Agenda item

SCST and SBC had formed a joint Delivery Plan, relating to the improvements required following Ofsted’s 2015 inspection. It had been submitted to Ofsted, and refined in light of their comments.

The Plan included a section on governance arrangements to oversee progress. SCST had its own board, with their Commissioner still working with SBC on reviewing arrangements. The Slough Local Safeguarding Children’s Board (SLSCB) also had input; meeting between SCST and SBC were monthly, and those between SLSCB less frequent (around once every two months). The SCST Commissioner then reported on progress to the Government. Considering that Ofsted were also monitoring matters, this meant that arrangements were placed under rigorous scrutiny. SCST was also realistic as to the scale of the work that was required.

The Panel raised the following points in discussion:

·  SCST saw the level of expectations as a major challenge; to get Children’s Services in Slough to the required standard would require significant training and a culture change. The level of agency staff also needed to be reduced to embed these alterations.

·  Permanent staff would be attracted to Slough through investment and training, rather than wage inflation. It had become clear that those staff who committed to the area did so through the desire to create a good organisation and the capacity to undertake their work to a high standard. SCST’s academy was also offering newly qualified social workers a chance to work at all local hubs, which should assist with future staff retention rates. A retention package was being offered to ensure that Slough did not just become a place to train in preparation for careers elsewhere.

·  Whilst the contract between SBC and SCST set out the key performance indicators, it did not set out the targets related to these. At the present time, the majority now had targets although some remained unset. These would be shared with the Panel.

·  A permanent DCS would be appointed in the near future. Headhunters had been approached to find suitable candidates, and some of these had held informal discussions with SBC’s Chief Executive.

·  The budget for the first 18 months of SCST’s work had been established. Negotiations on future arrangements would commence in the near future, ensuring the right balance between necessary costs and efficiencies. However, the fact that SCST had discovered major issues in need of resolution since assuming responsibilities did mean that some decisions were required on necessary expenditure.

·  One crucial aspect of future work was the need to establish consistent thresholds, which would be applied by all staff. It was imperative that good practice and the adherence to legal guidelines should become embedded in staff, with training and supervision to be central to this. SCST had strengthened enforcement regimes amongst staff to ensure they were prepared to undertake this.

·  SBC would oversee the contract with SCST through monthly board meetings. However, it was acknowledged that the service needed fundamental reform; SCST’s work on this should see an improvement on the depth and quality of information available to make analytical comments.

·  SCST would undertake regular programmes aimed at auditing cases and highlighting issues regarding practice. Recent Ofsted inspections of Children’s Services in other local authorities were used to design the most relevant criteria for these. As part of this, an Ofsted Readiness Group had been established to prepare for such an inspection. Given Slough’s status as ‘inadequate’, it also received Ofsted monitoring visits.

·  A Quality and Innovations Group had also been established to discuss these matters. It meets roughly once every two months.

·  SCST would assume responsibility for children’s centres from October 1^st 2016 onwards; this decision had been part of the Secretary of State’s direction. The risk that this could distract from attention being paid to children’s services was acknowledged and being managed. As well as these risks, it offered opportunities for improvements (e.g. closer working between departments, offering social worker surgeries in the community) and also children’s centres were in a better position than children’s services had been when taken over by SCST. Members did wish to note their reservations on the potential for this to impact on children’s services, and wanted it included in any update given to the Panel.

Resolved:

1.  That the targets for key performance indicators relating to SCST would be shared with the Panel.

2.  That children’s centres would be included in any future report to the Panel regarding SCST’s work.