Objectives
The aim of this paper is to describe and assess the system in England for making and reviewing plans for children in care, and in particular the role of ‘independent reviewing officers’ (IROs). Long standing professional, public and political concerns about the effectiveness of services for children in care and their families have led to a large and highly prescriptive set of legal requirements and government guidance about care planning and review. IROs are central figures in this system. They are social workers, employed by the local authority, but independent of the line management of the case. Their main tasks are to chair periodic review meetings, monitor the implementation of the plans and ensure that views of all concerned, particularly the child, are given proper consideration. It has been a statutory requirement since 2004 for every child in care to have an IRO, but ever since the beginning there have been doubts and disagreements about their effectiveness.
Method
This paper draws on research into care planning and the role of the IRO conducted by the authors in 2012-14. The research was a mixed methods study. There was a file survey of 122 children in care in four local authorities; interviews with social workers, IROs, parents and children; multi-professional focus groups; and a nationally-distributed questionnaire.
Results
The study found that IROs were undertaking their roles in ways that were often rather different to the requirements of the statutory guidance. There was evidence that IROs could exercise professional independence and raise formal challenges if they were unhappy with the progress of the case, but generally they preferred advice, discussion and negotiation, and sometimes direct intervention to help deal with a matter. Social workers and their managers often appreciated this more collaborative approach, although there could be resentment if IROs were perceived to have gone too far beyond their proper role. Some young people and parents expressed doubts and discontent about their IRO, but on the whole they did see them to be independent and effective.
Conclusions
There are frequent calls for IROs to be ‘more independent’ and ‘more challenging’, but the dangers of such an approach are that it does not pay proper regard to the complexities and challenges of deciding, implementing and reviewing plans for children in care. The children and their families often have very great needs, there are many different decision-making levels and processes, there are accountabilities for spending public money, other agencies are involved, circumstances can be uncertain and unstable, and resources are limited (money, services, personnel, time). In this context, the role of the IRO has evolved to intervene in more subtle and (usually) cooperative ways. The study has messages for inter-professional working, and the nature of ‘professional independence’ in public sector welfare bureaucracies.
Assessment and decision making in child welfare , Participation of children and families in child welfare interventions
