Setting

Cedar House School DS0000040058.V271126.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 1 RESIDENTIAL SPECIAL SCHOOL

p.1

LA6 2HW

Lead Inspector Stewart Waddell Announced Inspection 15 th February 2006 09:30 Cedar House School DS0000040058.V271126.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 2 The Commission for Social Care Inspection aims to:

p.1

LA6 2HW

• 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

LA6 2HW

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 Cedar House School DS0000040058.V271126.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 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 Residential Special Schools. 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

LA6 2HW

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

LA6 2HW

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

LA6 2HW

Copies of Every Child Matters and The Children Act 2004 are available from The Stationery Office as above. Cedar House School DS0000040058.V271126.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 4

p.3

Name of school

Address Kirkby Lonsdale Carnforth Lancashire LA6 2HW

p.4

Fax number

Email address schooloffice@cedarhouseadmin.co.uk

p.4

Fax number

Provider Web address www.cedarhouseschool.co.uk

p.4

inspection

Cedar House School DS0000040058.V271126.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 5

p.5

Brief Description of the School:

Cedar House is a co-educational special school for children exhibiting emotional and behavioural difficulties, and is duly registered with the Department of Education and Skills (DfES). The school caters for 86 children aged 7 to 16 years on a day or residential basis. At the time of inspection there were 39 residential boarding pupils accommodated. The school is situated close to the centre of the market town of Kirkby Lonsdale, which is within easy travelling distance of the larger towns of Kendal and Morecambe, and the city of Lancaster .

p.5

Brief Description of the School:

The residential provision comprised of 5 units, four for boys and one for girls. This included Lowgate House, a purpose built house that provides accommodation for the Junior boys. The school had embarked on a building programme and added new classroom and office facilities. Further expansion and renovation was planned – as part of which the school hope to provide more space for leisure activities. Cedar House School DS0000040058.V271126.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 6

p.5

SUMMARY

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

p.6

SUMMARY

The inspection was carried out over two days. However, we had visited the school on a pre-inspection visit on 23/01/06. We met with five groups of young people for formal interviews and spoke with other young people individually and informally. We dined with young people and staff. We met with the Head Teacher, Head of Care, Residential Care Staff, Senior Residential Care Staff, Domiciliary Staff, School Nurse, Psychologist, and various staff who held responsibilities for health and safety issues, risk assessments, staff supervision and training, and provision of meals and menus. The Head Teacher had completed all required pre-inspection questionnaires and self- assessment forms, and provided all documentation and information requested. Completed pre-inspection questionnaires were received from five local authorities that place young people with the school, 15 from parents of young people accommodated at the school, and two from care staff working at the

p.6

SUMMARY

school. We viewed all residential accommodation, and inspected documentation and records relevant to the operation and daily running of the school, and the monitoring of its operation by senior staff and the parent organisation.

p.6

SUMMARY

Replies to pre-inspection letters sent out were received from Cumbria Social Services, Environmental Health Department and independent listener.

p.6

What the school does well:

The school provided a good standard of care for young people accommodated, and actively promoted their welfare. Young people’s health needs were well met. Young people’s education needs were well met. Young people’s views and opinions were regularly sought and taken in to account. The school had good child protection procedures in place, and all appropriate agencies were notified of any significant incidents that occurred. Replies to pre-inspection questionnaires sent out showed placing authorities and parents/carers were generally very pleased with the service the school provided. The school operated good recruitment procedures. The school was efficiently managed and run. There was a settled, consistent care staff team in place. There were systems in place to provide good support for staff, and staff received regular supervision and appraisal. The school had appropriate staff training programmes in place.

p.6

What has improved since the last inspection?

The school were introducing detailed questionnaires that were being sent to the parents/carers of young people boarding at the school, to obtain their views and opinions on the boarding provision. The school psychologist had Cedar House School DS0000040058.V271126.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 7 organised help and support groups for young people. New classroom and office facilities had been completed and were now in use. All recommendations made at the last inspection had been appropriately addressed.

p.6

What they could do better:

The school should ensure that, where applicable, staff signed all relevant documentation. Some sections of young people’s Individual Care and Education Plans should contain more detailed information.

p.7

What they could do better:

Please contact the Head 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. Cedar House School DS0000040058.V271126.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 8

p.7

CONTENTS

Recommended Actions identified during the inspection Cedar House School DS0000040058.V271126.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 9

p.8

The intended outcomes for these standards are:

• Children live in a healthy environment and the health and intimate care needs of each child are identified and promoted.(NMS 14) • Children are provided with healthy, nutritious meals that meet their dietary needs.(NMS 15)

p.9

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

Young people’s health needs were well met. Young people were offered a balanced, healthy diet and encouraged towards developing healthy eating habits.

p.9

EVIDENCE:

The school had addressed all requirements and recommendations made by the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) pharmacist following her visit in February 2005, ensuring the home operated policies, procedures and practices that ensured the safe administration of medication.

p.9

EVIDENCE:

The school employed a qualified nurse who had responsibility for ensuring young people’s health needs were addressed. We met with the nurse during the inspection. The school had documentation that covered all areas required under Standard 14 of the Residential Special Schools National Minimum Standards. However, the nurse informed us she wished to develop individual health plans for all young people accommodated.

p.9

EVIDENCE:

The school employed a psychologist on a full time basis, and had the services of a member of the local Community Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) team one day per week. A speech and language therapist and a play therapist were also employed, showing the school provided specialist support and advice when required.

p.9

EVIDENCE:

Senior care staff, and the school nurse, had undertaken a four-day first-aid course. All other staff had received basic first-aid training. All staff with responsibility for administering medication had received appropriate training. All medical, dental and optician appointments were appropriately recorded and records of accidents were maintained. Where relevant risk assessments allowed, young people were able to administer their own medication. Cedar House School DS0000040058.V271126.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 10 We spoke with the kitchen supervisor who was responsible for the meals provided and organising menus. She informed us young people’s views on the food provided were sought and taken in to account. Questionnaires had been given to them and the supervisor had attended the last school council meeting to discuss menus and meals. We dined with young people in the school dining room and observed breakfast and supper being taken in residential units. Meal

p.9

EVIDENCE:

times observed were organised social occasions and the quality of food was appropriate and acceptable. A vegetarian option was always available as well as salads and fruit. Young people who had specific dietary needs could be catered for. Young people were able to prepare themselves snacks and drinks on the residential units. All care staff had received appropriate basic food hygiene training. Cedar House School DS0000040058.V271126.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 11

p.10

The intended outcomes for these standards are:

• Children’s privacy is respected and information about them is confidentially handled.(NMS 3) • Children’s complaints are addressed without delay and children are kept informed of progress in their consideration.(NMS 4) • The welfare of children is promoted, children are protected from abuse, and an appropriate response is made to any allegation or suspicion of abuse.(NMS 5) • Children are protected from bullying by others.(NMS 6) • All significant events relating to the protection of children in the school are notified by the Head of the school or designated person to the appropriate authorities.(NMS 7) • Children who are absent without authority are protected in accordance with written guidance and responded to positively on return.(NMS 8) • Children are assisted to develop appropriate behaviour through the encouragement of acceptable behaviour and constructive staff responses to inappropriate behaviour.(NMS 10)

p.11

The intended outcomes for these standards are:

• Children live in schools that provide physical safety and security.(NMS 26) • There is careful selection and vetting of all staff, volunteers, and monitoring of visitors to the school to prevent children being exposed to potential abusers.(NMS 27)

p.11

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

Young people’s privacy was respected. There was an appropriate complaints procedure in place. The school had good child protection procedures in place. Young people were fully aware of the school rules and guidelines, and what sanctions would be employed for any unacceptable behaviour. Bullying was not a significant issue for young people at the school. There were good health and safety procedures in place. The school operated good staff recruitment procedures. Cedar House School DS0000040058.V271126.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 12

p.11

EVIDENCE:

Young people’s privacy and right to confidentiality was respected. We observed staff working in ways that gave appropriate regard to young people’s privacy. All bedrooms had suitable locks on the doors and all young people had been provided with an individual locker for safe storage of any personal belongings. Each residential unit contained a payphone sited in an area that afforded privacy for users. Mobile “picture phones” were not permitted, either for young people or staff on duty. Documentation for recording any searches of young people’s possessions met the requirements of Standard 3.11 of the Residential Special Schools National Minimum Standards. However, on one occasion not all staff involved in the search had signed the relevant documentation.

p.12

EVIDENCE:

The pupil handbook contained a section on the school’s complaints procedures, covering formal and informal procedures. The procedures adequately detailed the role of the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) in the complaints process and contained the telephone number of the local area office. The handbook contained a list of telephone numbers of other outside agencies available to young people. A similar list was also placed in each payphone cubicle. Young people told us they knew how to make a complaint, and said staff would address any complaints they raised.

p.12

EVIDENCE:

The Head of Care was the school’s “Named Person” for child protection issues. Since the last inspection he had undergone a four-day training course, delivered by Cumbria’s Multi – Agency Trainers. All staff, including ancillary staff, had received appropriate child protection training. The school had appropriately referred all child protection issues to the relevant agencies. Documentation viewed showed the school had been diligent in appropriately notifying relevant agencies of any significant incident. The school kept a detailed record of all such incidents referred, and a record of the outcome of any subsequent investigation, enabling monitoring of any referral from notification to outcome.

p.12

EVIDENCE:

The school had appropriate policies and procedures in place to address issues of bullying. Senior staff regularly monitored the school records to ensure any incidents of bullying were addressed, and to identify any underlying issues. Young people we interviewed stated bullying was not a major issue at the school and they said staff would address any incidents of bullying if it was brought to their attention.

p.12

EVIDENCE:

All staff had received training in the school’s preferred method of positive intervention – “Team Teach”. The Head Teacher and Head of Care were senior instructors in this method and regular refresher courses were held for staff. Monitoring records viewed showed there had been a 45% reduction in the number of physical restraints, compared to a year ago. Staff suggested Cedar House School DS0000040058.V271126.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 13 various reasons for this, and stated they would only use physical restraint as a “last resort”. The school operated a “grades” system to encourage young people to develop, and maintain, an acceptable level of behaviour. Young people we spoke to clearly understood the grades system and described it to us during the inspection. They also detailed the sanctions that may be applied for unacceptable behaviours. Written records of any sanctions applied were kept. The documentation for recording sanctions imposed met with the

p.12

EVIDENCE:

requirements of the Residential Special School National Minimum Standards.

p.13

EVIDENCE:

We interviewed the staff members with responsibility for overseeing health and safety issues. They had received appropriate training for their roles. We also viewed all relevant Health and Safety documentation. A weekly Health and Safety report was compiled. Regular Health and Safety checks on all residential units and school areas were carried out. The school had access to professional advice on all Health & Safety issues from an external consultancy firm based in Carlisle. All relevant fire safety checks and fire drills had been carried out. Required checks on electrical equipment and installations had been carried out, as had required annual safety checks on gas installations and boilers. Appropriate risk assessments had been carried out. All taps had been fitted with regulators to ensure hot water provided did not exceed 43 degrees C.

p.13

EVIDENCE:

The files of three staff employed since the last inspection were examined and found to meet with the requirements of Standard 27 of the Residential Special Schools National Minimum Standards. The staff recruitment records were well maintained, with a written record of interviews and a note kept of the date of verification of references by direct contact with referees. All staff employed had received appropriate CRB disclosure clearance before starting work, and suitable references had been sought and received. Cedar House School DS0000040058.V271126.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 14

p.13

The intended outcomes for these standards are:

• The school’s residential provision actively supports children’s educational progress at the school.(NMS 12) • Children have ample opportunity to engage in purposeful and enjoyable activities both within the school and in the local community.(NMS 13) • Children receive individual support when they need it.(NMS 22)

p.14

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

Young people’s educational needs were well met. Their activity and leisure needs were suitably addressed. Young people received individual support when required.

p.14

EVIDENCE:

Each young person had an “Individual Care and Education Plan” compiled specifically for them, that detailed their care and educational needs and how these would be addressed. Young people had the opportunity to study for GCSE’s or other accredited educational qualifications. There were suitable areas for private study if required. Care staff were allocated working hours during the classroom day to support teaching staff, and some staff from the education department worked care hour duties. All young people accommodated attended school on both days of the inspection

p.14

EVIDENCE:

Young people we spoke to detailed the range of activities on offer at the school, and were quite positive in their comments. All activities were appropriately risk assessed. Young people had the opportunity to join local youth groups if they wished. Young people and staff spoken to stated activities offered included cinema visits, ten-pin bowling and swimming. The school had hired facilities at another local school one night per week to provide further activities for young people. Each residential unit had “X boxes”, “Play stations” and computer games as well as tv, dvd and video machines. Staff ensured any games played, or video or dvd viewed, were age appropriate. Some staff spoken to commented on the need for more recreational areas on the main school site, to enable them to offer more activities during winter months. Senior managers were fully aware of this and discussions with the parent organisation were ongoing in trying to address the issue.

p.14

EVIDENCE:

Cedar House School DS0000040058.V271126.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 15 Young people were offered individual support and advice when required or requested. They had access to the services of the school psychologist, a play therapist, speech and language therapist and a member of the local CAMHS team. We observed staff giving individual support and advice to young people at various times throughout the inspection. Individual risk assessments had been carried out on all young people resident. Each young person had an “Individual Behaviour Management Plan” compiled for them, which took in to account any medical concerns. Cedar House School DS0000040058.V271126.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 16

p.15

The intended outcomes for these standards are:

• Children are encouraged and supported to make decisions about their lives and to influence the way the school is run. No child should be assumed to be unable to communicate their views.(NMS 2) • Children have sound relationships with staff based on honesty and mutual respect.(NMS 9) • Children experience planned and sensitively handled admission and leaving processes.(NMS 11) • Children have their needs assessed and written plans outline how these needs will be met while at school.(NMS 17) • In accordance with their wishes children are able and encouraged to maintain contact with their parents and families while living away from home at school.(NMS 20)

p.16

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

Young people’s views were sought and taken into consideration. All young people had “Individual Care and Education Plans”. Young people were supported and assisted to maintain contact with their family and friends.

p.16

EVIDENCE:

Young people had various opportunities to express their views and wishes. There was evidence to show they were regularly consulted about matters that may affect their daily lives. Each residential unit held weekly residents meetings, with the minutes of each meeting recorded. Each residential unit elected a young person from their unit to be their representative on the school council, which met once per term with the Head Teacher and Head of Care. Young people met at least fortnightly with their key worker, and the key workers maintained regular telephone contact with parents/carers to keep them updated on young people’s progress. The school were introducing a questionnaire that was to be sent to all parents/carers to obtain their views on the service the school provided. CSCI received 15 completed replies to questionnaires we sent to parents/carers. 13 stated they thought the school were looking after their children “very well”, one stated “quite well” and one

p.16

EVIDENCE:

“okay”. Cedar House School DS0000040058.V271126.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 17 Senior staff maintained regular contact with placing authorities. Five replies to pre-inspection questionnaires sent to placing authorities were received – three authorities were of the opinion that the school worked with them “very well” and two said “quite well”.

p.16

EVIDENCE:

We observed staff working with young people at various times throughout the inspection and there were positive interactions between them. Generally, staff had established good working relationships with young people. Staff and young people were seen to communicate in a friendly and relaxed manner. During interviews with us young people spoke favourably about the care staff that worked with them.

p.17

EVIDENCE:

The school had a “Pupil Liaison Officer” who had a key role in the school’s admissions policy, and in providing initial support to new pupils. Young people we spoke with said they had visited the school before admission, and were told which residential unit they were to be accommodated in. They said they had been given information about the school before coming to live there.

p.17

EVIDENCE:

The school compiled Individual Care and Education Plans (ICEP’s) for each young person. These plans covered all areas required under Standard 17.5 of the Residential Special Schools National Minimum Standards. Action plans for each young person were compiled detailing needs to be addressed, setting targets and strategies to achieve them. We discussed the Action Plans with the Head of Care, and amendments were made during the inspection to ensue Action Plans linked to all areas of the ICEP’s. Care staff used ICEP’s as working tools, and we discussed with the Head of Care the need to ensure all relevant information was contained in some sections. Keyworkers addressed needs and targets to be met with young people at their fortnightly meetings. Each young persons file contained a very detailed front sheet containing all essential information.

p.17

EVIDENCE:

Young people were actively encouraged to maintain regular contact with parents/carers and friends. They were permitted to have mobile phones, subject to agreement on use, and were able to use their mobile phones to maintain contact with friends and family if they wished to. Key workers maintained weekly contact with parents/carers on a weekly basis to inform them of the individual young person’s progress. Wherever possible, young people at the school had weekend home leave at least fortnightly – with some young people going home each weekend. Cedar House School DS0000040058.V271126.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 18

p.17

The intended outcomes for these standards are:

• Children can wear their own clothing outside school time, can secure personal requisites and stationery while at school, and are helped to look after their own money.(NMS 16) • Children about to leave care are prepared for the transition into independent living.(NMS 21) • Children live in well designed and pleasant premises, providing sufficient space and facilities to meet their needs.(NMS 23) • Children live in accommodation which is appropriately decorated, furnished and maintained to a high standard, providing adequate facilities for their use.(NMS 24) • Children are able to carry out their personal care in privacy and with dignity.(NMS 25)

p.18

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

Young people were able to wear clothes of their own choosing during care hours. The home provided a good standard of accommodation for young people. All bathrooms, washing and toilet facilities had appropriate locks to ensure young people’s privacy was respected.

p.18

EVIDENCE:

The school provided all school uniforms, clothing, bedding, linen, sleep attire, dressing gowns, school footwear etc. Some young people had brought their own duvet covers from home to use, thus personalising their bedroom areas. Young people wore their own leisure clothing and footwear during care hours. A tuck shop was open two nights a week. Pocket money was provided on a weekly basis - the amount given being dependent on age and the level the young person was on in the school’s grading system. Young people we spoke to fully understood the pocket money and reward systems. Records of pocket money given were appropriately recorded with young people signing to say they had received the money.

p.18

EVIDENCE:

The school had developed a “Leavers Programme” for senior pupils who were in their last year at school, aimed at promoting their independent living skills. The senior boys unit and the girls unit each had a small independent living unit Cedar House School DS0000040058.V271126.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 19 area that offered young people the opportunity to live quite independently and develop independent living skills. The school provided a budget for young people living in these areas to purchase groceries. Young people residing in these units did not seem to make full use of the opportunity offered to them to develop independence skills, preferring to join up with friends and staff on the larger main unit for meals and activities. We discussed this with the Head of Care who stated the school were hoping to incorporate some accredited educational qualifications in to the “Leavers Programme”. This would allow

p.18

EVIDENCE:

young people to gain extra, accredited qualifications whilst on the programme, and it was hoped this would encourage them to be more committed to the programme. The Connexions organisation worked closely with the school – coming in to the school weekly to work with year 10 and 11 pupils as part of the “Leavers Programme”.

p.19

EVIDENCE:

The school was located close to the centre of the market town of Kirby Lonsdale and all the facilities it offered. It was also within easy travelling distance of the larger towns of Kendal and Morecambe, and the city of Lancaster. Young people were accommodated in 5 separate residential units, each with it’s own facilities. All female residents were accommodated in one residential unit. The four residential units catering for male residents were organised by resident’s chronological age.

p.19

EVIDENCE:

We viewed all areas of the residential accommodation. Generally, the school provided a good standard of accommodation for young people. Although slightly restricted by the physical layout of some of the buildings, the school had managed to create residential units that presented as homely living areas. Young people we spoke to were generally positive in their views about their respective residential units. The majority of the bedrooms at the school offered en suite facilities. The residential units were well maintained throughout, with only some minor areas of redecorating and repair required – the Head of Care and Site Manager detailed to us ways in which maintenance issues were addressed as promptly as possible to ensure the quality of accommodation was maintained. In addition, young people had become involved in this process, with a pupil representative from each unit carrying out an inspection of their unit once a term with the Site Manager.

p.19

EVIDENCE:

Each residential unit contained sufficient bath, shower and toilet facilities for young people accommodated. All doors on such facilities had appropriate locks to afford privacy for users. All bathroom, shower and toilet areas were well decorated and well maintained. Cedar House School DS0000040058.V271126.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 20

p.19

The intended outcomes for these standards are:

• Children, parents, staff and placing authorities have access to a clear statement of the school’s care principles and practice for boarding pupils.(NMS 1) • Children’s needs, development and progress is recorded to reflect their individuality and their group interactions.(NMS 18) • There are adequate records of both the staff and child groups of the school.(NMS 19) • Children are looked after by staff who understand their needs and are able to meet them consistently.(NMS 28) • Children are looked after by staff who are trained to meet their needs.(NMS 29) • Children are looked after by staff who are themselves supported and guided in safeguarding and promoting the children’s welfare.(NMS 30) • Children receive the care and services they need from competent staff.(NMS 31) • Children and staff enjoy the stability of efficiently run schools.(NMS 32) • The governing body, trustees, local authority, proprietor or other

p.20

The intended outcomes for these standards are:

responsible body monitors the welfare of the children in the school.(NMS 33)

p.20

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

The school was well managed and efficiently run. There was a good staff training programme in place. The home had a settled, consistent care staff team. The school had good systems in place to support staff. There was good monitoring of the home’s operation by senior management and the parent organisation. Young people’s files contained relevant information.

p.20

EVIDENCE:

The school’s Statement of Purpose had been reviewed in September 2005. The “Pupil Handbook” was a detailed and informative document that contained all relevant information. We discussed with senior managers, the possibility of removing some formal, legalised sections in the handbook, and reviewing it’s Cedar House School DS0000040058.V271126.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 21 format to ensure the information given could be understood by all young people.

p.20

EVIDENCE:

The school maintained a two-tiered filing system to hold information about pupils. The main files containing confidential information were maintained securely in a lockable steel filing cabinet, and the working files were kept in the care office where they could be accessed by all staff. We viewed a selection of young people’s files, and they contained all relevant information required.

p.21

EVIDENCE:

Generally, the school maintained detailed records on staff and young people, and documentation viewed was of a good standard. The school had responded to a recommendation made at the last inspection and the young people’s register now recorded the full address a young person was accommodated at on leaving the school.

p.21

EVIDENCE:

Senior staff and team leaders interviewed stated that the residential unit care staff teams generally operated on a staffing ratio of one staff to every four young people accommodated. We viewed staff rota’s that showed this level was being maintained and occasionally exceeded. Each duty team also had a “floating staff” member who could be directed to any residential unit who may require extra help. Each residential unit had a staff member on sleep in duty each night and two waking night staff patrolled the school throughout the night, covering all unit areas. Team leaders we interviewed stated they always had sufficient staff on duty, and any staff absences were suitably covered.

p.21

EVIDENCE:

The school had an appropriate staff training programme in place and had good links with the parent organisations training provider. “Inset training days” for staff were held immediately prior to the beginning of school terms. We viewed the training programme for the inset days planned for this coming August and training scheduled covered Child Protection, Health & Safety and “Every Child Matters”. The Head of Care assumed responsibility for the training programme for care staff, and had compiled a training grid analysis that enabled him to keep a personal training profile on each staff member. The school had developed an NVQ training programme that all staff had access to, and presently 68% of staff held relevant NVQ qualifications, with the Head of Care estimating the school will meet the 80% requirement by August 2006. All staff recruited completed an induction-training programme that covered all required

p.21

EVIDENCE:

areas. Staff we spoke with commented positively on the training provided and stated they could approach senior staff with requests to do personal, individualised training courses.

p.21

EVIDENCE:

Documentation we viewed showed staff received formal supervision with the frequency and duration required under Standard 30.2 of the Residential Special Schools National Minimum Standards. Staff with responsibility for supervision of other staff had received training in supervision skills. The Head of Care had responded to staff concerns about the difficulty they sometimes had fitting in supervision sessions to their timetables, and a new format for delivering and Cedar House School DS0000040058.V271126.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 22 recording supervision had been implemented. The school had addressed a requirement made at the last inspection and ancillary staff interviewed stated they now signed their supervision records and received copies of the minutes of supervision sessions. Care staff meetings and residential unit staff meetings were held regularly, and the school now held full staff meetings at least once

p.21

EVIDENCE:

every school term. The Senior Management team met weekly, as did the Team Leaders and senior care staff. The Head of Care detailed the Performance Management System that was in place for all staff. We viewed the school’s development plan for 2005 to 2007. All staff we interviewed, from various departments, were positive in their comments about the support they received from senior staff and stated the Head of Care or Head Teacher were always available to them to discuss any concerns.

p.22

EVIDENCE:

The school benefited from having an experienced Senior Management team. The Head of Care held appropriate NVQ 4 qualifications in childcare and management, and was also an NVQ D32/33 assessor. Documentation and records viewed, and practice observed, showed that the school was efficiently managed and run.

p.22

EVIDENCE:

The inspectors viewed records and documentation that evidenced senior managers at the school regularly monitored and reviewed relevant practices. The school had developed good monitoring systems that enabled any areas of concern to be identified. There was evidence to show that senior staff had monitored all areas required under Standard 32.2 of the Residential Special School National Minimum Standards, and with the frequency demanded by the standard. The Head Teacher produced a written report on the operation of the school each term, this report then being forwarded to the organisations board of directors.

p.22

EVIDENCE:

Monitoring visits were carried out on a half-termly basis, complying with the frequency demanded by this standard. The organisations “Quality Assurance” team carried out these visits. A comprehensive report was compiled and forwarded to the school. The Head Teacher was required to formulate an action plan in response to each report, addressing any issues raised in the report. Cedar House School DS0000040058.V271126.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 23

p.22

SCORING OF OUTCOMES

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

p.23

SCORING OF OUTCOMES

4 Standard Exceeded (Commendable) 3 Standard Met (No Shortfalls) 2 Standard Almost Met (Minor Shortfalls) 1 Standard Not Met (Major Shortfalls)

p.23

SCORING OF OUTCOMES

“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.23

SCORING OF OUTCOMES

BEING HEALTHY MAKING A POSITIVE Standard No Score CONTRIBUTION 14 3 Standard No Score 15 3 2 4 9 4 STAYING SAFE 11 3 Standard No Score 17 3 3 3 20 3 4 3 5 4 ACHIEVING ECONOMIC 6 3 WELLBEING 7 4 Standard No Score 8 3 16 3 10 4 21 3 26 3 23 3 27 4 24 3 25 3 ENJOYING AND ACHIEVING Standard No Score MANAGEMENT 12 4 Standard No Score 13 3 1 3 22 3 18 3 19 3 28 3 29 4 30 4 31 3 32 4 33 3 Cedar House School DS0000040058.V271126.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 24 Are there any outstanding recommendations from the last inspection? NO

p.23

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

This section sets out the actions that must be taken so that the proprietor meets the Children Act 1989, Inspection of Schools and Colleges Regulations 2002 and the National Minimum Standards.

p.24

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

No. Standard Recommendation Timescale for action (Serious welfare concerns only) 1 RSS 2 The school must ensure all staff present during any checks of young people’s rooms or possessions sign the relevant documentation to state they were present during the search. Cedar House School DS0000040058.V271126.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 25

p.24

Commission for Social Care Inspection

Eamont House Penrith 40 Business Park Gillan Way Penrith Cumbria CA11 9BP

p.25

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.25