child protection and review unit - · pdf filekirklees council currently ... child protection...

Child Protection and Review UnitAnnual Report April 2013 – March 2014

Permanency: The unit supported a specialist post by recruiting a temporary IRO, who assisted and embedded permanency planning for Looked after children. This led to a Permanency Panel being established. This panel is now chaired by the area teams with clear evidence of management oversight in decisions about care planning for looked after children.

Disputes: 22 children were engaged in the dispute resolution process in 2012/13. In addition 43 children were the subject of informal dispute. The themes that emerged from both formal and informal disputes relate to concerns about placement changes and the planning process, for example: lack of up to date plans and assessments, lack of input from other agencies, for example CAMHS and issues about contact. The unit is aware that it needs to develop a more consistent approach to the recording of disputes.

Participation: From the ‘Rate my Review’ statistics the Child Protection Review Unit (CPRU) need to focus on children and young people’s understanding and receipt of Care Plans and use simpler language.

Performance: IRO’s continue to measure the timeliness of reviews being completed within timescales and the participation rates of children in their reviews.

Staffing: The service felt the benefits of increased staffing although a number of posts were filled by agency staff until permanent recruitment was secured.

Child protection: The introduction of the Strengthening Families Model was seen as a positive step forward by the unit and all agencies who contribute to child protection work. The greater involvement of parents with the process of identifying risks to their children may lead, in time, to better constructed Care Plans. The CPRU is looking closely at agency participation and the quality of reports to conference.

Care Plan performance: The unit has maintained a strong focus on children who have been on a plan for more than 2 years. Together with colleagues in social care the unit has been instrumental in reducing the number of children staying on a plan for more than 18 months. They also monitor children who have been the subject of repeat registrations.

This report gives an overview of practice relating to looked after children. It highlights the progress made in strengthening the Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) role in The Directorate for Children & Adults. It acknowledges the challenges faced by the service and recognises areas for development. The report also celebrates achievements and successes in improving outcomes for children and young people – it serves as another voice for looked after children in Kirklees.

The key issues addressed by the Child Protection and Review Unit (CPRU) in 2013-2014 were as follows:

• permanency• disputes• participation• performance• staffing

This is the 2013-14 annual report of work undertaken by Independent Reviewing Officers. It will be presented to the Director and Lead Member for Children’s Services – a requirement of the Adoption and Children’s Act (2002).

Executive Summary

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Overview of achievements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Summary of achievements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Staffing and resources:IROs…in full . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Business support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7IRO team activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7IRO caseloads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Part OneLooked after childrenProfile of looked after children. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Dispute resolution process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Monitoring cases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Performance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10IRO written records/reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Stability of children placements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10LAC quality assurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Overview of work undertaken around permanency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Analysis of audit reports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Part TwoChild protectionActivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Profile of children. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Performance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Review of Strengthening Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Quality assurance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Multi-agency working . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Audit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Key plans for 2014-2015. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Contents

4 Child Protection and Review Unit Annual Report April 2013 – March 2014

IntroductionThe main purpose of the Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) role is to ensure that the Care Plan fully reflects the child’s needs and ensure each child’s wishes and feelings are given full and due consideration. It is a legal requirement for local authorities to appoint an IRO.

The Children and Young Person’s Act 2008, followed by revised care planning regulations and guidance which came into force in April 2011, strengthened the role of the IRO, who is responsible for chairing statutory reviews and monitoring cases on an ongoing basis. Previously concerns had arisen that IROs did not sufficiently challenge local authority decisions when practice was poor and not in the child’s best interest.

How the role of the IRO was strengthened:

• local authorities must appoint a named IRO for each child • the IRO must monitor each case and the child’s wishes

and feelings must be given due consideration • the IRO must speak with each child privately before each

review• the IRO will be able to refer cases to the Children and

Family Court Advisory Support Service at any time, and not as a last resort

• recommendations made at a child’s review become decisions and must be implemented within a week, unless challenged by the local authority

• the IRO Handbook states the statutory responsibilities of IROs and the local authority. The unit manager must produce an annual report for members of the Corporate Parenting Board to scrutinise. This report should identify good practice but also highlight issues for further development. Kirklees IRO Service has produced an annual report which covers the following:

• caseloads, continuity of employment and the makeup of the team and how it reflects the identity of the children it is serving

• extent of participation of children and their parents• the number of reviews that are held on time, the number

that are held out of time and the reasons for the ones that are out of time

• outcomes of quality assurance audits in relation to the organisation, conduct and recording of reviews

• whether any resource issues are putting at risk the delivery of a quality service to all looked after children

• the local dispute resolution process and an analysis of the issues raised in dispute and the outcomes.

The care planning, placement and case review (England) regulations, Department for Children, Schools and Families, 2010;www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/publicationDetail/Page1/DCSF-00185-2010.

The responsibilities of the IROs are defined in the Children and Young Persons Act 2008. Section10 of the act outlines the responsibilities of the IRO as:

Monitoring the performance of the local authority of their functions in relation to a child’s review and monitoring the performance of the local authority of their functions in relation to a child’s case.

In summary, there are two clear and separate aspects to the function of the IRO:

• chairing the child’s review, and• monitoring the child’s case on an ongoing basis.

This report will provide information and analysis detailing the activity and performance of the Kirklees IROs over the past 12 months between 1 April 2013 and 31 March 2014.

Service overview

Kirklees Council currently (31 March 2014) exercises corporate parenting responsibility for 615 children and young people. Central to this responsibility is each looked after child should have a Care Plan. The Care Plan sets out the arrangements that have been made for the current and future care of the child: these plans should be reviewed at statutory intervals to ensure the needs identified for each child are met so they can flourish and achieve.

In October 2013 the unit dedicated five Child Protection Conference Chairs and nine IROs for looked after reviews. The IROs continue to support chairing of conferences as and when required. The number of children receiving a service from the Child Protection and Review Unit on 31 March 2014 was 615 looked after children and 343 children subject to a Child Protection Plan, an overall total of 958 children.

In addition to the core function of monitoring children’s Care Plans, the IRO service is involved in:

• meetings on individual cases• wider consultations on issues relating to looked

after children• planning forums where policy and procedures

are developed • contributing to auditing work as part of the

Quality Assurance Framework• training and liaison with teams• assisting with addressing complaints and

investigations

5Child Protection and Review Unit Annual Report April 2013 – March 2014

Training

IROs assisted with the development of policies and procedures including the Staying Put Policy:

• attended LAC service meetings health, education, participation and adoption/permanency groups• highlighted good practice by workers as well as feeding back evidence of poor practice, concerns about

placements or safeguarding issues.

Overview of achievements, 2013-2014

Key plans for 2013-2014

Objectives Timescale

To develop the Strengthening Families approach to child protection conferences.

Implemented October 2013.

To re-align specialisms within the team between Child Protection chairs and Looked After Children Reviewing chairs.

Implemented in October 2013.

Appoint a specialist IRO to support permanency planning for looked after children in Kirklees.

Implemented from June 2013 until January 2014.

Recruitment of permanent Independent Reviewing Officers with additional resources proposed for 4 full-time IROs.

To be concluded when all IRO staff are in post September 2014.

Recruitment of 2 additional permanent business support officers with additional resources made available to the unit in March 2013.

Implemented in June 2013.

Developing electronic systems to monitor quality assurance alongside service wide developments for new technology system in children services.

CPRU have implemented electronic records for Child Protection Conference minutes and also quality assurance forms which generate management information.

To develop a tracking system for recording recommendations on the electronic file for children and young people at the looked after reviews.

This development is linked to the service delivery and implementation of the launch of the social care records (Care Assess). This has been implemented post March 2014 and the updated computer system is now functional in the CPRU.

Reviews ensure all looked after children are registered with a GP and dentist and recommend that a child’s records are updated to reflect their current status.

This is now completed and IROs have access to this information on a weekly basis to inform decisions made at all looked after children reviews.

Review the reasons for the statistical drop in child participation at reviews and explore innovative ways to seek a child’s views via information technology.

All local authorities have experienced difficulties in the interpretation of Participation codings for looked after children hence a national benchmarking survey has been undertaken. The unit continues to look at this with officers in supervision.

Arranging dedicated development days for IROs in consultation with the IROs for the year ahead with the focus on performance and practice issues.

Specialist training delivered on the ’Strengthening Families’ approach to conferences. This was a 2 day programme.Away day scheduled for June 2014.

Develop improved data monitoring and reporting systems to provide a regular overview for reporting of quality assurance and outcomes.

Quality assurance forms are now embedded into IRO/CP chair practice and are generated electronically to measure outcomes.


Key achievements of 2013 – 2014

[1] In October 2013 Kirklees Safeguarding Children Board implemented the Strengthening Families approach for Child Protection Conferences and reviews of children subject to Child Protection Plans. Representatives from health, education, social care, police, KSCB training, KSCB manager and the Child Protection & Review Unit make up the implementation group.

[2] The Child Protection and Review Unit has been split allowing for specialist CP Chairs and IROs. The job descriptions have remained the same but splitting the roles allows development work to continue and the IROs to focus on the requirements of the IRO Handbook. It is expected that despite the split of roles in the unit, cover may be required to ensure statutory duties are met at all times, specifically in ensuring children are reviewed and allocated for conferences within the 15 working days guidance.

[3] The service has now implemented electronic records for Child Protection Conference minutes and quality assurance forms, which are completed after each conference and review. This data is used to inform practice and drive performance issues in social care and multi-agency services who attend Child Protection Conferences.

[4] The unit supported a temporary specialist post and recruited an IRO who’s brief was to assist and embed permanency planning for looked after children before the second review. The role included auditing a number of cases and made recommendations that prior to the three month statutory review a clear permanency plan must be determined for all looked after children. This led to a Permanency Panel being established which is now chaired by the area teams with clear evidence of management oversight in decisions for care planning for looked after children. This post ended in January 2014.

[5] Recruitment has presented some challenges with two unsuccessful recruitment campaigns. The staffing has been maintained by the use of experienced and skilled agency staff. A further recruitment and advertising campaign will take place in May 2014.

[6] The unit has been central in a pilot project to develop a new electronic child care record. This has improved timescales for the distribution of Child Protection Conference minutes and the quality assurance monitoring forms which are completed after each conference.

[7] The unit has focused on issues of participation both in Child Protection Conferences and Looked After Children Reviews. The unit has made changes to the way it administers request for Child Protection Conferences and an invite is now sent to children over the age of 10 years old. If the social worker does not feel this is appropriate it will be discussed with the chair of the conference to determine the best way to obtain children and young people’s views at conferences.

[8] All the IROs in the unit have access to performance data and fully understand the statutory duty in the IRO Handbook and Working Together 2013. The performance data allows officers to contribute to discussions on performance developments, highlights and exceptions. Managers report issues of quality assurance and feedback themes on practice and areas of improvement.

[9] Service links with operational teams within the unit are embedded. IROs are available to feedback via their specific service link role where issues may have arisen. They also participate in development and training within other divisions. This has proved beneficial with the implementation of Strengthening Families at conferences with feedback from social work team managers on the changes.

Staffing and resources

Independent Reviewing Officers (IROs)

Between March 2013 and April 2014 the Child Protection and Review Unit increased the number of IROs to 14 full-time staff. Experienced agency staff have been used to fill these vacancies until the recruitment of permanent staff can be made.

The profile of the IRO team on 31 March 2014 was 4 male and 10 female IROs. All IROs are qualified social workers with many years post qualifying children’s social work experience. Several of the IROs have previous managerial experience within children’s services. The cultural and ethnic background of all IROs is white British. There have been no applicants to the vacant advertised IRO posts reflective of the diverse cultural and ethnic diversity across the Kirklees area.

The unit has one full-time manager post; this post has been vacant since October 2011 despite the post having being advertised on 3 occasions. The unit was being managed by a shared arrangement of one White British agency manager for 3 days a week and one Black Asian manager on a seconded basis for 2.5 days per week. This was made permanent in December 2013 and one manager is now part-time permanent. In addition, one


IRO caseloads

With the implementation of the Strengthening Families approach in Case Conferences the officers now have more defined caseloads with 9 IROs doing the majority of the Looked After Children Reviews and 4 IROs undertaking the majority of CP Conferences and Reviews.

IROs 9 officers caseloads:

Officer 1

Officer 2

Officer 3

Officer 4

Officer 5

Officer 6

Officer 7

Officer 8

Officer 9 Others

71 67 60 57 80 77 65 59 62 18

Total cases 615

CP Chair officer’s caseloads:

Officer 1

Officer 2

Officer3

Officer4

Officer5

65 77 80 73 39

Total cases 343

The IRO Handbook (7.15) recommends caseloads of 50-70 for each Independent Reviewing Officer for looked after children.

The average number of looked after children per IRO and children subject to a Child Protection Plan allocated to an IRO at 31 March2014 was 68.4 and 67 respectively. The impact of increased resources has reduced the number of looked after children on the individual caseloads of the IROs which now allows Kirklees to adhere to the recommendation in the IRO Handbook.

White British male agency manager has been employed 4 days a week since late January 2014. This arrangement is working well; given the increase in IROs to the team this has brought additional impact as the unit managers are now responsible for 16 direct reports. Supervision, appraisal and individual case overviews are being maintained and additional management in the unit has allowed effective management support across the unit.

Business support staff

IROs are supported within the Child Protection and Review Unit by 8 full-time and 2 part-time business support staff and 1 business support manager who joined the unit on a permanent basis in June 2013.

They support the IRO role by scheduling meetings and taking minutes for up to 8 Initial/Review Case Conferences each per week. Business support staff also track looked after children reviews and process

invites and consultation documents. They administer the invites for Child Protection Conferences and type and circulate child protection minutes. Business support staff embraced improvements by typing minutes directly onto the new electronic social care record. This allows for greater efficiency and management oversight of timescales for the distribution of Child Protection Conference minutes.

IRO team activity

IROs in Kirklees chair Initial and Review Child Protection Conferences for children subject to Child Protection Plans and chair looked after children’s reviews for all children subject to the statutory looked after children’s regulations. There are nine IROs who specifically chair LAC meetings and five Care Plan chairs who chair conferences and reviews. From (31 March14) there are 343 children subject to a Multi-agency Child Protection Plan and 615 looked after children.


Part One

Looked after children

Profile of looked after children 31 March 2014

The numbers of looked after children continued to be fairly stable over the twelve month period, reflecting the national trend. In March 2013 there were 651 looked after children. Twelve months later on 31 March 2014 there were 615 looked after children in Kirklees, a decrease of 5.5%.

2013 = 651 looked after children 2014 = 615 looked after children

Age profile of the 615 looked after children March 2014

Ethnicity of 615 looked after children March 2014

Numbers of looked after children March 2013 /2014

In 2013/14 74% of the 615 looked after children are of White British origin, 6% Mixed White/Black Caribbean ethnicity, 5.7% Pakistani origin, 5.7% Mixed White Asian ethnicity and 8.6% of other mixed backgrounds. The comparison is the same in most ethnic minority group children who are looked after children, however this year has shown an increase of the number of children who are from mixed heritage backgrounds.

Looked after children’s statutory reviews completed 2012-2013 1,870

Looked after children’s statutory reviews completed 2013-2014 1,856

The number of looked after children’s reviews chaired and completed by IROs has been stable over the last year. The number of looked after children’s reviews completed in the year 2012-2013 was 1,870. Between 1 April 2013- 31 March 2014 1,856 reviews were carried out by IROs, a decrease of 0.75%. This was partly due to the decrease in the number of looked after children.


Gender of looked after children March 2014

Of the 615 looked after children, 335 were boys and 280 were girls.

The gender of looked after children has remained stable and no noticeable trends have been noted in this year’s data.

[1] very similar numbers of reviews completed[2] increase in young children 0-4 year olds coming into

care as opposed to a decrease in11-15 year olds [3] ethnic mix is very similar to 2012-2013[4] gender mix is very similar to 2012-2013

Dispute Resolution Process

IROs formally challenge the work of social work staff

The Dispute resolution process has 4 stages. Stage 1 should adhere to formal discussions with relevant unit managers. Stage 2 is with the head of the relevant service. Stage 3 is with the assistant director and stage 4 would be with the director.

Between 2013/2014 there were 7 cases raised at DRP1, 8 cases at DRP2, 2 cases at DRP3 and no cases at DRP4. This represents a total of 22 children where the formal mechanism was instituted. In addition, there were 43 children who were the subject of informal dispute. The themes that emerge from both formal and informal disputes relate to concerns about placement changes and planning processes, for example lack of up to date plans and assessments, concerns about the lack of input from other agencies, for example CAMHS and issues about contact.

Following every review the IRO is required to complete a quality assurance monitoring form – themes can be produced from this, to inform service delivery and highlight specific areas of concern from Independent Reviewing Officers. The information from the monitoring forms is collated by the unit managers and information is shared with the service in performance meetings.

The unit is aware it needs to develop a more consistent approach to the recording of disputes. The current system does not capture informal discussions in terms of data; however Independent Reviewing Officers routinely record on a child’s file. Quality assurance monitoring forms do capture themes raised informally.

Monitoring of cases

The implementation of the Care Planning Placement and Review Regulations 2010 on 1 April 2010, placed additional responsibilities on IROs to monitor the case of each child on an ongoing basis. Over the past 12 months all children, on becoming looked after, have continued to be allocated a named IRO. The Child Protection and Review Unit ensure an IRO is allocated when they are notified that a child has become looked after by the local authority.

During the past year there have been a range of issues which have been identified and addressed via robust ongoing monitoring.

Some examples include:

• Discussions with unit/team managers about moving children from placements at very short notice with little preparation work. This was a joint piece of work with the young person’s advocate who contacted the IRO to express concerns. This was challenged by the IRO and the placement was delayed to allow for the appropriate preparation to take place.

• IRO’s have continued to provide robust challenge where young people’s care plans have not reflected an up-to-date assessment of the child needs.

• Monitoring of a child’s plans to ensure placements continue to meet the individual needs of the child. In particular, robust monitoring of the decisions at commissioning panel.

Reason No. of cases

Resolved at stage level: 1 Unit manager, 2 Head of service, 3 Assistant Director, 4 Director

Updated assessment

4 3 at unit manager level and 1 at head of service level.

Placement issues

6 1 at assistant director level, 4 at head of service level and 1 at unit manager level.

Legal issues

6 2 at unit manager level and 4 at head of service level.

Planning 4 1 at unit manager and 3 at head of service level.

CAMHS 1 At assistant director level.Change of name

1 Head of service level.


• Where therapeutic services are required and have not been made available to the looked after child, the IRO will challenge the agency responsible and implement the dispute resolution process.

Performance

‘What difference we have made for looked after children?

The IRO service has continued to make a difference for children and young people by holding reviews within timescales and enabling children to participate in their reviews (see later section on participation). As yet IROs are not being measured on their contact with children before and between reviews but this will be built into the IT system in 2013-2014.

Looked after children’s reviews held within timescales

The target set for looked after children’s reviews taking place within timescales between 2013-2014 was 100% the actual number of reviews achieved within this timescale for performance indicator (N166) = 91.9%

Performance target set

Indicator (N1 66)

Kirklees performance

2012-2013


2014

100% 91.9% 94.8%

2013-2014 represents an increase in measurable performance when compared to the previous year. Performance could have been better except for the late notification of children becoming looked after. The Child Protection and Review Unit received a number of late notifications that children had become looked after. This was compounded by the changes to statutory guidance involving IROs to review the arrangements for young people living in Kirklees who are placed in youth offending establishments on remand, awaiting court hearings and sentencing. Prior to the embedding of agreed procedures for referral from the youth offending team a number of late notifications were received.

IRO written records/reports

Independent Reviewing Officers are required to issue review decisions within 5 working days. The majority of IROs have achieved this target during 2013/2014. The requirement of IROs to type their own minutes has helped in this efficiency. The full record of meeting has been distributed within 20 working days. Where this has not happened IROs have discussed this in formal supervision. IROs now record directly onto a child’s file to allow for a more effective way of recording the outcome of the review and the decisions reached. The decisions are sent to the team manager to confirm. Once all matters have been resolved the social work teams distribute the completed document to all participants.

Stability of children’s placements

Target performance

indicator (N62)

Kirklees performance 2012 – 2013


2013-2014

9% 8.8% 7.6%

A target of 9% was set in respect of stability of placements (N62–Children having 3 or more moves). Of the 615 looked after children between 2013 and 2014, 57 experienced three or more placements during the year.

The performance indicator outcome for 2012-2013 was 8.8% and for 2013-2014 7.6%. Although this represents a slight dip in terms of performance outcome in Kirklees it signifies a period when a number of children were moved from short term placements to identified permanent placements. It also represents where several children with complex needs have moved to specialist therapeutic placements or secure units and returned back to placements in Kirklees.

Where children have been moved from out of authority placements back to carers in Kirklees there has been significant liaison between IROs, the children’s social workers, team managers and unit managers to ensure appropriate planning has taken place in respect of individual children. It should be noted that lower percentages in this section should be regarded as good and in the best interest of children.

Participation

High levels of stability were achieved in maintaining the same IRO for reviewing and monitoring individual children’s cases. Before the internal split of CPRU responsibilities there was considerable movement to reallocate cases from two of the conference chairs. IROs have a responsibility to ensure that the local authority give due consideration to the views expressed by the child in the planning process.

Of the 1,856 looked after children’s reviews chaired by IROs over the last twelve months, 89.3% of children and young people aged four and over have participated in their reviews. This represents a fall in the number of children who have participated in their statutory review when compared to 2012-1213, when 95.8% participated. An analysis of the data recorded in relation to participation rates for 2013-2014 does not identify any specific pattern to why this has occurred. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the group least likely to participate in their review are teenagers. The IRO team will continue to explore how flexible


use of information technology methods can be employed safely to communicate with young people given that this tends to be their preferred method of communication, for example through mobile phone text messaging and ‘safe’ online communication routes. Ongoing investigation into the potential use of information technology to support communication is also planned.

Overall there has been little difference in the pattern of children’s participation when compared to 2012-2013. More children and young people have spoken for themselves at their review meetings; more children who have briefed an advocate to speak on their behalf even when they aren’t present; fewer instances where distance or communication difficulties have resulted in the child’s non-attendance .

IROs are required to meet and engage with children as part of the looked after children’s review process as set out in the IRO Handbook. Given the slight decrease in the number of looked after children and cases allocated to IROs over the past 12 months, IROs have attempted to meet children consistently. In complex cases where IROs have been involved in robust challenge, where in their view, plans have not been adequate; IROs have undertaken individual visits to seek the child’s views.

Despite the limited time IROs have had to schedule and make separate visits to children to form meaningful relationships, get to know them and provide opportunities for them express their wishes and feelings, there are still some concerns. In these cases IROs have continued to conduct unscheduled personal visits to children to seek their views. This has been the case for a number of children placed outside Kirklees. In several cases this has had the impact of achieving a very positive outcome for the young person.

The use of advocates

To support children attending their reviews and improving the participation and involvement, the Advocacy Service has been promoted by IROs. Children and young people’s consultation forms are given due consideration and weight. IROs ensure that children and young people in Kirklees are given a ‘Rate my Review’ form at every statutory review the child/young person attends. The completed forms are anonymous and returned by the child/young person to the Children’s Rights and Advocacy Service. This data is used by the IRO team manager, through supervision, to initiate any necessary actions to improve the review process identified by the child/young person themselves.

Participation method 2012-2013 2013-2014

Under 4 - Child not of an age of understanding 497 26.4% 349 22.60%

Child attends, speaks for themselves 724 38.53% 607 39.3%

Child attends, advocate speaks 3 0.16% 6 0.38%

Child attends, symbols 2 0.106% 6 0.38%

Child attendance without contribution 3 0.16% 7 0.45%

Child does not attend but briefs advocate to speak 321 17.08% 361 23.38%

Child does not attend, due to distance communication 176 9.36% 98 6.35%

Child does not attend and gives no views 151 8.04% 107 6.93%

Null 2 0.106% 3 0.16%

Total 1879 1544


Rate my Review statistics period April 2012 to March 2014

Following each Statutory Review, looked after children are given a voluntary questionnaire to complete. The grid below shows the questions young people are asked about the review process.

Period 04 to06-12

07 to 09-12

10 to12-12

01 to03-13

04 to06-13

07 to09-13

09 to12-13

01 to03-14

Mean

Were you prepared for the review? 87% 66% 71% 62% 66% 75% 58% 64% 69%

Was the review the right length of time? 74% 52% 57% 75% 83% 58% 83% 91% 72%

Would you rank the review good/excellent? 65% 71% 81% 69% 66% 75% 58% 73% 70%

Was the review on the right day? 87% 81% 76% 94% 100% 100% 100% 82% 90%

Was the review at the right time? 60% 66% 57% 87% 75% 75% 83% 64% 71%

Was everyone you wanted at the review present?

74% 62% 62% 87% 83% 83% 50% 73% 72%

Were good things said about you in the review? 78% 76% 81% 100% 100% 100% 100% 82% 90%

Were difficult words used in the review? 74% 76% 47% 75% 75% 75% 83% 82% 73%

Did you understand the review? 78% 86% 71% 81% 92% 83% 92% 82% 83%

Do you know what a Care Plan is? 39% 38% 38% 62% 42% 33% 33% 27% 39%

What is a Care Plan 34% 52% 47% 81% 25% 50% 50% 54% 49%

Overall score 82% 71% 76% 81% 75% 75% 100% 36% 74%

The return rate for ‘Rate my Review’ averages on 20%.

Most children and young people felt the review was on the right day and that the review said positive things about them. Nearly three quarters found terminology hard to understand but a majority still felt they understood the decisions. The lowest scores related to the Care Plan where only 2 out of 5 children had received a copy and just under half understood what a Care Plan was.

Outcome: the above information would suggest that CPRU need to focus on children and young people’s understanding and receipt of Care Plans and use simpler language.

IROs will ensure, over the next year, consideration is given to the results of quarterly feedback reports. IROs will use the results to reflect on their individual good practice to ensure children’s experiences of the looked after children’s review process in Kirklees is a positive process.

Looked after children quality assurance

Where IROs have had concerns about appropriate implementation of Care Plans or ineffective consultation or participation with children, IROs have made referrals to the Children’s Rights and Advocacy Service. Children who need additional support to express their wishes and

feelings in the statutory review process have also been referred by IROs to the Advocacy Service. IROs have consulted with services about concerns relating to the feedback from young people.

IROs have a key role in ensuring planning of individual child’s health and education needs are addressed so they can achieve the best possible outcomes and reach their potential. The quality of children’s Personal Education Plans and children’s Health Plans are vital in securing good outcomes for looked after children. Where IROs have identified deficits in these plans they have challenged professionals and carers, made appropriate recommendations at statutory reviews and where necessary initiated the dispute resolution process if improvements have not been effected. This has assisted in driving forward improvements in quality standards.

A quality assurance electronic monitoring form for looked after children has been introduced and linked to the electronic social care record.

The developed framework for quality assurance focuses on quality issues as well as performance. New monitoring forms have been developed which will be integrated into children’s electronic record systems to provide evidence based reports on progress and consistency in a number of areas for example:


• data collated via monitoring forms will provide evidence based quarterly reports of quality and standards being achieved for the senior and service management teams

• continuation of the development and embedding of service links is planned in the IRO team. Service links activity has resulted in IROs developing a briefing/training plan for newly qualified social workers to promote their understanding of the role and responsibility of the IRO. IROs participation in briefing and training sessions for newly qualified social workers is aimed at assisting social workers to develop their skills in planning for looked after children and preparation to facilitate quality looked after children’s reviews.

Overview of work undertaken around permanency

The Child Protection and Review Unit have dedicated time to establishing two posts to establish and embed permanency within the culture of the organisation. The CPRU was chosen for this role because it had an overview of children’s planning arrangements in Kirklees through its primary role of reviewing and monitoring the care planning arrangements for looked after children. The money for these posts was established from the Adoption Support Grant. An agency Permanency IRO started in June 2013 with a brief to establish permanency arrangements and had dedicated support from an agency BSO colleague.

There were three parts to the permanency project. Part 1: Establishing terms of reference for permanency panels and meeting with the service. Part 2: Establishing how permanency should be recorded on the child’s electronic case records. Part 3 Audit work to determine cases which required robust permanency plans.

Terms of reference for permanency planning meetings and permanency panels were established in 2013 and panels started to hear cases in December 2013.

Permanency was also established on the IT system Care First in 2013 when types of permanency were added to the system. This allowed managers to run a report in early April 2014 that identified that 60% of children had a type of permanency. The third part of the permanency project related to audit work to identify whether there was a drift and delay which would impact upon children’s permanency arrangements.

Case file audits and audit reports have been completed within six separate cohorts of the looked after population.

IRO’s have been fully involved in the permanency work by being sent copies of individual audits of children and incorporating their feedback. Heads of service and unit

managers have also had copies of individual audits and been presented with audit reports at management meetings.

Developing links with operational teams

IROs have been directly linked to social work colleagues in a series of planning meetings focussed on moving children on whose permanency plan will be secured by carers achieving Special Guardianship Orders. This has involved meetings with the Connected Person’s team and the Looked After and Leaving Care teams. In addition, the permanency post holder has met with two staff and their manager from the Looked After and Leaving Care Service who are responsible for undertaking assessments of children and families placed under placement with parent arrangements where the plan is to discharge the order.

Benefits to the permanency project

Permanency panels provide a vehicle to look in detail at cases identified in audits as being the subject of drift and delay.

The existence of a Permanency Panel and permanency planning meeting structure will promote the following additional benefits:

[1] Establish a better understanding of collaborative working between social work colleagues in Care Management, Duty and Assessment, Looked After teams, the Disabled Children’s Service, Family Placement Unit, Early Intervention and Targeted Support and Integrated Youth Support.

[2] Establish clearer lines of accountability in relation to decision making for looked after children.

[3] Provide a clear audit trail for the council in relation to where and when decisions to permanency were made.

[4] Assist in the promotion of best value.

[5] Enable the council to gain greater control of planning for its future provision of resources.

Audits by specialist permanency IRO

Placement with parents

There is considerable drift and delay within this segment of the looked after population. If there was a concentrated effort to make wholesale discharges of care orders assuming the cooperation of legal services and the courts, it is possible 35 children who have been at home with their parents for 2 years or more, could be discharged from care. Further discussion with unit


managers and the senior management team about whether investment in plans to discharge these care orders should be seen as a high priority.

The IRO service may decide to make referrals to CAFCASS to institute legal proceedings to discharge Care Orders which might impinge on a child’s right to family life being breached because of the impact of the Care Order. This is an area of work the Review Unit should robustly address.

The Child Protection and Review unit is currently meeting with the service to address issues identified. Current numbers identify that placement with parents has dropped to 10% of the looked after children population.

Friends and family cases

Nearly 63% of the LAC Friends and Family cohort showed delay in moving them on to a Special Guardianship Order.

An ‘action plan’ has been devised which will involve social workers, the Connected Person’s team and IROs in moving these cases forward as soon as possible.

Placement orders

Further discussion with unit managers and the senior management team about investment in plans to adopt the children in this cohort.

External residential

Further discussion with unit managers and the senior management team about whether investment in these cases is providing value for money.

Should cases where there appears to be a drift be earmarked for special review outside of the normal review process or should they just be reviewed by the commissioning panel?

Kirklees needs to consider the relationship between private providers and itself where providers state they can deliver therapy, and consider if they get expert advice about whether these claims are justified.

Action points:

Further discussion is required with unit managers and the senior management team about when assessments and plans should be updated and how reviews should be uploaded:

• Kirklees has 642 children who are looked after; 79 PWP children make up 12.30% of the LAC population

• Children subject to placement orders, 86 make up 13.39% of the LAC population

• External placed residential children, 51 make up 7.94% of the LAC population

• Family and Friends placements, 59 make up 9.19% of the LAC population.

These groupings compare to 42.82% of the looked after population. If the necessary action was taken with these cohorts of children the local authority could reduce it’s looked after population.

The audit work undertaken by the specialist role has led to the development of the Permanency Panel being established. Feedback around quality of cases is shared with senior managers to drive forward issues of performance and quality.


Part Two Child protectionThis section of the report has been included because the work of the unit and its staff includes chairing Child Protection Conferences and Reviews. It is important that this work is recognised and that the annual report is seen by KSCB.

The number of children referred to the Child Protection and Review Unit as a result of concerns has decreased over the past 12 months.

From April 2012 to March 2013, 389 children were subject to a Multi-agency Child Protection Plan. From April 2013 to March 2014, 343 children were subject to a Child Protection Plan, a decrease of 11.8%. It is too early to say whether the reduction in numbers of children on a plan is as a result of the increase in number of looked after children between 0-4 years old.

Activity

The number of children subject to a Child Protection Plan - 31 March 2014

On 31 March 2014 the total number of children who were subject to a Child Protection Plan was 343.

2013 = 388 2014 = 343 Total decrease = 11.8%

In 2013, rates of children subject to a Child Protection Plan per 10,000 of the children and young people population:

England and Wales 37.9%, Yorkshire and Humberside 46.7%, Kirklees 40% overall 7th in terms of local authorities’ in the region, lowest North Lincolnshire 23% and highest Doncaster 90.2%. In terms of Metropolitan districts the only councils lower than Kirklees were Bradford 27.2% and Barnsley 38.2% and Sheffield 38.5%

It is noted that Kirklees has seen a decline in the numbers of children subject to a Child Protection Plan. This is the subject of current examination by managers.

Quarterly number of Initial Child Protection Conferences chaired between March - April 2012/2013 and March-April 2013/2014

TOTAL 2012/13 = 212 Total 2013/14 = 195 Total decrease = 8%

The number of Initial Child Protection Conferences chaired by IROs between April 2012 and March 2013 was 212. Between April 2013 and March 2014 the number of Initial Child Protection Conferences chaired by IROs was 195.

Quarterly number of Review Child Protection Conferences chaired between

March - April 2012/13 and March - April 2013/14

Key = 2012/13 = 2013/14

Total 2012/13 = 562 Total 2013/14 = 498 Total decrease = 11.4%

The total number of Initial and Review Child Protection Conferences chaired by IROs between April 2012 and March 2013 for was 774. The total number of Initial and Review Child Protection Conferences chaired by IROs between April 2013 and March 2014 was 693. This is a decrease of 10.5%


Risk categories of children subject to a child protection concerns between April 2013 and March 2014

Emotional = 379 Neglect = 275 Physical = 26 Sexual = 60 Multiple = 1

Profile of children subject to a Child Protection Plan

Gender of children subject to a Child Protection Plan between April 2013 and March 2014

Male = 390 Female = 349 Unborn =2

Age of children subject to child protection procedures between April 2013 and March 2014

Under 1 year = 56, 1-3 years =170, 4-7 years = 216, 8-12 years = 179, 13-17 years = 118

Ethnicity of children subject to a Child Protection Plan between April 2013 and March 2014

69% of children subject to child protection procedures in Kirklees 2013/2014 were of a White British ethnic background, 11.2% were of a Pakistani cultural and ethnic background, 7.2% were of a Mixed White/ Black Caribbean background and 3.5% were of Mixed White/Asian background.

Performance

The Child Protection and Review Unit have worked towards maintaining the performance targets set within the national framework over the past twelve months.

It has maintained the electronic diary system for initial conferences and reviews.

Between 1 April 2013 and 31 March 2014, IROs have chaired 195 Initial Child Protection Conferences and 498 Review Child Protection Conferences. This is a 10.5% decrease when compared to 2012/13.

The slight decrease in the number of conferences has had an impact on performance in relation to cases reviewed within timescale. Performance at this year-end has gone up to 98.4% from 95.5% but lower than the target (N1 67) set at 100%.


Child protection cases reviewed within timescales

Target performance

indicator (N67)

Kirklees performance 2012 - 2013


2013-2014

100% 95.5% 98.4%

The percentage of children in Kirklees who were subject to a Child Protection Plan for 2 years or more between April 2013 and March 2014 (target NI 64 = 10%) was 4.6%

Children subject to a Child Protection Plan for 2 years or more

Kirklees target performance

indicator (N64)



2013-2014

10% 8.6% 4.6%

The desired target of 10% was achieved and represents an improvement on the previous year’s performance of 8.6%. Throughout the forthcoming year IROs will continue to track and monitor cases via improved regular management information data systems, supervision, regular reviews and robust follow up of cases with social workers and team managers. A process of instituting regular reviews with the Care Management teams and CP chairs has been successful.

Children becoming subject to a Child Protection Plan for a second or subsequent time

Target performance

indicator (N65).



2013-2014

12% 13.1% 14.1 %

The target set for the number of children becoming the subject of a Child Protection Plan for a second or subsequent time (N 65) was 13.1%. This increase has mostly been due to further domestic violence incidents within a family or further episodes of neglect where previous improvements and change have not been sustained over time.

Child Protection Plans (for children whose plan ceased during the period) lasting 2 years or more

Target performance

indicator (N64)


2012-2013


2013-2014

7% 8.6% 7.2%

This is a marked improvement on the previous year and the robust monitoring of cases to ensure timely interventions to create good outcomes for children will continue into the coming year.

Review of Strengthening Families project for the annual report 2014

In October 2013, Kirklees introduced the Strengthening Families Model and approach to CP Conferences and Review Conferences. This followed decisions taken by the Safeguarding Board to adopt this approach earlier in the year. To enable this approach to be trialled, it was agreed that five existing staff members should take primary responsibility for chairing conferences and reviews. The KSCB has been fully involved in the implementation and evaluation of the Strengthening Families Model.

A number of different authorities with responsibility for safeguarding have adopted this model. IROs from Kirklees Council attended a training conference in Leeds in January 2013. Leeds had been using the model for about 12 months with success. Parents are more involved in the meetings and as a result more likely to protect their children through a Child Protection Plan.

All IROs received bespoke training in the model during the summer of 2013 and all agencies were trained by the Safeguarding Board to understand how meetings would be run. In addition Care Plan templates and reports changed to accommodate the new model.

Since October 2013 all initial conferences and most reviews have used the Strengthening Families approach.

There have been two evaluation meetings to date since the model was introduced. Evaluation of the approach is being undertaken in the following ways; business support staff record the length of time of conferences and reviews. There is evidence that most initial conferences and most reviews are taking longer, although there is some evidence from chairs where case conferences have taken place and subsequently reviewed, have become shorter.

Two staff from the Chief Executive’s office were asked to undertake a review of the Strengthening Families approach and they are in the process of observing a number of Initial Case Conferences and reviews. The report will be made available in November 2014 and shared with the KSCB.

The head of service and the managers in the CPRU have observed one initial conference or review to feed back to staff the strengths and weaknesses. A questionnaire has been designed to seek service users’ views on whether this approach has made a difference to their families and their children. Will this approach improve outcomes for children? The two performance indicators listed below suggest that there may be improvements in the overall performance of this unit:


KI 045 - Percentage of children becoming the subject of a Child Protection Plan for a second or subsequent time. The adoption of the Strengthening Families approach and a more robust approach towards Child Protection Plans should lead to better outcomes for children.

KI 387 - Child Protection Plans (for children whose plan ceased during the period) lasting 2 or more years. Links to the Strengthening Families approach allows the timely identification of cases which need to be progressed to Public Law Outline due to lack of improved outcomes. In cases where sufficient progress is made transfer to Child in Need arrangements. These approaches are likely to maintain and improve performance over the year.

It is anticipated that as the Strengthening Families Model is embedded there will be an on-going improvement in performance on this indicator. Census data for 2012/13 shows that West Yorkshire average performance was 6.4% and statistical neighbours 5.3%. Kirklees is currently at 4.6%

Quality assurance in child protection work

The key roles of IROs in the Child Protection and Review Unit include the monitoring of individual cases to identify, challenge and report any poor practice/professional issues and partnership delivery of child protection services. A range of additional quality and performance management data systems have been developed including the Care Plan Monitoring form, to assist the identification of practice issues and areas for improvement and development.

Examples of the data collected from Care Plan Monitoring forms include: Attendance levels of professionals at Initial Child Protection Case Conferences: whether or not professionals provide a written report for Initial Child Protection Conferences: the quality of reports provided: whether children of a suitable age and understanding who do not attend their Child Protection Conference have their views presented to the conference: the number of Initial Child Protection Conferences lasting more than 2 hours: the average number of working days from a referral being received to the date of the Initial Case Conference. Examples of the work undertaken by IROs the past year include:

• The Child Protection Unit identified the low level of children attending Initial and Review Child Protection Case Conferences. As a result this has significantly improved with the Children’s Advocacy Service prioritising workers to attend and represent the views of children. Since November 2013, 22 children have attended Child Protection Conferences.

• Robust challenge has been exercised by chairs in initial and Review Conferences to ensure Multi-agency Child Protection Plans are appropriate.

This has been assisted by the risk elements involved in the Strengthening Families Model.

• Where concerns have arisen in respect of child protection cases, chairs have continued to monitor them by engaging in discussions with social workers and team managers. Chairs retain a working oversight of Child Protection Plans to ensure identified levels of risk are appropriately addressed in the plan and adequately managed between review conferences and at core groups.

Multi-agency working

It has been identified that some difficulties have arisen due to lack of attendance at Child Protection Conferences of community mental health professionals involved with parents who experience mental health problems that could impact on their ability to parent safely. Arrangements have been made for managers from the Child Protection and Review Unit and the Adult Mental Health Service to meet to address this issue.

Audit

In Kirklees a pattern of significantly high numbers of children subject to a Child Protection Plan under the category of emotional abuse became evident. The Child Protection and Review Unit collaborated with the Kirklees Childrens Safeguarding Board to complete an audit of a number of these cases. The outcome of the audit indicated the following: There is a high level of awareness among professionals of emotional abuse and its long term impact upon children’s wellbeing. This was reflected in the increasing number of Child Protection Plans in the category: In the majority of cases, other categories of abuse and risk were present and the removal of the multiple category of abuse has had an impact on the number of children registered under the category of emotional abuse.

It was found that 20% of cases could have been recorded under the category of neglect. In these cases, parental mental health and substance misuse had contributed to children being at risk and their basic needs not being met. Whist the overall number of cases sampled was relatively small (10 selected at random) an overall shift from neglect to emotional abuse was identified.

Other performance issues

• Length of time children are subject to a Child Protection Plan – Weekly data reports are used to track the duration of a child subject to a plan. Through regular monitoring of cases and supervision, where drift is identified it is anticipated cases will be moved forward within set timescales to avoid further delay.


• The data collated via monitoring forms will provide evidence of standards being achieved by the service teams.

Training

Corporate multi-agency training programmes have been accessed by IROs. Programmes available also serve to offer refresher sessions for IROs.

The identification of training and competency needs for IROs is via supervision and appraisal.

Given the projected budget restrictions over the next year, the training and development needs of IROs are likely to be limited in accessing commissioned training and attendance at external conferences.

All officers attended a dedicated two day training programme which focused on the Strengthening Families approach to Child Protection Case conferences. This was specialist training delivered by an external provider.

In the year ahead a dedicated IRO development day is planned. The next main development day has been scheduled for June 2014.

All IROs are subject to annual appraisals. From the appraisal process IROs have up to date personal development plans and objectives are set with a review annually.

Key plans for 2014-2015

Objectives Timescales

To evaluate the Strengthening Families approach to Case Conferences in Kirklees.

By August 2014

Embed the national protocol with CAFCASS and joint working with guardians when children are no longer subject to court proceedings and host a networking event with CAFCASS to develop a greater understanding of the protocol.

November 2014

To audit cases when children have become subject to a plan for a second occasion.

September 2014

To have a permanent staff team of 14 IROs/CP chairs and permanent management cover.

September 2014

Develop effective IT systems to monitor the decisions for Looked After Reviews are circulated within statutory guidance.

Dependant on IT system

developments.

Increase the number of looked after children visits and visits to children placed out of area and record visits by IROs on the electronic social care record.

October 2014

We will as part of the Kirklees ‘Pledge’ to looked after children ensure children and young people have an up to date Personal Education Plan.

Ongoing

We will monitor children who have been on a Child Protection Plan for more than 18 months and meet with operational teams to discuss strategies for future interventions with the family and embed this into Conference Reviews.

2013/2014 – ongoing

We will develop a training programme for newly qualified social work staff around the role of the IRO and the importance of participation in reviews.

September 2014

Embed procedure when children become looked after and are subject to Child Protection Plans- adhere to one statutory framework to review the Care Plan.

May 2014

The Child Protection unit to examine and report on progress relating to the numbers of children subject to placement with parents.

January 2015

To report on performance data and trends at the service performance meetings.

Quarterly and ongoing

child protection and review unit - · pdf filekirklees council currently ... child protection...

Documents