Agenda item

The Chair welcomed the Corporate Director of Children’s Services, A Bates, to the meeting to provide an update on the Ofsted Focused Visit to the Front Door, which took place between 2–10 December 2025.

The visit had been a nongraded inspection under the ILACS framework and formed part of preparation for the full ILACS inspection expected in the first half of 2026. Inspectors met with senior leaders, reviewed documentation and audited a substantial number of cases across the Assessment Service and the Multi Agency Children’s Hub (MACH). It was noted that Ofsted had been in the process of revising the ILACS framework, with changes due to take effect from 1 April 2026. The Director advised that the implications of these changes were not yet known and confirmed that clarification had been sought from Ofsted, given that current processes were based on the existing framework.

Inspectors thanked staff for their professional and organised approach and noted improvements in management oversight and support over the previous three months. They also confirmed alignment between the Council’s own self-evaluation and the issues identified during inspection.

Key findings included inconsistency in initial responses to children, variable application of thresholds, and reactive decision-making in some cases. Concerns were also raised regarding the quality and impact of audits, parental engagement in the MACH, analysis informing decision-making, safety planning, and the response to 16 and 17-year-olds presenting as homeless.

The service was already acting on the feedback, and areas for improvement were being incorporated into a wider Children’s Services Improvement Plan, organised under ten priority themes, including leadership, safeguarding, care leavers, youth safety, and quality assurance.

The plan would be considered at the newly established Improvement Board on 18 March 2026, with six-weekly reviews thereafter. All staff teams would contribute to team-level plans to support consistent and sustained improvement.

A discussion ensued and the following queries were raised:-

•          A Member asked the Director how she felt following the inspection. The Director advised that the process had been a helpful and constructive experience, providing clarification on whether the service held the right information and had highlighted a small number of gaps that had already been anticipated. She stated that it was reassuring that inspectors agreed with the service’s planned improvement activity. The Director noted that there were several significant areas of focus, including audit and quality assurance, particularly the need to update and clarify roles and responsibilities to ensure greater consistency across teams. She also emphasised the importance of using learning from children’s files to drive service improvement.

•          A Member asked whether the need to increase and improve audits was primarily due to limited staff capacity or resources. The Director advised that the issue was broader, highlighting a lack of clarity regarding what constituted a good audit within a well-functioning team. She confirmed that the SEND team had been asked to assist with audits following positive feedback during their recent inspection and noted that while good audit practice existed, it had not been applied consistently across the service. She explained that the first step would be to identify strong examples of audit work, using themto improve overall quality and, where appropriate, reduce the number of audits undertaken. In response to a further question regarding whether Artificial Intelligence (AI) would play a role in this work, the Director stated that AI had the potential to add value by streamlining processes and administrative tasks. Several tools were being considered for trial to determine how AI could best support audit improvements.

•          A Member asked, in relation to the forthcoming audit and the anticipated changes to the ILACS framework, what measures would be put in place to mitigate the impact of the ‘goalposts’ moving. The Director advised that, following discussions with Ofsted, the changes were expected to relate primarily to the language and phrasing of judgements rather than to the substance of what constituted good practice. It was explained that the service would need to adapt the terminology used in its documentation and presentations, but the underlying expectations of practice would remain consistent. The Director confirmed that this would not alter how services were delivered but would affect how improvement plans were presented, and that Ofsted had agreed to meet with the service to cross‑reference the presentation of information against the new framework.

•          A Member queried how the service was performing in relation to staff retention and whether difficulties remained. The Director reported that progress had been made in securing more permanent staff at the Front Door, noting that colleagues had found it a positive environment in which to work. It was mentioned that some challenges persisted in specific areas, particularly within safeguarding and social work roles, where recruitment continued to be difficult. The Director confirmed that newly qualified social workers were being successfully appointed to permanent posts and that the majority wished to remain with the service, which supported efforts to reduce reliance on agency staff. It was noted that although agency usage remained high, each Head of Service had targets to convert agency workers into permanent staff. A workforce strategy was already in place; however, the service now needed to develop a more detailed workforce action plan. The Director further highlighted that workforce pressures were a national and regional issue, particularly across the North East.

•          A Member questioned the feedback regarding inconsistency in responses to children and the application of thresholds. The Director advised that inspectors had found no children were left at risk, but social workers had taken differing approaches when completing required actions. Some had fully captured the family’s voice and the child’s voice, while others had focused on information from schools or had not gathered sufficient information, resulting in inconsistencies in decision-making. Similar inconsistencies had been identified in the application of thresholds, particularly when deciding whether cases should be escalated. The Director reported that inspectors had noted improved management oversight, which was expected to support greater consistency. She added that the inspection team had provided examples of best practice, which would be used as a learning opportunity for staff.

•          In response to a further query from a Member regarding whether there was a clear pathway or criteria to follow, the Director confirmed that such criteria were in place. She explained that issues arose when inconsistent responses meant that social workers did not always obtain all necessary information, resulting in gaps in practice rather than incorrect application of the process.

•          Members questioned whether any prior warning would be given regarding further changes to the ILACS framework. The Director advised that Ofsted would be removing the singular overall judgement and would instead assess different aspects of the service separately, meaning there would no longer be a single overarching rating. It was noted that, under the previous framework, an ‘adequate’ judgement could trigger DfE intervention, and the implications of the new model would require further consideration to ensure the service was positioned strongly within the higher categories. In response to queries about the categories and language that would be used, the Director confirmed that this had not yet been clarified by Ofsted, although it was expected that the care leavers and leadership judgements would remain due to their level of risk, with other judgement areas still open to debate. The Director further advised that Ofsted intended to retain the existing terminology (such as ‘outstanding’) and were considering adopting elements of the schools-based model in their approach.

•          A Member asked whether, under the revised framework, the service could focus on improving weaker areas while maintaining stronger ones. The Director confirmed that this was the intention behind the changes and that the service would welcome such an approach, as it recognised that strengths varied across different areas. Members noted that this model was similar to that used in schools and would allow the Council to prioritise improvement activity without stronger areas being adversely affected. It was suggested that this would prevent one weaker aspect from lowering the overall judgement and would support a more proportionate focus on areas requiring development. The Director added that one of the key drivers for separating judgements had been the tragic death of Head Teacher, Ruth Perry, highlighting the need to ensure that difficult judgements did not fall disproportionately on a single individual. The Director advised that it would take several inspection cycles to understand how the new approach would operate in practice.

AGREED that the information provided be noted.