Other · Ofsted report
Setting
Summary
What we read, and from where
Click a reading to see it highlighted in the report.
- Inspectorssingle source
Marie McGuinness
- Postcode verified
DH1 5UL
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.
In line with other 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.
- Managers have to rely on the duplication of recording, using both paper and the electronic system, which adversely impacts on the capacity of social workers and managers to do their work efficiently. p.2
- The council are fully aware of this issue and plans are in place to improve the service. p.3
- Copy: George Garlick, Chief Executive, Durham County Council Gail Hopper, Chair of Durham Children Safeguarding Children Board Claire Vasey, Lead Member for Children’s Services, Durham County Council Andrew Spencer, Department for Children, Schools and Families 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
- 709
- shorter than usual (typical 1049)
- Reading level
- Very hard
- Flesch 26, typical 45
- Average sentence
- 23 words
- Next steps
- 3
- typical 5
- Hedged sentences
- 10%
- “some”, “not always”, “most”…
Where the words go
Full report text
Mr David Williams Corporate Director for Children and Young People’s Services Durham County Council County Hall Durham DH1 5UL
p.1
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 Durham County Council which was conducted on 16 and 17 March 2010. 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.
p.1
children’s services
The inspection identified no areas for priority action but some areas for development, which are detailed below.
p.1
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; 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
children’s services
From the evidence gathered, the inspection identified a number of areas where the contact, referral and assessment arrangements were delivered satisfactorily in accordance with national guidance, in particular:
p.1
children’s services
Contacts dealt with by Social Care Direct are appropriately screened. Recent improvements in the quality of referrals completed have ensured children and families receive a prompt and appropriate level of service. 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 Initial and core assessments are of a satisfactory quality and most are completed in a timely manner. Children and young people are routinely seen and spoken to as part of their assessment.
p.1
children’s services
Child protection Section 47 Children Act 1989 (CA 1989) enquiries are always carried out by qualified and suitably experienced social workers ensuring appropriate action is taken to safeguard children. Effective statutory partnership arrangements involving the police and health are in place to support decision making with regard to strategy discussions.
p.2
children’s services
Managers undertake regular case file audits and there is evidence that actions from these audits are linked to improving performance.
p.2
children’s services
The Local Safeguarding Children Board undertakes regular monitoring and audits of safeguarding services to ensure practice is of a sufficiently high quality.
p.2
children’s services
The emergency duty team works closely with Social Care Direct and locality teams to ensure consistency of response to children and young people’s needs.
p.2
children’s services
From the evidence gathered, the following strengths and areas for development were also identified:
p.2
Strengths
Staff receive regular high quality formal and informal supervision which ensures case work decisions are always made in consultation with a manager and recorded on children’s case files. Staff report that they receive consistent advice, guidance and support from front line managers to enable them to manage decision making regarding risks to children and young people.
p.2
Strengths
The council’s management information and performance monitoring framework is comprehensive and easily accessible to all managers. It is used effectively to improve performance.
p.2
Strengths
Newly qualified social workers receive good training and support and carry protected caseloads, ensuring they have the time and capacity to improve their practice during their first year.
p.2
Areas for development
The council’s Integrated Children’s System is unable to facilitate management oversight of individual casework. Managers have to rely on the duplication of recording, using both paper and the electronic system, which adversely impacts on the capacity of social workers and managers to do their work efficiently.
p.2
Areas for development
Social work staff in one children in need team were found to be carrying unacceptably high caseloads, resulting in serious delays in recording and the potential for delays in the delivery of services for some children and families.
p.3
Areas for development
Telephone access to the Social Care Direct service is poor and leads to significant delays in answering calls. The council are fully aware of this issue and plans are in place to improve the service.
p.3
Her Majesty’s Inspector
Copy: George Garlick, Chief Executive, Durham County Council Gail Hopper, Chair of Durham Children Safeguarding Children Board Claire Vasey, Lead Member for Children’s Services, Durham County Council Andrew Spencer, 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