Action For Children Fostering Manchester Tfco

Inspection report for independent fostering agency: Action For Children Fostering Manchester Tfco Action For Children Fostering Manchester TFCO Action For Children Peel Green House, 696 Liverpool Road, Manchester M30 7LP Inspected under the social care common inspection framework

p.1

Information about this independent fostering agency

This fostering agency is run by a children’s charity. Placements are provided specifically for children looked after by Manchester City Council. It provides a specialist multi-treatment foster care service. The model of care is delivered in line with the Treatment Foster Care Oregon model, developed by the Oregon School of Social Learning. Follow-on placements are also provided. The project was set up in 2014, as part of another independent fostering agency run by the same charity. It was registered as a separate independent fostering agency in August 2016.

p.1

Overall experiences and progress of

children and young people, taking into account

p.1

good

How well children and young people are helped and protected requires improvement to be good

p.1

good

The effectiveness of leaders and managers requires improvement to be good

p.1

good

The independent fostering agency is not yet delivering good help and care for children and young people. However, there are no serious or widespread failures that result in their welfare not being safeguarded or promoted.

p.1

Enforcement action since last inspection

None Inspection report for independent fostering agency: Action For Children Fostering Manchester Tfco

p.1

Key findings from this inspection

This independent fostering agency requires improvement to be good because:

p.2

Key findings from this inspection

 The agency has not been run in a way that enables it to meet its aims. Six fostering households have resigned since the agency’s registration with Ofsted. Only one carer has been recruited. This means that the number of carers is reducing and fewer children can be accommodated. The service has not been able to provide follow-on placements for those children who need them.  Carers have not been well matched to children. Some carers do not have sufficient experience and skills to manage the challenging behaviour children present. This is linked to placement disruptions. Of the 10 children who have been discharged, five have returned to live in children’s homes. The agency has not yet met its target of having 66% of children move on successfully to family life.  Management monitoring and review systems do not provide the manager with reliable information about the operation of the service. The manager is unable to

p.2

Key findings from this inspection

demonstrate the number of and reasons for disrupted placements, and the number of serious events, including missing incidents. Shortfalls in records mean that information is unreliable and does not enable the organisation to learn from available data.  Not all notifiable incidents have been notified to Ofsted. There is no evidence that allegations against carers have been investigated, and Ofsted has not been informed about them. Nor has Ofsted been notified of a review of the service. This prevents the regulator from monitoring effectively the agency’s progress, development and response to safeguarding concerns.  The fostering panel needs development. On at least one occasion recently, the panel has been cancelled as it has not been quorate. There are no members with a background in education or health and no care-experienced members.  There are shortfalls in the quality of foster carer assessment reports. These have

p.2

Key findings from this inspection

not been addressed by the manager before presentation at panel.  Risk assessments and risk management plans lack important information and are not always shared with respite carers. This does not ensure that children are protected as well as possible.  Employment records do not show that full and satisfactory information has been obtained in relation to persons employed to work for the purposes of the fostering service. This means that the service cannot demonstrate safe recruitment practices. Staff supervision records are not up to date.  Not all foster carers have completed the Training, Support and Development Standards within 12 months of approval, and performance has not been well monitored.  A review of the service has not been shared with Ofsted. This does not ensure that the regulator is kept up to date with developments and changes in the service.  Not all foster carer approvals have been reviewed within 12 months of their

p.2

Key findings from this inspection

approval. Unannounced visits have not been conducted for every carer within a 12 Inspection report for independent fostering agency: Action For Children Fostering Manchester Tfco month period. The agency is not operating in accordance with regulations aimed at ensuring carers’ practice is appropriately monitored and reviewed.

p.2

Key findings from this inspection

The independent fostering agency’s strengths:

p.3

Key findings from this inspection

 The agency has conducted a review of the service and is fully aware of the shortfalls. It has increased the level of scrutiny by the senior leadership team, drawn up an action plan and initiated a programme of development aimed at improving all aspects of the service.  A new responsible individual, a new manager and a new panel chair have been appointed. All are experienced professionals with a strong background in fostering.  The agency’s capacity to improve is good.  Carers are very well supported.  Children receive good support to develop new skills and address their challenging behaviour. Social workers and other professionals recognise that the agency makes a huge difference to children’s lives.  Those children who complete the programme and move straight away to a follow- on or long term family have positive outcomes. They are very well supported to re- integrate into family life. Inspection report for independent fostering agency: Action For Children Fostering Manchester

p.3

Statutory requirements

This section sets out the actions that the registered person(s) must take to meet the Care Standards Act 2000, Fostering Services (England) Regulations 2011 and the national minimum standards. The registered person(s) must comply within the given timescales.

p.4

Requirement Due date

Ensure that the fostering service is at all times conducted in a manner which is consistent with its statement of purpose. This particularly relates to ensuring that the agency is run in a way that enables it to meet its aims, including the provision of follow-on placements. (Regulation 3 (5)). 30/09/2017

p.4

Requirement Due date

The fostering service provider must prepare and implement a written policy which— (a) is intended to safeguard children placed with foster parents from abuse or neglect, and (b) sets out the procedure to be followed in the event of any allegation of abuse or neglect. (3) The procedure under paragraph (1)(b) must provide in particular for— (d) written records to be kept of any allegation of abuse or neglect, and of the action taken in response, (e) consideration to be given to the measures which may be necessary to protect children placed with foster parents following an allegation of abuse or neglect. (Regulation 12 (1)) 31/08/2017

p.4

Requirement Due date

Ensure that full and satisfactory information is available in relation to persons employed to work for the purposes of the fostering service in respect of each of the matters specified in Schedule 1. (Regulation 20 (3) ) 30/09/2017

p.4

Requirement Due date

The fostering service provider must review the approval of each foster parent in accordance with this regulation. (2) A review must take place not more than a year after approval, and thereafter whenever the fostering service provider consider it necessary, but at intervals of not more than a year. (Regulation 28 (1) (2) ) 30/09/2017

p.4

Requirement Due date

Maintain a system for— (1)(a) monitoring the matters set out in Schedule 6 at appropriate intervals, and(b) improving the quality of foster care provided by the fostering agency. (2) The registered person must provide the Chief Inspector with a written report in respect of any review conducted for the purposes of paragraph (1) and, on request, to any local 30/09/2017 Inspection report for independent fostering agency: Action For Children Fostering Manchester Tfco authority. (3) The system referred to in paragraph (1) must provide for consultation with foster parents, children placed with foster parents, and their placing authority (unless, in the case of a fostering agency which is a voluntary organisation, it is also the placing authority). (Regulation 35 (1) (2) ) If any of the events listed in Column 1 of the table in Schedule 7 takes place in relation to a fostering agency, the registered person must without delay notify the persons or

p.4

Requirement Due date

bodies indicated in respect of the event in column 2 of the table. (Regulation 36 (1) ) 31/08/2017

p.5

Recommendations

 Make sure that the manager runs the fostering agency ethically, effectively and efficiently to ensure delivery of a good quality service which meets the needs of children and foster carers, and ensures children are safeguarded and their welfare is promoted. Ensure continuous development of the service by reviewing and learning from incidents and promote continuity of care for children. (Statutory Guidance, Volume 4, page 36, paragraph 4.7)  Do more to obtain children’s views on all aspects of their care. In particular, take children’s views into account in the development of the service. (NMS 1.3)  Ensure that each child is carefully matched to a foster placement. (NMS 11.2)  Aim to recruit sufficient foster carers to be responsive to current and predicted future demands on the service. (NMS 13.1)  Ensure that the written report on a person’s suitability to be approved as a foster carer sets out clearly all the information that the fostering panel and

p.5

Recommendations

agency decision maker need in order to make an objective approval decision. In particular, ensure that all checks are carried out in line with Regulation 26. (NMS 13.5, 13.7)  Ensure that the fostering panel has sufficient members and that individual members have between them the experience and expertise necessary to effectively discharge the functions of the panel. (Statutory Guidance, Volume 4, page 39, paragraph 5.8.)  Ensure that the service implements a proportionate approach to any risk assessment. In particular, ensure robust assessment of risks and clear, individualised risk management plans are implemented, kept under review and inform safe care practice. Ensure also that risk management plans are shared with relevant people. (NMS 4.5)  Ensure that a written record is kept by the fostering service detailing the time, date and length of each supervision held for each member of staff, including

p.5

Recommendations

the registered person. The record should be signed by the supervisor and the member of staff at the end of the supervision. (NMS 24.5) Inspection report for independent fostering agency: Action For Children Fostering Manchester Tfco  Do more to encourage all foster carers to complete the Training, Support and Development Standards within 12 months of approval or as soon as possible, thereafter. (NMS 20.3)  Improve the systems for monitoring the quality and adequacy of record keeping and take action when needed to ensure that records accurately reflect children’s progress and any action taken by the agency. (NMS 26.2) Inspection report for independent fostering agency: Action For Children Fostering Manchester Tfco

p.5

improvement to be good

Since registration, the agency has cared for 15 children, of whom five are currently in placement. The success of these placements has been mixed. The agency aims to help children make the transition from residential care to living with a family. Its target is for 66% of children to complete a treatment programme focusing on developing the skills to function effectively in society over a 9–12 month period and to then move successfully back to their birth family or a long-term foster family. It has not yet reached this target, as five of the 10 children discharged since registration have returned to a residential setting. Others have been very well supported to return to living in a family. Enabling successful transitions at the start and end of the treatment programme is a key area for development. Some admissions have not been planned appropriately and children are not always well matched to carers who have the skills to meet their

p.7

improvement to be good

needs. Not all children have successfully completed the programme, and there have been some disrupted placements. Some carers have resigned their positions, as a result of the quality of the matching process. Where a follow-on family placement is identified from the start of the placement with a treatment foster care family, the agency not only prepares children for the move, but also helps families or prospective carers to plan for the child’s arrival. It enables very well-planned transitions and provides ongoing support and guidance for three to six months after the child has moved. This helps the family and the child to build trusting, positive relationships and the likelihood of long-term success is strong. However, when no family is identified, and the child reaches the end of the treatment programme with no family ready to move to, the risk of a deterioration in the child’s progress is significant. Some children have remained with their treatment

p.7

improvement to be good

carers or moved to other families within the agency, but this has not always proved successful and some of these follow-on placements have been disrupted when the child’s highly challenging behaviour has re-emerged. A social worker said: They are looking to identify a foster placement but this has not been successful. She is being presented to the high needs panel because of this situation. I think it’s the lack of suitable experienced carers for the children to move on to. Some carers have kept children but that is their choice and some want to move on to other children in the same way. Equally, some children who have not settled well with the carers with whom they have been matched have had one or more placement moves within the short time they have been placed with the agency. This is unsettling for them. Each child is also matched with respite carers as the agency recognises carers and children need a

p.7

improvement to be good

regular break from the intensity of their relationship. Some children have had short breaks with several different respite care families. This means that stability and continuity of care are not always good. Inspection report for independent fostering agency: Action For Children Fostering Manchester Tfco Although communication within the agency is mostly good, respite carers are not always fully informed about children’s needs. This undermines the ability of respite carers to meet children’s individual needs. For example, there was an incident in which a child was injured during a respite placement. The carers were unaware that an incident of a similar nature had previously occurred. Had they known about the previous incident and put additional safety measures in place, the injury may have been prevented. Children’s progress and day-to-day experiences are mostly positive. Those who buy in to the programme and complete it clearly benefit from it and make good, all-

p.7

improvement to be good

round progress in their development. They are supported and encouraged to engage in a range of positive, structured activities and are well supervised. They improve their social skills, manage their anger better and make good educational progress from very low starting points. They engage in less dangerous and anti-social behaviour such as going missing and crime. Social workers report that they are pleased with the progress children make, and the commissioning authority would like to see the service expand. For example, one said: His experience has been brilliant. You wouldn’t think he is the same child. He was very verbally and physically aggressive, lashing out at people. Now, on first impressions he is a polite well-mannered young man. He is happy to have conversations with you. He is doing much better at school, is engaging and actually likes school. It’s a really good match. The carers completely get

p.8

improvement to be good

him. A child explained that she feels more relaxed and settled since being with her treatment foster carers and recognises how much the programme has helped her to make progress and enjoy life more. The agency provides individualised care that focuses on each child’s particular needs. Treatment carers know their foster children well, spend time with them and provide positive, enjoyable experiences. Children have very clear boundaries, including controlled, supervised access to the internet, restricted use of technology and regular bedtime routines. They earn rewards for meeting set, personalised targets. For the majority of children, this is successful and leads to improved behaviour, greater emotional stability and the development of social skills. However, others have rebelled, displaying highly challenging and sometimes threatening behaviour which has led to placement disruption. For the most part, the quality of relationships between children and carers and other

p.8

improvement to be good

key people is good. Children have regular, twice weekly, individual sessions with support workers which they mostly enjoy. Communication is good. Children understand what they are setting out to achieve. They benefit from good information, advice and practice opportunities which help them to learn new and more effective ways of sharing their feelings and interacting. The helps to reduce anti-social and challenging behaviour. Carers are well supported to meet the diverse and complex needs of the children in their care. A social worker explained: Inspection report for independent fostering agency: Action For Children Fostering Manchester Tfco The quality of the work is unbelievable. The support that they offer carers is not like anything I’ve known before. They really seem to get and understand the kids and why they are feeling like that… I’ve got colleagues who also have kids in placement and they feel the same. My young person has left and gone

p.8

improvement to be good

to family placement and I was worried how she would manage. But the follow on service is amazing and she will still get her family session and respite and skills sessions as part of the follow on support. I’ve got no concerns or issues. The agency has established links with the virtual school, children looked after nurse and the child and adolescent mental health service. These enable it to work appropriately with key agencies and thereby help children access the services they need. The agency has not fully established strong relationships with some key people such as the fostering team in the commissioning local authority and this has led to delays in care planning for some children. Although the agency has tried to secure professional support for a child with a drug misuse problem, delays in setting this up meant that the child had to wait too long for the professional support he needed. Although there is some evidence of the agency gathering children’s views about their

p.9

improvement to be good

placements, more needs to be done to ensure the agency places listening to children at the centre of its practice. This is an area for development that the service recognises. Staff and carers do not yet contribute effectively to the development of the service. The opportunity for the agency to enhance its practice through listening to their views is being missed. Six foster families who transferred to this agency at the point of its registration with Ofsted have resigned. Only one more carer has been recruited, so that the agency has a total of ten foster families available to offer treatment, respite and follow-on placements. Some of the carers have little or no previous experience in caring for children, and this does not equip them well with the skills they need to care for children who have extremely challenging and complex emotional and behavioural needs. The agency recognises that preparation and assessment of carers needs

p.9

improvement to be good

further development to ensure that there is a range of carers who have sufficient skills to meet the children’s needs and the statement of purpose.

p.9

improvement to be good

The service receives good quality information about children referred. This is mostly assimilated into risk management plans. However, there are some shortfalls in practice, in that, for some children, not all risks identified by the placing authority have been assessed by the agency and so risk management plans are not always robust. For example, one child’s risk management plan does not address the child’s history of sexualised behaviour and self-harm. This does not ensure that carers have all the information and guidance they require to protect children well. There is evidence of improvements in practice over time, and risk management plans drawn up recently are more comprehensive. The information in some risk assessment and risk management plans appears to be Inspection report for independent fostering agency: Action For Children Fostering Manchester Tfco standardised and not sufficiently tailored to the child’s specific needs. These

p.9

improvement to be good

documents are used to match children to carers. They have not always equipped carers with sufficient guidance on how to respond to challenging behaviour effectively. This undermines the carers’ ability to protect children. One example of this is that children with known high levels of challenging behaviour were placed with inexperienced carers. While the carers received good support throughout these placements, both children’s placements were disrupted and they returned to residential settings. The carers felt unsafe and unable to manage the high levels of aggression displayed. One carer described a situation when a young person completely dominated the household and he felt uncomfortable in his own home. Other carers with similar experiences have resigned from the agency. This demonstrates that inadequate assessment of risks and poor matching has led to additional placement moves for children, an unrewarding and stressful experience

p.10

improvement to be good

for carers and the loss of foster carers who have been trained in this specialist form of fostering. The agency has recognised that it needs to improve the assessment and management of risks and associated matching of children to carers. More recently, the service has improved its matching process, and there is an example of good collaboration with the placing authority. This has resulted in a comprehensive matching and risk management plan being drawn up and shared with carers and support staff, prior to placement. Consequently, the carers have been able to put safe caring plans in place which address the child’s known, dangerous and risk- taking behaviour. The agency gives good advice to carers about how to respond appropriately to children who go missing. Carers are pro-active in searching for missing children, reporting them missing to police and working with other agencies to bring them home safely. The number of incidents of children going missing is low but the

p.10

improvement to be good

management information gathered is not wholly reliable. One child has made good progress in reducing self-injurious behaviour. Another has been well supported to stay away from a negative peer group. This progress has been enabled by the sensitive care and influence of carers who have built strong bonds with the children. Carers receive regular, weekly consultation with the treatment programme manager and ongoing support from supervising social workers, which they describe as ‘really good’. In addition, they have access to on-call support 24 hours a day, every day. The quality of this support is usually good, and carers find it very helpful. However, on one occasion, a child’s health and safety were not fully promoted by the on-call guidance given to carers when the child returned home under the influence of drugs. A training programme is delivered by the agency’s own staff, supplemented by specialist trainers. Carers have developed a better understanding of how to help

p.10

improvement to be good

children form more secure attachments and how to protect children who may be at risk of grooming and sexual exploitation. However, this training was not provided before they looked after children. Consequently, some children have been looked Inspection report for independent fostering agency: Action For Children Fostering Manchester Tfco after by carers who have not had a good understanding of relevant issues. Carers are trained in restraint practice and understand it must be used only as a last resort to prevent serious harm. It has been used appropriately, on a small number of occasions. Again, management information cannot be verified. Only one child participated in the inspection. She reported she feels safe. Some children have contributed to foster carer reviews and none has raised concerns about their safety. The agency has not always notified Ofsted of serious incidents. This prevents the regulator from monitoring the agency’s response to safeguarding incidents

p.10

improvement to be good

effectively. There have been at least three allegations against carers, but, in some cases, there is no evidence that they have been investigated. This does not ensure that children are safely cared for. The new manager acknowledges that the information held may not be fully reliable and that records have been poorly maintained. When placements have been disrupted, carers and children have felt unsafe. Not all disruptions are recorded on children’s files, and it is not clear whether the reasons for each disruption have been explored.

p.11

good

Following an internal review and re-organisation of the provider’s services, a new responsible individual took up post on 1 April 2017. She is suitably qualified and experienced for the role. The registered manager left the organisation on 31 March 2017, and an interim manager was appointed to lead the team until a new manager took up post four weeks prior to this inspection. The new manager is aware of the timeframes for submitting an application to Ofsted and the processes involved in assessing her fitness and suitability to be the registered manager. The provider’s review of the agency has highlighted many shortfalls and areas for future development. It was not shared with Ofsted. The provider has changed the structure of the senior leadership team and lines of accountability so as to provide better oversight, management and support to the agency. The responsible individual has developed clear action plans identifying what needs to be done and who is

p.11

good

responsible for driving improvement. New developments are being appropriately funded. The senior leadership team and the manager have high aspirations for the service, recognising that the project can successfully help the most complex and challenging children to have better lives. However, they recognise the service has not operated as originally intended and too many children have not gone on to have stable, follow-on and long-term placements. Plans are in place to meet with the commissioning authority to agree a way forward that achieves better outcomes for more of the children referred. Leadership and management have not been strong. For example, record-keeping practices have not always been rigorous and errors have not been addressed. The practice of overtyping documents has resulted in incorrect and unreliable information being recorded in children’s files. The manager does not have clear information

p.11

good

about disruptions and resignations. There has been insufficient oversight, reflection Inspection report for independent fostering agency: Action For Children Fostering Manchester Tfco and learning from incidents, including disruptions. When a review of disrupted placements was undertaken, some conclusions were not in keeping with regulation, nor child focused. For example, a proposal was made to suspend family contact arrangements during future treatment model placements. Some carers have not had their approval reviewed within the 12-month period required in regulation. Not all carers have had unannounced visits. Some have not completed the Training, Support and Development Standards within 12 months of approval. Management oversight of these matters has not been good. By not adhering to regulatory processes, the agency has not maintained sufficient scrutiny of some fostering households. The new manager is introducing improved

p.11

good

management monitoring systems to ensure better oversight and monitoring and promote the continuous professional development of carers. Some human resource files are not well maintained. Missing information includes proof of identification, up-to-date disclosure and barring service checks, and recent photographs. Referencing is not always robust. This does not ensure high-quality vetting of staff. The service has insufficient resource to support long-term placements of children and to meet the aims outlined in the statement of purpose. Efforts to increase the number of experienced and competent carers have not been successful. However, the recent appointment of a new recruitment and assessment manager is a positive step to address this. The service has a new marketing strategy and hopes to recruit more carers following its launch at the end of the summer. The impact of a failure to recruit carers has been significant, because children reaching the end of their model

p.12

good

placement have had no follow-on placement to go to and some have regressed in terms of their progress and development. The assessment process of carers is not strong. For example, it does not ensure that all aspects of the prospective carer’s background is explored nor that the evidence gathered is sufficiently verified. One example of this was a recent assessment that was not sufficiently quality assured. This was identified during the process of panel and decision-making. Further information was requested by the agency decision maker and appropriate restrictions to the approval category were made. Changes to the way foster carer assessments are conducted have recently been implemented and the assessment process is to be further strengthened. The new manager recognises the importance of robust assessments in recruiting carers who are suitably experienced, trained and competent to deliver the treatment model of

p.12

good

care. Further training has been arranged for the agency’s social workers and other staff and carers. This is intended to consolidate and enhance their knowledge, skills and expertise. Since its inception, the service has had several panel chairs and changes in panel membership. There have been times when a panel has had to be postponed as there have not been sufficient members for it to be quorate. A new panel chair has been appointed. She is an asset to the agency and has already demonstrated she has the skills and experience to provide effective quality assurance of the agency’s assessment work. She is working with the agency decision maker, manager and responsible individual to develop the role and improve the effectiveness of the panel. Staff supervision takes place at the frequency set out in the agency’s policy and is of Inspection report for independent fostering agency: Action For Children Fostering Manchester

p.12

good

Tfco satisfactory quality. However, some staff do not have records of supervision and appraisals from recent months. Although staff and carers have now had attachment and trauma training and have found this useful, this would have been beneficial prior to children being placed. The manager acknowledges that carers’ lack of training and experience is likely to have contributed to the number of disrupted placements. The agency promotes equality, taking children’s diverse needs into consideration in their placement planning. More needs to be done to attract carers from a broader cross section of the community, as carers recruited to date have overwhelmingly been from a white, British background. Similarly, when recruiting panel members, the agency should ensure that it selects members with a wide range of relevant skills and knowledge. Leaders and managers prioritise the needs of children and young people and there

p.13

good

are good supportive systems in place to ensure a continued focus on children’s experiences and outcomes. Supervising social workers actively challenge other agencies to meet their obligations to children, including, for example, to improve children’s education and contact arrangements. They are strong advocates for children, but are not always successful. For example, one child has been receiving part-time tuition at the library for many months. The agency has repeatedly challenged this arrangement, which does not meet her educational needs and does not equip her well for the future. The child has an education, health and care plan , and the virtual school and the child’s school have been involved in education planning. Despite this, the pace of setting up appropriate education has been too slow. The social worker said, ‘From my experience they have been great advocates. I don’t think that there is anything else they could have done. Education wise we are

p.13

good

struggling as, until we know where she will be living, we can’t organise education.’ The new manager has pre-existing good relationships with professionals locally. She already has plans to develop more collaborative arrangements with partners and review the strategic arrangements of the project. Carers are very well supported by their social workers and the children’s workers and programme supervisor. The preparation and aftercare given to follow-on families are also of high quality. The programme manager maintains an overview of children’s progress and, through constructive challenge and guidance, promotes continuing progress across key aspects of development. In particular, children learn to self-regulate their emotions and behaviour. Despite the number of shortfalls identified, the capacity for improvement is good. The new leadership team has a very good grasp of the strengths and areas for development. A comprehensive action plan has been drawn up, which aims to drive

p.13

good

improvement across all aspects of the service, within realistic timeframes. The agency’s collaborative working is set to improve further because the new manager has pre-established working relationships with the commissioning authority and local professionals. The agency has demonstrated that, with proper planning and risk management, the project can offer positive, constructive interventions that succeed with children for whom other services have not been effective. Inspection report for independent fostering agency: Action For Children Fostering Manchester Tfco

p.13

Information about this inspection

Inspectors have looked closely at the experiences and progress of children and young people. Inspectors considered the quality of work and the difference made to the lives of children and young people. They watched how professional staff work with children and young people and each other and discussed the effectiveness of help and care provided. Whenever possible, they talked to children and young people and their families. In addition, the inspectors have tried to understand what the independent fostering agency knows about how well it is performing, how well it is doing and what difference it is making for the children and young people whom it is trying to help, protect and look after.

p.14

Information about this inspection

Using the ‘Social care common inspection framework’, this inspection was carried out under the Care Standards Act 2000 to assess the effectiveness of the service and how it meets the core functions of the service as set out in legislation, and to consider how well it complies with the Fostering Services (England) Regulations 2011 and the national minimum standards. Inspection report for independent fostering agency: Action For Children Fostering Manchester Tfco

p.14

Independent fostering agency details

Registered provider: Action For Children

p.15

Independent fostering agency details

Registered provider address: Action For Children, 3 The Boulevard, Watford WD18 8AG

p.15

Inspectors

Sharon Lloyd, social care regulatory inspector Nicola Thomas, social care regulatory inspector Inspection report for independent fostering agency: Action For Children Fostering Manchester Tfco to achieve excellence in the care of children and young people, and in education and skills for learners of all ages. It regulates and inspects childcare and children’s social care, and inspects the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass), schools, colleges, initial teacher training, further education and skills, adult and community learning, and education and training in prisons and other secure establishments. It assesses council children’s services, and inspects services for children looked after, safeguarding and child protection.

p.15

Inspectors

If you would like a copy of this document in a different format, such as large print or Braille, please telephone 0300 123 1231, or email enquiries@ofsted.gov.uk . You may reuse this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence , write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk .

p.16

Inspectors

Interested in our work? You can subscribe to our monthly newsletter for more information and updates: http://eepurl.com/iTrDn .

p.16

Inspectors

T: 0300 123 1231 Textphone: 0161 618 8524 E: enquiries@ofsted.gov.uk W: http://www.gov.uk/ofsted

p.16