Ofsted’s new single inspection framework has proved controversial since conception, with concerns raised over how standards are determined and the way ratings are decided.
The framework brought together the previously separate looked-after children and child protection inspections, and placed added emphasis on practice and outcomes over processes (see box).
Following the publication of the first tranche of reports last month, CYP Now spoke to children’s services leaders at all five of the authorities that went through the process to hear what the experience was like and to get an insight into what other councils can expect.
Derbyshire
Ian Thomas, strategic director of children’s services
Ofsted rating: good
Despite receiving a good rating, Ian Thomas says the sheer scale of the inspection proved problematic. “There is so much to cover,” he says. “They visited all of our six area offices over a vast area, and time was short towards the end.
“Even though they extended the inspection to a month, they were at risk of reverting back to focusing on processes rather than outcomes at the end.”
Thomas also feels the inspection may not be able to differentiate between small and large authorities.
“I’m not sure if the framework is sophisticated enough to give sufficient weighting to larger areas like mine that has additional complexities of having to work with more partners,” he says.
“I have four clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) in my area, plus another CCG in a bordering area, as well as two hospital trusts and an acute mental health trust on top of that.
“That provides additional layers of complexity in partnership working and larger areas need additional credit for that.
“Is a ‘good’ in Derbyshire the same as a ‘good’ in a small borough with coterminosity?
“But that would be quite controversial because some small areas might be small, but have more difficulties in terms of their urban fabric.”
However, he says he supports the ambition of the new framework to focus on practice and outcomes.
“At the end of the day, it is the experience of kids that is most important,” he says.
“I’m not a fan of fancy strategies if they are not having a direct impact on service users. The only way to determine whether services are working is by speaking to them – and we build service user feedback into our services.
"We found the new framework to be a marked improvement on the [previous system], and the transparent process and 'show me, tell me' approach works well. We expect our day-to-day services to be at least ‘good' so a no-notice inspection was never an issue.”
Hartlepool
Gill Alexander, director of child and adult services
Ofsted rating: good
Gill Alexander is not convinced that the single inspection framework succeeds in all of its aims.
“Eileen Munro’s report that led to this new approach of focusing on the journey of the child was about trying to get inspections more focused on quality of practice, strength of relationships and professional judgments,” she says.
“But I think there is a challenge for Ofsted in where they go to get evidence of the latter [professional judgment]. Evidence of practical compliance is fairly straightforward through timescales and case files.
“The place they go first and foremost is the records – and that’s right because part of best practice is good record-keeping. But Munro wanted to make sure social workers are not too tied up in bureaucracy and to focus on good practice.
“The main source of evidence is the case files, which then drives conversations with practitioners and young people and families.
“But they can end up being very focused on whether things were recorded, rather than capturing a sense of good practice and whether it is happening.”
Alexander has no doubts about the thoroughness of the exercise. “With eight inspectors, over four weeks they got a real sense of what is going on, but whether it is good enough probably needs some reflection and further evaluation,” she says.
“It was better than anything I have experienced in terms of getting to the heart of things – but it did feel very paper-based.”
She also believes a better way of recording the views of young people should be found.
“I was inspected as part of a joint area review in 2007 and on that occasion they asked young people to prepare their views on how good things were,” she says.
“The young people took it seriously, gathered evidence and took inspectors into neighbourhoods - some of that methodology could be further explored.
“The usual methodology now is focus groups and I’m not really sure it captures the experiences and the voice of young people.”
Hillingdon
Kim Eathorne, programme manager for service improvement
Ofsted rating: requires improvement
Kim Eathorne believes the short notice element of the inspection – the authority receives a call the day before inspectors arrive – does not give authorities enough time to provide the wealth of data required.
“Because we knew in advance that we would only have 24 hours notice, we were well prepared. However, in terms of requirements for when they arrive, our view is that 24 hours notice is potentially quite short,” he says.
He believes more notice would help authorities better meet inspectors’ expectations in receiving the relevant information.
“Even if you gave two or three days notice, you could not improve performance data or outcomes. There were some challenges with how quickly we could provide information once inspectors were on site.
“If you had more notice and a better understanding of how to give them that information, it might have been a bit more helpful.”
Eathorne also feels the inspection could do more to take into account on-going service transformation.
“Like most local authorities, we have been undertaking huge transformational change in order to follow the journey of the child – but because it was a new approach and had not embedded, the inspectors weren’t necessarily able to take into consideration positive changes that had been enacted but haven’t necessarily shown outcomes.”
He also has concerns about the intensity of the process. “Frontline practitioners were spending quite some considerable time talking about cases they had,” he says.
“We were obviously aware of the cases they selected, so we didn’t schedule interviews for practitioners when they were needed, but it was more about being able to provide them with that information they needed in a timely manner.”
In total, Eathorne says it cost the authority the equivalent of 65 staff days to support the inspection.
“Logistically, it was a bit of a burden, especially given that the government is having to reduce numbers of staff and work more efficiently,” he says.
Sheffield
Jayne Ludlam, executive director, children, young people & families
Ofsted rating: requires improvement
Sheffield was initially informed it had achieved an overall “good” rating, but this was later changed to “requires improvement”.
Jayne Ludlam says she is struggling to understand how the decision was reached. “We were inspected from 19 November until 11 December, and received initial feedback that five areas were good and one area [the sub-category of adoption performance] required improvement, but the overall grade was good.”
However, the report was subject to a “heightened moderation process” because the inspection framework was new.
On 24 January, the authority received a phone call from Ofsted’s quality assurance manager informing it that the department had been moderated down to “requires improvement”.
Ludlam challenged the decision, but when Ofsted got back in touch on 27 January, she was told the inspection had been flawed and the authority would be re-inspected the following day.
“We had the national lead and two senior inspectors with us for three days who took a very different approach to the first inspection – they were more focused on documents and took a forensic approach,” she says.
“The initial inspection was very immersed in practice, the inspectors went out with staff and got to know the city very well.
“During the re-inspection, the inspectors just sat looking at documents.
“They judged four areas as good, and two [the sub-category of adoption performance, as well as the key judgment category of children looked after and achieving permanence] as requires improvement, with an overall grade of ‘requires improvement’. It feels we have been very harshly judged.
“I felt the first inspection was challenging and balanced. The inspectors had knowledge of being in and around the field. They sat in child protection conferences, they went to area teams – it felt very much that they saw the whole context of Sheffield.
“I felt the re-inspection had taken a retrograde step towards looking back at documents and that doesn’t give the whole journey of the child.”
Ludlam is awaiting answers from Ofsted on the moderation process and decision to rule the initial inspection “flawed”, but adds that the inspection remained a valuable learning tool for staff and management.
Slough
Jane Wood, director of wellbeing
Ofsted rating: inadequate
Although Jane Wood, director of wellbeing at Slough Council, does not dispute the overall rating of “inadequate”, she points to the fact that the report did find a large proportion of good and adequate work.
“The information shared with us throughout the inspection showed that just over a third of the 106 cases were rated good, just over a third were rated as requires improvement, and just under a third were rated inadequate.
“The number of cases that were inadequate is still far too high and we are not in the place where we should be, but [from the overall rating] you do not get the sense of the fact we are evenly distributed across those three descriptors. I felt that was really disappointing.”
She also believes the way young people’s views are fed into the findings must be improved.
“The focus of the inspection is absolutely right, but we felt they were relatively small groups of young people being interviewed – three groups of three or four teenagers (around 10 to 12 young people in total).
“One of the groups had very positive experiences, which the inspector fed back during the inspection.
“They were achieving all the right outcomes and were involved in the running of the home – but it didn’t actually appear in the report.
“I have no problem with the way they are trying to evaluate success, but I have an issue if there is a disproportionate selection in terms of what is fed back and then what arrives in the report.”
Like other authorities, she also notes issues with the sheer amount of evidence and information inspectors are required to gather.
“We felt that although the inspection lasted four weeks, it felt quite rushed,” she says.
{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"Article","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://google.com/article"},"headline":"First judgments show up flaws in new single inspection system","author":{"@type":"Person","name":"Neil Puffett"},"datePublished":"3/4/2014 12:07:00 PM","abstract":"Senior managers at the first five children\u0027s services departments to have undergone the new Ofsted single inspection support the principles behind the framework, but think the process needs improving if it is to get their full backing.","articleBody":"\u003cp\u003eOfsted’s new single inspection framework has proved controversial since conception, with concerns raised over how standards are determined and the way ratings are decided.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThe framework brought together the previously separate looked-after children and child protection inspections, and placed added emphasis on practice and outcomes over processes (see box).\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eFollowing the publication of the first tranche of reports last month, CYP Now spoke to children’s services leaders at all five of the authorities that went through the process to hear what the experience was like and to get an insight into what other councils can expect.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDerbyshire\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIan Thomas, strategic director of children’s services\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOfsted rating: good\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eDespite receiving a good rating, Ian Thomas says the sheer scale of the inspection proved problematic. “There is so much to cover,” he says. “They visited all of our six area offices over a vast area, and time was short towards the end. \u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“Even though they extended the inspection to a month, they were at risk of reverting back to focusing on processes rather than outcomes at the end.”\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThomas also feels the inspection may not be able to differentiate between small and large authorities.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“I’m not sure if the framework is sophisticated enough to give sufficient weighting to larger areas like mine that has additional complexities of having to work with more partners,” he says.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“I have four clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) in my area, plus another CCG in a bordering area, as well as two hospital trusts and an acute mental health trust on top of that. \u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“That provides additional layers of complexity in partnership working and larger areas need additional credit for that. \u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“Is a ‘good’ in Derbyshire the same as a ‘good’ in a small borough with coterminosity? \u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“But that would be quite controversial because some small areas might be small, but have more difficulties in terms of their urban fabric.”\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eHowever, he says he supports the ambition of the new framework to focus on practice and outcomes. \u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“At the end of the day, it is the experience of kids that is most important,” he says. \u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“I’m not a fan of fancy strategies if they are not having a direct impact on service users. The only way to determine whether services are working is by speaking to them – and we build service user feedback into our services.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0022We found the new framework to be a marked improvement on the [previous system], and the transparent process and \u0027show me, tell me\u0027 approach works well. We expect our day-to-day services to be at least ‘good\u0027 so a no-notice inspection was never an issue.”\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHartlepool\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGill Alexander, director of child and adult services\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOfsted rating: good\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eGill Alexander is not convinced that the single inspection framework succeeds in all of its aims.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“Eileen Munro’s report that led to this new approach of focusing on the journey of the child was about trying to get inspections more focused on quality of practice, strength of relationships and professional judgments,” she says.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“But I think there is a challenge for Ofsted in where they go to get evidence of the latter [professional judgment]. Evidence of practical compliance is fairly straightforward through timescales and case files.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“The place they go first and foremost is the records – and that’s right because part of best practice is good record-keeping. But Munro wanted to make sure social workers are not too tied up in bureaucracy and to focus on good practice. \u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“The main source of evidence is the case files, which then drives conversations with practitioners and young people and families. \u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“But they can end up being very focused on whether things were recorded, rather than capturing a sense of good practice and whether it is happening.”\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eAlexander has no doubts about the thoroughness of the exercise. “With eight inspectors, over four weeks they got a real sense of what is going on, but whether it is good enough probably needs some reflection and further evaluation,” she says. \u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“It was better than anything I have experienced in terms of getting to the heart of things – but it did feel very paper-based.”\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eShe also believes a better way of recording the views of young people should be found.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“I was inspected as part of a joint area review in 2007 and on that occasion they asked young people to prepare their views on how good things were,” she says. \u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“The young people took it seriously, gathered evidence and took inspectors into neighbourhoods - some of that methodology could be further explored. \u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“The usual methodology now is focus groups and I’m not really sure it captures the experiences and the voice of young people.”\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHillingdon\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eKim Eathorne, programme manager for service improvement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOfsted rating: requires improvement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eKim Eathorne believes the short notice element of the inspection – the authority receives a call the day before inspectors arrive – does not give authorities enough time to provide the wealth of data required.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“Because we knew in advance that we would only have 24 hours notice, we were well prepared. However, in terms of requirements for when they arrive, our view is that 24 hours notice is potentially quite short,” he says. \u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eHe believes more notice would help authorities better meet inspectors’ expectations in receiving the relevant information.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“Even if you gave two or three days notice, you could not improve performance data or outcomes. There were some challenges with how quickly we could provide information once inspectors were on site.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“If you had more notice and a better understanding of how to give them that information, it might have been a bit more helpful.”\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eEathorne also feels the inspection could do more to take into account on-going service transformation.\u003cbr\u003e“Like most local authorities, we have been undertaking huge transformational change in order to follow the journey of the child – but because it was a new approach and had not embedded, the inspectors weren’t necessarily able to take into consideration positive changes that had been enacted but haven’t necessarily shown outcomes.”\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eHe also has concerns about the intensity of the process. “Frontline practitioners were spending quite some considerable time talking about cases they had,” he says. \u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“We were obviously aware of the cases they selected, so we didn’t schedule interviews for practitioners when they were needed, but it was more about being able to provide them with that information they needed in a timely manner.” \u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eIn total, Eathorne says it cost the authority the equivalent of 65 staff days to support the inspection.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“Logistically, it was a bit of a burden, especially given that the government is having to reduce numbers of staff and work more efficiently,” he says.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSheffield\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eJayne Ludlam, executive director, children, young people \u0026 families\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOfsted rating: requires improvement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eSheffield was initially informed it had achieved an overall “good” rating, but this was later changed to “requires improvement”. \u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eJayne Ludlam says she is struggling to understand how the decision was reached. “We were inspected from 19 November until 11 December, and received initial feedback that five areas were good and one area [the sub-category of adoption performance] required improvement, but the overall grade was good.”\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eHowever, the report was subject to a “heightened moderation process” because the inspection framework was new. \u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eOn 24 January, the authority received a phone call from Ofsted’s quality assurance manager informing it that the department had been moderated down to “requires improvement”. \u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eLudlam challenged the decision, but when Ofsted got back in touch on 27 January, she was told the inspection had been flawed and the authority would be re-inspected the following day.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“We had the national lead and two senior inspectors with us for three days who took a very different approach to the first inspection – they were more focused on documents and took a forensic approach,” she says.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“The initial inspection was very immersed in practice, the inspectors went out with staff and got to know the city very well.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“During the re-inspection, the inspectors just sat looking at documents.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“They judged four areas as good, and two [the sub-category of adoption performance, as well as the key judgment category of children looked after and achieving permanence] as requires improvement, with an overall grade of ‘requires improvement’. It feels we have been very harshly judged.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“I felt the first inspection was challenging and balanced. The inspectors had knowledge of being in and around the field. They sat in child protection conferences, they went to area teams – it felt very much that they saw the whole context of Sheffield. \u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“I felt the re-inspection had taken a retrograde step towards looking back at documents and that doesn’t give the whole journey of the child.”\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eLudlam is awaiting answers from Ofsted on the moderation process and decision to rule the initial inspection “flawed”, but adds that the inspection remained a valuable learning tool for staff and management.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSlough\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eJane Wood, director of wellbeing\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOfsted rating: inadequate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eAlthough Jane Wood, director of wellbeing at Slough Council, does not dispute the overall rating of “inadequate”, she points to the fact that the report did find a large proportion of good and adequate work. \u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“The information shared with us throughout the inspection showed that just over a third of the 106 cases were rated good, just over a third were rated as requires improvement, and just under a third were rated inadequate. \u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“The number of cases that were inadequate is still far too high and we are not in the place where we should be, but [from the overall rating] you do not get the sense of the fact we are evenly distributed across those three descriptors. I felt that was really disappointing.”\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eShe also believes the way young people’s views are fed into the findings must be improved.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“The focus of the inspection is absolutely right, but we felt they were relatively small groups of young people being interviewed – three groups of three or four teenagers (around 10 to 12 young people in total). \u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“One of the groups had very positive experiences, which the inspector fed back during the inspection. \u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“They were achieving all the right outcomes and were involved in the running of the home – but it didn’t actually appear in the report. \u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“I have no problem with the way they are trying to evaluate success, but I have an issue if there is a disproportionate selection in terms of what is fed back and then what arrives in the report.”\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eLike other authorities, she also notes issues with the sheer amount of evidence and information inspectors are required to gather.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“We felt that although the inspection lasted four weeks, it felt quite rushed,” she says. \u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e"}
