From National Research to Local Practice Example of How a Small Scale Project Informed the Use of Re

1
From National Research to Local PracticeExample
of How a Small Scale Project Informed the Use of
Research in Practice

• Dr FA Watson
• Previous Child Protection Coordinator, Bracknell
  Forest Borough Council
• Current Research Officer, Cafcass
• Contact flo.watson_at_cafcass.gov.uk

2
Bracknell Forest Borough Council

• Small urban unitary authority
• Approximately 40-45 children on the register per
  month
• Children with protection plans constitute a
  minority of children receiving a service from
  Childrens Social Care each month
• Significant proportion of children receive a
  service through Sec 17 support for children in
  need
• Approximately 1 in 4 referrals lead to a Sec 47
  investigation the rest are dealt with under Sec
  17 Children Act 1989
• Bracknell has a relatively white local
  population with relatively small proportion of
  residents from visible ethnic minority
  backgrounds

3
Purposes of the Research

• To inform service development
• CSCI identified that high-performing councils
  that tangibly improve childrens life-chances
  have (amongst other characteristics) performance
  management systems that track children and their
  outcomes CSCI (2007) Childrens Services CSCI
  Findings 2004-2007, London Commission for Social
  Care Inspection
• This research would help inform the development
  of this kind of quality assurance information
  system

4
Context of the Research

• Protection plans are a mechanism intended to help
  ensure children are protected
• Directly related to the staying safe outcome
  under the Every Child Matters agenda.
• No delay principle runs through the Children
  Act 1989 which provides a legal context for
  services
• Expectation that delay is minimised (e.g. local
  government performance indicators)
• Bracknell LSCB already monitored how long
  children remain on the register
• Some children were deregistered relatively
  quickly while others remained on the register for
  considerably longer

5
Context of Research (continued)

• Protection plans are intended to be outcome
  focused (ICS exemplars)
• Outcomes are intended to be measurable and as
  objective as possible
• Childrens wishes and feelings need to be
  considered in developing plans
•  Childrens Rights Human Rights
• Legal framework enshrines the principle that a
  child should live with his/her family wherever
  possible
• Previous research indicating children want to
  remain with their family, do not want their
  family to break up but want their parents to
  receive the help they need to be good parents and
  want the abuse/neglect to stop.

6
Previous Relevant Research

• Previous national research has identified risk
  factors associated with child deaths or serious
  injuries to children
• Peter Reder and Sylvia Duncan (1999) Lost
  Innocents, Routledge
• CSCI (2006) Supporting Parents, Safeguarding
  Children Meeting the Needs of Parents with
  Children on the Child Protection Register,
  Commission for Social Care Inspection, February.
• Subsequently
• Brandon, M Belderson, P Warren, C Howe, D
  Gardner, R Dodsworth, J Black, J (2008)
  Analysing Child Deaths and Serious Injury through
  Abuse and Neglect What can we learn? London
  Dept for Children, Schools and Families

7
Risk Vulnerability Outcomes

• Previous national research has identified some
  factors related to the childs characteristics
  (e.g. disabled children) some risk factors were
  related to parents characteristics (e.g.
  parental ill-health)
• Consider/place the messages from national
  research within the local context

8
General Research Questions

• Can identified risk factors1 assist workers to
  predict outcomes of cases2, assist in
  decision-making for cases and thus avoid delay
  for the child in making positive and effective
  change?
• Are outcomes of cases related to the numbers of
  risk factors in a given case?  
• Are the numbers of risk factors in a given case
  associated with length of registration?
• 1Identified risk factors involving parental
  characteristics only risk factors related to
  child characteristics or family/environmental
  factors not included within the parameters of
  this research project
• 2Outcomes defined in relation to whether the
  child was/was not living with family (and which
  family members) at the point of deregistration.

9
Parental Risk Factors

• Dynamic Factors
•   Domestic Violence
•   Parental Substance Misuse
•   Parental Mental Health Problems
•   Parental Other Health (e.g. cancer,
  disabilities)
• Static Factors
•   Parenting concerns when the parents were
  themselves children
•   History of the parent having been in care

10
Outcomes

• Remaining in the same family
• Remain in a reconstituted family
• Move to other family
• Removal from family to care
• Moved to other local authority/registration
  continued (same family)
• Moved to other local authority/registration
  continued (reconstituted family)

11
Hypotheses (One)

• Higher numbers of parental risk factors will be
  associated with greater probability of outcomes
  involving either care or moving to another family
• Lower numbers of parental risk factors will be
  associated with greater probability of outcomes
  involving remaining in the same family or a
  reconstituted family

12
Hypotheses (Two)

• Higher numbers of parental risk factors will be
  associated with longer periods of registration
  (i.e. over 15 months)
• Lower numbers of parental risk factors will be
  associated with shorter periods of registration
  (i.e. 15 months or less)
• Exception
• Where high numbers of parental risk factors exist
  and a precipitating event leads to removal from
  the home (either care or living with other
  family) deregistration could take place
  relatively quickly.

13
Data Gathered

• Case information about children
• Data already readily available through the
  electronic and paper records held for each child
  by Childrens Social Care
• No new data gathered (e.g. no questionnaires or
  interviews of practitioners or children or
  parents)
• Information available up to the point of
  deregistration for each child (i.e. information
  obtained after that point not included within the
  research project)

14
Research Sample

• All children on Bracknell Forest Borough
  Councils child protection register at some point
  between 01 April 2005 and 31 March 2006 (i.e. one
  budget year) 90 children in total
• Some children registered prior to April 2005
  (e.g. 2003 or 2004) (e.g. earliest date within
  July 2003)
• Some children only just registered in March
  2006 and were on the register in 2007/2008
  budget year (e.g. latest date within December
  2007)
• Two children subject to serious case reviews
  (related to issues prior to registration
  fabricated illness)
• Note children receiving a service who were not
  on the register were not included in this
  research (e.g. disabled children receiving
  support under Sec 17 Children Act, children in
  care, care leavers)

15
Basic Information

• Sex
• 52 (58) Female
• 38 (42) Male
• Ethnicity
• 76 (84) White
• 14 (16) Black/Asian/Dual

16
Basic Information (continued)

• Categories of Registration
•  
• 29 (32) Neglect
• 40 (44) Emotional
• 16 (18) Physical
• 5 (6) Sexual
• Age (at point of registration)
•  
• 68 (76) Age 10 or under
• 22 (24) Age 11 or under

17
Identified Risk Factors per Child
18
Identified Risk Factors per Child
19
Outcomes of Registration by Child
20
Did they remain in their families?

• Same family 21 25.6
• Reconstituted family 18 21.9
• Other Family 19 23.2
• Removed to LA care 24 29.3
• Total ex moved to OLA 82 100.0
• Clear majority remain somewhere within their
  family network70.7
• Majority have to move families (other family
  care categories combined) 52.5
• Significant proportion of families needed to make
  significant changes in family structures for
  children to remain within network (reconstituted
  other family combined) 45.1

21
Did the numbers of risk factors influence
whether the child remained in the family?

• Two or fewer risk factors Total 36 (excluding
  children who moved to OLA)
• Same family 13 36.1
• Reconstituted 8 22.2
• Other family 6 16.6
• LA care 9 25.0
• Three or more risk factors Total 46
  (excluding children who moved to OLA)
• Same family 8 17.4
• Reconstituted 10 21.7
• Other family 12 26.1
• LA care 16 34.8

22
Did the numbers of risk factors influence the
length of registration?

• Two or fewer risk factors Total 36
  (excluding children who moved to OLA)
• Up to 9 months 20 55.5
• 9 to 15 months 4 11.1
• Over 15 months 12 33.3
• Three or more factors Total 46 (excluding
  children who moved to OLA)
• Up to 9 months 15 32.6
• 9 15 months 7 15.2
• Over 15 months 24 52.2

23
Implications for Direct Practice

• Are social workers clear with families from the
  outset of work about the how high a proportion of
  families make changes in structure/living
  arrangements?
• Are social workers clear with families from the
  outset of work about the numbers of problems
  identified and about the link between numbers and
  outcomes of where children live (i.e. do they
  present families with a realistic picture of what
  might happen)?
• Are social workers clear with families about the
  length of time it takes to address problems?

24
Strategic Uses (part one)

• Better awareness of significance of domestic
  abuse problems leading to
• closer collaboration with Domestic Violence
  Forum and development of programmes to address
  gaps in local provision (e.g. perpetrators
  programme, victims support group)
• guidance about assessment/thresholds within LSCB
  child protection procedures
• multi-agency domestic violence awareness
  training
• resources for schools (PSHE curriculum)

25
Strategic Uses (continued)

• Changes to the routine monitoring by the LSCB of
  children with protection plans
• Inform the work of the LSCB QA and Audit Group in
  developing a set of monitoring/data requirements
  for partner agencies
• Better awareness of the complexity of
  inter-related problems of families where children
  are at risk of significant harm
• Awareness the data from this project led to wider
  questions about what differences/similarities
  existed between children receiving support
  services (i.e. no child protection plan).

26
Strategic Uses (continued)

• Childrens Services information systems can be
  used to gather/analyse data routinely which
  assists strategic planning and the development of
  more effective practice
• There is a role for researchers to work closely
  with LSCBs and local authorities in developing
  information systems and processes so they yield
  analysable information that supports practice
  development