Agenda item

OFSTED Report on the Announced Inspection of Safeguarding and Looked After Children

Minutes:

The Panel considered a report on the findings of the recent Ofsted inspection and the Council’s response and remedial action. The Panel noted the challenges that Slough faced, the current service pressures and the nature of the Ofsted regime. The Strategic Director of Education and Children’s Services, provided a detailed explanation of the findings but stressed the importance of viewing these objectively and separate from the associated media coverage.  The Panel noted the positive practice highlighted by inspectors and the key areas of improvement that were now being addressed through both the improvement plan, and over the longer term, the recovery plan. The Director stressed that despite the findings and concerns raised by inspectors – it was important to state and clarify that no child was at risk of significant physical harm. Of the five cases identified as being of concern, the main focus of attention was the potential harm caused to children through their exposure to domestic violence in the household. Of these five, only one case involved emergency intervention with the remaining four either having had necessary action already or where children were deemed to be sufficiently well protected.

 

The focus now for the service was to address the concerns raised.  Improvements that were already in motion included:

 

·  An Audit of all case files of children under 5 on child protection plans

·  An Audit of potentially high risk cases

·  Checks to make sure management oversight and quality assurance mechanisms are in place

·  Recruitment of additional experienced staff at managerial level to oversee service and drive improvements

·  Further work with partners including specifically the Police to ensure full cooperation and involvement in handling and dealing with domestic abuse cases.

 

The Panel raised a number of concerns including:

 

·  The proportion of cases that threw up concerns against the total number of cases reviewed and queried the systems the council had in place to ensure that children were being protected beyond the five cases that had been identified.

·  The usefulness of the distinctions between levels of harm children experienced. Queries were raised as to the work the council was undertaking to protect children from issues beyond domestic abuse.

·  The distinction between the nature of the Ofsted inspections and in particular the difference between the announced and un-announced inspections

·  The Panel sought clarity on the filing and administrative system used at Slough and its suitability in logging and monitoring case work.

·  A member in attendance under rule 30 asked a question on the resources being allocated to support the improvement plan.

·  The possibility of the Council performing a ‘local’ inspection modelled on the Ofsted approach

·  Regarding the issue of staff turnover, Members sought clarity on what the issues were and how well Slough was able to retain its staff.

 

The Interim Assistant Director for Children and Families confirmed that case audits were now being performed against all case files that were or could be of concern. To date no files audited warranted any further action. The Council was undertaking a range of measures to improve and manage child safety and it was important to recognise that the issue was one of risk mitigation. The Officer also confirmed that whilst the eighty one cases that had thus far been audited threw up no additional concerns, it did not mean that issues would not be found but there was a through process of audit and provision in place should further intervention be warranted.  It was noted that additional staff had been brought in to aid this process including two experienced auditors whilst further work was looking at multi-agency involvement.

 

The Director confirmed the status of the Ofsted inspection as the formal announced inspection. Occurring every three years, this was a much more thorough process focused on a range of issues from case auditing to effectiveness of partnership work. An unannounced inspection took place in 2010 but at that point no issues had been identified as being of concern. The Service was expecting the next unannounced inspection to take place in Autumn 2011.

 

The Multi Agency Locality Team manager confirmed that the administrative system used at Slough was amongst the most effective currently used in Local Authorities.

 

The Director confirmed that resources had been allocated to deliver both the improvement and the recovery plan. Some of the resources are drawn from base budget but the service was also looking at additional resources through the use of the early Intervention Grant. The Chief Executive noted the importance of the response from the Department for Education (DFE). Support from the latter was based on severity of issues faced. The fact that no support was being offered from DFE, confirmed the fact that the inspection outcome, whilst concerning, was not as severe as was being presented.  In addition to the resources being invested by Slough, some of which are one off costs, the DFE will make available a Peer Support team to offer challenge and help guide improvements. Also important to note that the response from the DFE has been supportive of the actions being taken by the council.

 

The Chief Executive confirmed that whilst it was possible for the Council to undertake a local inspection mirroring the process employed by Ofsted, the focus was on securing improvements rather than directing resources towards further inspections.

 

The Director confirmed that latest staff turn-over rates were approximately 15% which was not particularly high. Issues the council did face was staff leaving for London – an issue faced by the council generally and not a particular problem for the service itself.

 

The Commissioner for Education stated that whilst the results had been disappointing, there was very clear commitment from the service and all the staff to address the issues identified. Much of the work in the improvement plan was being delivered whilst resources had been made available to ensure the longer-term recovery plan would also be implemented. 

 

The Local Safeguarding Children’s Board (LSCB) Chair was invited to comment. The Chair confirmed that the audit also made recommendations to the LSCB. These included the view that the LSCB was underdeveloped and needed to assume more of a challenging role. The Chair confirmed that the LSCB was looking at developing a more effective scrutiny role and supporting the Service in the auditing of work, further advancing multi-agency work and addressing the wider management and leadership issues.

 

Concluding the item, the Chair of the Panel recommended that the September meeting would look at the underlying issues that could contribute to challenging households including domestic violence and how these were being addressed through partnership working.

 

Officers were also invited to report back to the Panel in September on the progress being made in the implementation of the Recovery Plan.

 

Resolved-

 

(a)  That the Panel endorse the draft recovery plan.

 

(b)  That a further report be brought to the September meeting setting out progress against the Recovery Plan and that the report include a commentary on how Slough is looking at addressing underlying issues (in isolation or in partnership) including work on domestic violence

 

Supporting documents: