We were preparing for a JAR under the original framework, involving a self-assessment and neighbourhood study, when the goalposts shifted and a new framework was introduced.
The Kirklees Joint Area Review (JAR) was in Wave 13 – the first batch under the new arrangements. So, how was it for us? Does the new framework work? Is it all worth it? And why did the Women's Institute make jam to celebrate the efforts of all concerned?
We appointed a full-time team many months ahead of the JAR to manage the preparation and process itself, as has become usual practice for local authorities.
The approach to preparation has to balance the imperative to succeed with the cost to the organisation.
It is a big job to keep people calm, and there is a tremendously complex technical job to be done, but we tried to do this with minimum diversion from mainstream business.
Although self-assessment is no longer required, we linked our children and young people's plan review with producing a position statement. This proved extremely valuable, bringing partners together to form a collective view of where we stand, and bringing lasting benefits to our partnership arrangements. Which is where, later, the jam came in. The process of the inspection itself is potentially overwhelming for any organisation. Twenty-three inspectors carried out four parallel inspections – the JAR, enhanced youth inspection, the youth offending team inspection, and linking to the CPA.
For the JAR alone, there were at least 130 meetings, visits and interviews involving more than 300 staff. Eighty taxis were used, and around 1,300 e-mails sent.
The information demands are massive before and during the inspections, exacerbated by multiple requests for the same information. It is hugely complicated and time consuming, with so many fingers in the pie. And in the midst of this, a new and potentially-confusing Annual Performance Assessment (APA) process still ran alongside.
During the course of our inspections, we built good relationships with the inspectors and made it work. But the framework doesn't quite fit together. Managing four inspections – and the APA – at once is a burden and I am not convinced that the inspections integrate with each other in a way which adds value to the overall process. Significantly, the new JAR framework has clearly shifted the focus towards vulnerable children, raising the question, would a thematic inspection be more appropriate? It certainly wouldn't take 23 inspectors.
We did well in the inspections, with ratings of ‘good' across the board. This, I know, reflects our current stage of development and a valuable benefit for us was the coming together of different parts of the organisation, which made an important contribution to building a new service.
But is it all worth it? The short answer is no. This is a hugely expensive exercise. The learning gained is simply not worth that much effort.
The original intention of JAR has been lost. It was always challenging to try and judge the whole partnership's ability to meet the needs of all children in an area. Maybe the neighbourhood study was not the best way. But we have thrown out the baby with the bath water.
Merging several inspections does not work. There would need to be significant redesign of the regimes and culture changes between the inspectorates to break down apparent professional barriers between some inspectors. There is a commitment to review the process and a very encouraging beginning to the dialogue between new Ofsted chief executive, Christine Gilbert, and directors of children's services at this year's Association of Directors of Children's Services conference.
The commitment is there to learn from experience. We have an opportunity with the revised Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA) to get it better. We can follow through on the commitment to ‘lessen the burden' and achieve a proportional approach. But we need to work together to make these promises real.
Directors and councils want to be held to account for their role in leading local partnerships to fulfil their ambitions to improve outcomes for children and young people. We need to hold on to that and, I suggest, the original ambitions of the JAR process – to know whether partners are together making a difference to people's lives.
Which brings me to the jam. We wanted to find a way to thank those involved with supporting the JAR process. What better way than with special batch of JAR jam commissioned from the Women's Institute in Kirklees?
Alison O'Sullivan is director for children and young people in Kirklees
