Protecting young children at risk of abuse and neglect: a practice response

Andrew Webb, former President of the Association of the Directors of Children’s Services and member of the Governing Board of the Nuffield FJO, responds to our evidence review, Protecting young children at risk of abuse and neglect.

The great thing about an evidence review of this kind is the rare luxury it creates to have a reflective conversation. I read it with the ADCS Safeguarding Pressures report and the terms of reference for the independent review of children’s social care very much in my mind.  

It goes without saying that there is huge value in research findings that can be used to address individual differences and to drive evidence-informed practice, whether it follows up on the long-term impact of adverse childhood experiences or trauma, or builds our capacity to compensate for neuro-biological damage in early life. Even better, if it helps identify strengths and protective factors. But if we don’t create and maintain systems with the capacity to manage complexity and sustain family interventions, there is almost no point in knowing what the damage is because we will never fix it.

So, while I was reflecting on the recurrent question posed in the review: “do we have too much state intervention in family life, or too little?”, I was also wondering whether the findings suggested we should actively be looking to change and improve practice to fit with our legislative and policy framework, or whether our policies are proving too aspirational, and we should scale some of them back to fit with practice reality.

Of course, I am not really advocating a less aspirational approach, but the gaps between least and most effective systems are pretty wide and need to be addressed. With that in mind, my response is concentrated on the challenges identified by the research, grouped across three themes.  Firstly, what does the evidence tell us about the nature of state intervention in family life; secondly, what are the big issues behind the variation in system responses and the apparent disproportionality of action in some cases/places; and finally, what are the implications of the fragmentation and “hollowing out” of services designed to help families that struggle?

The nature of state intervention

What does language tell us about underlying values? I haven’t got time to open the discourse about culture wars here, but for me this has been a wearing 40-year battle. The pejorative terms littered throughout the research and most recently used even in the Public Law Working Group report launched a couple of weeks ago, basically imply that State intervention in family life is a bad thing. Specifically, that being known to children’s services is a marker of failure as a parent. The original welfare state, as enhanced by the Children Act 1989, creates a model designed to support families, to work in partnership with parents to address need. Coincidentally when the Children Act was enacted it was estimated that possibly 17% of the child population might fall into the category of Children in Need, and therefore be eligible for support – precisely the proportion of under-fives  estimated by this review to experience domestic abuse, parental drug use or parental mental ill-health – but rather than invest in targeted adult services the systemic response has been to create a label – “toxic trio” – and use it as a reason to remove children and “police” parenting. How did the shift from welfare state to nanny state occur and how have we let it underpin disinvestment in support to struggling parents and drive-up spending on care (with very mixed impact on outcomes)?

The review shows clearly how an adversarial system and culture of judgement distort services. What we need is a plan to implement the Children Act and normalise help-seeking from children’s services so that being “known” to the service carries no more negative connotation than being known to your GP.

Variation and disproportionality

The work led by Paul Bywaters and Rick Hood in particular has shone a light on some pretty dark places. It could almost be said that the state punishes families for being poor whilst simultaneously contributing to and exacerbating their poverty. But what their work illuminates even more clearly is how much more research is needed into the ways different groups in society, whether defined by ethnicity or poverty (or the interaction of both) are treated. If we assume that services are designed to help rather than punish, the questions this raises for professional practice (in all disciplines) and communication and engagement strategies is enormous. Sadly, this is not exactly breaking news.

The exposure of the impact of varying practice, largely by geography, on the use of statutory versus preventive services is, again, not exactly news, but knowing this has not led to sufficient change. The quality and focus of professional practice and system operation/style of intervention clearly leads to different use of formal intervention that cannot be accounted for by socio-economic variation. This needs much more work to first understand, then fix the variation.

The review raises questions about risk aversion, and there is no doubt that in some places both individual decisions and system focus are driven more by the question “what is the mistake we most want to avoid” then by asking “what good can we do here”. The way this feeds into what could best be described as “unwarranted variation in outcomes” is complex, and although it doesn’t get a mention, Ofsted has a part to acknowledge here. Most systems respond to adverse inspection outcomes by developing a “compliance culture”, they also tend to struggle to recruit and retain good staff. Working with complex family dynamics, trying to address the relative benefits of acting or not acting with only a foggy crystal ball at your disposal is not helped by an obsession with complying with processes designed to satisfy inspection criteria rather than holistically meet need.

Rick Hood’s analysis has started to disentangle how the institutional context, organisational structure, and wider contextual factors contribute to inequalities in provision across the system, and while the causes remain unclear, it is definitely going to be more productive in bringing about change if we view them as being linked to the way the system works, rather than being the result of human error or bad practice.

Fragmentation and hollowing out of services

There is no strong evidence to support causation in respect of the impact of the austerity years and the closure of family support services on the number of children under five becoming looked after. But the correlation is pretty strong, as is the link with the much larger Government cuts to funding local authorities with the highest levels of deprivation and need and the subsequent diversion of both budget (and unavoidable) overspend away from preventive services to care and other statutory services.

There is a growing body of evidence outside the Nuffield Foundation’s remit which demonstrates the effectiveness of an integrated, interdisciplinary system that take services to families that are struggling (as opposed to expecting the least well organised families in our communities to know which of the services on offer from the various separate agencies would best help them), particularly for younger children. And then there is the Family Nurse Partnership, hanging on by its fingertips. But the review details the hollowing out of the system, which leads to pathways between services being controlled by thresholds and services that seek to protect themselves against being overwhelmed. Our compliance culture actively celebrates the extent to which professionals in different agencies understand and work to the barriers they and their colleagues have created to control workflow: it effectively gives additional brownie points to systems that are designed to hand-off a struggling family from one agency to another.

Overall, the review explores a lot of good research which answers some questions for policy and practice, but which asks many more.

Andrew’s response was given at a webinar hosted by the Nuffield Foundation on 23 March 2021.

Watch our webinar


About the author


Andrew Webb is a former President of the Association of the Directors of Children’s Services and member of the Governing Board of the Nuffield FJO.

Explore our projects

New

Welfare | 2024 - 2027

Gypsy, Roma, Traveller Youth: mitigating exclusions using the digital?

View project
A young child splashing in a puddle next to his guardian and sister.
New

Justice | 2024 - 2026

Special guardianship families: experiences and support needs

View project
New

Justice | 2024 - 2024

Crossing Boundaries: Co-designing support for vulnerable young people

View project
Young girl using an iPad at home
New

Education | 2024 - 2024

Early years digital media literacy review

View project
New

Welfare | 2024 - 2027

Performance Tracker 

View project
Mother wearing hijab holding her toddler son on her knee, smiling at each other
New

Welfare | 2024 - 2025

Afghan resettlement in England: outcomes and experiences 

View project
New

Education | 2024 - 2026

A feasibility and pilot trial of the Early Years Library

View project
A woman is sat on the edge of a bed staring at her phone while her daughter is in the background.
In progress

Welfare | 2023 - 2025

Virtual parent support portals: a new research and practice agenda

View project
Man holds girl's hand as he walks her to primary school

Justice | 2023 - 2025

Improving safeguarding outcomes after adoption or special guardianship

View project
Elderly woman and adult daughter out shopping
In progress

Welfare | 2023 - 2026

Connecting pensions, health and care

View project
Little boy at home looking pensive, playing a game on a smartphone

Justice | 2023 - 2025

Linking household benefits, financial precarity and child welfare

View project
Happy mother and happy baby boy at home playing on the sof

Education | 2023 - 2025

Investigating the origins of the ‘achievement gap’

View project
A young child splashing in a puddle next to his guardian and sister.
New

Justice | 2024 - 2026

Special guardianship families: experiences and support needs

View project
Young girl using an iPad at home
New

Education | 2024 - 2024

Early years digital media literacy review

View project
New

Justice | 2024 - 2024

Crossing Boundaries: Co-designing support for vulnerable young people

View project
New

Welfare | 2024 - 2027

Gypsy, Roma, Traveller Youth: mitigating exclusions using the digital?

View project
New

Education | 2024 - 2026

A feasibility and pilot trial of the Early Years Library

View project
New

Welfare | 2024 - 2027

Performance Tracker 

View project
Mother wearing hijab holding her toddler son on her knee, smiling at each other
New

Welfare | 2024 - 2025

Afghan resettlement in England: outcomes and experiences 

View project
A woman is sat on the edge of a bed staring at her phone while her daughter is in the background.
In progress

Welfare | 2023 - 2025

Virtual parent support portals: a new research and practice agenda

View project
Happy mother and happy baby boy at home playing on the sof

Education | 2023 - 2025

Investigating the origins of the ‘achievement gap’

View project
Man holds girl's hand as he walks her to primary school

Justice | 2023 - 2025

Improving safeguarding outcomes after adoption or special guardianship

View project
Mother and small child on a bus looking out of the window together and playing a game naming the things they see

Justice | 2023 - 2026

Parental Advocacy in England: a realist evaluation of implementation

View project
Little boy at home looking pensive, playing a game on a smartphone

Justice | 2023 - 2025

Linking household benefits, financial precarity and child welfare

View project
A woman is sat on the edge of a bed staring at her phone while her daughter is in the background.
In progress

Welfare | 2023 - 2025

Virtual parent support portals: a new research and practice agenda

View project
Two little boys and a little girl, all wearing primary school uniform, work together to solve a puzzle in their classroom.
In progress

Education | 2023 - 2025

What has ‘Free School Meals’ measured and what are the implications?

View project
Teenager hugging their mother
In progress

Welfare | 2023 - 2026

The long-term effects of being a young carer

View project
Elderly woman and adult daughter out shopping
In progress

Welfare | 2023 - 2026

Connecting pensions, health and care

View project
Early years professionals playing with children
In progress

Education | 2022 - 2024

Understanding the take-up of early education entitlements

View project
Mother, father, son and daughter standing in front of their house
In progress

Welfare | 2023 - 2025

A regional regeneration index to track socioeconomic ‘Levelling Up’

View project
A primary school boy and his classmates raise their hands in a lesson
In progress

Education | 2022 - 2024

Raising educational outcomes for pupils with SEN and disabilities

View project
Older people drinking tea at a meeting at a community centre
In progress

Welfare | 2022 - 2024

Using administrative data to understand community well-being

View project
A group of primary school children looking happy as they run out into the playground
In progress

Welfare | 2022 - 2025

Beyond school gates: children’s contribution to community integration

View project
Two children walk ahead of two adults, one pushing a pram
In progress

Justice | 2022 - 2024

Voluntary care plans for children in Scotland: using Section 25 orders

View project
Aerial view of pedestrians on city street
In progress

Welfare | 2022 - 2026

IFS Green Budget 2022 – 2025

View project
Group of three babies playing with coloured bricks.
In progress

Education | 2022 - 2025

A modelling and feasibility study of a Positive Early Childhood Education (PECE)

View project
A young child splashing in a puddle next to his guardian and sister.
New

Justice | 2024 - 2026

Special guardianship families: experiences and support needs

View project
Young girl using an iPad at home
New

Education | 2024 - 2024

Early years digital media literacy review

View project
New

Justice | 2024 - 2024

Crossing Boundaries: Co-designing support for vulnerable young people

View project
New

Welfare | 2024 - 2027

Gypsy, Roma, Traveller Youth: mitigating exclusions using the digital?

View project
New

Education | 2024 - 2026

A feasibility and pilot trial of the Early Years Library

View project
New

Welfare | 2024 - 2027

Performance Tracker 

View project
Mother wearing hijab holding her toddler son on her knee, smiling at each other
New

Welfare | 2024 - 2025

Afghan resettlement in England: outcomes and experiences 

View project
Reported

Justice | 2019 - 2023

Born into care: best practice guidelines

View project
Reception class children using a parachute in a PE lesson
Reported

Education | 2022 - 2023

A movement and story-telling intervention for reception children

View project
Grandparents having fun outdoors with their granddaughter, who is eating an apple and laughing: Understanding family and community vulnerabilities in transition to net zero
Reported

Welfare | 2021 - 2023

Understanding family and community vulnerabilities in transition to net zero

View project
Father and son using laptop at home
Reported

Welfare | 2021 - 2024

Developing a minimum digital living standard for households with children

View project
Siblings play ball in a playground - Siblings Contact and the Law
Reported

Justice | 2020 - 2021

Guidance to judges on the anonymisation of children judgements

View project
Close up of a young girl and her father wearing protective face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic outside.
Reported

Welfare | 2021 - 2023

The Economy 2030 Inquiry: navigating a decade of change

View project
Young boy draws and plays with a globe as part of nursery education
Reported

Education | 2020 - 2022

COVID-19 and childcare: local impacts across England

View project
Reported

Justice | 2020 - 2022

When is a wedding not a marriage? Exploring non-legally binding ceremonies

View project
Young-boy-uses-tablet-with-mother-for-maths-learning-Can-maths-apps-add-value-to-learning-PROJ
Reported

Education | 2020 - 2022

Can maths apps add value to learning?

View project
Teenage-girl-looks-at-smartphone-next-to-laptop-Growing-up-under-COVID-19-PROJ
Reported

Education | Welfare | 2020 - 2022

Growing up under COVID-19

View project
Mother carrying daughter outside their home
Reported

Welfare | 2020 - 2022

COVID realities: families on low incomes during the pandemic

View project
Young-child-blurred-in-background-plays-with-abacus-in-foreground-Early-years-employment-pathways-PROJ
Reported

Education | 2019 - 2020

A systematic review of early years degrees and employment pathways

View project
Search projects

We improve people’s lives by funding research that informs social policy, primarily in Education, Welfare and Justice. We also fund student programmes that give young people skills and confidence in science and research.

We offer our grant-holders the freedom to frame questions and enable new thinking. Our research must stand up to rigorous academic scrutiny, but we understand that to be successful in effecting change, it also needs to be relevant to people’s experience.

Profile