Home > Agenda item

Agenda item

Independent Reviewing Service Annual Report

This report is an analysis of the activity of the Independent Reviewing Officer and Independent visitor services and their effectiveness and impact on children’s and young people’s safety and care in Croydon.

Minutes:

The Independent Reviewing Officer Service Manager spoke to the report and shared with the Panel that the Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) Service had worked very hard over the year with higher demands and service improvements. The service achieved 87% of its 95% target.

 

Officers informed that the service had been working with their Camden partners, having had four sessions to date. These addressed the way in which management, supervision, connection and resolutions within the service could be improved.

 

Officers shared that there were challenges that the service experienced throughout the year, and the recruitment of new staff, which affected capacity, saw that improvements within the service were being achieved.

 

The Panel heard that the service had made progress over the year in encouraging a better relationship between social workers and IROs, which started in August last year. The IRO Service had developed better relationships by setting up monthly workshops for new staff and service expectations in working together had been set. 

 

Other highlights saw Looked After Children (LAC) Reviews reviewed.  These were at a stage where in the last six months the IRO Service had been more effective, this included who the reports were distributed to and the regularity of the LAC Reviews.

 

There were discussions taking place relating to MOMO. Officers further highlighted that there was to be a launch of an App for children following consultation and that EMPIRE was involved with the consultation. The Panel heard that the App was proposed to be launched and trialled in September and this was an exciting development and an alternative way for social workers to work with their young person with their LAC Reviews. The App was also seen as a much wider function to feed into other meetings such as Child Protection Conferences, Child in Need Meetings, Personal Education Plan Meetings and Family Group Conferences.

 

Members of the Panel discussed the work of the IRO Service and how it was quality assured. Officers informed that the service was working with colleagues to resolve any concerns that had been raised, including understanding the IRO role and talking to staff, which also helped the service work together and gain a better outcome.

 

Officers informed that overall the service had improved.

 

Members of the Panel welcomed the great analysis of the report, which was more positive from last year. Members also welcomed the positive comments from foster carers.

 

In response to questions from the Panel on the attendance of a looked after child’s birth family at the reviews, officers informed that the service was mindful of the sensitivity of various cases; and following feedback from the IRO survey, birth parents had been happy with the quality of service provided to their children.

 

In response to questions from the Panel regarding the interaction between a child and their IRO, officers highlighted that the interaction should give a child the opportunity to address their concern. The interaction was quality assured as managers had oversight during supervision. This was another way to acknowledge any concerns raised. Further, there was an expectation that the IRO would meet with the young person before any LAC Review. This meeting would help to strengthen their relationship. Co-optee Members highlighted that the IRO does visit children and that they were seeing positive changes.

 

In response to questions from the Panel on the timeframe of LAC Reviews, officers clarified that a copy of the decisions from a LAC Review would be sent out by the service administrator and should be received within five working days, followed by the full minutes within twenty to thirty working days.

 

In response to questions from the Panel relating to a bespoke App rather than different Apps, officers informed this had been reviewed and effectively did not work. It was highlighted that young people were positive about the use of the Mind of My Own (MOMO) App although there were still teething problems.

Panel Members suggested for the App to be more user friendly as there were concerns about the appropriateness of some animation or graphics as well as its effectiveness, when logged into the App. There were a few challenges relating to the consultation and there was further in-depth discussion of the consultation and the re-naming of the App.

 

Officers clarified that there were two types of MOMO: MOMO1 was aimed at children aged eight and above; and MOMO Express was designed for children with learning disability to cater for different levels of understanding. MOMO itself was not an approach for translation and that further support would come from their social worker. Further questions from Panel Members drew concerns about the challenges a young person could face with not having access to a mobile phone or a language barrier, and also whether there were other safeguarding concerns. Officers confirmed that the App had cost £28,000 for the year and was accessible on any device. Panel Members heard that every child would be able to have their own account as all communication was to be channelled to a central point and sent to the social work team. Therefore, there would be an oversight of the App. Officers further informed that the App was not to replace communication, it was seen as an opportunity to engage with the children in a different way.

 

In response to questions from the Panel relating to scrutinising staff and colleagues, officers shared that being an IRO included understanding the position and role in working with social workers and team managers. This would have a big impact on how staff and colleagues would respond to a situation and determine what was best for the child. The service was on an improvement journey as communication was better throughout the service.

 

The Panel RESOLVED to note the Independent Reviewing Service Annual Report.

 

 

At 6:23pm the Panel adjourned the meeting for a short break

At 6:32pm the Panel reconvened the meeting.

 

Supporting documents: