Transcript Child abuse on the front page: Learning

Learning from Ofsted
Patrick Ayre
Department of Applied Social Studies
University of Bedfordshire
Park Square, Luton
email: [email protected]
web: http://patrickayre.co.uk
Review evaluations 2007-9
Outstanding
Good
Adequate
Inadequate
2007-8
0%
24%
36%
40%
2008-9
0%
23%
43%
34%
n=50
n=173
Mean
0%
23%
41%
35%
Timescale
Evaluations 2008-9 by time taken
60%
50%
40%
Inadequate
Adequate
30%
Good
Outstanding
20%
10%
0%
Under 6 months
6 months to 1 year
Over one year
An approach to implementing the
learning
Divide the challenges into three phases:
 Standing systems and processes
 Commencing: Setting up each SCR
 Reviewing progress: Managing the
review as it proceeds
Reasons for delay
Appointing independent author
 Internal staffing pressures preventing
work
 Inability to compel other agencies to
cooperate
 Coordinating across areas & agencies
 Different internal review processes in
different agencies

Reasons for delay

Inexperience of staff conducting IMRs

Need for additional guidance from
LSCB

Coroners’ courts and criminal
proceedings

Agencies agreeing final
recommendations and action plan
The Panel

Strong correlation between membership
of panels and the providers of IMRS.

Lack of involvement of adult services
and drug and alcohol teams

Independence needs strengthening?
IMRs

Harmed by poor ToR (new document)

No analysis or critique of practice

Narrow, simplistic approach

Defensive stance (who are authors?)

Key issues missed

Inadequate recommendations

Authors not competent to judge
IMRs

Poor presentation

Absence of basic information

Inadequate chronologies

No agreed format for completion

No clarity about terms of reference

Failure to challenge poor IMRs

Need for briefings (but is that enough?)
Overviews: the writer

Open minded, independent approach

Can stand back and critically analyse

Can collate a large amount of
information to distil key findings

Has writing skills

Knowledge and expertise in child
protection
Overview and after

Failure to address family involvement

Failure to address race, language, culture,
religion, and disability

Some independents lack sufficient
knowledge, too academic

Recommendations limited, inappropriate,
vague, don’t address key issues

Action plans lack clear process for
monitoring implementation and impact
Improvements in year 2

LSCBs agree IMR format

Senior managers take responsibility for
process

IMR authors better and training offered

Workshops at the beginning re timescale,
ToR, known issues, project management

Quality assurance processes within agencies
for IMRs

IMRs presented to SCR panel by authors
Outstanding overview

Thematic analysis under sub-headings,
with sub-conclusions;

Critical analysis of actions taken and
decision making;

Key turning points are identified;

Good practice recognised;

Lessons identified nationally and locally.
Involving family: good practice
Different methods of making contact
with families;
 Include family members other than the
parents;
 Offer more than one opportunity to
participate;
 Overview reports say whether family
involved, and evaluate appropriateness.
