Agenda item

To receive a presentation about the most recent Inspection of Local Authority Children’s Services (ILACS).

The Chairman pointed out that the action plan would be discussed at a later meeting as this was currently being drafted.  Helen Watson added that there was an Improvement Board in place which was overseeing the action plan. 

Adam Davis and Helen Watson shared a presentation, and the following points were highlighted:

·           ILACS stood for Inspection of Local Authority Children’s Services.  Such inspections were usually conducted every three years;

·           Unlike focused inspections, ILACS looked into all the work carried out by Children’s Services, all the way through from Early Help to Care Leavers;

·           A self-evaluation document existed which contained details of the services’ own assessment of its performance.  An annual conversation with Ofsted was carried out in which this document was discussed;

·           Ofsted had included Care Leavers as an area of focus since the beginning of 2023;

·           An ILACS inspection lasted for three weeks, and there was no warning of the inspection.  The inspection was triggered by a phone call to the Director for Children’s Services;

·           In the first week of inspection Ofsted gathered a lot of information about the current activities being carried out and started to develop some lines of enquiry;

·           In the second week inspectors carried out visits, interviews, observations and other interactions with various people (Members, Officers, CIC, prospective adopters, social workers and others);

·           Of note was the fact that Wokingham received the same number of inspectors as other much larger local authorities, making the process disproportionate;

·           Ofsted met with many officers, children and the Executive Member for Children’s Services;

·           Ofsted had an education inspector who spent 2 days on site looking at the work undertaken by the Virtual School;

·           Ofsted operated as deficit model, there were always recommendations for improvement.  The findings were listed in the report;

·           The report also contained many positive comments;

·           The judgement was ‘requires improvement to become good’, with areas where the service was ‘good’;

·           Much progress had been made since the last inspection in 2019;

·           The service was aware of what is needed to achieve a good rating in the future.

Councillor Cunnington asked:

·           Were there any surprises with the gradings given?

·           Were there any themes that had been identified that explained why improvement in the grading had not been made?

·           Would there be backing from the Executive to put things right where they needed improvement?

Helen Watson explained that this was not a like for like comparison with the 2019 inspection.  This inspection included a new judgement area - the scrutiny of the services provided to Care Leavers, which was introduced in January 2023.

Helen Watson sat in the Ofsted Consultative Forum, representing the South East region.  Since January 2023, there had been very forensic investigations of the experiences of Care Leavers.  She added that the grading of ‘requires improvement’ was very vast, it ranged from very near to inadequate to being on the cusp of good.  There were clear signs from the conversations had with Ofsted that the service was close to good.

Adam Davis observed that the language used in the report suggested that services were good but there could be more consistency in throughout.  He added that the pandemic and the current cost of living crisis being impacted the services.  Ofsted was interested to know ‘how well do we know ourselves?’

The Chairman asked if officers felt that they fully understood the comments made in the report? 

Councillor Bray stated that she was confused by the fact that Ofsted had praised a particular team saying that staff were able to take initiative, they had good decision making and their judgement was excellent, and at the same time they were criticized because their managers did not intervene and supervise them sufficiently.

Councillor Bray was confident that progress had been made and there were areas that were very close to good.  She believed that officers knew what they needed to do and reassured the Committee that Executive would back the service improvement plan.

Councillor Gray asked if Ofsted offered any support with the improvement plan?  Helen Watson confirmed that they did not.  A focused visit was expected in the future, where Ofsted would test the improvements being made.  The service carried out a self-evaluation exercise annualy.

Adam Davis explained that the service’s improvement plan covered a broader area, it did not just focus on Ofsted inspections.

In response to a question, Helen Watson stated that a number of peer reviews had been undertaken in the last year and a half.

Councillor Bray drew attention to the fact that the stress caused by Ofsted judgements in local authority’s staff was not documented in the media in the same way that it was known that schools’ Ofsted caused stress. However, this was a very stressful time for members of staff.

Councillor Bray added that Ofsted did not raise any safeguarding concerns.

The Chairman noted that support had been given to staff during the inspection, that was much appreciated.

Councillor Chadwick asked if there were any external factors which were outside of the Council’s control which had contributed to the “requires improvement” judgement?

Helen Watson referenced workforce challenges, there had been some staff sickness absence in the six month period prior to the inspection.  This factor had affected the timeliness of certain services.  She mentioned that other factors were the effectiveness of services provided by other agencies such as Health (for example in relation to the timeliness of health assessments).

Adam Davis explained that the timing of an Ofsted visit could reflect on the overall result of the inspection.

Councillor Pittock noted that it was unfair that Wokingham received the same number of inspectors as other much larger local authorities.  He wondered if this issue could be raised with the government?

Helen Watson informed that she had challenged this point and unfortunately had had no success.  Only very small local authorities had fewer inspectors.  Adam Davis added that ‘requires improvement’ local authorities had three weeks of inspections, whereas ‘good’ local authorities had two weeks of inspections.

Councillor Cunnington asked how many members of staff were involved in developing the improvement plan?

Adam Davis explained that the improvement plan was always ongoing.  The management team was involved, the whole team had to be onboard for the plan to be successful.

Members agreed that following the review of the improvement plan, the Committee would look at the appropriate way to lobby the persons or organisations in respect of the disproportionate number of inspectors sent to a small local authority. 

RESOLVED That:

1)     The report is noted;

2)     The CSO&S Committee thanks all Children’s Services staff and any other department that has been involved in the ILACS Ofsted inspection, and in the development of the improvement plan; and

3)     The improvement plan would be reviewed in September and in January.