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 report

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

Steve Briggs

What we read, and from where

Click a reading to see it highlighted in the report.

  • Inspectorssingle source

    Steve Briggs

  • Postcode verified

    W8 7NX

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.

+19Mostly positivemore positive than 34% of reports of this type

In line with other reports of this type.

Praisehigh qualitystrengtheffectivelyclearclearlypromptlyconsistentindependent
Criticismconcernsnot alwaysharmnot clear

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
  • Findings573w+50
  • What needs to improve125w−32

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
698
shorter than usual (typical 1049)
Reading level
Very hard
Flesch 25, typical 45
Average sentence
22 words
Next steps
3
typical 5
Hedged sentences
9%
“some”, “not always”, “most”…

Where the words go

Findings 82%What needs to improve 18%

Full report text

Ms Anne-Marie Carrie Executive Director of Family and Children's Services Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Kensington Town Hall Hornton Street London W8 7NX

p.1

children’s services

This letter summarises the findings of the recent unannounced inspection of contact, referral and assessment arrangements within The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea which was conducted on 17 and 18 August 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

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

children’s services

The inspection identified areas of strength and satisfactory practice, with some areas for development.

p.1

children’s services

From the evidence gathered, the following features of the service were identified:

p.1

Strengths

ƒ Clear leadership demonstrates a culture of continuous improvement in an already highly performing service, supported by well-motivated staff whose morale is high.

p.1

Strengths

ƒ Social workers maintain casework records to a good professional standard through a fully functional electronic case management system, developed 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 specifically by the council, which is regularly monitored by supervisors and senior managers.

p.1

Strengths

ƒ Regular high quality casework supervision at key stages in work with children and young people and their families achieves the aim of minimising risk to children and maximising opportunities for families.

p.2

Strengths

ƒ A competent workforce receives good training and staff development to help improve their practice and achieve greater levels of responsibility.

p.2

Satisfactory practice

ƒ Appropriate decisions on whether to accept a contact as a referral for a children’s social care service are made within 24 hours. Decisions comply with the thresholds for intervention agreed by the council and partner agencies.

p.2

Satisfactory practice

ƒ Managerial decisions about cases are clearly recorded with the rationale for the decision explained in the relevant record.

p.2

Satisfactory practice

ƒ Assessments are carried on time to a satisfactory standard with examples of good practice seen, including for those children who have a disability. Children are seen, and seen alone as necessary when making an assessment of their needs.

p.2

Satisfactory practice

ƒ Social workers promptly identify risk of significant harm to children and have access to consistent input from specialist social work advisors. Strategy discussions involve appropriate partner agencies and quickly establish an initial investigation plan.

p.2

Satisfactory practice

ƒ Child protection investigations are all allocated to suitably qualified and experienced workers.

p.2

Satisfactory practice

ƒ Initial child protection case conferences are all held within the recommended timescale.

p.2

Satisfactory practice

ƒ The Emergency Duty Team addresses safeguarding concerns out of office hours effectively. Actions taken are immediately recorded and available to daytime services through the shared client record system.

p.2

Satisfactory practice

ƒ The Local Safeguarding Children Board receives regular performance reports and monitors the quality of the child protection process.

p.2

Satisfactory practice

ƒ Regular casework and periodic themed audits are used to monitor the quality of assessments and intervention and to inform service improvement plans.

p.2

Areas for development

ƒ Diverse inter-racial and cultural factors play a part in the assessment of safeguarding needs of families living in an area displaying both great wealth and social deprivation. The impact of these factors is not thoroughly explored in some assessments.

p.3

Areas for development

ƒ It is not always clear how children’s views are taken into account and ultimately influence the outcome of some assessments.

p.3

Areas for development

Any areas for development will be specifically considered in any future inspection of services to safeguard children within your area.

p.3

Her Majesty’s Inspector

Copy: Derek Myers, Chief Executive, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Sue Beer, Independent Chair, Executive Safeguarding Children Board, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Cllr Baroness Ritchie, Lead Member for Children’s Services, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea 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