Agenda item

Mrs S Hohler, Cabinet Member, Children, Families and Education, and Ms R Turner, Managing Director, Children, Families and Education have been invited to attend the meeting between 9.40am and 10.25am to answer Members’ questions on this item.

At the request of the Chairman and Spokesmen, Mr A Wood and Mr D Tonks have been asked to stay for consideration of this item, in relation to the risk aspects.

Mr P Carter, Leader of the Council, Mrs S Hohler, Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Education, Ms R Turner, Managing Director, Children, Families and Education, Mr A Wood, Acting Director of Finance, and Mr D Tonks, Head of Audit and Risk were present for this item.

(1) The Chairman asked whether the report by Ofsted was a fair one and if problems had occurred more recently than a number of earlier judgements which had not raised any serious concerns. These included a 4-star rating received in 2008, a report in April 2010 by the then Chief Executive and the report by a consultant who was employed to look at serious case reviews after the Baby P case.

(2) Ms Turner explained that the Ofsted framework was now very different - it was case based, and only two weeks’ notice was given. All open cases were given to Ofsted, and the Council was asked to audit them. It was a test of performance management and audit and as such was different to a Joint Area Review, where one year’s notice was given and preparation could take place over several months. It was not possible to say if it was a fair assessment, but it had been a more managed process.

(3) Members had already been aware of a number of risks, including a high level of vacancies, a difficulty retaining social workers, many newly qualified social workers and increasing demand. The judgement found process-driven practice and a focus on performance indicators, resulting in quality assurance and performance management which was not sufficient to report on outcomes. The Council’s response had been to take a radical look at the service and Ms Turner added that it was crucial that managers within the service flagged up problems, such as increasing demand and the working conditions of social workers in order that they could be addressed.

(4) The Leader felt this was the most important issue that had been before the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee, and there was a need to reflect on and address the issues outlined in the report. Although there had been warning signs, including a report by the former Chief Executive which portrayed a service just about coping, the severity of the Ofsted report had been a surprise. He believed that it was a mistake to disaggregate children’s and adult social care across the country, and this is why they were being brought back together in the restructure proposals. Kent had areas of high deprivation and large numbers of Looked After Children (LAC) placed by other Councils, and this was why a detailed report had been commissioned in 2008.

(5) The Leader stated that if the recommendations of the reports by the previous Chief Executive and the external consultant had been acted upon more promptly and rigorously and embedded across the organisation, KCC would not have received such a critical judgement. He felt there had been failures in delivery of the recommendations and there had also been opportunities for Members to monitor and scrutinise their progress, including through the Children’s Champion board, Kent Safeguarding Children Board (KSCB) and POSCs. The focus would now be on the recovery plan, and the Leader would be going with senior officers to speak with the Minister the following week. Responding to a question about how retention of the political and professional leadership which had been in place before the report could be justified, the Leader stated that Members were ‘in this together’ and during the impending restructure officers would have to apply for their posts within the service. He added that the inspector would be returning a year from the date of the inspection and if substantial progress had not been made, he would resign.

(6) Responding to a query about what should have been done in preparation for an Ofsted inspection, Ms Turner stated that she had joined the Council in May 2009 and there had been a peer review of the quality and standards  of duty and assessment teams’ against the Ofsted framework which had shown variable practice. The audit went to the Senior Management Team in July 2009, an action plan was agreed and she made changes such as the appointment of the Director for Specialist Children’s Services. There had been a tradition of audits stopping at the level of Children’s Social Services management which meant that senior managers and Members were not always informed of progress.

(7) Ms Turner explained that Children Families and Education (CFE) had focussed on improving the quality of its response to referrals, which had increased by 27%, while a third of social work posts were vacant and this had been a contributory factor in performance. CFE had concentrated on recruiting more staff, changed the management team and ensured there were integral, coterminous teams in each district with twelve preventative service managers who had been working with partners to ensure appropriate referrals. Much had been done to boost the teams, recruit to vacant posts, strengthen the leadership and management of the service and manage down inappropriate referrals, but Ms Turner believed that the service had not been able to improve quickly enough, and this is what had resulted in the poor judgement.

(8) A question was raised as to why, given that the Council had acknowledged the risks and had put in place recommendations and an improvement plan, Ofsted had judged that Kent had inadequate capacity to improve. It was explained that under the Ofsted grade criteria, good capacity to improve would be awarded if there was sustained evidence of improvement. Although the report acknowledged that problems had been recognised and actions had been taken to improve the service it was not yet embedded­. The example of Essex County Council was cited where, after two years of intervention, safeguarding had been rated inadequate with adequate capacity to improve.

(9) Concerns were expressed around the scrutiny arrangements, and whether they had contributed to the situation. A view was expressed that boards and committees rely on information from senior management, but not all the relevant information had been made available to Members, and that Members should be more challenging of the information in front of them. The Leader explained that a review of governance arrangements would form part of the recovery plan.

(10) Mrs Hohler explained that an improvement and development steering group, which was multi-agency and cross-party, was set up immediately after the unannounced inspection and monitored the improvement plan for each district team. Ofsted had acknowledged this during the announced inspection but had said it was too soon to see if there had been improvements. An additional improvement board and improvement plan would be set up after a meeting with the minister the following week.

(11) On the recovery plan, Mr Carter explained that three individuals who had been involved in the recovery of other authorities from poor judgements had been recruited, work was onging to ensure the Integrated Children’s System (ICS) was working to the best of its ability and 7000 case files were being reviewed before December. Work to be done included looking at the intelligent deployment of staff, with experienced social workers alongside newer staff, reviewing reward packages and career progression to attract and retain social workers, and sensible caseloads. Priorities would be looking at the number of inappropriate referrals due to universal application of thresholds, being creative and innovative about mechanisms to support young people, and a renewed effort on working with other agencies. Staff had been moved away from Looked After Children (LAC) to safeguarding, and consequently there needed to be a renewed focus on transforming the way LAC were cared for and ensuring that those suitable for adoption were adopted, as well as the possibility of exploring rotation between LAC and safeguarding to reduce ‘burnout’. On the monitoring and scrutiny of the recovery plan, the Leader explained that the process would be open and honest, making use of Member expertise where possible.

(12) Responding to a question about when the situation would improve, the Leader stated that the aim was to sort out the fundamentals within six months with significant improvement within one year. It was explained that once a council is given a bad judgement, it can take time for Ofsted to agree that changes had become fully embedded throughout the organisation.

(13) On the recruitment of new staff, Ms Turner explained that there had been a batch of newly qualified and experienced recruits from Europe and she expected the service to be almost fully staffed by April 2011. However, experience would need to be grown around making judgements correctly, and supervising social workers were being recruited to support new front line staff, although these experienced staff were still hard to find. Other issues included the fact that there was limited career progression available to social workers, and that Kent was recruiting from the same pool as other councils looking to fill vacancies. The Leader felt there was a need to increase the profile of front line social work, and that attracting local graduates would ensure sustainability.

(14) In response to a request for numbers, rather than percentages of vacancies, Ms Turner undertook to produce a report on the numbers of the establishment for social workers and principal social workers. On retention rates of staff compared with other services, Ms Turner stated that retention rates were currently satisfactory. There had been a mixture of internal and external recruitment to the District Manager posts, but that extensive training would be necessary throughout the service, as frontline quality assurance was of paramount importance.

(15) On the subject of training, Ms Turner explained that the new supervisory policy was already underway, and that continuous training and workforce development was necessary to keep critical judgements in complex situations sharp. An issue that had arisen in the past was that managers were ensuring that assessments were being carried out but without a focus on the quality of the judgements and outcomes of those assessments. A culture had developed whereby social workers felt that they were not able to openly express their concerns. There was therefore a need to change the culture of the service as well as holding staff to account for managing their own and others’ performance. Members expressed concern that social workers did not feel that they could talk openly before, and it was asked if this was being addressed in the staff behaviours document.

(16) Responding to question about whether the process in place to identify and mitigate risks was sufficiently robust to recognise and respond to similar issues in the future, Mr Tonks explained that in his role as Head of Risk he relied on the professionals and senior management of a service to identify risks, but it would be in his remit as Head of Audit to carry out an audit of the response plan (although Ofsted would be returning in a year’s time to do this anyway). Replying to a query about whether his remit extended to identifying threats to the implementation plan, Mr Tonks explained that he would expect the CFE Senior Management Team to do so, and that the response plan would include a risk register.

(17) Responding to a query about progress on partnership working, Ms Turner explained that the response from other agencies had been very supportive, including the police examining their referral practice and adopting a more risk-managed approach. The potential for multi-agency teams was being examined, with an initial contact and triage system.

(18) In response to a query on what proportion of safeguarding referrals came from police, Ms Turner stated that it was the vast majority, and promised that the figures would be made available in a separate report. Concern was also expressed that a low level of referrals came from schools due to their regular contact with children. Referring to the Council restructure proposals, the Chairman asked whether the arrangement for the Director of Children’s Services to sit in a different Directorate was fit for purpose, since they would have to answer for such mistakes in the future but would not have direct control over the staff responsible.

(19) On the subject of Member involvement, Ms Turner explained that she had discussed opportunities for Member input in individual cases with Mrs Hohler. Whilst it might not be appropriate to provide written case details, it would be legitimate for cases which came to the attention of a Member to be discussed face to face with the social worker and their manager. This is something that could be included in the improvement plan.

(20) On the wider involvement of Members, Ms Turner clarified that the formulation of the improvement plan would be influenced by the discussions at Cabinet and Cabinet Scrutiny Committee and that the external help that had been brought in would also bring challenge and rigour. There was a need to map out how progress would be reported to scrutiny. The Children’s Champion Board would be recast as the Corporate Parenting Board, with a particular focus on LAC, and the improvement board would be cross party and represent a cross section of the organisation. The Leader suggested an open and full briefing early January, perhaps as part of Children’s Champions Board to get members fully up to speed and enable them to contribute to the recovery plan.

(21) Mr Christie moved that the Committee formally recommend that the Cabinet Member and Leader consider their positions in light of the Ofsted judgement. The motion was not seconded.

RESOLVED: that the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee:

(22) Thank Mr Carter, Mrs Hohler, Ms Turner, Mr Wood and Mr Tonks for attending the meeting and answering Members’ questions.

(23) Acknowledges the Leader’s acceptance that there are serious concerns about the effectiveness of safeguarding services and that Members and Officers are fully committed to tackling the shortcomings as a matter of urgency.

(24) Welcome the assurances given by the Leader of the Council, the Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Education and the Managing Director, Children Families and Education that the points made during the discussion at Cabinet Scrutiny Committee will be included as part of the recovery plan

(25) Ask the Leader of the Council that the outcome of the meeting with the Minister to discuss safeguarding and looked after children services in Kent be reported back to the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee.

(26) Ask the Cabinet Member to ensure that the outcomes of the review into the circumstances surrounding the judgement be reported back to the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee, given the seriousness of the subject.

(27) Ask the Cabinet Member to provide a report on the actual number of social worker posts and historical data on the number of vacancies within the Children, Families and Education Directorate since April 2009.

(28) Ask the Cabinet Member to provide a report on the number of safeguarding referrals to the Children, Families and Education Directorate from different agencies since April 2009.