Family Centre

Inspection report for residential family centre: Nurture Haven Family Centre 1 Nurture Haven Family Centre Nurture Haven Ltd Inspected under the social care common inspection framework

p.1

Information about this residential family centre

The family centre is privately owned and provides accommodation for up to 2 families.

p.1

Information about this residential family centre

There were no families living at the centre at the time of the inspection.

p.1

Information about this residential family centre

The manager registered with Ofsted in August 2024.

p.1

Overall experiences and progress of

children and parents, taking into account requires improvement to be good

p.1

Overall experiences and progress of

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

p.1

Overall experiences and progress of

The effectiveness of leaders and managers requires improvement to be good

p.1

Overall experiences and progress of

The centre is not yet delivering good assessments of parenting capacity and/or is not delivering good care and help. The weaknesses identified need to be addressed to fully support children’s and parents’ progress through the assessment process and to mitigate risk in the medium and long term. However, there are no serious or widespread failures that mean that children’s welfare is not safeguarded or promoted.

p.1

Overall experiences and progress of

Date of previous inspection: 29 July 2025

p.1

Overall experiences and progress of

Overall judgement at last inspection: requires improvement to be good

p.1

Overall experiences and progress of

Enforcement action since last inspection: none Inspection report for residential family centre: Nurture Haven Family Centre 2

p.1

Summary of findings

Since the last inspection one family lived here for a prolonged period. Children remained safe and the parent demonstrated a sustained ability to safeguard her children throughout a lengthy period of intensive assessment. Staff developed positive relationships with the family and provided regular direct work and structured support. However, the 14-month placement became prolonged, and its purpose was not consistently clear. Direct work did not routinely inform the wider assessment, and one child experienced increasing emotional distress without timely access to identified specialist support. On one occasion, a child was harmed by a member of staff, although managers responded appropriately. Leadership and management oversight has not been consistently effective. Regulatory monitoring has not been completed as required, previously identified shortfalls remain, and opportunities to strengthen practice during a 5-month period without families have not been fully

p.2

improvement to be good

Children and parents receive individualised support from staff who understand their day-to-day needs. Support plans provide clear guidance about supervision, observation and intervention. This helps staff to respond consistently to identified risks and changes in presentation. Parents receive regular direct work, providing opportunities to reflect on their parenting and consider areas of strength and concern.

p.2

improvement to be good

The quality and impact of assessment work are not consistently good. One family remained in placement for 14 months. There were significant delays in court proceedings and local authority planning that were outside of the provider’s control. However, as the placement became prolonged, its purpose became less clear, and the assessment did not remain sufficiently focused on what still needed to be established about the parent’s capacity to care for their children.

p.2

improvement to be good

The length of the assessment had a significant impact on the family’s experience. The parent described feeling overwhelmed by being subject to intensive surveillance for such an extended period. The impact was particularly evident for one child, whose behaviour escalated as they became increasingly distressed and expressed a strong wish to return home. There was insufficient challenge and escalation by leaders as the placement drifted beyond its intended purpose.

p.2

improvement to be good

Staff completed direct work with the parent each week. Records demonstrate a balanced approach that explored what was going well alongside areas of concern. However, this work did not routinely feed into a wider assessment. Consequently, assessments did not consistently demonstrate how the parent’s learning, reflection and progress informed the analysis of their parental capacity. Inspection report for residential family centre: Nurture Haven Family Centre 3 The family was ultimately able to remain together following court proceedings. The parent who has since left spoke positively about aspects of their experience and was able to reflect on both the benefits and difficulties of the placement. However, weaknesses in the assessment process make it difficult to establish the extent to which this positive outcome resulted from the support and intervention provided.

p.2

improvement to be good

Children remain safe throughout their time in placement. One parent consistently demonstrated an ability to safeguard their children during 14 months of intensive observation and assessment. This provides significant evidence of sustained parental capacity to recognise and respond appropriately to the children’s needs. Low-level incidents were appropriately managed and there is no evidence of ongoing or unmanaged safeguarding concerns.

p.3

improvement to be good

Staff understand known risks for individual children and families. Risk assessments identify relevant safeguarding concerns and contain clear control measures. These inform supervision, observation, recording and escalation arrangements and support a consistent response to changes in risk. This provides an appropriate framework for assessing parents’ developing ability to recognise and manage risk independently.

p.3

improvement to be good

The prolonged placement had an increasingly negative impact on one child’s emotional wellbeing. The child became distressed about remaining in placement and wanting to return home, and there was an associated escalation in aggressive behaviour. Staff recognised the child’s emotional distress and sought additional therapeutic support, including through the child’s school. Delays in accessing this support meant that the child did not receive the identified specialist intervention in a timely way.

p.3

improvement to be good

On one occasion, a member of staff behaved inappropriately towards a child and caused them harm. The child sustained a visible mark after being picked up by the member of staff. Managers responded appropriately when the incident was identified. The matter was investigated and the member of staff was suspended. Nevertheless, this was a significant shortfall in practice because a child experienced harm from an adult responsible for their care and protection.

p.3

improvement to be good

Overall, safeguarding arrangements generally protect children, and the parent demonstrated sustained capacity to keep their children safe. However, the incident in which a child was harmed by a member of staff, together with the delay in accessing specialist support for a child experiencing increasing distress, mean that the quality of help and protection is not consistently good.

p.3

good

Inspection report for residential family centre: Nurture Haven Family Centre 4 Leadership and management arrangements have not been consistently effective. The service has not accommodated a family for approximately 5 months. During this period, progress in addressing previously identified areas for development has been limited. Some requirements from the previous inspection have not been met and are therefore repeated.

p.4

good

Management monitoring does not provide sufficient scrutiny of the quality and impact of practice. No regulation 25 reports have been submitted during the 5- month period in which no families have been accommodated. In addition, a review of the quality of care provided to the most recent family was not completed under regulation 23. This has limited leaders’ ability to demonstrate that they have critically evaluated practice and identified learning from an unusually lengthy and complex placement.

p.4

good

There have been significant gaps in leadership capacity. The provider has experienced difficulty recruiting a suitable responsible individual, which has affected wider management and oversight. The registered manager is open about these difficulties and recognises the impact that they have had on the service. There is now a clear plan in place to establish a stronger leadership structure.

p.4

good

Staff are employed on zero-hour contracts and have not been routinely present since the previous family left the centre. Some training has taken place during this period. However, the period without families has not resulted in a comprehensive programme of targeted development linked to the weaknesses identified through inspection and the learning arising from the previous placement.

p.4

good

A staff member described the registered manager as supportive. However, systems intended to support and develop staff have not been consistently maintained during the period where no families have been accommodated. Supervision, team meetings and training have been infrequent, limiting opportunities for staff to reflect on previous practice, maintain their skills and prepare for future admissions.

p.4

good

The registered manager demonstrates some reflection and has identified areas where practice and leadership arrangements have fallen short. Plans are now in place to strengthen management capacity. However, limited progress against previously identified shortfalls, weaknesses in regulatory monitoring and oversight, and missed opportunities to embed learning during the period without families mean that leadership and management are not yet consistently effective. Inspection report for residential family centre: Nurture Haven Family Centre 5

p.4

Statutory requirements

This section sets out the actions that the registered person(s) must take to meet the Care Standards Act 2000, The Residential Family Centre Regulations 2002 and the national minimum standards. The registered person(s) must comply within the given timescales.

p.5

Requirement Due date

The registered provider and the registered manager shall, having regard to the size of the residential family centre, the statement of purpose, and the number and needs of the residents, carry on or manage the centre (as the case may be) with sufficient care, competence and skill. (Regulation 8 (1))

p.5

Requirement Due date

In particular, ensure that the manager provides effective oversight of families’ care and assessment and appropriately challenges other professionals when practice or decision- making is not in families’ best interests. This includes ensuring that concerns are identified and escalated in a timely way, particularly when families remain at the residential family centre for extended periods. 16 November 2026

p.5

Requirement Due date

The registered person shall establish and maintain a system for—

p.5

Requirement Due date

improving, the quality of care provided at the residential family centre. (Regulation 23 (1)(a)(b))

p.5

Requirement Due date

In particular, ensure that the quality of care provided to families in the centre is regularly reviewed and used to make improvements in practice. 16 November 2026

p.5

Requirement Due date

Where the registered provider is an organisation or a partnership, the residential family centre shall be visited in accordance with this regulation by—

p.5

Requirement Due date

the responsible individual or one of the partners, as the case may be;

p.5

Requirement Due date

an employee of the organisation or partnership who is not directly concerned with the conduct of the residential family centre. 16 November 2026 Inspection report for residential family centre: Nurture Haven Family Centre 6 Visits under paragraph (1) or (2) shall take place at least once a month and may be unannounced.

p.5

Requirement Due date

The person carrying out the visit shall—

p.6

Requirement Due date

prepare a written report on the conduct of the residential family centre.

p.6

Requirement Due date

The registered provider shall supply a copy of the report required to be made under paragraph (4)(c) to— the [Chief Inspector]. (Regulation 25 (2)(a)(c) (3) (4)(c) (5)(a))

p.6

Requirement Due date

In particular, ensure that visits are undertaken each month by a person listed within the regulation and that their reports reflect the activity at the centre and are submitted to Ofsted in a timely way.

p.6

Recommendation

 The registered person should ensure that staff have access to good quality learning and development opportunities that enhance their individual skills. In particular, ensure that staff’s learning and development are targeted to maintain their knowledge and skills and prepare them to meet the needs of families admitted to the centre. (Residential Family Centre National Minimum Standards, page 24, paragraph 16.2)

p.6

Information about this inspection

Inspectors have looked closely at the experiences and progress of children and parents 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, how it meets the core functions of the service as set out in legislation, and to consider how well it complies with The Residential Family Centre Regulations 2002 and the national minimum standards. Inspection report for residential family centre: Nurture Haven Family Centre 7

p.6

Residential family centre details

Registered provider address: 20a-30 Abington Street, Northampton, Northamptonshire NN1 2AJ

p.7

Residential family centre details

Email address: referrals@nurturehaven.co.uk

p.7

Inspector

Lauren Barwell, Social Care Regulatory Inspector Inspection report for residential family centre: Nurture Haven Family Centre 8 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 looked after children, safeguarding and child protection.

p.7

Inspector

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 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.8

Inspector

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

p.8

Inspector

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

p.8