Agenda item

 

To consider the performance outturn for the reporting year April 2025 to March 2026 for Children and Young People’s Services.

 

Consideration was given to the report presented by Councillor Cusworth, Cabinet Member and Deputy Leader, supported by Helen Sweaton, Joint Service Director for Commissioning and Performance, Anne Hawke, Head of Performance and Planning, Kirsty Woodhead, Head of Service, Family Help, Stuart Williams, Service Director for Children’s Social Care and Sarah Whitby, Head of Access to Education.

 

The report as submitted included the performance outturn for the reporting year April 2025 to March 2026 for Children and Young People’s Services and included areas of performance that were working well alongside other areas where a continued focus was required.

 

Three areas were highlighted of strong performance and three areas requiring continued improvement.

 

In terms of strengths, assessments were being completed promptly, enabling children’s needs to be identified sooner, support plans to be put in place more quickly and families to access help at an earlier stage. This contributed to maintaining the standards expected of an outstanding children’s service.

 

Secondly workforce stability had also improved, with fewer staff leaving the service and reduced reliance on agency workers. This provided children with greater continuity in their relationships with social workers, leading to improved planning and support. Reduced agency costs also enabled more investment in preventative services, including Early Help and Family Hubs.

 

Thirdly increased numbers of families were accessing Early Help services. More families were receiving support at the right time, while the number requiring further intervention after support remained low. This demonstrated the positive impact of early intervention in preventing issues from escalating.

 

The Cabinet Member also outlined areas where continued focus was required.

 

Demand at the front door had increased, particularly in relation to domestic abuse, neglect and risks affecting teenagers. Recent analysis undertaken through the Families First Partnership Programme had reinforced existing concerns regarding the ongoing impact of domestic abuse, which remained a significant factor in many cases where children entered care. 

 

Work was ongoing to strengthen assessment processes, improve access to Early Help through Family Hubs and better understand the drivers behind increasing demand.

 

It was further noted that a small but important number of child protection visits were not taking place within required timescales. In response, management oversight had been strengthened, daily tracking introduced and additional capacity targeted towards the highest-risk cases.

 

In addition, meeting timescales for Education, Health and Care Plans continued to present challenges due to high demand and national workforce shortages. Efforts to address this included increasing assessment capacity, strengthening joint working with health and education partners and using Family Hubs to identify needs earlier and provide support to families.

 

Overall, the report demonstrated that the service was performing well, with clear strengths alongside identified areas for improvement. Therefore, the Commission’s scrutiny of performance, pace of improvement and assurance arrangements was welcomed.

 

Anne Hawke, Head of Performance and Planning, continued with the presentation slides as included in the agenda pack.

 

Further elaboration was provided for each slide which highlighted:-

 

·            Overview of Performance.

·            Scorecard Overview.

·            Family Help – what was working well.

·            Children’s Social Care – what was working well.

·            Education – what was working well.

·            Areas of Focus and Challenge.

 

The Commission were invited to ask any technical questions of the data prior to an open question and answer session.

 

Members queried how many years of trend data were included in the performance graphs. It was confirmed that the summary section usually displayed the previous two years of performance, although historical data was available going back much further if required.

 

Clarification was also sought on which targets were locally set and which were national. It was explained that most targets were local, although they were informed by national guidance and the Children’s Social Care National Framework. Where national benchmarks existed, comparisons were made against those measures, while other targets reflected local priorities.

 

It appeared not to be immediately clear from the scorecard which measures were local and which were national. Officers advised that this information, along with comparisons against statistical neighbours and national averages, was detailed within the narrative and benchmarking columns of the report.

 

Therefore, it was highlighted that some local targets were intentionally challenging, reflecting the authority’s ambition to drive improvement.  Officers acknowledged that the benchmarking information could be difficult to interpret at a glance and explained that the final columns of the scorecard identified national measures and comparator authorities.

 

The Commission were reminded that several Children’s Social Care measures also formed part of the Council Plan and were monitored through quarterly reporting. Measures marked “CP” on the scorecard indicated Council Plan priorities.

 

A question was raised about whether longer-term educational progress was tracked by comparing outcomes at Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 4. Officers confirmed that such information was collated and used within predictive analytics, although the detailed methodology was not included within the scorecard. It was noted that some of this information was only available annually and further details could be provided separately.

 

Clarification was also sought on whether quarterly monitoring enabled potential performance issues to be identified early, rather than only being apparent at year end. It was also noted that some measures had annual targets without corresponding quarterly figures.

 

Officers confirmed that the scorecard was updated quarterly wherever data was available, allowing performance to be tracked throughout the year against annual targets. However, some measures, particularly within education, were only reported annually because quarterly data was not available.

 

It was explained that performance was monitored through regular Performance Boards. Where indicators suggested that a target might not be achieved by year end, this would be identified early, challenged with the relevant service and actions put in place to improve performance. Officers advised that robust monitoring arrangements were in place throughout the year to oversee progress and address any emerging concerns.

 

It was also queried whether the performance scorecard was useful in practice and whether presenting all measures together was effective, particularly where small numbers could have a disproportionate impact on performance data.

 

Officers advised that the scorecard was a valuable tool for monitoring performance and identifying emerging issues at an early stage. It was explained that a dedicated performance team managed the reporting process, allowing operational staff to focus on service delivery while ensuring accountability through regular performance review.

 

 

It was noted that the scorecard helped officers understand trends, monitor demand and identify areas requiring further investigation. While data provided an indication of performance, officers stressed the importance of considering the narrative behind the figures, particularly where small numbers could distort results.

 

The Commission were informed that quarterly performance reports were available and could be used to monitor progress throughout the year. The scorecard was also described as a useful starting point for identifying topics that may require further scrutiny.

 

In response to a question about data quality, officers explained that reporting relied on information being entered into systems by practitioners. A process was in place to allow records to be updated before data was extracted and reports were subject to validation checks by service managers to ensure accuracy before publication.

 

A discussion and question and answer ensued with the following issues raised and clarified:-

 

-             Placement stability for children in care was below target, with a significant proportion of children experiencing multiple placement moves. What actions were being taken to improve this?

 

·           Officers explained that placement moves could occur for a variety of reasons and were not always negative. Some moves reflected positive outcomes, such as children returning home or moving to more suitable long-term arrangements. However, challenges relating to placement sufficiency remained, particularly the availability of foster placements and an ageing foster carer workforce. Work was ongoing to recruit and approve more foster carers and placement stability was regularly reviewed through performance monitoring processes.

 

-             If placement moves could sometimes be in a child’s best interests, why was there a target for placement stability?

 

·           Officers advised that targets helped maintain focus, supported performance monitoring and enabled comparison with similar authorities. Targets were reviewed regularly and provided a framework for understanding performance and identifying areas for improvement.

 

-             Following findings that complex needs, challenging behaviours and carer resilience could affect placement stability, what actions had been taken?

 

·           Officers outlined a robust placement disruption process aimed at identifying risks early and providing timely support to carers and young people. This included comprehensive training for foster carers, therapeutic support services, quality assurance of external placements and independent reviews where placements broke down. The focus was on preventing disruptions wherever possible and supporting stable placements for children and young people.

 

-             Were support services being used early enough to have a positive impact on placement stability?

 

·           Officers expressed confidence that support services were effective, robust and deployed in a timely manner. While unforeseen circumstances could arise, they considered the overall response to be comprehensive and noted that carers had provided positive feedback about the support available.

 

-             Reference was made to what the increased focus on reducing re-offending would look like in practice and what timescales were attached to the work.

 

·            Members were advised that preventing children from entering the Youth Justice System had become a key priority. Following a recent service review, permanent prevention worker posts had been established to provide earlier intervention and diversionary support. This would enable more targeted work with young people, schools and communities, including responding to local issues such as anti-social behaviour or trends that were contributing to first-time entrants to the Youth Justice System. The new arrangements had been introduced from the end of July and work was ongoing with partners to develop a robust prevention offer.

 

-             Was information available on the different types of domestic abuse experienced by families, what support was available for children affected by domestic abuse and whether referrals were received through the Police or directly through the Council.

 

·           Officers explained the Police remained the main source of domestic abuse referrals, although some referrals were received from members of the public. The Police undertook an initial risk assessment before referrals were passed to the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH), where further screening took place to determine the level of support required.

 

It was also noted that support ranged from early intervention and prevention services through to safeguarding measures where necessary. Domestic abuse had been identified as a significant area of need through recent assessments and proposals were being developed to strengthen capacity and specialist domestic abuse support within services, including consideration of additional staffing and specialist screening arrangements.

 

 

-             The increase in the number of children receiving Elective Home Education was noted with 154 more than last year, but were the reasons for the increase being analysed and how many visits did such children receive each year.

 

·            Officers advised that the increase had been recognised and was being closely monitored. The trend reflected patterns seen both locally and nationally and regular data analysis was undertaken to understand the reasons behind it. Information on trends and cohort characteristics was reported through annual performance dashboards.

 

It was explained that Elective Home Education was a parental right and that advice and guidance were provided to families considering this option.

 

The Access to Education service had increased its permanent establishment to strengthen support and intervention work. During the 2025/26 academic year, 241 interventions had been undertaken which resulted in children not becoming electively home educated.

 

Where children were electively home educated, the Council discharged its statutory duties through at least an annual meeting or an offer of support to parents and carers. Where parents and carers did not wish to participate in a face-to-face meeting, an annual written update was requested. The Council sought assurance that children were receiving suitable, full-time and effective education and where this was not evidenced, appropriate statutory action was taken.

 

Members were informed that the service worked closely with schools, partner organisations and the Parent Carer Forum to understand and respond to local trends. It was also noted that an annual update on Elective Home Education was included in the Commission's work programme for later in the academic year.

 

As a follow up question concern was expressed about safeguarding arrangements for children receiving Elective Home Education, particularly where contact with children was limited to written updates. It was noted that Elective Home Education could, in some cases, reduce opportunities to identify safeguarding concerns, and concern was expressed about children who were not seen in person.

 

Officers advised that it had historically been difficult to gain access to some children receiving Elective Home Education, as parents had the legal right to choose this form of education. The service, therefore, relied on partner agencies, such as health services, to share any safeguarding concerns that arose through their contact with children and families.

 

It was reported that the Government had committed to introducing a national register for children receiving Elective Home Education. However, the Council already maintained records of these children and considered that stronger powers to access children and assess their welfare would be more beneficial.

 

There was currently limited ability to track the long-term educational outcomes of children educated at home. Concerns remained around the lack of clarity regarding what constituted a sufficient education and whether existing powers would be strengthened in the future.

 

Officers reported that further powers to act was welcomed.  Assurance was sought when safeguarding concerns were identified for children who were electively home educated. Those concerns were referred to MASH and the usual processes were followed.

 

There was also a very good working relationship between MASH, the front door and Access to Education regarding any children of concern. It was recognised that many children were electively home educated by parents who were committed to doing so. However, where questions or concerns arose, information was shared effectively and appropriate action was taken to ensure the best outcomes for children.

 

-             Pages 11 and 12 of the report refer to the number of case increases from 894 to 1,270 represented more than a 40% rise so was this a typical year-on-year increase and, if so, whether the service had sufficient resources to manage increases of more than 40% each year.

 

In addition on Page 12, there was a reference to the 2001 Census.  Was this simply a reference to when Super Output Areas were introduced or whether data that was twenty-five years old was still being used to inform policy development.

 

Finally, what was the impact on care leavers who did not have a pathway plan in place. The target was over 90 so was this primarily a statistical issue, where plans were put in place shortly after they left care, whether this affected performance figures, or were there some care leavers who left care and never had a pathway plan established.

 

·           Officers confirmed commitments to supporting children and families at the earliest possible opportunity. The previous trend data was not currently available, but this could be provided afterwards if this was requested.

 

To provide reassurance, the service worked flexibly across the system. Some of the demand was supported through the Early Help Service, while other families received support from partner agencies that knew them well. Not every family required a dedicated family support worker and in many cases early intervention was effectively provided by other professionals.

 

Reassurance was provided that robust arrangements were in place so that children and families received appropriate support across the full range of Early Help services. While managing capacity remained an ongoing challenge, the service were confident that children and families did not face waiting lists for Early Help support. The Council was committed to making initial contact within three working days, ensuring families received help when they needed it.

 

Overall, this demonstrated that families were accessing support earlier, which was exactly the intention. By providing help at an earlier stage the service aimed to prevent problems from escalating and reduce the need for statutory intervention.

 

Officers further reiterated that couple of years earlier, there had been sufficient capacity within the service.  This also included a review of the role and function of Early Help colleagues, particularly in relation to joint working with social workers.

 

While there were circumstances where co-working was appropriate and beneficial, examples were identified where it was not the most effective use of professional time.  As a result, there was a reduction in some of that unnecessary co-working and clearer distinctions were established between the responsibilities of social workers and family support workers.

 

This enabled the service to make better use of available capacity and helped in responding more effectively to the increase in demand.

 

Officers further made reference to the 2001 data and pointed out that the Office of National Statistics have changed the way that they recorded lower super-output areas and super output areas.  They now have lower super output areas and medium super output areas.  This meant the updates from 2011-2021 census were recorded, but for ease of reference the early census had been referred to.

 

Officers would take this away and see if there was an easier way to summarise the more recent data.

 

-             What about the pathway plans for care leavers?

 

·            Officers explained the pathway plan was developed in partnership with the young person and set out how the service would support them in addressing any assessed unmet needs. This could include support with housing, employment, education, training, or other areas of independence and wellbeing.

 

The process began at an early stage, well before the young person became a care leaver. From the age of sixteen officers worked closely with the young person, their social worker and the Leaving Care Team to support their transition from being a child in care to becoming an adult.

 

Where pathway plans became out of date, this was often because young people, as adults, chose not to engage. In those circumstances, officers remained persistent and tenacious in efforts to maintain contact and offer support.  However, as adults, young people had the right to make their own decisions and may often tell the service that they were managing well and wanted to remain independent. Importantly, they also knew that support remained available should their circumstances change.

 

The approach was, therefore, one of continued engagement and encouragement to ensure pathway plans remained current. It was not unusual to have a cohort of young people whose plans were not fully up to date for this reason.

 

Targets were deliberately ambitious, reflecting the high standards set. While the service remained committed to achieving those standards, there were occasions when pathway plans were not updated as quickly as one would have liked. In many cases, this reflected positive circumstances, with young people in employment, education, or otherwise doing well and, therefore, less inclined to engage in a formal review of their plan.

 

For assurance, pathway plans were closely monitored within Children's Social Care. Performance was reviewed monthly through the Performance Board and management information provided near real-time data to support oversight.  Managers regularly reviewed cases and, where young people had additional vulnerabilities or emerging risks, further attempts were made to engage them and ensure that appropriate support was in place to meet their needs.

 

-             In relation to dental care, what worked best where young people declined support or chose not to engage, or where they declined other forms of assistance. Whilst their autonomy was respected as they approached adulthood or became adults, was the service ensuring that they were making informed decisions and fully understood the potential implications of those choices.

 

·           Officers confirmed that a significant amount of work in this area had been undertaken and performance data showed a marked improvement compared with previous years. Considerable progress had been made which linked directly to efforts to raise awareness among children and young people about oral hygiene and the importance of maintaining good dental health.

 

The service had also worked closely with the Named Nurse for Children in Care, who had led a range of activities and initiatives aimed at promoting oral health and encouraging engagement with dental services.

 

As with pathway plans and other aspects of support, the approach relied on persistence, consistency and building positive relationships with young people. The service continued to reinforce the importance of dental care while taking the time to understand each young person's individual circumstances.

 

Where a young person chose not to attend dental appointments, the reasons were always sought behind that decision. There was usually a clear rationale, whether linked to previous experiences, anxiety or other concerns.

 

Improving dental hygiene required a continued two-pronged approach.

 

On one hand, there were children and young people who were entering adulthood without being fully engaged in good dental hygiene practices. On the other, it was important to consider the support offered through Family Hubs in partnership with health colleagues.

 

It was noted that at community events dental health initiatives had proved very popular. For example, at one event in Rotherham, the dental health stall became one of the most popular attractions, with children queuing to receive toothpaste and toothbrushes. Similar events were regularly held to encourage positive dental hygiene habits, with close collaboration between the Council and health partners.

 

The importance of early and ongoing support was emphasised. It was recognised that the aim was to avoid situations where a seventeen year old felt anxious about visiting the dentist because of a negative experience they had had at the age of five. Children, therefore, needed consistent support throughout their childhood and adolescence to build confidence and maintain good oral health.

 

Overall, it was acknowledged that improving dental hygiene required a two-pronged approach thus promoting positive habits among children and young people, while also providing practical support and education through Family Hubs and health services.

 

-             It was noted the report contained twenty--one areas identified as strengths and eleven areas requiring further attention. Initially, it was thought there appeared to be greater emphasis on celebrating achievements than on identifying future improvements. However, having reviewed the data pack, it was clear that there was a strong focus on maintaining performance in areas that were doing well, while also ensuring that standards did not slip by concentrating solely on areas requiring improvement.

 

In this regard Pages 12 and 34 concerned the finding that 95.2% of individuals were living within the 30% most deprived areas. The report outlined how support and interventions were targeted towards those communities.  However, there needed to be understanding whether equivalent data was available for children and families living in less deprived or more affluent areas. Child welfare concerns and safeguarding issues were not confined to areas of deprivation; they could occur in any community. There were examples where children have experienced harm in circumstances that may not initially have raised concerns because of a family's professional status, financial circumstances or perceived stability.

 

Given this, how were outcomes, need and service access monitored across the wider population and was there data available that provided a fuller picture beyond those living in the most deprived areas.

 

·           Officers acknowledged that, sadly, people from all walks of life and all backgrounds could harm children.  Equally, it was recognised that living in poverty did not mean that someone was not a good parent, nor that they did not put their children first. It was important not to lose sight of those points.

 

However, it was also recognised that the levels of poverty some families experienced could exacerbate existing difficulties and contribute to issues such as addiction, relationship breakdowns and other challenges. As a result, it was important to remain mindful of the impact that poverty could have on family circumstances.

 

It was suggested that the statistics were likely to show that a greater proportion of children subject to child protection plans or entering care came from more disadvantaged backgrounds.

 

Nevertheless, it was highlighted that the Rotherham Education Strategic Partnership Board had now been established to focus on improving educational attainment for all children across Rotherham.

 

-             Section 2.1.3 of the report stated that 95.2% of children were registered with (formerly Children's Centres) and focused specifically on those living within the 30% most deprived areas.  It was not suggested that resources should not be targeted towards those communities and the rationale for prioritising areas of greatest need were acknowledged.  However, why did the report not also include comparable statistics for the whole of Rotherham.  Whilst deprivation was clearly an important factor, children's needs and safeguarding concerns were not limited to deprived areas. Therefore, was data available that showed overall registration and engagement rates across the borough, so that a more complete picture could be understood alongside the data for the most deprived communities.

 

·           Officers explained that when so many families had registered with the Family Hubs, it demonstrated that a significant proportion of families across the borough were engaged with those services. One of the reasons the Universal Baby Pack were introduced was to encourage families to register with and access support through the Family Hubs and whilst it was noted there was a proportion of families who may not have received a baby pack.  However, given the very small numbers involved, the service was confident that everyone who wanted a baby pack had received one.

 

Similarly, where there were small numbers of families not engaged with Family Hubs, efforts were made to reach out to them. The Family Hubs were located across the borough in areas designed to be accessible to all families, helping to ensure broad access to support and services.

 

Family Hubs (see minute below which would provide further detail on how the offer would be strengthened).  Family Hubs set out plans to enhance both the digital offer and the outreach provision with the aim to reach families who might not otherwise attend a Family Hub and ensure they were still able to access support in ways that worked for them.

 

Officers reassured the Commission that services were continuing to develop and expand the Family Hub offer to meet the needs of families across the borough.

 

In terms of the Family Hub performance measures there was a significant amount of data underpinning those figures.

 

For the purposes of the Children's Services Scorecard, it reported specifically on outcomes for children and families living within the 30% most deprived areas. However, there was comprehensive scrutiny and oversight of outcomes for all children and families across the borough, not just those included within that measure.

 

While the scorecard focused on deprivation-based indicators, monitoring, performance management and service planning considered the needs and experiences of children and families across the whole of Rotherham.

 

-             The statistics showed that 23.7% of children were not living in family-based care settings so could officers provide assurance that they were not relying on the unregulated settings that had been highlighted frequently in the media and explain how the suitability and quality of placements were monitored for those children who were not placed in family-based care?

 

·            Officers explained that Rotherham only used unregistered settings on the rare occasions when it was necessary to do so.  However, the governance arrangements surrounding their use were extremely robust and this was recognised by Ofsted during its most recent inspection.

 

Where unregistered settings were used, this was typically in circumstances where no suitable alternative placement was available for a young person. Such placements were only used for the shortest possible period and were never viewed as a long-term solution. Before any young person was placed in an unregistered setting, a comprehensive due diligence process was undertaken and the approval process was exceptionally rigorous. Only the Executive Director had the authority to approve a placement in an unregistered provision.

 

In many cases, these arrangements involved children with complex or additional needs. Some providers were regulated by other bodies, such as the Care Quality Commission (CQC), and while they might not have been registered with Ofsted, they were still subject to oversight and governance. Where appropriate, work was undertaken with providers to support them in achieving Ofsted registration.

 

To ensure that children did not remain in unregistered settings any longer than necessary, every placement was closely monitored. These circumstances were reviewed on a weekly basis with commissioning colleagues and Heads of Service across the system to ensure there was a clear exit plan and progress towards a suitable registered placement.

 

Ofsted had also considered the local approach to unregistered settings as part of its oversight activity. In addition, a national consultation was underway at the time to consider how the children's services inspection framework should reflect and evaluate the use of unregistered settings.

 

-             Officers were asked if they had a figure for the previous twelve months showing how many children had been placed in settings that were neither registered with Ofsted nor regulated by the Care Quality Commission (CQC), and which were not in the process of obtaining Ofsted registration.  In particular, what was the number of children who had been accommodated in settings that fell outside those regulatory frameworks during that period?

 

·           Officers confirmed the numbers were very low, but would provide a figure over a twelve month period.

 

-             Whilst health assessments and dental assessments may be of concern, it was acknowledged that performance was above that of Rotherham’s statistical neighbours. The report also showed that the best-performing authorities achieved rates of 98% for health assessments and 95% for dental assessments.

 

Rather than only comparing performance with statistical neighbours, consideration should also be given to examining best practice authorities. On this basis had work been undertaken to understand how those areas were achieving such high performance levels and whether there were lessons that could be applied locally.

 

Reference was made to a similar approach that had been taken at the Corporate Parenting Partnership Board where examples of best practice had been explored.  Perhaps adopting the same approach in this area could be beneficial.

 

While comparisons with statistical neighbours were helpful, it was felt that there would also be value in understanding what the highest-performing authorities were doing differently and whether those practices could be replicated to improve outcomes further and whether there was value in such an approach.

 

·           Officers confirmed there was ongoing regional work and further in the sector in terms of national practise but this was also reciprocal.

 

Dialogue remained ongoing with officer networks across the region with meetings held on a six -weekly basis to talk about best practise.

 

The Chair thanked officers for their informative presentation and the information shared.

 

Resolved:- (1) That the CYPS Annual Performance Report and accompanying scorecard for the outturn 2025/2026 be received and the contents noted.

 

(2)  That further information be provided on assessment trends over a six-year period at the end of Key Stage 2, together with comparative outcomes at the end of Key Stage 4, to identify and highlight improvements in pupil progression.