A report will be presented by the Deputy Director (Children’s Social Care) (Document “O”) in relation to the work of the Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) Service and its Annual Report, the production of which is a requirement of the IRO Regulations.

Recommended –

(1)       That the key priorities for the Independent Reviewing Officer Service, as set out in Appendix 1 to Document “O”, be endorsed.

(2)       That future Independent Reviewing Officer Annual Reports be presented to the September meeting of the Panel.

                                                                        (Imran Cheema – 01274 434530)

A report was submitted by the Deputy Director (Children’s Social Care) (Document “O”) in relation to the work of the Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) Service and presenting its Annual Report for the period 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017; the production of which is a requirement of the IRO Regulations.

The IRO Manager highlighted the points below:

·         There had been an increase in the numbers of Looked After Children (CLA) to 927 (as at 31 March 2017); this increase reflected the overall national trend.

·         Care Proceedings were taking longer than the 26 week limit as a result of delays in respect of the Court and assessments.

·         There had been a reduction in the number of Section 20 Agreements (Childrens Act 1989) and the Authority had a robust Legal Gateway Panel reviewing cases.

·         The numbers of Placement Orders and Adoption Orders had decreased.  Adoption was no longer seen as the preferred permanency plan and there was more emphasis on finding solutions within family and friends networks.

·         The numbers of family and friend placements had increased with 45 placements being outside the district.  The Authority was committed to keeping children within their family network where this was safe and possible.

·         The balance between the numbers of those entering care and those leaving had changed with more entering care than leaving.

·         Bradford had one of the largest populations of young people in the country, if not the largest.

·         The Courts no longer favoured Special Guardianship Orders if a placement was untested.

·         The IRO’s caseloads were approximately 20 children above the guidance level  in the IRO’s Handbook.

·         The Team was proud of the results achieved in respect of CLA reviews, with 98% being on time despite an increase in numbers, and the best performance to date in respect of participation by CLA of 97%.

·         All Care Plans that were deemed to ‘require improvement’ were presented to the Deputy Director’s Performance Clinic for consideration.

·         In terms of the Quality Assurance (QA) Audits, a reduction in the percentage of Care Plans classed as ‘outstanding’ was believed to be due to adjustments to the thresholds and the increased familiarity of IROs with the definitions of each classification. The actions deemed necessary to bring about improvement were detailed in each case.

·         78 QA challenges had been issued with resolution being achieved for over 90% and 44 acknowledgements of good practice had been shared; a practice that had been welcomed by staff.

·         IROs from Bradford had attended the Regional Annual IRO Conference.

·         An update was given in respect of the information/figures since April 2017.

·         The key priorities for the Service for 2017/18.

·         A new Missing Co-ordinator been appointed and IROs had attended workshops on this issue.

The IRO Manager answered Members’ questions:

·         Although adoption was an option for consideration the current emphasis was on placing children with people that were known to them and the judiciary was keen to know what options had been considered within a child’s family network. It was seen as a last resort by the Courts and this meant additional challenge to the Local Authority to show that all such options had been assessed.  An Advisory Permanence Panel was being established by the Authority.

·         The Adoption Service was now part of a regional consortium and recruitment for adopters was ongoing.

·         There were still a significant number of children awaiting adoption.

·         There were specific requirements in respect of the recruitment of IROs. Applicants had to have a certain level of experience to be considered suitable and would have the experience and skill set to challenge in their work.  New appointees were given a detailed induction over a two week period. Supervision was undertaken on a between 4 and 6 weekly basis and there were annual appraisals.  He considered that the IROs were well supported.

·         A CLA’s IRO could be the most consistent presence in their life.  The IRO Team had been very stable for the last few years with most officers who had left the Service having retired. The newly recruited IROs had made a positive contribution to the service.

·         IROs did do quite a lot of travelling.  For those CLA placed outside the Authority’s area if they were in a stable, long term fostering arrangement and there were no concerns then there was no absolute requirement for a face to face meeting and a ‘light touch’ assessment could be undertaken if appropriate. 

·         He did not have data in respect of the number of young people who had been looked after, left care and subsequently become looked after again although an audit had been undertaken in the recent past and the results presented to the Performance Review Panel. It was accepted that where possible children should be placed with family but this sometimes meant taking a risk that it would not work. This was an issue that was carefully scrutinised as it would obviously be disruptive for the young person.

·         In some cases a young person might make their own decision to return home despite an assessment by the Authority that their needs were not being met by a parent; in such situations the Service would do all it could to make the situation as safe as possible for the young person concerned.

·         The frequency of reviews depended on the individual circumstances of the young person.

·         In terms of the increase in the number of Care Plans deemed to require improvement; a deeper audit had been undertaken of the care plan documents with the intention of bringing about improvement and IROs had been asked to be robust in their audit of these plans.

The IRO Manager was thanked for his comprehensive report.

Resolved –

(1)       That the key priorities for the Independent Reviewing Officer Service, as set out in Appendix 1 to Document “O”, be endorsed.

(2)       That, in future, the Independent Reviewing Officers’ Annual Report be presented to the September meeting of the Panel.

ACTION:       Deputy Director (Children’s Social Care)