Children whose parents are referred to family drug and alcohol courts (FDACs) are more likely to be reunified with their families than those involved in standard care proceedings, research has found.

Parents involved in FDACs are also more likely to have stopped using drugs or alcohol by the end of their cases than those in standard proceedings.

But study limitations mean these positive effects cannot be attributed entirely to FDACs, so further research is needed to evaluate whether the courts cause improved outcomes, said evidence body Foundations (formerly What Works for Children’s Social Care).

It commissioned National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) to carry out the study, as part of the Department for Education’s (DfE) Supporting Families: Investing in Practice programme, which is designed to identify effective interventions for keeping families together.

Promising evidence for FDACs

The research was designed to build on promising existing evidence about the impact of FDACs, an alternative to standard care proceedings in substance misuse cases, geared towards keeping children with their families, where possible.

Under the model, multidisciplinary teams work with parents to help them tackle their alcohol or drug misuse, including through key worker support, individual or group therapy and referral to other services.

At the same time, specially trained judges undertake fortnightly sessions with parents – in the absence of lawyers – to oversee progress and foster positive working relationships between families, the judiciary and FDAC practitioners.

Since first being piloted in London from 2008-12, the number of FDAC teams has grown to 15, covering 36 local authority areas in England and Wales.

Randomised controlled trial model rejected

This study was originally designed to be a randomised controlled trial (RCT), which would have involved families being randomly assigned to an intervention group receiving an FDAC and a control group who did not, with the two groups having similar characteristics overall.

However, while this would have helped identify whether FDACs caused improved outcomes, an RCT was rejected on the grounds of legal obstacles, such as families in the control group appealing the outcome of the case or the assignment process.

Instead, researchers chose a model – known as a quasi-experimental design (QED) – in which families referred to FDACs in 13 areas were compared with families involved in standard care proceedings, where parental substance misuse was the key issue, in nine local authorities.

All but one of the latter councils were covered by FDAC sites and researchers sought to ensure that families in the two groups had broadly similar characteristics, in the data they analysed.

Better outcomes from FDACs

On the two key outcomes analysed, the study found that:

• Over half of children with a primary carer in FDAC care proceedings (52%) were reunified with this carer at the end of proceedings; the figure for children in the comparison group was one in eight (12.5%).
• A third of FDAC parents had stopped misusing drugs or alcohol by the end of the case (33.6%) compared with 8.1% of parents in the comparison group.

Interviews with 40 practitioners and parents involved with FDACs also highlighted three key perceived benefits with them compared with standard care proceedings:

• They were a more supportive process for parents, allowing them to demonstrate their ability to meet their child’s needs, rather than feeling punitive.
• They led to better outcomes including reductions in substance use, higher rates of reunification, increased insight and parenting skills and lower rates of contested cases.
• They achieved long-term cost savings despite the upfront investment required to provide intensive support and supervision to parents.

Study caveats

However, the study report warned that the positive results needed to be treated with caution because there was a high risk that the differences in outcomes were being driven by differences between the FDAC families and those in the comparison group.

Researchers lacked data on key characteristics that may have influenced outcomes – such as parents’ mental health diagnoses, the severity of their substance use and their motivations to stop misuse.

And, in their final analysis, the study team had to exclude a number of families in order to match the FDAC and control group samples as far as possible, which the report said “limited the generalisability of [the findings]”.

Foundations chief executive Jo Casebourne said this meant “unable to draw firm conclusions about the impact of FDAC based on this study” and that a “more robust comparison” was required, involving either a randomised controlled trial or a quasi-experimental design with better data.

Findings ‘a testament to practitioners’ hard work’

Despite the caveats, the research was welcomed by the Association of Directors of Children’s Services (ADCS) and the Centre for Justice Innovation, which provides national leadership and support for FDACs.

Its director, Phil Bowen, said the findings were “a testament to the hard work and diligence of the judges and professionals” within FDACs across England and Wales.

“These positive findings build on a strong evidence base, reinforcing the message that if we expand the number of FDACs across the country, we will improve the life chances of hundreds of children and parents across our country.”

ADCS president John Pearce said FDACs were an example of the value of problem-solving approaches in helping keep children with their families, where this was in their best interests.

However, he said that “the piecemeal nature of new funding has meant the benefits have been limited to a small number of local authorities”.

“ADCS would welcome a shift in approach so that all local authorities were resourced to explore new ways of working and where there is evidence of what works, all were resourced to implement such models,” Pearce added.

David Westlake’s July 2023 article for Community Care argued for more randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in social work research and the merits of the recently published RCT on family group conferences (FGC RCT).

As one of the academics who opposed the FGC RCT – commissioned by What Works for Children’s Social Care (now Foundations) and designed and carried out by Coram – I want to explore some of the concerns I, and others, hold about its conduct.

Academics’ opposition to the FGC RCT was not an absolute objection to the use of RCTs in social work research.

RCTs may be largely uncontroversial in some contexts and the ethical issues involved in one which, say, evaluates a training course are different to those concerning a trial that denies a family an FGC when their children are on the edge of care.

They need to be explored on a case-by-case basis.

Objections to randomly allocating families a service

Our objections to the FGC RCT centred on the point at which, and the manner in which, families were randomised into an ‘intervention group’ offered an FGC and a ‘control group’ who were not.

The randomisation occurred when families were referred to pre-proceedings under the Public Law Outline (PLO), meaning there was a good chance the local authority would subsequently apply to court to place their children outside of parental care.

The randomisation also occurred without families’ knowledge and consent.

Those in the ‘control group’ were denied the chance of choosing an FGC at this critical moment in their family’s life and were not routinely informed that other families in similar situations in their local authority were being offered an FGC.

Other viable research designs available

There were other viable research designs for the study, instead of randomisation.

These included comparing data for families before or after the FGC service was set up, and during the period when the service was running; or, comparing data between families who chose to have an FGC and those who did not.

Crucially, these alternatives would have preserved families’ ability to choose an FGC when that service was available within their local authority. It would also have meant evaluators could be transparent with families about the study’s design.

Study design ‘contrary to social work principles’

The way this RCT was undertaken conflicted with the International Federation of Social Workers’ Global Social Work Statement of Ethical Principles.

This stipulates that social workers should support the self-determination, and the participation, of those with whom they work, wherever possible.

It also conflicted with Social Work England’s professional standards, which state that social workers should:

• respect and promote the human rights, views, wishes and feelings of the people they work with, balancing rights and risks and enabling access to advice, advocacy, support and services (standard 1.2); and
• work in partnership with people to promote their well-being and achieve best outcomes, recognising them as experts in their own lives (1.3).

Some researchers may argue they are not bound by social work ethical codes.

However, it is not obvious why it should be acceptable for researchers to design a study of families receiving a social work service in a way that would be considered unethical if applied in everyday social work practice.

Doing to – not with – families

Notably, the FGC RCT study protocol stated that if a court decreed that a family in the ‘control group’ should receive an FGC, then the local authority should respect this judgment and offer one.

The study’s randomisation process could therefore be broken on the say of a judge, but not at the direct request of the family whose lives were involved. Far from ‘nothing about us without us’, this was ‘everything about you without you’.

Foundations has failed to recognise the irony in it proclaiming the FGC RCT as a ‘landmark study’, which provides validation of the value of ‘working with families’, when the study itself ‘did to’ families.

Why should such a disjuncture between the methods used to research families, and the methods advocated for practising with them be deemed acceptable? The ethical concerns I describe mean that for some of us, the study will continue to constitute a low mark, not a landmark.

Robin Sen is a lecturer in social work at the University of Edinburgh and co-editor of a recent book collection, The Future of Children’s Care, Critical Perspectives on Children’s Services Reform

By David Westlake, Cardiff University

Two of the largest randomised controlled trials (RCTs) ever conducted in social work have been published recently by Foundations*.

Last month, Sarah Taylor and her team from Coram reported that children whose families were referred for family group conferences (FGCs) were significantly less likely to be in care 12 months after entering pre-proceedings than those whose families were not so referred.

Earlier this year, my colleagues and I found that a scheme placing social workers in schools did not make any difference to the child protection and care outcomes we assessed, such as the likelihood of a section 47 investigation.

Policy impact of research

Whereas policymakers are not investing in social workers in schools, there is now a stronger case for rolling out FGCs for families in pre-proceedings.

If nothing else, these studies put to bed the idea that RCTs are practically, financially, or ethically impossible in children’s services.

Both these studies weathered the storm of the pandemic, stuck closely to their original plans and collected enough data to present strong conclusions. Neither cost more than one would anticipate for studies of their size, and both were well within the standard rule of thumb for evaluation costing (5-10% of the budget for the intervention).

Ethical objections to randomised controlled trial

Photo: tumsasedgars/Adobe Stock

In relation to ethics, some academics opposed the FGC project’s design, raising  objections that have been mounted throughout the history of social work RCTs.

The central critique against randomising families to receive either an FGC or a normal case conference was that proponents believed families had a right to an FGC.

Realising that right was an end in itself, and withholding it from some families through randomisation, in order to test effectiveness, was wrong.

The study has received a broadly positive reception since its findings were published, and it is now likely FGCs will be offered to more families than ever before in a wider roll-out.

That said, some commentators are still concerned about the idea of basing access to this service on the grounds of efficacy and cost-effectiveness rather than rights.

I’d like to think part of the reason for the generally positive reception is that Taylor and colleagues showed it is possible to conduct such a trial ethically. The study meant more families, not fewer, had access to an FGC as a result of the project, and many spoke to the researchers about their views and experiences.

Indeed, both these recent RCTs used qualitative methods to give a rounded picture not just of whether it was a success but also how and why. Those who participated in interviews and focus groups would not have had the same opportunity to give their views and shape our understanding of the interventions had the studies not taken place.

Of course, evidence about how effective something is should never be the only thing that determines whether or not we do it.

The inclusion of qualitative and theory-based analysis is important because some interventions – such as problem solving courts, and indeed FGCs – are as much about being procedurally fair as they are about outcomes.

Need to test outcomes

Photo: Artur/Adobe Stock

But even these approaches make claims about outcomes that we should test.

Sometimes these claims are extraordinary – such as the suggestion of effect sizes for FGCs that are several times greater than what Taylor and colleagues found.

Their RCT gives us more precision about effects that can be weighed up against any moral justifications for using that approach.

And, if – contrary to expectations – these interventions are detrimental, or detrimental to some groups, then that also needs to be part of the equation.

Earlier research on FGCs, for instance, found some (albeit limited) evidence that minoritised groups may have worse outcomes as a result of the intervention.

Even the strongest proponents of FGCs would surely accept that a large enough effect in that direction would make it unjustifiable. And without studies like the recent trial, we would be blind to it.

Rights versus outcomes ‘a false choice’

False choices between rights and outcomes create an unhelpful parody of what an RCT in social work can be.

Outcomes are complex but so are rights, especially when the rights of parents and those of children are in tension. On its own, a rights perspective is not usually enough of a basis for overhauling services.

Rather than relegating outcomes in the name of rights, we need a more balanced and well-informed appreciation of the evidence to make decisions about how to help children and families. RCTs like these can make a valuable contribution.

David Westlake is senior research fellow at the Cardiff University’s Children’s Social Care Research and Development Centre (CASCADE) 

*Formerly What Works for Children’s Social Care

Over 2,000 children per year in England could avoid care through the rollout of family group conferences (FGC), research has found.

Providing all families with an FGC before they enter care proceedings could also save over £150m a year, said evidence body Foundations*, after releasing findings of a study it commissioned into the impact of conferences.

Children whose families were referred for an FGC before care proceedings began were significantly less likely to be in care twelve months after entering pre-proceedings than those whose families were not so referred, found the study.

FGCs are facilitated, family-led meetings of relatives, friends and professionals involved with a child at risk that are designed to produce a plan to keep the child safe.

Largest trial of FGCs

The 21-month evaluation, carried out by the children’s charity Coram, was the first in the UK to use a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test the impact of FGCs, and the largest such trial in the world, covering 2,548 children from 1,471 families across 21 councils.

The study ran from September 2020 to May 2022 and was funded through the Department for Education’s supporting families: investing in practice programme, which is designed to test promising interventions in children’s social care.

RCTs are considered the gold standard method for testing the impact of an intervention and involve comparing outcomes between a group receiving the intervention and an otherwise similar control group that does not.

The study evaluated the impact of FGCs at the pre-proceedings stage, when local authorities inform families that proceedings to take their children into care will follow unless they take specific steps to address assessed risks to children.

The 21 councils – none of whom were previously offering FGCs at pre-proceedings – randomly allocated half of families to receive an FGC (the intervention group), plus their usual services, and the other half just to receive usual services.

Fewer children entering care after FGC

The primary outcome studied was the care status of children 12 months after the relevant council issued the pre-proceedings letter, for which Coram’s research team had data for 643 children in the intervention group and 584 in the control group by the end of the study.

The two groups were similar aside from the fact that mothers in the control group were significantly more likely to have had a child taken into care previously.

Among those in the intervention group, 34.7% had gone into care within 12 months of the FGC, compared to 46.6% children in the control group. After researchers adjusted for the different care histories in the two groups, they calculated that 36.6% of those in the intervention group were in care after 12 months, compared with 44.8% of the control group.

This was a statistically significant difference which meant that those in the latter category were 1.24 times as likely to be looked after than their counterparts.

Children in the FGC group were also significantly less likely to face care proceedings, with 59% doing so 12 months after the pre-proceedings letter, compared with 72% in the control group, after adjustment for baseline differences.

Those whose families received an FGC were also likely to have spent significantly less time in care than those in the control six months after the pre-proceedings letter was issued, an average of 10 fewer days after adjustment.

However, this effect was not significant 12 months after the pre-proceedings letter, and there were no significant effects in relation to any of these three outcomes after 18 months. Researchers said this was likely to be because of the relatively low available sample size.

Savings from conferences

Based on the results, Foundations estimated that 2,293 fewer children would go into care in England annually were FGCs to be rolled out nationally at the pre-proceedings stage. In 2021-22, 31,010 children started to be looked after in England.

The study calculated that the FGCs delivered through the programme cost £5,242 per child per year, a figure inflated by the inclusion of set-up costs and the impact of Covid-19, which disrupted the delivery of conferences.

Nevertheless, this was more than outweighed by the calculated saving of £6,202, from the reduction in those going into care, meaning a net saving of £960 per child per year.

The study builds on previous evaluations showing promising evidence for FGCs, including of Leeds council’s family valued programme and charity Daybreak’s service for children on the edge of care, delivered in Southwark and Wiltshire.

Call for councils to adopt FGCs at pre-proceedings

However, neither of these studies involved an RCT, which Foundations said were “more able than other designs to attribute the differences they find to the programme or service evaluated”.

“Every effort must be made to enable vulnerable children to live safely within their family network before considering care proceedings,” said Foundations chief executive Dr Jo Casebourne.

“We now have evidence that family group conferences, which empower families and children, have a higher success rate of keeping families together than going straight to care proceedings does.

DfE statutory guidance on pre-proceedings states that councils should involve wider family members in decision making where there are child protection concerns, and consider referral to an FGC unless this would be a risk to the child.

However, this too often did not happen at all or took place too late in the process, when taking the child into care was becoming the only option, found the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care in its final report last year.

Casebourne, whose organisation is chaired by care review lead Josh MacAlister, added: “We encourage all local authorities throughout England to act on this high quality evidence that FGCs work to implement FGCs earlier.”

Children’s social care reform plans

However, Foundations stressed that the study only provided evidence for the use of FGCs at pre-proceedings, and recommended further evaluation of its potential impact at other – particularly earlier – stages.

The DfE plans to test the impact of family group decision making – a more general concept than FGCs – at an earlier stage of a child’s involvement with social care as part of its children’s social care reform programme.

This will primarily be through the up to 12 families first for children pathfinders, which will test its proposed new model of family help and child protection, starting later this year.

Following the Foundations report, the Association of Directors of Children’s Services (ADCS) said it welcomed the wider use of family group decision making, with most councils already using it to some extent.

‘Mounting body of evidence’ for FGCs

However, families, communities and young people policy committee chair Helen Lincoln warned that it was “challenging doing so in the context of increasing demand and long-term funding pressures”.

Charity the Family Rights Group, which provides training and consultancy to councils on FGCs, said the Foundations report added to the “mounting body of evidence” that conferences enabled children to “live safely and thrive within their families”.

Chife executive Cathy Ashley added: “At a time when there is a record number of children in care, it is now beyond doubt that all families should be offered a family group conference before their child is taken into care. These findings confirm that government should adopt this approach nationwide rather than the limited system of pathfinders currently being pursued.”

*Foundations has been formed from the merger of What Works for Children’s Social Care and the Early Intervention Foundation

“Little is known” about which social work practice models work best amid “huge variation” in approaches across England’s 153 local authorities.

That was among the messages from Foundations, the new evidence body created from the merger of What Works for Children Social Care (WWCSC) and the Early Intervention Foundation (EIF), which formally started work yesterday.

Evaluating the effectiveness of service and practice models was among five priorities set by Foundations for its work over the next five years, which it said would be dedicated to ensuring “vulnerable children have the foundational relationships they need to thrive in life”.

Assessing practice models

The organisation said it would “run high-quality evaluations of multi-agency and multi-disciplinary services to understand what should be promoted and scaled up”.

This will include continuing WWCSC’s evaluations of the family safeguarding model, pioneered by Hertfordshire Council, family valued, initiated by Leeds, and No Wrong Door, created by North Yorkshire council, with findings due in 2026-27.

All three models were positively appraised by the Department for Education’s innovation programme as safely reducing the number of children entering care, leading the DfE to support their wider rollout, and further evaluation, across 17 councils.

Strengthening the evidence base

While the innovation programme appraisals of the three models were positive, NWD and family valued were only evaluated in relation to their council of origin, and at a relatively early stage of their development.

Family safeguarding had been in place for longer and was studied in relation to five councils, however, there was no control group against which to compare outcomes in the innovation programme study.

By contrast, the WWCSC evaluations being taken forward by Foundations are using a form of randomised controlled trial (RCT) – considered the gold standard for testing the impact of an intervention. Under this approach, authorities have been given different start dates for implementation, with children and families in councils yet to implement acting as control groups for those that already have done so.

WWCSC also took part in a DfE-commissioned evaluation of the strengths-based Signs of Safety model, published in 2021, when the approach was used in some form by two-thirds of English councils. This found “little evidence” that the model lead to better social work practice or reduced risks to children.

Lack of evidence on domestic abuse

Tackling “major weaknesses” in the evidence base for supporting children and families affected by domestic abuse is another of Foundations’ five priorities.

A 2021 EIF report found that, of more than 100 identified programmes designed to support children affected by domestic abuse, less than a third had been evaluated. Of those that had, many studies had methodological weaknesses, including poor study design and small sample sizes, while it also identified an over-reliance on qualitative evidence.

It also found no consensus around the most relevant and appropriate way to measure outcomes, significantly hampering efforts to compare different interventions in terms of their effectiveness.

Foundation said it would seek to identify relevant preventive, perpetrator and victim-survivor programmes to evaluate, and also to build consensus on how best to appraise domestic abuse programmes.

Prioritising support for parents and family networks

Its other priorities are:

• Supporting parenting – with a focus on filling evidence gaps concerning interventions to support parenting in higher risk families and in a child protection context.
• Strengthening family networks – tackling the lack of evidence on how to support family networks to improve outcomes for children, with a focus on family group decision making, kinship care, reunification and contact for children in care.
• Relationships for care-experienced children – addressing the shortage of evidence-based programmes that support relationships for care experienced
  children, given the importance of this for their mental health.

As well as the state of the existing evidence, Foundations said its priorities were selected based on the scale of the problem, the potential to make an impact and the level of policy interest.

Link to DfE reform programme

On the latter point, they align with the DfE’s reform programme for children’s social care, which includes plans to enhance family support, family networks and kinship care and relationships for care-experienced people.

The programme is largely based on last year’s final report from the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care, led by Josh MacAlister, who was subsequently appointed executive chair of what would become Foundations.

Launching the organisation yesterday, he said: “Family – in all its forms – is one of the most powerful influencers of children’s outcomes. But there are major gaps in evidence about which approaches and interventions work. That’s why this new organisation will focus on generating high quality and actionable evidence to improve services that support foundational relationships around children.”

Foundations’ five priorities will make up 80% of its work over the next five years and will involve existing studies, as well as new work funded through its core grant from government, which it can use unrestrictedly.

It may also be commissioned to carry out further studies in these areas – such as with the current trials of family safeguarding, family valued and no wrong door – for which it will receive additional project-based funding.

A scheme to provide school designated safeguarding leads (DSLs) with supervision from social workers has had no impact on measured outcomes, research has revealed.

The programme did not lead to more appropriate referrals from schools to children’s social care, nor did it enhance DSLs’ wellbeing, said What Works for Early Intervention and Children’s Social Care (WWEICSC), which managed the Department for Education (DfE) funded project.

On the back of the research, WWEICSC advised the DfE not to plough any more funding into the scheme, though admitted many may find the results “disappointing” given the value several DSLs placed on the supervision they received.

The results mirror those from a parallel WWEICSC study into the impact of placing social workers in schools (SWIS), which found this did not reduce children’s need for statutory social care services.

The rationale for the DSL project was that, despite the importance and complexity of the role, leads did not receive regular supervision, whether to improve their knowledge and skills or to deal with the stresses of the job.

Like the SWIS programme, researchers evaluated the DSL scheme using randomised controlled trials (RCTs) through which some of the 2,400 schools involved received supervision and the others did not, with outcomes then compared between the two groups.

Impact on ‘inappropriate referrals’ tested

Three of the RCTs – involving the provision of individual supervision in primary schools, and secondary schools in Greater Manchester area, and group supervision to secondary DSLs elsewhere – tested, in particular, the impact on “inappropriate” contacts with children’s social care.

These were defined as contacts that did not lead to further action by councils, though researchers acknowledged this was an imperfect proxy measure and that a referral not leading to further action did not mean it was inappropriate.

While social care referrals from schools dipped significantly in 2020-21 on the back of the pandemic, they spiked significantly in 2021-22, reaching their highest level since 2014, 129,090, one fifth of the total received by councils.

The fourth RCT looked at the impact of supervision on DSLs’ ability to identify and report child sexual abuse, and was set up in response to concerns raised about levels of sexual harassment and online sexual abuse towards girls in schools.

All four also looked at the impact of supervision on DSLs’ wellbeing.

No impact on outcomes

Across the board, researchers from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) found that there was no statistically significant improvement from the intervention in any of the outcomes measured.

For example, in the secondary schools RCT, there were eight contacts with children’s social care per 1,000 pupils across both the 145 intervention schools and the 144 controls. The two groups were broadly similar in terms of factors including pupil composition, performance and prior children’s social care outcomes.

In the child sexual abuse study, there was one contact potentially relating to CSA per 1,000 pupils across the intervention group and the control group, which researchers said also had similar characteristics.

In relation to DSL wellbeing, there were no statistically significant effects from the supervision programme across any of the four studies.

With the supervision sessions costing between £850 and £4,500 per school per year, WWEICSC said that the scheme was not cost-effective and so the scheme should no longer receive DfE funding.

Need to improve social care-school links

However, it called for the development of other programmes to improve joint working between schools and children’s social care, as many DSLs said communication gaps were “a significant issue for safeguarding in schools”.

It also said that a lack of consistency in the way councils collected data on contacts with children’s social care had hampered the research, and that improvements in this would “significantly help efforts to evaluate new interventions”.

A scheme placing social workers in schools does not reduce children’s need for statutory social care services, one of the largest ever randomised controlled trials carried out in the sector has found.

Researchers found no statistically significant difference in outcomes for children between schools with a social worker and those without, What Works for Early Intervention and Children’s Social Care (WWEICSC) said today, following the trial which covered the 2020-21 and 2021-22 academic years.

WWEICSC – formerly What Works for Children’s Social Care – was commissioned by the Department for Education (DfE) to pilot SWIS in three local authority areas in 2018-19, and then to roll it out to 21 areas for the RCT.

School social work model ‘should not be continued’

“Whilst there was plenty of qualitive evidence suggesting that those involved – teachers, social workers and students – felt positive about social workers in schools, the RCT evidence did not find that it is having an impact on children’s outcomes,” said WWEICSC director of policy and practice Donna Molloy, in a blog post today.

“[Because] of the cost of SWIS and the lack of evidence, our conclusion is that the SWIS model tested in the trial should not be continued or further rolled out by the DfE or schools.”

The primary outcome the study was designed to test was the impact of placing social workers in schools on the rate of section 47 chid protection enquiries.

No impact on social care outcomes

It found that the rate of section 47s was 5.5% higher in the 136 schools studied that were part of the SWIS project, compared with the 132 control schools, after adjusting for baseline rates of section 47s, school size and the percentage of children on free schools meals. This difference was not statistically significant.

Likewise, the effects of SWIS on the other outcomes studied – rates of children’s social care referrals, section 17 children in need assessments, and children entering care, and the number of days spent in care per child – were similarly small and also not statistically significant.

The researchers also concluded – in a separate report – that there was no evidence that domestic abuse knowledge, attitudes and practice were better among designated safeguarding leads (DSLs) in SWIS schools than control schools. DSLs are responsible for child protection in their schools.

Overall, when the costs of SWIS, schools’ referrals to children’s social care and children’s social care interventions for pupils were taken together, the average was higher in intervention schools (£245,000 per 1,000 pupils per year) than controls (£210,500). As a result, researchers concluded that the scheme was not cost-effective.

Role ‘well-received by social workers, school staff and students’

The results came despite the role being generally well-received by the social workers themselves, school staff and students.

While social workers felt balancing the different aspects of their role – statutory work, preventive practice and working with school staff – was challenging – they valued the non-statutory elements of the role and the opportunities for informal interactions with pupils, staff and parents.

Most pupils interviewed who had had direct involvement with SWIS were positive, reporting that they trusted the social worker and that the practitioner understood them better than any other member of school staff.

And despite the domestic abuse report finding no evidence of impact on DSLs’ knowledge, attitudes and practice, safeguarding leads in SWIS schools said having a social work improved their confidence and ability in identifying and responding to domestic abuse.

‘Unmet need for support below statutory threshold’

Molloy said she recognised the findings would be “disappointing for many people – not least those involved in the intervention, who viewed it positively and felt that it led to good conversations and relationships”.

She stressed that the findings concerned the impact on need for statutory children’s social care services and interventions and was not a comment on the delivery of non-statutory family support within schools.

“Professionals and families clearly felt the need for additional support below the statutory threshold to address unmet need in schools and so a valuable next step could be to evaluate models of delivering school-based family support,” she added.

Following the report’s publication, the DfE confirmed it had accepted WWEICSC’s recommendation to cease funding SWIS.

“We know that looked after children often need additional support in school. However, we want to make sure that taxpayers’ money is used efficiently, and that support is delivered in the best way,” a spokesperson said.

“We are providing support in schools and colleges for children with a social worker through the virtual school heads programme, backed by over £57m investment.”

Virtual heads are council practitioners responsible for promoting educational outcomes for children with a social worker – whether looked after, in need or on a child protection plan – as well as those who have left care through adoption, special guardianship or a child arrangements order.

‘Disappointing results’

The Association of Directors of Children’s Services (ADCS) said it was “disappointing” that SWIS did not have “the kind of positive outcomes for students that we expected”, though said it awaited the further findings due next year on its impact on attendance.

The chair of its educational achievement policy committee, Heather Sandy, added: “As the evaluation notes, the project was well received by social workers, teachers and students and this is something local authorities have continually heard. Schools play a key role in safeguarding and ADCS is clear that the value of joint working between schools and local authority children’s services should not be undermined by these findings.”

She said school staff were “well placed to notice changes in [children’s] behaviour or concerns” and that the ADCS “[welcomed the government’s commitment to give schools a more prominent role in local safeguarding arrangements”.

This was set out in the DfE’s draft children’s social care strategy and will involve consulting on strengthening the role of education settings in safeguarding arrangements, as part of a spring 2023 update to Working Together to Safeguard Children.

It will follow this by consulting on whether and how to make education the fourth statutory safeguarding partner, alongside councils, police and health, this autumn.

Are you one of the social workers employed through SWIS and would like to share about your experience? Email communitycare@markallengroup.com or comment – anonymously, if preferred – below. 

Care review lead Josh MacAlister has been appointed to co-lead a new merged evidence body for children’s social care and early intervention with children and families.

The ex-Frontline chief executive will become executive chair of the organisation merging What Works for Children’s Social Care and the Early Intevention Foundation (EIF) in December. The EIF’s chief executive, Jo Casebourne, will take on the same role in the new body, whose working title is What Works for Early Intervention and Children’s Social Care and which will be established during the winter.

MacAlister is currently working as an adviser to the Department for Education on the implementation of the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care, which he led and delivered its final report in May. The DfE is due to announce its response to this review, and those of the Competition and Markets Authority into the children’s social care market and the Children’s Safeguarding Review Panel into the murders of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes and Star Hobson, by the end of the year.

‘A great privilege and a huge opportunity’

Commenting on his appointment, he said: “It is a great privilege to take up this role, and a huge opportunity. Very many important decisions about the new centre, its strategic priorities and its work lie ahead. I am looking forward to working with partners across early intervention and children’s social care to make sure the new organisation serves and supports professionals and services providing help to children and families, at a national and local level.”

Funded by the DfE, What Works’ role is to identify evidence for what contributes to improved outcomes for children in the social care system, through carrying out its own research, and synthesising and disseminating others’ findings. Set up in 2013, the EIF  performs a similar role in relation to the evidence on intervening early to improve the lives of children and young people at risk of poor outcomes. It is mostly government funded.

Both organisations carried out research and provided evidence to the care review, which recommended their merger due to their “very significant overlaps”. This was also in line with the review’s key recommendation to set up a “family help” service, in effect merging targeted early help provision with child in need services.

Merged body ‘better placed to support care review reforms’

Jenny Coles

The two organisations’ boards of trustees agreed the merger in July. In a blog post setting out the reasons at the time, What Works chair Jenny Coles, formerly director of children’s services at Hertfordshire council, said: “As a single organisation, we will be better placed to support the direction of travel following the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care and the ambitions to bring together and strengthen direct support available to families across the early help and social work systems. Our merged organisation will be able to support the reforms ahead and help create a system that is both evidence-based and evidence-generating.”

Following her appointment to lead the merged body, Casebourne, chief executive of the EIF since 2017, said: “I know there is a firm commitment across the early intervention and children’s social care community to ensure that the system makes a difference for children, and we have an exciting opportunity to help shape and support that wider system as it evolves. As a trusted and independent source of information and guidance for practitioners, and a critical friend to those who are making crucial decisions about investments, policies and programmes, we will work to ensure that the lessons from evidence and research are an essential part of how support for families and children is designed and implemented.”

Regular reflective discussion groups show “signs of promise” in boosting the wellbeing of  children’s social workers at low cost, a trial has found.

The What Works for Children’s Social Care (WWCSC) funded study found that most children’s social workers from the 10 councils who took part in Schwartz Rounds, a series of collaborative discussion groups, reported a positive impact on their wellbeing and relationships with colleagues.

They also reported slightly lower psychological distress and took slightly fewer sickness absence days than those in a control group, but the difference was not statistically significant, found the research, carried out by WWCSC’s research partner, the Cardiff University-based CASCADE.

Reporting the results from one of its first trials, researchers found that Schwartz Rounds were “relatively low-cost” for councils to deliver, with initial set-up costs ranging from £5,204.75 and £6,505.14, and running costs per session ranging from £288.24 to £2,711.60, the majority of which were the indirect costs of staff time for those who attended.

Greater wellbeing

Schwartz Rounds involve a small group of staff members sharing stories based on their experiences, linked to a common theme such as “a child or family I will never forget”, in front of co-workers, who then share their own experiences.

Organisations such as hospital trusts, hospices, universities, dentists and veterinary practices currently use the approach, but it is not currently used widely in children’s services.

The first phase of the project, which involved six local authorities, was carried out in person. It was then put on pause, from March to September 2020, before resuming on a virtual basis for Covid-related reasons in phase two, which involved a further four councils. Overall, 776 staff were recruited to the study, split between those who took part in Schwartz Rounds and a control group. All of them responded to a survey before the trial, while 267 participants completed a survey after the trial.

The aim was for each council to provide six sessions, but in practice some provided only three, four or five.

The study found that staff who took part in the Schwartz Rounds had lower average General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) scores compared with the control group (12.9 compared with 13.5), indicating greater wellbeing.

It also found that staff who had taken part in Schwartz Rounds took on average 4.56 sickness absence days in the previous six months compared to 4.63 for those in the control group.

But the study concluded that neither of these differences were statistically significant.

‘Normalising difficult emotional responses’

The research team also asked staff to complete feedback forms after each session, interviewed participants throughout the study, held focus groups with staff, and observed at least one session in each authority.

It said the feedback from staff who took part in both online and in-person Schwartz Rounds was “almost universally positive”.

It found 87.5% of staff that completed feedback forms following a session rated Schwartz Rounds as “good” or better, while more than 79% said the sessions had a positive effect on their psychological wellbeing and relationships with colleagues. Meanwhile, 57% said the sessions helped their direct work with families.

The research report said many staff commented on feedback forms that the sessions helped to “normalise difficult emotional responses” but some reported “feeling worse than before”.

It said workers also said the sessions improved awareness of different roles, prompted more supportive behaviour and increased organisational recognition.

‘Staff feel connected’

Kate Wells, principal child and family social worker at Leicester council, which took part in the survey, said Schwartz Rounds had helped colleagues to share their everyday feelings and experiences in their roles.

“People have left sessions feeling connected, re-energised and heard. It is really important that we have been able to offer this to our workforce,” she said.

“Since the end of the pilot we have trained more facilitators and rolled the rounds out across children’s social care and early help.”

WWCSC chief executive Michael Sanders said the results were encouraging and that he hoped Schwartz Rounds could “bring real benefits to social care staff in the future”.

On the back of the trial, the research report said that councils should consider introducing Schwartz Rounds and made 10 recommendations for how they should do so, including that authorities:

• Have enough trained facilitators and ensure Schwartz Rounds are actively supported by senior managers and have sufficient administrative support.
• Deliver the groups in person, with virtual groups introduced later when Schwartz Rounds are established.
• Make attendance optional, inform staff of what to expect before each session so they can decide whether to participate and make reasonable adjustments to ensure they are open and inclusive.
• Collect feedback from staff to inform the future development of Schwartz Rounds.