Agenda item
Independent Reviewing Officer Annual Report
This Annual Independent Review Officer report describes the contribution of Independent Reviewing Officers (IROs) to quality assuring and improving services for Children in Care. It provides qualitative and quantitative evidence relating to the IRO Service in Brent as required by statutory guidance for the year 2015/16.
Minutes:
The Committee considered the Annual Report for 2015/16 of the Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO), which detailed the contribution of the IRO Service in Brent. Goitom Mebrahtu (Team Manager, Safeguard and Quality Assurance) drew Members’ attention to the summary of key messages for 2015-2016 and highlighted the role of the IRO service in supporting improvements made. Members heard that the timeliness of care planning and the level of participation of children and young people had improved from the previous year, whilst there had been a reduction in the percentage of children who had experienced three or more placements. Further work was required to minimise the number of changes of social worker that a child might experience. Children had said that they valued the continuity provided by their IROs and there had been incidents in which intervention by the IROs had ensured that a child had been appropriately consulted about a change of placement. Whilst Ofsted had positively mentioned the IRO service following an inspection held in October 2015, it had been highlighted that greater consistency was required in recording by IROs and an improved minutes’ template had subsequently been introduced.
Members thanked the officers for the report and suggested that future reports would be improved by the inclusion of comparable figures for neighbouring authorities and national averages, along with anonymised case studies and analyses at ward level. It was noted that the fourth bullet point under paragraph 5 of the report should refer to 11-15 years and the Committee asked officers to amend this accordingly. A Member queried the reason for the larger proportion of male children and young people in care in Brent. A concern was raised regarding the ethnic diversity of the IRO service, though the representativeness of the service in terms of gender balance was considered to be good. Members were also pleased to note the stability of the IRO service and the value that Brent’s children and young people in care placed on this. With reference to the target to ensure that pathway plans were consistently available for all young people in care from the age of 16, details were sought regarding the housing options available to those young people. A Member questioned whether officers had any concerns regarding the level of use of advocacy services and clarity was sought regarding the mention in the report of a court ruling on the use of Section 20.
Gail Tolley (the Council’s Strategic Director for Children and Young People) advised that discussions regarding the diversity and representativeness of the IRO Team had been held with the provider of the service, though staffing continuity was considered paramount. Further information regarding the housing options available to young people in care would be provided in a subsequent report to the Committee.
Nigel Chapman (the Council’s Operational Director for Integration and Improved Service) advised that the larger proportion of male children and young people in care in Brent reflected the number of nearly all male unaccompanied minors who were looked after by the Council, along with the impact of issues such as gang affiliation. A project seeking to help address this latter issue was currently being commissioned with three other boroughs using BIG lottery funding. The project aimed to provide multi-systemic therapy to families who were committed to tackling this problem. Goitom Mebrahtu advised that advocacy services were always provided when requested, which was often at the suggestion of the IRO involved, though awareness of the service could be raised.
Addressing the query on Section 20 agreements, Nigel Chapman explained that these allowed a local authority to take a child into care with the consent of the parent or person with parental responsibility. However, a recent court ruling had determined that some local authorities had failed to actively seek parental consent for a child to be accommodated under Section 20. As a consequence of this ruling, the Council had reviewed relevant cases and returned to court to obtain Care Orders where necessary to ensure parental consent could be provided by the local authority.
Members requested that a report be provided to a future meeting of the Committee on the project currently being commissioned to provide multi-systemic therapy to families.
RESOLVED: that the report be noted.
Supporting documents: