What does a positive Ofsted Inspection of Herefordshire Children’s Social Care mean?

When Ofsted inspects children’s social care, their judgement is treated as definitive: a single word—inadequate, good, outstanding. But what does it describe? Is it the lived experience of children and families encountering the service? No, it isn’t.

Ofsted inspections are, at their core, examinations of systems. They look at policies, procedures, governance structures, compliance with statutory guidance, and whether case files demonstrate that the right steps have been followed. Inspectors assess whether there are clear thresholds, timely assessments, management oversight, performance dashboards, and written evidence that the “process” works as designed.

What Ofsted does not inspect

Ofsted does not engage meaningfully with families or children affected by the processes they inspect. Ofsted does not hear from parents navigating child protection processes, nor from children living with the consequences of social care decisions. Ofsted does not test whether those carefully written policies result in safer children, supported families, or humane, proportionate interventions. An Ofsted judgement, therefore, is not a judgement on outcomes. An Ofsted inspection results in a judgement on administration.

This distinction matters enormously in places like Herefordshire.

Herefordshire Children’s Services have a long and well-documented history of failure. Families have raised concerns for years about inappropriate thresholds, poor decision-making, lack of support, adversarial practice, and systemic harm caused by social care interventions. These are not abstract concerns: they are lived experiences of parents and children whose lives have been profoundly affected.

In June 2025, the Families Alliance for Change contacted Ofsted directly. They offered detailed evidence of ongoing failures and systemic problems. They sought to ensure that inspectors were aware of the reality on the ground. Yet Ofsted failed to engage with the evidence available. None of this evidence was examined. None of it informed the inspection. None of it will inform the next inspection outcome.

So what, exactly, has been inspected?

When a service moves from inadequate to requires improvement or good, it tells us that leadership structures are likely to have stabilised, that recording practices may have improved, that audits are happening, that supervision is more consistent, and that policies now align more closely with statutory expectations. These are not trivial achievements and the Families Alliance for Change welcomes every improvement in policies, procedures, and processes. Where systems were previously chaotic and unsafe, greater order is a necessary first step to creating a safe service.

But better systems are not evidence that children are now better supported, families are treated fairly, or outcomes are just and safe. A system can be procedurally compliant and still cause huge damage. A case file can be impeccably recorded while the decisions it documents are flawed. A child protection plan can be reviewed on time while the family receives little meaningful help. Ofsted’s methodology is not designed to interrogate these contradictions.

Immediately before the latest inspection, families wrote to Ofsted again to raise very serious concerns about the conduct of senior officers in the management of cases and the safety of their children. Ofsted has not engaged with parents, because, the lead inspector says, they cannot engage with individual cases. Which only goes to underline the point that all Ofsted does is look at systems, not outcomes for children.

Uncomfortable questions

This all raises uncomfortable questions. If families’ voices are excluded, whose reality counts? If evidence of harm is offered but not examined, what confidence should families and Councillors who care about families have in the inspection process? And if an improved grade is treated as a clean bill of health, what incentive remains to listen to those still experiencing failure?

To be clear: recognising progress does not mean abandoning scrutiny. If Herefordshire Council has improved its internal systems, that is positive for everyone. But it cannot be the end of the conversation. A positive Ofsted outcome cannot be used to dismiss ongoing concerns or to imply that long-standing problems have simply disappeared.

Is it time to address the wrongs of the past?

A positive Ofsted outcome in no sense addresses current problems with the system nor the egregious and life-changing failings of the past. Tash Ashby will not be brought back to life by a positive Ofsted outcome. Some families separated by over zealous child protection interventions will not suddenly be reunited. The lies of the past will not suddenly be untold and case files amended. An Ofsted judgement is not the same as accountability for past harm.

There has been huge resistance to addressing the harms of the past: the excuse has always been that this would deflect energy and resources from the urgent need to improve the service. Whenever Ofsted does announce that the administration of Herefordshire Children’s Services is now working well, then surely it is high time that the wrongs of the past and the needs of the victims of a decade and more of failure are finally addressed.