The purpose of this report is to present the committee with the annual Independent Reviewing Officer report (2021/22). 

Recommendation(s)

That:

a)    the contents of this report are noted by the scrutiny committee, and

The committee offer any further constructive challenge, define any further action or recommendations to inform and support the Independent Reviewing Officers

Dylan Harrison (Head of Service Safeguarding and Review) provided a description of the role of the IRO to the Committee and then provided an overview of the annual report for 2021 and 2022, as provided within the agenda pack.

Q: The Committee raised concerns about the red rating of dispute resolution protocols.

The head of service pointed out that increased disputes were a healthy sign. Disputes can be extremely complex with a variety of issues, because looked after children are the most vulnerable children, but having disputes demonstrates that the IROs are being effective in holding the local authorities to account. They can’t always be resolved easily, but we work together to do that.

Rachael Gillott (Service Director, Safeguarding and Family Support) said “IROs are the eyes and ears of the service, the disputes escalated have all been appropriate and have largely focused on planning for children. The IRO needs to be a critical friend, so it’s a healthy sign to see a high number of disputes”.

Q: Why show it as red and not green in the improvement plan?

The service director explained that the red related to the signing off and completion of the new process and pathway, which had been delayed. The resolution protocol had almost been fully drafted and just needed to be completed, that was why it was red.

Q: How long between a dispute being raised and getting new actions in place? Is there a statutory time frame?

Sarah Jarratt (Child Protection Conference Chair) explained it was measured within 20 working days and the process was automated. A dispute is raised and then the system calculates what day it should be resolved by and sends that deadline out to the relevant individuals. A dispute meeting should be held if progress hasn’t been made within 15 working days to review where things are.

Q: How many children outside of that timeframe at the moment?

The head of service stated there were 19 current disputes, none of them were outside of the time frame because there was an escalating process. If things couldn’t be resolved at the first level they were escalated. The head was confident there had been improvement in this area. “We now have a tracker that we all have access to and have a greater grip on the issues where we have children with concerns.”

Q: Ms. Fiona Reid (Representative of families) asked a number of questions including the percentage of cases resolved within 20 working days, staffing levels, caseloads per IRO and numbers of looked after children.

The head of service explained that the percentage of cases resolved within 20 days was about 50% with the other 50% being escalated through the process. Staffing issues meant individual IRO caseloads (shared between the 6 full-time employees) were currently at 71, but recruitment was underway and the service would be fully staffed by summer, which would bring the caseload per IRO down. The looked after children figure currently stood at 406, a figure which had levelled out in recent times.

Q: The Committee asked how do you track the extensions and escalations of disputes?

The head of service explained that “we use a tracker, which records full case history with lots of details that can be accessed by all users as it goes through the stages, as it goes through the process, parts of it will likely be resolved. Mostly they are resolved very quickly.”

Q:  Are there common themes of dispute and is one of them my life story work?

The head of service cited drift and delay in resolving issues as a common theme and the other theme being where there was a disagreement about the care plan for the child, for example there had been a recent case with a proposal that a child would live with their grandparents, which would often be desirable, but there were concerns about the grandparents’ health and capability and eventually the child was placed with adopted parents.

Q: Many children have benefitted from independent visitors, would you encourage councillors to become independent volunteers?

The service director explained ”The independent visitors service is run by an independent charity. It is absolutely valuable and by coming in from outside and befriending the young person, visitors act like a surrogate aunt or uncle to the young person. Being able to commit for two years, for continuity and stability, is desirable and councillors would be welcome to come forward and volunteer.”

RESOLVED: The Committee unanimously noted the report.