Child Protection and Social Work: Integration or Separation?

Child Protection and Social Work
Integration or Separation?

Too many children's services are failing to ensure that child protection work is of a consistently high standard. In some authorities chronic organisational problems have made it difficult for children's services to recruit and retain good staff. This can lead to a downward spiral of staff shortages, increased workload pressures, demoralised staff and a sense of hopelessness about raising standards.

Good practice is based on the recognition that social work is the lead agency in safeguarding children. It is now taken for granted that the best structure for child protection services is one that achieves 'integration' - not only in the sense of different agencies working together collaboratively but also in reconciling the professional commitment to relationship-based work with the over-riding legal duty to protect the child. The notion of achieving an integrated approach is very laudable but social workers are now expected to get to grips with some very complicated and difficult issues. Managerial oversight should ensure that the powers given to the local authority are used as a tool for constructive engagement with the family. Unfortunately, in some authorities managers and social workers are simply not up to the job and are bringing the profession into disrepute.

The mantra of 'integrated services' has allowed children's services to shift its focus away from formal investigations and sent a signal that social workers do not need to be proactive in collating information about the likely risk of 'significant harm'. There are particular problems with this way of thinking that must be confronted. One was highlighted in Sir Martin Narey's independent review of the education of children's social workers in 2014 - which showed that the generic training offered by universities does not prepare social workers adequately for the specialism of children's social work, leaving them with insufficient knowledge and skills in protecting children at greatest risk. The other comes from the elevation of 'multi-agency working' which has allowed children's services to re-interpret social workers' responsibility under section 47 of the Children Act 1989 and lose much practice wisdom around this important area of work. There is now a widespread public perception that thresholds for formal child protection interventions are not applied in a consistent way across the country and this may result in unlawful practices.

An exaggerated faith in the effectiveness of supportive work may result in the necessary clarity about child protection duties being lost. The mixing up of the two roles - support and protection - can result in family courts being presented with risk assessments that are lacking in well-reasoned, factual evidence about risk of significant harm. Furthermore, too much 'role ambiguity' can mean it is never the fault of anyone if social workers and managers fail to strike an appropriate balance between protection and support. The fine details of evidence-gathering and decision-making are so well hidden it seems impossible for outside bodies to subject social workers to any meaningful scrutiny and to hold them to account when mistakes are made.

The capacity to recognise which kind of relationships are harmful to children requires a nuanced and balanced analysis of all the facts of the situation. Unfortunately, there are some social workers, using a therapeutic model of practice in a non-judgemental way, who struggle with their duty to show respectful curiosity about the precise nature of the family dynamics and patterns of behaviour that could indicate risk to a child. This was apparent in the case of Peter Connolly where social workers failed to discover who was actually living in the household and the nature of their relationships or to obtain evidence of the seriousness of the risks to Peter.

Children's social workers are employed to carry out statutory duties. They have legal powers to intervene where a child may be at risk of significant harm - and they also have a statutory duty to work preventively to avoid the use of compulsory powers. This inherent ambiguity within the social work role makes some parents wary of seeking help. Many parents think of children's social workers as 'soft cops' and assume some degree of coercion invariably underpins professional social work intervention. On the other hand, the profession promotes itself as working alongside parents - by emphasising the supportive aspects of its work and its concern with the well-being of all children in need. However, this may on occasions make them reluctant to use the powers they are given. Children's social workers are either being naive or dishonest if they deny the underlying manipulative intent within their professional role or make exaggerated claims about their therapeutic skills in enabling people to change.

Any suggestion of a clearer separation of family support and child protection is often regarded by the profession as a fragmentation of services. However, if there is good managerial oversight it should be possible to prevent this. In my opinion, some degree of specialism within teams has the potential to make the job easier for social workers and give them a clearer sense of purpose. A clear separation between the two social work functions of 'child protection investigation' and 'ongoing safeguarding work' has many advantages. It would provide an opportunity to clarify roles, develop staff expertise, and provide training which is more focused on staff need.

Relationship-based work with families where risks have been identified is a core social work task. Drawing on my own experience I have described the methods of working and dynamics of social work practice in ongoing child protection work here. This recognises the inherent constraints within the statutory role which limit what children's social workers can achieve - both in terms of therapy and in tackling poverty and inequality.

To summarise, there is a growing awareness of the dysfunctional nature of social work practice in many children's services and the need for radical change. Unfortunately, there is often a deliberate misrepresentation of the nature of the child protection investigation and a belief that safeguarding work with children in need is always the best framework for practice. This has increased the likelihood of social workers feeling reluctant to make use of the legal powers they are given. Furthermore, poor professional judgement can arise when social workers fail to keep detailed records of their interviews with families and tend to use a subjective mindset to justify compulsory interventions that are later deemed unlawful by judges. There is an urgent need to restore public trust and confidence in the child protection system.

Continuing concerns about poor social work practice in many children's services present a huge challenge. It is time for a long, hard look at the nature of social work training and and how some academic theories, if taken too far, can undermine the capacity of children's social workers to perform their statutory duties. An organisational structure which clarifies and supports the specialist role of the children's social worker is urgently needed. A continuing programme of improvement should be put in place driven by experienced social workers.

Hilary Searing