Written evidence from The British Association of Social Workers (BASW) (CFA0116)

HOUSE OF LORDS CHILDREN AND FAMILIES ACT 2014 SELECT COMMITTEE INQURY

The British Association of Social Workers (BASW) is the professional association for social work in the UK with offices in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. With over 22,000 members, we exist to promote the best possible social work services for all people who may need them, while also securing the well-being of social workers working in all health and social care settings.

In responding to the consultation, we have consulted with the BASW England Children and Families Group and with BASW England members across all regions. Our member base is rich and diverse in terms of social care expertise, meaning that those who have completed the form include frontline social workers, team managers, and allied practitioners across child protection, adult social care and other specialist teams, as well as academics in the field, practitioners in the voluntary sector and other organisations.

BASW has adapted the questions to reflect the expertise of the association and its members. It is worth noting that the amount of responses received was limited, which reflects the unavailability of social workers at a time of increasing caseloads, high turnover, and stressful working conditions. A BASW survey found that 71.87% of social workers felt unable to complete their work within their contracted hours; A decade of austerity, combined with the pandemic, have exacerbated such conditions.

We would welcome the opportunity to further discuss some of these issues with the committee at a time of your convenience and would be happy to provide a speaker for any future oral evidence sessions. If interested, please contact us on kerri.prince@basw.co.uk 

Has the Act achieved its goal of improving provision for children and young people with SEND, in all settings including mainstream schools, special schools and further education colleges?

·                 It is difficult to say with absolute certainty that the Act has achieved this goal; it is well established that children coming into care have disproportionate complex needs, which include, but are not limited to, physical, emotional, mental health, neurodiverse, and behavioural needs. Challenges in multi-agency working, including schools managing their own budget around pupil premium and whether or not this is always spent appropriately, means children’s needs are not always met even when in theory the provision should be there. Furthermore, intervention is often time-limited and short term, which means children are not able to access long-term support they may require into adulthood and beyond. Furthermore, the act could not have foreseen the devastating impact of the pandemic on children’s global developmental and educational progress; this hinders any ability to measure whether or not goals have been achieved. It is BASW’s view that these issues ought to be addressed in co-production with children and families from diverse backgrounds, who best understand the barriers faced to accessing support within educational settings.

If changes are needed, could they be achieved under the framework of the Children and Families Act 2014 or is new legislation required?

·       General consensus among respondents was that the existing framework is fit for purpose. However, the issues that exist relate primarily to underfunding of services. The case has not yet been made as to whether new legislation is the answer.

Furthermore, members are wary of introducing new legislation, given the repeated attempts from government to dilute and de-regulate laws which exist to keep children safe, as can be seen with the (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020, which lessened the frequency with which children were visited, or children’s homes inspected, in the name of providing more “flexibility” - despite the fact this presented real threats to children. It is imperative that children’s human rights, and regulations which exist to safeguard them, remain protected.

Have the reforms to the family justice system succeeded in making the system faster, simpler and less adversarial?

Whilst the reforms reduced the duration of care proceedings for the majority of children, whether or not the system has become ‘simpler and less adversarial’ as a result is less certain, according to members.

However, it must be noted that quicker and more streamlined proceedings do not necessarily equate to better outcomes for children where cases are more complex. Research undertaken on the work of the Family Drug and Alcohol Courts, where evidence is best gathered over long periods of time, is an example of where care plans required more time. Where parents had the potential to meet children’s needs, they may have been prematurely separated before sufficient support had been put in place, whilst on the other hand, some children may have been returned to parents before strengths and risks had been fully analysed and support provided. Social workers have long observed a ‘revolving door’ system, whereby the same children often end up returning to care partly because insufficient support was provided to parents during the transition phase when children returned to them initially.

How has the Act interacted with other reforms to the family justice system, for example the changes to legal aid?

·       One respondent noted there was a “greater impact on the reduction in legal aid for private law matters, notable increase in social care section 37s” and another commented that the delays were “intolerable”.

Does the 26-week limit on care and placement proceedings strike the correct balance between justice and speed?

When the PLO reform came in, there was a very strict 26 weeks timeframe, which for some cases is simply not sufficient enough time for assessment and ‘testing’, for example mother and baby foster placements then rehab into the community with support and assessments - this needs longer than 26 weeks usually to ensure oversight of the courts and s childrens guardian. In more recent years, there has been a greater use of reasonable delay for such cases. Where possible, 26 weeks is the correct maximum, but where it is not, there should be a leave of flexibility to extend beyond this if in the child’s best interest.

Another point highlighted among responses was that “too much pressure on social workers to get reports completed quickly, therefore assessments are rushed.”

How has the presumption of the involvement of both parents in the life of the child after family separation affected proceedings?

Based on our surveys of members, one response highlighted that the “reforms have generally had a positive impact”, especially when provided alongside the ‘part 3’ family support provisions of the 1989 Act. However, challenges remain in cases of domestic violence where the perpetrator, at times, has used private proceedings to further abuse and control of relationships.

Indeed, presuming the involvement of both parents, especially when one is the perpetrator, has the potential to make local authorities collude with abuse, disempower adult victim-survivors, and re-traumatise children if contact is not safe or in their best interest. This section could be revised in light of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which provides new understanding on coercive controlling behaviours.

What has been the effect of the repeal of the requirement to consider ethnicity, religion, race, culture and language in England when placing a child for adoption?

In our survey responses it was noted that the changes in the legislation allowed for “more scope for successful placements, however such ‘matching’ considerations are still key and need to be considered very carefully.”

There is also the issue of a lack of data to properly address this question and therefore do not know the impact on individual children or their families.

The Act highlights the role of adoption for BAME children and systematically ignored alternative routes in and out of care (e.g. return to birth families, kinship care, special guardianship or long-term foster care), which are known to apply more frequently to BAME groups. BASW would like it to be noted that the debates surrounding the Act were also dominated by white voices, including key politicians and appointees, child welfare spokespersons, editors and journalists (largely reflecting the ethnic make-up of these professions) and white adopters.

Children who previously faced intolerable delays on account of local authorities waiting to find exact matches have benefited from the repeal. Research highlights that adopters can successfully parent those from other cultures, though it is important to retain the message that significant efforts should be made for adopters to meet the specific cultural needs of children, undertake training and ensure children are aware of their heritage and identity. Notwithstanding, there are undoubtedly challenges for both children and adopters when ‘matches’ are not made, and these should not be minimised or overlooked. Ultimately, the needs of individual children may differ, as may the factors which should be prioritised.

However, systemic issues still remain in that children from Black and minoritised backgrounds continue to face disproportionately longer waits for placements. More efforts should be made to address these disparities which go beyond this repeal. In addition, it is important to respect that children from minoritised backgrounds have hugely varied experiences based on the specific cultural background, language, religion, and so forth, and are not one homogenous group as they are so often treated. More should be done to better understand the unique needs of children from different ethnic groups.

Summary

To summarise, there are several factors at play - namely austerity, an ill-prepared for pandemic, and an overworked and underfunded workforce, which mean it is not possible to establish the true efficacy of the Children and Families Act 2014. The above factors have, and will continue to hinder any positive progress made in the policy arena, as they pose insurmountable barriers in practice. BASW urges that the government invests in children’s services as a priority. Only once the dearth in funding is reviewed (and with it caseloads reduced, high turn-over and rate of staff leaving the profession addressed, and local services made readily available) will BASW be in a position to comment with full confidence.

May 2022