Other · Ofsted report
Setting
Summary
What we read, and from where
Click a reading to see it highlighted in the report.
- Inspectorssingle source
Pietro Battista
- Postcode verified
SM4 5DX
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.
Reads more critically than most reports of this type.
How the report reads, start to finish
Every paragraph in order, sized by length. Tap one to see it on the page.
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.
- Recruitment and retention strategies and action plans are beginning to stabilise the team but have yet to have sufficient impact. p.2
- Most of the staff in the service are new agency staff and many of those with permanent contracts are also newly appointed. p.2
- The basis for risk assessment and decision making is not consistently or clearly recorded. p.2
- However, relevant information is not regularly sought by Access and Assessment team staff to inform case planning and assessment. p.2
- However, some are not timely and lack clear analysis or sufficient detail. p.3
- In some cases this results in unnecessary re-referral. p.3
- While staff have received training in how to record and access information, social workers and managers sometimes have difficulty in locating information. p.3
- This makes it difficult for managers to monitor casework. p.3
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
- 803
- shorter than usual (typical 1049)
- Reading level
- Hard
- Flesch 32, typical 45
- Average sentence
- 19 words
- Next steps
- 8
- typical 5
- Hedged sentences
- 19%
- “some”, “not always”, “most”…
Where the words go
Full report text
Ms Yvette Stanley Director of Children, Schools and Families London Borough of Merton Civic Centre London Road, Morden Surrey SM4 5DX
p.1
arrangements within Merton’s children’s services
This letter summarises the findings of the recent unannounced inspection of contact, referral and assessment arrangements within local authority children’s services in the London Borough of Merton Council which was conducted on 5 and 6 May 2010. The inspection was carried out under section 138 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006. It will contribute to the annual review of the performance of the authority’s children’s services, for which Ofsted will award a rating later in the year. I would like to thank all of the staff we met for their assistance in undertaking this inspection.
p.1
arrangements within Merton’s children’s services
The inspection sampled the quality and effectiveness of contact, referral and assessment arrangements and their impact on minimising any child abuse and neglect. Inspectors considered a range of evidence, including: electronic case records; 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.
p.1
arrangements within Merton’s children’s services
The inspection identified areas of strength and satisfactory practice, with some areas for development.
p.1
arrangements within Merton’s children’s services
From the evidence gathered, the following features of the service were identified:
p.1
Strengths
Staff have good morale, are well motivated and value the professional advice, support and training that are readily available.
p.1
Strengths
There is ready access to a wide range of preventative resources and targeted services within the community. Freshford House Redcliffe Way Bristol BS1 6NL T 0300 1231231 enquiries@ofsted.gov.uk www.ofsted.gov.uk Direct T 0117 9456333 Direct F 0117 9456554 Safeguarding.lookedafterchildren@ofsted.gov.uk
p.1
Satisfactory practice
Clear procedures and practices are in place to ensure that statutory requirements to safeguard children and young people are met.
p.2
Satisfactory practice
Systems for receiving referrals are sound and effective. Administrative processes function well to support work within the Access and Assessment team.
p.2
Satisfactory practice
Contacts and referrals, including child protection referrals, receive a prompt response.
p.2
Satisfactory practice
Links between the Access and Assessment team and other agencies in the use of the common assessment framework process are effective. This leads to appropriate and prompt referrals between the services to enable children and families to access provision.
p.2
Satisfactory practice
New staff receive appropriate induction and support to enable them to undertake progressively more complex work.
p.2
Satisfactory practice
All cases, including child protection referrals, held within the Access and Assessment team are allocated to and assessed by suitably qualified staff.
p.2
Satisfactory practice
Managers at all levels routinely audit cases. Senior managers use performance management systems to maintain accurate awareness of issues affecting the service and to take action where necessary.
p.2
Satisfactory practice
Information is effectively shared between the out of hours service and the Access and Assessment team.
p.2
Areas for development
Lack of stability within the Access and Assessment team as a result of significant staff turnover, impacts on the quality, consistency and continuity of practice and management. Recruitment and retention strategies and action plans are beginning to stabilise the team but have yet to have sufficient impact. Most of the staff in the service are new agency staff and many of those with permanent contracts are also newly appointed.
p.2
Areas for development
Screening of referrals undertaken by different managers results in some lack of consistency in relation to children in need cases. The basis for risk assessment and decision making is not consistently or clearly recorded.
p.2
Areas for development
Children are routinely seen and interviewed where appropriate during assessments but it is not always evident that their views influence the services that are provided.
p.2
Areas for development
Systems are in place to share information between partner agencies. However, relevant information is not regularly sought by Access and Assessment team staff to inform case planning and assessment.
p.2
Areas for development
Assessments are generally satisfactory in quality, with some evidence of good practice. However, some are not timely and lack clear analysis or sufficient detail. In some cases this results in unnecessary re-referral.
p.3
Areas for development
Diversity issues are not sufficiently assessed and considered in case planning.
p.3
Areas for development
Managerial oversight and case planning, including the recording of management decision making on case files, are not sufficiently robust or consistent.
p.3
Areas for development
Formal supervision of staff is inconsistent and staff have not received annual appraisals in accordance with the council’s requirements.
p.3
Areas for development
Case information is recorded in a number of different formats. While staff have received training in how to record and access information, social workers and managers sometimes have difficulty in locating information. This makes it difficult for managers to monitor casework.
p.3
Areas for development
Any areas for development identified above will be specifically considered in any future inspection of services to safeguard children within your area.
p.3
Her Majesty’s Inspector
Copy: Ged Curran, Chief Executive, London Borough of Merton Tony Eccleston, Chair of Merton Safeguarding Children Board Cllr Debbie Shears, Cabinet Member for Children’s Services, London Borough of Merton Andrew Spencer, Department for Education
p.3
Discuss this inspection
Members compare notes on inspectors and inspections here. Join free to read and post.
Join the discussion