Flowchart: Process for Addressing Practice and Other Concerns

Management Action Note 35 - Independent Reviewing Officer Challenge and Dispute Resolution Policy – Appendix One

Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) Challenge and Dispute Resolution Policy

Context

1. This policy is based on the recommendations of the National Independent Reviewing Officer Managers Partnership (NIROP) who, along with the National Association of Independent Reviewing Officers (NAIRO), provide guidance to IRO Services in relation to appropriate IRO challenge and dispute resolution. The following standards should be read in conjunction with the “IRO Handbook Statutory Guidance for Independent Reviewing Officers and Local Authorities in relation to case management and review for Looked After Children” DCSF 2010.

2. The Independent Reviewing Officer Handbook (2010) Chapter 6: Dispute Resolution and Complaints sets out the requirements of a dispute resolution process. One of the key functions of the IRO is to resolve problems arising out of the care planning process. It is expected that IROs establish positive working relationships with the social workers of the children for whom they are responsible. The local dispute resolution process involves escalating the matter in dispute through a number of levels of seniority within the department, with agreed timescales for a response at each stage.

Review process

3. The over-arching priorities for the IRO is to ensure that the child in care is being supported to achieve emotional permanence within the child’s timescales and to provide feedback on the quality of practice and the progress of the child towards permanence to the child’s social worker and their manager/supervisor. This may include an ‘IRO Challenge’.

4. At each review the IRO must consider the following in relation to the current Child Plan: • whether the current plan is meeting the child’s needs • whether to confirm or change the plan • what actions not already set out need to be taken to implement it, by whom and within what timescale • whether the local authority when acting as a Corporate Parent is acting as a responsible and conscientious parent would act.

5. The IRO must speak to the Social Worker at least 15 working days prior to the review (and record this in case notes).

Management Action Note 35 – Independent Reviewing Officer Challenge and Dispute 1 Resolution Policy – Appendix 1 – February 2017 6. The IRO must speak to and record in case notes their discussion with the child/young person prior to the review.

7. The review record will be added to the Child Plan within 15 working days of the review, along with any recommendations from the review, including any ‘IRO challenge’ which should be recorded in case notes within 5 working days of the review (and an alert sent to the Social Worker and Team Manager) with the full written record included in the Child Plan within 15 days of completion of the review.

8. The above requirements link to the requirement for the Social Worker to update the Child Plan within 10 working days of the review taking place including any changes to the Child Plan agreed at the review.

9. These are the key statutory responsibilities in respect of children looked after by the local authority. An ‘IRO Challenge’ should be issued where any of the above standards have not been met between one review and the next. An IRO Challenge should be made in writing (by email) followed up by a discussion with the relevant practitioner and/or manager in line with this process. All IRO Challenges will be notified to the IRO Service Manager who will log these on the IRO Challenge Tracker to ensure that follow up is made and challenges are responded to in a timely manner.

Areas for potential challenge

10. There are a number of potential areas where an IRO may need to challenge. These can be divided into 4 main groups: • General issues • Failure to meet statutory requirements • Care/Child Plan – Permanence Plan implementation • Dispute in relation to provision of services

Examples of general issues: • lack of preparation for the CiC review • insufficient evidence of the child’s voice and inclusion within the assessment, planning and review process • non completion of decision/failure to meet timescales • concerns in relation to contact, health or education provision • delays in applications for passport or other important documentation • delays in completion of life story work

Examples of failure to meet the statutory requirements for the child: • no allocated Social Worker • no up to date/poor quality Placement Plan • no up to date/poor quality Child Plan/Permanence Plan/Pathway Plan • statutory visits not being completed or child not being seen alone • no up to date/poor quality Personal Education Plan • no up to date /poor quality Health Assessment/Review

Examples in relation to Care/Child Plan/Permanence Plan implementation: Management Action Note 35 – Independent Reviewing Officer Challenge and Dispute 2 Resolution Policy – Appendix 1 – February 2017 • Drift/delay in the implementation of the child’s care/child plan • Drift/delay in the implementation of the child’s Permanence Plan • Failure to implement a significant element of the child’s plan • Failure to notify the IRO of significant changes • Failure to seek the IRO’s views prior to significant changes

Examples in relation to provision of services: • Concern about the suitability of the placement • Concern about the standards of care • Failure to provide additional support services to meet the child’s needs • Delay in family finding/placement search • Concern around professional practice

Consulting the child’s IRO

11. The IRO should be informed by the child’s Social Worker of any proposals to make significant changes in the child’s life so that the child’s IRO can express a view. The views of the IRO must be conveyed to the designated decision maker. Significant changes requiring consultation the IRO, who must record their input (or lack of input) in case notes include:

• any safeguarding concerns involving the child, which may lead to enquiries being made under section 47 of the 1989 Act (‘child protection enquiries’) and outcomes of child protection conferences, or other meetings not attended by the IRO; • where the child is charged with any offence leading to referral to youth offending services, pending criminal proceedings and any convictions or sentences as a result of such proceedings; • significant health issues, serious accidents, medical events, diagnoses, illnesses, hospital admission, • significant changes in birth family circumstances for example births, marriages or deaths which may have a particular impact on the child; • complaints from or on behalf of the child, parent or carer; • where the child is running away or going missing; • unexpected changes in the child’s placement provision which may significantly impact on placement stability or safeguarding arrangements; • where the child is excluded from school; • major change to contact arrangements; • proposed change of Child Plan for example arising at short notice in the course of proceedings following on from directions from the court; • panel considerations in relation to permanence requiring Agency Decision Making; • where agreed decisions from review cannot be carried out within the agreed timescale; and • changes of allocated social worker.

12. All discussion and communication between the IRO and responsible Social Worker should be recorded in case notes within 2 working days.

Management Action Note 35 – Independent Reviewing Officer Challenge and Dispute 3 Resolution Policy – Appendix 1 – February 2017 Principles of the Dispute Resolution Process

a. The individual IRO is personally responsible for activating the dispute resolution process, even if this step may not be in accordance with the child’s wishes and feelings, but may, in the IRO’s view, be in accordance with the best interest and welfare of the child, as well as his/her human rights.

b. Whilst there is a strong expectation that the IRO adheres to this Policy, tin exceptional circumstances the IRO may bypass any stage and progress the dispute to the level s/he considers proportionate to the seriousness of the issue and impact on the child. In any case the dispute must be resolved within 20 working days.

c. There will be times when the IRO may be advised that obstacles in the way of resolving the issue are outside or beyond the control of the local authority, for example in relation to staffing, interagency or resources issues. However, if these are impacting on the ability of the local authority to meet the needs of a child as identified in the child’s care plan, the IRO should continue to escalate the issue.

d. If there is good reason, the IRO has the authority to refer the matter to CAFCASS at any point in the dispute resolution process and may consider it appropriate to make a concurrent referral to CAFCASS at the time that s/he instigates the local dispute resolution process. This must be authorised by the IRO Service Manager.

e. The IRO should ensure that all the actions s/he takes in an attempt to resolve a dispute is recorded on the child’s case record.

Quality Assurance

13. Under the Framework for Quality Assurance and Performance Management (QAPM) after every Child in Care Review the IRO is required to complete a Practice Quality Standards feedback from, and send this to the social worker and their manager/supervisor within 15 working days. The comments and ratings given by the IRO must reflect the agreed Practice Quality Standards.

Dispute resolution

14. Where a professional dispute arises, either through an IRO Challenge or other reason the IRO will, in the first instance, seek to resolve the issue informally with the child’s social worker or failing that their direct supervisor/line manager. The IRO should record these efforts to resolve their concerns and outcome on the child’s file in Case Notes. If the matter is not resolved satisfactorily or in a timescale that is appropriate to the child’s welfare or safety the IRO should escalate action. The first stage of this will be to discuss their concern with the IRO Service Manager and agree actions to resolve the dispute quickly. Management Action Note 35 – Independent Reviewing Officer Challenge and Dispute 4 Resolution Policy – Appendix 1 – February 2017 15. Where the IRO does not consider the dispute has been addressed sufficiently the IRO Service Manager will escalate the concern to the relevant Head of Service in writing and copy in the SCSU Head of Service who will discuss the concerns with the Head of Service. If the matter is not able to be resolved and concerns continue the SCSU Head of Service will escalate these to the Service Director.

16. In the unlikely event that the dispute is not resolved satisfactorily at this level the Service Director and SCSU Head of Service will consult the Director for Children’s Services prior to a referral being made to CAFCASS.

Karen Dale Head of Service Safeguarding Children Standards Unit

February 2017

Management Action Note 35 – Independent Reviewing Officer Challenge and Dispute 5 Resolution Policy – Appendix 1 – February 2017 IRO Dispute Resolution Flowchart

Practice or concerns in line with the statutory responsibilities identified by an Independent Reviewing Officer for Children in Care

Inform appropriate Serious enough to Social Work Head of warrant immediateI Service & IRO action Service Manager

STAGE 1 IRO will put in writing (email) and discuss the concern with the relevant practitioner. If the issue is not resolved this will be followed up in writing (email) to the practitioner and their supervisor/manager who will be required to respond within 10 working days. IRO signs off response when received in timescale if satisfactory. If response is not received in timescale or is unsatisfactory, IRO to discuss case immediately with their line manager to decide what further action is needed and the outcome of this will be recorded by the IRO in a case note on the child’s record.

STAGE 2 IRO to discuss with IRO Service Manager whether to escalate the matter to the appropriate Social Work Head of Service in writing and copy to the SCSU Head of Service. The SCSU Head of Service will then discuss the matter with the relevant Head of Service for the case. The SCSU Head of Service will record this discussion in the child’s case file within 24 hours. An agreed action plan will be agreed with actions to be taken within 5 working days. If necessary a professionals meeting will be held within one week following the stage 2 discussion, to be chaired by the SCSU with attendance of social worker, IRO, Team Manager/PSW and relevant Head of Service to discuss and agree actions to be taken within one week.

STAGE 3 If the dispute cannot be resolved the matter will be escalated to the Head of Service by the SCSU Head of Service. A further meeting may be required involving the Head of Service, Social Work Head of Service and SCSU Head of Service to resolve the dispute.

STAGE 4 If following this meeting, the dispute is still not resolved satisfactorily, the Service Director and SCSU Head of Service will discuss the concerns with Director for Children’s Services to agree if any further action can be taken to resolve the issue before referral to CAFCASS is made. Management Action Note 35 – Independent Reviewing Officer Challenge and Dispute 6 Resolution Policy – Appendix 1 – February 2017