The Independent Review of Children's Services has identified the need for paradigm change within Children's Services. The Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel has responded to this by putting forward proposals for the creation of new expert child protection units for every local area in England. The idea of a specialist child protection team is good, although I am not convinced this needs to include staff from other agencies.

Professor Andy Bilson argues that this won't work - but he is wrong. His arguments are flawed because he seems to forget the legal framework and the difficulties for social workers in trying to carry out their legal duties in ways that take account of the rights and best interests of all those concerned. Many of the problems in child protection have arisen because most undergraduate courses do not prepare students for the realities of social work practice in children's services. Furthermore, recruitment difficulties can result in teams with too many front-line workers who are newly qualified and relatively inexperienced and this may increase the risk of poor professional judgement and decision-making.

Children's services are delivered by councils with no understanding of the inherent contradictions within the social work role. The professional assumption, supported by ideology, is that social workers are caring and supportive people who can achieve good outcomes - even with the most disturbed and irresponsible parents. On the other hand, many parents believe that the current level of social work intervention into family life is excessive and must be resisted. Children's social workers find themselves at the centre of these conflicting viewpoints. This is leading to anxiety, stress and burn-out and an authoritarian trend in some councils.

The number of referrals to children's services has risen to the point where about one fifth of children are referred before their fifth birthday, according to Bilson and Martin, and more are being referred for neglect or emotional abuse, the latter often following an incident of domestic violence. Many referrals arise out of information-sharing between agencies without parental consent. There seems to be an element of professional arrogance in the process of constructing what is a social problem requiring social work intervention. Most initial home visits to a family are to make an 'assessment of need' but sometimes the children assessed are deemed to have needs arising out of difficulties within the family. Parents are right to assume that an initial visit from a children's social worker invariably includes an investigative element. Unfortunately, the current organisational arrangements do not help social workers with the difficult task of identifying which children are at greatest risk.

The levels of hostility and conflict between children's social workers and parents appear to be much higher now than in the past. Many parents do not trust social workers but feel obliged to accept a visit. Some social workers may even find it impossible to do an initial assessment because parents are resistant and unco-operative. Assessment then becomes superficial because it becomes little more than seeing the family, the children and the home environment. If nothing useful can be achieved there might be a case for responding to more referrals with non-intervention.

The lack of trust in children's services is now a serious problem. The prevailing wisdom is that it is important that children are seen by a range of professionals so that any child protection concerns can be identified and followed up appropriately. Information-sharing between professionals is a time-consuming activity but this is justified on the grounds that it ensures agencies pass on their concerns to social workers. However, too much information-sharing can do more harm than good - particularly if it triggers an unwelcome offer of help that may have the effect of alienating parents.

My experience during the 1990s was so different that it is hard for me understand what is going on now. It appears that the threshold for formal child protection measures is now less clearly defined. The Children Act 1989 treats section 17 (children in need) and section 47 (investigation of abuse or neglect) as separate and distinct activities. Current policies and practices emphasise the advantages of combining the two social work functions i.e. family support and child protection and focusing on needs and strengths-based approaches rather than deficits and risks. Unfortunately, this has produced a professional orthodoxy of re-defining 'risk' as 'need' and the loss of much practice wisdom in child protection investigations. The absurdity of this must be apparent to many social workers. Role confusion is now be a major cause of difficulties for social workers.

The decision to trigger a section 47 enquiry marks a clear change in direction in which social workers are empowered to adopt a more probing style of working. Unfortunately, the section 47 has been given a negative connotation by many social workers, who simply look at it from the perspective of family members who would probably find a formal social work interview very stressful. This is obviously a complex and highly skilled area of work and I have written about it at Social Work Practice: Section 47

It is well known that the competence with which a section 47 is handled will crucially influence the effectiveness of subsequent work. Any failures to gather evidence forensically at this stage can create uncertainty, unnecessary anxiety about risk and even an authoritarian tendency. The current expectation that social workers work informally to 'safeguard children' and act as 'change agents' may be difficult to reconcile with their statutory duty to protect children from significant harm. Social workers may find they are carrying heavy workloads and dealing with very complex situations on their own without being offered an appropriate level of suppport from managers.

Child protection is an area of work that evokes strong feelings in social workers and unless these feelings are carefully considered they can adversely affect their judgement. The notion of an investigative team represents a deliberate shift away from the idea that family support work, with its therapeutic ethos, is the only way of working. It takes on board the difficult task of confronting parents with the possibility that what they are doing as parents may be judged inappropriate.

On receipt of information indicating that a child may be at risk of 'significant harm' the team would conduct a strategy discussion with relevant agencies. The social workers must have the right qualities for this work: maturity, an understanding of the complexity of human psychology and relationships, a sound grasp of the nature of good parenting and the ability to recognise parenting that possibly causes harm to children, and an in-depth knowledge of the local community and resources. They should certainly keep a clear focus on recognising the family's anxieties about the investigation and offering support to individuals within the family where this is appropriate.

The forensic nature of the interview with the family would make careful record-keeping essential. A detailed written report of all the information gathered, based on what has been seen and heard, would then be provided for the locality team. The parents would be informed of the outcome of the investigation and helped to understand the nature of any services being offered and their rights.

If the child protection investigation was formally designated as an 'investigation' as opposed to 'safeguarding' work with a 'child in need' the quality of the social work assessment would improve and this would certainly contribute to more balanced decision-making. I therefore support the introduction of a specialist child protection unit which has responsibility for social work practice under section 47.

Hilary Searing

Return to Barefoot Social Worker

Handmade in Wales. © Copyright Hilary Searing 2022. All rights reserved.