Response to Ofsted's consultation on 'improving the way Ofsted inspects children's social care'

As the specialist regulator for social workers in England, we share a common goal with those we regulate – to protect the public, enable positive change and improve people’s lives. We value Ofsted’s vital role as the regulator for services that care for children and young people and support ambitions to raise standards by strengthening the inspection and regulatory system.

We recognise that, despite the dedication of the children’ social care workforce, there continue to be some children and families that don’t get the support they require to succeed and thrive. We also share concerns about increases in unregistered settings which do not offer adequate protection and safeguards for the most vulnerable children and young people.

We support Ofsted’s efforts to align inspection frameworks to wider government reforms and have also been working closely with the Department for Education to consider how our regulatory role can support the wider reform agenda.

Consultation feedback

We have not responded to the individual survey questions and instead have provided feedback on key themes highlighted within the consultation document, paying attention to those which interact with our regulatory role and remit. We would be happy to further discuss the feedback below or share our own experiences of reviewing our regulatory processes and frameworks.

The content of inspection frameworks

We support Ofsted’s proposed statement of ambition and agree that the principles should further strengthen inspections. It is helpful to see how Ofsted intends to ensure alignment between frameworks to reflect the shared responsibility of local authorities and social care providers. We believe this will promote more joined up actions and responses where improvements are identified.

ILACS evaluation areas

The proposed evaluation areas show alignment with how local authorities will be expected to deliver services under the government social care reform agenda. We agree that this will be helpful, both for local authorities, and for measuring the impact of reform initiatives including; a focus on engagement with family networks, the rollout of initiatives including enduring relationships and the increased focus on multi-agency working.

The decision to split the current ‘help and protection’ judgement is likely to promote greater alignment with government proposals around rebalancing the children’s social care system toward earlier intervention. We support the government's commitment in this area, as well as Ofsted’s efforts to support monitoring implementation through their inspection framework.

We appreciate that many local authorities are already on a journey towards implementing changes through the Families First Partnership Programme (FFP) guide, however this will look different across the country. It is therefore important that inspection recognises this journey and provides clear guidance to providers who are first to be inspected under any new framework. It is also important that, during this transitionary period, inspection retains adequate focus on established statutory section 17 processes such as child in need and how they interact with section 47 investigations.

Unregistered provision and sufficiency

We support the drive to strengthen ILACS inspections to reflect the seriousness of using unregistered provision and agree that alignment between different inspection frameworks should encourage local authorities and providers to develop and sustain provision that meets the needs of the children with the most complex lives.

We agree that, if introduced, the evaluation of sufficiency and use of unregistered provision would be clearer if reported on within a single judgement area of ILACS and support the decision for this to be considered as part of the impact of leaders. Such a decision recognises the seriousness of using unregistered provision and the need for strategic oversight in this area.

We have reviewed proposals which consider making the use of unregistered provision a limiting criterion within the inspection framework. Whilst such a change recognises local authorities’ statutory duties, we query whether this is the appropriate regulatory tool to address issues relating to unregistered provision. There is the potential for local authorities to be put in impossible situations when balancing the need for children and young people to access provision with the availability of placements. Whether a local authority fails to secure a placement or secures the wrong type of placement, their inspection outcome is likely to be impacted negatively.

We also feel there is potential for confusion with other proposals within the consultation, namely the new grading descriptors. Proposals suggest that, under the new framework, local authorities found to be using unregistered provision will be unable to meet the expected standard and “whether the grade is ‘needs attention’ or ‘urgent improvement’ would depend on the particular circumstances of the local authority”.

When reviewing the descriptor for ‘needs attention’ we note that it states: “while there are no serious or widespread failures that place children at risk of harm, the inconsistent quality of service delivery adversely affects the experiences of some children and families and may limit their progress”.

If a local authority is not meeting their statutory duties, we query whether it should it be possible for them to achieve a grade which states that there are ‘no serious failures’.

While a flexible approach would allow for consideration of circumstances such as the frequency of use of unregistered provision, actions taken to address and potential conflicts in relation to availability of provision in local areas, we question whether the messaging could be confusing for the sector and impact how judgements are interpreted by the public. Such an approach could create a lack of transparency in reporting, which we understand that wider changes are seeking to avoid.

We also question whether unregistered provision should be included within descriptors if it is to become a limiting criterion, alongside further work to align the use of such providers with subsequent Department for Education (DfE) interventions.

Grading

We support the proposals in relation to a revised 5-point scale and feel it is better placed to capture the nuance between judgements, recognise best practice and support the sector and public to see recognisable progress.

The proposal to move towards a secure fit approach to grading is likely to provide greater assurance of how local authorities and social care providers are performing, however there will need to be clear guidance and support to understand this change and how it impacts inspection judgements. Such a move also requires careful consideration in line with our previous comments relating to the introduction of limiting criterion.

Reporting

Proposals in relation to new reporting mechanisms appear to promote accessibility for a range of audiences. The inclusion of data on report cards will also ensure there is greater clarity in relation to local demographics and the environment in which services operate. Both of the above support a more transparent approach to inspection findings.

The engagement of children, young people, parents, carers and families

We support the proposal to increase engagement with people with lived experience of the children’s social care system. This aligns with our own approach to co-production and inclusion, recognising the expertise of people with lived experience and the valuable contribution they offer to strengthening the impact of regulation.

Through our own inspection framework for pre-qualifying social work education, we routinely meet with those who have received social work intervention in our lives and consider how they are supported to influence the content of pre-qualifying programmes. It may be helpful to consider how Ofsted might evaluate the processes local authorities and social care providers have in place to include people with lived experience in their reform agenda.

ILACS inspection scheduling

We agree that changes to the context in which the ILACS operate are significant and these changes will continue to be implemented over the coming years. Therefore, it seems appropriate to undertake a standard first inspection under the new framework to achieve a consistent baseline.

While such an approach makes sense, we note that Ofsted is wishing to introduce changes as soon as Spring 2027. At this point, some of the changes proposed as part of wider government reforms, such as the establishment of Multi-agency Child Protection Teams (MACPTs) and roles within this, will have only just become fully operational. For those who are inspected first against the new framework, there will need to be consideration of how long they have had for changes to become embedded, whilst establishing a baseline judgement. We also note that Ofsted recognise the need to remain adaptive to wider changes and coordinate their approach with these changes. It will be important to ensure that the sector fully understands how this interacts with any approach to inspection to ensure transparency and fairness in your regulatory approach.

Workforce and wellbeing

As outlined within the case for change, we know that the children’s social care workforce is dedicated to improving outcomes for children, young people and their families. As the regulator for social workers, we welcome Ofsted’s efforts to consider the impact of changes on leaders’, practitioners’ and inspectors’ workload and wellbeing. We note, however, the consultation does not include detail on how impact will be monitored. It is also unclear how the wider workforce, such as frontline practitioners, will be supported during this period of change.

While changes are likely to impact on workload for a time while they become embedded, we believe that any unnecessary pressure on the workforce could be mitigated by ensuring clarity of expectations and a considered rollout of changes. This is particularly important for those local authorities inspected under the framework as it is first implemented.

We hope that you find this feedback useful. We would be happy to discuss any aspects further.

Yours sincerely

Colum Conway

Chief Executive