Agendas, Meetings and Minutes - Agenda item

Agenda item

Children's Social Care Service - 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 provide an update on the outcome of Ofsted's fifth monitoring visit which had taken place on 11 and 12 July 2018.

 

The Assistant Director provided Members with a presentation.  The following main points were made:

 

·       The outcome of the visit was a continuation of the positive trajectory of previous monitoring visits.  The service was making positive progress but there was still more to do.

·       There remained a need to establish a consistent quality of service to all children in all parts of the service.  This would require the recruitment and retention of good quality social workers.

·       The aim was to ensure sustained improvement.  It was acknowledged that there was no quick fix.

·       The service aimed to achieve a life-long positive impact and decisions needed to be the right ones for now and for the long term.

·       The July visit had confirmed a growing stability in the workforce with successful recruitment and reduced staff turnover.  Social worker morale was improving with staff feeling challenged and supported.

·       Increased staff stability meant that 74% of children now had had 3 social workers or less.  This was a positive statistic.  In relation to agency staff, the service was running at 61% permanency.  Ofsted had reported that the revised operating structure was working well, with each manager having oversight of approximately 100 cases, allowing for more regular supervision.  It was important that this was reflective supervision as well as decision making.

·       'Signs of safety' (the new model for working with children and families) was also being used as the model for social worker supervision.  Although this model was being used more widely by social workers, there was still a degree of inconsistency in how it was being recorded.

·       Ofsted had noted an overall increase in social workers' confidence and highlighted that assessments that had commenced in the last eight months were consistently of good quality.  Of the six social work teams, five now had a permanent manager.

·       A programme of training for partner agencies on 'Signs of Safety' had just commenced.  This would include schools, the health service and staff in targeted early help.

·       The importance of finding time to reflect was emphasised.  This was hard to do but it was important that it became part of core business.

·       The next Ofsted monitoring visit would take place on 2 and 3 October and would focus on children in care.

 

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

 

·       In response to a question about the reasons for 'drift and delay' as referred to in the Ofsted letter, Members were reminded that a change of social worker might cause a case to drift as a new social worker would take time to pick up the work and build a relationship with the child and family.  Also, social workers had to deal with competing priorities.  For example, if a social worker was required to respond to a child protection emergency, it may mean a child in need visit would have to be cancelled.

·       Reduced caseloads would help reduce drift and delay.  The target was for social workers to have an average of 16 cases, whereas the current average was 17.  However, it was suggested that averages often disguised differences between staff.  ASYE staff (Assessed and Supported Year in Employment) may only have 12 cases whereas more experienced staff may have 20 or 21 cases.  Caseloads had reduced consistently but were not yet at the right level for all.  In best practice authorities, caseloads may be at the level of 6 to 8 but this was not achievable in Worcestershire.  Good outcomes for children were the absolute priority but this was not achievable without workforce stability.

·       A Member congratulated staff on the positive feedback and noted the progress made.  However, she queried the use of imprecise language in the Ofsted letter such as the word 'some' and 'significant work'.  The Assistant Director agreed, and highlighted the lack of clarity around the word 'consistent'.  There was not one area that had been highlighted as an area of real concern.

·       The Cabinet Member reminded the Panel that the strengths based model aimed to focus on what someone could do rather than what they could not do.  He suggested that at the start of the process there were concerns at every level.  However, the service had now moved past this and was focussed on the operational level rather than the strategic.

·       In response to a question about why the Ofsted letter referred to the new approach being 'received favourably by some social workers', it was explained that at that point not all social workers had received training or were confident in using it.  No social workers were resistant to the approach and a network of 90 champions was providing further support to ensure social workers were confident beyond the training.

·       A question was asked about how the new assessment approach had impacted on social worker workloads and whether children and families had an input into what was decided as the way forward.  Although children and families were asked what was going well and what was not going well, the correct pathway was a matter for the social worker's professional judgement, with decisions being made in conjunction with the family and other partner professionals.

·       A question was asked about whether partners had bought in to the new culture and ways of working.  The Signs of Safety model was about risk management and when working in a highly pressurised environment, people were often worried about making the wrong decision.  One way of managing this anxiety was to refer the case to a social worker.  However, not all cases would need a referral to a social worker.  There was a need to reassure partners that they could manage this risk themselves.  The 'danger statement' (part of the Signs of Safety model) aimed to get the professionals involved to put the risk factors into proportion.

·       Staff needed to have confidence and the support of managers who would support their decision making.  There was a need to recognise that when something went wrong, it was not always someone's fault.

·       It was suggested that the heavily publicised 'inadequate' judgement had caused professionals to be risk averse and had increased demand for safeguarding services.  Increasing social workers' confidence was key.

Supporting documents: