The Interim Head of Safeguarding and Quality Assurance, Brian Relph introduced the report and highlighted the key issues which had been identified. The Officer stated the number of Independent Reviewing Officers (IRO) had remained steady however there had been some areas for improvement – especially in relation to child participation, IRO consistency and Pathway Planning. He also pointed out that the feedback from Children had been positive with many citing their IRO as the only consistent person in their life. It was also noted that Education had the fewest number of issues identified.

The Chair stated she had been pleased by the consistent presence of the IRO. Councillor Liddiard asked who would see the IRO report and if it was per child. The Officer explained that there was a separate report produced per child but that the Annual Report provided an overview of the service as a whole.

Councillor Worrall stated that she had been disappointed to learn some reviews were only being completed in the weeks before the next review was due. The Officer stated he too had been disappointed to discover this and emphasised that he had taken a robust approach to address this issue.

Councillor Worrall asked if a report on this could be brought to the Committee more regularly. The Assistant Director stated it could be added to the recurring Social Care Performance report.

Joseph Kaley stated that he had experienced this situation first hand. He also suggested a more graded termination of the IRO’s contact with Children Looked After, as it was at the time an abrupt ending to what was often their most consistent relationship. The Chair agreed this would be a better approach for children entering aftercare.

The Officer stated that he supported this idea however it would need to be reviewed carefully in order to balance resources between their statutory duties and a graded withdrawal. The Chair asked the Officer to report back to the Committee on this.

Ms Howell stated that the school year continued past the 18^th birthday of a young person and perhaps Children Looked After services could follow the school year. The Head of Virtual School stated that the Virtual School’s support did not end at the 18^th birthday, and the service continued to provide support, although they did not receive funding for this.

Councillor Johnson noted from the report that Thurrock had roughly 2 boys to every 1 girl in care and questioned if this phenomenon was unique to Thurrock. The Assistant Director for Children’s Services stated that Thurrock was slightly disproportionate to other Councils however explained that this was largely due to the number of Unaccompanied Asylum Seekers entering Thurrock, who were usually male.

Councillor Johnson also spoke of the IRO Feedback Form, which he had felt was condescending to young people because it had asked them to tick “smiley face” boxes. The Officer stated that the form had not been updated in some time and was now being considered as part of a wider review, and one of the goals was to make it more inclusive of older children. The Officer stated that the review would also investigate alternatives such as Apps and digital approaches.

Councillor Worrall stated that the Prince’s Trust conducted their surveys by text at no cost to the recipient, and that a prize draw was added as an incentive.

The Chair agreed however felt that there was no substitute for a face to face conversation, as these were often more informative and also taught young people essential communication and interpersonal skills.

The Chair thanked Officers for the report.

RESOLVED

The committee noted the Annual IRO Report for 2017-2018 and the recommendations within it.