • Understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of multi-agency protection and care practice • 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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 multi- agency 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

26. inadequacy • Improper discharge of statutory responsibilities • Not identifying the experiences of or quality of practice for children and young people in need of help, care and protection • Failing to identify where improvement is needed

27. before the 17 November ………. • We need all LSCB chairs email addresses • They must be secure addresses • Please send by 17 November to: • socialcare@ofsted.gov.uk

28. Thank you