Ofsted safeguarding spot checks spark call for council aid

Directors of children’s services want Ofsted to take more of a role in helping councils to improve their child protection arrangements, following publication of the results of the first round of safeguarding spot checks.

Despite earlier concerns, the first batch of Ofsted no-notice safeguarding inspections have been greeted positively, with some children’s services chiefs praising the process for “fairness” and “rigour”. But they are concerned that once the results are published, communication with Ofsted stops.

Last month, CYP Now reported that many directors of children’s services had criticised the inspections, labelling them as a “flawed system” that did not properly distinguish between policy and practice.

But Gordon Jeyes, director of children’s services at Cambridgeshire, whose department has undergone a spot check, said: “My impression was that the inspection was rigorous and courteously carried out. The lead inspector was an experienced colleague with a social care background and I was confident that it would be fair.”

But Jeyes said the problem was in the separation of duties between inspection and improvement.

He said: “I think it is right that Ofsted does not get too involved with policy, but has it gone too far? After telling us where we need to improve, it is not able to help us with what to do next.”

Hammersmith and Fulham has also been the subject of a no-notice inspection, although the results have not yet been published. Director of children’s services Andrew Christie said: “The inspection has generally been regarded as being a good experience. This is a frontline service and it is important to know it is capable of providing a rapid response and to make sure it is always kept up to the mark. But while I don’t think Ofsted should be part of the support package, it does need to be drawn into more dialogue to help inform and draw up improvement strategies.”

So far, 18 reports from spot checks have been published. Around 40 are due by the end of September.

The Association of Directors of Children’s Services will be meeting Ofsted to review the first inspections to ensure the findings are “consistent and appropriate”.

An Ofsted spokesman said: “Early evidence suggests our inspections are having a positive impact on frontline child protection and safeguarding arrangements. We are encouraged by the extent to which these inspections are able to identify areas for action, and by the responsiveness of local authorities to our findings.”

INSPECTION RESULTS – What merits a judgement of “priority action” from Ofsted?

Last month, Ofsted came under fire over its plans to communicate the findings of snap safeguarding checks.

The Association of Directors of Children’s Services was outraged because the watchdog wanted to use the term “serious concerns” to describe issues identified by inspectors.

Following a short dispute, “serious concerns” became “areas for priority action”.

So what conditions have thus far merited this rating?

In one council, a shortage of social workers meant that child protection investigations sometimes took longer than they should, so families had to wait too long to access vital services.

The completion rate for core assessments was low compared with similar councils in one local authority. There were also significant delays to those core and initial assessments that are carried out. The frequency and quality of supervision of social work staff was also insufficient.

One council’s response to child protection referrals did not meet statutory guidance and children in the area were not adequately safeguarded. Child protection cases were not always discussed with the police and other agencies and children were not always seen by social workers, even when there were concerns about their safety.

In another council, high staff turnover and recruitment problems meant there were delays in allocating lower priority cases for initial assessment. There were also delays maintaining up-to-date electronic records.

The child protection assessment team’s capacity to improve in one local authority was weak. Management of this team was “not sufficiently focused” to introduce improvements in child protection arrangements, such as consistent thresholds for referrals.

Assessment and risk management practices within one council’s access and assessment service were weak. Inspectors were also concerned that a forthcoming restructure of children’s services in the area could limit safeguarding capacity.

One council did not follow child protection procedures in two cases, in which children claimed an adult in their home had assaulted them, so the children were left at potential risk of harm.