Agenda item

Report of the Corporate Director of Children and Adults Services.

The Chairman, Councillor C Potts introduced the Council’s Head of Children’s Services, Carol Payne who was in attendance to give an update presentation to Members in respect of the Children’s Services (for copy see file of minutes).

The Head of Children’s Services noted that the Council’s Children’s Services had been subject to a Ofsted Single Inspection Framework (SIF) Inspection, carried out between 22 February and 16 March 2016, with the report within the agenda papers having originally having been presented to Cabinet at its meeting held on 13 July 2016.  It was explained that a SIF Inspection focuses upon: children in need of help and protection; services for looked after children, including care leavers and those within fostering and adoption; leadership and governance; and the LSCB.

Members were reminded the inspection took place over 4 weeks, and that the experience was very intense and with 10 Inspectors, a Senior Data Analyst, 2 Quality Assurance Managers and a Regional Director from Ofsted being involved.  It was explained that Inspectors had originally looked at 20 cases files to audit, however, this expanded to samples from many other files to approximately 200 files in total.  Members noted that issues that were reviewed included: decision making; supervision; managerial oversight; written plans; and recording at all stages of a child’s journey.  It was explained that Inspectors were provided with 535 documents, including strategic reports, minutes of meetings, performance data and case file data.  The Head of Children’s Services referred Members to a slide depicting a word cloud generated from the view of those staff that had experienced the inspection, with examples including: thorough, intense, relentless and exhausting.

The Committee noted that the overall Ofsted judgement was “requires improvement”, with a breakdown of across the SIF focus areas being:

Children who need help and protection                                 -         Requires improvement

Children Looked After and Achieving Permanence                -         Requires improvement

-        Adoption performance                                          -         Good

-        Experience and progress of Care Leavers             -         Good 

Leadership, management and governance                           -         Requires improvement

LSCB                                                                                  -         Good

The Head of Children’s Services noted that there had been many strengths highlighted within the inspection and these had included good early help services and good multi-agency working that was well established.  Members noted that other positives had been noted included: the high levels of Children’s Centre registrations; appropriate referrals via First Contact; the MASH working well where there was risk of significant harm; and with placements for looked after children being at least good.  The Committee noted that the inspection had shown other areas that were working well, such as the services for disabled children being good and well-managed, adoption was good, and the services, support and range of accommodation for care leavers was also good.  It was added that another strength mentioned was that political and senior leaders, as corporate parents, demonstrated passion and commitment to children and young people.

Members learned that other areas also found to be good and working well included: staff training and development, consultation with children and young people, including care leavers; accommodation choices; and work in terms of combating CSE and children who go missing.  It was added that other positives had included the Youth Offending Service being well integrated and the education support for looked after children being good.  The Inspectors had noted that the performance information was extensive and that the Children and Young People’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee had demonstrated passion and commitment to improve the lives of young people.  Another strength highlighted was the processes that were in place in order to be able to learn from serious case reviews.

The Head of Children’s Services explained that the inspection had noted that the Council’s Corporate Parenting Panel provided good feedback, however, added that Members were not given enough performance information in order to be able to provide challenge and influence improvement in terms of frontline practice.  It was reiterated that the inspection had highlighted the positive role of Overview and Scrutiny and in providing effective challenge of performance.

Members were reminded of the context in which the review of Children’s Services was undertaken, including the significant changes over recent years such as restructuring of teams in 2014, the single assessment process coming into effect, the formation of the MASH, and the innovation programme with 10 Families First Teams.  It was added that as result of these changes, improvements had been seen in some areas, however the impact had other changes had not yet been seen.  Members were reminded of the pressures placed upon social workers, including that of their caseloads.

The Head of Children’s Services noted that the review had 14 recommendations in terms of areas for improvement, noting issues such as: social worker caseloads being too high, in the region of 30-40 per social worker at the time of the inspection, compared 8-12 in the only 3 Local Authorities that were Ofsted rated “outstanding”; reports to politicians and senior leaders need more focus on quality of practice; case auditing needed to be more robust; and social work assessment, planning and recording needs to improve.  Members noted that areas for improvement in connection with compliance with regulations and legislation had included: private fostering; voluntary accommodation (Section 20 of the Children Act); temporary assessment of Foster Carers; advocacy and independent visitors for Looked After Children; staying put regulations for care leavers; the quality of return to home interviews; and analysis on adoption recruitment.  The electronic case management system was found to be unfit for purpose.

The Committee noted several of the issues were already in the process of being addressed prior to the inspection; however, several issues had been highlighted through the process.  It was noted that a number of actions were being taken to remediate issues and that also an Improvement Plan had been developed, with actions to be overseen by the Quality Improvement Board.  Councillors noted actions already underway included: a recruitment strategy in place, though noting the difficulty in recruiting experienced social workers; an additional team being recruited; the Newly Qualified Social Worker (NQSW) Academy set up to help grow and nurture our own staff in-house; a revised structure being implemented; and the focus of the Families First programme.  It was added that other actions included: Social Work Consultants being in place; Learning Communities being piloted; and a Quality Improvement Framework, including a revised audit process.  Members noted the Social Services Information Database (SSID) review that was underway with a procurement process to be undertaken in November as regards this.  Councillors noted that Family Friendly Care Plans had been developed and guidance had been reissued in terms of Section 47, Section 20 and Regulation 24 matters.  Members noted improved tracking of the Public Law Outline (PLO) process and that the numbers of young people “staying put” had already improved.  It was added that improvement clinics were in operation within teams.      

The Head of Children’s Services concluded by highlighting national inspection outcomes, which showed that the majority of Local Authorities and LSCBs fell within the “requires improvement” category, 52% and 50% respectively.

The Chairman, Councillor C Potts thanked the Head of Children’s Services and asked Members for their questions on the report and presentation.

Councillor H Smith noted the NQSW set up was a good idea and asked if there could be any way to include within contracts that they would remain at the Council, else once experienced they could be tempted to leave and go elsewhere.  The Head of Children’s Services noted that although clauses were in place, it is not possible to hold staff to the agreement.  However, it was important to ensure that employees felt valued and would want to stay at Durham County Council and it was noted that major factors in ensuring this were: making social workers feel supported; provide good training; help social workers feel that they were “making a difference”; and to have manageable caseloads.

Councillor O Gunn noted the Ofsted inspection and added that the context of budget cuts and the creativity of DCC had not been taken into account.  Councillor O Gunn asked if there was a national shortage of social workers and whether this was being addressed. 

The Head of Children’s Services noted that some Local Authorities in London and one in the North East had agency worker levels of around 40-50%, with DCC having less than 10%.  However, it was added that if more agency workers were available this would be welcomed as indeed there was a shortage locally and nationally.  It was added that there were drives to try and improve the profile of social workers, akin to how teaching as a profession had its profile raised through the 1980s, with Isabelle Trowler having been appointed as Chief Social Worker for Children and Families by Government.

The Head of Children’s Services noted that “golden handshakes” were not recommended in order to attract experienced social workers, as this could result in costs spiralling, and that the best way would be to provide a good professional experience that would attract those people to want to work in Durham.

Councillor M Hodgson asked as regards any pressures on foster families if the number of young people “staying put” was increasing and as regards the service moving forward.  The Head of Children’s Services reported that payments to carers for Staying Put are less than for under-18s, but that rates are increasing. 

It was added that a draft Improvement Plan would be submitted to Ofsted in August, and that areas for improvement would be tackled head-on.  It was added that the level of support in Durham for the service was good and that the appointment of a Corporate Director of Children’s Services would also be a good step in moving forward.

The Chairman, Councillor C Potts noted that a further update at Committee in a further 6 months would be useful in terms of demonstrating progress being made.  The Head of Children’s Services noted that reporting back to Members via Committee was an area highlighted by Ofsted.

Councillor J Armstrong noted that the Inspectors had not taken into account the context the budget savings the Council had been required to make and added that the action plan was the right thing to do.

Councillor G Holland noted that the commitment of staff had not been in question; however, there was the issue of caseloads had been mentioned.  Councillor G Holland added that the Government could not “have something for nothing” and that if caseloads were to reduce then there was a need for Government pay for the necessary training to ensure the resources necessary.  The Head of Children’s Services noted that the inspection was carried out “resource blind”, however, it was to be noted that during austerity DCC had not lost a single social worker.  It was explained that in terms of caseloads, 40 was not a usual figure, however the inspection had taken place during a particularly busy period.  It was added that 20-25 was more usual and that goalposts nationally and regionally had shifted with an aim for around 16-20, though Members noted that before asking funds it must be ensured that we were working as efficiently as possible in the first instance.

The Head of Planning and Service Strategy, Peter Appleton added that he had been party to the 4 weeks of the inspection and reiterated the comments of the Head of Children’s Services as regards the intensity of the process.  It was added that DCC was learning, however, some of the standards being applied, for example in recording, were not based on the resources actually available and that DCC had focus on good outcomes for young people, not just paperwork.

The Chairman thanked the Officers for their presentation and comments, noting that Members recognised the commitment of the Council Officers to provide a quality service and Members supported and thanked Officers for this.

Resolved:

(i)              That the report and presentation be noted.

(ii)             That the Children and Young People’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee receive

          further updates in relation to the transformation of Children’s Services on a six     month basis.