Recipient

Worcestershire Safeguarding Children Partnership

Pin Request correction

First report 29 May 2013•Latest report 29 May 2013

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Other public bodies · Other public body. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports
1

Naming this recipient

Published responses
0%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
0

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
0

Described in responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

Evidence profile

Report topics

Share of this recipient’s reports compared with all other recipients.

0%published responses found
0stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Worcestershire Safeguarding Children Partnership linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Addressed to Worcestershire Safeguarding Children Board, now represented here by Worcestershire Safeguarding Children Partnership.

    Worcestershire

    AI-generated summary

    Dana Louise Baker · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Dana Louise Baker was a looked after child whose foster placement broke down, after which she stayed with an adult friend and the following day hanged herself in a public place. The principal concerns were inadequate knowledge, understanding and communication between agencies, and the confidential handling of Individual Management Reviews, which prevented agencies from understanding areas of mutual concern.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Worcestershire Safeguarding Children Partnership; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Inadequate communication between agencies

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) As outlined in the IMR's, the Serious Case Review and the draft Overview Report there was a lack of knowledge and understanding as between various agencies involved with Dana and inadequate communication between them. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Worcestershire Safeguarding Children Partnership; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to share interagency serious incident reviews

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) The IMR's are kept confidential and not even shared as between Agencies concerned. Some IMR authors indicated that they could not comment on areas of "mutual concern" because they were unaware of the content of other Agency's IMR's. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Worcestershire Safeguarding Children Partnership; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of knowledge and understanding between agencies

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) As outlined in the IMR's, the Serious Case Review and the draft Overview Report there was a lack of knowledge and understanding as between various agencies involved with Dana and inadequate communication between them. ”
    Open source report
Back to top

Published response patterns

Compared with other recipients in reports included in PFD Monitor

Describes published response evidence, not performance.

Published responses found

0%
0%All other recipients 58%
0%100%

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
All other recipients
47%25%27%<1%<1%
  • Completed
  • In progress
  • Planned
  • Unclear
  • Partially completed

Statuses reflect what recipients said at the time. PFD Monitor does not verify whether actions happened.

Types of action described in responses

Percentages use all actions described by each group. An action may have more than one type, so percentages do not total 100%.

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026