Back in 2016, Sir Martin Narey urged the government to “review the practice of using one- or two-word judgments when inspecting children’s homes”, assuming that these judgments might do” a disservice to some thoughtful reporting”. This led to some discussion, but the system remains unaltered. Last year the discussion around the appropriateness of Ofsted’s single-word grading system was reignited following the death of Ruth Perry.
With the publication of the Supported Accommodation Inspection Framework this week, Ofsted confirmed a change in this approach, presenting a summary outcome instead of the usual 4-point scale, at least during the first round of inspections.
However, this does not change the underlying issues around this methodology. The current focus on judgments in inspections of children’s homes and supported accommodation services, while aiming for improvement, might have unintended consequences. This post argues that relying on predetermined judgments might limit the effectiveness of these inspections and suggests a more holistic approach focused on understanding a service’s full picture through comprehensive reports.
While it is agreed that the reports present much more than just the judgments, it is also a reality that in many areas the main, in not only, focus, is on the grade itself.
The Problem with Predetermined Judgments:
- Narrow focus: Framing inspections around specific judgments risks overlooking crucial aspects of a service’s quality. This could lead to services prioritizing achieving those judgments over addressing the underlying needs of children and young people.
- Diversity and complexity: Children’s needs are highly individual and complex. Preset judgments may not capture the nuances of individual journeys and potentially disadvantage those with unique challenges.
- Pressure for appearances: When judgments become the main or sole metric, it can create pressure for services to “game the system” by manipulating data or focusing on superficial improvements that don’t translate into actual positive change for children.
Towards a More Holistic Approach:
Instead of relying solely on predetermined judgments, inspections should:
- Produce comprehensive reports: These reports should delve deeper, providing detailed information about the service’s approach, environment, staff qualifications, and engagement with children.
- Mandate thorough reading: By requiring everyone involved, including social workers, local authorities, and the public in general, to read and engage with the full report, a deeper understanding of the service’s strengths and weaknesses can be fostered, facilitating collaborative improvement efforts.
- Shift the focus: The focus should shift from “meeting” judgments to fostering ongoing development and improvement based on individual needs and the unique context of each service.
Benefits of a More Nuanced Approach:
- Improved service quality: A focus on understanding the service’s overall functioning can lead to more relevant and sustainable improvements that meet the specific needs of the children and young people using the service.
- Empowerment and collaboration: Requiring everyone to read and engage with the full report fosters a sense of shared responsibility and empowers stakeholders to collaboratively address identified needs.
- Transparency and accountability: A more transparent process builds trust and accountability, enabling all involved to work towards better serving vulnerable children and young people.
Additionally:
- Local Authorities (LAs) should move away from the practice of relying on inspection ratings when making placement decisions (several are the occasions where referrals are sent requiring a minimum specific judgment). Instead, LAs should analyze the full inspection report to gain a comprehensive understanding of the service’s strengths and weaknesses.
- LAs should engage in detailed discussions with providers regarding the report, focusing on specific areas of concern and exploring the provider’s plans for improvement. These fosters open communication and collaboration, ultimately leading to better placement decisions that prioritize the individual needs of each child.
This proposed approach is not advocating for neglecting accountability. Rather, it suggests moving beyond a narrow focus on predetermined judgments and towards a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the services caring for some of society’s most vulnerable individuals. By encouraging deeper engagement with detailed reports, we can empower stakeholders to work collaboratively and ensure these services are truly serving the best interests of the children and young people in their care.
Miguel Valerio 