The annual report of Children’s Services (Doc “B”) provides quantitative and qualitative evidence relating to the Independent Reviewing Service in Bradford as required by statutory guidance.  The Independent Reviewing Officers’ (IRO) Annual Report must be presented to the Corporate Parenting Board and Bradford Partnership.

This report provides an opportunity to highlight areas of good practice and areas for improvement, identify themes and trends and report on work undertaken to date and to outline the developmental priorities for the next twelve months.

Recommended –

That the Corporate parenting panel are respectfully asked to give due consideration to the recommendations in the attached report to continue to improve services for our children and young people in Bradford.

(Amandip Johal - 07773 248040)

The annual report of Children’s Services (Doc “B”) provided quantitative and qualitative evidence relating to the Independent Reviewing Service in Bradford as required by statutory guidance.  The Independent Reviewing Officers’ (IRO) Annual Report must be presented to the Corporate Parenting Board and Bradford Partnership.

The report provided an opportunity to highlight areas of good practice and areas for improvement, identify themes and trends and report on work undertaken to date and to outline the developmental priorities for the next twelve months.

The Service Manager for Safeguarding & Reviewing (SMSR) said that the agenda paper covered the period April 2020 to March 2021.  Since then, structural changes had brought oversight of the Foster Care Reviewing Officers within the remit of the Safeguarding & Reviewing Service.  She highlighted the following points in the report:

·         Funding had been provided for two additional agency Independent Reviewing Officers (IROs) as part of COVID19 support: these posts would remain until further notice.

·         A parent/carer feedback form had been developed to facilitate the incorporation of their views into the review process.

·         The IRO process was being restructured to streamline it, allow for more effective challenge and involve line management.  Oversight of IRO case files had been improved, including the closing of cases by managers.  The IRO audit forms had been reviewed.

·         Although the number of children entering care in Bradford continued to increase, this did not necessarily impact caseload, which also depended on the number of children leaving care.

·         Caseloads were approximately 85 per full time employee (fte), compared with the recommendation in the IRO handbook of 65.  Nevertheless, the service had continued to meet statutory timescales in 97% of cases: where statutory timescales had not been met, the delays had been caused by late notifications to the service.

·         The service continued to embed consistency of the journey through care and to reflect the legal responsibilities of the local authority.

·         The service had undertaken significant recruitment to replace IROs who had retired: while this presented challenges, it had brought considerable new energy to the service.

·         Participation by young people in the review process was a key issue for the service, which was being addressed through the revitalisation of Viewpoint.

·         The Service was developing its relationships with partner agencies to ensure that they were undertaking the appropriate due diligence.

The Deputy Chair reminded the Panel and officers that, in future, all papers would be taken as read and not introduced by officers.  Questions were invited.

Noting that there appeared to have been no Foster Care Review Officer posts prior to 2018, the Panel asked how the foster care had been monitored.   SMSR said that foster care had been reviewed by the supervising social worker.  The Assistant Director, Safeguarding and Review, Commissioning & Provider Services (AD/SRCP), said that there was a statutory requirement that each fostering household be reviewed annually.  Until recently, these reviews had been conducted by the supervising social worker.  Recognising the conflict this raised between the supporting role of the social worker and the review role, and acknowledging that social workers were not trained in regulatory compliance, the service had introduced standalone Foster Care Independent Review Officers (FIROs).  Early indications were that this was succeeding in making review of foster care more consistent and independent.  Replying to questions, AD/SRCP said that he did not believe that Ofsted had specifically commented on the quality of foster care reviews: this would, however, have been a vulnerability if it had not been addressed.

Asked how foster carers had responded to the involvement of FIROs as well as their supervising social workers, SMSR said that they appeared to welcome the annual independent review.  The Panel asked, and was informed, that the Foster Care Independent Review process included friends and family placements

SRSM said that the service currently employed three Foster Care Independent Review Officers, with a total caseload of 167 cases.  She believed it would be necessary to appoint a fourth.  The Panel discussed the need for a clear understanding of the number of FIRO posts in the service structure and how this related to the predicted number of foster carers following the current recruitment.  AD/SRCP said that the need for a stronger grip on this kind of data was well recognised.  The development of the Sufficiency Strategy would be available in February 2022 and would inform the requirement for additional FIRPs.  The Panel noted the need to set this information in the wider context of support for young people: for example, effective preventive services would reduce the need for foster care. 

Asked whether officers had complete confidence in the current oversight arrangements for every child in foster care in Bradford, AD/SRCP said that he could not have said this under the previous arrangements.  While it was very difficult to be 100% confident in any system, the new arrangements put the Council, as Corporate Parent, in a much stronger position: processes were now appropriate and would identify any concerns at an early stage.

Asked why the Sufficiency Strategy, which had been promised at the last meeting in draft form for December 2021, now appeared to be delayed to February 2022, AD/SRCP said that officers were fully seized of the need to commission and produce the strategy at pace: the strategy was a critical document that would provide the focus for all future work, and must be thorough.  A Sufficiency Strategy did exist but was not fit for purpose: it contained insufficient analysis of ned and capacity.  The timeline had been delayed from December 2021 to February 2022 due to the departure of the person who had been tasked with production of the strategy.  Asked whether his reference to “commissioning” the strategy implied that there were no officers with the skills to do the work, AD/SRCP said that the issue was one of capacity rather than skills: he would normally expect a Sufficiency Strategy to be prepared internally.

Noting the statement at section 2 of the report that “… the last twelve months has required IROs to adjust to virtual working due to the impact of Covid and ‘working from home’ requirements”, the Panel asked whether the Safeguarding & Reviewing Service was satisfied that the vital work of IROs could be performed adequately by means of virtual working.  SMSR replied that there had been no choice due to Covid 19, but that the service was slowly moving back to face-to-face working.  There had been some benefits to virtual working: for example, some young people had been comfortable with virtual meetings.  Asked whether she considered that young people had been more engaged with virtual reviews than they had been with face to face meetings, SRSM said that it varied: some young people had engaged in consultation by telephone or WhatsApp, while others preferred face to face discussion. 

A Panel member said that the question was more about whether a review could be sufficiently rigorous if it were carried out remotely.  Asked whether all reviews were now carried out face to face, the SMSR said that they were not: the speed of returning to face to face meetings was restricted by continuing Covid constraints in operation at the venues of the meetings (eg the foster home, the school).  Effective virtual meetings had been held and some face to face meetings had been facilitated as necessary.

Referring to a consultation meeting held with young people in July 2021, panel members invited SMSR to comment on the following points raised at that meeting:

a)    Many young people had not been clear about the role and purpose of the independent reviews and had therefore been unaware that they had been giving their views to the IRO.  SMSR described the frequency ad timing of reviews, which included a minimum of two per year and an average of three per year.

b)    Young people had indicated that they disliked being called out of school for IRO meetings because it drew attention to their status as Looked After Children, and for this reason did not always participate.  SMSR said that efforts were manage review meetings according to the preferences of Young People but that, with a caseload of 85 per IRO and a limited number of hours in the working day, it was not always possible to avoid taking young people out of class for review meetings.  Replying to further questions, SMSR said that there was some flexibility around working hours but that weekend meetings were not possible because other agencies, such as schools, would not participate at weekends.

Referring to her opening remarks, SMSR said that the two temporary posts funded as part of Covid support currently each carried a caseload of 80.  As and when the Covid funding ended, those cases would have to be absorbed by permanent IROs, taking their caseloads to over 90.  AD/SRCP said that, to comply with the guidance in the IRO Handbook, IROs should have a maximum caseload of 70: the additional Covid-funded posts allowed the service to remain just on the right side of this ceiling, but it would be necessary to review the position as the funding came to an end.

Asked about the current position on settled status for the District’s Looked After Children, SMSR did not have the figures to hand but said that Bradford was one of the better performing local authorities in this respect.

Replying to questions, SMSR confirmed that the data in the tables in Section 3.1 of the report covered the period to 31 March in each of the years shown.  Noting that the rate of children leaving care in Bradford (table 2) had increased significantly and was above the national average, the Panel asked whether this might reflect some degree of over-correction following the 2018 Ofsted inspection, and whether the service was confident that the thresholds were now robust and the right children in the care system.  AD/SRCP said that the number of children who had been in care in 2018 was lower than would be expected, giving rise to a clear concern about whether the right children had been taken into care in the right circumstances.  It was common that a disproportionate number of children were taken into care when a local authority was subject to Ofsted intervention.  The turnover of children in care shown in table two suggested that the correct balance had not yet been reached.  DD/SC added that, when an LA become subject to Ofsted intervention, agencies tended to become risk-averse and to conclude that children would be safer in care if there were any concern about whether they were being supported effectively at home.  This was also affected by court decisions.  He considered that further work was required to be certain that all children who needed to be in care were in the system, and that all who were in the system needed to be there.  SMSR said that the data in table two included the impact of clearing a backlog of Discharge from Care Orders.

The Panel considered that the list of areas for further focus on social work practice issues for the next year (section 8 of the report) could usefully be more sharply focused to indicate the actions that would be taken, the timescales and how their impact would be measured. 

Asked to expand upon the statement at section 3.4 of the report that “There has been an increase in the use of mother and baby placements. In some of these cases the IROs have observed that the placements do not necessarily address the community risks that were identified in the initial single assessment”, SMSR said that, if a child was left in the home with her mother and, possibly, her father, perhaps as a result of a court ruling, the LA would not be putting her in a protective environment: she would be exposed to other issues.  A twelve-week mother and baby placement might be followed by a move into the community.  When a decision was made to embark on a mother and baby placement, plans needed to be made for the probable next stages in the care requirements of the child.

The Panel commented on section 3.6 of the report: “We are aware that a significant number of children turned 18 during 2020/21 which accounts for the high number of children aged 17+ ceasing care. With regards to children aged 16 and 17 who were subject to Care Orders, the pathway plan was to allow the order to lapse rather than seek discharge. Often this was in response to the wishes and feelings of young people.”  Asked whether this meant that the pathway plan was to allow the Care Oder to lapse instead of to discharge the young person from care – effectively, not a plan at all – SMSR agreed.  Sometimes a young person for whom a Discharge Order could be sought because they were no longer at risk expressed a preference to maintain the Care Order so that, on reaching the age of 18, they became a care leaver.

Referring to Table 14 in section 6 of the report (reasons for initiating a Challenge and Resolution process), the Panel asked whether a single child might be counted in two or more rows.  The SMSR confirmed that they might: a Challenge and Resolution process might relate to a single or multiple issues.  Asked about the total number of children who had been the subject of a Challenge and Resolution process, SMSR said that this information was given at Table 13 (numbers of Stage 1, 2 and 3 challenges and the numbers escalated and resolved).  In the report period, 192 challenges had been resolved, each of which might have related to one or more factors.

Resolved –

1.  That the report be noted and the Panel look forward to seeing evidence of improvement in the next IRO report in May 2022

2.    Thatthe Sufficiency Strategy be completed as a matter of urgency, and by February 2022 at the latest;

3.  That the Fostering and Recruitment strategy flow from the Sufficiency Strategy and be updated annually

4.  That the Independent Reviewing Officer and Foster Carer Reviewing Officer  establishment be reviewed in the context of the Sufficiency Strategy.

Action:  Assistant Director, Safeguarding and Review, Commissioning and Provider Services