Care Review ‘fails to understand’ IRO role, critics claim
Fiona Simpson
Wednesday, June 8, 2022
The Care Review has “failed to fully understand" the role of independent reviewing officers (IROs), critics opposed to its recommendation to scrap the position have said.
In his final recommendations to the government, review chair Josh MacAlister suggests the creation of an independent child advocacy service which would see IRO roles and regulation 44 visitors for children in residential care replaced by one child advocate position.
Responding to the review Nagalro chair, Carole Littlechild said: Nagalro has always had a central concern about making sure that the voice of the child was heard. Nagalro is, therefore, concerned to see that the report proposes to dispense with the role of the IRO.”
-
Care Review: key proposals for the children’s services workforce
-
Review of children’s social care system prioritises family help
She added that while the organisation would “welcome children in care having access to dedicated advocates who can act as advisers, facilitators and a spokesperson for their views,” she believes that MacAlister “has failed to fully understand the role of the IRO and is in danger of ‘throwing out the baby with the bathwater’”.
IROs are able “to keep the plans and timetable for the child on track and prevent drift” due to their position within a local authority in a way proposed independent child advocates would not, she said.
“A social worker and their manager may well think that the plan is working well but a good IRO, who has spent time listening to the child, can not only point out where the plan is not working for the child but, because of their statutory role and authority, can make the necessary changes,” Littlechild added.
She also pointed out that similar proposals have previously been reviewed and rejected by parliament during the creation of the Children and Social Work Act 2017 and following the review of foster care conducted by Sir Martin Narey and Mark Owers in 2018.
MacAlister defended the proposal for IROs and regulation 44 visitors to be scrapped in a Twitter thread which said the basis for the proposals came from “listening to children and young people who clearly stated that too often they aren’t heard when professionals make decisions about their lives”.
