A report will be presented by the Deputy Director (Children’s Social Care) (Document “D”) 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 –

That the key priorities for the Independent Reviewing Officer Service, as set out in Section 12 of Appendix 1 to Document “D”, be endorsed.

                                                            (Imran Cheema – 01274 434530)

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

The IRO Manager went through the comprehensive Annual Report in detail and responded to questions from Members as follows:

·         The ‘Viewpoint’ consultation system was still being used but was only one of the methods used to capture the voice of the child. Efforts were being made to re-energise this resource and to make it a more bespoke tool.

·         In terms of sharing good practice with education/schools colleagues, it was not considered that there would be a problem with schools accessing sufficiency reports and he would liaise with the Virtual School on this issue.

·         The 86.7% response from Looked After Children (LAC) in respect of whether they felt safe and happy where they lived did not correlate to the remaining 13.3% being unhappy. Similarly, in relation to the 60% of those aged 16+ who said that they knew who to contact if there was a problem with their accommodation, this did not mean that 40% did not know. A young person may have chosen not to answer those particular questions. The sufficiency report used the majority answer to highlight any potential issues.

·         If a young person raised an issue with their IRO about something that they were concerned or unhappy about this would be looked at and the IRO would ensure that there was a resolution to the issue. This had a very positive impact; an example was given of a case where the IRO had acted as advocate for a young person where they had not felt comfortable addressing the issue directly for themselves.

·         The volume of referrals had increased and this could be associated, in part, with the effects of welfare reform and stress on families.

·         In relation to the workloads of IROs (compared with the past) members of the team rated themselves as being happy in their work. The IRO Handbook suggested that case loads should be no more than 70. In some other authorities IROs also undertook other tasks but in Bradford they focused solely on the core responsibilities.

·         An IRO would speak to a young person before their review and if there was a problem this would be discussed at the review meeting.

·         Bradford had a history of developing good social workers. It was very important that these staff were retained, allowed to continue to develop and felt valued.

·         The key priorities were getting placements right and ensuring that Care Plans were robust and sharp and that there was no delay or drift in achieving goals.

The Deputy Director (Children's Social Care) said that:

·         Local authorities where Universal Credit had been introduced had experienced a rise in workloads. It was to be introduced in Bradford in June 2019 and the same pattern of increase was anticipated.

·         One of the reasons for the work being undertaken to expand the ‘viewpoint’ system was the wish to strengthen the young person’s input into the process. If an issue was identified through the system then this could then be looked at with the members of the CICC.

·         The review process was an integral part of the service’s role to ensure that the needs of the child/young person were met as they got older and these needs changed.

·         Following a review the social worker had 10 days to update the young person’s care plan.

·         The Regulation 44 Officer would be able to show any Member who was interested how the viewpoint tool worked.

The Strategic Director, Children’s Services commented that it was good to see the level of challenge being put forward and the level of participation at 99% was positive. However he considered that a higher level of Quality Audits should be achieving a ‘good’ rating and questioned whether the impact on a child over a period of time was measured.

The CICC representative questioned how a young person would be aware of how their views had been represented; 943 reviews were recorded as being ‘PN6: Child not attended, views sent’; what if their views had been misinterpreted? He also asked about how the ‘voice of the child’ was defined.

The IRO Manager said that IROs audited the review process to look at if the social worker had captured the ‘child’s voice’ ie did the young person communicate a message about what they wanted by whatever means. This was evidenced at different points of the process. The first section of a review record included the child’s views and if they did not agree with this they could ask for it to be changed. If a child did not attend two reviews consecutively this would be followed up and the IRO would undertake a visit. The record taken at the review formed the basis of the individual’s Care Plan going forward; every young person (where they were of an appropriate age) should be given a copy of this and their social worker should go through it with them. In light of the concerns raised by the CICC representative he undertook to contact a sample of young people who had not attended their review to establish if their views were recorded accurately and to report to the CICC.

Resolved –

(1)       That Document “D” be welcomed and that it be noted that it is anticipated that there may be changes in the figures recorded for different categories of need in future reports.

(2)       That the Deputy Director (Children's Social Care) be requested to include evidence on the impact of interventions in future reports to the Panel.

(3)       That the key priorities for the Independent Reviewing Officer Service, as set out in Section 12 of Appendix 1 to Document “D”, be endorsed.

(4)       That the Independent Reviewing Officer Manager be asked to share best practice with colleagues in the Education Department with particular reference to work to capture the voice of the child.

(5)       That the Independent Reviewing Officer Manager and the Service Manager for the Through Care Service be requested to produce a report in respect of young people’s knowledge of the content of their Care Plans and the record taken of their Looked After Children (LAC) Reviews, in the context of ensuring that the voice of the child/young person is being accurately reflected.

(6)       That it be noted that the Panel values the role of the Independent Reviewing Officer and believes that it should continue with the support of Corporate Parents.

ACTION:       Deputy Director (Children's Social Care)

Independent Reviewing Officer Manager

Service Manager  - Through Care Service