and policy makers) this is clearly evident. However, this focus is not often present in the way we collect, publish or talk about data. • Example given of corporate parenting – how do you know a Council is a good corporate parent? To answer this, often LAs will produce a dashboard with CLA numbers, placement stability etc. This is not how parents would generally measure their own success; for leaders this is the only available benchmarking. • Are there small ways we could make processes more child focused – i.e. not categorising by ‘is the accommodation suitable’, but asking young people: ‘do you feel safe’. Not measuring ‘what % had three or more placements’ but asking children: ‘do you feel secure and happy in your placement’. We struggle to understand whether the CSC system is making children’s lives better through data • Outcomes for children were mentioned as a gap in many interviews. • As a sector, we know we need to better understand outcomes but don’t currently have the tools to effectively do so. • At all levels, outcomes frameworks are using ‘process’ measures as a proxy for outcome data. • Supporting families outcomes framework is used in many LAs but can often be seen as ‘separate’ to CSC and data availability from partners can be challenging. • While outcomes are difficult at a local level, they become more even more so at larger geographies where differences in local need can hinder comparison. • To measure outcomes, LAs would need to use less commonly used data (‘multi-agency’, voice of the child), there are technical and ethical challenges here. What is proportionate and how do children and families feel about this? Outcomes data/voice of the child is difficult and work needs to be done to develop this • While these areas were identified as gaps – there 