Page 10 – Focus visits by year and by grade at time of visit
ILACS Framework and Focus Visits
Focus of focus visits
The arrangements for focus visits are set out in paragraphs 106-117 of the ILACS framework
The first focus visit was in January 2018.
Authorities with an inadequate grade do not usually receive focus visits, as they already receive regular monitoring visits.
In 2020-2021, 42 (virtual) visits were made to check on covid responses; of these half, 21, were to authorities graded inadequate.
The framework sets out 7 possible areas of focus for focus visits. They are
- Front Door (FD)
- Children in need or subject to a protection plan (CIN/CPP)
- Vulnerable Children at Extra Familial Risk (VCEFR)
- Children in Care (CIC)
- Planning and Achieving Permanence (PAP)
- Care Leavers (CL)
- Placement decision making for older children (PDMOC)
- And, no longer used, Covid arrangements (C-19)
Table 10.1: Focus visits by type and grade at time of visit as at 21/11/2024
| Main grade at time of focus visit | FD | CIN/ CPP | VC EFR | CIC | PAP | CL | PD MOC | C-19 | Total |
| Outstanding | 10 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 24 |
| Good | 24 | 31 | 7 | 12 | 8 | 22 | 0 | 8 | 112 |
| Requires improvement | 51 | 52 | 3 | 15 | 12 | 18 | 2 | 12 | 165 |
| Inadequate | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 21 | 21 |
| Not inspected (new authorities) | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| Total | 85 | 89 | 12 | 29 | 22 | 44 | 2 | 42 | 325 |
| Outstanding | 42% | 21% | 8% | 8% | 4% | 17% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Good | 22% | 28% | 6% | 11% | 7% | 20% | 0% | 7% | 100% |
| Requires improvement | 31% | 32% | 2% | 9% | 7% | 11% | 1% | 7% | 100% |
| Inadequate | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% | 100% |
| Not inspected (new authorities) | 0% | 33% | 0% | 0% | 33% | 0% | 0% | 33% | 100% |
| Total | 26% | 27% | 4% | 9% | 7% | 14% | 1% | 13% | 100% |
Notes
The only two published reports under topic 7, placement decision making for older children: Dudley in February 2024; Stockton-on-Tees September 2024
Most visits result in a narrative, ungraded report. Occasionally, when serious weaknesses are discovered one or more priority actions may be identified in the report. This has happened 23 times (7.1% of all focus visit reports)
Table 10.2: Last 5 reports for each type of focus visit
Table 10.3: Focus visits by year and type
| Year | FD | CIN/ CPP | VC EFR | CIC | PAP | CL | PD MOC | C-19 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | 30 | 18 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 68 |
| 2019 | 18 | 16 | 2 | 4 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 50 |
| 2020 | 2 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 29 |
| 2021 | 11 | 17 | 4 | 9 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 24 | 72 |
| 2022 | 14 | 12 | 2 | 6 | 5 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 47 |
| 2023 | 9 | 10 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 32 |
| 2024 | 1 | 10 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 11 | 2 | 0 | 27 |
| Total | 85 | 89 | 12 | 29 | 22 | 44 | 2 | 42 | 325 |
Table 10.4: Focus visits – more analysis as at 21/11/2024
| Number of authorities | |
| No focus visits yet | 5, including 2 new authorities* |
| One focus visit | 150 |
| Two focus visits | 113 |
| Three focus visits | 50 |
| Four focus visits | 11 |
| Five focus visits | 1 |
*No visit yet: Bexley; Cumberland; East Sussex; Portsmouth; Westmoreland and Furness
| Grade at time of visit | % of authority-days at this grade since 1/1/2018 | % of focus visits since 1/1/2018 |
| Outstanding | 14% | 8% |
| Good | 45% | 37% |
| Requires Improvement | 38% | 54% |
| Not inspected (new authorities) | 2% | 1% |
All the data on these pages have been produced by SESLIP analysis of information published at Ofsted’s report pages, which involves manual data transfer and is therefore subject errors and omissions. If you spot anything that looks wrong, please contact Richard Tyndall 07880-787007