Autumn Roesch-Marsh, University of Edinburgh Andrew Gillies, City of Edinburgh Council

1. Engaging
children and
young people in
Looked After
Reviews
Autumn Roesch-Marsh, University of Edinburgh
a.roeschmarsh@ed.ac.uk
Andrew Gillies, City of Edinburgh Council

2. Legislative and Policy context
 16,041 children in Scotland were looked after on July
2013 - 11,282 of these were looked after and
accommodated children (LAAC) (Scottish Government
2014)
 Every child looked after away from home (LAAC) on a
full time basis has a ‘Child’s Plan’, which must be
reviewed (s 44 to 47 of the Looked After Children
(Scotland) Regulations 2009).
 In most local authorities independent chairs are
provided for all LAAC Reviews (Scottish Government
2009).
 The LAAC Review is an interagency forum for care
planning and decision making for looked after and
accommodated children and all professionals have
legal and corporate parenting responsibilities to meet
the needs of the child in full.
 1.58% of the national LAC population is in Edinburgh,
CE has a team of 14 Reviewing Officers
(See Getting it Right for Every Child - Scottish Government, 2006; Children and Young

3. The ‘problem’ of group decision
making
• Decision making groups are often
unproductive - ‘process losses’ (Kerr and
Tindale, 2004)
• Groups can be prone to making more
extreme decisions then individuals – group
polarisation or ‘risky shift’/ ‘choice shift’
• Striving for unanimity can override motivation
to appraise alternative courses of action –
‘group think’ (Janis 1972: 9)
• The psychodynamics of individuals, groups
and organisations (Obholzer and Roberts,
1994)

4. The ‘problem’ with LAAC
Reviews No statistics on how many children actually attend their LAAC
reviews in Scotland
 Very limited evidence from England and Wales (Thomas &
O’Kane 1999; Munro 2001; Pert et al. 2014) and Scotland
(Scottish Executive 2006)
 Research suggests children often:
◦ Have limited understanding of reviews and are not well
prepared
◦ Find reviews formal and not very child friendly
◦ Don’t feel listened to
 SCRA (2011) identified the need for Hearings and LAAC
reviews to be more effective in relation to permanence planning
 Munro (2011) identified the need to ensure a child-centred
system
 Need to balance formal requirements with imperative to
consider children’s views and encourage participation and

5. Improving Group Decision
Making
 Group membership
 Group aims
 Group roles
 Group norms
Nijstad, B.A. (2009) Group Performance. Hove: Psychology
Press.
For role of RO in England and Wales see Ofsted (2011, 2013)

6. Action Research Methodology
Investigate
Reflect
Review
‘the problem’
Plan
Intervention
Caring out
Intervention
Monitoring
Intervention
Collecting
Data about
Impact

7. Agreed Actions
 If a child of 10+ is accommodated and has not attended the last two
reviews or has never come to a review but is an open case to the
RO, the RO will visit the young person prior to the review,
outline the purpose of the review, the importance of their views and
encourage them to attend.
 At the beginning of the review the Reviewing Officer will meet
the child/ young on their own (with one person to support them if
they wish). During this meeting it will be emphasised that this is
their review and the items for the agenda will be discussed with the
child.
 When opening the meeting ROs will begin by acknowledging the
receipt of the ‘Have a Say’ and the fact the child’s views are
central to the discussions.
 Reviewing Officers will also record in the minutes how, when and
by whom views were sought. Where the methods for obtaining
views are not robust or the child’s views are not known they will
ensure that plans for addressing this form part of the
recommendations of the review.

8. Who attends?
 44 LAAC reviews for children 10+ surveyed
◦ 70.5% of meetings children aged 10+ were at their review,
however only 45% were at their previous review
◦ 95.5% of the time social workers were at the reviews
◦ 73% of the time teachers were at the reviews
◦ Only 10% of meetings included a Children’s Rights worker
◦ Only 30% of meetings included the mother of the child
◦ Only 7% of meetings included the father of the child
◦ 40% included foster carers
◦ 16% of meetings included residential key worker
◦ Other family members were at 36% of meetings
◦ Very limited attendance from siblings, CAMHS workers
 38% of the time RO (n=44 different reviews) felt the right people
were at the review – most often it was family who were missing
(35%), a mixture of missing professionals including CAMHS and
educational staff (10%)
 47% of the time SWers (n=36) felt the right people were at the

9. Success of Engagement
Strategies
 In 56% of cases ROs thought they were ‘successful’ or
‘very successful’ in using verbal strategies (83% of
SWers)
 45% of the time, they thought they were ‘successful’ or
‘very successful’ using non-verbal strategies (90% of
SWers)
 66% of the time, they thought they were ‘successful’ or
‘very successful’ using seating strategies (83% of SWers)
 59% of the time, they thought they were ‘successful’ or
‘very successful’ using professionals and advocates
(75% of SWers)
 61% of the time, they thought they were ‘successful’ or
‘very successful’ using the structure of the
meeting/agenda (89% of SWers)
 56% of the time they used all the strategies

10. Young People’s Perspectives
 88% (n=23) of young people felt their
views were heard at the review
 88% (n=23) of young people felt they
were able to speak freely
 84% (n=22) of young people understood
the decisions being made
 53% of the young people felt the RO was
very helpful to their participation
 57% of the young people felt their Social
Worker was very helpful to their
participation

11. Barriers to Engagement
 In half of the cases there were barriers
to engagement
 The significant barriers were:
◦ Difficult family relationships/ dynamics
◦ How the child was feeling or particular
needs (e.g. mental health and/or
emotional vulnerability, disability)
◦ The complexity of issues being discussed

12. Impact on Decision Making
 58% of social workers felt young
people had a ‘good deal of impact’ on
the decisions being made in the
meeting
 43% of ROs felt YPs participation had
a ‘good deal of impact’ on the
decisions being made in the meeting
 84% (22) of young people felt their
participation made a difference to the
decisions being made

13. A Multidimential Process
Successful
Engagement
Young
Person’s
Wellbeing
Carer Needs
and Capacities
Parent(s)
Needs and
Capacities
Family
Dynamics
Professional
Dynamics
Place/ Space/
Time
Organisational
Imperatives
Relationships
with Young
Person/ Family
Strategies
used in
Meeting

14. Final Reflections and Next
Steps

15. Thanks To
 The RO Team:
◦ Elaine Wallace
◦ Lynda Murray
◦ Louise Hampton
◦ Dawn Cameron
 The young people and social workers
who took part
 The Research Assistants:
◦ Christina McMellon
◦ Dominque Green

16. References
 Cashmore, J.(2002)Promoting the participation of children and
young people in care. Child Abuse and Neglect, 26, 837–847.
 Munro, E. (2001) Empowering looked-after children. Child & Family
Social Work,6, 129–137.
 Thomas, N. & O’Kane, C. (1999) Children’s participation in reviews
and planning meetings when they are ‘looked after’ in middle
childhood. Child & Family Social Work,4, 221–230.
 Ofsted (2011a) Children on Independent Reviewing Officers. A
Report of Children’s Views by the Children’s Rights Director for
England. Ofsted, London.
 Ofsted (2011b) Having Corporate Parents. A Report of Children’s
Views by the Children’s Rights Director for England. Ofsted, London.
 Ofsted (2013) Independent Reviewing Officers:Taking Up the
Challenge? Ofsted, London.
 Pert, H., Diaz, C and Thomas, N. (2014) Children’s participation in
LAC reviews: a study in one English local authority. Child & Famiy
Social Work:1-10.
 Scottish Executive (2006) My Turn to Talk.
http://www.gov.scot/resource/doc/930/0031306.pdf

17.  Bell M. (1999) Working in partnership in child protection: the conflicts.
British Journal of Social Work 29: 437–455.
 Harlow, Elizabeth(2004) Protecting Children: Why Don't Core Groups
Work? Lessons from the Literature, Practice, 16: 1, 31 — 42
 Hitzler, S. and Messmer, H. (2010) Group Decision Making in Child
Welfare and the Pursuit of Participation. Qualitative Social Work,
9 (2): 205-226.
 Janis IL. (1982) Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Discussions
and Fiascos. Houghton Mifflin: Boston.
 Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, F.P. (2003) Joining Together: Group Theory
and Group Skills. New York: Pearson Education, Inc.
 Kelly N, and Milner J. (1996) Child protection decision making. Child
Abuse Review, 5: 91–102.
 Kelly N, Milner J. (1999) Decision making in case conferences. In:
Children, Child Abuse and Child Protection: Placing Children
Centrally. The Violence Against Children Study Group: Chichester,
England.
 Kerr, N.L., and Tindale, R. S. (2004) Group Performance and Decision
Making. Annual Review of Psychology, 55: 623-55.
 Nijstad, B.A. (2009) Group Performance. Hove: Psychology Press.
 Postmes, T. and Spears, R. (2001) Quality of Decision Making and Group
Norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80 (6): 918-
930.
 Prince, J., Gear, A., Jones, C.and Read, M. (2005) The Child Protection
Conference: A Study of Process and an Evaluation of the Potential
for On-line Group Support. Child Abuse Review, 14: 113–131.A Roesch-Marsh December 2013
17