Independent reviewing officers – do they have a future?

Published by Professional Social Work magazine, 8 December, 2022

The central role of independent reviewing officers (IROs) is to ensure that plans for young people are carried out effectively. While acknowledging some good practice by IROs, England's Independent Review of Children’s Social Care has recommended their abolition.

The final report says that their role involves repetition of tasks that should be carried out by social workers and their managers. It notes that some children don’t know their IROs and that IROs often have bloated caseloads. It adds that “as local authority employees, IROs lack the independence to challenge poor social work practice”.

Questioning of this recommendation has been wide ranging. In a recent commons debate on the report, a previous minister of state for children and families, Edward Timpson, described IROs as “the confidantes of young people in the care system”.

He added that “they make sure that children get a better deal and they are a trusted voice”, maintaining that the “principle is right’.

Professional organisations such as National Association of Independent Reviewing Officers (NAIRO) and National IRO Managers Partnership (NIROMP) are campaigning against the change, which they argue will be deleterious for children in care.

Given that they represent staff most involved, a rejoinder might be “they would say that wouldn’t they” and that professionals’ immediate reaction to radical change can be one of self-preservation.

It must be acknowledged that there are a few cases where courts have expressed dissatisfaction because in their view IROs have not discharged their role vigorously enough.

But is the review’s recommendation for abolition well thought out – and evidence-based?

The term ‘independence’ always arrives early in any discussion about IROs – it is part of their title. In attempting to achieve that they are always part of a section within the local authority that is holding the case.

Organisational independence would be achieved if IROs were located in another agency, such as CAFCASS, who they are supposed to report to anyway. In 2013, Ofsted reported variable practice, for example in IROs getting to know children they were responsible for. However, it specifically advised against moving responsibility for the service elsewhere.

The most comprehensive research study relating to IROs by Beckett, Dickens et al (2016) carried out in England noted that independence is a subtle quality and that IROs also have a quality insurance role. IROs were influencing decisions using their negotiatory skills and intervening to avoid cases being reported to CAFCASS. There were advantages of them being part of the local authority network.

The review, however, recommended abolition of IROs rather than change of management as a solution to the independence issue.

Is the accusation that IROs simply do the work that social workers and team managers should carry out (also made by others including Martin Narey in his review of children’s services) a fair one?

Firstly, there is a big objectivity difference in a team manager rather than IRO chairing placement reviews. Before IROs were introduced, I chaired placement reviews for my team; that helped to retain my negotiation skills and heighten awareness of placement issues. But I was often reviewing plans that I had made together with the social worker.

The review also skates over the present realities of social work employment, with looked after children frequently complaining that they do not have time to make relationships with their social workers before they move elsewhere.

There is anecdotal evidence that IROs stay in touch with children longer and that the relationship can become a quality one.

The final report of the review conflates IROs with a recommendation that all children in care have advocates unless they opt out of that service. In contrast to its treatment of IROs the review is positive about advocates’ role. An advocate’s main task is to make sure the child’s voice is heard; they are essentially rights rather than best interests-led and they do not have to be registered social workers.

It is splendid that the review restates their value, but they are better seen as a complement to the work of IROs. Advocates reporting formally to local authorities about common practice concerns, with an option to take issues to Cafcass or Ofsted if necessary, would help to maximise their input. Increasing their number is likely to institutionalise advocacy and will present challenges in finding sufficient people with the required experience and skills.

An intrinsic issue with the review’s recommendations is that they depend for their success upon a committed, skilled and not overburdened workforce. They underplay what austerity has meant for good quality social work. Like Laming on Victoria Climbié, but unlike the neglected Munro report, it appears to ignore the inevitable challenges inherent to any profession relying heavily for its success upon the quality of human relationships, and to overestimate what organisational change can achieve.

Several measures could be taken to ensure and raise the quality of the IRO service – for example, increased liaison with the judiciary and CAFCASS and improved immunity for IROs who might feel intimidated by employers when raising concerns about practice – without the need to abolish them.

Simon Ward is a registered social worker currently working at Liverpool Moores University and deputy chair of a local voluntary association fostering panel

The government has said it will respond to the review's recommendations early in the New Year