Setting

Sale, M33 5ND

Announced 25 July 2005 10:30 The Commission for Social Care Inspection aims to:

p.1

Sale, M33 5ND

• Put the people who use social care first • Improve services and stamp out bad practice • Be an expert voice on social care • Practise what we preach in our own organisation

p.2

Sale, M33 5ND

Reader Information Document Purpose Inspection Report Author CSCI Audience General Public Further copies from 0870 240 7535 (telephone order line) Copyright This report is copyright Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and may only be used in its entirety. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the express permission of CSCI Internet address www.csci.org.uk Lorimer House F05 F55 s59742 lorimer v236527 250705 stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 3 This is a report of an inspection to assess whether services are meeting the needs of people who use them. The legal basis for conducting inspections is the Care Standards Act 2000 and the relevant National Minimum Standards for this establishment are those for Fostering Services. They can be found at www.dh.gov.uk or obtained from The Stationery Office (TSO) PO Box 29, St Crispins, Duke Street, Norwich, NR3 1GN. Tel: 0870 600 5522. Online ordering: www.tso.co.uk/bookshop

p.2

Sale, M33 5ND

Every Child Matters, outlined the government’s vision for children’s services and formed the basis of the Children Act 2004. It provides a framework for inspection so that children’s services should be judged on their contribution to the outcomes considered essential to wellbeing in childhood and later life. Those outcomes are: • Being healthy • Staying safe • Enjoying and achieving • Making a contribution; and • Achieving economic wellbeing.

p.3

Sale, M33 5ND

In response, the Commission for Social Care Inspection has re-ordered the national minimum standards for children’s services under the five outcomes, for reporting purposes. A further section has been created under ‘Management’ to cover those issues that will potentially impact on all the outcomes above.

p.3

Sale, M33 5ND

Copies of Every Child Matters and The Children Act 2004 are available from The Stationery Office as above This report is a public document. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the prior permission of the Commission for Social Care Inspection. Lorimer House F05 F55 s59742 lorimer v236527 250705 stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 4

p.3

SERVICE INFORMATION

Address Lorimer House Brooks Institute Carrington Lane Sale M33 5ND

p.4

(if applicable)

Lorimer Foster Services Ltd Responsible Individual - Dr Sherali Khan

p.4

manager (if applicable)

Type of registration IFA Fostering Agencies IFA Fostering Agency

p.4

of places

Lorimer House F05 F55 s59742 lorimer v236527 250705 stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 5

p.5

Conditions of registration:

As detailed in the Statement of Purpose dated 8th April 2004, Lorimer Foster Services Limited operates a range of fostering services in the North West of England including short -term, long term, emergency and bridging placements, for children/young people looked after`.

p.5

Conditions of registration:

The Statement of Purpose is maintained in line with the requirements of Regulation 3 (1) of the Fostering Services Regulations 2002. The Statement must be kept under review and updated. Any changes to the home`s purpose must be agreed with the Commission for Social Care Inspection prior to implementation.

p.5

Conditions of registration:

The organisation must, at all times, employ a suitably qualified and experienced manager who is registered with the Comission for Social Care Inspection.

p.5

Conditions of registration:

The staff and manager must receive relevant and updated training to assist them in their work with children/young people and foster carers. In particular the management of child protection allegations.

p.5

Conditions of registration:

The Fostering Service is managed at all times in accordance with the guidance and regulations issued in respect of independent fostering agencies by the Secretary of State for Health under Sections 22 & 23 (1) of the Care Standards Act 2000.

p.5

Conditions of registration:

Date of last inspection This is the first inspection following registration. Lorimer House F05 F55 s59742 lorimer v236527 250705 stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 6

p.5

Brief Description of the Service:

Lorimer Foster services forms a part of the Lorimer Group which was established in 1992 as a provider of childcare services. Lorimer Foster services was registered in July 2004 to provide placements for children and young people aged between 0 an 18 years with approved foster carers in short term, long term, bridging and emergency placements. They also have carers who can accommodate mother and baby placements.The agency has approximately twenty three carers.

p.6

Brief Description of the Service:

The offices are situated in Sale, however, foster cares are recruited from the North West, Cumbria and the Midlands.

p.6

Brief Description of the Service:

The children and young people are placed by Local Authorities mainly from the North West of England and Cumbria. Lorimer House F05 F55 s59742 lorimer v236527 250705 stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 7

p.6

SUMMARY

This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection.

p.7

SUMMARY

The inspection was held over a period of two weeks in July and August and included interviews with Social Work staff, the Acting Manager, Administrative Staff, Chief Executive and the Panel Chair. A case tracking exercise was carried out and this included discussions with staff, four foster carers and meeting five young people in placement.

p.7

SUMMARY

A meeting of the Panel was observed and the minutes of five previous panel meetings were inspected.

p.7

SUMMARY

The Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) raised several concerns regarding the management and procedures of the fostering service. CSCI issued the fostering service Statutory Notices due to non-compliance with conditions of registration and the breaches of Regulations. The Notices related to the following:

p.7

SUMMARY

1. Failure to safeguard and promote the welfare of children /young people

p.7

SUMMARY

2. Failure to provide adequate management of the fostering service and to ensure the service is staffed appropriately.

p.7

SUMMARY

3. Failure to take adequate precautions to ensure that the recruitment and vetting policies, procedure, systems and practices fully protect and safeguard the children/young people placed with the fostering service.

p.7

SUMMARY

4. Failure to make available to staff the necessary Child Protection training required to assist staff in their work.

p.7

SUMMARY

Overall impression formed of this agency is that it is not being effectively managed and therefore has the potential to put children/young people placed with the agency at risk.

p.7

SUMMARY

It appears the agency is fast increasing the numbers of foster carers without the necessary support structures, staffing and management in place. This again could lead to potential difficulties for the agency and risk to the children/young people placed.

p.7

SUMMARY

There does not appear to be a clear distinction between the fostering service and the rest of the services operated by the organisation. This has served to confuse the issues and to blur the roles and responsibilities of staff. Lorimer House F05 F55 s59742 lorimer v236527 250705 stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 8

p.7

What the service does well:

Foster carers interviewed felt that although there had been a high level of staff changes in recent months the remaining staff continued to support them with visits and phone calls on a regular basis.

p.8

What the service does well:

There was a clear payment structure in place as identified in the Foster Carers Handbook. Payments were made at the specified times.

p.8

What has improved since the last inspection?

This inspection was the first inspection following registration of the agency in July 2004.

p.8

What they could do better:

The overall impression formed during the inspection was that the agency was not effectively managed. The agency did not have a permanent manager and the operations director did not have a background in fostering services.

p.8

What they could do better:

Following the attendance at the panel meeting a number of concerns were raised that are being addressed separately to this report and will be subject to further inspection.

p.8

What they could do better:

In addition to this CSCI issued a Statutory Requirement Notice for failing to comply with the Care Standards Regulation 2000 and the Fostering Service Regulation 2002 as detailed in the summary of this report.

p.8

What they could do better:

The fostering service failed to take adequate precautions to safeguard and promote the welfare of the children / young people placed or to be placed with the fostering service through its systems and procedures.

p.8

What they could do better:

The fostering service failed to provide adequate management of the service and was not adequately staffed with a staff team that was able to safeguard children / young peoples’ welfare. There were further concerns regarding adequate precautions taken with regard to the organisations recruitment and vetting policies, procedures, systems and practices which were suitably robust to fully protect and safeguard the children / young people placed with the fostering service. Lorimer House F05 F55 s59742 lorimer v236527 250705 stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 9 It was apparent that the fostering service had a high number of staff who had left the service in the past 6 months. This had included 2 managers, the panel manager and social work staff. There were a number of vacancies for social work staff in addition to the management post. Some carers expressed concern about the number of staff leaving the agency. This was also reiterated

p.8

What they could do better:

in the questionnaires received from carers and placing authorities. The service did not have a contingency plan in place to resolve the issues surrounding the high staff changes although recruitment was ongoing. The recruitment process also failed to ensure that staff files contained all the information required for individual staff.

p.9

What they could do better:

It was observed that many of the agencies policies and procedures had been transferred from the residential section of the company and did not clearly define the policies of the fostering service. The agency needed to ensure that policies and procedures linked to the Every Child Matters framework. In addition to this the agency needed to ensure that training for social work staff, foster carers and panel members were provided with regards this.

p.9

What they could do better:

At the time of the inspection the agency did not have a current manager in post, the role was being undertaken temporarily by an acting manager who worked part time. The acting manager was supported by an operation manager who did not have a background in fostering to provide the level of support and supervision required.

p.9

What they could do better:

It was evident that the fostering service were increasing the number of foster carers without the necessary support structures, staffing and management in place to promote the welfare and safeguard children/young people placed.

p.9

What they could do better:

The matching of children / young people with foster carers needed to be reviewed. There was little evidence to support that the matching process was systematically processed. The agency did not always look at the type of placement and the skills of the carer and appeared to have addressed the needs of the placing authority and the agency first.

p.9

What they could do better:

The agency completed a foster carer register, however information on the register was incomplete and incorrect on the forms and did not represent clearly the details required. This resulted in difficulties gaining a complete overview of children/young people placed as well as not conforming with Schedule 2 of the Foster Service Regulations 2002.

p.9

What they could do better:

As part of the inspection process, a number of children/young peoples files were viewed. The records on individual files did not demonstrate clearly how children whose needs were complex would be met. It was evident that some foster carers had not received appropriate information to ensure that they were able to fully meet the child’s needs. Educational plans were missing from the documentation held by the agency on the child’s file and therefore had not been forwarded to the carers. Lorimer House F05 F55 s59742 lorimer v236527 250705 stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 10 The agency did not have any formal systems in place for consultation with young people. There was no opportunity for the children/young people to meet as a group to discuss their wishes and views. In addition to this there was no formal system for foster carers to meet as a group. The current system used was via an informal network and when meeting on training programmes.

p.9

What they could do better:

Please contact the provider for advice of actions taken in response to this inspection. The report of this inspection is available from enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk or by contacting your local CSCI office. Lorimer House F05 F55 s59742 lorimer v236527 250705 stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 11

p.10

CONTENTS

Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection Lorimer House F05 F55 s59742 lorimer v236527 250705 stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 12

p.11

The intended outcomes these Standards are:

• The fostering service promotes the health and development of children.(NMS 12)

p.12

The Commission considers Standard 12 the key standard to be

inspected at least once during a 12 month period.

p.12

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for standard(s) 12

The service did not promote the health and welfare of the child or young person effectively due to lack of relevant information on individual files, a high turn over of staff since the agency was registered and the lack of a manager to effectively manage the Fostering Service.

p.12

EVIDENCE:

The inspectors viewed a number of children / young peoples files during the inspection. There was a lack of consistent and detailed health care information received from the placing authorities. Due to the number of staff changes made in the previous months the required information from the placing authorities had not been requested or followed through until just prior to the inspection. This had an impact on the information being forwarded to the foster carers with whom the child / young person was placed.

p.12

EVIDENCE:

Carers who were interviewed were aware of the health needs of the young people placed with them due mainly to verbal information given by the agencies supervising social workers and some health care plans that had been made available.

p.12

EVIDENCE:

The carers felt that the supervising social workers provided good support but expressed some concern about the high level of staff changes made within the Agency.

p.12

EVIDENCE:

Carers confirmed that they had received training with regards basic health and hygiene issues and First Aid and were able to confirm that the children / young people were registered with a GP, dentist and supported with other health care professionals as required. However due to the lack of some health care plans being made available this was not always apparent Lorimer House F05 F55 s59742 lorimer v236527 250705 stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 13 The agency was not able to demonstrate that carers providing care to children / young people with complex health and behavioural needs had received the training required to meet these needs effectively.

p.12

EVIDENCE:

Young people who were interviewed said that they felt that they were looked after well by their carers when they did not feel well. They were also happy with the food that they had and said that they were given a lot of choice of different foods.

p.13

EVIDENCE:

Foster cares who were interviewed were aware of the requirements to keep detailed health care records of the child / young person placed with them. Lorimer House F05 F55 s59742 lorimer v236527 250705 stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 14

p.13

The intended outcomes these Standards are:

• Any persons carrying on or managing the service are suitable. (NMS 3) • The fostering service provides suitable foster carers.(NMS 6) • The service matches children to carers appropriately.(NMS 8) • The fostering service protects each child or young person from abuse and neglect.(NMS 9) • The people who work in or for the fostering service are suitable to work with children and young people.(NMS 15) • Fostering panels are organised efficiently and effectively.(NMS 30)

p.14

The Commission considers Standards 3, 6, 8, 9, and 15 the key

standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period.

p.14

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for standard(s) 3,6,8,9,15,30

The agency was not effectively managed to promote the welfare and safeguard the children / young people. The agency needed to develop further their policies, procedures, the processes used in the recruitment and vetting of staff and it’s practices to demonstrate a clear commitment to safeguarding.

p.14

EVIDENCE:

The agency did not have a current manager in post. A part time acting manager was temporarily in post until a permanent manager was recruited. The agency had an operations manager in post but this individual did not have a background in fostering to provide the level of support and supervision required. This matter has been brought to the providers attention.

p.14

EVIDENCE:

The personnel files of staff were inspected. Five of the files did not to contain all relevant information as required under Schedule 1 of the Fostering Service Regulations 2002. For example, Criminal Record Bureau checks had not been received prior to commencement of employment with the agency and previous relevant work experience had not been requested for references. In addition not all relevant information in respect of foster carers such as CRB had not been obtained prior to the prospective foster carer coming to Panel.

p.14

EVIDENCE:

In discussion with staff, management and observation of the Panel it was evident that the fostering service was increasing the number of foster carers Lorimer House F05 F55 s59742 lorimer v236527 250705 stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 15 without the necessary support structures, staffing and management in place to promote the welfare and safeguard children / young people placed. This was of serious concern in view of the fact that the agency had a high number of staff vacancies and staff changes since registration in April 2005. Two of the staff interviewed had relevant experience in fostering but felt that the change of managers and staff did not enable them to carry out their roles effectively or safely. This matter had been raised with the acting manager by one of the staff members.

p.14

EVIDENCE:

Another member of staff had been recently recruited to the team and although it was stated that induction and supervision had taken place this could not be evidenced.

p.15

EVIDENCE:

Foster carers also raised their concern about the frequent staff changes.

p.15

EVIDENCE:

The foster homes had undergone a health and safety check as part of the Form F Assessment. Safe care policies were in place but did not demonstrate clearly in all cases a full understanding of the health and safety responsibilities in relation to the children / young people in placement.

p.15

EVIDENCE:

The matching of children / young people with foster carers needed to be reviewed. There was little evidence to support that the matching process was systematically processed. Some carers who were interviewed felt that initially it had been indicated to them that the age range and gender of the child / young persons that they had been approved to provide care for had been changed without their full involvement. It was also noted that the fostering service used a 0 – 18 age range that did not reflect the needs of children being considered. The agency did not always look at the type of placement and the skills of the carer and addressed the needs of the placing authority and the agency first. The agency must develop clear matching systems so that all decisions are clearly recorded and unmet needs have been identified.

p.15

EVIDENCE:

The policies and procedures of the Fostering Panel did not clearly demonstrate the role and function of the panel.

p.15

EVIDENCE:

A panel meeting was observed as part of the inspection process. A number of serious concerns were raised following this meeting relating to the safety and welfare of young people and the processes adopted by the panel. The role of the panel is to explore all the issues surrounding the assessment and proposal of prospective foster carers to ensure the welfare and safety of children and young people.

p.15

EVIDENCE:

The panel had not been involved in any reviews of foster carers due to the recent registration of the agency. However, records seen indicated the need for some foster carers to be deregistered but this had not taken place, although no clear or relevant reasons for this had been noted. The acting manager Lorimer House F05 F55 s59742 lorimer v236527 250705 stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 16 stated that there was a reluctance on the part of the agency to de-register carers. Lorimer House F05 F55 s59742 lorimer v236527 250705 stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 17

p.15

The intended outcomes these Standards are:

• The fostering service values diversity.(NMS 7) • The fostering service promotes educational achievement.(NMS 13) • When foster care is provided as a short-term break for a child, the arrangements recognise that the parents remain the main carers for the child.(NMS 31)

p.17

The Commission considers Standards 7, 13, and 31 the key standards

to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period.

p.17

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for standard(s) 7,13

Not all of the educational and individual needs of the children / young people were being met.

p.17

EVIDENCE:

A number of children and foster carers files were viewed in addition to visits to four foster carers and the children / young people placed with them. The records on individual files did not demonstrate clearly how children whose needs were complex would be met. It was evident that some foster carers had not received appropriate information to ensure that they were able to fully meet the child’s needs. This was evidenced by the information that some carers had received being incomplete.

p.17

EVIDENCE:

Some children with complex emotional and behavioural needs had been placed with inexperienced foster carers who had only received the initial training provided by the fostering service. Further training had been planned but due to the changes within the staff team and general shortage of staff this training had not taken place. The acting manager of the service was aware of this and was planning to address this.

p.17

EVIDENCE:

Educational plans were missing from the documentation held by the agency on the child’s file and therefore had not been forwarded to the carers.

p.17

EVIDENCE:

Foster carers interviewed were able to discuss the links and support that they had developed with individual children’s schools. Lorimer House F05 F55 s59742 lorimer v236527 250705 stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 18 The fostering service was unable to demonstrate clearly how the service promoted valuing diversity and promoted equality for the children and young people for whom a service was provided.

p.17

EVIDENCE:

Foster carers interviewed were aware of their role and responsibilities in supporting a child with their educational needs. Lorimer House F05 F55 s59742 lorimer v236527 250705 stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 19

p.18

The intended outcomes these Standards are:

• The fostering service promotes contact arrangements for the child or young person. (NMS 10) • The fostering service promotes consultation.(NMS 11)

p.19

The Commission considers Standards 10 and 11 the key standards to

be inspected at least once during a 12 month period.

p.19

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for standard(s) 10, 11

The fostering service needed to further develop the systems in place to support and promote contact arrangements.

p.19

EVIDENCE:

Contact information was available. There was however inconsistent information regarding how contact would be supported.

p.19

EVIDENCE:

Support workers had been recruited to provide additional support to the current support worker. Support workers had been used from the residential division of Lorimer childcare although there had been no additional training provided.

p.19

EVIDENCE:

One carer interviewed felt that contact was supported well. At the time of the interview the children returned from their contact visit. A handover regarding how the visit went and any issues arising was given to the carer by the support worker. The carer stated that they would record any issues arising from the contact with the child’s social worker. The young people said that they were happy with the arrangements for contact.

p.19

EVIDENCE:

The acting manager stated that children/young people are consulted about their care however, greater emphasis must be placed on ensuring that this is fully documented. The agency did not have any formal systems in place for consultation with young people for example there was not opportunity for the children/young people to who were placed with the agency to meet as a group to discuss their wishes and views. Lorimer House F05 F55 s59742 lorimer v236527 250705 stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 20 All children / young people are provided with a Children’s Guide. The Children’s Guide details the complaints procedure and details of how to make a complaint. Records of complaints were not effectively recorded and greater emphasis must be placed on recording of complaints and the responses to them. Lorimer House F05 F55 s59742 lorimer v236527 250705 stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 21

p.19

The intended outcomes these Standards are:

• The fostering service prepares young people for adulthood.(NMS 14) • The fostering service pays carers an allowance and agreed expenses as specified.(NMS 29)

p.21

The Commission considers Standards 29 the key standard to be

inspected at least once during a 12 month period.

p.21

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for standard(s) 29

The fostering services has an allowance and agreed expenses, which covers the cost of caring for the child / young person.

p.21

EVIDENCE:

The fostering service has a clear current allowance level that is reviewed on an annual basis.

p.21

EVIDENCE:

Carers interviewed confirmed that they received adequate payment and that payment was received on time. Details regarding payment was discussed at the pre approval sessions with foster carers and detailed in the foster carer handbook.

p.21

EVIDENCE:

A matrix was in place to confirm payments and allowances for foster carers and children / young people. Lorimer House F05 F55 s59742 lorimer v236527 250705 stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 22

p.21

The intended outcomes these Standards are:

• There is a clear statement of the aims and objectives of the fostering service and the fostering service ensures that they meet those aims and objectives.(NMS 1) • The fostering service is managed by those with the appropriate skills and experience. (NMS 2) • The fostering service is monitored and controlled as specified. (NMS 4) • The fostering service is managed effectively and efficiently.(NMS 5) • Staff are organised and managed effectively.(NMS 16) • The fostering service has an adequate number of sufficiently experienced and qualified staff.(NMS 17) • The fostering service is a fair and competent employer.(NMS 18) • There is a good quality training programme. (NMS 19) • All staff are properly accountable and supported.(NMS 20) • The fostering service has a clear strategy for working with and supporting carers.(NMS 21) • Foster cares are provided with supervision and support.(NMS 22) • Foster carers are appropriately trained.(NMS 23)

p.22

The intended outcomes these Standards are:

• Case records for children are comprehensive.(NMS 24) • The administrative records are maintained as required.(NMS 25) • The premises used as offices by the fostering service are suitable for the purpose.(NMS 26) • The fostering service is financially viable. (NMS 27) • The fostering service has robust financial processes. (NMS 28) • Local Authority fostering services recognise the contribution made by family and friends as carers.(NMS 32)

p.22

The Commission considers Standards 17, 21, and 24 the key standards

to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period.

p.22

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for standard(s)

2,,5,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28.

p.22

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for standard(s)

The Fostering Service was not effectively managed and therefore has the potential to put children placed with the agency at risk. The Fostering serviceneeds to develop sound management, business systems and team working. Lorimer House F05 F55 s59742 lorimer v236527 250705 stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 23

p.22

EVIDENCE:

The Statement of Purpose was reviewed and was found to contain incorrect information. This matter needs to be addressed to ensure that correct and comprehensive information is recorded and kept under review.

p.23

EVIDENCE:

The fostering service did not have a manager in post. The service had not notified the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) that the previous manager had resigned and was on leave. A visit undertaken to the fostering service identified that an action plan must be submitted to CSCI detailing management responsibilities in the interim period.

p.23

EVIDENCE:

The acting manager worked part time and although had a background working within fostering services was initially recruited to undertake training. The operations manager who is senior to the acting manager did not have experience in managing fostering services. The acting manager also continued to have a caseload. This combined with working part time did not enable a clear management system to provided to the social work staff on a daily basis. Staff had expressed concern regarding this in relation to safe working practices.

p.23

EVIDENCE:

The acting manager stated that she had a job description issued when first appointed to the fostering service, however this was not applicable to the role of manager and was not available on the personnel file.

p.23

EVIDENCE:

The lines of accountability were unclear, when the part time acting manager was not available or the operation manager there was not an identified person who was placed in charge.

p.23

EVIDENCE:

Supervision to social work staff was found to be unsatisfactory, records were not maintained on personnel files for individual staff members.

p.23

EVIDENCE:

It was apparent that the fostering service had a high number of staff who had left the service in the past 6 months. This had included 2 managers, the panel manager and social work staff. There were a number of vacancies for social work staff in addition to the management post. Some carers expressed concern about the number of staff leaving the agency. This was also reiterated in the questionnaires received from carers and placing authorities. The service did not have a contingency plan in place to resolve the issues surrounding the high staff changes although recruitment was ongoing.

p.23

EVIDENCE:

Due to the limited number of staff case loads were not effectively monitored or prioritised. Social work staff stated that they maintained good communication with foster carers. This was confirmed by foster cares interviewed however, case records did not consistently evidence the level of support given to carers. Lorimer House F05 F55 s59742 lorimer v236527 250705 stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 24 The files indicated that carers received some supervision but recording on carers files was not consistent and the quality of the supervision varied. This indicated that carers did not receive the same level of service from the service. All carers interviewed and those that returned questionnaires to CSCI indicated that they were satisfied with the level of support given although as previously mentioned some carers expressed concern regarding the number of changes within the staff team both social work and administration.

p.23

EVIDENCE:

There was an administrative team that supported the fostering service but this team had had staff leave and new staff recruited. This combined with the changes within the social work staff and management did not promote a cohesive service.

p.24

EVIDENCE:

The foster carer register submitted to the CSCI contained incorrect information and did not cross reference with the admission and discharge file. An example of this was that one foster carer approved for one child had according to the register, three children placed although it was confirmed that this was not the case. The register also lacked information and did not conform to Schedule 2 of the Foster Service Regulations 2002.

p.24

EVIDENCE:

A number of foster carers and children/young peoples files were viewed. These files did not contain all relevant information in accordance with Schedule 2 ( as above) and due to the lack of information it was not possible from the file to understand why a child was accommodated and why the child had been placed with the carer.

p.24

EVIDENCE:

A number of staff files were inspected but did not all contain written contracts, job descriptions and conditions of service.

p.24

EVIDENCE:

Copies of the policies and procedures were available for staff in a policy file but some of the policies were from the residential section of the company and did not clearly define the policies of the fostering service. Policies and procedures did not link to the Every Child Matters framework and there was a lack of training regarding this with social work staff, foster carers and panel members. One staff interviewed had not received a copy of the Statement of Purpose and was unsure of its whereabouts.

p.24

EVIDENCE:

The quality of the Form F Assessments undertaken varied. A number of Form F Assessments did not contain in depth information and did not address all qualities and competency of potential foster carers, basic information was not always obtained prior to the assessment being presented to panel. This indicated that further training and guidance was required to ensure a consistent approach to the recruitment and selection of foster carers by the fostering service.

p.24

EVIDENCE:

There was no evidence that social work staff had undertaken child protection training from viewing staff files and from discussions with staff it would appear Lorimer House F05 F55 s59742 lorimer v236527 250705 stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 25 that child protection training had been undertaken over two years ago.. A training matrix was not available and there did not appear to be planned training that was mandatory or otherwise.

p.24

EVIDENCE:

Training had been made available to foster carers as part of the initial assessment process and also some ongoing training. It was unclear from viewing foster carers files what training had been provided or undertaken.

p.25

EVIDENCE:

As previously mentioned, foster carers confirmed that they received supervision however this was not consistently recorded and there was a lack of evidence on foster carers files that they had received supervision. Supervision of foster carers formed part of the foster carers contract. All visits to the foster carers were announced rather than any unannounced visits. Foster carers did not have a formal forum for discussing issues relating to fostering. The agency had not arranged a foster carer forum as part of the role and responsibility of the agency.

p.25

EVIDENCE:

Foster carers interviewed stated that they had received the Foster Carers Handbook from the fostering service that included policies and procedures as well as details regarding respite care, payment, out of hours support etc. Details of the complaints policy and procedure was also available although recording and action regarding complaints was inconsistent and notifiable incidents had not been reported to CSCI. Lorimer House F05 F55 s59742 lorimer v236527 250705 stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 26

p.25

SCORING OF OUTCOMES

This page summarises the assessment of the extent to which the National Minimum Standards for Fostering Services have been met and uses the following scale.

p.26

SCORING OF OUTCOMES

4 Standard Exceeded (Commendable) 3 Standard Met (No Shortfalls) 2 Standard Almost Met (Minor Shortfalls) 1 Standard Not Met (Major Shortfalls) “X” in the standard met box denotes standard not assessed on this occasion “N/A” in the standard met box denotes standard not applicable

p.26

SCORING OF OUTCOMES

BEING HEALTHY ACHIEVING ECONOMIC Standard No Score WELLBEING 12 1 Standard No Score 14 x STAYING SAFE 29 3 Standard No Score 3 1 MANAGEMENT 6 2 Standard No Score 8 2 1 x 9 1 2 1 15 2 4 x 30 1 5 1 16 1 ENJOYING AND ACHIEVING 17 1 Standard No Score 18 1 7 1 19 1 13 2 20 1 31 x 21 1 22 1 MAKING A POSITIVE 23 2 CONTRIBUTION 24 1 Standard No Score 25 1 10 2 26 2 11 1 27 2 28 2 Lorimer House F05 F55 s59742 lorimer v236527 250705 stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 27 Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? No

p.26

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

This section sets out the actions which must be taken so that the registered person/s meets the Care Standards Act 2000, Fostering Services Regulations 2002 and the National Minimum Standards. The Registered Provider(s) must comply with the given timescales.

p.27

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

No. Standard Regulation Requirement Timescale for action 1. 1 3 The Statement of Purpose must include details of the service as detailed in Standard 1.4 31/10/05

p.27

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

2. 2 6 The agency must appoint an individual to manage the fostering agency who has the necessary skills, qualification and knowledge base to manage the service. 31/10/05

p.27

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

3. 3 7 The manager and staff must in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Fostering Services Regulations 2002 have a current CRB checks 30/9/05 and ongoing

p.27

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

4. 5 45 The agency must inform CSCI in writing of management arrangements in the absence of the manager for a continous period of greater than 28 days. Immediate and ongoing.

p.27

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

5. 8 11 The agency must ensure that each child/young person placed is carefully matched with a carer who can meet the needs of the child/young person including gender,religion, ethnic origin, language, culture, disability and sexuality. Immediate and ongoing.

p.27

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

6. 9 11 The agency must put into place appropriate systems to ensure the safeguard and welfare of the children/young people in Immediate and ongoing Lorimer House F05 F55 s59742 lorimer v236527 250705 stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 28 placement. 7. 30 11 The agency must undertake the following:

p.27

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

1 A review of the Fostering Panel function. The outcome of which must be submitted to CSCI.

p.28

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

2 A review of the Panel procedures must be undertaken. A copy of the revised procedures must be submitted to CSCI.

p.28

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

3 A review of the role and responsibility of the Panel Chair must be undertaken. A copy of the review must be submitted to CSCI.

p.28

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

4 Assessments of prospective Foster Carers must not be brought to panel without all the necessary checks being undertaken. This includes CRB, references etc. 15/10/05

p.28

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

8. 17 20 All information relevant in assessing the suitability of a prospective foster carer must be fully explored with the applicant so as to safeguard children/young people placed or to be placed with the fostering service. 15/10/05

p.28

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

9. 19 21 All social work staff and panel members must receive Child Protection training. This training must be updated on a regular basis and evidence made available to the Commission of the dates the training takes place. 15/10/05 and ongoing

p.28

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

10. 16 20 All staff must be subject to a formal probationary period, which is known to the staff and which includes the date the probationary period commences and an end date. Immediate and ongoing Lorimer House F05 F55 s59742 lorimer v236527 250705 stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 29 11. 16 19 The agency must have a clear staffing structure in place with clear lines of accountability. 15/10/05 and ongoing 12. 24 22 The agency must maintain and keep up to date the records as specified in Schedule 2 of the Fostering Services Regulations. 15/10/05 and ongoing

p.28

RECOMMENDATIONS

These recommendations relate to National Minimum Standards and are seen as good practice for the Registered Provider/s to consider carrying out.

p.29

RECOMMENDATIONS

No. Refer to Standard Good Practice Recommendations

p.29

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. No recommendations have been made in respect of this inspection. Lorimer House F05 F55 s59742 lorimer v236527 250705 stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 30

p.29

Commission for Social Care Inspection

th Floor Oakland House Talbot Road Manchester M16 0PQ

p.30

Commission for Social Care Inspection

National Enquiry Line: 0845 015 0120 Email: enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk Web: www.csci.org.uk © This report is copyright Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and may only be used in its entirety. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the express permission of CSCI

p.30