The report of the Strategic Director of Children’s Services (Document “B”) will provide Corporate Parenting with an overview of the IRO service for 2021 – 2022.

Recommended -

The report is for information only

(Helen Cliffe 07582 10103)

The report of the Strategic Director of Children’s Services (Document “B”) provided Corporate Parenting with an overview of the IRO service for 2021 – 2022.

1. The agenda paper was taken as read.
2. Helen Cliffe, Service Manager, Safeguarding and Reviewing Team (Service Manager) said that the number of children in care had continued to increase during 2021-22.  The workforce was relatively stable, ensuring consistency of Independent Review Officers (IROs) for children.  As mentioned by One Adoption West Yorkshire under the previous agenda item, court delays presented issues, particularly in relation to Discharge from Care Orders.
3. Replying to questions, the Service Manager said that a permanent IRO had now been appointed to replace an IRO who had retired in June 2022.
4. Asked whether the statutory and additional responsibilities of IROs, as listed at section 2.1 of the agenda paper, were being met, the Service Manager said that, broadly speaking, they were, and in some cases were exceeded.  If system blockages prevented the outcome of review meetings being available within 5 working days of the meeting, the outcomes were available in hard copy.  The minutes of review meetings were usually issued on time, though IROs had a significantly higher case load than they should (around 90 children per IRO, compared with the 75 specified in the handbook).  Occasional delays to the minutes were marginal.  Consultation was not always practical, for example in the case of very young children, but IROs ascertained their wishes and feelings through other means, such as observation in their placements, visits, WhatsApp, online.  The Service Manager reminded the Panel that children were free to decline to talk to their IRO. 
5. The Service Manager said that care plans were reviewed to ensure that they continued to reflect the current needs of the child.  Although it was not a statutory requirement, IROs chaired all first Supervision Order Reviews for children who concluded Care Proceedings with a Supervision Order, embedding the plan before handing over to the social work team to continue the child in need arrangements. IROs facilitated training workshops and reflective practice sessions and participated on working parties to develop the service, including the Mockingbird and Family Time models.  IROs also offered student placement support.
6. The Panel asked that future reports include confirmation, in the section on the statutory and additional responsibilities of IROs, that these responsibilities were being met.

ACTION: IRO Service Manager

7. Referring to the commentary at the end of section 3.1 of the agenda paper, the Panel asked whether the list of statistical neighbours to Bradford remained the right comparator.  Amandip Johal (Children’s Services - CS) said that the list was determined by DfE and provided a useful set of comparators.  A Panel member considered that this demonstrated that the 2018 thresholds had been incorrect.
8. Turning to section 3.2, the Panel discussed the ongoing debate about the number of young people entering care through use of police Powers of Protection and a possible disparity in the thresholds used by the police and social care services for decisions about intervention.  Daniel Ware, (West Yorkshire Police – WYP) drew a distinction between the generalist function of police officers and the specialist function of social worker and Children’s Social Care: the latter had the expertise to make more nuanced judgements.  A police officer’s assessment of whether a situation was safe for a child would be based on their lived experience and the kind of considerations that a member of the general public might make; whereas a child protection specialist from police or social care would bring more specialist experience to the judgement.  There was a need to impart that specialist knowledge and expertise to general officers to inform the serious decisions that they were required to make in a crisis situation about whether to remove a child from their home.
9. Replying to questions, WYP confirmed that the concerns of police officers were recorded, whether or not a child was removed from the home.  An Emergency Duty Team (EDT) had been established within the police operations centre, so that the Duty Inspector who made the decision to use protective powers was co-located with the EDT and could share information and decision-making.  Wherever possible, a social worker was deployed to accompany the police officer.  Officers were required to capture on body video and to document their feelings, perceptions and decision-making process, and notifications were referred to Front Door.  Replying to questions, WYP confirmed that this information was conveyed in real time.  Officers were encouraged to seek out extended family members in preference to removing the child wherever possible and safe to do so.
10. WYHCP said that decisions on removal of a child could be a difficult judgement for social workers, as well as for police officers.  Decisions required strong supervision and excellent communications.  As children entered care, the demands placed on health services, in the absence of a robust prevention and Early Help paradigm in Bradford, added pressure to the system. 
11. WYP agreed that Early Help in Bradford was widely recognised to be insufficient.  A multi-agency co-located Early Help offer was being rolled out across West Yorkshire to identify cases that did not meet statutory thresholds but where intervention was clearly required.  Baseline universal provision had been put in place across the District, and the intention was to develop a more bespoke approach in each area according to its specific needs over the next eighteen to twenty-four months.  AD/SRCP considered this to be essential: the number of children entering care was increasing and the District lacked sufficient carers and the resources to fund placements.  Bradford was an area of very high need, but more timely intervention for families would reduce the number of children who had to be taken into care.  The reductions in Early Help, family support and other services had led to intense pressure on the system.  The concern of the Panel was how to reconstruct this kind of scaffolding swiftly and effectively.
12. WYP said that, from the point of view of service delivery, the drivers and factors that led to increased numbers of children entering care were increasing: he cited the rising cost of living, migration, complexity of family lives and safeguarding issues.  For both and ethical and pragmatic reasons, it was important to intervene as far upstream as possible though Early Help and Family Support.  The Panel agreed: the vision was for children to be happy and health at home, not happy and healthy in care.  In the interests of children and families, a way must be found to reverse the trend of increasing numbers of children entering care, though this must not distract attention from the removal of children who were not safe at home.  
13. Turning to page 23 of the agenda paper, the Panel asked what was being done to ensure that the education plans of children and young people were up-to-date and appropriate.  The Service Manager said that she would have expected IROs to escalate more partner agency challenges than they had: it might be that they were escalating them but not recording them as escalations.  She said that some children in care did very well academically and went on the college or employment.  This was not the case for all, however: there were instances of manipulation around part-time education plans, or tutoring for only one or two hours per day.  This was difficult to resolve.  Stronger co-operation was needed between the SEND, Health and Children’s Social Services teams to ensure timely review of EHCPs.  CS said that young people raised the issue of education consistently: they would lead a Corporate Parenting Panel session on their concerns in this area in August 2022.
14. Asked whether caseloads were reducing, the Service Manager said that they were not, because the number of children in care was increasing.
15. Referring to section 6.1 of the agenda paper, the Panel asked whether the service ever received any negative feedback from children families and other agencies.  The Service Manager said that she was not aware of any. 
16. Referring to Table 13, the Panel queried the number of cases resolved at Challenge Stage 1 (236) and raised Challenge Stage 2 (48).  The Service Manager said that a challenge was not always issued at Stage 1: if the matter was very serious, the Stage 1 process would be bypassed.  Asked whether the 2 cases shown at Challenge Stage 3 implied that 46 of the 48 Challenge Stage 2 cases had been resolved, the Service Manager confirmed that it did.  The recording of challenges had now been improved. 
17. The issuing of challenges by IROs had an inevitable impact on the workforce: however politely the challenge was issued, it was demoralising for the social worker concerned.  All possible ways to bring the care plan back on track needed to be considered.  Replying to questions, the Service Manager said that where a challenge persistently reoccurred after it had apparently been resolved, the Assistant Director would be alerted.

Resolved –

That the Panel welcomes the report and look forward to receiving future reports to track progress in the service.

Action: Strategic Director, Children’s Services