Ofsted inspectors find improving services that safeguard children, but there’s more work to do

Devon County Councils ‘children’s front door’, formerly known as the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub or MASH, has been described by Ofsted inspectors as being ‘more effective’ since their last monitoring visit.

This was Ofsted’s seventh monitoring visit since the Children’s Services were judged inadequate, in January 2020.

This time, inspectors looked at areas of concern identified at their last visit to the Children’s Front Door, and at how risk or harm to a child is assessed.

In short, services are improving. But there’s more work to do.

Inspectors note that one of the reasons why our pace of improvement has been slow, is because since 2020 the Council have had ‘multiple changes to the corporate and departmental leadership team’, which they say has resulted in ‘slow and inconsistent progress.’

But that’s changing, with a new permanent senior leadership team that’s now got a firmer hand on the rudder.

That new senior leadership team identified last summer that making the Children’s Front Door service safer for children was a priority for the council.

‘The team’s response has been effective, eradicating the waiting list and establishing a permanent workforce in the MASH that is making better use of simpler processes,’ inspectors say.

They note that they ‘did not find any decisions in the MASH that had left children at unassessed risk of significant harm.’

And that ‘senior leaders have a credible plan in place, with additional capacity to deliver those changes’, to build on these firmer foundations.

Where last time, in February 2022, inspectors found the oversight of contacts and referrals regarding concerns about children had become unmanageable, this time ‘the response to demand is under control, with minimal delay in decision-making by team managers.’

They say that ‘significant and effective efforts have been made to simplify the processes that staff have to follow.’

And that this ‘affords referrers’, (professionals who refer children to the Children’s Front Door). ‘quicker access to advice, guidance and decisions regarding their concerns about children.’

A new professional ‘consultation’ phone line, staffed by social workers, ‘has been received positively by partner agencies’, inspectors note, which ‘has reduced the time families wait for appropriate support.’

And Managers are commended. ‘Managers in the MASH understand thresholds of need and apply them appropriately, directing enquiries to either early help connectors or social workers for further background checks in line with children’s identified or emerging needs and risks,” inspectors note.

Children are also benefiting with an introduction to a more informal ‘early help’, with some children and their families now being signposted quickly to other support that can help them, preventing situations escalating to a point where they might require more formal social work intervention.

Inspectors say they saw ‘more emphasis on helping families identify underlying reasons for family conflict through assessment or the support of family practitioners.’

And that, ‘improved decision-making as to whether children need further social work assessment, or could be supported through early help, has reduced the number of families that need to be allocated to assessment teams.’

Social workers’ caseloads are now manageable; their morale has improved, ‘and they feel increasingly confident in their managers’ guidance and direction,’ inspectors write.

But there’s room to strengthen the practice.

‘When risks to children require further social work assessment, too many children are not seen on their own because parents’ refusals to allow social work visits to their children are too readily accepted in situations where children may be at risk,’ say inspectors. ‘Too often, this focus on adults rather than children leaves children without a voice. For this and other key elements of practice, management oversight still lacks clarity and purpose.’

‘Children needing support with their mental health or waiting for assessments of neurodivergence are signposted to services that are a ‘best fit’ rather than those that fully meet their needs,’ they say.