IRO and CP CHAIR SERVICE RESOLUTION AND ESCALATION PROCESS

For IRO/CP Chair use on behalf of Children We Care For and those subject to
Child Protection Planning.
Oxfordshire Children's Services Procedures Manual 4.3.7. (previously known as Oxfordshire County Council CEF Dispute Resolution
Process)

Compliant with The Children Act 1989 guidance and regulations, Volume 2: care planning, placement and case review - June 2015 – Dispute Resolution Process.

The IRO Handbook 20101 requires the Local Authority to develop a Dispute Resolution Process to support IROs to deliver their specific statutory responsibilities to Children We Care For.

(For guidance in relation to resolving disagreements between agencies please refer to Oxfordshire Safeguarding Children Board Procedures Manual – Oxfordshire Resolve Policy - trixcms.trixonline.co.uk/resolve disagreements

Oxfordshire’s Children, Education and Families Quality Assurance service delivers the dual functions of Independent Reviewing Officers to Children We Care For, as set out in the IRO Handbook, and Child Protection Conference Chairs accountable to the Director for Children’s Services, as set out in Working Together
20182.

The quality assurance function relating to Children We Care For is underpinned by statutory guidance set out in the IRO Handbook and a local directive requires Child Protection Chairs to apply comparable quality assurance principles and values to their oversight of children subject to child protection plans.

These shared principles include the expectations that IROs and CP Chairs will therefore:

1https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-reviewing-officers-handbook

2https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/77
9401Working_Together_to_Safeguard-Children.pdf

•  monitor the child’s records on an ongoing basis to provide a safeguard to a child
experiencing any drift and delay,
•  promote the child’s voice and their rights to advocacy and complaints processes,
•  quality assure children’s plans to ensure they are based on detailed and informed assessment, are up to date, effective and provide a real and genuine response to each child’s needs,
•  monitor the performance of the Local Authority’s function to children subject to Care or Child Protection plans, identifying areas of good and poor practice and any patterns of concern relating to children’s collective experience.

Principles Underpinning the Resolution and Escalation Process

•	Any challenge begins with a conversation which is initiated and received in the spirit of restorative practice.
•	A sympathetically assertive approach is needed to focus on a shared understanding of the likely impact on the child and agree measures to resolve in the child’s best interests.
•	Close and frequent communication and collaboration is necessary between CP Chair/IRO and Social Work operational teams in each area.
•	IROs and CP Chairs should constructively raise individual issues with Social Workers and Team Managers to achieve swift resolution and good outcomes for the child.
•	Performance data on Resolution and Escalation issues should be systematically collected, collated and analysed by the Quality Assurance Service and regularly reported to CMT and DLT.
•	These findings should be used to help improve performance and practice standards and identify training needs in order to improve outcomes for children and families.
•	Collaboration between OSCB, Think Family, CEF Quality Assurance Service and the Principal Social Worker will identify topics for thematic audits arising from
data collected.

Quality Assurance of the CP Chair/IRO function

Issues relating to IRO performance should be dealt with via initial discussion with the IRO; if issues cannot be resolved, they should be referred to the relevant Quality Assurance Service Manager.

Process

Reminder: if the CP Chair/IRO determines there is an immediate safeguarding risk, the Resolution and Escalation process should not be followed until urgent contact and information sharing has been made with operational Team Managers. The internal Need to Know protocol3 should be followed to alert all relevant managers to immediate risk for a child.

CP Chairs/IROs should use their professional judgement to decide which stage is most appropriate to begin escalation and must always begin the process with a conversation with the allocated Social Worker or Team Manager. For Children We Care For under Care Planning Regulations1, IROs can escalate to CAFCASS at any point.

Timing of escalations should be adjusted to reflect the statutory guidance expectation that for Children We Care For, escalations will be resolved within 20 working days. For children who meet the criteria for Child Protection Planning, more urgent resolution may be indicated.

Stage 1:

a. CP Chair/IRO raises concerns with Social Worker through direct conversation.
•  If plan to resolve is agreed, continue stage 1.
•  If plan to resolve cannot be agreed, proceed to stage 2.

b. CP Chair/IRO sends summary email (headed R&E alert) to Social Worker copying in Team Manager, setting out issues, agreed resolution and timescales. CP Chair/IRO case note to be added immediately to child’s file.

c. CP Chair/IRO updates R&E log.

d. CP Chair/IRO to set outlook calendar reminder for 5 working days.

e. After 5 working days, CP Chair/IRO checks the issue has been resolved.
•  If resolved, CP Chair/IRO adds case note (headed Resolution Achieved).
•  CP Chair/IRO updates R&E log.
•  If unresolved, continue to Stage 2.

Stage 2:

•  CP Chair/IRO updates R&E log.
•  CP Chair/IRO completes Alert Form and sends to QA Service Manager and Family Solutions Plus Service Managers/Fostering Service Manager/Children We Care For Service Manager/Disabled Children’s Head of Service.
•  CP Chair/IRO case note to be added immediately to child’s file and Alert Form
uploaded to Documents.
•  CP Chair/IRO to set outlook calendar reminder for 5 working days.

3 https://intranet.oxfordshire.gov.uk/cms/group-content/family-solutions-service

•  After 5 working days, CP Chair/IRO checks issue is resolved or in progress and updates case notes (headed Resolution Achieved) and R&E log accordingly.
•  If not resolved, proceed to Stage 3.

Stage 3:

•  CP Chair/IRO updates log to show escalation to Stage 3.
•  CP Chair/IRO updates Stage 2 Alert Form and send to Heads of Service Family Solutions Plus/CEF Safeguarding Manager/Heads of Service Children We Care For/Disabled Children.
•  CP Chair/IRO case note to be added immediately to child’s file and Alert Form
uploaded to Documents.
•  CP Chair/IRO to set outlook calendar reminder for 5 working days.
•  After 5 working days, CP Chair/IRO checks issue is resolved or in progress and updates case notes and log accordingly
•  If resolved, CP Chair/IRO adds case note (headed Resolution Achieved)
•  If not resolved, proceed to Stage 4.

Stage 4: (expectation that stages 4 and 5 are rarely used).

•  CP Chair/IRO updates R&E log to show escalation to Stage 4.
•  CP Chair/IRO updates Stage 3 Alert Form and sends to appropriate Deputy
Director.
•  CP Chair/IRO case note to be added immediately to child’s file and Alert Form
uploaded to Documents.
•  CP Chair/IRO sets outlook calendar reminder for 5 working days.
•  After 5 working days, CP Chair/IRO checks issue is resolved or in progress and updates case notes and R&E log accordingly.
•  If resolved, CP Chair/IRO adds case note (headed Resolution Achieved).
•  If not resolved, proceed to Stage 5.

Stage 5: (expectation that stages 4 and 5 are rarely used).

•  CP Chair/IRO updates log to show escalation to Stage 5.
•  CP Chair/IRO update Stage 4 Alert Form and sends to Director of Children’s
Services or Chief Executive.
•  CP Chair/IRO case note to be added immediately to child’s file and Alert Form
uploaded to Documents.
•  CP Chair/IRO sets outlook calendar reminder for 5 working days.
•  After 5 working days, CP Chair/IRO checks issue is resolved or in progress and updates case notes and log accordingly
•  If resolved, CP Chair/IRO adds case note (headed Resolution Achieved).

Examples of Resolution and Escalation Issues – this is not an exhaustive list and is provided for guidance in exercising professional judgement

Children We Care For:

•  Drift or delay in the implementation of the child’s care plan e.g. delay in progressing a child’s permanence plan (second review onwards), delay in completing life story work, delays in progressing applications for passport, Criminal Injuries Compensation, failure to implement a significant element of the child’s care plan, non-completion of recommendations of Children We Care For Review/Care Plan.

•  IRO does not endorse child’s Care Plan, IRO not notified of significant event for child, insufficient evidence of the child’s voice & inclusion within the assessment, planning and review process.

•  Statutory visits not being completed, or children not being seen alone, where appropriate, in their placement by the social worker.

•  Concern regarding unsuitable/inadequate Family Time arrangements.

•  Dispute around the provision of services linked to child’s assessed needs.

•  Concern around the suitability* of the placement to meet the child’s needs or of the quality of the family finding/placement search.

* for unregulated emergency placements made due to lack of placement availability
 and due to external circumstances beyond the Local Authority’s control, IROs should escalate at Stage 4. Deputy Director, Safeguarding and Corporate Parenting oversight of these placements is always in place, however, in order to discharge the IRO responsibility to the child, good practice would be to record it has been raised formally with the Deputy Director.

Children subject to Child Protection Plans:

•  Social work report not discussed and shared with parents/carer and older children at least 3 days before a Child Protection Conference.

•  Statutory Child Protection visits not being completed or child not being seen alone
(without carer), in the family home.

•  Drift or delay in implementing significant aspects of the Child Protection Plan which have, or are likely to, significantly impact on the welfare of the child. This may include delay in pursuing plans to initiate the PLO.

 Created	                    2015	CMT	
Updated	12 February 2018	Hazel Cringle	
Updated	7 October 2019	Hazel Cringle, Sabina Baz and Justine Manning	
Updated 	8 January 2021	Hazel Cringle, Sabina Baz, Justine Manning, Frederika Van Rooyen

 FFredrika Van Rooyen