Agenda item

 

To receive and note the outcome of the Ofsted inspection regarding the effectiveness of Children’s Services in Rotherham and endorse the priorities identified for continued focus.

Consideration was given to the report which advised the Improving Lives Select Commission of the outcome of the Inspection of Children’s Services by Ofsted in November 2025. This was a judgement Short Inspection and the Local Authority received an Overall Effectiveness grade of Outstanding. All sub-categories also received a grade of Outstanding with the exception of ‘the experiences and progress of Care Leavers’, which received a Good. There were two improvement actions, both related to Care Leavers.

 

In inviting introductions to the report the Chair wished to place on record her congratulations and thanks and appreciation for all the hard work involved by all in this result.  This was also endorsed by the Select Commission.

 

Councillor Cusworth, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member, introduced the report which provided an overview of the recent Ofsted inspection and summarised the key findings, areas of strength and priorities for improvement identified during the visit.

 

It also outlined the actions already underway in response to the inspection, as well as the next steps required to ensure continued progress. Bringing this to Scrutiny supported transparent oversight, enabled constructive challenge and helped to ensure the Council remained focused on delivering the best possible outcomes for children, young people and families.

 

Moving forward there was no sense of complacency. Activity within Children’s Services had not slowed down and all involved would continue to work hard to maintain high standards and to address the areas identified for improvement, particularly in relation to care leavers and the few specific actions highlighted by Ofsted.

 

The Chair invited the Executive Director to deliver her presentation which covered:-

 

·              Background to the ILACS Short Inspection.

·              Judgement Criteria.

·              Outcomes:-

 

v   Children who need help and protection – Outstanding.

v   Children in care – Outstanding.

v   Care leavers – Good.

v   Impact of leaders – Outstanding.

v   Overall Effectiveness – Outstanding.

 

·              National context – Top 10.

·              Overall Assessment.

·              Detail of the Judgement – Help and Protection.

·              Detail of the Judgement – Experiences and Progress of Children in Care.

·              Detail of the Judgement – Care Leavers.

·              Detail of the Judgement – Impact of Leaders.

·              Impact on Staff.

·              Actions that were needed.

·              Final Words.

 

Councillor Cusworth, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member, emphasised the importance of staff stability in Rotherham and the significant difference it made to the work taking place. Rotherham had low agency staffing rates which meant the authority was in a strong position regarding locality vacancies. That stability was essential to achieve “Outstanding”.

 

Furthermore, the senior leadership team had been stable for some time and remained very strong.

 

One area that remained strong was the Virtual School. Many places only had one head of Virtual School; Rotherham had two, one for primary and one for secondary and both worked tirelessly to ensure that Personal Education Plans (PEPs) were completed from birth, meaning babies’ development was now fully captured.

 

Rotherham also had one of the strongest youth voices through the Care Leavers’ Forum and the Children in Care Council.  Young people also sat on the Children and Young People’s Partnership Board, which fed into the Rotherham Together Partnership Plan. Young people were helping to shape priorities, including those of the Health and Wellbeing Board clearly showing how joined?up the system had become.

 

The Commission were encouraged to visit The Journey to view first-hand the events that were run to support young people.

 

Finally the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member wished to place on record her own thanks to the Executive Director and her team for their hard work and to all who had contributed to this journey.

 

The Chair invited questions from the Commission and a discussion and answer session ensued from officers with the following issues raised and clarified:-

 

-               Care leavers in Rotherham benefitted from Council Tax exemption so were officers engaging with other regional areas to improve reciprocal arrangements so that young people who lived out of the borough had the same rights and entitlements.

 

It was confirmed regional discussions were ongoing across Yorkshire and the Humber about improving support for care leavers. Rotherham had gathered a list of possible “quick wins” to explore with other Councils and conversations were taking place with Directors of Children’s Services across the region.  The Government had encouraged Councils to consider care leavers’ needs, but there was no new legal duty. Locally, Councillor Cusworth was leading work on what could be offered region?wide such as leisure passes and transport support.

 

Most Councils, including Rotherham, already provided council tax exemption for care leavers. The main challenge was housing priority. Rotherham gave all care leavers priority one status, meaning they could access accommodation immediately. Many other Councils used priority two, reserving priority one for emergencies like domestic abuse.  The aim was to negotiate a consistent priority one offer across the region, although this required agreement from housing teams, which could vary in flexibility. Some Councils, such as Barnsley, already reciprocated Rotherham’s approach.  Overall, the regional work was progressing and Rotherham was ahead of many areas.

 

-               Following a visit to The Journey were there any plans to develop the offer for young people further. For example, what about engaging with young people more around financial planning as they become increasingly independent or on the health side were there any initiatives being created that encouraged young people to adopt healthier lifestyles. 

 

The Council were committed to building on the offer at The Journey, which, as a large house, had lots of different facilities such as places to wash, cook, study and support to applying for employment.

 

The Journey was also a place young people could come if they were feeling a bit low or had a difficult day. Emotional support was offered.  An example was shared about a young person who was comfortable enough to come into The Journey to rest on an informal basis. 

 

Regular drop-ins were also available and the DWP were regulars as was the named nurse who provided advice on a wide range of health issues. There were links with the Prison Service to support work with young people who have been in and out of custody and to reintegrate into society and reduce the risk of them returning.

 

-               Looking at the toolbox, the service had been graded ‘good’. Officers were asked how long it would take to address the areas for improvement and would Ofsted be returning to inspect those specific elements.

 

The report by Ofsted was considered realistic and a genuine reflection of the work happening in Rotherham. This evidence-based ‘good’ had clear areas to improve and the service were confident that the two actions identified could be addressed in a short space of time.

 

One issue was linked to the case management system, which was in the process of being upgraded. Necessary changes could not be made until that upgrade was complete accounting for a short delay.   The work on health histories was also a specific and manageable task.

 

By September it was anticipated all actions would be fully completed and embedded.  There were also some broader developments needed within the Leaving Care Service and this would be ongoing.

 

Ofsted would not return to Rotherham for another full judgement for three years so a further inspection was not expected until 2028 at the earliest.

 

Additionally, Ofsted were currently consulting on changes to their inspection framework, including the removal of overall grades and mirrored recent changes in school inspections.

 

The Corporate Parenting Partnership Board Annual Report would also be presented to Improving Lives shortly.  Elected Members on the Board championed a specific area and attendance was popular. A significant amount of work was, therefore, happening between meetings with clear commitments to corporate parenting responsibilities.

 

-               With the changes and upgrade required to the software would this allow for a more responsive case management system that operated in real time.

 

The current case management system, Liquid Logic, was widely used by local authorities but was often slow.  Although an upgrade was underway replacing older parts of the system, it still would not be instantly responsive or modern like consumer apps.

 

The Council did have staff who could make changes within the system, but implementing upgrades could cause delays and create a backlog of requested tweaks.  A key issue was that pathway plans sat at the very end of a long chain of processes in the system. This meant that making changes to pathway plans often required changes earlier in the workflow, making the process more complicated than expected.

 

Overall, the upgrade would help, but improvements would still take time. This was a  wider issue across local authorities and not specific to Rotherham.

 

-               What access was there to physical and mental health support for care leavers?

 

All care leavers have access to general health services. Once they become adults and citizens of Rotherham they could use all services available to any other resident. They also received some additional support, such as subsidies for schemes like Rothercard.

 

There was also a specific health offer in place and a  service had been commissioned from RDaSH, which originally provided support for children and young people aged 0 to 19, including those who had been in care or were care leavers. However, because care leaver legislation extended support up to age of 25, this left a gap. Following a review of the contact this now included mental health and emotional wellbeing services for care leavers up to the age of 25.

 

Care leavers also have access to the Council’s employee wellbeing service.

 

Additionally there was now also a panel that considered individual requests from young people if they had an additional need or required something specific when funding could then be granted.

 

Discussions have also taken place in Overview and Scrutiny Management Board about discounted swimming for people over 65. Places for Leisure who run Rotherham’s leisure centres already offer free swimming for all children in care and care leavers, a scheme that had been running for two to three years. This included free swimming lessons for those who were unable to swim.

 

Places for Leisure have also been offering free six?month gym memberships for care-experienced young people.  These offers reflected the commitment to support young people.

 

-               Did the Council have adequate projection for Personal Advisers for the number of children preparing to leave care?

 

Rotherham experienced a sharp rise in the number of children entering care around five to six years ago due to serious safeguarding concerns at the time. This led to a temporary surge, which now meant there was a corresponding spike in the number of young people reaching eighteen and becoming care leavers. Although this peak was challenging, numbers were expected to decrease again as the system had since stabilised and returned to more proportionate care entry levels.

 

The service had planned for this spike, carrying out detailed workforce analysis and ensuring there were enough Personal Advisers including specialist roles. Leadership was proactive in securing extra staffing when needed and resources could be shifted or increased to maintain support. Ofsted had praised the Personal Advisers as the backbone of the service, recognising their strong performance. While there was still some work to do on longer-term strategic infrastructure, the overall position was strong and well-managed.

 

-               Were the roles of Personal Advisers temporary given that the number of care leavers was going to change or were the current numbers being maintained.

 

The Council currently had no temporary appointments for Personal Advisers as the existing staffing levels were considered appropriate for the foreseeable future. Although the number of care leavers was expected to peak, those young people would remain in the service for a long period, meaning staffing needs would stay relatively stable.

 

The turnover among this group of staff was low and no staffing challenges were anticipated. The Council also had a strong and developing offer for 16–18 year olds, especially around supported accommodation. If needed, staff could potentially be redeployed into that area in the future, but there were no current plans to do so. Overall, there were no concerns about staffing capacity.

 

-               Whilst talking to young people down at The Journey discussion took place on how they accessed services. They suggested that having something like an app would make it much easier for them to navigate Council departments and contact the right people. Was this something the Council might consider developing in the future, especially in terms of improving access to health and other public services.  Currently young people were already navigating the NHS app to access all their information, but accessing Council services may be a little harder in comparison.

 

Whilst the Council used messaging and other modern communication tools, these methods were not always reliable. Traditional telephone calls often remained the most effective way to reach young people.

 

Young people did have access to the NHS app and work was underway to improve how digital tools supported them. The Council was also continually reviewing how it interacted with Rotherham residents, including care leavers. Although digital engagement was being explored, there was currently no dedicated Council app for young people.

 

The Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member believed this to be a good idea and suggested the Service Director Customer for Information and Digital Services be invited to a future meeting of the Corporate Parenting Partnership Board to look at future digital options.

 

In addition, perhaps it would add value to invite Julie Warren Sykes, ICB Representative, to the same meeting and extend an invitation to her when the Corporate Parenting Partnership Board Annual Report was presented to Scrutiny to answer some of the health-related questions.

 

-               Paragraph 23 of the report referenced unregistered care homes so were these identified in Rotherham and overseen.

 

The national care placement market could not meet the complex needs of all children and young people, particularly those with high?level needs such as significant mental health issues, exploitation risks, frequent missing episodes etc. These young people often could not be placed in foster care or typical residential homes, especially when placements broke down and homes could only accept planned admissions.

 

As a result, Councils sometimes had to use unregistered provisions which were staffed homes not regulated by Ofsted. Quality varied and although these arrangements were not ideal, they were sometimes unavoidable. Rotherham typically had around five young people in such placements at any given time, usually for no longer than a couple of weeks.

 

To ensure safety and accountability, commissioners would review each setting, social workers would visit weekly and senior managers would hold weekly oversight meetings. A monthly report tracked all young people in unregistered placements and progress in moving them on. Persistent cases received extra attention. This situation was common across Councils, and Ofsted, though unhappy with the existence of unregistered settings, acknowledged the reality. They were impressed with Rotherham’s strong oversight and the safety of the young people involved.

 

Ofsted acknowledged that because the provision was unregistered, it technically did not meet the expected regulatory standard. However, due to the small number of children involved, Ofsted had reviewed all case files for those in unregistered placements.  They were satisfied with what they found and the files showed strong oversight.  In addition, the child’s voice was clearly recorded with visits being documented appropriately.

 

Ofsted Inspectors met with the Head of Service who was overseeing the weekly review meetings, went through the processes in detail and were pleased with the outcomes.  However, Ofsted did not visit the properties themselves as part of this review.

 

The Chair thanked all involved for the informative discussion.

 

Resolved:-  (1)  That the outcome of the inspection regarding the effectiveness of children’s services in Rotherham and endorse the priorities identified for continued focus be noted.

 

(2)  That consideration be given to inviting Julie Warren-Sykes, ICB Representative, to the 28^th April, 2026 meeting of Improving Lives when the Corporate Parenting Partnership Board Annual Report 2024-2025 was presented.

 

(3)  That the Corporate Parenting Partnership Board consider inviting the Service Director for Customer, Information and Digital Services to a future meeting to look at future digital options.