Suchergebnisse

Purpose
The purpose of this study is to explore whether performance indicators in children's services can be used to predict the outcome of Ofsted inspections. Every local authority in England is inspected by Ofsted (the Office for Standards in Education, children's services and skills) and given a single, overall rating – outstanding, good, requirements improvement or inadequate. These ratings carry immense significance. Persistently inadequate authorities are liable to have legal responsibility for providing services outsourced to another organisation. Ofsted have been criticised in the past for focusing too much on procedure, and previous research has highlighted the importance of deprivation and spending levels. In this paper, we describe a new study using more recent Ofsted and local authority data to see what patterns there might be now between performance indicators and inspection results.


Design/methodology/approach
We report an analysis of 45 variables in relation to children in need, children in care and young adults with care experience. Using statistical analysis, we consider to what extent performance measured by these variables differs between authorities based on their Ofsted ratings and which of the variables can be used to predict Ofsted inspection outcomes.


Findings
We identified no consistent patterns of difference between local authorities in relation to Ofsted ratings. Deprivation was the best single predictor of Ofsted inspection outcomes.


Originality/value
This study uses relatively recent Ofsted and local authority data and builds on previous research findings which are increasingly highlighting the significance of deprivation as a factor to help explain variable performance between different authorities.

Abstract
'Failing' an inspection of The Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted) has severe consequences on a local authority. Senior managers may lose their jobs and the workforce as a whole can be destabilised. In extreme cases, central government can decide whether the authority is no longer capable of running children's services. On the other hand, receiving positive Ofsted judgements often brings with it a national reputation for excellence. This study reports the findings of an analysis of key performance indicators, expenditure and deprivation in relation to Ofsted inspections for eighty-seven local authorities in England undertaken between 2014 and 2016. Our aim was to examine the association between these factors and Ofsted judgements. Our findings suggest that for most of the factors we considered, there is no clear pattern of better or worse performance between local authorities with different Ofsted ratings. However, 'good and outstanding' authorities tend to outperform other authorities in relation to some procedural variables. By itself, the level of local authority deprivation was most clearly associated with the Ofsted rating, and expenditure was associated with the authority's level of deprivation but not their Ofsted judgement. Comparisons are made with the concept of 'value-added' performance in relation to schools.

'Failing' an Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted) inspection has severe consequences for a local authority. Senior managers may lose their jobs and the workforce as a whole can be destabilised. In extreme cases, central government can decide the authority is no longer capable of running children's services. On the other hand, receiving positive Ofsted judgements often brings with it a national reputation for excellence. This study reports the findings of an analysis of key performance indicators, expenditure and deprivation in relation to Ofsted inspections for eighty-seven local authorities in England undertaken between 2014 and 2016. Our aim was to examine the association between these factors and Ofsted judgements. Our findings suggest that, for most of the factors we considered, there is no clear pattern of better or worse performance between local authorities with different Ofsted ratings. However, 'good' and 'outstanding' authorities tend to outperform other authorities in relation to some procedural variables. By itself, the level of local-authority deprivation was most clearly associated with the Ofsted rating and expenditure was associated with the authority's deprivation level, but not their Ofsted judgement. Comparisons are made with the Department of Education's concept of 'value-added' education in relation to schools. ; Postprint supplied 17/1/19

AbstractWithin the social work profession, supervision is highly valued. Yet it is not clear how supervision supports good practice or how supervision makes a difference for children and families. In this study, using paired observations of group supervision and family meetings alongside interviews with parents, we explored the link between supervision, practice, and engagement. Considering each data set separately, we found a range of skill levels within the supervision discussions and in the meetings with families. Parents reported generally high levels of satisfaction with the service and in relation to their individual worker. But more importantly, we found a "golden thread" between certain elements of supervision, more skilful practice, and improved parental engagement. We discuss these key elements in detail and consider what these findings tell us about good supervision and what difference it can make for families and children.

Background:
There has been a rapid increase in the number of, and demand for, organisations offering behavioural science advice to government over the last ten years. Yet we know little of the state of science and the experiences of these evidence providers.
Aims and objectives:
To identify current practice in this emerging field and the factors that impact on the production of high-quality and policy-relevant research.
Methods:
A qualitative study using one-to-one interviews with representatives from a purposeful sample of 15 units in the vanguard of international behavioural science research in policy. The data were analysed thematically.
Findings:
Relationships with policymakers were important in the inception of units, research conduct, implementation and dissemination of findings. Knowledge exchange facilitated a shared understanding of policy issues/context, and of behavioural science. Sufficient funding was crucial to maintain critical capacity in the units' workforces, build a research portfolio beneficial to policymakers and the units, and to ensure full and transparent dissemination.
Discussion and conclusion:
Findings highlight the positive impact of strong evidence-provider/user relationships and the importance of governments' commitment to co-produced research programmes to address policy problems and transparency in the dissemination of methods and findings. From the findings we have created a framework, 'STEPS' (Sharing, Transparency, Engagement, Partnership, Strong relationships), of five recommendations for units working with policymakers. These findings will be of value to all researchers conducting research on behalf of government.