The document discusses research on involving children and parents in the care planning and review process for children in out-of-home care. It finds that while the system aims to involve all parties, there are challenges in balancing different perspectives. Interviews revealed that children's experience of reviews depends on how positive and reassuring the meeting is. While most children attend, older children are more likely to be involved. The roles of social workers and independent reviewing officers in facilitating involvement are examined, alongside key dilemmas around openness, privacy, and formality versus responsiveness. Involving birth parents in plans and children's lives can help if done sensitively.

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 Structure1
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 cases)
In-depth
interviews on
half the case
file cases (61)
A multi-
professional
focus group in
each of four LAs
Two focus
groups with
young people
National
questionnaire
IROs (65)
Team
managers (46)
Children’s
guardians (39)
IROs (54)
SWs (54)
Parents (15)
Children (15)

6. Professional
Phone based
Structured
Parent
Home based
Very unstructured
Child
Home based
Activity based
Use 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, 3 children in care, 4th removed at birth)
You know, when we were talking about him coming home to
sleep, she (social worker) is asking my opinion and how I feel
it will be, and she is listening to me. She is really lovely.
(Mother)

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?