Agendas, Meetings and Minutes - Agenda item

Agenda item

Update of the Children's Social Care Service Improvement Plan - Ofsted Monitoring Visit Feedback

Minutes:

The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Children and Families and the Assistant Director Safeguarding Services (Children's Social Care) had been invited to the meeting to provide an update on the outcome of Ofsted's third monitoring visit following the report on the inspection of children's social care published in January 2017.

 

The Panel received a presentation from the Assistant Director Safeguarding Services (Children's Social Care).  The following main points were made:

 

·       Initial feedback on the Service Improvement Plan had been that, although it was very comprehensive, there was a need to focus on some specific areas.  However, in taking this advice and prioritising certain areas, the aim had been to keep all areas moving forward.  Although the initial focus had been on the Family Front Door, there had also been developments across the service.

·       The feedback from the January 2018 monitoring visit had been that, although there was still much work to be done, inspectors were able to see progress.  Feedback from the DfE Children's Commissioner was that the pace of progress was greater than could have been expected.

·       It was important that the service made improvements that could be sustained in the long term.

·       The additional financial investment in the service was welcomed and it was acknowledged that this was not easy for the Council to do.  However, it was noted that extra money was not the solution to the service's problems and additional staff did not necessarily mean a better service.

·       Feedback from staff indicated that they were now receiving good quality management and support but there was a need to ensure that this was recorded.

·       In relation to the reduction in case loads, the aim was to ensure minimal disruption for children, although it was acknowledged that there would be some disruption as staff moved on and new staff were recruited.  The best social workers often had higher caseloads but this was not a good situation.

·       Social workers had now been organised into smaller teams with one team manager.  The aim was for each team to look after approximately 100 to 110 cases.  Managers would be in a stronger position to have (and record) conversations with social workers and have oversight of all cases.

·       There was a recognition that all partners must contribute to improvement but this was still a challenge operationally.

·       The monitoring visit had highlighted that, although the application of thresholds had improved, it was still inconsistent.  There was still too great a reliance on agency managers in the Family Front Door but this was being worked on.

·       Ofsted had reported that the development of a performance framework was very positive and an effective whole-system approach to quality assurance had been developed.  However, the challenge for staff was to do this work alongside the day job.  There was a need to build in audit as core business.  The service was working to build a baseline of service user feedback as this had not been gathered previously.

·       Workforce development remained a priority, with the authority aiming to be the employer of choice for skilled staff.  Social workers were now being asked to complete a quarterly 'healthcheck' and feedback to date was positive.

·       Phase 2 of the Service Improvement Plan would focus on the things that remained to be done and would be available for Panel Members soon.

 

Members were given the opportunity to ask questions and the following main points were raised:

 

·       A Member informed the Panel that she was pleased to see the progress made to date and she wished to congratulate staff on this.

·       In response to a question about the number of changes of staff and managers, the Panel was told that on the whole there was now improved permanency in the locality safeguarding teams.  However, one area of the County had been less successful in moving from agency staff and managers were now holding a recruitment drive.  This was a key priority, but it should be noted that appointing experienced social workers and team managers was one of the most difficult challenges.  Strong permanent group managers were now in place and were attracting good team managers.

·       It was acknowledged that performance data was not always accurate and there were some issues in ensuring that it was updated regularly.  It was hoped that the move to smaller social work teams each with their own Business Support Officer would improve this situation.

·       Improvements to partnership working were welcomed.  Social workers had worked hard to ensure better attendance by all relevant parties at strategy meetings.  Health visitor and school nurse attendance was now at 80% and conversations were ongoing about whether some health visitor/school nursing staff should be located in the Family Front Door to allow them to more easily access these meetings.

·       It was important to prioritise support for children at the edge of care, whether this was social work support or support via CAMHS.

·       It was confirmed that reflective practice was good social work practice, but recording of conversations was not always taking place.  The reduction in team size would be helpful in freeing up time for reflective conversations.

·       It was confirmed that Case Progression Officers monitored all open cases to ensure they moved on in a timely way.  They also undertook key audit work.

·       It was suggested that inconsistencies in the application of thresholds was fuelled by anxiety about levels of risk.  Where there were real risks to a child there was no inconsistency.

·       It was recognised that good quality staff were needed to ensure change was embedded and consolidated.  With this in mind it would be important to reassure staff about the setting up of the Alternative Delivery Model.  It was confirmed that a major communications exercise would be undertaken with staff to ensure they were aware of what the ADM would mean for them and what benefits there would be for them and for the children they worked with.  The ADM would be a vehicle to sustain improvement and would allow a total child focus.  It would be important to confirm a senior management structure at an early point in order to give confidence.

·       A second Member wished to record their thanks to the staff who were working to drive improvements in the service.

·       It was noted that a relatively small percentage of referrals required further support.  Given the recent national picture, it was not surprising that there was a level of anxiety about risks to children.  It was confirmed that data was recorded at the closure of the social work assessment.

·       In response to a question about the number of social workers employed now compared to the number employed at the time of Ofsted inspection, the Assistant Director agreed to provide this information to Panel Members following the meeting.  She was able to confirm that in July 2016 the FFD comprised 2 teams of 10 social workers and 1 manager.  It was now made up of 6 teams of 5 social workers and 1 manager.

·       Although senior managers such as the Assistant Director and Director of Children's Services would probably be known by Team Managers, they might not be known by all social workers.  It was suggested that staff on the ground were able to tell managers a lot about the service they worked in.  It was confirmed that the Assistant Director met every 8 weeks with frontline staff.

·       It was confirmed that there was a good and increasing contribution of schools to strategy discussions.

·       It was confirmed that Wyre Forest and Bromsgrove currently had the greatest concentration of agency staff.  It was noted that both areas were in the north of the County and had good transport links to other local authorities.

·       The Cabinet Member reminded the Panel that there were 2 strands to the improvement work.  Firstly there was the Service Improvement Plan and ongoing monitoring via Ofsted and secondly there was the ADM which would provide the vehicle for delivery of the improved services.  The pace of change was very high and some partners may be finding it difficult to keep up.  The Council had agreed that the improvement work would be a priority until April 2019, although it was disappointing to see varying degrees of interest and commitment from Councillors.

 

 

Supporting documents: