EVIDENCE FOR LOCAL SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN BOARDS
Greater Manchester core dataset of suggested key performance measures
and compendium of qualitative and quantitative performance information
“Performance information should not be treated as a straightforward measure of good or bad practice, but interrogated to see what lies behind it”
Eileen Munro, Final Report – A child Centred System (2011)
Working Together 2013 specifically outlines the responsibility for the LSCB to “use data and, as a minimum, should:
 Assess the effectiveness of the help being provided to children and families, including early help;
 Assess whether LSCB partners are fulfilling their statutory obligations set out in chapter 2 (of the guidance);
 Quality assure practice, including through joint audits of case files involving practitioners and identifying lessons to be learned’ and
 Monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of training, including multi-agency training, to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.” 1
To assist LSCBs in undertaking these responsibilities Greater Manchester has built on work already undertaken by West Midlands and Eastern
Region LSCBs through performance management workshops, tools, guidance and this document: an example of a compendium of qualitative and
quantitative performance information which may be considered by single agencies or LSCB as a partnership to help undertake their responsibilities
alongside the DfE Safeguarding Performance and Information Framework. Whilst it is by no means the limit of what data is available, it has been
compiled following recognition of a gap in this area. As well as introductory pages containing general guidance, there are two parts outlining some
of the scope, processes, and challenge questions that LSCBs may wish to consider:
PART A: This is the suggested core dataset for Greater Manchester and the NW Region. It contains a short list of key measures and indicators which
LSCBs should use as a context for the dashboard or scorecard, and use in regional benchmarking.
1
Working Together 2013 Ch3, Para 2, Pg 60
1
Evidence: What are the needs in our local area? How much have we done? How well have we done it?
What difference did it make?
PART B: A more comprehensive list of possible indicators and evidence, both qualitative and quantitative. Whilst it is hoped that all LSCBs in the
North West will on the whole adopt this framework for data collection, LSCBs should also agree their own evidence base and key performance
measures based on their current priorities.
There are two key risks for LSCBs when considering what evidence they should be routinely gathering and using. Firstly, a potential for the Board to
become swamped with too much information which includes little analysis or understanding; and conversely, the core dataset will not tell the full
story and supporting intelligence may be required. Using the Performance or QA sub-group of the Board effectively for gathering, analysing and
triangulating a range of evidence across partnerships in the local area can provide an overall summary, which tells the story about children, their
families, the services provided to them and their outcomes, and assist in achieving an effective balance between too much/not enough. Essentially,
they will need to ensure there is clarity about planning and performance management functions within the LSCB and partner agencies and
reference the Ofsted Framework for the inspection of services for children in need of help and protection, children looked after and care leavers
(December 2013), an excerpt of which is provided in Annex A.
Key questions to determine whether we have achieved our outcomes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
How do you know that children are safe, and feel safe in your area?
How do you know that the services in the local area are making a positive difference?
How do you help children and young people who do not meet the threshold for statutory intervention but require targeted or multi-agency help?
How do you know whether children and their families on the threshold of statutory intervention are receiving timely, effective help?
How is intelligence from different agencies shared and used to protect children and to provide early help?
How do you measure and understand the quality and timeliness of professional decision making for vulnerable children and young people?
How do you know that assessments are carried out based on the needs of the individual child or family?
How do you know step-up/down support is appropriate?
How do you know there is a stable, skilled and supported workforce, and key professionals working with children and families?
How do you understand the local vacancy and turnover rate of key professionals, and what does this tell you about the pressures on the whole system?
Strong LSCBs will ensure they are assured of the performance management arrangements within their member organisations and other services
within the local area, and there is systematic and effective scrutiny of a range of intelligence without it being burdensome. This may include some
which has already been dealt with within member organisations, and/or the ability to undertake a ‘deep dive’ to gain that assurance.
2
Evidence: What are the needs in our local area? How much have we done? How well have we done it?
What difference did it make?
Each LSCB is likely to have its own governance and process
for collecting and using the evidence base to manage
performance and the toolkit may assist in providing
examples and tools of how this can be done. Having a skilled
QA/performance sub-group and LSCB QA officer who have
the responsibility to gather, analyse and triangulate
information to summarise for the Board and other subgroups; having a ‘forward plan’ for considering specific areas
during the year; recognising that not everything needs to be
considered every time, all ensure a proportionate and more
manageable approach. One example of the performance
management of an LSCB is shown in the diagram.
3
Within
partner
agencies
As a Board
Peer
challenge
(other LSCBS)
Annual
Report and
Business
Planning
Self Assessment
Summary, triangulated
evidence from subgroup to main Board for
discussion, challenge
and action
Outcomes: How
much have we
done? How well
have we done it?
Have we made a
difference?
Evidence,
Impact,
Challenge
at LSCB
Board
Evidence: What are the needs in our local area? How much have we done? How well have we done it?
Undertake
Statutory
Responsibilities
Monitoring
and L&I
activities
Policies and
Procedures
Training
SCRs
CDOP etc
Proportionate:
1) within individual
Agencies,
2) LSCB sub group –
range of evidence
What difference did it make?
AN LSCB EVIDENCE BASE SHOULD…
Cover a range of stages across the child’s journey:
PROMOTION
|
PREVENTION
|
EARLY HELP
|
PROTECTION
Provide evidence of quantity, quality and outcomes:
 Quantity: How much have we done? how many children, activities: is there an increase/decrease and is this appropriate?; breakdown of those
notmeeting the standards/timescales; how much has it cost and workforce available (use of resources).
 Quality: How well have we done it? results of audits and evaluations, timeliness and standards, softer intelligence.
 Outcomes: What difference did it make? Measuring the impact and effectiveness, has there been improvement or positive outcomes.
Be:
Include a range of evidence:
Quantitative Data
(Balanced Scorecard, themed
reports)
Qualitative Evidence
(Programme of multi agency
audits, quality testing, evaluation
and inspection etc)
Types of Evidence
and how do we compare?);
 Clear about standards and what is the target or objective
expected; what is acceptable performance and what does good
look like?;
 Simply presented and easy to read – targeted at the right
Voice of the Child
Voice of the Practitioner
(Engagement with children and
young people)
(Engagement with Front Line
4
 Benchmarked to others and previous periods (have we improved
and other Staff)
audience;
 Meaningful; the basis for discussion about the story behind the
data and practice; and used to celebrate success and generate
improvement in the right areas.
Evidence: What are the needs in our local area? How much have we done? How well have we done it?
What difference did it make?
PART A: CORE DATASET OF KEY MEASURES AND INDICATORS FOR LSCBS
This is a selection of key performance measures which may form part of an LSCB dashboard or scorecard, to be considered alongside other
intelligence. Some may form part of regional benchmarking. For Parts A and B, A ‘source’ column for source of information has been included which
may be completed locally with specific details for your local area.
How will we know?
(Qualitative, Quantitative, Voice of the child/family, voice of the practitioner)
Source of Information
Rates are per 10,000 0-17 population to allow comparisons
WHAT DOES GOOD LOOK LIKE FOR THE CHILD?
These outcome areas follow the child’s journey staring with all children in the local area through levels of need to those who are care leavers.
1.
We know about all children and 1.1 % children living in poverty
JSNA (may only be
young people in the local area, 1.2 Infant mortality
able
to
amend
what their needs are and how 1.3 child population
annually)
are they doing.
1.4 ethnicity of child population
Outcomes we want for our children
and young people
2.
We know about groups of Number at point in time of:
children with particular needs.
2.1 Number of children in need (open cases) with a disability. (Data from CIN Census. Whilst
this is a proxy measure only, it is the most robust available for comparison between local
areas relating to safeguarding and early help).
2.2 Number of children and young people living in the local area who are the responsibility of
another local authority
2.3 Number of children and young people who are privately fostered
Safeguarding and supporting
3.1 Number of DV notifications from Police where a child is present.
children in specific
3.2 Number of DV notifications to Children’s Social Care that led to a referral
circumstances
3.3 Number of repeat DV call outs by Police to an address where a child is recorded to live.
3.4 Number of children missing from a) home b) care c) education
3.5 % children missing who had an independent return interview (first contact made within 72
hours of return)
3.6 The rate of violent and sexual offences against children aged 0-17 per 10,000 U18
population (N4)
3.7 Number of CSE referrals recorded as being at ‘high’ risk of CSE
3.8 Number of new CSE referrals recorded as being at ‘high’ risk of CSE
3.
5
Evidence: What are the needs in our local area? How much have we done? How well have we done it?
LA Children’s Services
2.3 – using LAC nurse
as the link may help
Police PPD
CSC
Police Divisional
Police, LA,
Children’s Social Care
Phoenix Measurement
of Risk Tool used by CSE
specialist team
What difference did it make?
4.
Children, young people and
families are able to access early
help when they require it, and it
is effective
Thresholds are clear and
appropriate, planning and
decision making is effective
5.
4.1 Number and Rate of EHAs/CAFs completed in the period.
4.2 Number of EHAs/CAFs open at point in time.
4.3 Number of referrals to Children’s Services where a CAF has already been in place.
5.1 Number (and rate) of referrals to children’s social care
5.2 % of referrals to Children’s Social Care which are repeat referrals within 12 months.
5.3 % of referrals leading to social care’s Single Assessment
5.4 Number & % of completed assessments to timescale
5.5 Number of children in need and rate per 10,000 0-17 population
6.
We are safeguarding and
6.1 Rate of accident and emergency attendance caused by unintentional and deliberate
supporting children who are in
injuries to CYP aged 0-17
need of protection
6.2 Number of times police powers of protection were applied
6.3 Rate of S47s per 10,000 0-17 population
6.4 ICPCs within 15 working days of S47
6.5 Number and rate of children subject of Child Protection Plans
6.6 % child protection plans lasting 2 years or more
6.7 Number of child deaths with modifiable factors
7.
The LA fulfills its corporate
7.1 Number of looked after children (responsibility of our LA) including those living outside of
parenting role and looked after
the area
children and care leavers have
7.2 Number of Children becoming looked after
good outcomes.
7.3 Number of children ceasing to be looked after
WHAT DOES GOOD LOOK LIKE FOR THE SERVICES AROUND THE CHILD
8.
There is effective use of
8.1 Number of allegations referred to LADO.
resources and the workforce is
8.2 Number of FTE social workers, health visitors and school nurses
judged to deliver good quality
8.3 Vacancy rate of social workers, health visitors and school nurses
services.
8.4 Turnover rate of social workers, health visitors and school nurses
8.5 Record ‘safeguarding’ judgements by main service providers carried out since last QA
report – use this template as a guide.
Early Help/EHA
service
Children’s Social Care
Health
Police - Divisional
Children’s Social Care
LSCB
Children’s Social Care
903 return
LSCB
public services in
local area.docx
6
Evidence: What are the needs in our local area? How much have we done? How well have we done it?
What difference did it make?
PART B: COMPENDIUM OF QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
Part B provides further detail and ideas for supporting information using the same headings. This includes much information which a single agency
may monitor and report to the Board in a summary form only rather than the Board receiving all the detail regularly. Key Performance Measures
which are included in the core dataset are shown in bold and asterisked. An indication of the types of challenge questions which LSCBs may wish to
consider when looking at the evidence is included, but this is by no means a complete list. LSCBs and individual agencies should be demonstrating
wider professional curiosity and challenge to understand needs, the story behind the data and evidence of impact.
1. WE KNOW ABOUT ALL CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE LOCAL AREA AND WHAT THEIR NEEDS ARE
Understanding who are the children, young people and families in the local area and individual communities, their needs and risk factors, is important to ensure
services are commissioned and directed according to need. This information may feature in a local needs assessment such as the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment
(JSNA), and is also likely to be considered by a number of other Boards in the local area such as the Health and Well-being Board and Children’s Trust Partnership.
Challenge Questions:
 Is there awareness within the LSCB of the characteristics and needs of its population and are services targeted at these?
 What are the geographical differences in the local area in terms of deprivation, population, ethnicity, needs and access to services? Is the population in the local
area forecast to change in the future and if so, how?
 What does research tell us about different social, economic and demographic factors and predictors of poorer later outcomes? How can we use what we know
about the area to prevent these poorer outcomes?
 What are the universal outcomes for all children and young people and are there any areas related to the work of the Board that we need to understand better?
 How well does the JSNA reflect the population and well-being of children and young people, including specific priority groups and identify which groups of
children and young people are most at risk.
How will we know?
(Qualitative, Quantitative, Voice of the child/family, Voice of the practitioner)
7
Evidence: What are the needs in our local area? How much have we done? How well have we done it?
Source
What difference did it make?
1a
Number of children
and young people in
the local area.





1b
Poverty and sociodemographic risk
factors in the local
area
1c
Outcomes for all
children in the local
area
8
* Number of children and young people aged 0-17 in the local area, and also those aged 18-24
* More detailed population data including population projections, by age and ethnic group
* Infant Mortality
Net migration data (inward and outward) and any LA border data (e.g. children from neighbouring
LAs using services in the local area and vice-versa)
Number of school age children and breakdown by Special Education Needs (SEN), Free School Meals
(FSM) and English as an Additional Language (EAL)
ONS/national sources or
local JSNA
LA Education
 Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI)
 *% children in poverty
 Correlation between IDACI and key activity data such as numbers of children subject of child
protection plans, looked after children and children in need and outcomes.
 Benefits payments by number of children in household; people claiming disability benefits by age
(under 16, 16-24)
 Reference to/summary from the local child poverty needs assessment; housing needs strategy; other
demographic summary data available.
ONS/national sources or
local JSNA
LA Children’s Social Care
This will be the focus of HWBB, Children’s Trust etc and the LSCB is not likely to need detailed
information on a regular basis of outcomes for all children but may wish to have a summary overview as
the predictors for poorer outcomes and safeguarding. There are summaries of Health outcomes (e.g.
Public Health England benchmarking scorecard or Chimat child health profiles).
Home educated children?
http://fingertips.phe.org.uk/
profile/cyphof/
Evidence: What are the needs in our local area? How much have we done? How well have we done it?
DWP
Various
http://www.chimat.org.uk/
profiles/static
What difference did it make?
1d
Universal support to
keep children safe
9
This is likely to be determined locally to include what activities have been undertaken to reach all or
targeted children and young people, parents and communities in the local area to promote staying safe,
such as e-safety and bullying campaigns; parenting initiatives; stranger danger. Evidence may include
number of campaigns or promotional activity across the local area.
 Qualitative intelligence from Police about campaigns and emerging issues around certain topics or
geographical areas and hot spots.
 Young people who are the victims of Crime
 Results of universal or targeted surveys of children and young people, such as youth councils, school
surveys to understand the views of children in the local area about, for example, how safe they feel.
 Feedback from engagement with specific community and faith groups and voluntary organisations
providing universal support to children and their families.
 Feedback from practitioners
Evidence: What are the needs in our local area? How much have we done? How well have we done it?
LSCB
Police
Police
All Agencies
All Agencies
What difference did it make?
2. WE KNOW ABOUT GROUPS OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE WITH PARTICULAR NEEDS
Some children and young people will be in living in circumstances or have needs which may mean that they could be more vulnerable. Understanding who these
children and young people are and ensuring there are appropriate monitoring arrangements in place to be assured they are appropriately safeguarded and
achieving positive outcomes is an important role of the LSCB. Looking at the detail of this data on a multi-agency basis and bringing all intelligence together,
especially around schools, health, police activity and early help, will assist all agencies in reaching a combined understanding of the numbers of children.
However, discussions re definitions may be needed with recognition that there could be variances between services (for example, around disabled children and
young people). Some of these children and young people are listed in Working Together as key groups, and will also be a focus in Ofsted inspections.
Challenge Questions:
 How well does the JSNA reflect the population and well-being of children and young people, including children with particular needs such as disabled children,
young carers, and identify which groups of children and young people are most at risk. Are the services provided in the local area commissioned on the needs
of our children and young people?
 Do we know who and where these children and young people are in our local area, and are systems effective in notifying relevant services when they
start/cease where appropriate?
 Is the LA Children’s Services, Health and Education being notified of children moving into/out of the area who are the responsibility of another LA in a timely
manner? Are the regulations in this area being followed?
 Do we know how many privately fostered children there are in the local area and is this in line with what we would expect given the size of our population?
Have they been assessed and visited in a timely manner.
 Do we know which children are excluded from school or not attend regularly, and have strategies in place to minimize this?
 Do we share information across services about these groups of children to provide an integrated, co-ordinated provision to them?
How will we know?
(Qualitative, Quantitative, Voice of the child/family, voice of the practitioner)
2a
Disabled and have
specific additional
needs or special
educational needs
10
Source
 Number of disabled children and young people in the local area (local definition)
 Number of pupils with a Statement of SEN / (EHC Plan from Sept 2014)
 *Number of children in need (open cases) with a disability. Data from CIN Census. Whilst this is a
proxy measure only, it is the most robust available for comparison between local areas relating to
safeguarding and early help.
 Views of disabled children and young people, and their families
Evidence: What are the needs in our local area? How much have we done? How well have we done it?
Various
LA Education
LA Children’s Services
What difference did it make?
2b
Young carers
 Number of young carers in the local area
 Information, or annual report about young carers.
 Views of young carers
Young Carers Service
2c
Children living in the
local area who are the
responsibility of
another local
authority
 *Number of children living in the local area who are the responsibility of another local authority
 Information such as effectiveness of LAC notifications systems, LAs who are placing children in the
local area and where they are living (e.g. foster care, children’s homes, etc).
LA Children’s Services
2d
Children privately
fostered




Children’s Social Care
*Number of children who are privately fostered
Number of new referrals to social care for potential private fostering arrangements
Assessments completed in timescale
Visits to privately fostered children
This information is within the DfE PF1 statutory return that the LA Children’s Services department is
required to submit each year
 Number of children living outside of the area (children placed out of area).
2e
Children living outside
of the area
2f
Homelessness
 Number of households with children living in Temporary Accommodation
 Statutory homeless households with dependent children or pregnant women (per 1,000
households)
 Number of episodes of young people (16-17) presenting as homeless at housing advice.
 Number placed in supported accommodation
LA Housing Dept
2g
Children not attending
school
 % half days missed through unauthorised absence (Primary and Secondary)
 % children receiving fixed term and permanent exclusions
 Absence from school: % half days missed through authorised and unauthorised absence in Primary
and Secondary schools.
LA Education
11
Evidence: What are the needs in our local area? How much have we done? How well have we done it?
Children’s Social Care
What difference did it make?
3. SAFEGUARDING AND SUPPORTING CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE IN SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES
For example, reduce the prevalence and impact of:
Neglect
Child Sexual Exploitation & Sexually Harmful Behaviour
Substance misuse
Mental health
Missing (home, care, education)
Offending and criminal behaviour
Domestic Abuse
Bullying
Other parental risk factors
Challenge Questions:
 Are children and young people who live in households where at least one parent or carer misuses substances or suffers from mental ill-health, or where there is
domestic violence, helped and protected?
 Is the prevalence and impact of domestic abuse, substance misuse and parental mental health issues on children and young people is minimised and is there
effective screening, assessment of risk and safeguarding
 Are children and young people effectively safeguarded from child sexual exploitation, sexually harmful behavior and sexual abuse.
 Are we recognising and addressing instances early enough to prevent longer term harm/poorer outcomes and need for more complex interventions?
 Do we have sufficient availability or access to specialist services in a timely and cost effective manner to meet the needs of these children and young people?
How will we know?
(Qualitative, Quantitative, Voice of the child/family, voice of the practitioner)
12
Evidence: What are the needs in our local area? How much have we done? How well have we done it?
Source
What difference did it make?
3a
Neglect
How much have we done?
 % EHAs/CAFs where neglect has been identified as a factor
 % total referrals to Children’s Services for reasons of abuse/neglect
 % children subject of a child protection plan for reasons of Neglect
 % of Neglect cases stepped up to CSC from Early Help service
 Number of Graded Care Profiles completed
Early Help Service
Childrens’ Social Care
How well have we done it?
 % of cases where the child/parents identified positive improvements in their safety/well-being as a
result of the work arising from the TAC Plan
Did it make a difference?





13
Reduction in number of children subject of CP Plans for reason of Neglect
Results of case file audits
Analysis of distance travelled or other tools such as graded care profiles
Multi agency thematic audit
Learning reviews
Evidence: What are the needs in our local area? How much have we done? How well have we done it?
What difference did it make?
3b
Child Sexual
Exploitation and
sexually harmful
behaviour
There is significant research and local activity about CSE and much information is likely to be qualitative
reports from CSE steering groups. The measuring outcomes sheet and NWG’s performance framework
below can be adapted locally, and provides further information to the selection of key measures below.
Measuring outcomes
CSE.doc
Local CSE services or
steering group
NWG CSE
Performance Framework.doc
How much have we done?
 All children referred into service are screened for CSE
 *Number of CSE referrals recorded as being at ‘high’ risk of CSE
 *Number of new CSE referrals recorded as being at ‘high’ risk of CSE
 Number (and profile) of C&YP referred into specialist team – break down of how many classed as at
high, medium or low risk following Phoenix Assessment.
 Every child informed about CSE – Age appropriate - Delivery of PSHE.
 Parents recognise CSE indicators in their children and know where to access information and help
 Training data: number trained by agency and evaluation of training data
How well have we done it?
 Case work and case audit information about tracking and interventions with young people
 Number of offenders prosecuted or disrupted (CSE related perpetrators).
 Number of CSE referrals who received a therapeutic service
 % of all C&YP referred to specialist team who received a service of some sort (even if low risk)
 The percentage risk figure on the NWG’s organisational risk tool for LSCBs is going down
Did it make a difference?
 Feedback from young people asked at end of intervention
 % of C&YP whose risk increased / decreased since previous assessment (measurement of risk tool)
14
Evidence: What are the needs in our local area? How much have we done? How well have we done it?
Phoenix measurement
of risk tool
LSCB
Phoenix Measurement
of Risk Tool
What difference did it make?
3c
Domestic Abuse
There is significant research and local activity about CSE and much information is likely to be qualitative reports
from local DA forum/group. The measuring outcomes sheet below which can be adapted locally, provides further
information to the selection key measures below.
Measuring outcomes
Domestic abuse.doc
How much have we done?










Police
Children’s Social Care
*Number of DV notifications from Police where a child is recorded to live at the address.
*Number of DV notifications to Children’s Social Care that led to a referral
Availability of specialist services for perpetrators and victims
Number of children within household in Domestic Abuse Notifications (392s) reports
Domestic incidents where either the victim/perpetrator/both parties are under the age of 18
Number of cases heard at MARAC involving children and young people under 18 years of age
Number of repeat referrals to MARAC (in line with CAADA guidance)
The number of referrals made to MARAC from partner agencies
% children subject to CPP under the category of emotional abuse
% children subject to CPP with parental factors relating to DV
How well have we done it?










Case reviews and audits
*Number of repeat DV call outs by Police to addresses where a child is recorded to live
Take up of specialist domestic abuse services
% of children and young people involved in specialist domestic abuse services who report improvement Case
reviews evidence DV recognized and responded to effectively
Repeat referrals reduce
All agencies contribute to MARAC process
Robust child protection planning
Effective mechanisms in place for 16 – 17 year old cohort/YPDVA report
Voice of child evident in assessment and plans
Numbers attending multi agency training on DV
Police
Specialist services
All
Did it make a difference?



15
Reports from the local area Domestic Abuse Partnership
Feedback from children and families / Feedback from professional
Number of children experiencing DV reduces
Evidence: What are the needs in our local area? How much have we done? How well have we done it?
What difference did it make?
3d
In a family circumstance
presenting challenges
for the child (e.g.
parental substance
abuse, adult mental
health)
This could be in the form of a summary report/audits by mental health services in conjunction with
HWBB
How much have we done?
 Number of households where children are living with adults who have been assessed as having
substance misuse problems
 Number of households where children are living with adults who have been assessed as having
mental health problems
 Number of young carers for open clients of secondary mental health services
How well have we done it? & Did it make a difference?
 Number & % of children assessed by social workers as having parental mental health issues as a
factor (parental factors in assessment from DfE CIN Census return from 2013/14)
 Number & % of children assessed by social workers as having parents with drug/substance/misuse
issues as a factor
 % children subject of child protection plans where parental alcohol misuse is a factor
 % children subject of child protection plans where parental substance misuse is a factor
 % children subject of child protection plans where parental mental health is a factor
 Number of SCRs or child deaths where parental alcohol misuse, substance abuse, or mental health is
a contributing factor
 Annual report/audits by substance misuse and mental health services focusing on the impact and
needs of the children in the family.
3e
Child or young person
substance /drug and
alcohol misuse
This could be in the form of a summary report/audits by mental health services in conjunction with
HWBB
How much have we done?
 Number of young people referred (by type of substance , age and gender)
 Number of young people in treatment (by type of substance, age and gender)
 Admissions to hospital which are drug and alcohol related
 Number of children excluded from school for substance/drug or alcohol misuse
Substance misuse
services
Adult mental health
services
Young carers Service
Children’s Social Care
LSCB
Relevant services
Substance misuse
services
Hospital
School
Substance misuse
services
How well have we done it? & Did it make a difference?
 Annual report/audits by substance misuse and mental health services.
16
Evidence: What are the needs in our local area? How much have we done? How well have we done it?
What difference did it make?
3f
Mental health of
children and young
people
This could be in the form of a summary report/audits by mental health services in conjunction with
HWBB which may include:
CAMHS / CCG
How much have we done?
 Number of young people in referred to CAMHS (by age and gender)
 Number of young people in treatment (by age and gender)
 Number of compulsory school age children accessing acute hospital with mental health issues.
 Under 18s with children or pregnant accessing acute hospital with mental health issues.
 Number of under 18s presenting with self harm to A&E.
 Number of under 18s accessing acute hospital with mental health issues.
 Under 18s with children or pregnant accessing acute hospital with mental health issues.
How well have we done it?
 CAMHS waiting time for looked after children
 Number of children and young people on adult mental health wards
 % of referrals of children and young people to CAMHS resulting in an assessment
 % of assessments to CAMHS resulting in active engagement with the CAMHS
 SDQ scores for looked after children
Have we made a difference?
 Number of children presenting at A&E or mental health services for attempted suicide
 Number of children under 18 years old who committed suicide
 Number/% of children and young people who state that services provided have helped them
3g
Bullying
17
Evidence of bullying in the local area is sometimes difficult to capture as it could occur in school, at
home, or elsewhere and can take many forms, such as cyber bullying.
 Number of children who have experienced incidents of bullying by type, age
 Number of children excluded from school due to bullying
 Voice of children and young people through school surveys; youth council; etc.
Evidence: What are the needs in our local area? How much have we done? How well have we done it?
School
What difference did it make?
3h
Children missing from
care, home or
education
New guidance on children who run away or go missing from home or care (Jan 2014) outlines activities
that local areas need to take and a checklist for completion to ensure these are undertaken. The checklist
may form part of the evidence base for LSCBs in terms of “% actions complete”. LSCBs are required, in
the guidance to “receive and scrutinise regular reports from the local authority analysing data on
children missing from home and from care. As part of this, they should review analysis of return
interviews. They should also review regular reports from children’s homes used by the local authority or
within the local authority area on the effectiveness of their measures to prevent children from going
missing”. Link provided below.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/298718/statutory_gui
dance_missing_from_care.pdf
 *Number of children missing from education
 *Number of children missing from care placement
 Number of looked after children reported missing from placement for more than 24 hours
 % of above still missing at period end
 *Number of children reported missing from home (not in care)
 Number of children referred to National Police Association (missing over 48 hours)
 *% children missing who had an independent return interview within 72 hours of return
 Qualitative information derived from independent return interview
 Number/% who go missing on more than one occasion

Embedded is a Missing scorecard which areas can use to help measure performance in this area. It was
created by a GM multi-agency Task & Finish group during the summer of 2015. Definitions and
methodology are included to help with consistency across LAs.
LA Education
Children’s Social Care
Police
Missing data.xlsx
18
Evidence: What are the needs in our local area? How much have we done? How well have we done it?
What difference did it make?
3i
Children as the victims
of crime
 *The rate of violent and sexual offences against children aged 0-17 per 10,000 U18 population (N4)
This is an important contextual indicator of the level of violence affecting children and young people in
any area which may be analysed further to identify underlying issues to reduce numbers. A key measure
for any LSCB, partnership working with any local crime and disorder reduction partnership is crucial.
Home Office Code Description for victims of VIOLENCE or SEXUAL OFFENCES
Police
 Reported offences against children: Number, and rate per 10,000 0-17 population
 Number of offenders against children who have received level 3 MAPPA cases reviews who have







3j
Youth Offending
(Children and Young
People showing signs of
engaging in anti-social
or criminal behaviour or
who are offending)
reoffended against children
How many young people are victims of domestic abuse
Hotspots
Type of crime/age range/ ethnicity
Children and young people who were victims of knife crime
Children and young people who were victims of gun related crime
Headlines/relevant data from the local crime and disorder/safety partnership needs assessment
(Crime and Disorder Partnership)
What do children and young people think of the treatment when they have been a victim?
How much have we done?
 First time entrants to the youth justice system aged 10-17 Analysis by types of offence, age, gender,
geographical area, any early help or prior support provided to the young person
 Offending of looked after children in the youth justice system
 Number of young people becoming looked after under LASPO Act 2012
 Children and young people accused of knife crime
 Children and young people accused of gun related crime
 Number of restraints in custody
 Number of victims who go on to offend
 Number of children and young people detained in police stations by time period
 Number of custody sentences and remands
Youth Offending
Service
How well have we done it? Did it make a difference
 Number of young people referred to Prevention Service within YOT
 Reoffending rates
 What do children and young people think of the treatment when they have offended?
19
Evidence: What are the needs in our local area? How much have we done? How well have we done it?
What difference did it make?
4. CHILDREN, YOUNG PEOPLE AND FAMILIES ARE ABLE TO ACCESS EARLY HELP WHEN THEY REQUIRE IT, AND IT IS EFFECTIVE
There is significant and well documented research about the value of early help and so it is not covered here. More importantly, we need to understand what good
looks like for individual needs of children and young people and this may be determined by the professional research in that area; by what the child/young person
tells us good looks like for them. This is likely to be led by an Early Help Board or Children’s Partnership, but Working Together 2013 places an emphasis on the
responsibility of the LSCB to assess its effectiveness. The early help offer in local areas is likely to be different and delivered by a number of different organizations,
and so defining common indicators and impact measures is challenging, Gathering performance information from each service/partner on the cohorts of children
they are working with may provide just one approach.
Challenge Questions:
 Do you know there is early help available for children and young people with particular needs and specific circumstances, on a multi-agency basis where
appropriate? Is the early help provided targeted at the things that most go wrong for children locally?
 Are children and young people who do not meet the threshold for statutory intervention but require targeted or multi-agency help appropriately supported?
 Are children and their families on the threshold of statutory intervention are satisfied with the timing, speed and effectiveness of the help they have received?
 How do you know step-up/down support is appropriate?
 Are you reducing risk factors?
 Are we improving life chances?
 How is intelligence from different agencies shared and used to protect children and to provide early help?
 Are we looking at the whole of the child’s journey and is there end to end planning with clear long term goals?
 Does the LA understand why children and young people are subject of a CP Plan or looked after and where early help may have made a difference?
 Is the impact of individual early help services or specific groups of children measurable and is this collates as an overview of effectiveness of early help?
How will we know?
(Qualitative, Quantitative, Voice of the child/family, voice of the practitioner)
Source
4a
Childrens Trust/
Partnership or Early
Help Board through
single performance
report
There is an effective
strategic approach
across the local area
and appropriate
resources
Early help strategy in place; clarity and awareness of professionals and communities from universal to
specialist services what early help services there are across the local area, referral routes and effective
partnership working; appropriate training and support available to those working in early help services;
performance information collected across services to provide a whole picture of activity and outcomes;
evidence of quality of services provided;
Funding available to support early help services; Moving from grant funding to commissioning; Achieving
greater certainty around future funding; Making business case for earlier investment and return on
investment considered; Collective prioritisation among services based on need.
20
Evidence: What are the needs in our local area? How much have we done? How well have we done it?
What difference did it make?
4b
Co-ordinated early
help interventions are
delivered effectively
Whilst reporting EHA/CAF data can have data quality issues, it is an indicator of current provision of early
help and multi-agency working. When looking at what information about EHA/CAFS tell us about early
help, this needs to be in the context of the EHA/CAF within the local authority and can be difficult to
benchmark between LAs. A robust quality assurance of EHA/CAF and TAC plans also needs to be in place
directly reporting into the LSCB.










4c
Early Help services are
provided effectively
according to need
21
*Rate of EHA/CAFs completed in the period or per 10,000 0-17 population
% of EHA/CAFs referred/completed by different agencies , breakdown by age, gender, ethnicity
Number of EHA/CAFs with multi-agency plans in place
*Number of EHAs/CAFs open at point in time
*Number of referrals to Children’s Services where a CAF has already been in place
Closed CAF by outcome
% of EHA/CAFs in which the desired outcomes for the child and family are achieved.
Results of any audits of EHA/CAFs
Reduction in number of EHA/CAFs where outcome is refer to social care
Step up from EHA/CAF to referral to children’s social care
 Number of children receiving short breaks
 Increase in the number of young people with a good outcome against the troubled families successful
intervention criteria
 Number of children becoming subject of a Child Protection Plan per 10,000 0-17 population. (A
reduction in the number of children subject of a CPP or LAC is not necessarily an indicator of effective
early help services and numbers could go up as unmet need is identified as early help services start to
be come embedded).
 Number of children becoming looked after per 10,000 0-17 population Audits of cases to identify what
early help was provided, if any; Voice of the child/family – what, if anything would have provided you
with early help that you did not receive (identifying unmet need, earlier)
 Increase the % of children accessing free two year old offer
 School Readiness
 Complaints/mystery shopper
 Gathering information at closure – use of common closure outcome codes across services
Evidence: What are the needs in our local area? How much have we done? How well have we done it?
What difference did it make?
4d
4e
2
Children and families
report that the early
help provided made a
difference
Direct feedback from children, young people and their families is the one of the most robust measures of
success.
Children and young
people are physically
health and enjoy good
emotional and mental
health




 Gathering voice of the child, family and practitioner on case by case basis during work with them; as
part of closure and if possible longitudinally after closure (e.g. follow up in 6 months).
 % families worked with by early help services who have had appositive outcome
 Audits
 Number of families offered and accepted an intervention and cumulative number of families referred to
Family Intervention Projects by local authority areas2
 Children’s centre - satisfaction surveys/ user groups/community engagement
 Practitioners supervision – system to flag issues
 Health related behaviour survey
 Youth council
 Children in care council
 Parent forums
Rate of infant mortality
Rate of dental decay at age 5
Rate of obesity at Year R and Year 6
Rate of teenage conceptions in under 18s
http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/STR/d001031/index.shtml
22
Evidence: What are the needs in our local area? How much have we done? How well have we done it?
What difference did it make?
4f
Children and young
people have the
qualifications, skills
and aspirations they
need for successful
adulthood





% children achieving good level of progress in EYFS
Narrow the gap of children at the end of EYFS
Improved attainment at KS2: % pupils achieving Level 4 or above in reading, writing and maths
Improved attainment at KS4: % pupils achieving 5+ GCSE at grade A*-C
School Attendance at school of:
 All pupils
 School aged children in need (N2)
 Looked after children
 Exclusion from school of:
 All pupils
 School aged children in need (N2)
 Looked after children
 At risk of becoming NEET
 Take up of youth activities
5. THRESHOLDS ARE CLEAR AND APPROPRIATE, PLANNING AND DECISION MAKING IS EFFECTIVE
Each LA Children’s Services Department should be monitoring and acting on the significant amount of intelligence in this area on a regular basis and the LSCB may
wish to receive key performance measures and supporting intelligence through the story behind the data and results of audits rather than the full detail regularly.
Challenge Questions:
 Does the LSCB have an up to date thresholds document (WT13 requirement)?
 Are thresholds applied appropriately and consistently?
 How do you measure and understand the quality and timeliness of professional decision making for vulnerable children and young people?
 How do you know that assessments are carried out based on the needs of the individual child or family?
 Is the quality and timeliness of assessment and decisions after assessments to required standards?
 Do audits provide evidence of appropriate decision making, planning and management of risk?
 Do we understand any changes to social care re-referrals e.g. are falling numbers a result of higher thresholds being applied, of demographic changes, or of
increased provision of preventative services or early help?
23
Evidence: What are the needs in our local area? How much have we done? How well have we done it?
What difference did it make?
How will we know?
(Qualitative, Quantitative, Voice of the child/family, voice of the practitioner)
5a
Referrals to children’s
social care services







5b
Assessments
How much have we done?
 Rate of single assessments per 10,000 0-17 population
Source
*Number of referrals (and rate per 10,000 0-17 population) to Children’s Social Care
Analysis of referrals by age, reason, gender, ethnicity, referrer
*% of referrals which are repeat referrals within 12 months.
*% of referrals leading to Single Assessment
% of referrals leading to the provision of a social care service (i.e. the child becoming a child in need)
% of referrals which are NFA and by referring agency (SPIF N10)
Analysis of repeat referrals to see if there is a common age/referrer/reason for referral.
Children’s Social Care
Children’s Social Care
How well have we done it?
 *Number & % of completed assessments to timescale
 Distribution of working days taken from referral to assessment completion
 Number of assessments which are open at point in time, and have been open for longer than
accepted timescale.
 Of those assessments out of timescale, more detailed analysis of why out of timescale (specific
worker, type, staffing at the time etc) to feed into the ‘story behind the data’.
 Quality of assessments - % in line with agreed audit standard met
Have we made a difference?
 Breakdown of completed assessments by outcome.
 Feedback from child and family at the end of assessment
5c
Children in need
How much have we done?
 *Number of children in need and rate per 10,000 0-17 population
 Analysis by age, primary need code, ethnicity, geographical location, length of time open case.
Childrens’ Social Care
How well have we done it?
 Conversion rates at each stage (step up/step down)
Have we made a difference?
 % of cases where the child/parents identified positive improvements in their safety/well-being as a
result of the work arising from CIN Plan
 Education outcomes of children in need and levels of progress; school attendance
24
Evidence: What are the needs in our local area? How much have we done? How well have we done it?
What difference did it make?
6. WE ARE SAFEGUADING AND SUPPORTING CHILDREN WHO ARE IN NEED OF PROTECTION
Challenge Questions:
 Do children and young people receive help that is proportionate to risk?
 Are child protection (Section 47) investigations and child protection conferences undertaken in a timely manner?
 Do child protection plans clearly identifies the necessary changes to be achieved within appropriate timescales for the child or young person, and plans and
decisions are reviewed an alternative action is taken where the circumstances for the child do not change and the risk of harm or actual harm remains?
 Are child protection plans effective in reducing risk and providing step down to children in need, or step up to becoming looked after as appropriate?
How will we know?
(Qualitative, Quantitative, Voice of the child/family, voice of the practitioner)
6a
Safeguarding Activity
Source
Evidence of safeguarding activity prior to social care referral can provide early intelligence about prevalence
and timeliness of action and identify future risk. For example, unintentional and deliberate injuries are
defined as those which are recorded with a reason for attendance as assaults, deliberate self harm and other
accidents. Unintentional injuries could be as a result of safeguarding issues, and analysis may highlight
preventative activities or early help that can be provided in the local area on a multi-agency or single agency
basis to target and reduce incidence. Presentation at A&E will be the first opportunity, particularly in the
early years, for concerns to emerge and potential ‘right help, right time’.
How much have we done?
 Rate of hospital inpatient admissions caused by unintentional and deliberate injuries to CYP age 0-17.
 *Rate of accident and emergency attendance caused by unintentional and deliberate injuries to CYP
aged 0-17 (N6)
 Number of children where health visitor has identified cause for concern
 Number of incidents attended by the Police which the investigating officer has deemed as a concern for
the safety of a person under the age of 18 years (GO7)
 Number of child protection referrals to Police
 *Number of times police powers of protection were applied
 Number of offenders who have contact with a child subject to a CP plan or CP investigation
 Number of offenders who have a RC flag and are registered sex offenders (RSO flag)
 Number of M1, M2 & M3 offenders known to Probation who present a risk to children
Health Services
Police
Probation
How well have we done it? Have we made a difference?
 Annual reports from Police, Probation, Health re: safeguarding activity inc timeliness and outcome.
 Audits undertaken on a single or multi-agency basis
25
Evidence: What are the needs in our local area? How much have we done? How well have we done it?
What difference did it make?
6b
Child Protection
investigations
How much have we done?
 Number of children subject ofS47 investigations
 *Rate of S47s per 10,000 0-17 population
 Analysis of S47s by age, gender, ethnicity
 Number of Child Protection medicals by Paediatrics (Health)
Children’s Social
Care
Health
How well have we done it? Did it make a difference?
 % Initial Child Protection Conferences within 15 working days of S47
 Rate of conversion of s47 enquiries to ICPCs.
 % of ICPCs which result in a Child Protection Plan
 % Strategy discussions attended by Police
 Number of SCRs being undertaken at current point in time
 Number of other learning reviews (non-SCRs) being undertaken at current point in time
26
Evidence: What are the needs in our local area? How much have we done? How well have we done it?
Children’s Social
Care
What difference did it make?
6c
Child Protection Plans
How much have we done?
 *Number & rate per 10,000 0-17 population of children subject of child protection plans
 Analysis of plans by duration, age, category.
 Number (& rate) of children becoming subject of a child protection plan
Children’s Social
Care
How well have we done it?
 % children subject of a child protection plan for a second or subsequent time (former NI65)
 % of child protection cases reviewed within required timescales (former NI 67)
 *% child protection plans lasting 2 year or more
 % cases where child visits were in timescale
 % core group meetings within 10 days of conference
 Attendance at core group meetings (see partnership monitoring tool)
 Audits of effectiveness of core group meetings
 Reports submitted to time to child protection conferences
 Minutes of child protection conferences distributed within agreed timescale
 Audits of child protection cases
 Decision appeals
Did it make a difference?
 % children in care who had been subject of a CP Plan prior to coming into care
 % of cases where the child/parents identified positive improvements in their safety/well-being as a
result of the work arising from the CP Plan
6d
Child Deaths
How much have we done
 *Number of children whose death has been categorised as having modifiable factors
 Children killed or seriously injured on roads, Road Traffic Accidents: Analysis by geographic location,
time of day, type of accident
 Safe Sleep data
LSCB
CDOP Annual Report
How well have we done it? Did it make a difference
 Rate of childhood mortality
 Evaluation of safeguarding campaigns e.g. safe sleep
27
Evidence: What are the needs in our local area? How much have we done? How well have we done it?
What difference did it make?
7. THE LA FULFILLS ITS CORPORATE PARENTING ROLE AND LOOKED AFTER CHILDREN AND CARE LEAVERS HAVE GOOD
OUTCOMES
There is significant guidance, research and evidence about these specific cohorts of children and young people, and what any changes in number may mean.
Numbers may change because of an increase in the number of children in the local area (therefore population data and forecasts are also important to consider);
effective universal and early help services (although a rise in numbers could indicate identification of previously unmet need); changes to legislation (e.g. Southwark
Judgement); policy and process changes within the LA and partner agencies , staffing, availability of resources, external factors such as Court delay or availability of
adopters/carers. This information may be summarised for the LSCB by the Corporate Parenting Board or provided as an annual report.
Challenge Questions:
 Are decisions to look after children and young people timely and made only when it is in their best interests.
 Is there evidence of the effective use of Public Law Outline. Children and young people are safely and successfully returned home; where this is not possible for
them, permanent plans are made for them to live away from the family home.
 Where the plan for a child or young person is to return home is there evidence of purposeful work to help the family to change so it is safe for the child to return.
Further episodes of being looked after are avoided unless they are provided as a part of plan of support.
 Are children and young people living in safe, stable and appropriate homes or families with their siblings when this is in their best interests. They move only in
accordance with care plans, when they are at risk of harm or are being harmed.
How will we know?
Source
(Qualitative, Quantitative, Voice of the child/family, voice of the practitioner)
28
Evidence: What are the needs in our local area? How much have we done? How well have we done it?
What difference did it make?
7a
Looked After Children
– numbers and
characteristics
How much have we done
 *Number of Children becoming looked after in the period, by age, ethnicity, reason for starting, legal
status on starting.
 *Number of looked after children (responsibility of our LA)including those living outside of the area
 *Number of children ceasing to be looked after
 Number of children subject of a child protection plan who are also looked after
 Number of unaccompanied child asylum seekers
Children’s Social
Care or Corporate
Parenting Board
How well have we done it? Did it make a difference
 Percentage of looked after children cases reviewed within required timescales (former NI 66)
 Allegations against carers
 Education and health outcomes for looked after children (statutory return data about achievement,
attendance, health).
7b
Placements and
Permanence




% Looked after children with three or more placements in the year
% LAC whose placement moves are ‘unplanned’
Long term stability of children looked after
% of children who have been looked after for more than 2.5 years and of those, have been in the same
placement for at least 2 years or placed for adoption
 Reviews of looked after children on time
 Number of children coming into care for a second or subsequent time
 % children leaving care who were adopted
Children’s Social
Care or Corporate
Parenting Board
7c
Care Leavers
 Care Leavers in suitable accommodation at 19yrs
 Care leavers in education, employment or training at 19yrs
Children’s Social
Care or Corporate
Parenting Board
29
Evidence: What are the needs in our local area? How much have we done? How well have we done it?
What difference did it make?
8. THERE IS EFFECTIVE USE OF RESOURCES AND THE WORKFORCE IS JUDGED TO DELIVER GOOD QUALITY SERVICES
Understanding the resources available in each agency and collectively for safeguarding and early help can be achieved through a number of different ways,
including annual reports or Section 11 audits from each agency; through LSCB training and collection of performance information throughout the year.
Understanding how regulators view the local area across partnership services is an important indicator of change in effectiveness and highlights areas for
improvement which often involve a partnership approach. However, the date of the latest judgement should be noted, a it could have been undertaken some time
ago and provision changed significantly since then. The best source of data will be the agencies themselves to ensure the most up to date judgements are captured.
For schools and setting and LA services, inspection reports and summary management information is published regularly (school and children’s home inspection
data is published on a quarterly basis by Ofsted).
Challenge Questions:
• Are results of inspections and reviews of services known and understood, especially where safeguarding concerns or areas for improvement been raised?
• Areas for improvement or action plans resulting from inspection across partners in the local area underway or completed at an appropriate pace?
 Are services are appropriately resourced?
 Are staff settled (low turnover) and appropriately skilled and supported through workforce development and supervision?
 Do we know about the current capacity and skills (workforce, finance, skills) in this area and are we clear who is providing what support/service at what cost?
 Do we know that key professionals within agencies (Police, Health, schools and early years settings, adult social care, youth services, criminal justice agencies
and other services) know how to identify the possible signs of abuse and neglect being suffered by a child or young person and what to do; understand when
children should be referred to children’s social care, and know what to do where they have concerns about a child who would benefit from early help (L8)?
 Do we know there is the right balance of experience, skills management amongst social workers and other key professionals working with children and families,
and we understand the local vacancy and turnover rate of key professionals?
 Do children and families have good relationships with their worker?
 Do we know what children think about the changes of social worker?
 Is there is evidence of high quality multi-agency work and intelligence from different agencies is shared and used to protect children and to provide early help.
(L12)?
 Do all Board partners make a proportionate financial and resource contribution to the LSCB?
How will we know?
(Qualitative, Quantitative, Voice of the child/family, voice of the practitioner)
30
Evidence: What are the needs in our local area? How much have we done? How well have we done it?
Source
What difference did it make?
8a
Sufficient Workforce









8b
Training and
development
 Number of learning events in the period
 Analysis of LSCB and single agency training and it’s impact: Take up by different agencies, what is the
deficit and evaluation of effectiveness and assess the impact of training not only at the time of delivery
but at recurring intervals.
 Ensuring that training is quality assured and caters for the needs of a wide range of people, including
volunteers.
 Changes made as a result of previous learning/priorities and new developments including using
national research and local knowledge to shape provision.
LSCB Training subgroup and individual
agencies
8c
Safe workforce





LADO
8d
Finance data
 Section 251 return (children’s services): spend on safeguarding and spend on looked after children and
fostering as a % of total spend (compared to other LAs)
 Police, health and other agency budgets and expenditure
31
*Number of FTE social workers, health visitors and school nurses & other agencies
*Vacancy rate of social workers, health visitors and school nurses & other agencies
*Turnover rate of social workers, health visitors and school nurses & other agencies
Caseloads/workloads or number of workers per 10,000 U18 population
Analysis from social care workforce return: 4 indicators (30 Nov 2013)
Interim/vacant manager posts in key services
% Children who are NOT allocated to a qualified social worker
Supervision
Appraisals
Individual Agencies
*Number of allegations referred to LADO.
Annual report from LADO
Number of investigations concluded
Number of investigations active
Number of allegations dealt with by provider and Number progressed to S47.
Evidence: What are the needs in our local area? How much have we done? How well have we done it?
All agencies
What difference did it make?
8e
Latest inspections or
reviews of Public
Services and
providers in the
Local Area
 Record ‘safeguarding’ judgements by main service providers carried out since last QA report – use
this template as a guide.
Individual Agencies &
Inspecting bodies
public services in
local area.docx
Appendix A: Extract from Ofsted Inspection Framework relating to LSCB
Ofsted Inspection Framework – what does good a good LSCB look like?
The Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB) complies with its statutory responsibilities in accordance with the Children Act 20043 and the Local Safeguarding
Children Board Regulations 2006.4 The LSCB is able to provide evidence that it coordinates the work of statutory partners in helping, protecting and caring for
children in its local area and there are mechanisms in place to monitor the effectiveness of those local arrangements. Multi-agency training in the protection and
care of children is effective and evaluated regularly for impact on management and practice. The LSCB checks that policies and procedures in respect of
thresholds for intervention are understood and operate effectively and identifies where there are areas for improvement. Challenge of practice between
partners and casework auditing are rigorous and used to identify where improvements can be made in front-line performance and management oversight.
Serious case reviews, management reviews and reviews of child deaths are used by the local authority and partners as opportunities for learning and feedback
that drive improvement. The LSCB provides robust and rigorous evaluation and analysis of local performance that influence and inform the planning and delivery
of high-quality services.
3
4
The Children Act 2004; http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/31/contents.
The Local Safeguarding Children Boards Regulations 2006; http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/90/regulation/5/made
32
Evidence: What are the needs in our local area? How much have we done? How well have we done it?
What difference did it make?
Section 2: The effectiveness of the Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB)
1.
Ofsted intends to undertake a review of the effectiveness of the Local Safeguarding Children Board at the same time as the inspection the
local authority. This review will be conducted under 15(A) of the Children Act 2004.
2.
Inspectors will make their judgements on a four point scale:




outstanding
good
requires improvement
inadequate.
3.
Inspectors will use these criteria to evaluate the effectiveness of the LSCB in meeting its statutory functions. Inspectors will make a judgement
of ‘good’ where the characteristics set out in the description of ‘good’ are widespread and common practice. In addition, inspectors will
consider how effectively the LSCB evaluates and monitors the quality and effectiveness of the local authority and statutory partners in
protecting and caring for children, including the provision of improvement advice. Inspectors will deploy professional judgement to determine
the weight and significance of their findings. When considering the effectiveness of the Local Safeguarding Children LSCB, inspectors will use
the descriptors of ‘good’ as the benchmark from which to grade performance. A judgement of ‘good’ will be made where the inspection team
concludes that the evidence overall sits most appropriately with a finding of ‘good’. This is what Ofsted describes as ‘best fit’.
4.
A report of the review will be published on the Ofsted website. This will also be the case where the review does not take place at the same
time as the single inspection of the local authority.
5.
The LSCB must within 30 working days of receipt of the report, arrange for it to be published in such manner as the LSCB considers
appropriate.5
The LSCB is likely to be judged to be good if:
 The governance arrangements enable LSCB partners (including the Health and Well-Being Board and the Children’s Trust) to assess
whether they are fulfilling their statutory responsibilities to help (including early help), protect and care for children and young people.
The LSCB effectively prioritises according to local issues and demands and there is evidence of clear improvement priorities identified
that are incorporated into a delivery plan to improve outcomes.
5
The Local Safeguarding Children Boards (Review) Regulations 2013, section 4 ; http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/2299/contents/made.
33
Evidence: What are the needs in our local area? How much have we done? How well have we done it?
What difference did it make?
 Regular and effective monitoring and evaluation of multi-agency front-line practice to safeguard children6 identifies where improvement
is required in the quality of practice and services that children, young people and families receive. This includes monitoring the
effectiveness of early help.
 Partners hold each other to account for their contribution to the safety and protection of children and young people (including children
and young people living in the area away from their home authority), facilitated by the chair.
 Safeguarding is a priority for all of the statutory LSCB members and this is demonstrable, such as through effective section 11 audits.
All LSCB partners make a proportionate financial and resource contribution to the main LSCB and the audit and scrutiny activity of any
sub-groups.
 The LSCB has a local learning and improvement framework with statutory partners. Opportunities for learning are effective and
properly engage all partners. Serious case reviews are initiated where the criteria set out in statutory guidance are met and identify
good practice to be disseminated and where practice can be improved. Serious case reviews are published.
 The LSCB ensures that high-quality policies and procedures are in place (as required by Working together to safeguard children) and
that these policies and procedures are monitored and evaluated for their effectiveness and impact and revised where improvements
can be made. The LSCB monitors and understands the application of thresholds locally.
 The LSCB understands the nature and extent of the local issues in relation to children missing and children at risk of sexual exploitation
and oversees effective information sharing and a local strategy and action plan.
 The LSCB uses case file audits including joint case audits to identify priorities that will improve multi-agency professional practice with
children and families. The chair raises challenges and works with the local authority and other LSCB partners where there are concerns
that the improvements are not effective. Practitioners and managers working with families are able to be involved in practice audits,
identifying strengths, areas for improvement and lessons to be learned. The experiences of children and young people are used as a
measure of improvement.
 The LSCB is an active and influential participant in informing and planning services for children, young people and families in the area
and draws on its assessments of the effectiveness of multi-agency practice. It uses its scrutiny role and statutory powers to influence
priority setting across other strategic partnerships such as the Health and Well-being Board.
 The LSCB ensures that sufficient, high-quality multi-agency training is available and evaluates its effectiveness and impact on
improving front-line practice and the experiences of children, young people, families and carers. All LSCB members support access to
the training opportunities in their agencies.
 The LSCB, through its annual report, provides a rigorous and transparent assessment of the performance and effectiveness of local
services. It identifies areas of weakness and the causes of those weaknesses, and evaluates and where necessary challenges the
6
This applies to all children and includes having an understanding of the local safeguarding response to deaf and disabled children in all aspects of the LSCB functioning.
34
Evidence: What are the needs in our local area? How much have we done? How well have we done it?
What difference did it make?
action being taken. The report includes lessons from management reviews, serious case reviews and child deaths within the reporting
period.
Outstanding
 The LSCB is likely to be outstanding if, in addition to meeting the requirements for a good judgement, it provides evidence of being a
highly influential strategic arrangement that directly influences and improves performance in the care and protection of children. That
improvement is sustained and extends across multi-disciplinary practice with children, young people and families. Analysis and
evaluation of performance is exceptional and helps the local authority and partners to properly understand the impact of services, the
quality of practice and the areas for improvement. There is a comprehensive range of training for managers and practitioners that is
directly related to multi-agency improvement priorities. The LSCB creates and fosters an effective learning culture locally that extends
to front-line practitioners.
35
Evidence: What are the needs in our local area? How much have we done? How well have we done it?
What difference did it make?