The impact of safeguarding children peer reviews · ISBN 978 1 908666 06 2, free download Targeting children’s centre ... the impact of safeguarding children peer reviews v

Local Government Education and Children's Services Research Programme

LGA

res

earc

h r

epor

t

the impact of safeguarding children peer reviews

Available in the Local GovernmentEducation and Children’s ServicesResearch Programme

Evaluation of the early adopter sector-led improvement programme pilots

Claire Easton, Helen Poet, Helen Aston and Robert Smith

ISBN 978 1 908666 06 2, free download

Targeting children’s centre services on the most needy families

Pippa Lord, Clare Southcott and Caroline Sharp


Developing a business case for early interventions and evaluating their value for money

Ben Durbin, Shona Macleod, Helen Aston and George Bramley


National census of local authority councillors 2010

Kelly Kettlewell and Helen Aston


Safeguarding: council developments

Kerry Martin, Mary Atkinson and Richard White


Evaluation of the NYA engagement network

Kelly Kettlewell and David Sims


Local authorities’ perceptions of how parents and young people with special educational needs will beaffected by the 2011 Green Paper

Nalia George, Monica Hetherington and Caroline Sharp


Views of young people with special educational needs and their parents on residential education

Helen Poet, Kath Wilkinson and Caroline Sharp


Young people with special educational needs/learning difficulties and disabilities: research into planning

for adult life and services

Kerry Martin, Ruth Hart, Richard White and Caroline Sharp


Information sources for the local children and young people’s services sector: a mapping study

Helen Aston and Robert Smith


the impact of safeguardingchildren peer reviews

Claire EastonKerry MartinFiona Walker

How to cite this publication:

Easton, C., Martin, K. and Walker, F. (2012). The Impact of Safeguarding Children Peer Reviews (LGA Research Report). Slough: NFER.

Published in May 2012by the National Foundation for Educational Research,The Mere, Upton Park, Slough, Berkshire SL1 2DQ

www.nfer.ac.uk© National Foundation for Educational Research 2012Registered Charity No. 313392

ISBN 978 1 908666 25 3

Acknowledgements iv

Executive summary v

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Purpose and aims of the study 1

1.2 Methodology 1

1.3 Report structure 2

2 Background, aims and processes 3

2.1 Background and aims of a safeguarding peer review 3

2.2 Perceptions of the safeguarding peer review process 5

3 Impact of the peer review 12

3.1 Supporting corporate leaders 12

3.2 Supporting partnership working arrangements 13

3.3 Enhancing confidence 15

3.4 Helping develop frontline staff 16

3.5 Developing service provision for children, young people and families 17

3.6 Communicating with Ofsted and DfE 17

3.7 Longevity of the peer review feedback 18

3.8 Unexpected or negative impacts of the peer review 19

3.9 Overview of peer review impacts for authorities with an Improvement Notice 19

4 Future developments and recommendations 21

4.1 Advice to local authorities contemplating involvement in a peer review 21

4.2 Areas for consideration 21

References 23

Contents

The authors would like to thank the Local Government Association (LGA) for providing sponsorship of this research,and in particular to Paul Curran and Caroline Bosdet for their valuable guidance. Our gratitude goes to the fiveauthorities involved in our study and to the many interviewees who gave their time to share their views andexperiences with us. Finally, our thanks go to Sagina Khan who provided invaluable coordination of the project.

iv the impact of safeguarding children peer reviews

Acknowledgements

The Local Government Association (LGA) and Children’sImprovement Board (CIB) commissioned the NationalFoundation for Educational Research (NFER) to carryout an evaluation of the Safeguarding Children PeerReviews. The evaluation built on a previous studycarried out by NFER which explored the SafeguardingChildren Peer Review process (Martin and Jeffes,2011). Given the increase in number of LAsexperiencing difficulties and/or in intervention andrequesting a peer review, the CIB and the LGA wishedto focus this new study on exploring the impact of thepeer review process on authorities with a Notice toImprove.

Key findings

The safeguarding peer reviews met the global aims andobjectives of the five local authorities participating inthis study, providing the necessary external scrutinythey required. The evaluation shows that, typically, LAsin intervention engage in a safeguarding children peerreview in order to: obtain an external perspective onthe quality of safeguarding services; assess progressmade in improving safeguarding services, and; identifyand confirm areas for development to support futureprogression planning and prepare for forthcominginspections. Peer reviews were conducted in a formaland professional manner and the review findings weretypically in line with what was anticipated by LAsinvolved. Reviews provided staff with the necessaryvalidation and reassurance to support theirimprovement journey.

It was common for partners including the police, healthand the voluntary sector, to engage in some aspect ofthe safeguarding peer review process. Furthermore, thepeer review process is seen as a valuable mechanismfor bringing partners together and helping to facilitatefuture partnership working.

Interviewees reported that the safeguarding peerreview methodology works well and can be tailoredsufficiently to the needs of a LA in intervention. The keyfeatures considered to be of particular importance in

shaping the success of the reviews include the flexibleformat and nature of the review methodology; theexperience and approach of the peer review team andthe organisational commitment, openness andtransparency of the host local authority.

By contrast, very few interviewees identified aspects ofthe safeguarding peer review programme that meantits success was limited. Features perceived to work lesswell, however, included whether the timeframe of thesafeguarding peer reviews allowed sufficient time forthe review team to delve into the level of detail thehost required and to reflect on the emerging findings;ensuring an appropriate match of peers and reviewteams to individual authorities’ structure and settingsand the timing and format of the feedback process toensure findings can be shared with staff and partners,reflected and acted upon.

While it can be difficult to attribute change directly toone intervention, the reported areas of impact and thestakeholders that benefited from the peer review aresummarised in the diagram overleaf.

The findings from this research corroborate those fromthe previous safeguarding peer review study (Martinand Jeffes, 2011). The safeguarding peer reviewapproach appears to be suitably flexible to allowauthorities in intervention and those who are not, toachieve a successful outcome. For both types ofauthorities, the peer review is shown to increasecommitment and drive to improve; inform, support andlegitimise the development of plans, actions, policiesand systems; promote learning and reflective practice;improve staff morale and relations; affirm and enhancethe quality of partnership working; help LA, council andpartner seniors leaders understand safeguardingchildren issues and how to overcome areas ofweakness, and; provide the opportunity to developlonger term relationships between the peer reviewteam and the LA receiving the review.

For authorities contemplating involvement in a peerreview, the following areas are identified for theirconsideration: embrace the peer review process and

the impact of safeguarding children peer reviews v

Executive summary

adopt an open approach; ensure buy-in from corporateleaders, partners, senior leaders and independentboards; establish a key focus; ensure the peer reviewtakes place at an appropriate point in time andcompliments the timeframes of formal inspectionprocesses; ensure an appropriate peer review team;allow for sufficient preparation; manage the messageto staff and partners before the review and whenfeeding back the findings, and; action the findings.

Methods

Telephone interviews were carried out with 25 stafffrom across five LAs who were at different stages ofintervention. The LAs comprise three counties, ametropolitan and a unitary. Interviews took place witha range of LA officers, councillors and staff frompartner organisations. Interviews took place duringJanuary and February 2012.

vi the impact of safeguarding children peer reviews

Areas of impact

Stakeholders

Senior leaders

Operationalmanagers

Partners andexternal bodies

Senior leaders canlook forward and

plan for sustainingimprovements in

the future

Better understandingand confidence inthe LA’s vision anddirection of travel

LA is confident totalk to partners

about areas needingimprovement

External validationshows that

investment inimprovement hasbeen worthwhile

Enhanced morale,motivation,

re-energised andrenewed impetus

for change

Partners betterunderstand theirresponsibilities

around safeguarding

Peer reviews helpinform governancearrangements of

Health and WellbeingBoards and LSCB

Quality ofsupervision and

case audits improve

LA and partnerswork together toimprove provision

Leadership andvision

Attitudes,experiences and

confidence

Changes to practice andprocedures

1 Introduction

the impact of safeguarding children peer reviews 1

wished to focus on in this new study exploring theimpact of the peer review process.

1.1 Purpose and aims of thestudy

The aim of this study is to provide evidence of theimpact of safeguarding peer reviews for localauthorities who are in intervention. In particular, thestudy:

• gathers reflections on the safeguarding children peerreview process and its impact from councils receivinga review

• explores what has changed locally as a result ofundergoing a safeguarding children peer review,thinking about the peer review as part of an overalljourney and exploring how the peer review took theauthority in a particular direction in order to achievethe overall desired outcomes around improvement

• highlights the peer review approach required forlocal authorities in intervention, demonstrating howthis might differ compared with LAs who are not inintervention.

The study provides evidence of the value of the peerreview programme, highlighting how peer reviews havesupported local authorities in implementing their plansfor improvement. In addition, it will support the LGA inits work around revising the methodology used toprovide peer reviews, as part of a review of the modelin late 2011 and early 2012.

1.2 Methodology

The LGA recruited five LAs who were at differentstages of intervention and who had received asafeguarding peer review, to take part in this study. TheLAs comprise three counties, a metropolitan and aunitary.

The Local Government Association (LGA) and theChildren’s Improvement Board (CIB) commissioned theNational Foundation for Educational Research (NFER)to carry out an independent evaluation of the impactof the safeguarding peer review programme.

The safeguarding children peer review programme wasled by the former IDeA at its inception and becamefully operational from January 2010. With thereorganisation of the former Local Government Groupthe programme is now managed by the LGA. The aimsof the peer review programme when it was set upwere to support and challenge councils in reflecting oncurrent provision of safe services in respect ofsafeguarding children and young people.

At the time of commissioning this study (December2011) 45 peer reviews had been booked and feedbackreported to LGA officers from those delivered has beengenerally positive.

In August 2010, the LGA commissioned the NFER toconduct a study looking at the peer reviewprogramme. This study had a particular focus on theprocess of peer reviews and the associated outcomesand explored:

• the changes taking place locally as a result of thepeer review process

• the benefits for those local authorities taking part ina peer review.

Since the publication of the report from this study(Martin, K. and Jeffes, J., 2011), the LGA has reporteda shift change with more authorities who areexperiencing difficulties and, in some cases, who are inintervention, asking for a peer review. The previousstudy reported on work in local authorities (LAs) whofelt they were doing ‘OK’ and were looking for somevalidation around this. In contrast, those LAsexperiencing difficulties and/or in intervention come tothe process with a different desired outcome. It isthese local authorities that the CIB and the LGA

A total of 25 telephone interviews were conductedwith a selection of local authority officers, councillorsand staff from partner organisations. Interviews werecarried out in January and February 2012. Table 1provides details of the number of interviewees by jobrole1.

1.3 Report structure

This report sets out the findings of the interviews andcovers:

• Background, aims and processes (Chapter 2)

• Impacts of the peer review (Chapter 3)

• Future developments and recommendations (Chapter 4).

2 the impact of safeguarding children peer reviews

Table 1 Numbers of interviewees by job roles

Job role Number of interviewees

Director of Children’s Services 5

Head of Quality Assurance 1

Commissioning Director 1

Transformation and Performance Director 1

Head of Human Resources 1

Assistant Director/Head of Safeguarding 6

Principal Manager 1

Lead Officer for Case Mapping 1

Local Authority Chief Executive 1

Lead Member for Children’s Services 4

Local Safeguarding Children’s Board Chair 2

Assistant Director Hospital Trust 1

1 Throughout the report, the Director responsible for Children’s Services in the LA is referred to as the DCS. Likewise, we haveused generic terms for assistant directors to ensure individuals are not identifiable.

This chapter sets out the main findings of the studyand explores:

• background and aims of a safeguarding peer review

• perceptions of the safeguarding peer review process.

2.1 Background and aims of asafeguarding peer review

Local authorities in intervention typically engage in asafeguarding children peer review in order to:

• obtain an external perspective on the quality ofsafeguarding services

• assess progress made in improving safeguardingservices

• identify and confirm areas for development tosupport future progression planning

• prepare for forthcoming inspections.

For local authorities in intervention, a key aim of thepeer review relates to the need for independentexternal feedback on the adequacy and effectiveness oflocal safeguarding services from peers withsafeguarding experience and expertise. The neutralityand objectivity of the peer review team means thattheir perspectives are used to validate the findings ofinternal reviews and self-assessments of localsafeguarding services. In particular, peer reviews arefelt to provide a valuable form of external monitoringbetween formal inspection phases and compliment thevarious and ongoing forms of scrutiny offered to localauthorities with Improvement Notices. Indeed, in twocase-study areas, their Improvement Board stipulatedthe authority should participate in a safeguarding peerreview.

We wanted someone else to evaluate us because wehad quite a lot of changes and we wanted to see if thechanges were actually delivering ... Unless we knowthe problems, we can’t address them.

(Lead Member)

What you present on a monthly basis at yourintervention meetings is a very high level and you needto be able to delve deeper underneath the surface andlook more tactically at some of the things you aredoing and that’s what the peer review does, like anOfsted inspection does which the intervention teamdoesn’t.

(Head of HR)

There was a ministerial requirement that weundertook a peer review. It seemed sensible to us andit was also something that the DfE were very happywith. The requirement of was a temperature checkaround our improvement journey.

(DCS)

Peer reviews are used by local authorities inintervention to benchmark safeguarding performanceand assess progress against targets and performanceindicators set out in improvement plans and inspectionreports. In this way, peer reviews are viewed as avaluable mechanism for scrutinising the effectivenessand sustainability of changes made to safeguardingfollowing the Notice to Improve. The potential tovalidate and showcase effective practice is also amotivating factor for local authorities. This includesusing a safeguarding peer review to demonstrateimprovement internally to lead members and corporatestrategic leaders, as well as highlight progressexternally to the DfE and Ofsted. A further aim, forsome authorities, is to boost the morale of staff whomay have experienced significant organisationalchange and intense scrutiny as a result of the authoritybeing in intervention. In these cases, an objective of thepeer review is to provide an opportunity for individualsto reflect upon progress made and gain feedback andrecognition for their efforts in improving safeguardingpractice.


2 Background, aims and processes

It was an opportunity to take stock and really reflecton what our achievements were today and to createthat conversation about what difference are wemaking. Often, the focus is on let’s just get thebusiness done, but this was about actually stoppingand saying are we still doing the right things and arewe making a difference.

(Divisional Manager)

What we had hoped, in the best-case scenario, is thatit would be part of our evidence base to showcontinued improvement ... Worst-case scenario itwould be flagging up areas that we had overlooked orthat we had not given sufficient attention to inpreparation for a further Ofsted inspection.

(DCS)

Although authorities in intervention report a good levelof awareness in relation to current deficiencies in theirsafeguarding services, key objectives for the peerreview are to confirm and verify these areas ofunderperformance and to uncover further areas fordevelopment through scrutiny of specific aspects ofpractice. By identifying where improvements can bemade in the short term, authorities can look to addressthese prior to forthcoming inspections in order toimprove the outcome. It is also anticipated that peerreview teams will provide advice and recommendationson how to further enhance aspects of safeguardingpractice in the longer term, which can be incorporatedinto improvement plans.

In some circumstances, a goal of the review is to gainthe necessary external recognition and agreement ofstaff concerns in order to support their efforts internallyfor change and secure additional financial resources,where required. In other cases, peer reviews are usedby local authorities to confirm and, to some extent,sanction progression to the next stages of improvementplanning, providing confidence and reassurance to staffthat they are in a position to move forward.

Sometimes you know where your weaknesses are andyou know that you’ve got to take action on thoseweaknesses and I think this (peer review) gives youextra ammunition if you like to actually sort things out.

(Lead Member)

When we had the set up meeting for the peer reviewI’d been here a couple of months and I was alreadypicking up concerns about the looked after part of the

service, so we wanted to specifically concentrate onthat and see whether all our analysis was right ... Itwas about checking whether judgements I’d formedwere accurate.

(Assistant Director)

When you’ve been in government intervention it canbe quite easy sometimes to convince yourself thatyou’ve done what you needed to do ... For us, it’sabout having someone else externally review andanalyse what we have done and really ensure that weare on the right track and give us some validation thatwe are going in the right direction.

(Head of HR)

Although local authorities are aware that thesafeguarding peer review is not intended to replicate aformal inspection or external audit of local services, akey purpose of a peer review is often to prepare forsuch events. To some extent, peer reviews are used toencourage staff to collate data and documentation toevidence practice and performance, for example, whichwill be required for future inspections. Peer reviews arealso seen as an opportunity for staff to rehearse howthey might convey messages most effectively toinspectors in a supportive environment. For localauthorities in intervention, staff have often beenexposed to external scrutiny which has not alwaysbeen a positive experience. In this way, the aim of thepeer review is to reassure and build confidenceamongst the workforce.

We wanted to have a peer review in a fairly safeenvironment because as an authority that has beenthrough a number of inspections, in fairly quicksuccession, we need to support staff in rebuildingtheir confidence when speaking to external people.


Overall, the rationale for undertaking a peer review forlocal authorities in intervention is to investigatestrategic level safeguarding issues in order to informthe authority’s wider improvement journey. Althoughthere may be certain areas of focus within a review,(for example, to examine the effectiveness of socialwork practice), investigating specific aims relating toparticular groups of children and families are notcurrently identified as being amongst the review’s coreaims. Equally, safeguarding peer reviews are notprimarily focused on the wider local authority, theirpartners or on the needs of individual professionals.


2.2 Perceptions of thesafeguarding peer reviewprocess

Overall, safeguarding peer reviews met the global aimsand objectives of the five local authorities participatingin this study, providing the necessary external scrutinythey required. Peer reviews were conducted in a formaland professional manner as expected. The findingswere typically in line with what was anticipated bylocal authorities involved, providing staff with thenecessary validation and reassurance to support theirimprovement processes.

This section explores the nature and extent ofinterviewees’ involvement in a safeguarding childrenpeer review and their perceptions of the engagementof partners in the process. It sets out interviewees’views on the effectiveness of the review methodologyfor authorities in intervention and the key features andlimiting factors considered to be of particularimportance in shaping its success.

2.2.1 Involvement in a safeguardingpeer review

The nature and extent of interviewees’ involvement ina safeguarding children peer review differ dependingon their role. Peer review activities typically include:

• set-up activities: liaising with the LGA peer reviewprogramme manager, scoping and agreeing thereview brief, selecting the review team, organisingthe on-site visit, briefing staff, start up meetings withthe review team

• collating key documents and data including localauthority plans and strategy documents, completinga self-evaluation questionnaire and carrying out acase-file mapping exercise

• participating in face-to-face interviews and focusgroup discussions with the review team during thereview’s on-site week

• having ongoing dialogue with the review teamthroughout the review week to discuss emergingfindings and provide clarification where required

• attending feedback and action planning events

• follow-up activities: meetings with staff internally toget their feedback on the review and the findings,sharing the review report with corporate leaders,management teams and partners, refining existingplans, developing action plans and implementingchanges based on recommendations made.

2.2.2 Partnership engagement andbuy-in

It is common for partners including the police, healthand the voluntary sector to engage in some aspect ofthe safeguarding peer review process. Proposals toundertake a peer review are often shared and agreedwith key partners, through existing multi-agencygroups, such as the Local Safeguarding Children Board(LSCB) or Children’s Trust Board. Typically, partnerscontribute to the peer review by providing data for theself evaluation, carrying out case mapping,participating in interviews with the review team duringthe on-site visit and attending feedback sessions. Fromthe perspective of local authorities, partnershipinvolvement in safeguarding peer reviews is generallyconsidered to be good. The peer review process is seenas a valuable mechanism for bringing partners togetherand can facilitate future partnership working (seesection 3.2 on impacts for partnerships).

It’s valued by partners because they say it brings ustogether. It actually improves our working rela-tionships spending more time talking to each other.They felt that the exercise about auditing or looking ateach other’s case work was really useful.


Actually, the peer review feels inclusive, it’s quiteinteresting for our staff [from Health] to be involved,it actually helped them to understand the process ofchildren’s services inspections a bit more.

(Associate Director, Health)

In a few instances, the level of prioritisation given tothe review by partner agencies is of concern. Partnersare typically represented in review activities by a smallnumber of senior level staff and the involvement ofthose in operational level roles can be limited.

It might have been good to interview more of thesafeguarding staff who actually manage the healthsafeguarding. We only really had the higher level staff


involved. If there was more time it would be better tointerview more staff at an operational level to assesson the ground how they really work together withchildren’s services.


In some cases, while partners are willing to participate,their involvement is restricted by the timeframe for thepeer review. The five day on-site visit can be insufficientto allow a wide range of staff from partner agencies tofeedback to the review team. This is particularly thecase for authorities which cover a wide geographicalarea. A health representative in one authority describeshow the range of partners and the roles ofprofessionals are selected to enable meaningfulparticipation in the review. However, there may beimplications for future partnership working whereparticular groups or individuals feel they are beingexcluded from the process.

The commissioners who commission our servicesweren’t involved and they were slightly miffed.Actually, even though they are just commissioners theyput in a lot of work to improve services and to makesure they are commissioning correctly. I understandwhere they were coming from but I also know there islimited time to see everybody.


Levels of partnership involvement in safeguarding peerreviews are also determined by the very nature of whathas been identified as the main focus for investigation.Where the focus is on a specific aspect of childrenservices, for example, feedback from a wide range ofpartners may not be necessary. Engagement can alsovary by the existing level of commitment to partnershipworking in a local authority. For some authorities,Improvement Notices set out the need to developmulti-agency working. This provides a useful driver tomotivate partners to buy into the review process andencourage them to take ownership for the reviewoutcomes and recommendations. Other intervieweessuggest that the peer review methodology canpotentially impede partnership buy-in as the approachis closely aligned to the Ofsted inspection frameworkrather than that of other bodies, such as the CareQuality Commission, which are more familiar andperhaps accessible to their partners.

We are trying to increase the way we work inpartnership so it was good that we (Health) were moreinvolved and we felt like we needed to take someresponsibility for it as well. It’s not just about socialcare, which is how it was seen in the past.


It appeared to be a peer review that would assist withOfsted rather than a holistic peer review. It felt like thecounty council was being peer reviewed rather thanthe council and its partners. The judgement is madeon us as a county council but the implications andramifications for the partners are not the same, theyhaven’t got as much to lose.

(Head of HR)

Ensuring partners are made aware of the purpose andformat of the safeguarding peer review helps to securetheir involvement, but there is, however, sometimesuncertainty among some staff about whose role it is toshare information about the review to partners. Localauthorities implement various strategies to encouragethe involvement of partners including: preparingtailored notes about the process for each partneragency, providing information about the review atexisting multi-agency events, such as children’s trustand LSCB meetings, and arranging specific peer reviewbriefing meetings.

2.2.3 Effective features of asafeguarding children peerreview

On the whole, interviewees report that thesafeguarding peer review methodology works well andcan be tailored sufficiently to the needs of a localauthority in intervention. The key features considered tobe of particular importance in shaping the success ofthe reviews can be classified under three maincategories:

• the format and flexible nature of the reviewmethodology

• the experience and approach of the peer reviewteam

• organisational and contextual factors relating to thehost local authority.


2.2.4 The format and flexible nature ofthe review methodology

The overall methodology used for conducting peerreviews, including its breadth of focus and flexiblenature, is key to its success. The review frameworkbuilds upon a robust self assessment of performance; itprobes particular areas of concern identified by staffand examines weaknesses highlighted in interventionplans and inspection reports. This approach helps toensure the review is sufficiently tailored to the needs ofthe local authority. While key lines of enquiry aredetermined in advance of the review, the ability tosteer the focus of the review team to specific issues asthey arise during the on-site week is also helpful.

The amount of time spent on-site by the review team isgenerally considered to be sufficient to ensure that thefindings of peers are informative and useful for thelocal authority. The peer review does not aim toexamine safeguarding practice at a highly detailed levelin the same way that formal inspections might.However, in one authority the review process wastailored to allow for a more focused review of socialwork practice. In this LA, a self-assessment was notcompleted in advance of the on-site visit and thereview included an examination of individual cases. Theability to adapt the methodology in this way was seenas highly beneficial. This level of scrutiny is consideredto be particularly valuable for authorities in interventionwho are seeking a high level of challenge from thereview in order to support their improvement journey.

The fact that some aspects of the peer reviewmethodology are comparable in nature to those offormal inspections is of benefit to local authorities. Theformal and rigorous nature of the review helps ensureit is taken seriously by staff and helps prepare them forforthcoming visits by Ofsted.

Part of the methodology has to also help people withthe process of an Ofsted inspection. We need to havea bit of realism because actually we all want to do wellin the formal inspection. It is no good having a peerreview that is so disassociated from the things you aregoing to be measured against formally that it doesn’thelp you.

(Director)

Even though it wasn’t an inspection, what it clearlydoes is allows you to behave in a certain way. You

know you have to do a specific amount of preparationso you start to behave in a way that you know you aregoing to be under some scrutiny. You start to thinkabout having to present pieces of work andinformation.

(Head of Quality Assurance)

The format of the review, which focuses both thestrengths and weaknesses of local authorities inrelation to safeguarding children, helps foster feelingsof openness and transparency amongst staff. Similarly,the ability to examine progress made in developingpractice during the period of intervention, andproviding feedback and recommendations on how toimprove as well as what to improve provides a ‘valueadded’ dimension compared to other forms ofinspection and scrutiny. This constructive approach alsohelps to ensure the review is a positive activity for allthose involved.

It’s very, very detailed, very interrogatory, in anunthreatening way and a different feeling to aninspection which it obviously isn’t. It’s designed to behelpful rather than seeking things that they can trapyou with.

(Head of Children and Families)

Ofsted does tend to say, ‘that’s good, that’s adequateand that’s not good’, whereas in a peer review we aregetting really helpful suggestions about why thesituation is possibly like that. You’re getting thisgenuine advisor role alongside this inspectionapproach.

(Head of Children’s Social Work)

Furthermore, the stipulation that a peer reviewcaptures views from a cross- section of staff, includingpartners, and those with strategic and operational rolesis also helpful. The face-to-face interviews and focusgroup discussions, together with a multi-agencyfeedback session, create the necessary inclusiveconditions required for an effective review. Theseactivities are vital in order to bring staff together tofocus on safeguarding and gain their collectiveagreement on priorities. They are also essential inhelping to facilitate the necessary buy-in from thewider workforce required to bring about change.

For some authorities, a particularly effective feature ofthe safeguarding peer review methodology is therequirement that peers verbally present the findings


and recommendations of the review to a wide range ofstaff at a formal feedback session. The review lead, forexample, might present difficult messages that arechallenging for the local authority to voice publically.These sessions also present an opportunity for dialoguewith the review team, enabling staff to seek immediateclarification on issues identified in the review, shouldthey need to. Where the feedback sessions work well,the content and approach to delivering key messages isagreed with the director of children’s services, to avoidpotential misunderstandings among attendees.

The focused and staged approach to safeguarding peerreviews is also considered to be an effective feature.Having a predetermined end point ensures that thefeedback and findings of the review are current andappropriate. Indeed, the feedback session, whichincludes dedicated time to devise action plans aroundthe review findings, is thought to be particularlyhelpful. These plans can then be presented to corporateleaders and intervention teams, for example, ensuringthat issues and priorities are escalated in a formal andtimely way.

2.2.5 The knowledge, experience andapproach of the peer reviewteam

There are a number of factors relating to thecomposition of safeguarding peer review teams, andthe individual characteristics of peer reviewersthemselves, which are important in ensuring a reviewworks well. The gravitas of the peer review lead is key.This individual is usually a director of children’s servicesand their level of authority is helpful in conveying theimportance and credibility of the review. Both thestatus and reputation of the review lead helps toreassure staff and partners of the reliability of reviewfindings and recommendations. Equally, their ability toeffectively manage a team of peers who have notworked together previously is critical.

It is essential that review teams are appropriatelycomposed of skilled professionals with relevantknowledge and experience relating to safeguardingchildren. Providing local authorities with theopportunity to select peers for the review ensures thatthe team is well matched to their needs. The range ofperspectives offered by peers from a diverse range ofbackgrounds is perceived as a key strength of the

review process. In some cases, it is useful for thereview team to have experience of working inauthorities with similar circumstances, such ascomparable geographical settings, type of authority andintervention status. In other instances, peers fromauthorities with contrasting profiles provide a valuableand distinct level of challenge.

Having (name of authority) here meant there was acertain level of empathy in the feedback and deliverywhich was good. You wouldn’t get that if they’d notbeen in the same place once upon a time. Thebehaviour and the empathy displayed by the team wasfantastic. Had an outstanding authority come in andjudged us based on their perspective of where wewere and where we need to be, it would have feltmuch more negative.

(Head of HR)

Partner agency and voluntary sector representation onthe peer review team is considered to be particularlyimportant. Not only is it crucial to gain theirperspectives of local safeguarding performance, buttheir presence also helps to secure the buy-in of localpartners in the review process. Equally, theparticipation of lead members brings an essential‘value added’ perspective. Depending on the natureand focus of the review, review teams may also needto vary by the extent to which peers have operationalor strategic level backgrounds.

We had a really good Lead Member doing our peerreview and she was able to get alongside ourmembers and talk about scrutiny and other things theway Ofsted couldn’t have done. They observed thingsin a different way than inspectors and the dialoguewith them was very useful.

(DCS)

A further key feature of an effective safeguarding peerreview relates to the conduct of peers. Where reviewswork well, peers are committed to the core principlesand purpose of safeguarding peer reviews, they arewell trained, prepared and familiar with local authoritydata and self-assessment materials in advance, and arededicated, flexible and understanding during the on-site visit. Local authority staff are complimentary aboutthe approach in which reviews are conducted referringto the process as a ‘two-way dialogue’. Ensuring thatthe review team acts as a ‘critical friend’ to the localauthority, rather than forming or delivering a


judgement is crucial. However, for authorities inintervention, the ‘critical’ analysis element of the reviewprocess is deemed to be an essential feature insupporting their improvement journey.

The way in which they approached us and thediscussions which took place and the fact that peopleat the ground level all felt involved allowed us toexplain what we were doing as well as the reviewersgetting their information. So people felt very fired upand found it very positive.

(Head of Children and Families)

The interesting thing that came out from some of theconversations that people had had with the peerreview team is that they came out and said that wasreally quite a difficult interview, it was a reallyinteresting and professional discussion.

(Director)

2.2.6 Organisational and contextualfactors relating to the host localauthority

A local authority’s commitment to an open andtransparent safeguarding peer review is widely held tobe a critical factor in determining its success. All staffinvolved must fully understand the purpose and natureof the review so that they can give open and honestfeedback to peers without feeling there will be negativeconsequences for themselves or the local authority.

We didn’t go into it in defensive mode, we went into itwith a view that this was going to be the bestconsultancy we were going to get, and the bestopportunity to get a real assessment about whetherthe things that we were doing were going to improveoutcomes.

(Head of HR)

I wanted a warts and all review, I don’t want a nicereport. Unless we know what all the problems are wecan’t address them.

(Lead Member)

Planning and preparation for the review process is key,this includes the extent to which local authoritiesprioritise the completion of documentation such asself-assessment questionnaires, case-mapping exercisesand the collation of documentation for peers ahead of

the review. The organisation of the on-site week andlevel of publicity afforded to the review, to ensurecommitment across all local authority staff and partneragencies, is also vital.

Dedicating time to set up meetings and activities withthe LGA programme manager and lead reviewer helpsto ensure the focus of the review is appropriate andthat the process itself is manageable. A number of localauthority staff are themselves trained LGA peerreviewers and their familiarity with the review processis helpful in providing a level of understanding andawareness of how the review should be conducted.

2.2.7 Aspects of the safeguarding peerreview process that work lesswell

Overall, very few interviewees identified aspects of thesafeguarding peer review programme as challenges orlimiting factors. Features perceived to work less wellcan be classified into four main categories:

• the timeframe of safeguarding peer reviews

• the level of detail of peer reviews

• the matching of peers and review teams to localauthorities

• the feedback process.

The main concerns of local authorities relate to theextent to which safeguarding practice can bethoroughly investigated in the timeframe allowed andby the approach adopted. Some interviewees, forexample, report there is insufficient time spentinterviewing a wide enough range of staff to therequired level of detail.

Concerns also extend to the amount of time given to‘reality checking’ review findings by observing staff intheir operational settings and by gathering feedbackfrom service users. There is a view that peer reviewteams may simply be reiterating the views of staffrather than investigating in depth. Although the casefile mapping exercise is helpful in drilling down to thekey issues, in some instances there may be a need toexamine individual cases in order to provide the


necessary level of analysis that is required by localauthorities in intervention to improve.

The issue is that you could conceive a situation whereauthorities have the right policies, strategies,governance and structure and actually the cases couldstill be poor. And indeed our local authority has fallendown on that basis from time to time. To givecomplete reassurance you’ve got to cover thatground.

(DCS)

It’s hard to go into detail with a peer review. When wehad our Ofsted inspection, Ofsted picked up quite afew issues that the peer review hadn’t, because theygo straight into the detail and start looking at casefiles. There is a slight danger that they [peer reviews]can give you a false sense of security.

(Director)

A small number of interviewees commented onchallenges relating to the amount of preparationrequired for a safeguarding peer review. This includesthe collation of key documents and data in advance ofthe review and within a given timeframe, which addssignificantly to the workload of individual staff and canbe especially onerous in large authorities.

Other potentially limiting factors relate to the matchingof peers and review teams to local authorities inintervention. In some instances, there is a reciprocalarrangement with other authorities, where staffundergoing a review also act as peers for theirreviewing authority. Concerns relate to the implicationsthis may have for the objectivity of the review teamand the level of scrutiny and learning authorities inintervention can provide one another.

I think it does put a slightly different slant on it ... Ifeel, naturally, if you know someone is coming to lookat you and you’re looking at them, because of thatrelationship you could be overly optimistic.

(Director)

There are also concerns relating to unexpected and lastminute changes made to the review teams when peersare no longer able to participate in the on-site reviewweek. In some cases, peers are replaced by colleagueswith different levels of experience and expertise, whichaffects the balance of the review team and potentiallyits effectiveness.

We ended up with a lot of unitary authority, Londonborough type people who didn’t get what is was liketo work in an area like ours where things are justdifferent … which meant their usefulness wasimpaired or they weren’t seeing what the issues werefor us and therefore might have misrepresentedwhere we were at. I have no problem with the reviewhaving people from different authorities, that isentirely appropriate. We ended up with having justunitary authority people apart from the lead reviewerso it caused us a bit of an issue.

(Chief Executive)

A final limiting factor relates to peer review feedbackand action planning activities. It is intended thatfeedback is provided to a wide audience includingoperational and strategic level staff as well as partners.However, it is challenging to deliver messages thatfocus on the inadequacies of individual groups oragencies in an open setting such as this. It is alsodifficult to discuss the fundamentals of an issue in thenecessary depth in a multi-agency forum. A furtherconcern relates to the ability of participants toeffectively produce action plans immediately afterreceiving key findings of the review. The limited timefor staff to consider and reflect on the key findings canprohibit the level of two-way dialogue. The level ofcommitment to action planning can also vary by thelevel of input given to it by key players, including thereview team themselves.

2.2.8 The extent to whichsafeguarding peer reviews differbetween local authorities whoare, and who are not, inintervention

A previous NFER study, in 2011, focused on theprocess of safeguarding peer reviews and included fivelocal authority case studies. Based on their Ofstedratings, these areas were judged, at that time, to beperforming better than local authorities involved in thiscurrent research. Comparing their feedback, there werevery few differences between the two groups of localauthorities in terms of their core aims and objectivesfor a safeguarding peer review. However, theircircumstances were inevitably different and thisdistinction emerged in the extent to which authoritiesin intervention prioritised the focus of the peer review


on areas of weakness, compared to other authorities,not in intervention, who were perhaps more concernedwith validating areas of good practice and preparingfor Ofsted inspections. Despite these differences, theoverall approach to safeguarding peer reviews issufficiently flexible in its current form to allowauthorities in intervention, and those who are not, to

achieve a successful outcome. It is important, however,that peer reviewers are sufficiently aware of thecircumstances of the authority receiving the review andthey may require support to tailor their approach toensure the peer review methodology works well indifferent settings.


Based on the interviews carried out across the fivelocal authorities, this chapter discusses the impacts ofthe peer review for authorities in intervention. Itexplores the benefits of the peer review in:

• supporting corporate leaders

• promoting partnerships and collaborative working

• enhancing confidence

• helping develop frontline staff

• developing service provision for children, youngpeople and families

• communicating developments to Ofsted and theDepartment for Education.

The chapter also looks at the perceived added value ofthe peer review for authorities with a Notice toImprove and examines areas of unexpected or negativeimpact. The last section compares the findings of thisresearch with NFER’s previous evaluation of thesafeguarding children peer review programme (SeeMartin and Jeffes, 2011). It discusses differences inimpact for authorities with an Improvement Notice (thefocus of this study) and those that are performing well(who were involved in the 2011 study).

While local authorities with a Notice to Improve arevery positive about the peer review and speak widelyof its benefits, it is difficult to isolate the impact of thepeer review programme specifically. Authorities with anImprovement Notice receive multifaceted support andseveral interviewees noted the difficulty of attributingimpact to one specific intervention for LAs that have anumber of mechanisms supporting them on theirimprovement journey. These include, for example, anImprovement Board, six monthly reviews from DfE andother bespoke support packages (such as externalsector-specialist consultancy). One LSCB Chair whiledescribing the benefit of the peer review also observesthe difficulty of attributing impact to one intervention:

There is no doubt about it ... the peer review will havean impact but separating the detail of that is going tobe difficult with all the processes going. It has its placeamongst a suite of things. A peer review does bringsomething extra because it is invited in; it feels morepersonal and more constructive than kind of hit andrun Ofsted approach. It’s more owned by theauthority. You can influence things.

(LSCB Chair)

While all interviewees are positive about the impact ofthe peer review, it is within this context that thischapter should be read.

3.1 Supporting corporate leaders

The impact of the peer review to local authoritycorporate leaders can be categorised into four mainthemes. The peer review is said to have a positiveimpact on: politicians; children’s services; Health andWell-Being Boards and LSCB arrangements; and, onhoning the LA’s safeguarding priorities andimprovement planning.

3.1.1 Developing the role of localpoliticians

In all authorities, the peer review has a positive effecton the political leaders in two ways. Firstly, the reviewhelps cabinet members realise their roles andresponsibilities and any shortfalls in their knowledgeand understanding of safeguarding children. Secondly,peer reviews provide reassurance to councillors thattheir LA’s direction of travel is correct.

As a result of the peer review within one LA, forexample, members of the Overview and ScrutinyCommittee now work directly with social workers tobetter understand child protection issues. Theyundertake visits and work with social care colleaguesto better understand their practice and safeguardingchildren issues. In another LA where the peer review


3 Impact of the peer review

team gave lead members specific areas forimprovement around scrutiny and challenge, the DCSexplains the value of having external peers providingsuch feedback:

... [peer reviewers] said to the members ‘you’re notbeing focussed enough in what you’re scrutinising’and the members found that quite difficult but theytook it really seriously because another peer memberwas saying it. If I had said it they would have said‘who’s he?’ but it had more credibility.

(DCS)

Furthermore, one interviewee explains that the peerreview helps get councillors’ ‘minds in the right place’which ended up being particularly useful when theyhad an unannounced inspection shortly after the peerreview.

In addition to highlighting shortfalls in knowledge andoffering practical skill development, peer reviews giveall councillors confidence, validation and credibility tothe LA that their progress to date is on track and in theright direction. Councillors have confidence that the LAis moving forward and will continue on its progressjourney in the future. LA senior managers, many of whowere brought into the authority to help it move out ofintervention, appreciate the external validationprovided by the peer review.

3.2 Supporting partnershipworking arrangements

Across all five local authorities the peer review issupporting developments between the LA, the Healthand Well-being Board and the LSCB. While each of theLAs had been working to improve the leadership of thesafeguarding board and develop working arrangementsbetween the LA and the Health and Well-being Board,the peer review offered timely and specific feedback toenhance work in this area. As one interviewee explains:

... by the time the peer review came we were well intoour thinking about the Health and Well-being Boardand so we focused more on the relationship betweenthe Safeguarding Board and the new Health and Well-being Board rather than the old Children’s Trust ... wetalked about structure and governance arrangementsquite a lot which we were actually right in the middleof thinking about so that was helpful. We also talked

about connections across children’s and adults servicesand that’s also very valuable.

(DCS)

In another LA, the peer review is said to have made thechair of the LSCB realise their ‘inadequacies’ resultingin them trying to ‘make amends’. In a third authority,the peer review confirmed to the LSCB that it is in aposition to offer support and challenge to the authorityin the future and once the Improvement Board hasgone. These examples show the varied impacts of thepeer review on strategic improvement anddevelopment as well as person-specific areas ofenhancement for those leading the local safeguardingchildren agenda.

3.2.1 Promoting partnerships andcollaborative working

By the very nature of local authorities being on anImprovement Notice, partners are generally wellengaged on that journey. As a result, local authoritiesare positive about partner engagement in thepreparatory self-assessment work, during review datacollection exercises and in the post-review feedbackand planning sessions. Bringing agencies together forthe purpose of the review heightens the debate andpartners’ awareness around safeguarding children. Thatsaid, a very small number of interviewees’ commentsrelate to some partners (for example, health in one LAand the police in another) not viewing the peer reviewas having as much resonance or credibility as Ofsted.Within these two LAs, partner representatives involvedin the review were not senior leaders and this wasviewed as disappointing by the local authority.

Local authority interviewees feel that the peer reviewhelps promote a shared responsibility for safeguardingchildren amongst the LA and its partners. Specifically,comments around the peer review include that it helps:

• reiterate to partners that safeguarding is a sharedresponsibility

• corroborate to partners that they are on the righttrack with safeguarding

• affirms the relationships and working practicesbetween the LA and partners


• gives credibility to LA’s decision making

• highlight areas where the LA and partners need todevelop further

• encourage joint future planning.

3.2.2 Improving policy and practicebetween the LA and partners

Within three local authorities, the peer review teamhighlighted specific areas where partner engagementwithin the safeguarding children agenda needsimprovement. The peer review is said to give LA seniorleaders the evidence (and confidence) to talk topartners about specific areas for improvement. Withinone LA, for example, the peer review gave the LA theimpetus and leverage to talk to their partners in thepolice force about better information sharing. Inanother, the peer review is promoting better workingwith health and as a result of the peer review the LAhas secured additional funding for ongoing peersupport to help health colleagues better understandtheir role and responsibilities. Furthermore, the LA isworking with health colleagues to ensure namedprofessionals for safeguarding are in post too. Oneinterviewee explains the importance of the peer reviewin helping the authority engage its partners in thesafeguarding agenda:

It demonstrated a need for partners to step up. It wasanother opportunity for us to articulate to seniorleadership and partners that the directorate on its owncannot be the sole solution to some of thesesystematic problems. It is again another opportunity topublicise and give clarity that [the peer review] was apartnership resolution.

(Head of HR)

3.2.3 Local authority servicedevelopments

Further to supporting authorities’ developments aroundthe Health and Well-being Board and safeguardingboards, the peer review also helps confirm (and/orreconstruct) future service developments. Within twoauthorities the peer review team gave feedback thatdirectly informed the LA’s service provision. For one

authority, the review affirmed the LA’s proposedrestructure changes around their children in needservice. Regardless of the peer review, the LA noteschanges would have been made but the DCScomments that the added value of the peer review isthat it helped refine their thinking; it bolstered theneed for the changes and gave them confidence thatthey had identified the right areas for improvement. Inanother authority the peer review identified that the LAneeds to give greater clarity to the level of informationgiven to the Improvement Board and plans are afoot toensure this happens in the future. These exampleshighlight the importance of the timing of the peerreview on an authority’s improvement journey.

3.2.4 Honing safeguarding priorities

The benefits of the safeguarding peer review extendsto helping local authorities and its partners furtherrefine, focus and concentrate on its identified priorityareas. This is a common theme emerging across allauthorities with interviewees describing how the peerreview helped them to re-prioritise some areas forimprovement. For authorities with a notice to improvewhereby they have many areas for developmenthighlighted, the peer review reflection and challengemethodology gives authorities the opportunity to re-examine their priorities and tweak the order ofimprovement actions.

3.2.5 Fast tracking change

While authorities were progressing well with theirimprovement journey prior to the peer review, to someextent the peer review is found to fast track progress.These relate to service development, partnershiparrangements and changing the leadership structure atthe corporate level. As one DCS explains when talkingabout setting up a new service:

Things would have happened anyway but the peerreview reinforced the need to do that and we aredoing that more quickly than we probably would havedone otherwise.

(DCS)

Other interviewees’ comments echoed this view.


3.2.6 Policies and procedures

The research team asked interviewees how the peerreview impacts on policy and procedures for authoritiesin intervention. While the focus of the peer review forauthorities within a Notice to Improve is more oninforming their strategic direction within someauthorities, the peer review is said to explicitly link toinforming policy and procedures. For example, LAsensure that the peer review findings are explicitlylinked to their policy and procedural documents. Withinone authority, however, the peer review team statedthat when potentially serious cases emerge, staff needto act more quickly to protect children and notnecessarily follow protocol. Furthermore, the IT systemsin this LA will be examined in the future to bettersupport the work and responsiveness of frontline staff.

3.3 Enhancing confidence

One of the principal themes emerging from the data isthe positive impact that the peer review has on theattitudes and confidence of LA staff (from corporateleaders to frontline staff), partner organisations,Improvement Boards and local safeguarding boards.Overwhelmingly, councillors’, senior leaders’ andoperational managers agree that staffs’ and partners’confidence surrounding the LA’s safeguarding childrenagenda and improvement journey improves following apeer review. The external validation and the critical andthorough look at the authority’s progress to date,boosts the morale, motivation and confidence of manystaff. Even for those not directly involved in the peerreview, the LAs share the findings with colleagues,partners and external committees and boards withoversight for improvement. Specific examples of howthe peer review has a positive effect on attitudes andconfidence include:

• giving confidence to the Chief Executive and electedmembers that the financial investment in theimprovement agenda has been worthwhile

• ensuring senior leaders communicate their directionof travel and progress to date with their staff

• helping ‘cement thoughts’ and focus the minds ofsenior leaders and operational managers

• re-engaging staff with the improvement agendaacross the LA and in partner organisations

• providing a re-energised impetus for improvement

• boosting the morale of frontline staff who are beingworked hard and have had, as one interviewee said,‘a battering’ from Ofsted.

The DCS in one authority comments that the peerreview gives him the confidence to share his vision forthe future and to implement his desired changes.Supported by the evidence in the peer review, he hadthe necessary leverage to instigate change withpartners. In another LA, for example, the DCS said hewas able to explain to his staff that developments totheir early intervention and prevention service areessential;

[changes are] non-negotiable, this has got to happenand the peer review helped me in doing that.

(DCS)

Not only did the peer review provide validation aroundthe LA’s vision but it also provided feedback to thesenior leaders from those on the ground. Oneinterviewee said:

it actually gave confidence and evidence that the staffvalued the focus of your efforts.

(Head of HR)

For others the peer review provides validation tomanagers and staff that the areas in which they areworking hard and instigating change, often at a fastpace, is along the right lines.

3.3.1 Next steps on the improvementjourney

Furthermore, the peer review gives local authorities theconfidence to look to the future and think about thenext steps in their improvement journey. Within one LAfor example, interviewees felt that they could havemoved to the next step in their journey a few monthsearlier but wanted to validation from an external groupof experts that they were moving in the right direction.The peer review provided this validation and confirmedto that it was the right time to proceed. A head of


service explains the value of the peer review whenlooking to the next stage on their journey:

First of all it confirmed that we are ready to move tostage two, and the second thing, which is really goodfor me, was that it slightly shifted what stage two is. I had a particular view about what stage two was andthe peer review both confirmed what stage twoshould be about but also shifted it as well.

(Head of Service)

He goes on to describe how the peer review continuesto support the LA:

I use the findings remorselessly with the members[and] with partners to make sure that it is not a one-off event that dies in the grass. It [provides] ongoingreference, challenge and focus.

(Head of Service)

In another authority the review gave the SafeguardingBoard the confidence and validation it needed tocontinue to challenge and help the LA improve oncethe Improvement Board ceased. Furthermore, it helpedraise the aspirations of the LA on its improvementjourney.

Despite these positive benefits to managers’ and staff’sconfidence, some interviewees argue that the changeswould have happened without the peer review but thatthe confidence it brought helped them on their journey.

3.4 Helping develop frontlinestaff

While the explicit aim of the peer reviews was rarely tolook at frontline staff, interviewees gave examples ofhow the review had made a difference in this area.Within one authority, for example, the peer reviewhighlighted areas of underperformance with twomanagers. The peer review provided the LA and itshuman resources department with external evidence tofast-track competency procedures. The subsequentconsequences are summarised by one assistantdirector:

[Name of service] has seen managers move out,we’ve implemented a very robust developmentprogramme for staff. The peer review team describedthis service as having a ‘bunker mentality’ and it

almost seems like a flower starting to open now.We’re starting to look outwards. We’ve brought twonew senior managers in that have made a significantdifference already so quite a lot of investment in thatservice. I think it has affected frontline working andthe morale in that service has already improved.


For frontline staff in authorities with a Notice toImprove, the positive impact of the peer review onstaff’s morale is a recurring finding across allauthorities.

The format of the peer review, which focuses on askingquestions and providing challenge and reflection,results in LAs replicating these qualities. Managers andstaff have to ‘stop and think’ which promotes reflectionand outcomes focused behaviours. This starts at theoutset of the peer review during self assessment, andas one interviewee explains, this has led the LA tointroduce their own case auditing where they stateoutcomes and share the impact. One director explains:

... the fact that we had to be thinking about it meantthat people were thinking about the service in adifferent way. So it sort of forced people to stand backand reflect a little.

(Director)

3.4.1 Workforce development issues

The peer review highlights workforce developmentissues to authorities to assist them on theirimprovement journey. Across the five authoritiesinvolved in our research, all received feedback onimproving frontline practice and areas for skilldevelopment. On the whole, these relate to case filesand supervision. The review team emphasised a lack ofevidence within case files in effectively showing achild’s journey and outcome measures. For oneauthority, a clear case chronology was lacking, inothers the quality of case files often requireddevelopment. Even where practice was effective, casefiles did not sufficiently evidence a child’s journey –something that will become increasingly prevalent inOfsted inspections in the future. As a result of thisfinding, LAs introduced training to support staff’sunderstanding of chronology and in recordingoutcomes.


Peer reviews also draw LAs’ attention to the quality ofsupervision. While generally supervision washighlighted as providing good support, there was roomfor improvement in ensuring managers provide staffwith enough challenge. Within one authority they haveundertaken to involve frontline staff in case auditing.Directly involving staff in case audits makes them feelmore involved in the auditing process and it providesthe opportunity to discuss and learn from theirdecisions. Managers feel it is helping staff learnthrough the process and apply their learning to futuresituations. Within this authority, reportedly ‘Staff aresaying it really made a difference to my development.’Other authorities are overcoming skill shortfalls byinviting specialist support into their authority through‘sector-led specialists’, for example. This was a directresult of the peer review in one LA.

3.4.2 Innovative practice and learning

Interviewees were asked how, if at all, the peer reviewhas introduced innovative practice or learning.Overwhelmingly, interviewees agreed that the focus ofthe peer review was a sense check of strategic progressrather than around implementing new ways of workingper se. What the peer review does do, however, isprovide the opportunity for collaborative peer to peersupport after the review. For example in a number ofauthorities, service managers have the opportunity tovisit the reviewer’s LA to see effective work in practice.

3.5 Developing service provisionfor children, young peopleand families

The research team wanted to explore the impact of thepeer review on service users. However, in allauthorities, the peer review did not have an explicitfocus on children or families. Most interviewees,therefore, said they were unable to comment or statedthat the LA is doing lots to improve outcomes but thatthe peer review did not have a direct impactspecifically. Overall, however, interviewees argue thatthe very nature of improving corporate leadership andservice provision would ultimately have a positiveimpact on children, young people and families.

While most authorities said the peer review did nothave an explicit impact on service users, within four

LAs the peer review team highlighted that althoughthere has been progress, the LA needs to better engagewith service users. For one LA it reiterated theimportance of social workers seeing children on theirown, for example. All four local authorities had plans inplace to address the engagement of service users andthe safeguarding children peer review has helpedfurther inform their work.

In three authorities the peer review helped the LAfurther develop their early intervention and preventionservice provision. Although plans were in place in allthree authorities to review or change provision,interviewees said that the peer review helps offerinformation, advice and ideas to better meet the needsof children who did not meet the threshold for socialcare intervention. It identified the need for greaterclarity and understanding around the early interventionand prevention agenda and, in one LA, the use ofcommon assessments. One interviewee explained, ‘Thepeer review quickened the pace; it refocused [the earlyhelp and support agenda] and moved it up the prioritylist.’

Others described how getting an ‘inadequate’ ratingfor safeguarding can result in LAs focusing their effortson that provision to the detriment of others. Oneassistant director describes how the peer review helpedthe authority realise improvements were needed to itslooked after children service, for example:

... what had happened was that when the Improve-ment Notice was put in place it was following aninspection that had found safeguarding ‘inadequate’and looked after children ‘adequate’ and so all theinvestment, resources and support went into safe-guarding to the neglect of the looked after service. Itwas a very difficult message to get because it was veryfocused on this service not operating it effectively.


3.6 Communicating with Ofstedand DfE

All local authorities shared their peer review findingswith their Improvement Board, which has DfErepresentation. Furthermore, some DCSs have used thepeer review findings in reports to the Minister andothers have shared the findings with Ofsted. All LAsagree that the peer review findings have been well


received by the Improvement Board and the DfEcolleagues sitting on these boards. Within one LA, forexample, the Improvement Board had previously raisedconcerns about the fast pace of change with the LA’ssafeguarding agenda. When the peer review teamvisited, they acknowledged that change has happenedquickly and that the LA needs to ensure it issustainable longer term but gave reassurance thatefforts are focused in the right areas. They alsoconfirmed that the authority has support in place tomaintain improvement in the future through itssafeguarding board. This finding gave the ImprovementBoard reassurance and validation that the LA washeading in the right direction.

Four of the five local authorities have had an inspectionsince the peer review. In all of these LAs, Ofstedinspectors wanted to see the peer review findings butone DCS commented that the inspectors were ‘sniffy’about the peer review and did not really want to lookat the evidence. This is in contrast to the experiences ofthe other authorities where the inspectors wereinterested in the findings. LAs took confidence that theinspection found similar findings to the peer review inhighlighting areas that had improved and areas thatrequired further development. In fact, one DCScommented that the Ofsted findings were morepositive than the peer review team, but that this is nota criticism as he wanted the peer review to shine a very‘hard light’ on the LA. One DCS said of the process:

If we hadn’t had the peer review we would still havehad a positive unannounced [inspection] but havinghad the peer review we were able to give the peerreview to Ofsted which they took as evidence. It wasvery useful evidence for us because it was a verycredible piece of work.

(DCS)

Another interviewee raised the question of ownershipof the peer review findings when Ofsted want to seethe self-assessment and review output. He noted thatthe approach a LA might take to the peer review self-assessment may be different from that for aninspection. He felt that within the peer review ‘safe’environment, LAs may share more ‘dirty washing’ thanthey would usually share with Ofsted. He hoped thatinspectors’ desire to see peer review self-assessmentand reports would not affect LAs’ levels of openness orhonesty.

3.7 Longevity of the peer reviewfeedback

For authorities with a Notice to Improve, planning forthe future beyond their Improvement Board can seemlike a long way off. The safeguarding children peerreview, however, helps these authorities think aboutthe future and develop a longer term vision as oneDCS explains:

... it was also very good at getting people to thinkabout life after intervention so beginning to preparefor that landscape, which is something that wehaven’t done or given a lot of attention to because wehave been so focused about getting out rather thanonce we are out what do we need to do. What will itneed to look like ... that has been a real strength ... ithas helped us to look at the horizon rather than at ourfeet.

(DCS)

A chief executive also explains the importance of thepeer review longer term:

You have to plan for the future to keep themomentum going otherwise you will go into a dip theother side of intervention and there is a risk that youslip back if you do that.

(Chief Executive)

For all authorities, the peer review has the added impactof enabling senior leaders to use the findings long afterthe five day process. The review has longevity in thatauthorities use the feedback letters and PowerPointreports to develop future plans. The reports are used as areference and/or working documents within theauthorities during away days, business planning andservice development meetings. The peer review findingsare also cross-referenced to priorities and used alongsideOfsted reports to triangulate areas for development. Onechief executive explains:

We have come out with a clearer view of how to makeour existing plan work better. So we have been able tobuild the response into our existing plan and startother pieces of work that are less about ourimmediate improvement and more about our longterm development as a Children’s Services authority. ...The review has helped us to know what improvementlooks like and to begin to build it.

(Chief Executive)


Not only do the findings have permanence within theLAs, but so do the relationships between the reviewteam authorities and the authority with the Notice toImprove. Interviewees cite examples of lead membersoffering mentoring support to each other, servicemanagers visiting the lead reviewer’s authority to seetheir frontline practice or performance managementprocesses in place. The pairing of authorities isparticularly important in these situations as seniorleaders want to visit an authority with similar structuresand that is of comparable size. As one head of servicestates:

I continued dialogue with one of the peers thereafterabout our workforce development tools we shared,and as a result of that, we’ve probably both come upwith something that’s hybrid that’s better than theindividual elements. It didn’t stop at the peer review –I personally established a network to discussworkforce planning.

(Head of Service)

This shows the extended benefits of the peer review inthat, even for authorities with a Notice to Improve,reciprocal learning still takes place. One lead membernotes, ‘I think that they took away as much as theybrought.’

3.8 Unexpected or negativeimpacts of the peer review

The peer review did not highlight any significantunexpected or negative findings to the localauthorities. Indeed, a number of intervieweescommented that they would have been very concernedif the review had highlighted areas of significantconcern given where they were on their improvementjourney. By contrast, two DCSs noted that the peerreview team was more positive in its outcomes thanthey had anticipated.

Two LAs explain there were small unexpectedoutcomes associated with the peer review. For oneauthority, although they were aware of the issues, thisrelated to the work with one key partner. The peerreview highlighted the ‘starkness’ of the issues and reawakened the collective responsibility of the LA inoffering internal challenge and support to thisparticular partner around children’s safeguarding. Inanother authority where the members were told they

needed to better understand and engage with childprotection practice, the peer review messages ‘sentmembers into a bit of a spin because they didn’t hearthe positives. And as often happens, they went straightto the negatives. We spent quite a lot of timemanaging our own members following the peer reviewand managing that message’.

3.9 Overview of peer reviewimpacts for authorities withan Improvement Notice

In summary, while it can be difficult to attribute changedirectly to one intervention, the perceived impacts ofthe peer review can be categorised into three broadheadings:

• leadership and vision

• attitudes, experiences and confidence

• changes to practice and procedure.

Areas of impact can be attributed to three stakeholdergroups:

• LA senior leaders

• operational managers

• partners and external bodies.

Examples of the different areas of impact following apeer review are displayed overleaf in Figure 3.1: ‘Areasof impact’.

Moreover, the findings from this research corroboratethose from the previous safeguarding peer review study(Martin and Jeffes, 2011). The peer review programmeis shown to have several areas of impacts forauthorities with a Notice to Improve; similar impactsare also evident for authorities doing well with thesafeguarding agenda. For both types of authorities, thepeer review is shown to:

• increase commitment and drive to improve

• inform, support and legitimise the development ofplans, actions, policies and systems


• promote learning and reflective practice

• improve staff morale and relations

• affirm and enhance the quality of partnershipworking

• help LA, council and partner senior leadersunderstand safeguarding children issues and how toovercome areas of weakness

• provide the opportunity to develop longer termrelationships between the peer review team and theLA receiving the review.

Overall, the peer review has a positive impact onauthorities, councils and partners. Suggestions forfurther development to the programme are discussed inthe next chapter.

This chapter summarises the key areas of considerationfor authorities in intervention thinking aboutembarking on a safeguarding peer review and for theLGA in further developing the programme.

The findings of this study complement and reinforcethose of previous studies (Pettigrew and Schroeder,2010 and Martin and Jeffes, 2011) looking at thesafeguarding peer review programme. These findingswill be valuable to the LGA in supporting theprogramme’s future development. Overall, the findingsof the study suggest that the peer review can beextremely helpful to authorities with a Notice toImprove in supporting them on their journey to bettersafeguarding children. While the findings are typicallypositive, there are areas for further improvement andfuture development to ensure the programme can bestmeet the needs of authorities on a journey out ofintervention.


Areas of impact

Stakeholders

Senior leaders

Operationalmanagers

Partners andexternal bodies

Senior leaders canlook forward and

plan for sustainingimprovements in

the future

Better understandingand confidence inthe LA’s vision anddirection of travel

LA is confident totalk to partners

about areas needingimprovement

External validationshows that

investment inimprovement hasbeen worthwhile

Enhanced morale,motivation, re-energised and

renewed impetus for change

Partners betterunderstand theirresponsibilities

around safeguarding

Peer reviews helpinform governancearrangements ofHWB Boards and

LSCB

Quality ofsupervision and

case audits improve

LA and partnerswork together toimprove provision

Leadership andvision

Attitudes,experiences and

confidence

Changes to practice andprocedures

Figure 3.1 Areas of impact

4.1 Advice to local authoritiescontemplating involvementin a peer review

The children’s services sector view a safeguarding peerreview as a positive experience and local authoritypersonnel who have participated in the peer reviewprogramme highly recommend it to others. Whencontemplating involvement in a peer review, thefollowing areas are identified for consideration:

• Embrace the peer review process: understand the keyaims and principles of a safeguarding peer reviewand accept that its aims and purpose are differentfrom an inspection, such as Ofsted.

• Ensure buy-in from corporate leaders, partners, seniorleaders and independent boards: senior leaderswithin the LA and across partner agencies alongsidethe Improvement Board, LSCB, Health and Well-beingBoards and others must champion the LA’sinvolvement in a safeguarding peer review.Colleagues in senior positions should be activelyinvolved in preparing for and being part of thereview. Furthermore, the LA, leaders and partnersshould collectively develop a plan for taking onboard the review team’s recommendations.

• Establish a key focus: be specific about the aims andpurpose of the peer review and ensure its focus isnot too broad. Seek an appropriate balance betweena critical appraisal of aspects of safeguarding whichare viewed to be working well, and those areas thatrequire improvement.

• Consider the timing: ensure the peer review takesplace at an appropriate point in time andcomplements the timeframes of formal inspectionprocesses. Ensure the timeframe fits for all partnersand not just at the LA level to maximiseengagement.

• Ensure an appropriate peer review team: developtransparent selection criteria for the peer reviewteam in terms of their professional status, relatedexperience and the type of LA in which they are usedto working. In making your selections, considerselecting a back-up lead reviewer, in case individualsare unavailable or have to pull out at short notice.

• Allow for sufficient preparation: support staff inmaking time available to collect the requiredinformation in advance of the review.

• Communicate clearly to all involved: be clear to staffat all levels, including those in partner agencies,about the purpose of the review, its importance andthe potential implications of its outcomes for the LAand partners in ensuring children are safeguarded.

• Adopt an open approach: be receptive to the scrutinyof peers and encourage staff not to conceal areas ofweakness.

• Manage the message: envisage how the feedbackmight be used and potentially misapplied. Beproactive in preparing local authority staff andpartner agencies to receive and respond to thereview findings with a can-do approach.

• Action the findings: secure ongoing commitment to,and prioritisation of, the implementation of the peerreview’s recommendations.

4.2 Areas for consideration

While overall the programme meets the needs ofauthorities on an improvement journey, the LGA couldconsider the following areas when thinking about thefuture development of the programme:


4 Future developments and recommendations

• Work with the DfE to clarify their expectations forauthorities with a notice to improve, to have a peerreview: DfE’s expectation around the use of the peerreview for authorities in intervention needs to beclarified and its implications carefully considered.Authorities that want an honest and openexploration of their safeguarding issues by peers in a‘safe environment’ may not be as transparent if thepeer review is imposed on them.

• Explain the ownership arrangements of the peerreview findings between the LA, its partners andinspectorial bodies: Further to clarifying theexpectations of DfE, the LGA should also clarify theFreedom of Information Act status and ownership ofthe peer review reports for authorities inintervention, as some interviewees expressedconfusion around this issue.

• Clarify the appropriateness of a ‘one size fits all’ peerreview programme methodology: In revising thecurrent methodology, the LGA should ensure that thepeer review for authorities with a Notice to Improvehas enough flexibility to meet their desire for astrategic sense check of progress. For theseauthorities, the LGA may also like to consider revisingits policy and asking review teams to look at a smallnumber of live case files. Furthermore, the reviewteam needs to be fit for purpose in relation to theirsafeguarding experience, authority and credibility.

• Support senior leaders’ engagement in the peerreview: LGA has a role in promoting the importanceand benefits of the peer review programme to LAcorporate leaders, councillors and senior executivesin partner agencies. The peer review for authorities

with a Notice to Improve requires senior buy-in andcommitment across the LA, council and partnerorganisations for improvements in safeguarding tobe driven forward and embedded in the future.

• Support the lead reviewer and LA to plan follow-upactivity: LGA might want to consider introducing theopportunity for authorities to have a further day offollow-up support (in addition to the one day follow-up visit offered within 12 months). This mightcomprise an on-site action-planning day where theLead Reviewer runs a session with the key officersand partners, as an example.

• Promoting the benefit of the peer reviews to otherauthorities, partners and independent boards: LGAshould consider working with peer review teams andLAs receiving a review to develop a small number ofcase study pieces. These would support the LGA andauthorities considering a peer review to see where ithas worked well and find out about what LAs haveput in place to better safeguard children.

• Establish a formal evaluation and quality assuranceframework: QA and evaluation proceduressurrounding the safeguarding children peer reviewprogramme are currently unclear (to the LAsparticipating in this study). LGA should clarify to LAsthat the peer review training is evaluated and formalfeedback on review team members is sought fromDCSs that received a peer review. Furthermore, theLGA might want to consider streamlining itsevaluation processes to ensure LAs are not asked toprovide feedback on similar issues to the LGA and toindependent evaluators.


References

Martin, K. and Jeffes, J. (2011). Safeguarding Children Peer Review Programme: Learning and Recommendations (LGAResearch Report). Slough: NFER. [Available online] http://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/LSGP01 [21 Feb. 12, 2012].

Pettigrew, A. and Schroeder, H. (2010) Peer Safeguarding Reviews: Early Lessons for the Lead Reviewers and Reviewees.London: London Government Improvement and Development.


Recently published reports

The Local Government Education and Children's Services Research Programme is carried out by NFER. The research projects cover topics and perspectives that are of special interest to localauthorities. All the reports are published and disseminated by the NFER, with separate executivesummaries. The summaries, and more information about this series, are available free of charge at: www.nfer.ac.uk/research/local-government-association/

For more information, or to buy any of these publications, please contact: The PublicationsUnit, National Foundation for Educational Research, The Mere, Upton Park, Slough, BerkshireSL1 2DQ, tel: +44 (0)1753 637002, fax: +44 (0)1753 637280, email: [email protected],web: www.nfer.ac.uk/publications.

A best practice review of the role of schools forums

The findings from this review indicate that schools forums weregenerally perceived to have a strong influence on funding decisions byproviding a platform for discussion at the strategic level aboutfunding decisions at the local level. Their effectiveness wascharacterised by connected, proactive and child-centered behaviour.

www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/LGSF01

Early intervention: informing local practice

The findings from this review of literature shows that the case forinvesting in early intervention approaches to improve outcomes forchildren and families and in bringing about cost savings in the longerterm is widely accepted and supported. More needs to be donewithin the UK to identify and evidence the extent of potential costsavings, this will help enable policy makers and local commissioners to make informed commissioning decisions.

www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/LGLC02

Hidden talents: a statistical overview of theparticipation patterns of young people aged 16–24

This report offers a start point for the Local Government Association(LGA) commissioned research to inform the Hidden Talents programme.It reviews available statistics, data and commentary to establish what can be reasonably deduced to inform policy in response to young people aged 16–24 years who are not in employment, education or training (NEET).

www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/LGHT01

ISBN 978 1 908666 25 3 NFER Ref. LGIS

Available online only

LGA

res

earc

h r

epor

t

The Local Government Association (LGA) and Children’s Improvement Board (CIB) commissioned the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) to carry out an evaluation of theSafeguarding Children Peer Reviews.

This report explores the impact of the peer review process onauthorities with a Notice to Improve, including:

• supporting corporate leaders and partnership working arrangements

• enhancing confidence and developing frontline staff

• developing provision for children, young people and families.

In addition, the report includes advice to local authoritiescontemplating involvement in a peer review and areas for furtherconsideration.

Documents

The impact of safeguarding children peer reviews · ISBN 978 1 908666 06 2, free download Targeting children’s centre ... the impact of safeguarding children peer reviews v