The Independent Reviewing Service for Looked After Children Annual Report 2016/17

London Borough of Newham IRO Annual Report 2016/17

London Borough of Newham

Children and Young People’s Services

The Independent Reviewing Service for Children Looked After

ANNUAL REPORT

2016/2017

1. Introduction
2. An annual report of the Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) Service for Looked After Children (LAC) is required in accordance with the Children and Young Person’s Act 2008 and subsequent statutory guidance published by the department for Children Schools and Families in 2010 (The IRO Handbook).

1.2Guidance states the report should be presented to members of the Corporate Parenting Board for scrutiny and made available as a public document.

1.3This report provides a summary of work completed by the IRO Service in Newham for the period between 1st April 2016 and 31st March 2017.

1. The Legal Context
2. Every child who is looked after by the London Borough of Newham (LBN) must have a care plan, which details the long term plan for the child’s upbringing and the arrangements made by LBN to meet the child’s day to day needs. All local authorities have a statutory duty to regularly review that care plan within legislative timescales (Care Planning and Placement Regulations 2010).

2.2The appointment of an IRO for every looked after child is a legal requirement under section 118 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and subsequent Review of Children’s Cases Regulations 2004. The role of the IRO was strengthened in the Children and Young Person’s Act 2008 and Care Planning and Placement regulations 2010.

2.3In the Foreword of the National Children’s Bureau research ‘the Role of the Independent Reviewing Officers in England (March 2014), Mr Justice Peter Jackson writes “The Independent Reviewing Officer must be the visible embodiment of our commitment to meet our legal obligations to this special group of children. The health and effectiveness of the IRO Service is a direct reflection of whether we are meeting that commitment, or whether we are failing.”

1. The Statutory duties and Functions of the IRO

3.1The statutory duties of the IRO are to:

• Monitor the performance by the local authority of their functions as a corporate parent in relation to the child’s case andidentify areas of poor practice if they arise
• Participate in any review of the child’s case
• Ensure the wishes and feelings of the child are given due consideration by the authority

3.2The primary task of the IRO is to ensure that the child’s plan fully reflects the child’s current needs and the actions in the plan are consistent with the local authority’s legal responsibilities towards the child. The IRO has a key role in relation to the improvement of care planning for Looked After Children (LAC) and for challenging drift and delay.

3.3It is the responsibility of the IRO to manage the Review process.Reviews are important for monitoring, questioning or confirming plans as part of a broader system of decision making. As well as managing the review meeting, IROs develop a wider overview of the child’s case by regular monitoring and follow-up between reviews. The purpose of reviews is to monitor the progress of achieving the outcomes set out in the care plan and to make decisions to amend the plan as necessary to ensure the child’s welfare is safeguarded and promoted in the most effective way while the child is looked after.

3.4The IRO is responsible for the decisions arising from the review and must ensure that each decision is clearly linked to a desired outcome for the child, has a set timescale for completion and an individual is identified to implement the decision. Where decisions are not implemented there may be drift and delay in promoting the child’s best interests and this will be raised by the IRO with managers responsible for oversight of the care plans through the Dispute Resolution Process.

1. Independence
2. The independence of the IRO is essential to enable the effective scrutiny and challenge of practice and The Care Planning, Placement, and Care Review Regulations 2010 (Regulation 4b) prescribe minimum levels of independence for the IRO which is indicates that the IRO must not be:

• A person involved in preparing the child’s care plan or the management of the child’s case
• The representative of the local authority appointed under section 23ZA of the 1989 Act to visit the child
• The child’s personal adviser
• A person with management responsibilities for any of the above
• A person with control over the resources allocated to the case

LBN fully adheres to the standards noted above.

4.2Research undertaken by the University of East Anglia (Care Planning and the Role of the Independent Reviewing Officer, October 2014) identifies five separate meanings of the word ‘independent’ in relation to the IRO, these are:

4.3Professional independence – the ability to come to judgements based on expert knowledge, skills and a code of ethics. In this way the IRO role is one offering additional checks in the corporate parenting system that can help all involved keep a clear and balanced focus on the interests of the child through offering informed challenge to care plans.

4.4Operational independence –Statutory guidance does not prescribe the position of the IRO within the local authority but the minimum levels of independence are prescribed as set out in the IRO Handbook. This type of independence allows IROs to have a wide overview while being separate from the day to day responsibilities for the young person.

4.5Effective Independence – IROs must not only be capable of independent professional judgements but must have the power, authority or influence to actually influence events and decisions.

4.6Perceived independence – it is important that children, parents and other professionals to perceive IROs as separate from those with operational responsibility and have a role that allows them to challenge plans and decisions,

4.7Institutional independence – the position of the IRO service in relation to the local authority and those with operational responsibility.

1. Service Overview
2. The Independent Reviewing Officer Service is based within the Quality Assurance Service which is part of Children’s Social Care and Safeguarding. The Quality Assurance Service also delivers services in relation to child protection conferences and the Local Safeguarding Children Board. The IRO service is manged by the Independent Reviewing Officer Manager, who reports to the Head of Social work Improvement/Principal Social Worker. The current IRO manager took up her post on 01 June 2015.

5.2A best value service review completed in 2011/12 concluded thata model of service delivery that employs a number of external providers would be the best option for providing a good quality, flexible IRO service. A competitive tender process was completed and contract for the existing cohort of IROs was issued in February 2016. Newham currently has 6 approved providers who supply between one and nine IROs who all have the required level of experience and qualifications.

5.3This model is currently being reviewed in light of new legislation from HMRC regarding taxation of individuals working as Limited Companies; all of the contract holders work as Limited Companies. If changes are required this will pose a threat to service delivery.

1. Area for Development

6.1Each IRO carries a caseload and is paid per individual review process. The IRO handbook suggests good practice would be for a full time IRO to hold a case load of between 50 and 70 children to allow for the delivery of a good quality service (para 7.15). Many of Newham’s IROs do not work exclusively or full time as IROs, so case loads vary and are proportionate to the time identified for Newham work.

6.2Newham’s IROs have been a stable and relatively unchanging group for some time, offering stability and continuity to young people who often have the same IRO throughout their time in care. During the period of this report two IROs have ceased reviewing for Newham; this was done in a planned way with a natural reduction of cases to cause as little change for children as possible. Three of the contract holders have taken on new IROs bringing the total number of IROs, as of 31st March, to12.

6.3The chart below sets out the IROs ethnic identity and gender compared to the demographics for Newham LAC. While it is noted that the ethnic composition of the IROs is not representative of the borough’s LAC populations, services are provided within an equal opportunities framework and all IROs, as registered social workers, are expected to adhere to the Health and Care Professions Council standards of conduct, performance and ethics (2016)

1. Monitoring of performance

7.1In Newham the IROs fulfil the statutory duty to monitor performance through the agreed Dispute Resolution Process (Quality Assurance Alerts) and through identifying themes and areas for practice development on a quarterly basis.

7.2Most questions or concerns regarding practice in relation to an individual child can, and will be, resolved at an informal level through discussion, email reminders, or by bringing the matter to the attention of a relevant manager for action. Informal alerts are not tracked but where they are not effective the IRO will initiate a formal alert and indicate if it was previously raised informally. The IRO handbook advocates the use of informal discussions to resolve issues (paras 3.5, 3.71, 5.8, 6.1, 6.10) and the University of East Anglia (UEA) also found that this was the preferred approach by both IROs and social workers. UEA found that informal alerts could be as effective as the use of formal alerts in improving or progressing care plans.

7.3Newham’s Dispute Resolution Process comprises three levels. IROs generally initiate alerts at Stage 1 (Team Manager)but can use their discretion to begin the process at Stage 2 (Service Manager) or Stage 3 (Deputy Director). Alerts escalate through the stages if the response is not satisfactory or is not receive within timescales. If no resolution is achieved after Stage3, the matter will be referred to the Director of Children’s Service. At each stage there is a timescale of 10 working days for the recipient to respond to the IRO and to have resolved the issues.

7.4A total of 61alerts were initiated between 1st April 2016 and 31st March 2017; 12 of these were escalated to the next stage. The most common reason for escalation was lack of response to the initial alert. The graphs below shows a breakdown of alerts by month and by the service receiving the alert.

7.5Alerts cover a range of concerns and alerts may contain more then one identified concern. The graph below shows a breakdown of the concerns by pre-defined category.

1. Case examples demonstrating the impact of formal alerts:

8.1In addition to the alerts relating to individual children, IROs complete quarterly monitoring forms with themes, patterns or concerns they have noted. The identified themes are included in quarterly reporting to the Senior Leadership team and form the basis of discussions between the IRO Service Manager and other Service Managers. An often identified concern is the need for social workers to share more information with the IRO. lack of information sharing with the IRO. The IRO handbook has identified a list of changes and events that must be reported to the IRO; this is sent out regularly for distribution to ensure all social workers are aware of their responsibilities in this area. Although there appears to be an improvement in this activity IROs have raised alerts dueto not being consulted or informed of changes to the care plans leading to late challenges from the IRO and potentially the best outcome for the child has not been achieved.

8.2IROs undoubtedly play a strong role in improving the lives of children in care but they are part of a wider team comprised of professionals, family and friends, that all contribute to the planning and delivery of services to looked after children. A study of the role of IROs in England completed by the National Children’s Bureau (March 2014) found that ‘the outcomes of looked after children are influenced by many factors and it can be difficult to disentangle the range of influences and isolate the impact the IRO service had compared, for example, with the impact of social workers, foster carers and other support services.’

Areas for development

1. Number of Reviews

9.1In 2016/17 Newham IROs reviewed a total of 415 children, this is significantly fewer children than in the previous years (642 in 2015/16 and 689 in 2014/15). This will relate to a decrease in the number of children in care which dipped in the first quarter of this financial year but has begun to increase again.

The total number of Lac Review meetings carried out in 2016/17 was 1090. This compares with 1136 in 2015/16 and 1056 in 2014/15.

9.2The IRO Handbook sets out the duty of an IRO to check the progress of the care plan and where there are significant changes in circumstances or to the care plan the IRO is able to consider if a review needs to be convened and/or to communicate with the child if needed.

9.3Some children will require more reviews than the minimum statutory number; a sample of reviews held more frequently than stipulated by statutory timescales indicates that reviews have been called due to concerns about the child’s care plan, placement move, or to consider care plans for presentation at court or care plans updated following key assessments. Of the 370 children in care on 31 March 2017 the majority (298) had two or three reviews within the twelve month period under review.

1. Timeliness of Reviews

10.1The percentage of reviews held within statutory timescales was 97% compared to 99.8% in 2015/16 and falls below the performance target of 98%. There are a number of reasons why a review will be recorded as taking place outside of timescales; these can relate to practice concerns (social worker delay in informing the relevant departments that a child has become looked after) or process related concerns (late loading of the information onto Care First by the Brokerage Team) as well as IROs missing statutory deadlines.

10.2Four delays were attributable to IROs not arranging the reviews within timescales, the relevant contractors have been met with and are required to improve. The individual concerned are no longer Newham IROs.

10.3Nine delays involved the Brokerage Team and the manager of that team is enforcing the current target of all LAC placements being loaded within seven days.

10.4Practice issues are raised with individual teams when they arise and Service Managers are made aware of the importance of recording the correct LAC status for a child on CareFirst and informing Brokerage as soon as a child becomes looked after.

10.5Joint meetings have taken place with the IRO Service, Brokerage and Senior Managers in Safeguarding and Early Help and the LAC and Leaving Care Teams to monitor and review systems in place to avoid future delays.

1. Area for Improvement

1. Information on Participation of Children and Parents

12.1Statutory guidance states that the local authority must ensure that its reviewing service provides for the full participation of both children and parents in the decision making process where possible and appropriate.

12.2The review is the child’s meeting. It is expected that the child, if of sufficient age and understanding, will be present at the review. If attendance is not possible it is the responsibility of the IRO to ensure their wishes and feelings are ascertained. The National Children’s Bureau strategic Briefing on Independent Reviewing Officers (November 2013) noted “Effectively involving children in their reviews can be a particular challenge. This has been underlined by the experience of young people themselves in the report of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Looked After Children and Care Leavers Entitlement Inquiry (2013).”

12.3In 2016/17 99.5% of children over the age of four communicated their views, wishes and feelings at their reviews. This may have been through their attendance, through correspondence or completing a consultation form, by briefing an advocate, or through discussion with the IRO. IROs report that young people contact them between reviews by email or phone to share information or request support. IROs support young people to chair or co-chair the meetings if they wish to do so.

12.4Mother’s participation in reviews is 59.5% and Father’s participations is 45.5%. Mother’s participation has effectively remained the same as in 2015/16 (60%) but Father’s participation has risen from 37%; this may be the result of an increased effort to involve father’s more by the IROs.

12.5The percentage of parental participation is lower than child participation and this is to be expected as not all parents will wish to, or are able to, contribute to the care planning for their children. Many asylum seeking young people have no contact with parents or relatives who could contribute to the review process. The difference in participation between mothers and fathers reflects the lack of information, in some cases, regarding the father’s identity or whereabouts.

12.6There were discussion with the Children’s Rights Officer who convenes the Child in Care Councils (CICC) to explore how the CICC could be involved in the Annual Report for the IRO Service and in the production of a young person friendly version of the report. Unfortunately the CICC is in great demand with a number of projects already started; there was not an opportunity for them to be involved in co-producing the reports.