Independent Reviewing Managers Annual Report

Independent Reviewing Managers Annual Report

(Halton Council designated Independent Reviewing Officers as Independent Reviewing Managers)

Part 1

1Introduction

This report covers the period from 1April 2013 to 31March 2014.

There are two key pieces of legislation and national guidance relating to the Looked After Children process that are directly relevant to Independent Reviewing Managers (IRM), these are:

1. Care Planning, Placements and Case Review Regulations (2010)
2. Independent Reviewing Officers Handbook (2010)

These two documents are part of a suite of guidance issued in 2010 to set out how Local Authorities should fulfil their responsibilities in relation to care planning, placement and review of plans for Looked after Children; this statutory guidance was implemented April 2011.

The Independent Reviewing Officers Handbook requires that an Annual Report is provided for the Lead Elected Member with responsibility for children, young people and corporate parenting, on the work undertaken by the IRM service. This sets out that the report must:

'Identify good practice but should also highlight issues for further development, including where urgent action is needed'.

It should also cover:

1. The procedures for resolving concerns, the escalation process and an analysis of the issues raised and the outcomes;
2. The development of the IRM service, caseloads, makeup of the team and how it reflects the identity of the Looked After children population
3. The extent of participation of children and their parents;
4. The number of reviews that are held on time and the number that are held out of time with reasons for this
5. Whether any resource issues are putting at risk the delivery of a quality service to all looked after children.

This report will focus on the main areas of responsibility for the IRM’s - the Care Planning and reviewing.

A brief summary of the other roles and responsibilities undertaken by the IRMs is included as these are relevant to the final section which highlights the priorities for 2014-15.

2Current Structure and Management of the IRM Service

'the development of the IRM service including information on caseloads, continuity of employment and the make up of the team and how it reflects the identity of the children it is serving'

2.1Staffing

The IRM Service is based within the Safeguarding Children Unit part of the Children and Enterprise Directorate. (See structure chart below)

Currently there are three full time IRMs employed in the unit which is based in Rutland House in Runcorn. They have a wealth of experience and are a stable group with a low turnover rate.

All three IRMs are White British, two Male and one Femaleand therefore it is not possible to allocate cases based on either gender or cultural heritage. If a specific issue is raised by a young person or their family then the authority will make every effort to address issues appropriately– to date this has never been an issue.

Current case loads are at the top of the scale recommended in statutory guidance (50-70) being on average 70. IRMs also hold a small number of cases were children are in receipt of short break provision but not legally looked after because it is felt that they benefit from independent scrutiny. This is currently under review given the increase in case load and the need to focus on core business.

In a recent thematic report produced by Ofsted significant emphasis was placed on caseloads, with the regulator making it clear that even at the top end of the recommended caseload it would be difficult for the IRM to be compliant with all aspects of statutory guidance. To date the caseloads have not had significant impact on compliance but should numbers continue to rise there will be an inevitable impact.

The service is managed by a Senior Manager who, since January 2014 works across two authorities and overall responsibility sits with a Divisional Manager who also works across the same footprint.

Therefore the IRM service is able to operate independently of the care planning process, and there is no direct management link to those providing a social work service. However the unit Senior Managers are part of the Senior Management Team and therefore are involved in the strategic decision making process.

1

SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN UNIT STRUCTURE

1

3Role of the Independent Reviewing Manager in Care Planning

The IRM must:

• Review the Looked After Care plans for all children, and maintain an oversight of the Local Authorities' conduct of the child's case
• Challenge the Local Authority if the child's needs are not being met and there is drift or delay in delivering on the child's care plan
• Where necessary escalate this challenge up to and including CAFCASS if the IRM's view is that the child's human rights are being compromised.

The quality assurance role of the IRM in all aspects of care planning for children requires the establishment of:

• Clear principles of transparency and clarity around the standards set out in guidance and legislation for Looked After care planning
• A systematic and robust approach to reviewing and monitoring all aspects of the case planning for looked after children
• Constructive questioning and challenge where needed of the Local Authority work with looked after children and young people, through an internal escalation process and via independent legal advice

3.1Quality Assurance Role, the monitoring of the status of LA care plans and the Escalation process

'Procedures for resolving concerns, including the local dispute resolution process including an analysis of the issues raised in dispute and the outcomes,'

This evidences the impact of the increased responsibilities of the IRM under the Care Planning, Placement and Care Review (England) Regulations 2010 and IRO Handbook 2010, which strengthened the IRMs ability to monitor the progress of care plans and to challenge more effectively and earlier where there is a risk of delay.

3.2IRM Oversight and Escalation Process

Currently within Halton there is an agreed dispute resolution process in place. It makes a clear distinction between the initial ‘informal’ and the ‘formal’ process, both requiring the IRM to determine the response period within a maximum of 28 days. The current system allows for a protracted time period in which escalations can be responded too.

An issue that the IRM feels requires escalating should be one that in their view will have a significant impact on the child outcomes and as such would require a timely response within a fixed time period. Any other issue should be dealt with via on going scrutiny and tracking of the care planning process – only when these issues cannot be resolved should they be escalated.

The current method of recording does not allow for the service to easily report on the number of escalations within the reporting period and therefore it is not possible to evidence that every escalation has a satisfactory resolution. However a number of themes have been identified and reported via the IRM quarterly reports previously presented to the Local Safeguarding Children Board.

3.3Examples of escalation themes

Discrepancy in the quality of planning and assessment across the authority

Comment -The IRM must be in a position to raise any concerns that they might have in relation to the quality of the work done to support looked after children across the authority. In this reporting period the service became concerned that working practices and the quality of practice was more robust in one locality compared to the other.

Action – the issue was raised at OLT by the service and a presentation given. As a result an audit was undertaken and the DCS attended two reviews in order to get an overview of practice issues. This resulted in changes being made in the locality with an emphasis on improving quality of planning. IRMs were tasked with monitoring progress over time and are due to feedback to OLT in the next reporting period.

Care plans and reports not available within required timescales.

Comment - this has been an ongoing issue for the IRMsand has been reported historically via the Safeguarding Unit quarterly report. This has an impact on the quality and effectives of the review process and on a number of occasions the Child and the IRO has not been properly prepared or informed prior to the review.

Action - the IRO service will continue to report the issues on a case by case basis, via the quarterly report and via OLT. However over the next reporting period it will need to develop a more robust system so the service is able to report on a team and individual worker basis to assist senior managers in addressing issues via supervision.

Suitability of placements and the views of a the IRM not being sought appropriately

Comment -There has been some concern that changes of placement have been made and the IRM has either not been consulted prior to the planned changed or notified within 24 hours of any emergency action. This has meant on a number of occasions that the IRM has not been in a position to either scrutinise or challenge the process in consultation with the child. Guidance allows for them to freeze any planned move and escalate their concerns to the DCS.

Action – Need to raise the profile of the IRMservice across the authority.Given the number of staff changes the service needs to ensure that all staff are fully aware of the role of the IRM within the care planning process. This will be completed via OLT and IRM Training Sessions.

Life work not being completed with children in care in long term placements

Comment -Life Work with a child is an important aid to helping them understand the reasons for their current circumstances and their Care Plan. Life Work with children to be placed for adoption has been considered a priority and work with this cohort proceeds without delay. However, reviews of children in long term placements have increasingly identified the negative impact of the absence of Life Work.

Action - This matter has been raised with senior managers and IRMs will continue to raise the need for life work on an individual basis via the review process.

Health Assessments not being completed with required timescales

Comment – It is vital to understand the health needs of all looked after children if their outcomes are to be improved overtime. At the being of the reporting period the IRMs raised concerns that notifications and assessments were not being completed in a timely manner and that this was having an impact on the planning process.

Action – Issue was raised with the Children in Care Partnership Board and action was taken to improve performance. There has been a dramatic improvement in the notifications to health since January(100% of notifications in quarter four were within timescales) and although some children were not seen within timescales for a variety of reasons, including cancelled appointments and young people’s refusal to attend, performance is now significantly improved.

The care plan not being appropriate to meet the child's needs.

Comment – an example being when the IRO is concerned about the level of educational support being offered, in such cases the IRO will escalate to both relevant manager and the Virtual Head Teacher. In other cases the IRO might be concerned about the impact of contact with birth family again this will be escalated to Team and Locality Managers. This process needs to be more robust and plans should not be endorsed until the IRO is satisfied that both needs and risks are being addressed. Where plans are not endorsed within 5 days of the review senior managers should be made aware.

Action – the service is to review the current escalation process to ensure it is both robust and timely. Timescales need to be reduced significantly and unresolved issues need to be escalated through to Divisional Managers. Currently all care plans are endorsed by the IRM.

3.4Starred Recommendations

As well as the dispute resolution process the IRMs use a system of starred recommendations to highlightrecommendations that have not been progressed within required timescales. As you can see from the table above numbers are small and this process is being reveiwed as any delays should be progressed via either a system of mid-point tracking or the escalation process.

Example of a *Recommendation

A young person had not had life work completed as requested at the previous review. This was made a starred recommendation and the life story work was then completed within 2 weeks. Delay in this case was due to a late transfer from the Children in Need Team to the Permanence Team.

Whilst it is not currently possible to provide data about the outcome of all the escalations it is important to note that all looked after children have an agreed care plan in place. The effectiveness of this process is evidenced by the fact that the IRMs are encouraged and supported but their managers to their use this process and in this reporting period it has not been necessary for them to formally refer any case to CAFCASS for review.

However, on review, it is agreed that some changes need to be made in relation to both the escalation process and the way the service records escalation activity.

The timescales within the process need to be shortened providing a much more timely response –and the system should in effect focus on response not resolution.

.

The IRMs need an agreed distinction between Escalation and Challenge and improve the robustness of their recording on CareFirst allowing more detailed and sophisticated reporting of their activity and impact.

3.5Impact of escalations

Child A - The Local Authority had not held a care planning meeting prior to the statutory review in order to robustly formulate and reflect on their proposals in terms of a final care plan. The IRM had not been provided with copies of any of the assessments and therefore was struggling to support their plan of long term fostering. The IRM had a number of discussions with the allocated social worker and the GAL. The consequent delay was escalated to the Divisional Manager and as a result the plan was progressed. A Child Permanence Report was written in order to ensure that the child was successfully matched to long-term carers.

In other cases the IRMs report that they have required the authority to reconvene the care planning meeting to review and update. This is feedback to managers via the review process and this then has had positive impact on the quality of the care plan and subsequent outcomes