Methodology
A mixed methods approach was used to get a full picture of care planning and the role of the IRO:
•	Analysis of case files of 122 looked after children, in four local authorities;
•	In-depth interviews on half the cases (61), for extra information and views: interviewees were social workers (54), IROs (54), parents (15) and young people (15);
•	Two focus groups with young people; 
•	A multi-professional focus group in each LA (4);
•	Nationally-distributed questionnaires for IROs (65), social work team managers (46) and children’s guardians (39).
Ethical scrutiny and approval was given by the Research Ethics Committee of the School of Social Work at the University East Anglia. Additionally, the project was approved by the Association of Directors of Children’s Services.
The major part of the study was based in four local authorities in England, chosen to cover a range of organisational and demographic characteristics. There were two large county councils, one unitary authority (a small city) and one London borough. There were 30 case studies per authority (32 in the largest), randomly selected but within parameters to ensure a range of legal statuses, ages and lengths of time in care. There were in-depth interviews on a sub-sample of these cases, and a multi-professional focus group discussion in each area.
Fieldwork was undertaken between October 2012 and July 2014, phased across the four areas. The case file analysis in Authority A took place between October 2012 and January 2013, with most of the professionals’ interviews on the intensive sub-sample between February and May 2013 (in one case, staff changes in the local authority meant that the IRO was not interviewed until September 2013). Interviews with parents and young people took place in late 2013 and spring 2014. The case file analysis in Authority B took place between November 2012 and February 2013, with most interviews on the intensive sub-sample between May and October 2013, although the interviews with parents and young people took place later, December 2013-Februrary 2014. The case file analysis in Authority C took place between April and September 2013, with most interviews on the intensive sub-sample between October and November 2013, but interviews with parents and young people in spring 2014. The case file analysis in Authority D took place between November 2013 and February 2014, with most interviews on the intensive sub-sample between February and March 2014, although the final interview, with a young person, took place in July 2014.
Case file analysis
At the start of the research period in each local authority, the authority supplied an anonymised list with basic details about the children they had been looking after for six months or longer. This key data included their date of birth, legal status, length of time in care, gender, the name of their social worker and IRO. The six month requirement was so that the children should have had their second LAC review (due after four months) and a permanence plan (even if at this stage it was likely to be a parallel plan, that is, with alternative permanence options, depending on the result of further assessments and/or court decisions). This means that the sample excludes ‘short-term’ cases where the children enter care and leave within six months.
The researchers selected the sample for analysis from the local authority’s list. The primary criterion was to ensure an even spread of different legal statuses – children who were accommodated under s. 20 of the Children Act 1989; children on interim care orders; and children on full care orders. The purpose of this was to explore the impact of the different legal statuses for care planning, especially the sharing of parental responsibility and the role of the court. Within the spread of legal statuses, we also ensured an even spread of ages (using age categories 0-4, 5-12 and 13 plus) and time in care.
Even in the short period of time between the supply of the list and the researchers starting to read the files, there were changes in the legal status of some of the children (and in six cases the list itself was already out of date or inaccurate). The composition of the sample, based on legal status at the time of starting to read each file was: children accommodated under s. 20 of the Children Act, 37, or 30% of the sample; children on interim care orders, 36, 30% of the sample; and children on full care orders, including those with a placement order (or in two cases, a freeing order), 33 + 16, so 49 in all, 40% of the sample. A quarter of the children had been in care for under a year and a quarter had been in care for four years or more. Nine (7%) had been looked after for more than 10 years. 
Using a detailed schedule, researchers gathered data from the electronic case files on matters such as the reasons the children had become looked after, their assessed needs and family circumstances; and their histories from the time they entered care (notably their placements and recorded reasons for any moves, family contact arrangements, health and educational progress, and the evolution of their care plan). There was a special focus on reviews since 2010, studying the minutes and records to obtain data on attendance, children’s participation, venue, matters discussed, detail of the plans and decisions reached. The case file data was analysed with the aid of SPSS. It gives a comprehensive overview of the needs of children, their progress over time, and how their care plans developed.  
Interviews
In order to add depth to this picture, a sub-sample of cases was selected for closer study through interviews with social workers and IROs. The plan was to interview (separately) the social worker and the IRO on half the cases, selected in light of information gleaned from the file analysis to ensure a balanced and informative range of cases and workers. One basic criterion was to avoid having more than two cases held by any individual worker. Nearly all of these interviews took place by telephone. In the event, the social worker and IRO were interviewed on 50 cases. There were a further six cases where either the social worker or the IRO was interviewed, but for reasons such as long-term sickness or staff changes it was not possible to interview the other professional. Interviews focused on getting further information about the child’s circumstances, the evolution of the care plan and the current goals for the child. There were questions about the roles that each professional had played in the care planning and review process for the selected child, what had gone well, any sticking points and how they were dealt with. In particular, the interview focused on the most recent review, in order to capture more detail of the process and the workers’ experiences. There were also wider questions about their understanding of the care planning and review process in general, and the role of the IRO.
In addition there were interviews with a smaller number of parents and young people. These interviews were usually undertaken face-to-face. The interviews focused on their experiences of social work intervention, reviews and the role of the IRO.
It was not required that the young people and parents should come from the same cases as the social workers and IROs, but could come from other cases in the larger sample. In the event, of the 15 parent interviews all but one was from a case where there was also an interview with the social worker and/or IRO. Of the 15 young people who were interviewed, 11 came from cases where there was also an interview with the social worker and/or IRO. There are three cases where there are interviews with the social worker, the IRO, a parent and the young person; and 14 where three of the parties are represented.
It was never intended to interview as many parents and young people as social workers and IROs, for three reasons. First, many of the children are too young to be interviewed, so there was always a smaller ‘pot’ from which to select the young people (the study only sought to interview young people aged 10 or older). Second, the circumstances of the young people and parents might have made it inappropriate to interview them. One aspect of this was that it was decided not to interview parents or children currently involved in care proceedings, because it was important not to risk distracting them from their meetings about the court case. This further reduced the size of the ‘pot’; and there were further cases where there was no contact with the parents, so it was not possible to send them an invitation, or where social workers advised that it would not be suitable to interview the parent/young person because of their personal circumstances and vulnerabilities. Additionally, there were 13 cases where an invitation was sent out via the social worker, but there was no response (nine parents and three young people). 
The third reason is that there is other research about the views of parents and young people, and it was not necessary to duplicate that. For example, researchers from the UEA Centre for Research on Children and Families already have data from interviews with parents of children in long-term foster care (Schofield and Ward 2011, Schofield et al. 2011); and there has been other research about young people’s experiences and views about their reviews (Thomas and O’Kane, 1999; Thomas, 2000, 2014) and about their views of IROs (Children’s Rights Director, 2011a; and from Wales, CCSIW, 2009). 
Information leaflets and consent forms were written for professionals, parents and young people. The design of the young people’s materials was discussed with a group of young people in care, who gave useful suggestions for improvements. Social workers were asked to forward the materials to parents and young people who had been identified for as possible interviewees.  
For children and young people aged between 10 and 15, a letter was also sent to the child’s parent(s), if their address was known, informing them of the study and the intention to ask their child to take part in an interview. Parents were asked to contact the researchers if they objected to their child being interviewed. They were sent a reply form and stamped addressed envelope for return, plus telephone numbers and email details to do so. In two cases, a parent refused permission for their child to be interviewed.  
An interactive, ‘child-friendly’ guide for the interviews with children and young people was devised, drawing on the wide experience in the CRCF of interviewing children and young people. The guide was also discussed with the young people’s group, and piloted with two young people.
All interviews were tape-recorded with the consent of the interviewee, and transcribed. They were analysed using a thematic approach (Boyatzis, 1998), looking for comparisons and contrasts between different individuals and the different groups. Analysis was undertaken with the aid of the NVivo computer programme.
The child and young person interviewees were nine boys and six girls. The youngest was aged 10, and the eldest 17. In three cases, the young person’s foster mother stayed with them for the interview, supporting them and occasionally making comments, which were included in the analysis. 
The 15 parent interviews were 13 mothers, one mother and father together, and one father. One of the mothers was an adoptive mother. Three of the mothers were accompanied by their partners, one of whom played an active part in the interview, and one by her parents, who (at the mother’s invitation) gave further information about the case because of the mother’s impaired memory. 
As described above, the interviews usually took place some time after the case file analysis and often showed further changes in the child’s circumstances and care plan. The study therefore demonstrates the on-going and dynamic nature of care for children and care planning. This is discussed in more detail in Chapter 4, and throughout the report. 
Focus groups
In order to gain a wider range of perspectives about policy and practice in the four local authorities, a multi-agency focus group was held in each area. These were held in Authority A in April 2013; Authority B, May 2013; Authority C, December 2013; and Authority D, February 2014. 
The composition of the group varied from authority to authority, but across all four focus groups a full range of relevant professionals and others was included. Attendees included IROs and IRO managers, looked after children’s social workers and managers, child safeguarding social workers, fostering and adoption social workers and managers, foster carers, staff and managers of children’s residential homes, Cafcass officers and managers, local authority lawyers, looked after children health professionals, CAMHS workers, looked after children advisory teachers. 
The discussions followed the same format, of tracing a child’s ‘journey’ through the care system, to identify the key steps in planning and reviewing, who is involved at the various stages, where and how decisions are made, and how difficulties and disagreements are managed. The discussions were recorded and transcribed, and analysed alongside the one-to-one interviews.
There were also two focus groups with young people. These were held in Areas B and D, in February and March 29014. Attendees were young people currently in care or recent care leavers, recruited through the authorities’ young people in care councils, with help from the workers who co-ordinate and support these councils. Again, the discussions were recorded and transcribed, and analysed alongside the one-to-one interviews.
Questionnaires
In order to gain a further range of perspectives, and to see whether the experiences within the four study authorities were consistent with experiences elsewhere in England, the study also sent out questionnaires for IROs, team managers of local authority looked after children teams, and Cafcass guardians.
The original intention had been to distribute the questionnaire in autumn 2012, before the work in the four local authorities. However, the National Children’s Bureau had sent round their questionnaire for IROs, IRO managers and children’s services directors in summer 2012 (NCB, 2013), so it was decided to postpone the questionnaires for a year. The delay proved beneficial, in that it meant the questionnaires could focus on issues and dilemmas that had come up in the case file analysis and interviews. A particular benefit was that it gave the opportunity to send a questionnaire to Cafcass children’s guardians as well as IROs and LAC team managers, which had not been part of the original plan. This was because of comments about the role of the guardian while cases are in care proceedings, and the role that they play in decision-making for the children and reviewing the local authority’s plans. Furthermore, the topic of links between Cafcass guardians and IROs had become a higher profile national issue over the period 2012-13, as initiatives to reduce the standard duration of care proceedings to 26 weeks came into force. A ‘good practice protocol’ for inter-professional working between children’s guardians and IROs was jointly published by the ADCS and Cafcass in January 2014 (ADCS and Cafcass, 2014).
The questionnaire for LAC team managers was emailed to directors of children’s services, using the contact list on the ADCS website, with a request to cascade it to relevant managers. The questionnaire for IROs was emailed to regional representatives on the national IRO managers group, asking them to cascade it to IROs via other IRO managers in their regions. These questionnaires were sent out and collected in December 2013-January 2014. The questionnaire for children’s guardians was emailed to one of the Cafcass regional managers, who was acting as contact for the study, and via her on to other regional managers, with a request to forward it to relevant staff. The Cafcass questionnaire was sent out and collected in January-March 2014.
The team manager and IRO questionnaires included questions about the professional experience of the respondents, their role in devising and reviewing care plans, inter-professional working and the impact of the IRO, the frequency of disagreements and how they are dealt with, the role of the children’s guardian, general views about the performance of the local authority in looking after children and the effectiveness of the IRO service. They were also asked whether they thought the IRO service ought to be removed from local authorities. There was a combination of questions with yes/no or tick-box answers, and free text boxes for respondents to describe their experiences of working together and views about the IRO service, and about the general performance of the local authority for its looked after children. The questionnaire for children’s guardians was shorter but contained similar questions. The responses to the different questions were analysed in NVivo and SPSS, as appropriate. 
Managers of looked after children teams, IROs and children’s guardians are all extremely busy, and requests to complete research questionnaires will inevitably take a lower priority against more pressing tasks. The researchers extended the deadlines and sent out a number of ‘reminder’ messages in order to increase the number of responses. Although it was hoped for a higher return, the study received back 150 questionnaires in total, and achieved a good coverage of different areas, with at least one answer from 61 different LAs (40% of the LAs around the country). Furthermore, the free text boxes elicited some very thorough and informative answers, so the questionnaires give valuable information which complements and confirms the picture emerging from the four study areas.