check of the inspection report/letter. One respondent commented that making additional expectations on the LSCB Chair would have significant impact on the funding for this role. Respondents supported the proposal for the inspections to be announced. However, there was concern that the length of the notice period and having only one week of inspection fieldwork would make it more challenging for inspectors to engage with children and young people in the local area. In our consultation, we asked what sources of information may indicate where local areas are demonstrating good or outstanding practice so that we could inspect in these areas and highlight good practice from which others can learn. Respondents’ suggestions are set out in Annex 2. The Who Trust invited us to meet with a group of young people to discuss our proposals. Young people had mixed views about how well inspectors can really get to the heart of their experiences and some were sceptical about the accuracy of judgements. They provided us with a ‘good’ report that set out some extremely useful suggestions for future dive’ ‘deep topics and how inspectors might find good practice (see Annex 2). Young people identified some advantages to giving the local area a notice period, but also expressed concerns, for example: [local agencies] will know “They inspectors are coming and this will give them a chance to change things and make things look better”. Testing the methodology In addition to the consultation, we undertook live testing of some of the agency aspects of the methodology in one local area, and a full pilot inspection in another area. We learnt some valuable lessons from these activities and have refined the framework and methodology in response. The pilot inspection in particular has shown that this type of inspection can and does work and the full pilot inspection was well-received by local senior leaders. Changes to the inspection As a result of consultation feedback and lessons learnt from the we made the following changes to the framework and methodology: We have made clear in the framework that leadership, management and the LSCB are only considered in relation to their impact on the door’ of ‘front services and the deep dive theme (this is not a wider assessment of leadership in the local area). We have increased the notice period from eight to nine working days. This is the most time we could add without extending the inspection across a greater number of weeks.
check of the inspection report/letter. One respondent commented that making additional expectations on the LSCB Chair would have significant impact on the funding for this role. Respondents supported the proposal for the inspections to be announced. However, there was concern that the length of the notice period and having only one week of inspection fieldwork would make it more challenging for inspectors to engage with children and young people in the local area. In our consultation, we asked what sources of information may indicate where local areas are demonstrating good or outstanding practice so that we could inspect in these areas and highlight good practice from which others can learn. Respondents’ suggestions are set out in Annex 2. The Who Trust invited us to meet with a group of young people to discuss our proposals. Young people had mixed views about how well inspectors can really get to the heart of their experiences and some were sceptical about the accuracy of ‘good’ judgements. They provided us with a report that set out some extremely useful suggestions for future ‘deep dive’ topics and how inspectors might find good practice (see Annex 2). Young people identified some advantages to giving the local area a notice period, but also expressed concerns, for example: “They [local agencies] will know inspectors are coming and this will give them a chance to change things and make things look better”. Testing the methodology In addition to the consultation, we undertook live testing of some of the aspects of the methodology in one local area, and a full pilot inspection in another area. We learnt some valuable lessons from these activities and have refined the framework and methodology in response. The pilot inspection in particular has shown that this type of inspection can and does work and the full pilot inspection was well-received by local senior leaders. Changes to the inspection As a result of consultation feedback and lessons learnt from the we made the following changes to the framework and methodology: We have made clear in the framework that leadership, management and the LSCB are only considered in relation to their impact on the ‘front door’ of services and the deep dive theme (this is not a wider assessment of leadership in the local area). We have increased the notice period from eight to nine working days. This is the most time we could add without extending the inspection across a greater number of weeks. agency