Escalation Guidance

The Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010 which were enacted in April 2011 included the IRO Handbook 2010 which includes the requirement for the Local Authority to produce a Dispute Resolution Process. In Hammersmith and Fulham, this process will be referred to as the Resolution and Escalation Process.

One of the key functions of the IRO is to resolve problems arising out of the care planning process. It is expected that IROs establish positive working relationships with the Social Workers of the children for whom they are responsible. Where problems are identified in relation to a child's case, for example in relation to care planning, the implementation of the care plan or decisions relating to it, resources or poor practice, the IRO will, in the first instance, seek to resolve the issue informally with the social worker or the social worker's managers. The IRO should place a record of this initial informal resolution process on the child's file. If the matter is not resolved in a timescale that is appropriate to the child's needs, the IRO should consider taking formal action. There are various situations where an Independent Reviewing Officer might have concerns and initiate the Resolution and Escalation Process. It is a matter of professional judgement as to what level of escalation is needed and the impact on the child is the significant factor.
(IRO Handbook).

The IRO has the power to refer the matter to CAFCASS at any point in the dispute resolution process [regulation 45] and may consider it necessary to make a concurrent referral to CAFCASS at the same time that s/he instigates the dispute resolution process.
(IRO Handbook chapter 6).

The circumstances under which they may do are specified in the Regulations: if the IRO considers the local authority has failed 'in any significant respect' to prepare the child's care plan, review his/her case or effectively implement the decisions; and 'drawn the failure or breach to the attention of persons at an appropriate level of seniority within the responsible authority, it has not been addressed to the satisfaction of the IRO within a reasonable time period' (Reg. 45(3)(a)). A CAFCASS Officer will then be appointed to deal with the case. He/she will make enquiries to try to resolve the matter, but if these are unsatisfactory, CAFCASS may take the case back to court (CAFCASS (Reviewed Case Referral) Regulations 2004). These may be proceedings under the Human Rights Act, proceedings for judicial review, or proceedings under other legislation, most likely the Children Act 1989.  

The individual IRO is personally responsible for activating the dispute resolution process, even if this step may not be in accordance with the child's wishes and feelings, but may, in the IRO's view, be in accordance with the best interest and welfare of the child, as well as his/her human rights.
(IRO handbook).

The following legal framework and guidance underpins the statutory duties undertaken by Child Protection Conference Chairs (CPCC):

• The Children Act 1989;
• The Children and Young Persons Act 2008;
• The Children Act 2004;
• Working Together to Safeguard Children.

Child Protection Conference Chairs have a statutory function to chair child protection conferences independent of case management. If a Child Protection Conference Chair believes that the practice or policy is detrimental to the child's welfare they have a duty to assertively challenge this. A key feature of the Child Protection Conference Chair's role is that they should provide an independent perspective uninfluenced by managerial or resource pressures. They are in a unique position to carry out a critical monitoring and challenging role. They can highlight both positive and negative issues that affect children. They have a duty to monitor how statutory duties are carried out, compliance with child protection processes, to identify any areas of poor practice and to report on areas of good practice.

Please see Appendix A for examples of issues that should be addressed through the IRO and CPCCs Resolution and Escalation Process.

The table below outlines the stages to the Resolution and Escalation Process (Level 1-4 Formal Escalation).

All activity relating to the Resolution and Escalation Process will be recorded on MOSAIC using the escalation form. The IRO handbook states the formal dispute resolution process within each local authority should have timescales in total of no more than 20 working days. The table above is guidance only and escalations can be initiated at any stage in the process with the total timescale remaining the same. N.B. If the escalation starts at Stage 2 the Head of Service would then have 10 working days to respond.

One of the key functions of the Independent Reviewing Officer is to resolve problems arising out of the care planning process. It is expected that Independent Reviewing Officers establish positive working relationships with the Social Workers of the children for whom they are responsible. Where problems are identified in relation to a child's case, for example in relation to care planning, the implementation of the care plan or decisions relating to it, resources or poor practice, the Independent Reviewing Officer will, in the first instance, will seek to resolve the issue informally with the social worker or the social worker's manager, before raising formal escalation.

Where issues relating to practice are identified and the IRO/CPCC is dissatisfied with the informal response or timely solution to the issue, the IRO/CPCC will continue to negotiate with management up to the highest level if necessary, in order to resolve the issue.

There are four levels to the formal resolution process within the local authority. Exceptionally when more urgent or serious concerns remain unresolved, the IRO/CPCC has the discretion to proceed directly to the level they consider most appropriate.

The Safeguarding Review & Quality Assurance Manager is responsible for the line management and supervision of the IROs as well as CP Chairs. The Head of Safeguarding, Review and Quality Assurance is responsible for both services. The role of these managers during the Resolution and Escalation Process shall be:

• To provide clear supervision to the IROs and CP Chairs, taking into consideration the issue being raised and providing feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of the concerns or disagreements being brought forward;
• To ensure that throughout the process, lines of communication remain open and clear and that the issue does not become clouded, personalised, or lost in other processes;
• To ensure that meetings take place on time and that they are present at all relevant meetings above the Team Manager level;
• To provide senior management briefing as to the view of the Independent Review or Child Protection Service on the issue being raised and possible routes to resolving the issue;
• To ensure that if appropriate, independent legal advice has been sought by the IRO at the appropriate time; to discuss this advice in supervision and consider its possible implications for the issue being raised; and
• Overall, to encourage and enable resolution prior to the issue reaching the DCS.

These line management guidelines are not designed to hinder or minimise concerns raised by Independent Reviewing Officer or Child Protection Chairs. However, given the impact on Children's Services should the management escalation process reach the referral to the Director stage, it is crucial that there is clear and transparent evidence for senior managers of management and supervision during the process of escalation.

1. General issue:
   • Preparation for CLA review (e.g. non completion/poor quality social work reports and care plans/appropriate signatures missing);
   • Insufficient evidence of the child's voice & inclusion within the assessment, planning and review process;
   • Non completion of decisions/failure to meet timescales;
   • Assessments not completed in a timely manner/poor quality;
   • Unsuitable/inadequate contact/care arrangements;
   • Concerns arising about inadequate health provision;
   • Concerns arising about inadequate education provision;
   • IRO/CPC not notified of significant event in the child's life;
   • IRO not in agreement with the Care Plan (CLA only);
   • Delays in applications for passports etc. (CLA only);
   • Delay in life story work (CLA only);
   • Discriminatory practice;
   • IRO not being consulted about final care plan (court) (CLA only).
2. Failure to meet statutory requirements for the child:
   • No allocated social worker;
   • No up to date/poor quality assessment;
   • No up to date/poor quality Care Plan;
   • Failure to respond to safeguarding issues;
   • No up to date/poor quality pathway plan. (CLA only);
   • Statutory visits not being completed or children not being seen alone, where appropriate, in their placement by the social worker;
   • No up to date/poor quality PEP (CLA only);
   • No up to date/poor quality health assessment (CLA only);
   • No up to date/poor quality Placement Plan (CLA only);
   • Inadequate management oversight/supervision of a social worker.
3. Care plan implementation:
   • Drift/delay in the implementation of the child's care plan;
   • Delay in progressing a child's permanence plan (second review onwards);
   • Failure to implement a significant element of the child's care plan.
4. Dispute around the provision of services:
   • Concern around the suitability of the placement to meet the child's needs;
   • Family finding/placement search;
   • Placement choice/standard of care;
   • Concern around professional practice.