Agenda item

(1)     The Chairman of the Select Committee welcomed Christine Liggins, Kim Keen, Maggie O’Donaghue and Neil Foad, Independent Reviewing Officers (IRO), Kent County Council, to the meeting.

 

(2)     They had received questions and themes that the Select Committee were investigating in preparation for the meeting. 

 

(3)      Christine Liggins, Kim Keen, Maggie O’Donaghue and Neil Foad, Independent Reviewing Officers, Members of the Select Committee and Officers present introduced themselves.

 

What are the functions of the IRO in Kent?

 

(4)     The IROs took turns to state functions of the IRO as follows:

 

·         Monitor the progress of care plans

·         Drive up standards and outcomes for young children

·         High responsibility for case work and children’s needs

·         Have a knowledge of what was being provided in a multi-agency environment

·         Able to pursue issues and raise issues

 

It was explained that IROs were employed by the local authority and line managed separately from mainstream.

 

 

 

Are there any other issues with the relevance to the review which you would like to raise with the Select Committee?

 

(5)      An IRO gave the example of a young child, aged 7, who had been living in care in the South East of the County for two to three years. The child had been out of school for 9 months.  The child had already been seen by three CAMHS workers and had changes in Social Workers.  The majority of problems that had arisen were not directly the responsibility of the Social Workers.  The IRO explained how she was working to resolve the issue by personally speaking to all the relevant teams within KCC.  The assistant director then scheduled a meeting with all agencies involved.  The nearest schools were full and the school the child’s sibling was attending was considered unsuitable as this would be a two hour taxi journey and the IRO was not happy with how the sibling was being cared for at that school.

 

How would the issue of the school not being suitable for the sibling be resolved?

 

(6)     The IROs role would be to raise the issues with Virtual School Kent (VSK) but they do not have the statutory power to make the school do what they should, which was frustrating. [Members requested that Mr Leeson be invited to meet with the Select Committee].

(7)  The IRO suggested that many services are struggling and sometimes focused only on work within their individual professional boundaries.  This leads to a limit in joined up partnership working.

 

(8)  Neil advised that the IRO had the opportunity to be a constant person for the child, and was well placed to make a difference. 

 

(9)  Maggie considered that the benchmark would be “What would I accept for my own child regarding their Education and Health”.  The IROs have a good overview to drive through the standards.  Maggie said that she was frustrated with the lack of collaboration between services. 

 

(10)  Children’s mental health services were a concern.  They were not meeting the needs of our young people.  If a child moved out of one area and into another the process started again, there was no continuity.  If we were starting today we would design the service differently.

 

How can this be improved for the wellbeing of children in care?

 

(11)  Missing young people were a concern for all of us.  We need corporate parenting sessions where we ask “what are we doing?”   It was not acceptable to say that they have been missing for a long time” as the response.

 

(12)  Kim suggested that there was an need to share common themes for those children that were missing as there may be links that we were not aware of that may help us to look at prevention.

 

(13)  Neil advised that young people go missing all the time for many reasons, but they also include sexual exploitation and trafficking.  Sharing information was key.

 

(14)  Christine suggested that with better training we could raise awareness.

 

(15)  Christine considered that through service restructures the practise can take a backward turn. Changes in allocated workers in all the agencies; and in the SW teams, tended to lead to delay and lack of knowledge of the situation, and a ‘start again’ approach. The IRO’s help reduce this through being a consistent person and through raising disputes.

 

(16)  It was suggested that the Missing Person’s Policy should be higher in awareness.

 

(17)  There was good practise in some areas “Who’s Missing”

 

(18)  [Mrs Whittle suggested that Members consider the Safeguarding Board capturing this]. 

 

(19)  The Chief Constable needed to be held to account. It was considered that the Police’s attitude to missing children often left a lot to be desired.

(20)   Christine advised that young people were drawn into different influences things they enjoy, not recognising risks as anything more than excitement and fun.  She considered that it was about how we put in special resources to turn that influence around.  The intervention needs to be timely and geared to direct work acceptable to the adolescent, taken to them, in their environment.

 

(21)  Maggie added that we were not always going to have responsive children.

 

What as an organisation can we do to collaborate?

 

(22)  A suggestion was made for accountability starting with services asking “Have you followed that through”.

 

(23)  Maggie reflected that over recent years less focus was on working with families.  The focus should be about getting the young person back to their family and keeping the birth family engaged.

 

(24)   It was advised that this may have occurred through Social Workers being pressured with job case loads and becoming risk averse.

 

(25)  Neil explained that the way social work teams were set up can result in changes of social worker, particularly when a child comes into carer resulting in a loss of continuity, but also that there needed to be more focused and resources aimed at planning for children to return home where possible.

 

(26)  Neil considered that sometimes Foster Carers see their role as being to care  which can act as a barrier in preparing the child and getting them ready for life at 18+.  There is preparation for independence programmes but he is not sure how far these are lways implemented.

 

(27)  Maggie said that you would prepare your children for life as they are growing up.  You cannot leave this until they are 16 years old.

 

(28)  Christine considered that we have to question how we were guiding young people in how to take responsibility for themselves and acknowledge they will make mistakes.  Many 14 to 15 year olds run back home, we work with that risk.  Young people’s lives were lived through the internet, SMS and text.  She questioned that as Corporate Parents, where did the Local Authority lie in monitoring those mediums? She considered that Foster Carers did not know how to manage this.  Foster Carers often asked themselves “How do I keep them safe”?

 

(29)  Kim considered that Foster Carers were often risk averse and did not feel that they would be backed.   The most successful cases were those where the parents stayed close to the Foster Carers.

 

(30)  It was advised that Newton Europe were appointed by KCC.  They had been looking at the points of transfer.  The IRO said that this was about making sensible choices.  If you were going to deliver a good service the answers lay with the young people themselves.  The question that needed to be asked of the young people was “what would make the difference for you now and in the future?”  KCC’s role was to engage with young people to get their views.

 

What could the IRO do?

 

(31)   Christine explained that the IROs were already working extensivehours per week.  The IROs go that extra mile and still struggle to meet each child.  IROs have to see each child between each review but this was not always possible, therefore they had to prioritise and the extent of auditing, accountability and data recording has greatly increased.

 

(32)  Maggie advised that efforts were in place to reduce the IROs case loads.  Three new IROs had recently been recruited.

 

(33)  The IRO’s would like to have continuity and the ability to follow up with and make relationships with the young people.  The IRO had to make sense of the child.

 

(34)  Christine mentioned that the IROs had to prioritise key cases/high risk cases.  She referred to a case of two children at risk of sexual exploitation within their birth family.  She met with them  away from their foster homes asked them whether they would tell their Social Worker if anything was going on, they replied no.  She said that IROs need time to know what risks young people were facing and their wishes and feelings.

 

What should the Select Committee recommend?

 

(35)  Kim highlighted that with regard to CAMHS a lot of young people would not engage in those meetings.  She suggested that there was a need for commissioning different services such as drop in or outreach.  She stressed that the window was small to engage the young people and it could not wait especially in sexual abuse cases.  There was a need for a whole range of services.  Dandelion services worked.  A lot of young people say “I’m not mental”.  Young people needed a service without a label.  Children in Care were already under a microscope.

 

(36)  Maggie stated that there was a need to ensure that KCC’s services were all accountable and collaborative.  The focus should be on the young person and not the computer.  There was a need to be creative with what we already have.  There was a need to be flexible with young people.  She said that we had to question whether we were giving the best to the young people.  The Assistant Social Worker was important to them but they did not have that resource within the Care Team.

 

(37)  It was suggested that County Councillors, as Corporate Parents, could meet with young people, throughout the year, to hear from them directly about what was important to them.

(38)  Christine suggested that there was a need for multiagency coordination including CAMHS and schools.

 

(39)  A reference was made regarding young people with learning disabilities and the difficulties there were in transition.  Kim said that she would like to see a Vulnerable Adult Team and the 18+ Team established as a huge number of young people still required support.   They did not fit into the Adult Services. Those18 year olds could fall through the gap.

 

(40)  A comment was made that the Service Teams needed to be kept stable and supported. 

 

Unaccompanied Asylum Seekers

 

(41)  Advice was given on what would happen to an unaccompanied asylum seeker.  If they claimed to be over 16 years it was explained that they would be assessed at Millbank Immigration Centre and if assessed to be 16 years old they would be placed in the community, this would not happen if they were indigenous children.  It was not known whether they were assessed that they were able to be on their own.  The quality of the accommodation they were allocated was poor.  There was experience that these children could not cope in the community.  They did not speak English and their ability to access education was poor.  It was suggested that if you let teenagers loose in the community they would do what teenagers do.  The IROs had a shared role with the Social Worker and County Councillors as their Corporate Parents.  It was advised that when they visit them they can be living with no hot water etc.  It was considered that if Ofsted were to look at their care there would be concerns.  It was stated that there were improvements being made.  

 

Who are the providers of these young people’s accommodation?

 

(42)  It was advised that the accommodation was privately rented.  It was managed accommodation, managed by the accommodation officers.  Kim considered that young people were not given the support that they needed.

 

The Chairman and Members present thanked Christine Liggins, Kim Keen, Maggie O’Donaghue and Neil Foad for attending the meeting.