Data quality and uses: SFR41/2015
Source: data.gov.uk (2017-07-05)

Characteristics of children in need: 2014 to 2015. Characteristics of children in need: 2014 to 2015 Children referred to and assessed by children's social services for the financial year ending March 2015. The ‘main text’ document includes information on: children in need of social services children referred to social services assessments of children in need and their primary need at first assessment section 47 enquiries (a local authority carries out one of these if they suspect a child is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm) and initial child protection conferences children who were the subject of a child protection plan The ‘main tables’ and first ‘methodology’ document relate to this publication. We subsequently published the ‘outcomes tables’, showing figures that result from matching the children in need census to the national pupil database (NPD). These tables show children in need by: prevalence of free school meals (FSM) special educational needs (SEN) attainment absence and exclusions The ‘outcomes methodology’ document explains the matching process and calculations we used in these tables.

Characteristics of
children in need in
England: 2014 to
2015
Data quality and uses

October 2015

2

Contents
Purpose
3
1.
Key users and uses of the data
4
1.1 Key users
4
1.2 User consultation
4
1.3 Current and planned further uses of children in need data
4
2.
Children in need 2014 to 2015 census data quality
6
2.1 General comments on the quality of the returns
6
2.2 Data flows
6
2.3 Referrals within 12 months of a previous referral (table C1)
7
2.4 Referrals resulting in no further action and children assessed not to be in need
(table C1)
7
2.5 Local authorities piloting new arrangements for assessments and timescales
7
2.6 Assessments data
8
2.7 Factors identified at assessment
8
2.8 Children who were the subject of a child protection plan who were seen by a lead
social worker
9
3.
Comparability between CPR3 and the children in need census
10
3.1 Referrals
10
3.2 Initial and Core Assessments
10
3.3 Child protection plans
10
3.4 Numbers of children in need
11
3.5 Other general comments
11
4.
Data quality and the data confidence indicator
12
4.1 Data quality
12
4.2 Data confidence
12
4.3 Year-on-year comparability
12
Annex A: List of checks carried out on data to inform the data confidence indicator
14

3

Purpose
The purpose of this publication is to provide the latest information on children referred to
local authority social care services, children assessed to be in need of social services,
and children who were the subject of a child protection plan. This document details the
key users and uses of the publication statistics, and highlights any known data quality
issues and concerns.

4

1. Key users and uses of the data
1.1 Key users
The main users of the children in need data are:
 the Department for Education who use the data to provide advice to Ministers on
policy monitoring and setting future policies;
 the local authorities who use the information to benchmark themselves against
other authorities as well as regional and national averages;
 Ofsted who use the information as part of their inspection activities.
Other known users of the data are:
 the Ministry of Justice who use the data, particularly on the number of children on
child protection plans, to forecast the number of public law cases likely to enter the
courts;
 the NSPCC Consultancy Service to understand numbers of children who are the
subject of a child protection plan;
 the NSPCC Information Service analyse the statistics with a particular interest in
breakdowns by age, gender, category of abuse, ethnicity and disability;
 the Metropolitan Police Service (Child Abuse Investigation Command) for research
into child abuse;
 Action for Children group looking into the number of children who were the subject
of a child protection plan, by local authority and by category of abuse;
 other UK government departments for comparison purposes;
 The Home Office;
 Office of the Children's Commissioner's.
1.2 User consultation
In previous years we have consulted with users of the data on the format and contents of
this publication. We hold a regular local authority focus group, which meets up to three
times a year, and regularly receive feedback on the publication.
1.3 Current and planned further uses of children in need data
The children in need data is linked to the children looked after data collection and the
national pupil database (NPD). The linked data provides the outcomes statistics in the
additional tables published later in February.

5

Further analysis could include tracking and analysing the journeys of individual children
and explore how these vary according to their characteristics and needs, for example:
 linking to the children looked after data will allow the analysis of the proportion of
looked after children who are disabled and analysis of the original reasons for the
child being identified as being in need.
 linking to the NPD will allow the analysis of pupil outcomes for children in need, for
example, identifying the attainment of children in need and the progression
between key stages following the receipt of services. It will also let us explore other
relationships with absence, exclusions and characteristics (such as free school
meal eligibility (FSM), looked after and special educational need (SEN) status) and
build a more complete local and national picture of the children in need population.

6

2. Children in need 2014 to 2015 census data quality
2.1 General comments on the quality of the returns
All 152 local authorities provided a children in need census return in summer 2015. In
earlier years of the census we allowed local authorities with missing or incorrect children
in need data to provide supplementary aggregate figures to supplement their return.
However, since 2012 to 2013, given the data quality as a whole is improving we did not
allow any local authority to supplement their children in need data with aggregate figures.
However, estimates have been used on some occasions where specific quality issues
were raised by the local authority. Estimates are highlighted in the tables using footnotes
and the method for estimating is outlined in the methodology document accompanying
this release.
Figures in this statistical first release represent the final position of the 2014 to 2015
children in need census. In order to provide maximum use to users of the statistics we
have published local authority level data wherever possible. To supplement this, a data
confidence indicator (see section 4) has been included in all tables to highlight to users of
the statistics if any issues have been identified in the data quality or completeness.
2.2 Data flows
The number of children who were the subject of a child protection plan at 31 March 2015
does not equate to:
 the number at 31 March in the previous year, plus
 the number started in the year, minus
 those ceased in the year.
The same applies for the numbers of children in need.
Possible reasons are:
 local authorities cleaning their data
 where estimates were used for local authorities who could not return their data
 the census being a snapshot each year. For example, a case which is recorded
late in the year may not be included in the 2013 to 2014 census but would be
included in 2014 to 2015 data as an ongoing case (and may subsequently be
closed)

7

Evidence to support this theory has been provided by local authorities at our focus
groups and a longer time series of data from the children in need census is required to
fully identify these issues.
2.3 Referrals within 12 months of a previous referral (table C1)
Figures for the number and percentage of referrals in 2014 to 2015 which occurred within
12 months of a previous referral are presented in the publication again this year. They
are based on data returned by the local authority in both their 2013 to 2014 and 2014 to
2015 children in need census returns. Each referral in 2014 to 2015 is counted in the re-
referral figure if there has been another referral for the child within the previous 12
months. A data confidence indicator sits alongside these figures. Further detail of the
checks made to inform this indicator can be found in the annex.
2.4 Referrals resulting in no further action and children
assessed not to be in need (table C1)
Figures for children referred and no further action are referrals where, after initial
consideration, no further action is required and therefore the case is not formally
assessed.
Figures for children assessed not to be in need are identified as referrals which only
resulted in an assessment, and which end with a case closure reason of ‘RC8 – Case
closed after assessment – no further action’. Supporting guidance for the collection
explains that this closure code should only be used for cases where the child has been
assessed not to be in need.
There appears to be a significant variation between local authorities in the number of
referrals resulting in no further action and the numbers of children assessed not to be in
need. This could be down to differing local practices on the thresholds of when certain
assessments are carried out, or it could be a data issue. As such, users should be
cautious in using these figures.
2.5 Local authorities piloting new arrangements for
assessments and timescales
During the 2014 to 2015 collection year, 6 local authorities were given dispensation by
the Secretary of State to trial new approaches to assessing children in need. The 6 local
authorities involved in the trials were Hackney, Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington
and Chelsea, Wandsworth, Westminster and Hartlepool. The following table details the
approaches trialled:

8

Local authority
Removed distinction
between initial and core
assessment and
associated timescales
Removed 15 working day
timescale from section 47
to initial child protection
conference
Hackney


Hammersmith and Fulham


Kensington and Chelsea


Wandsworth


Westminster


Hartlepool


2.6 Assessments data
Revised statutory guidance ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children 2013’ was released
in early 2013. This revised guidance allowed local authorities more flexibility in carrying
out assessments. This resulted in a mixed approach reported by many local authorities
last year which has continued in the 2014 to 2015 collection. By the end of March 2015,
139 local authorities had begun to implement continuous assessments (which should be
completed within 45 working days) rather than initial and core assessments (which
should be completed within 10 and 35 working days). No distinction between the types of
assessment carried out was recorded in the data collected this year. For example, a local
authority still operating initial and core assessments may have recorded two separate
assessments where as a local authority operating the single continuous assessment may
only record one assessment. Therefore, it is hard to draw robust conclusions when
analysing year on year comparisons of the number of assessments.
2.7 Factors identified at assessment
Recording of all factors as understood at the end of assessment relevant to:
 the impairment of the child’s health and development,
 the parent/carer’s capacity to respond to the child’s needs, and
 other people in the family/household e.g. a sibling or lodger.

Where more than one factor was relevant, then all were reported.
Factors identified at the end of assessment were collected and reported for the first time
last year; however data was only published at a national level due to some concerns
about its quality. The quality has improved this year so we have published information at
local authority level. Experience tells us that it can take a year or two for new data items
to ‘bed in’ so users should use the data with some caution. If more than one factor has
been identified at assessment, each can be reported within the census. Most children will
have more than one factor identified and reported.

9

2.8 Children who were the subject of a child protection plan
who were seen by a lead social worker
This data item was collected for the first time last year and is a flag for all children who
were the subject of a child protection plan at some point in the year, showing whether the
child was seen by the lead social worker in accordance with the timescales specified in
their plan. The flag was reported ‘true’ if all visits had been met or ‘false’ if some or all
visits had not been met.

Local authorities have raised a number of concerns with this indicator since it was
introduced last year and it has been discussed at local authority focus groups during the
year. The main concern is around the differing timescales local authorities apply and
drawing unfair comparisons. Broadly, the timescales for visits varied between two weeks
and six weeks. Therefore where a local authority measures to a shorter timescale, it is
more likely they will see fewer cases within their timescales. If only one visit was missed,
maybe due to the child not being at home when the social worker visited, then this would
count as visits not being made within timescales even if all other visits within the year
were on time for the child. This data item is currently being reviewed and users of the
data are advised to use this data with caution.

10

3. Comparability between CPR3 and the children in
need census
There are a number of issues to consider when comparing figures reported through the
aggregate CPR3 return (data up to 2008 to 2009) and the children in need census (2009
to 2010 onwards). Whilst broad comparisons can be made between the two collections,
users of the statistics should be cautious in doing so.
3.1 Referrals
Whilst the number of referrals often fluctuate year on year, there was a large increase
when the reporting moved from the CPR3 return to the children in need census. In some
cases this was due to multiple referrals being reported by the local authority (for example,
reporting new information on an already open case as a referral); this issue has now
been resolved in most local authorities. At the same time as the change in data sources,
there was a lot of media interest in the ‘Baby P’ case which is likely to have had an
impact on the numbers of referrals received by local authorities. However, it is not
possible to determine for certain if the scale of the increase in referrals was solely down
to this, or if it was down to the change in data collection method.
3.2 Initial and Core Assessments
The number of both of these assessments completed in the year increased when they
were reported through the children in need census which seems to confirm that the
increase in referrals was a real one (as the increase in referrals has led to an increase in
the number of assessments carried out). However we do know that the number of core
assessments has historically been undercounted as not all section 47 enquiries had a
corresponding core assessment recorded (statutory guidance states that a section 47
enquiry is carried out through a core assessment or through a continuous assessment
from 2013). Child level validation on the CIN return is helping to ensure that these core
assessments are consistently recorded.
3.3 Child protection plans
The number of children who were the subject of child protection plans has been rising
over the recent years, a pattern that has continued through the collection of data from
both sources. However, whilst it is likely there was an increase between 2008-09 and
2009-10, due to the differences in the data sources it is not possible to confirm if the
increase was solely down to an increase in the number of children who were the subject
of a plan, or if the increase is partially explained by the change in data source.

11

3.4 Numbers of children in need
Children in need were not collected in the CPR3 return. Whilst there was a periodic
children in need collection, the latest covering a week in February 2005, it was carried
out on a very different basis to the current children in need census and so the figures are
not directly comparable.
3.5 Other general comments
Collecting data at child level has allowed us to work on getting the base child level data
consistent between local authorities. In turn this has meant that on the whole, key
indicators calculated from the data are more comparable than they were with CPR3 data
as definitions have been applied consistently. For example, consistent definitions of 3
and 6 months have been applied when calculating the number of child protection plans
that have been reviewed within the required 3 and 6 month timescales.

12

4. Data quality and the data confidence indicator
Data confidence indicators enable local authorities to make more robust comparisons
with statistical neighbours and national averages. It also allows those local authorities
who have invested time and effort in data quality to demonstrate the quality of their
information and seek out similar high quality data for benchmarking.

In local authorities where issues were identified that affected a high proportion of records,
the data confidence indicator was set to “1” (i.e. low confidence in the data). Where
issues were identified which affected a small number of records they were classified as
“2” and where no or few issues were identified they were classified as “3” (i.e. high
confidence in the data).

We recommend that comparisons are not made between local authorities with the lowest
confidence rating (“1”). Local authorities who have not provided us with usable children in
need data information do not have a data confidence indicator for that section.

Data confidence indicators were calculated by analysing the child-level data to provide an
indication of the quality of each 2014 to 2015 children in need return. This involved
analysing 3 components from the 2014 to 2015 children in need census:
4.1 Data quality
This involved analysing the child-level data to provide an indication of the quality of each
2014 to 2015 children in need return. For the majority of local authorities this component
determined the overall indicator. Each data quality indicator used a range of measures
(for example, identifying the number of duplicate records and identifying overlapping
assessments). Each local authority received the minimum score for their overall “data
quality” confidence level based on this range of measures.

4.2 Data confidence
This involved examining the notes that each local authority made alongside their 2014 to
2015 children in need return. Local authorities that mentioned issues that had impacted
on their data quality or confidence were classified as “2” and if there were no notes that
explicitly indicated that there were known issues with the data then they were classified
as “3”.

4.3 Year-on-year comparability
This involved comparing reported figures for 2014 to 2015 with those reported in 2013 to
2014. A large difference in figures does not necessarily mean that information provided
for 2014 to 2015 is not accurate. However, it means that we are most confident in figures
from local authorities with the fewest fluctuations in their historic data. Local authorities

13

with figures that are very different from previous years were classified as “2” and those
with few differences as “3”.

All 3 components were combined to construct the overall indicator. As with the
assessment of data quality, each local authority has received the minimum score out of
the 3 parts of the data confidence indicator to indicate the overall confidence level for a
specific measure (i.e. a low score in any one of 3 components above will lead to a low
score for the overall data confidence indicator published for each measure).

The local authorities have a chance to view their data confidence indicators and feedback
before publication. If confirmations of true reflections in activity have taken place and not
a data quality issue, their data confidence indicator may be changed.

The summary table below outlines how the data confidence indicator for each measure
included in the statistical first release have been constructed. The full list of comparisons
carried out when assessing the confidence in the data is given in annex A.

Data Confidence Indicator
Definition
3
(high confidence)

- No major data quality issues (‘3’)
and
- No issues raised in the notes (‘3’)
and
- No large differences between 2013 to 2014 and 2014
to 2015 return (‘3’)
2
(medium confidence)

Some data quality issues (‘2’)
or
- Large unexplained differences between 2013 to 2014
and 2014 to 2015 return (‘2’)
or
- Issues raised in the notes (‘2’)
1
(low confidence)
- Major data quality issues (‘1’)
P

- Local authorities who were part of the pilot exercise for
any part of the year for removing timescales relating to
assessments and initial child protection conferences
..

- Local authorities who have not provided us with a
2014 to 2015 children in need return, or useable data
.
- Not applicable

Annex A: List of checks carried out on data to inform the data confidence indicator
Methodology and thresholds for the calculation of data confidence indicators included in the 'Characteristics of children in need'
statistical first release
Data confidence indicator

1
2
3
1
Numbers of children in need

A
Children in need episodes starting

Data quality

Proportion of duplicate records by local authority, childID and CIN start date
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Number of children in need episodes which begin each month in 2014 to 2015
N/A
< 1/3 national
average
>= 1/3
national
average
{If the number of cases starting each month is less than a third of the average monthly cases then the DCI will be 2}

Data confidence (Notes)

This measure makes an assessment of each local authorities confidence in their data using the notes provided through
COLLECT
N/A
N/A
N/A

Data completeness (Comparisons)

This measure calculates the differences between the number of children in need episodes starting in 2013 to 2014 with
the 2014 to 2015 children in need data and identifies cases where the change is much larger than average. (Comparing
changes with previous year's data where appropriate.)
N/A
Average
national
change +/- 30
percentage
points
Within 30
percentage
points of the
average
national
change
B
Children in need episodes ending

Data quality

Proportion of duplicate records by local authority, childID, CIN start date and CIN end date
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Proportion of end dates which are on the same day as the start dates
>10%
6-10%
0-6%

Proportion of end dates which are the day after the start dates
>10%
4-10%
0-4%

Number of CIN episodes which end each month in 2014 to 2015
N/A
< 1/3 national
average
>= 1/3
national
average
{If the number of cases starting each month is less than a third of the average monthly cases then the DCI will be 2}

15

Data confidence (Notes)

This measure makes an assessment of each local authorities confidence in their data using the notes provided through
COLLECT
N/A
N/A
N/A

Data completeness (Comparisons)

This measure calculates the differences between the number of children in need episodes ending in 2013 to 2014 with
the 2014 to 2015 children in need data and identifies cases where the change is much larger than average. (Comparing
changes with previous year's data where appropriate.)
N/A
Average
national
change +/- 30
percentage
points
Within 30
percentage
points of the
average
national
change
C
Children in need throughout 2014 to 2015 and as at 31 March 2015

Data quality

Same measures as children in need episodes starting above
N/A
N/A
N/A

Same measures as children in need episodes ending above
N/A
N/A
N/A

Proportion of duplicate records by local authority and childID
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Data confidence (Notes)

This measure makes an assessment of each local authorities confidence in their data using the notes provided through
COLLECT
N/A
N/A
N/A

Data completeness (Comparisons)

This measure calculates the differences between the number of children in need throughout and at 31 March in 2013 to
2014 with the 2014 to 2015 children in need data and identifies cases where the change is much larger than average.
(Comparing changes with previous year's data where appropriate.)
N/A
Average
national
change +/- 30
percentage
points
Within 30
percentage
points of the
average
national
change
2
Numbers of children in need at 31 March 2015, by disability

Data quality

Same measures as children in need at 31 March 2015 above

Number of disabilities per child, highlighting local authorities which have only used one disability per child.
100%
70-100%
0-70%

16

Number of disability codes used per local authority, highlighting local authorities which have used a small number of
disability codes (this measure does not apply to local authorities with less than 20 children in need at 31 March with a
disability recorded)
<8 disabilities
recorded
<10
disabilities
recorded
10+

Proportion of all children in need that have a disability, identifying local authorities with proportions which are much lower
than the national proportion
0-1%
>20%
1-20%

Data confidence (Notes)

This measure makes an assessment of each local authorities confidence in their data using the notes provided through
COLLECT
N/A
N/A
N/A

Data completeness (Comparisons)

This measure calculates the differences between the number of children in need at 31 March 2014 with the number of
children in need at 31 March 2015 and identifies cases where the change is much larger than average. (Comparing
changes with previous year's data where appropriate.)
N/A
Average
national
change +/- 30
percentage
points
Within 30
percentage
points of the
average
national
change
3
Numbers of children in need at 31 March 2015, by primary need at assessment

Data quality

Same measures as children in need at 31 March above

Proportion of cases with missing primary need code
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Proportion of cases which are outside of the code set
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Proportion of cases with primary need code N9
>50% N9
10-50% N9
<10% N9

Data confidence (Notes)

This measure makes an assessment of each local authorities confidence in their data using the notes provided through
COLLECT
N/A
N/A
N/A

Data completeness (Comparisons)

This measure calculates the differences between the number of children in need at 31 March 2014 with the number of
children in need at 31 March 2015 and identifies cases where the change is much larger than average. (Comparing
changes with previous year's data where appropriate.)
N/A
Average
national
change +/- 30
percentage
points
Within 30
percentage
points of the
average
national
change
4
Number of children in need at 31 March 2015, by duration of episode of need

Data quality

17

Same measures as children in need at 31 March 2015 above

Ratio of each duration, highlighting durations where the proportions are more than three times higher or lower than the
national proportion

Various

Proportion of cases where the referral date is an arbitrary date
>25%
5-25%
0-5%

Data confidence (Notes)

This measure makes an assessment of each local authorities confidence in their data using the notes provided through
COLLECT
N/A
N/A
N/A

Data completeness (Comparisons)

This measure calculates the differences between the number of children in need at 31 March 2014 with the number of
children in need at 31 March 2015 and identifies cases where the change is much larger than average. (Comparing
changes with previous year's data where appropriate.)
N/A
Average
national
change +/- 30
percentage
points
Within 30
percentage
points of the
average
national
change
5
Numbers of children ceasing to be in need in the year ending 31 March 2015, by duration of episode of need

Data quality

Same measures as children in need at 31 March 2015 above

Ratio of each duration, highlighting durations where the proportions more than 3 times higher or lower than the national
proportion
N/A
More than 3
times higher
or lower than
national
proportion
Between 3
times higher
or lower than
national
proportion

Proportion of cases where the referral date is an arbitrary date
>25%
5-25%
0-5%

Data confidence (Notes)

This measure makes an assessment of each local authorities confidence in their data using the notes provided through
COLLECT
N/A
N/A
N/A

Data completeness (Comparisons)

This measure calculates the differences between the number of children in need episodes ending in 2013 to 2014 with
the 2014 to 2015 children in need data and identifies cases where the change is much larger than average. (Comparing
changes with previous year's data where appropriate.)
N/A
Average
national
change +/- 30
percentage
points
Within 30
percentage
points of the
average
national
change

18

6
Numbers of children ceasing to be in need in the year ending 31 March 2015, by reason for case closure

Data quality

Same measures as children in need episodes ending above

Proportion of cases where the reason for closure is outside of the code set
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Proportion of cases with reason for closure code RC8
NA
100% =RC8
<100% RC8

Proportion of cases with a CIN closure date but no reason for closure
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Proportion of open cases with a reason for closure
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Data confidence (Notes)

This measure makes an assessment of each local authorities confidence in their data using the notes provided through
COLLECT
N/A
N/A
N/A

Data completeness (Comparisons)

This measure calculates the differences between the number of children in need episodes ending in 2013 to 2014 with
the 2014 to 2015 children in need data and identifies cases where the change is much larger than average. (Comparing
changes with previous year's data where appropriate.)
N/A
Average
national
change +/- 30
percentage
points
Within 30
percentage
points of the
average
national
change
7
Numbers of referrals

A
Referrals

Data quality

Proportion of referrals which are duplicates by the child ID and referral date and neither of the duplicate referrals is
recorded as NFA
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Proportion of referrals which are made on open cases, which should not be described as a referral
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Proportion of children who are referred more than once in 2014 to 2015
N/A
0%
>0%

Number of referrals received each month in 2014 to 2015
N/A
< 1/3 national
average
>= 1/3
national
average
{If the number of cases starting each month is less than a third of the average monthly cases then the DCI will be 2}

Proportion of cases entered into CIN with missing referral dates
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Data confidence (Notes)

19

This measure makes an assessment of each local authorities confidence in their data using the notes provided through
COLLECT
N/A
N/A
N/A

Data completeness (Comparisons)

This measure calculates the differences between the number of referrals provided by the local authority in 2013 to 2014
with the 2014 to 2015 children in need data and identifies cases where the change is much larger than average.
(Comparing changes with previous year's data where appropriate.)
N/A
Average
change +/- 30
percentage
point
Within 30
percentage
points of the
average
national
change
B
Referral source

Data quality

Same measures as referrals above
N/A
N/A
N/A

Proportion of referrals which are duplicates by the child ID, referral date and referral source.
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Proportion of referrals with missing referral source
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Data confidence (Notes)

This measure makes an assessment of each local authorities confidence in their data using the notes provided through
COLLECT
N/A
N/A
N/A
8
Number and percentage of referrals in 2014 to 2015 within 12 months of a previous referral

Data quality

Same measures as referrals above
N/A
N/A
N/A

Proportion of cases that were already open between 1 March 2014 and 1 April 2014 that were present in 2013 to 2014
dataset.
<50%
50 - 70%
70-100%

Data confidence (Notes)

This measure makes an assessment of each local authorities confidence in their data using the notes provided through
COLLECT
N/A
N/A
N/A

Data completeness (Comparisons)

20

This measure calculates the differences between the number of re-referrals provided by the local authority in 2013 to
2014 with the 2014 to 2015 children in need data and identifies cases where the change is much larger than average.
(Comparing changes with previous year's data where appropriate.)
N/A
Average
change +/- 30
percentage
point
Within 30
percentage
points of the
average
national
change
9
Numbers of assessments completed by children's social care services and timeliness

A
Numbers of assessments completed by children's social care services

Data quality

Proportion of cases which are duplicates by child ID, assessment start date and assessment authorisation date
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Proportion of cases where the assessment authorisation date is before the assessment start date (build in flexibility of
cases which end on the referral date and the start date is one day after to take into account systems which set up start
dates one day after the referral)
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Proportion of start dates which are before a previous assessment has ended or start on the same day as a previous
assessment ended
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Proportion of assessment start dates which are more than 1 week but less than 6 months after the referral date.
> 4 times
national
average
> 3 times
national
average but <
4 times
< 3 times
national
average
{If the number of cases described above is more than 4 times the national figure then the DCI will be 1, if the number of
cases is 3 times the national figures, but less than 4 times the national figures then the DCI will be 2.}

Number of assessments which begin each month in 2014 to 2015
N/A
< 1/3 national
average
>= 1/3
national
average
{If the number of cases starting each month is less than a third of the average monthly cases then the DCI will be 2}

Number of assessments which end each month in 2014 to 2015
N/A
< 1/3 national
average
>= 1/3
national
average
{If the number of cases ending each month is less than a third of the average monthly cases then the DCI will be 2}

Proportion of cases with missing assessment start dates
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Data confidence (Notes)

This measure makes an assessment of each local authorities confidence in their data using the notes provided through
COLLECT
N/A
N/A
N/A
B
Assessments duration

Data quality

Same measures as assessments above
N/A
N/A
N/A

21

Comparison to national mean duration highlighting cases which are more than 2 times higher or lower than national
mean duration
N/A
More than 2
times higher
or lower than
national
mean
duration
Between 2
times higher
or lower than
national
mean
duration

Data confidence (Notes)

This measure makes an assessment of each local authorities confidence in their data using the notes provided through
COLLECT
N/A
N/A
N/A
C
Assessment factors

Data quality

Same measures as assessments above
N/A
N/A
N/A

Proportion of cases which are duplicates by child ID, referral date, assessment start date and factor.
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Proportion of cases where factor 21 is recorded alongside other assessment factors.
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Data confidence (Notes)

This measure makes an assessment of each local authorities confidence in their data using the notes provided through
COLLECT
N/A
N/A
N/A
10
Number of children who were subject to section 47 enquiries and initial child protection conferences and initial conferences
completed within 15 days of section 47 enquiry

A
Number of children who were subject to section 47 enquiries

Data quality

Duplicates by local authority, childID and S47 start
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Number of S47 start dates which are before the referral date
>10%
2-10%
0-2%

Number of s47s which start each month in 2014 to 2015
N/A
< 1/3 national
average
>= 1/3
national
average
{If the number of cases starting each month is less than a third of the average monthly cases then the DCI will be 2}

Data confidence (Notes)

This measure makes an assessment of each local authorities confidence in their data using the notes provided through
COLLECT
N/A
N/A
N/A

Data completeness (Comparisons)

22

This measure calculates the differences between the number of section 47 enquiries provided by the local authority in
2013 to 2014 with the 2014 to 2015 children in need data and identifies cases where the change is much larger than
average. (Comparing changes with previous year's data where appropriate.)
N/A
Average
change +30
percentage
point or
average
change -50
percentage
points
Within
average
change +30
percentage
point or
average
change -50
percentage
points
B
Number of initial child protection conferences

Data quality

Duplicates by local authority, childID and ICPC date.
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Cases where same ICPC date is replicated in CIN details and s47 module
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Proportion of ICPC dates before the referral date
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Proportion of ICPC dates before the S47 date
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Number of ICPCs which start each month in 2014 to 2015
N/A
< 1/3 national
average
>= 1/3
national
average
{If the number of cases starting each month is less than a third of the average monthly cases then the DCI will be 2}

Number of CPPs which do not start on the ICPC date
>50%
25-50%
0-25%

Proportion of cases with missing referral (for transfer in cases) or S47 start dates.
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Data confidence (Notes)

This measure makes an assessment of each local authorities confidence in their data using the notes provided through
COLLECT
N/A
N/A
N/A

Data completeness (Comparisons)

This measure calculates the differences between the number of ICPCs provided by the local authority in 2013 to 2014
with the 2014 to 2015 children in need data and identifies cases where the change is much larger than average.
(Comparing changes with previous year's data where appropriate.)
N/A
Average
change +30
percentage
point or
average
change -50
percentage
points
Within
average
change +30
percentage
point or
average
change -50
percentage
points
C
Duration between initial child protection conference and section 47 enquiry

23

Data quality

Same measures as initial child protection conferences above
N/A
N/A
N/A

Comparison to national mean duration highlighting cases which are more than 2 times higher or lower than national
mean duration
N/A
More than 2
times higher
or lower than
national
mean
duration
Between 2
times higher
or lower than
national
mean
duration

Data confidence (Notes)

This measure makes an assessment of each local authorities confidence in their data using the notes provided through
COLLECT
N/A
N/A
N/A

Data completeness (Comparisons)

This measure calculates the differences between the number of initial child protection conferences provided by the local
authority in 2013 to 2014 with the 2014 to 2015 children in need data and identifies cases where the change is much
larger than average. (Comparing changes with previous year's data where appropriate.)
N/A
Average
change +30
percentage
point or
average
change -50
percentage
points
Within
average
change +30
percentage
point or
average
change -50
percentage
points
11
Number of children who became the subject of a child protection plan throughout the year, who ceased to be the subject of a plan
during 2014 to 2015 and who were the subject of a plan at 31 March 2015

A
BECAME

Data quality

Proportion of cases which are duplicates by child ID and child protection plan start date
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Proportion of cases where the start date is after the end date
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Proportion of cases where the start date is on the same day as the end date
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Proportion of cases with missing start dates
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Proportion of cases which began the day after a previous child protection plan ended
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Proportion of cases which began before a previous plan has ended
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Number of child protection plans which begin each month in 2014 to 2015
N/A
< 1/3 national
average
>= 1/3
national
average
{If the number of cases starting each month is less than a third of the average monthly cases then the DCI will be 2}

24

Data confidence (Notes)

This measure makes an assessment of each local authorities confidence in their data using the notes provided through
COLLECT
N/A
N/A
N/A

Data completeness (Comparisons)

This measure calculates the differences between the number of child protection plans provided by the local authority in
2013 to 2014 with the 2014 to 2015 children in need data and identifies cases where the change is much larger than
average. (Comparing changes with previous year's data where appropriate.)
N/A
Average
change +/- 30
percentage
point
Within 30
percentage
points of the
average
national
change
B
CEASED

Data quality

Proportion of cases which are duplicates by child ID and child protection plan end date
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Proportion of cases where the start date is after the end date
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Proportion of cases where the start date is on the same day as the end date
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Proportion of cases where the end date is 1 day after the start date
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Proportion of cases where another child protection plan begins one day after the end date
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Number of child protection plans which end each month in 2014 to 2015
N/A
< 1/3 national
average
>= 1/3
national
average
{If the number of cases ending each month is less than a third of the average monthly cases then the DCI will be 2}

Data confidence (Notes)

This measure makes an assessment of each local authorities confidence in their data using the notes provided through
COLLECT
N/A
N/A
N/A

Data completeness (Comparisons)

This measure calculates the differences between the number of child protection plans provided by the local authority in
2013 to 2014 with the 2014 to 2015 children in need data and identifies cases where the change is much larger than
average. (Comparing changes with previous year's data where appropriate.)
N/A
Average
change +/- 30
percentage
point
Within 30
percentage
points of the
average
national
change
C
31-Mar

Data quality

25

Same measures as child protection plans beginning above
N/A
N/A
N/A

Proportion of cases which are duplicates by child ID and CPP start
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Data confidence (Notes)

This measure makes an assessment of each local authorities confidence in their data using the notes provided through
COLLECT
N/A
N/A
N/A

Data completeness (Comparisons)

This measure calculates the differences between the number of child protection plans provided by the local authority in
2013 to 2014 with the 2014 to 2015 children in need data and identifies cases where the change is much larger than
average. (Comparing changes with previous year's data where appropriate.)
N/A
Average
change +/- 30
percentage
point
Within 30
percentage
points of the
average
national
change
12
Number of children who became the subject of a child protection plan throughout the year ending 31 March 2015, by initial and
latest category of abuse

Data quality

Same measures as child protection plans beginning above
N/A
N/A
N/A

Proportion of cases where the category of abuse is outside of the code set (for both the initial and the latest category)
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Proportion of cases where the category of abuse is missing (for both the initial and the latest category)
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Ratio of each code used, highlighting cases where the ratios are greatly different to the national ratio
Various thresholds

Proportion of cases where the initial category of abuse is the same as the latest category of abuse
-
100%
<100%

Data confidence (Notes)

This measure makes an assessment of each local authorities confidence in their data using the notes provided through
COLLECT
N/A
N/A
N/A

Data completeness (Comparisons)

This measure calculates the differences between the number of child protection plans provided by the local authority in
2013 to 2014 with the 2014 to 2015 children in need data and identifies cases where the change is much larger than
average. (Comparing changes with previous year's data where appropriate.)
N/A
Average
change +/- 30
percentage
point
Within 30
percentage
points of the
average
national
change

26

13
Number of children who became the subject of a child protection plan throughout the year, who became the subject of a plan for
the second or subsequent time

Data quality

Same measures as child protection plans beginning above
N/A
N/A
N/A

Proportion of cases where the number of previous child protection plans is missing
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Proportion of cases where details of a previous plan are recorded, but this is not included as a previous plan
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Data confidence (Notes)

This measure makes an assessment of each local authorities confidence in their data using the notes provided through
COLLECT
N/A
N/A
N/A

Data completeness (Comparisons)

This measure calculates the differences between the number of child protection plans provided by the local authority in
2013 to 2014 with the 2014 to 2015 children in need data and identifies cases where the change is much larger than
average. (Comparing changes with previous year's data where appropriate.)
N/A
Average
change +/- 30
percentage
point
Within 30
percentage
points of the
average
national
change
14
Number of children who were the subject of a child protection plan at 31 March 2015, by initial & latest category of abuse

Data quality

Same measures as child protection plans at 31 March above
N/A
N/A
N/A

Proportion of cases where the category of abuse is outside of the code set (for both the initial and the latest category)
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Proportion of cases where the category of abuse is missing (for both the initial and the latest category)
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Ratio of each code used, highlighting cases where the ratios are greatly different to the national ratio
Various thresholds

Proportion of cases where the initial category of abuse is the same as the latest category of abuse
-
100%
<100%

Data confidence (Notes)

This measure makes an assessment of each local authorities confidence in their data using the notes provided through
COLLECT
N/A
N/A
N/A

Data completeness (Comparisons)

27

This measure calculates the differences between the number of child protection plans provided by the local authority in
2013 to 2014 with the 2014 to 2015 children in need data and identifies cases where the change is much larger than
average. (Comparing changes with previous year's data where appropriate.)
N/A
Average
change +/- 30
percentage
point
Within 30
percentage
points of the
average
national
change
15
Number of children who were the subject of a child protection plan at 31 March 2015 by the length of time as subject of a plan

Data quality

Same measures as child protection plans at 31 March 2015 above
N/A
N/A
N/A

Ratio of each duration, highlighting cases where the ratios are greatly different to the national CIN ratios
Various thresholds

Data confidence (Notes)

This measure makes an assessment of each local authorities confidence in their data using the notes provided through
COLLECT
N/A
N/A
N/A

Data completeness (Comparisons)

This measure calculates the differences between the number of child protection plans provided by the local authority in
2013 to 2014 with the 2014 to 2015 children in need data and identifies cases where the change is much larger than
average. (Comparing changes with previous year's data where appropriate.)
N/A
Average
change +/- 30
percentage
point
Within 30
percentage
points of the
average
national
change
16
Number of children who were the subject of a child protection plan at 31 March 2015, who had been on a plan for at least 3
months and who had had reviews carried out within the required timescales

Data quality

Same measures as child protection plans beginning above
N/A
N/A
N/A

Proportion of review records with no review date
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Proportion of review records with no child protection plan start date
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Proportion of cases which are duplicate reviews (i.e. same child ID and same referral date and same review date)
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Proportion of cases where the reviews is on the same day as the child protection plan start date
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Proportion of cases where the review is before the child protection plan start date
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Number of CPPs which are reviewed each month in 2014 to 2015.
N/A
< 1/3 national
>= 1/3

28

{If the number of cases ending each month is less than a third of the average monthly cases then the DCI will be 2}
average
national
average

Data confidence (Notes)

This measure makes an assessment of each local authorities confidence in their data using the notes provided through
COLLECT
N/A
N/A
N/A

Data completeness (Comparisons)

This measure calculates the differences between the number of child protection plans provided by the local authority in
2013 to 2014 with the 2014 to 2015 children in need data and identifies cases where the change is much larger than
average. (Comparing changes with previous year's data where appropriate.)
N/A
Average
change +/- 30
percentage
point
Within 30
percentage
points of the
average
national
change
17
Number of children who ceased to be the subject of a plan throughout the year, by length of time as the subject of a plan, year
ending 31 March 2015

Data quality

Same measures as child protection plans ceasing above
N/A
N/A
N/A

Ratio of each duration, highlighting cases where the ratios are greatly different to the national ratios
Various thresholds

Data confidence (Notes)

This measure makes an assessment of each local authorities confidence in their data using the notes provided through
COLLECT
N/A
N/A
N/A

Data completeness (Comparisons)

This measure calculates the differences between the number of child protection plans provided by the local authority in
2013 to 2014 with the 2014 to 2015 children in need data and identifies cases where the change is much larger than
average. (Comparing changes with previous year's data where appropriate.)
N/A
Average
change +/- 30
percentage
point
Within 30
percentage
points of the
average
national
change
18
Number of children who ceased to be the subject of a plan during the first six months of 2014 to 2015, by how long they remained
in need after their plan ended

Data quality

Same measures as child protection plans ceasing above
N/A
N/A
N/A

Ratio of each duration, highlighting cases where the ratios are greatly different to the national ratios
Various thresholds

Proportion of cases with a child protection plan end date after CIN closure date
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

29

Data confidence (Notes)

This measure makes an assessment of each local authorities confidence in their data using the notes provided through
COLLECT
N/A
N/A
N/A

Data completeness (Comparisons)

This measure calculates the differences between the number of child protection plans provided by the local authority in
2013 to 2014 with the 2014 to 2015 children in need data and identifies cases where the change is much larger than
average. (Comparing changes with previous year's data where appropriate.)
N/A
Average
change +/- 30
percentage
point
Within 30
percentage
points of the
average
national
change
19
Number of children who were the subject of a child protection plan throughout the year ending 31 March 2015 who were seen by
the lead social worker in accordance with the timescales specified in the plan

Data quality

Same measures as child protection plans beginning above
Various thresholds

Same measures as child protection plans ceasing above
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Proportion of cases which are duplicates by child ID and child protection plans start date
>5%
1-5%
0-1%

Data confidence (Notes)

This measure makes an assessment of each local authorities confidence in their data using the notes provided through
COLLECT
N/A
N/A
N/A

© Crown copyright 2015
This publication (not including logos) is licensed under the terms of the Open
Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. Where we have identified any
third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright
holders concerned.
To view this licence:
visit
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3
email
xxx@xxx.xx
write to
Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London, TW9 4DU
About this publication:
enquiries www.education.gov.uk/contactus
download www.gov.uk/government/publications
Reference:

Follow us on Twitter:
@educationgovuk

Like us on Facebook:
facebook.com/educationgovuk