Research summary 11 March 2014 The roe of Independent Reviewing Officers (IROs) in Engand Heena Jeicic, Ivana a Vae and Di Hart, with Lisa Homes from the Centre for Chid and Famiy Research, Loughborough University This NCB Research Summary presents the key findings from a study that was funded by the Nuffied Foundation and undertaken by a team from NCB Research Centre in partnership with Loughborough University. The aim of the study is to provide an evidence base about the way the Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) roe operates in order to inform future poicy and practice. The research invoved: nationa surveys of IROs, their managers and Directors of Chidren Services (DCSs); anaysis of administrative data on IROs access to independent advice; an anaysis of resources need for the IRO service; case studies of four oca authorities, incuding anaysis of care pans, interviews and focus groups with IROs, socia workers, other key professionas and ooked after chidren. Introduction Independent Reviewing Officers (IROs) were introduced to represent the interests of ooked after chidren foowing a number of cases where care pans had not been impemented, eading to harm. Their roe was strengthened through the introduction of statutory guidance in Apri 2011 but there has been continuing scepticism about whether they are making enough difference to the quaity of the service and whether their independence is compromised by being under oca authority contro. The question of how the effectiveness of the IRO service can be measured is, however, compex. In their thematic inspection of the IRO roe within ten oca authorities pubished in 2013, Ofsted suggested that IROs were sti not making enough positive impact. The House of Lords Committee on Adoption Reform (2013) recommended that it was time to empoy IROs outside the oca authority but the Government did not agree and are committed to making the roe work within the current arrangements. The chaenges faced by IROs are even greater now than when statutory guidance was introduced in 2011. It is hoped that the evidence afforded by this study wi inform the debate about how to maximise the effectiveness of the roe to ensure that ooked after chidren get the independent support they need and deserve.
Creating the right context The IRO 1 guidance makes it cear that an effective service requires IROs who have the right skis and experience, working within a supportive context. The findings indicated that most IROs had many years of reevant socia work and management experience, and were respected by their coeagues because of their professiona expertise. Being paid at the same eve as a team manager (as suggested by the guidance) was important for IROs in terms of their professiona status, giving them the authority and professiona standing required to chaenge poor practice. The ower pay grade appied in some of the case study authorities did not make IROs ess competent, but it impacted on their morae and indicated that the authority vaued its IRO service ess than other authorities where IROs were appointed at a higher eve. It aso ed to recruitment and retention difficuties for IROs and it was argued that it constituted a threat to an authority s abiity to provide an effective service. This study shows that most (95%) IROs were directy empoyed by the oca authority and the findings highighted many benefits from this. It enabed IROs to have a good understanding of the oca authority context, to buid productive reationships with socia work teams and encouraged information sharing and partnership working. It aso meant that IROs were abe to contribute to poicy and practice improvement in the ooked after chidren s service, which was particuary vaued by senior managers. This contribution further raised their professiona status and profie within the authority where they worked. Athough some may argue that being empoyed directy by the oca authority does not aow IROs to work independenty of the organisation, participants described the true test of independence as IROs abiity to chaenge the oca authority on poor practice. The ocation of the service, whether within the oca authority or outsourced, was not crucia as ong as IROs recognised when they needed to chaenge and were encouraged to do so. Being empoyed by the oca authority usuay meant carrying out other duties not specified in the IRO guidance, incuding: chairing chid protection conferences chairing ooked after chidren s reviews conducting Reguation 33 visit. Having to chair chid protection conferences as we as ooked after chidren s reviews was mosty, but not universay, seen as a benefit in providing continuity for chidren subject to a chid protection pan who then become ooked after. However, other duties, such as conducting Reguation 33 2 visits or foster carer reviews, were not aways seen as appropriate for IROs. There were concerns that these activities coud ead to a confict of interest and compromise IROs independence. Even where IROs did not think that additiona duties were in confict with their primary roe, high caseoads created pressure in choosing which tasks to prioritise, particuary when IROs were chairing chid protection conferences. This reduced the time avaiabe for work on their cases and IROs expressed concern that ooked after chidren wi cease to be the priority. It was highighted that a manageabe workoad was key if IROs are to meet the expectations set out in the guidance and it woud be unfair to describe the roe as faiing if the probem reay ies in the capacity avaiabe to fufi it. This was a particuar concern in the case studies with the highest case oads. Being chid-centred One of the most important aspects of the IROs roe, as described by a participants in the study, was to meaningfuy engage with chidren and to remain chid-centred in everything they do. Buiding a reationship with chidren was seen as crucia in terms of making sure the chid s needs are met and being abe to fight their corner. However, the experiences of both chidren and professionas were variabe: some IROs were very good at engaging with chidren in a meaningfu and fexibe way, conveying that they were genuiney interested in them and making sure their needs and views were at the fore-front 1 Department for Chidren, Schoos and Famiies (2010) IRO Handbook - Statutory guidance for independent reviewing officers and oca authorities on their functions in reation to case management and review for ooked after chidren. London: DCSF 2 Reguation 33 visits invove quaity assurance of chidren s homes.
but others were ess successfu in this. These differences in IRO performance were attributed argey to individua skis and attitudes, but other professionas aso recognised the negative impact of high caseoads and conficting priorities. IROs need to demonstrate true commitment to ooked after chidren in order for chidren to recognise the benefits of having an IRO. Chidren who reported that their IROs istened to them and respected their views aso described their IROs as acting on their behaf to tacke concerns about the service. IROs aso made a difference just by taking the time to expain to chidren what they had done in between reviews. Those who fet their IROs were not istening to them did not see how IROs coud make a difference in their ives and, therefore, saw itte point in teing them about their wishes and feeings. IROs and care panning The research findings show that, in ine with the 2011 IRO guidance, there was a cear and shared understanding that, as we as a chidcentred approach, IROs need to have an ongoing engagement with a case to be abe to propery quaity assure the care panning process. However, practice varied consideraby and aongside exampes of good practice, refecting very much the spirit of the guidance, there were exampes of IROs strugging to be sufficienty visibe and to eave the IRO footprint : the quaity kite mark evidencing that adequate services were provided to meet a chid s needs and support good outcomes. The IRO Handbook provides cear guidance on IROs roe in and processes around the case review: what IROs shoud do to prepare for the meeting and support the chid to be meaningfuy invoved what shoud happen at the meeting what are the immediate post-review actions. This guidance was generay we understood by IRO and socia work teams, but some IROs strugged to put it into practice. Whie a number of factors contributed to determining how effectivey IROs coud engage with the review process, time was certainy a key infuence. Out of the four oca authorities invoved in the study, in the authority with the owest caseoad, IROs estimated they had seven and haf hours to carry out the review incuding immediate pre- and postreview tasks; in the authority with the highest caseoad, IROs had four hours and ten minutes to carry out the same tasks. When it comes to monitoring and infuencing a case on an ongoing basis, a ack of prescription about the way this shoud be done within the nationa guidance was refected in considerabe variations in expectations of what IROs shoud do to keep on top of a case. Whie IROs need to have some discretion in deciding the eve of monitoring each case requires, it seems that the combination of imited (nationa and oca) guidance and ack of time coud undermine IROs abiity to meaningfuy monitor and infuence. This situation was compounded by forma processes for raising issues and chaenging poor practice that did not work particuary we and were cuturay not yet accepted by socia work teams who saw them as being more about judging their work rather than part of the checks and baances required to quaity assure care pans. The research findings suggest that processes to enabe IROs to engage and infuence cases require considerabe fine tuning, with a nationa framework provided to support the deveopment of oca protocos. Furthermore, key to IROs effectiveness in quaity assuring care pans on an ongoing basis is the roe payed by senior managers, who need to provide a cear message that the IRO service is vaued. One of the case study authorities, with manageabe caseoads and a monthy report of IROs concerns and chaenges provided to and discussed with the Assistant Director, refects the kind of support the IRO service needs from senior managers if it is to operate as intended by the IRO guidance. Whie a number of impementation issues were identified by the research, the findings on how IROs and socia workers operated together suggest that IROs are becoming a vauabe resource to socia work teams. IROs can hep socia workers to improve care panning and the services provided to chidren in care, compementing rather than dupicating their work. Where this is in pace and IROs are quiety raising standards behind the scenes, the need for them to chaenge poor practice is reduced.
Quaity assurance and support The guidance ceary spes out the roe of IRO managers and senior managers in ensuring the effectiveness of the IRO service. The study findings suggest that this guidance is inconsistenty appied, primariy due to ack of time and resources. IRO managers seemed to rey mainy on information provided by IROs to judge their effectiveness or on genera audits of cases which were not designed to generate feedback specificay on the IRO service. More comprehensive quaity assurance systems, such as coating feedback from chidren, famiies and other professionas, observing IRO practice, and reguary auditing IROs recording, were not common, which raises a question mark on how effectivey IROs performance was monitored and quaity assured. IRO managers payed an important roe in providing both forma and informa support to IROs through reguar supervision and ad hoc consutation. This was seen as crucia in ensuring that IROs fet supported in raising concerns about poor practice and making sure they stayed on top of the care panning process. IRO managers aso made sure they invoved IROs when panning their training and professiona deveopment. IROs reported being ony partiay satisfied with the training on offer and identified a number of gaps. The findings aso indicate that not a IROs were equipped with the right skis to engage with chidren, successfuy carry out reviews or chaenge poor practice and further training in these areas woud be beneficia. Senior managers were aso critica in ensuring IROs fet supported and vaued but their commitment was not aways evident. The faiure to dea with high caseoads and to provide effective mechanisms for deaing with concerns raised by IROs were seen as refecting a ack of senior management commitment to ensuring the service operates as intended. Access to externa sources of support aso varied greaty and the findings from our review of CAFCASS enquiries showed that there were deficiencies, such as the provision of independent ega advice or a dispute resoution protoco that worked. This meant that some IROs were turning to CAFCASS for advice on cases where this may not be appropriate. Exampes here incuded IRO s resorting to using CAFCASS as a threat where their compaints were being ignored or to resove conficts in professiona opinion. The study findings confirmed these gaps in support, particuary in making arrangements for IROs to have easy access to genuiney independent ega advice. This seemed to be poory understood by oca authorities, who often reied soey on the oca authority s ega department, in contravention of the guidance. IROs need to have externa sources of support to discuss cases, and to intervene where necessary. The best way to provide this support deserves further consideration. Does the IRO service make a difference? Making sure that a chid s care pan is reviewed in a timey fashion was perhaps seen as the area where IROs had the greatest impact. This was one of the reasons why the IRO service was created in the first pace, and just because timey reviews coud now be taken for granted in most cases, their roe in ensuring this happens shoud not be underestimated. IROs were aso seen as having had an ongoing infuence on cases, particuary in ensuring that the care panning process focused on permanency, was chid centred and evidence based. However, respondents accounts suggest that the extent of the impact was variabe, affected by the barriers IROs were facing in operating as intended by the nationa guidance, as we as differences in individua performance. IROs were recognised as contributing to improved support and services for ooked after chidren mainy through their invovement in individua cases. Participants accounts showed what a difference IROs coud make when they operated as intended, but aso, their imited abiity to make a difference when the service was not impemented effectivey. Athough exampes were found of IROs having an infuence at the more strategic eve to improve a oca authority s functioning as a corporate parent, this is an area of IROs work that seems rather under-deveoped. Greater carity is required about expectations, as we as the creation of structures and processes to enabe them to have strategic infuence.
When ooking at the difference IROs made to chidren s ives, respondents had some understandabe difficuties attributing any improvements in chid outcomes specificay to IROs, given the range of services invoved in supporting chidren. The fact that the IRO service has ony recenty been subject to strengthened guidance compounds this difficuty and it is probaby too soon to estabish if it has made a difference to chidren s outcomes. However, assessing the IRO contribution is important and thought shoud be given, both nationay and ocay, as to how to assess if and how IROs make a difference to chidren s ives. Concusions and recommendations The findings of this study indicate that the IRO roe in ensuring high quaity care panning is yet to be fuy reaised. There is, however, consensus about the characteristics of an IRO service that are working we; the chaenge is how to ensure that the theory is transated into practice. The fundamenta ingredients are: the importance of istening to chidren, and making sure their needs and rights are protected. This is the essence of the independence that is crucia to success if there is a confict of interests, the IRO must be on the side of the chid. The findings suggest that the factors enabing IROs to adopt a position of independent chaenge are more compex than where the service sits. Key eements that supported an independent approach seemed to be: professiona status and respect, demonstrated both by resourcing the service propery and by openy giving IROs permission to chaenge IROs with the right skis, particuary the abiity to communicate with chidren and young peope, and to know how and when to chaenge access to expert advice, incuding independent ega advice and opportunities for refective practice dispute resoution protocos that work, from informa conversations to the escaation of cases to senior management chid-centred IROs, who demonstrate their commitment to each chid and work out the best way to seek their views having a focus on outcomes, and hoding agencies to account for their contribution towards these rather than box-ticking. The study recommendations are targeted at three eves in recognition of the fact that improvement requires a muti-system approach. Athough IROs do bear individua responsibiity for the quaity of their practice, they need to operate within a supportive cuture. Nationa eve Centra government, nationa representatives of oca government and agencies working together to: deveop a consistent tempate for IRO annua reports ead a nationa debate about which additiona duties are compatibe with the IRO roe and which constitute a confict of interest ensure that Ofsted expicity consider the effectiveness of oca IRO services in improving outcomes for ooked after chidren, and the oca factors that are enabing or hindering their contribution consider how best to resove disputes where interna processes have been exhausted, incuding the possibiity of an independent arbitration service for disputes that do not require CAFCASS invovement deveop a nationa set of standards for IROs, and their need for professiona deveopment in order to meet them. Loca Authority eve Each Director of Chidren s Services to promote a cuture demonstrating their support for the IRO service by: setting out the expectations of the roe and disseminating this information to a those invoved in services for ooked after chidren, incuding chidren and young peope creating systems to give IROs a voice specifying the process for producing the IRO Annua report, incuding who wi be invoved in contributing to it, how it wi be responded to and how it wi be used to contribute to improved outcomes for ooked after chidren undertaking a review of how their dispute resoution processes are working, incuding the informa stage and the invovement of other agencies.
reviewing and strengthening quaity assurance processes in accordance with the IRO handbook, incuding feedback from socia workers and chidren, direct observation of IRO practice and opportunities for refection assessing the training and deveopment needs of IROs and IRO managers and commissioning roe specific training/ support undertaking an anaysis of the time required by IROs to undertake their duties, in order to then pan the number of IROs they need in order to provide the standard of service required by the IRO Handbook. IRO Service eve IRO teams and individua IROs to: take persona responsibiity for ensuring that a chidren understand the IRO roe (recording how they have done this). They shoud aso negotiate with individua chidren on their caseoad how they wi maintain contact with each other and confirm this in writing to the chid and/or carer where they perceive there to be barriers to their abiity to fufi their roe, or systemic faiures in the service to ooked after chidren in their authority, raise this formay with senior managers carify their method for monitoring cases, incuding how this activity wi be recorded undertake a review of a additiona tasks to estabish whether they compromise IRO independence or capacity and act on their findings. The roe of the IRO is about to become more chaenging as the numbers of ooked after chidren increase and the Chidren and Famiies Act 2014 introduces new arrangements for care proceedings. Scrutiny by the IRO wi be crucia to ensure that the quaity of care pans is not compromised by these changes. Where the roe works we, it can make a rea difference to chidren s ives and good practice needs to be shared - and ceebrated. NCB Research Centre 8 Wakey Street London EC1V 7QE te 020 7843 6073 emai research@ncb.org.uk Information Centre: 020 7843 6008 Registered Charity Number 258825