Agenda item

The Strategic Director of Social Care and Education submits a report on the most recent Leicester City Council Ofsted inspection. This took place under the “inspecting local authority children’s services” (ILACS) framework in September 2024.

The Strategic Director of Social Care and Education submitted a report on the most recent Leicester City Council Ofsted inspection. This took place under the “inspecting local authority children’s services” (ILACS) framework in September 2024

The Assistant City Mayor for Children and Young people introduced the report and noted that lots of work had been implemented on the recommendations from Ofsted.  The fact that a number of areas required improvement meant that it was necessary to look at how the Council were moving forward with the service and supporting children and young people.  The work done had been difficult and it was hoped that confidence could be gained on the way it was driven forward.

The Strategic Director of Social Care and Education presented the report.

Key points included:

·       The inspection had taken place six months ago, and work had been undertaken since.

·       All areas for improvement from the 2021 report had been improved upon.

·       It was good that social workers had manageable caseloads and knew their children well.

·       Child protection plans had been reported on favourably.

·       There were a number of areas for improvement:

o   In terms of management of information, there were examples of better practice elsewhere.  As a result of this, benchmarking had been undertaken and a lot of data had been collected.

o   Work had been done on the timeliness and robustness of plans and contacts.  The workforce was relatively young with newly qualified social workers from university.  Retaining staff had also been a challenge.

o   There was need for improvement in middle-management and a need to ensure that they were confident.

o   Arrangements were sought to identify safeguarding support in care leavers, particularly around people from unregulated children’s homes.

·       There was support for care leavers in their 20s, including those homeless or in prison, the Council were trying to engage proactively through a rights-based approach.

·       Reforms had given the Council extra income for areas of Children’s Social Care.

·       The city had the lowest number of children’s social workers per head in the East Midlands, so more would be recruited.

·       Functional Family Therapy was enabled to get investment.

·       The feedback from Ofsted would be blended with information from the report into a single plan.

The Committee were invited to ask questions and make comments. Key points included:

·       In terms of the recruitment rate, it was suggested that a target be identified to work on, and this should be monitored.  It was clarified that an impact board existed showing the transformation of the system with reforms, there was also a dashboard of information and an improvement plan with milestone and a red/amber/green rating.  It was further explained that whilst scrutiny input was welcome, movement may not be seen month-on-month.  It was suggested that performance reporting could be reflected on and brought to scrutiny.

·       The headline data was not reflective of the report.  Some of this reflected cultural change.  Since 2021, it was thought that the culture may not have improved over time as maintaining the culture across the workforce could be difficult.  It was necessary to look at the culture in middle management and around positivity.  Policy type changes would also need to be examined.

·       In terms or data, the department were data-rich, but it was necessary to think about how this data was used.

·       In terms of unregulated placements, there were around six or seven children that could not be accommodated due to extreme behaviour, this was often due to the risk of Ofsted registration.  As a result of this they went into unregulated accommodation.  However, the rate of this was low compared to other authorities.  The Strategic Director of Social Care and Education took liability for these children, and so it was ensured that these children we as well looked after as they could be in terms of oversight.  More regular contact with these children was made so that the Council did not have to rely on the providers.

·       It was suggested that there was a lot to be gained in terms of positives, but criticism must be taken on board.

·       It was suggested that leadership and management set the culture, and as such these staff members needed to be retained.

·       It needed to be acknowledged that the leadership team were relatively new, but there was a lot of ambition and drive.  The Council building its own children’s homes meant that looked after children were no longer a commodity.  Having longer-term plans showed the vision and ambition.

·       The issue of whether there was anyone or any body to judge Ofsted quality assurance was raised.

·       It was good that self-evaluation had started as changes could not be made without self-evaluation.

·       In response to a question about costs, there would be no knock-on effect as there was £2.6m in the prevention grant.  This would enable the Council to carry out its intended plans in terms of restructuring and external support. This was a one-year deal, but it was hoped that funding would continue.  There was also work that could be done in the voluntary sector.

·       In response to a question regarding return-home interviews, it was acknowledged that there was a need to be more consistent with the offer.  However, it was explained that they had been offered in 91% of cases.  Whilst there was more to do to make it 100%, a wide range of ways to engage were used.  Young people in these situations could not be forced to engage.  It was important to ensure that the best person was used to have these conversations with the young people involved.  There was monthly data on return home, and this was monitored by the team and was not disproportionate to other authorities.  However, work could be done on achieving more and getting young people to talk about their experience, however, some were unwilling to talk and as such it was necessary to develop trusting relationships with adults.

·       A new system to manage information had been invested in.  A new education management system had been procured and the department were in the process of moving over to it.  This would improve the ability to analyse data.

·       It was requested that training around middle-management skills sets be considered in future updates.  It was further clarified that part of the funding received was allocated to training.  Additionally, there was support from the DfE to link up with improvement partners, and the Council would link with a London Borough that had experience on this.

·       There would be new recruitment as part of the problem had been that senior management had been stretched.  The number of new staff had not been totalled as managers were being negotiated with to see what roes were needed.  It was thought that there would likely be around ten specialist workers on social work, and new service heads and managers.  The process of job evaluation and advertising would be long but was being pursued as quickly as possible.

AGREED:

1)    That the report be noted.

2)    That comments made by members of this commission to be taken into account by the lead officers.

3)    That regular updates to be brought to scrutiny, to include target monitoring and performance as well as training (especially of middle-management).