Setting

Mr Errol Albert Corporate Director Children’s Services Buckinghamshire Council Walton Street, Aylesbury Buckinghamshire HP20 1UA

p.1

Focused visit to Buckinghamshire children’s services

This letter summarises the findings of the focused visit to Buckinghamshire children’s services on 9 and 10 June 2026. His Majesty’s Inspectors for this visit were Gemma McNevin and Rebekah Tucker.

p.1

Focused visit to Buckinghamshire children’s services

Inspectors looked at the local authority’s arrangements for children who are the subject of children in need or child protection planning.

p.1

Focused visit to Buckinghamshire children’s services

This visit was carried out in line with the inspection of local authority children’s services (ILACS) framework.

p.1

Headline findings

Since the last ILACS inspection, there have been practice improvements in the provision of services to children and families in Buckinghamshire, but there is more to do. The quality of assessments and the consistency of supervision are stronger, supporting more robust decision-making when risks to children escalate. However, some inconsistencies remain in the effectiveness of planning for children who are the subject of child protection or child in need planning.

p.1

Headline findings

The service benefits from a visible and experienced senior leadership team and committed corporate leaders, who have strengthened the foundations for improvement. This includes an embedded audit framework with robust moderation, providing enhanced oversight of practice. The locality model is now established, enabling more relational practice, greater continuity for families and fewer transitions for children. Ofsted

p.1

Headline findings

Store Street Manchester M1 2WD T 0300 123 1231 Textphone 0161 618 8524 enquiries@ofsted.gov.uk www.gov.uk/ofsted

p.1

What needs to improve in this area of social work practice? 1

◼ The quality and consistency of children’s plans. (Outcome 1 of the national framework)

p.2

What needs to improve in this area of social work practice? 1

◼ The effective use of the family network, particularly in families who are being supported by child in need plans. (Outcome 2 of the national framework)

p.2

What needs to improve in this area of social work practice? 1

◼ The quality and consistency of management oversight outside of supervision. (Enabler 2 of the national framework)

p.2

What needs to improve in this area of social work practice? 1

◼ The consistent and effective use of the multi-agency neglect tool by social workers. (Enabler 3 of the national framework)

p.2

Main findings

Most assessments are robust and of good quality. They consider the full range of children’s needs, alongside the role of key care givers. However, for some children, the quality of assessments is not consistent, due to a lack sufficient detail about children lived experiences.

p.2

Main findings

Decisions to progress to child protection strategy meetings are timely and well informed. Meetings are usually convened promptly and benefit from strong attendance by partner agencies, who contribute relevant information with a clear focus on children’s lived experiences. Decision-making is proportionate and supports effective next steps.

p.2

Main findings

When child protection enquiries are initiated, they are focused and detailed and consider current risks alongside the child’s history. Relevant professionals are routinely consulted. Enquiries are thorough, with outcomes aligned to identified risks, ensuring that children receive the appropriate level of support.

p.2

Main findings

When risks escalate for children, decisions are appropriately made, mostly in a timely manner based on an assessment of potential or actual harm. However, there is drift in decision-making for some children when they are stepped down from child protection planning into child in need support, where reviews are not consistently taking place and plans do not accurately reflect the change in the child’s circumstances.

p.2

Main findings

For children subject to child in need support, there is variability in the quality and timeliness of multi-agency interventions and reviews. Social workers know children well. There are stronger practice develop plans that are responsive to children’s needs and risks, and are supported by coordinated and multi-agency working. However, for some children, plans are overly complex with too many actions. As a

p.2

Main findings

1 The areas for improvement have been cross-referenced with the outcomes, enablers or principles in the Children’s Social Care: National Framework . This statutory guidance sets out the purpose, principles for practice and expected outcomes of children’s social care. result, these children’s plans are insufficiently focused, lacking timebound actions and clear review dates. For these children plans are insufficiently focused, lacking timebound actions or dates for review.

p.2

Main findings

The quality of child protection plans is not consistent for all children, with some plans lacking timebound actions and are overwhelming in terms of the number of actions. Nevertheless, most children who are subject to child protection plans receive a responsive service from social workers who understand their needs and risks. They are seen at a frequency reflective of the children’s level of need. Plans are overseen through regular core groups which are well-coordinated and meaningfully involve other agencies who work with the family. When risks escalate, social workers act promptly, progressing to the pre-proceedings phase of the public law outline (PLO). Early assessment of family networks helps to determine whether children can live safely within their extended family network.

p.3

Main findings

For some children subject to child protection plans who are experiencing neglect, the creative use of the multi-agency neglect toolkit is effective in supporting positive change in the home. However, this was not seen for most children experiencing neglect.

p.3

Main findings

The response to children experiencing domestic abuse in the home is variable. For some children, practice is effective, with social workers recognising the non-harming parent or caregiver as an individual in their own right who may require targeted support. However, for some children, there is an over-reliance on parents or caregivers to be protective, with an expectation that they will manage risk and take responsibility for implementing the plan.

p.3

Main findings

Most children benefit from positive relationships with their social workers and family support workers, and practitioners take time to get to know them well. A range of individualised work helps capture children’s wishes and feelings, which are utilised to inform planning. Some children are not regularly seen on their own by their social workers, which is a missed opportunity for workers to hear the child’s voice without the risk of influence.

p.3

Main findings

There is a marked difference in the use of family networks between children subject to child protection plans and those supported under child in need arrangements. For most children on child protection plans, there is effective engagement with the wider family network, with practitioners actively working alongside family members to strengthen safeguarding and promote children’s safety. In contrast, for children supported through child in need planning, the use of the family network is not consistently evident within children’s records or plans. This means that not all children are able to benefit from the care and support that wider family members may be able to offer.

p.3

Main findings

Fathers or male caregivers are not consistently involved in assessments, or in child protection or child in need planning. This creates a significant gap in understanding the child’s lived experience. For disabled children, there is a difference in the quality of support and interventions provided, depending on whether they are supported via child protection planning or child in need. For disabled children subject to child in need planning, the quality of practice afforded to them is inconsistent. They are not always visited in line with their identified needs and risks. Plans are not regularly reviewed, and when plans are present, they are overly complex and lack clarity.

p.3

Main findings

In contrast, disabled children subject to child protection planning are seen regularly, in line with their assessed needs, ensuring consistent oversight and relationship- based practice. When needs escalate, timely and appropriate action is taken. Plans often contain multiple actions intended to address a wide range of risks. However, they can be overly long and complex.

p.4

Main findings

The use of the PLO is effective. Effective systems track the progress children and families are making with a real desire to help support families to stay together, if possible, and when it is in children’s best interests. Consequently, most children make progress, and determined tracking is instrumental in the avoidance of delay.

p.4

Main findings

Letters before proceedings are written using simple and clear language for families. This helps them to understand social workers’ concerns about their care of children and provides clarity of what is required of them to address these concerns, and so avoid escalation into court proceedings. For parents with additional needs, PLO letters are adapted to ensure that parents can understand what needs to change and they are supported to seek appropriate help.

p.4

Main findings

Supervision takes place on a regular basis. It is mostly comprehensive, reflective and analytical in its nature, with clarity of actions set being used as a tool to drive positive change for children. However, the quality of management oversight by team managers outside of supervision is not consistently strong, and does not sufficiently evidence impact on planning or at key points of a child’s journey.

p.4

Main findings

The audit tool used by the local authority is comprehensive and well structured, covering all key areas of social work practice. It clearly identifies key strengths and areas for improvement in the quality of interventions and planning with children and families. The local authority is aware that further work is needed to close the learning loop to ensure that practice improvement actions are taken forward post audit.

p.4

Main findings

The leadership team in Buckinghamshire is highly visible, committed, ambitious and energised, recognising the work still needing to be done. Leaders have established a positive and supportive working culture in which staff feel valued and listened to. This is reflected in the increasing stability of the workforce.

p.4

Main findings

Leaders have prioritised workforce development through a comprehensive, strategic and well-aligned learning and development offer, closely integrated with corporate priorities. The ‘golden thread’ linking workforce development, practice standards and service outcomes is evident, ensuring that training is not standalone but embedded within system improvement. This enables staff to strengthen their practice, supports career progressions and contributes to improved retention.

p.4

Main findings

Strong foundations for practice improvement are in place. Leaders have developed key frameworks including the multi-agency neglect strategy, improving audit processes, a strengthened supervision policy and the now embedded locality model. While the impact of these changes is still embedding and further work is needed, they provide a platform for leaders to address remaining inconsistencies and improve the quality of practice for all children and families.

p.5

Main findings

Ofsted will take the findings from this focused visit into account when planning the next inspection or visit.

p.5