1. Promoting the wellbeing of children in out of home care: involving children and parents in care planning and review Jonathan Dickens, Georgia Philip and Julie Young Centre for Research on Children and Families, University of East Anglia

2. Workshop Structure 1 The review process 2 The study methodology 3 Key messages

3. Care planning and review  In England there is an elaborate system of planning and review for looked after children, intended to avoid drift and delay, achieve permanence and ensure good care  Wishes and feelings of the child must be taken into account (Children Act 1989). There is an expectation that children should be involved in the review process  Since 2004, ‘independent reviewing officers’ have chaired the reviews, but there have been on-going questions about their effectiveness and independence  New regulations and statutory guidance came into force in 2011, to improve care planning and strengthen the role of the IRO

4. Care planning and review How is the system working? Our central research question

5. The research methodology: 2012-14 Case file analysis in four LAs - 122 In-depth interviews on half the case file cases A multi- professional focus group in each LA Two focus groups with young people Nationally distributed questionnaires 65 IROs 46 Team managers 39 Children’s guardians 54 IROs 54 SWs 15 Parents 15 Children

6. Professional Phone basedStructured Parent Home basedVery unstructured Child Home basedActivity basedUse of a ‘PASS’ card The interviews

7. Children’s interviews Key questions Poster about me Decision cards ‘My review’ sheets ‘My SW / IRO’ sheets

8. Warm-up activity Art/drawing/sticking exercises can draw the child in and encourage a more equitable view of the relationship Who I live with….. Family who I don’t live with ….. Likes ….. Me…..

9. ‘My Review’ sheets Children were asked to draw where people sat in their LAC review Me Teacher IRO SW Mum My Review

10. ‘Who makes decisions about…?’ Where I live? Whether I can sleepover at friends piercings My hair cut How much pocket money I get Decision cards

11. Risk assessment needed obtain info from referring person, have a ‘buddy system’ in place, know your travel arrangements, leave valuables at home, prepare for a smoky environment Risk of interference/influence from other people in household – including small children emphasise that the interview needs to be private and that answers from key person needed Home-based Interviews

12. Discussion of research methodology

13. Involving children and parents in care planning and review Key findings & issues

14. Involvement  The purposes of involvement Instrumental - achieving best outcomes for children through better knowledge /communication/timely action Rights based– participation rights of children, parents and professionals (NB foster carers as parents and professionals)  The experience of involvement If the review process, including the meeting, is positive, clear, reassuring, affirming and enabling this can in itself have a positive impact on all participants - and the success of the care plan.

15. Involving children in reviews; findings:  IROs were seen as having key role in ‘tailoring’ the review and (along with SW) consulting children  Survey of IROs showed that just under ¼ visited ‘most’ children between reviews  Attendance at reviews increased with age: File analysis showed 5-12, 43%, 13-15, 65%, 16 + 80% attended some or all of the meeting  Survey of IROs showed that just over half felt they were not involving children appropriately; interviews showed that consultation documents consistently seen as an area for development  Review venues are an expression of the dilemma over balancing rights and needs of those involved – not simply the child’s ‘choice’ For 2 LAs around 70% of reviews took place in the foster home Across all 4 LAs about 15% took place in schools

16. Key dilemmas for IROs and social workers :  ‘Balancing’ rights and needs of children, birth family, carers and professionals – in order to improve child outcomes  Balancing the need for honesty and openness with need to ‘protect’ children’s privacy or feelings  Balancing the requirement of a formal, transparent system, with the need to be responsive and sensitive to the child  Bearing in mind the child’s chronological age, emotional age /stage and cognitive ability  Taking account of the type of placement e.g. long-term foster care and the DfE concept of a proportionate role for social workers, IROs and review processes.

17. Involving children: the review meeting ‘The child’s meeting’ and/or a ‘planning meeting’? “You know, and it’s a difficult thing to get that balance right. Because if you just present a sort of rosy view because the child’s there, actually you’re not going to get a proper plan agreed because you’re discussing things that aren’t correct. But equally, to destroy a child, you know, that’s cruel” (SW interview) “I am like the main person, which is right, because you never want to feel in a review, your review, you don’t want to feel like the black sheep do you? You don’t want to be, you know, only listening, you want to be involved in it” (17 year old girl, LTFC)

18. Involving birth parents:  Involved in plans?  Involved in planning and the child’s life They never left us out of any plans; they would tell us what ideas they had and what was best for A and we just went along with it. There is no point trying to fight social services. (Mother, three children in care, fourth removed at birth) You know, when we were talking about him coming home to sleep, she (SW) is asking my opinion and how I feel it will be, and she is listening to me. She is really lovely.

19. The IRO role as bridge building for parents I think the [IRO] is on everyone’s side; he was a little bit for us and a little bit for the social worker, a big part for A (child) of course, I think he is trying to do the best for A, yeah. (Parent) He treated us normal, he treated us like we were normal people (parent with learning disabilities) (Parent) She made me feel like the mother that I am, yeah. (Parent)

20. Discussion…  Multiple ‘parents’ in the lives / care plans of looked after children: ‘biological parents’; ‘corporate parents’; ‘attachment figures’. A role for everyone?  A need for an independent professional and oversight in the lives of looked after children? How independent?  A difficult balance - ensuring standards are met but allowing for flexibility and tailoring to each individual case?