Agenda item

In introduction, the Chair requested that a note should be made of the Panel’s disappointment with progress. In particular, the absence of some fundamental aspects of the work expected of Children’s Services was a concern. Equally, the Panel wished to focus on the future improvement of services for local residents; however, it would also need to clarify some aspects of previous failings in order to learn and increase service levels. Underpinning all of this was a need to ensure that Slough Borough Council (SBC) put children first in provision.

The Ofsted inspection was held in late 2015 and published on 17^th February 2016. Councillors were then given a presentation on the report immediately following publication. The inspection was the third consecutive ‘inadequate’ rating, and given the fact that the inspection was in the weeks following the Trust’s commencement it mostly covered SBC’s work. Some improvements were noted in the report, but these were insufficiently rapid or wide-ranging to make significant changes; Slough Children’s Services Trust (SCST) was taking action on this.

In such situations, the Department for Education (DfE) would usually install an improvement board. However, SCST’s role meant that different governance arrangements were required. A Strategic Monitoring Board (SMB) would meet monthly whilst the Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB) would attend a meeting with SBC, SCST and the Commissioner on a quarterly basis (such meetings would be held after every SMB, but not always with LSCB in attendance). These meetings would be chaired by the Commissioner and request updates on progress being made. SCST also had its own Board to act as a governance mechanism, with SCST’s Chief Executive accountable to it.

The Panel raised the following points in discussion:

·  SCST was not required to present its development plan to SBC scrutiny; this would be the role of SMB. A joint delivery plan was being agreed and would be presented to Ofsted in May 2016. This plan contained four strands and would be shared with the Panel, serving as a future reference point for holding service providers to account. SCST would also publish reports on a monthly basis on its progress; this would be a public document.

·  Members wished to be as involved as possible. Despite the alteration in provision arrangements, SBC retained its role as corporate parents and had also made a financial investment in SCST which required justification. In addition, the Ofsted report did note that scrutiny needed to focus on the detail of performance to drive up standards (finding 107).

·  Councillors would also receive a minimum of 4 updates from SCST at a variety of meetings as part of the contractual arrangements. However, SCST signalled a willingness to attend extra meetings if appropriate to ensure effective governance.

·  In addition, SBC had oversight of the matter via the Director of Children’s Services; this post holder could report to scrutiny more frequently. The Commissioner also reported to Government Ministers on a quarterly basis, ensuring that the system did have appropriate reporting mechanisms to ensure accountability.

·  SCST had initiated some significant work since acquiring its responsibilities. The virtual school now had a designated head teacher, whilst the pupil premium (which had been underspent) was now being given to heads of primary and secondary heads. Schools were also contacted on the matter, with frequent meetings to ensure appropriate use of the premium for the individual recipients. To support this, personal education plans and child-specific aspirational targets were also being compiled. 16 GCSE candidates were in receipt of the premium, and a target on attainment had been set and would be tracked.

·  SBC remained statutorily accountable for Children’s Services, and retained direct responsibility for youth services, corporate parenting and the impact of other services on children. SCST was delivering all other aspects of Children’s Services.

·  In order to bolster performance as a corporate parent, SBC would alter its approach. Previously, an annual forward plan had been considered in its totality on a periodic basis. In future, it would focus on different specific areas periodically to conduct deeper, narrower analysis and improve its strategic overview.

·  In 2014, DfE requested that SBC discontinue its improvement board and modify its approach. A replacement body was configured in September 2014 and 2 peer reviews were undertaken. The feedback from these was one of slow, steady improvement but it was acknowledged that this had been overly optimistic. SBC officers and Members shared many of the same concerns and limitations on this matter.

·  Given concerns over the deployment of resources, a review into the head of virtual schools was instigated in 2014. However, the reporting was too diffuse (e.g. 4 plans on the matter) which lead to the creation of data which was difficult to interrogate effectively.

·  SBC officers had been challenged, but the long terms absence of the relevant Director from late 2014 onwards hampered effectiveness. However, the appointment of the current Interim Director of Children’s Services had assisted, although the negotiations with DfE regarding the start of SCST had taken a significant amount of effort and focus.

·  The delivery plan was being compiled in light of Ofsted’s findings and would focus on essential matters. Key performance indicators would reflect this and provide greater clarity on the level of improvement. The indicators were agreed by SBC and SCST and were based on DfE guidelines (e.g. number of re-referrals, assessments conducted within 45 days). In addition, these indicators would be set at levels which reflected a desire to move towards ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ ratings rather than accept the current situation. However, there would also need to be qualitative analysis to support these quantitative measurements.

·  Resource allocation would also be recalibrated to focus on the central concerns of Children’s Services (e.g. support for the Corporate Parenting Panel on implementing the Parenting Strategy). As part of the wider alteration in SBC’s focus on children, services such as libraries would be required to include ‘the voice of the child’ in their provision as part of a new project management system. The Interim Director of Children’s Services had also used the SBC Senior Leadership Team to reinforce this message and ensure there was understanding and ownership of these issues.

·  SCST also could raise concerns with scrutiny as to where performance may need improvement, although the Panel retained jurisdiction over its work programme.

·  Auditing had not been comprehensive; the Interim Director of Children’s Services acted on this. The social enterprise company ‘Achieving for Children’ were approached to improve the system, whilst SCST’s Chief Executive also highlighted areas for improvement. However, a complete overhaul was not undertaken given the desire to allow SCST to impose its own system once in position. SCST then conducted a comprehensive audit upon going live, involving 5 independent auditors; its findings were confirmed in the Ofsted report.

·  Cabinet also raised concerns over several matters (e.g. virtual heads) and had been frustrated with the level of progress. However, it was acknowledged that the level of focus on care leavers and the lack of aspiration for looked after children had been problematic.

·  The new governance system was designed to raise concerns before they deteriorated. The contract between SBC and SCST included a monthly Partnership Board to identify low-level concerns, with SMB dedicated to more systematic issues. The escalation process was also fully codified; it was hoped that scrutiny could serve to support this approach.

·  The Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub required partners to be involved, which had proved difficult. One possible cause of this was SBC’s reputation, which led to inaction from other organisations if asked to conduct work by SBC. The MASH now had a dedicated leader, with a ‘soft launch’ set for July 2016 and a full launch in September 2016.

·  Assessments had been unsatisfactory. This was being worked on, as their quality was based on the original social worker interaction.

·  Independent Reviewing Officers were being trained to address issues in Children’s Services; it would take time for this to embed in the working culture.

·  A permanent Director responsible for Children’s Services was being appointed; the structure would not mirror the previous system with a Director of Wellbeing. This would be advertised in Spring 2014, with the eventual post holder entering SBC in the Autumn. The current Interim Director of Children’s Services was leaving their post at the end of June 2016, and the transition would be planned.

·  It was customary for Councillors to be involved in the appointment of Directors. In this case, it would also see input from local young people and SCST. Members also requested information and involvement regarding any payments made to outgoing Directors.

·  SCST was working to impose a new working model involving greater transparency at all levels. At present, 50% of staff were agency; given the need to recruit new staff who would support the new working model, it was not possible to provide a precise date and target for permanent staff, although increasing this level was the overall aim. Career pathway interviews were also being conducted with current staff to develop suitable plans to assist them in this culture change.

·  Budget management was prioritised by the Trust Board and being reported monthly. The Invest to Save bids were for agile working and alternatives to care.

·  At present, there were 11 cases subject to Annexe H of the Crown Prosecution Service’s ‘Good Practice Model’. Of these, 3 had received immediate action whilst the others received fast responses.

Resolved:

1.  That the Delivery Plan presented to Ofsted in May 2016 be circulated to Education and Children’s Services Scrutiny Panel members and reported on regularly at Panel meetings.

2.  That Councillors be involved in the appointment of the permanent Director responsible for Children’s Services on a cross party basis.