Agenda item

The 4^th Monitoring Visit had focused on processes for Public Law Outline (PLO); this was the process for cases where progress was not being made and legal approaches were considered. These could involve SCST becoming the custodian of the children in question. Ofsted had previously concluded that PLO was not used sufficiently frequently in Slough; more families were now subject to PLO procedures, although Ofsted found that cases could lack managerial oversight. However, it should be noted that Ofsted had not found a case where a child’s safety was compromised; rather, the issue was one of record keeping. Further oral testimony offered strong indications that workers were aware of the issues in their cases, but were not creating an audit trail.

This left SCST in a position where it was compliant with requirements but needed to improve the quality of its records. The Independent Reviewing Officers also provided evidence of improved engagement, whilst there had been a case of a child who had repeatedly been missing not having been recorded with sufficient depth.

This led to a situation where the level of practice was mixed; the consistency of this needed to increase to achieve a ‘good’ rating at the next Ofsted Inspection. However, the Corporate Parenting Panel had been a highly positive change, whilst the 5^th Monitoring Visit had noted many of the required improvements noted above.

The Panel raised the following points in discussion:

·  SCST was confident it was on the correct trajectory. The 2015 position saw all areas subject to the Ofsted inspection to be ‘inadequate’. Given this, SCST had focused on ensuring safety as its top priority; Ofsted had recognised this in their Monitoring Visits, and now SCST was concentrating on improvements across all areas. However, to have attempted to improve all areas simultaneously from the inception of SCST would have been an impossible task.

·  The fact that Ofsted had stated they were not concerned about safety should therefore be seen as significant progress in this context.

·  The stated aim of SCST was to move services to a ‘Good’ rating within 3 years. Given that 2/3^rds of this had now elapsed, SCST had no reason to doubt that this was still achievable. The relationship between SCST and SBC was also positive and conducive to this, with corporate parenting and the Virtual School examples of this. The provision of evidence for these improvements and written analysis of cases were the central element which needed improvement, as well as management oversight. SCST was also aware that quality of recording was vital, rather than producing large amounts of paperwork that lacked a clear audit trail.

·  Another key improvement had been the introduction of hubs used for reflective discussion. These used role playing to allow social workers to explore all sides of a case rather than becoming too invested in one partisan narrative.

·  The Improvement Board had been established to look at the actions Ofsted had requested at its last inspection; these were almost completed. However, these were now being replaced by more ambitious targets set at a higher level. SCST was aware of the need to constantly improve and pursue an upward developmental arc. It was confident this was being maintained, although acknowledged the level of work this required and the vulnerability of any progress made should that area be neglected.

·  SCST and the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board provided good governance and were bolstering this work.

·  An Ofsted Inspection was very different to the Monitoring Visits. The former lasted 4 weeks, evaluated hundreds of cases and would take an overview of all elements of SCST; the latter was far shorter and narrower in focus. However, SCST would not be undertaking a mock Ofsted given the workload necessitated by having Monitoring Visits every 12 weeks. SCST would be made aware when the series of Monitoring Visits was being concluded, and would expect the full inspection to follow 12 weeks from this time.

·  Intelligence on cases was being captured through return interviews and multi agency events such as Sexual Exploitation Missing Risk Assessment Conferences. However, in cases where young people were not engaging with the service such work could be difficult. The National Youth Advocacy Service was used to try and initiate dialogue in these instances.

·  Children should be visited every 6 weeks; this could be eased to 3 months in long term placements, although more regular contact was often taking place. The isolated case where a child had not been visited for 4 months had occurred when the relevant worker had left, the worker inheriting the case had taken sick leave and the matter had not been picked up. SCST had taken action to ensure this was not repeated.

Resolved:  That the report be noted.