Skip to content

Help us get it right

Sign in (free) to send feedback, so we can tell you when it's fixed.

Other · Ofsted letter

Setting

Inspected —

Help us get it right

Sign in (free) to send feedback, so we can tell you when it's fixed.

Original PDF ↗

Summary

No overall grade in this framework

What we read, and from where

Click a reading to see it highlighted in the report.

  • Postcode verified

    B70 9LT

Page 1 of 3
Page 1 of the report

Deep dive

What this report says

In plain English

Join free to get a short, plain-English summary of any report.

Tone of the report

How positive or critical the inspectors' language is, from the words they chose. No AI involved.

−58Criticalmore positive than 4% of reports of this type

Reads more critically than most reports of this type.

Praiseeffectivelyeffectivestrengthspromptlytimelysafeclear
Criticismconcernsat riskrisk of harmpoorinsufficienttoo oftenharmvariable

How the report reads, start to finish

Every paragraph in order, sized by length. Tap one to see it on the page.

FindingsWhat needs to improve positive critical
  • Findings547w−7
  • What needs to improve272w−82

Strengths

Quoted from the report. Tap to see it on the page.

No standout praise found.

Concerns

Quoted from the report. Tap to see it on the page.

No strong criticism found.

Next steps

Quoted from the report. Tap to see it on the page.

What the report dwells on

Topics by how often they come up, coloured by how they are described. Open one for an example.

Anatomy of the report

How the report is built, against others of the same type and grade.

Pages
3
Words of findings
819
about usual (typical 963)
Reading level
Very hard
Flesch 21, typical 48
Average sentence
29 words
Next steps
4
typical 2
Hedged sentences
14%
“some”, “not always”, “most”…

Where the words go

Findings 67%What needs to improve 33%

Full report text

Alexandra House 33 Kingsway London WC2B 6SE T 08456 40 40 40 enquiries@ofsted.gov.uk www.ofsted.gov.uk Direct T 020-7421-6666 Direct F 020-7421-6746 sue.leaver@ofsted.gov.uk

p.1

Mr Roger Crouch Executive Director for Children and Young People’s Services Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council PO Box 41 Shaftesbury House 402 High Street West Bromwich B70 9LT

p.1

Borough Council children’s services

This letter contains the findings of the recent unannounced inspection of contact, referral and assessment arrangements within local authority children’s services in Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council which was conducted on 17 and 18 June 2009. The inspection was carried out under section 138 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006. It will contribute to Ofsted’s annual review of the performance of the authority’s children’s services, for which Ofsted will award a rating later in the year.

p.1

Borough Council children’s services

The inspection identified no areas for priority action but some areas for development, which are detailed below.

p.1

Borough Council children’s services

The inspection sampled the quality and effectiveness of contact, referral and assessment arrangements and their impact on minimising the incidence of child abuse and neglect. Inspectors considered a range of evidence, including: electronic case records and paper files; supervision files and notes; observation of social workers and senior practitioners undertaking referral and assessment duties; and other information provided by staff and managers. Inspectors also spoke to a range of staff including managers, social workers, other practitioners and administrative staff. I am grateful to you and your staff for your help and the time given during this inspection.

p.1

Borough Council children’s services

From the evidence gathered, the inspection identified a number of areas where the referral, assessment and contact services were satisfactorily carrying out their responsibilities in accordance with national guidance, in particular:

p.1

Borough Council children’s services

ƒ Practice in the referral and assessment service ensures those risk factors that impact on children’s safety and welfare are identified and managed effectively. ƒ All child protection cases are allocated promptly.

p.1

Borough Council children’s services

ƒ Managers provide regular supervision and staff report good management support and training opportunities.

p.2

Borough Council children’s services

ƒ The views of children and parents are sought and are taken into account when assessing and planning cases.

p.2

Borough Council children’s services

ƒ The referral and assessment team and children with disabilities team have appropriate joint arrangements in place to investigate child protection concerns.

p.2

Borough Council children’s services

ƒ The common assessment framework has been implemented across the area with dedicated coordinators overseeing the processes.

p.2

Borough Council children’s services

ƒ The cultural and religious needs of children and families from Black communities and minority ethnic backgrounds are given proper consideration.

p.2

Borough Council children’s services

From the evidence gathered, the following strengths and areas for development were also identified:

p.2

Strengths

ƒ Action taken to respond to child protection referrals and concerns is timely and appropriate, ensuring that children most at risk were helped to be safe. ƒ Partner agencies are clear about thresholds for access to social care services and report effective working relationships. They report effective prioritisation of those children most at risk. ƒ The initial and core assessments seen during the course of the inspection were generally of a good standard and were responsive to individual needs. ƒ Senior managers and elected members have provided temporary additional social workers to meet shortfalls in capacity. ƒ The council has effectively identified the key areas for development in the referral and assessment service. Appropriate action is being taken to drive improvement, although some of this is recent and has not had sufficient impact on the quality of the service.

p.2

Areas for development

ƒ The service is well-resourced but performance, such as the speed of completing assessments for children not at risk of significant harm, is being adversely affected by a combination of sickness, staff turnover and the use of agency staff. ƒ A number of low priority cases remain open longer than necessary because staff have insufficient time to complete and record the work required to close or transfer them. The council has recently identified short-term measures to address this issue. ƒ There are significant variations in workloads and practice methods between the four teams in the referral and assessment service. ƒ Systematic case file auditing processes have only recently been established to monitor and report on the overall quality of practice; it is too soon to see significant impact on the quality of work with families. ƒ The links between the referral and assessment team and arrangements to provide family support at an earlier stage, through the common assessment

p.2

Areas for development

framework, are underdeveloped. ƒ The Contact Centre accepts initial referrals, excluding those raised by the police service relating to children at significant risk of harm. These go directly to the referral and assessment service. However, the current quality of information about individual referrals forwarded by the Contact Centre is variable, and too often poor, which results in unnecessary duplication when the referral and assessment service respond to them.

p.3

Areas for development

Heather Brown Divisional Manager, Social Care Safeguarding

p.3

Areas for development

Cc Allison Fraser, Chief Executive, Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council Paul Meredeth, Chair of Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council Safeguarding Children Board Ian Jones, Lead Member for Children’s Services, Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council John Browning, Department for Children, Schools and Families

p.3

Discuss this inspection

Members compare notes on inspectors and inspections here. Join free to read and post.

Join the discussion