Written evidence from Foundations – What Works Centre for Children & Families (CSC 171)

Education Committee

Children’s Social Care

We welcome the new committee’s decision to re-open this important inquiry. As a national What Works Centre, we are pleased to see the government begin to take an evidence-based approach to policymaking in this area.

In line with our remit as a What Works Centre we focus here on the following areas of the inquiry’s terms of reference:

• What factors are causing the increase in demand for children’s social care;
• What measures can be undertaken to improve early intervention;
• How combinations of kinship care, residential education, foster care and adoption could provide alternatives to residential care;
• How children’s social care can impact a child’s educational or long-term outcomes and ways to improve outcomes for care leavers;
• How effectively Ofsted works as a regulator and inspector for children’s social care.

1. Factors causing increased demand

Domestic abuse

1.1.  One of the key drivers of demand on the children’s social care system is domestic abuse. Concerns about domestic abuse remained the most common factor identified at the end of a Child in Need (CIN) assessment in 2023/24, alongside parental mental health, with both factors identified in nearly one-third of episodes recorded.[1] Further analyses of 3.6 million social work assessments also found single-factor domestic abuse and violence to be the most prevalent category of demand, accounting for a fifth of all cases.[2]

1.2.  Foundations’ own estimates, based on ONS data, suggests there were around 827,000 children who were victims of domestic abuse in 2023 – this is greater than the number of children who started primary school last September.[3] This appears to be a growing issue: the NSPCC Helpline recently reported a 19% increase in calls about concerns for children experiencing domestic abuse in the first half of 2024.[4] However, research from the Domestic Abuse Commissioner found that just 29% of victims and survivors were able to access support for their children in 2021.[5]

1.3.  Since the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, children that have been exposed to domestic abuse are now recognised as victims in their own right, rather than just witnesses.[6]

1.4.  At present, domestic abuse services are precarious and chronically underfunded – most are not formally commissioned and are reliant on small pots of year-to-year funding. Demand outstrips supply, and this is particularly true of services for child victims.

1.5.  Evaluation in the sector is also very limited, meaning we can’t answer the critical question: “Do these services result in improved outcomes for children?” This is partly caused by this precarious funding situation, as services can’t afford to and don’t have the capacity to evaluate what they do, and it partly exacerbates it, as there are very few evaluations which can support business cases or strengthen the hand of services in terms of commissioning decisions.

1.6.  This is a major evidence gap. The evidence in relation to support for child victims and preventative interventions is either non-existent or very limited, and the evidence that does exist comes largely from the US. It means that we are relying on scant international evidence to guide investment and policymaking.

1.7.  There is a  need for increased central government investment in precarious and vital domestic abuse services – to build capacity, deliver vital services, and to evaluate their impact on victims and survivors. We need sustained, strategic investment in the sector, but this must also be accompanied by ringfenced funding for a rigorous  programme of evaluation which would generate ‘what works’ evidence across the spectrum of domestic abuse support – from prevention to recovery.

1.8.  The cost of doing this pales in comparison to the social and economic costs of domestic abuse, which the last Home Office estimates put at £74bn,[7] and  would help to ensure value for money in the government’s investment. And, most importantly, it is overall far less than the cost to children’s lives.

1.9.  Investment  must be built into the upcoming multi-year Spending Review if we are to improve children’s outcomes, break down barriers to opportunity, keep children safe, and make headway in the goal to halve instances of VAWG within a decade.

1.10.        Foundations is working in partnership with innovative service delivery partners to build capacity for delivery and evaluation – such as WeMatter, a service run by Victim Support, that provides online group-based therapeutic activities for children and young people who have experienced domestic abuse.

1.11.        This is part of our REACH (Researching Effective Approaches for Children) Plan, which sets out a blueprint for a programme of investment in domestic abuse service delivery and evaluation .[8]

Child poverty and socioeconomic inequalities

1.12.        There is a growing body of evidence linking the impacts of child poverty to increased entry to the children’s social care system.

1.13.        Between 2015 and 2020, a 1 percentage point increase in child poverty was associated with 5 additional children entering care per 100,000. Over the same period, it’s estimated that 8.1% of care entries were linked to rising child poverty – equivalent to 10,351 additional children entering care over those 5 years.[9]

1.14.        Since 2007, there has been a steep rise in care entry rates in England, with greater increases observed in more income-deprived local authorities. Between 2007 and 2019, the gap between the most and least deprived areas increased by 15 children per 100,000, relative to the 2004-2007 trend.[10]

1.15.        The Government’s recognition of these impacts in the Child Poverty Strategy development framework is welcome – particularly the acknowledgement that lacking the essentials holds children back, puts strain on family relationships and places demand on services.[11]

1.16.        Given what we know about the impact of poverty and financial stresses on parental mental health, child mental health[12], and its links with child neglect[13] and maltreatment[14] – and, therefore, some instances of care entry – there is a role here for parenting support in reducing the long-term effects of social inequalities. A national focus on parenting support must be a key component of the Government’s anti-poverty strategy, which we will discuss in the next section.

2. Early intervention and prevention

2.1.  Between 2011 and 2019, as rates of children in care increased, local authority spending on preventative services for children and families fell by about 25% in real terms, with deeper cuts in more deprived areas.[15]

2.2.  When looking at the impact of this on rates of care entry, analyses suggest that, for every £10 per child decrease in preventative spend, an additional 1.9 per 100,000 children aged 16-17 entered care the following year. This is equivalent to 1 in 25 care entries in this age group.[16]

2.3.  Conservative financial estimates suggest cuts to prevention services for adolescents totaling £58m incurred an additional £60m in short-run placement costs.[17] Additional research conducted this year by Pro Bono Economics – in association with the Children’s Charities Coalition – also found that, for the first time, spending on children’s residential care has outstripped early intervention services at £2.4bn and £2.2bn, respectively.[18]

Family Group Conferences

2.4.  The Government’s move to mandate the use of Family Group Decision Making (FGDM) across England is welcome. Children should be supported to stay within their family network, where it is safe to do so, as we know that this is better for their long-term outcomes.

2.5.  Following our groundbreaking evaluation of Family Group Conferences (FGCs) – a specific model of FGDM – we know that this particular intervention, when used at the pre-proceeding stage, is effective in diverting children from the care system, and allowing them to stay within their family network.[19]

2.6.  This trial was carried out with Coram and took place across 21 local authorities, reached 2,500 children across 1,400 families, and was the first of its kind in the UK and the largest ever randomised control trial (RCT) of FGCs in the world.

2.7.  The findings suggested that, if FGCs were rolled out across the country, over 2,000 fewer children would enter care within a 12-month period, and local authorities could save more than £150m within two years.[20]

2.8.  Offering FGCs to families at the pre-proceedings stage is important: it is the final opportunity for families to address the wellbeing and safety concerns that a local authority has identified about a child and so avoid care proceedings. It is a key moment to secure the social and economic benefits of supporting children through a family network.

2.9.  However, it’s important to note that FGCs are not a silver bullet. They are unlikely on their own to be a sufficient intervention to keep children safe and should be provided alongside other forms of ongoing high-quality support which meets the needs of the child and family. 

2.10.        Quality standards are also essential for their effective delivery. Family Rights Group (FRG) introduced the FGC model in 1991 and developed a quality standards framework which articulates what an effective family group conference should look like to achieve the best outcomes.[21] These seven standards distinguish Family Group Conferences from other family focused strengths-based activities such as those which are managed by social workers and other family support workers. Foundations will be publishing further guidance on harnessing the strength of FGCs in early 2025.

2.11.        While we welcome the mandating of FGDM in the new Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, it is important to underline the strength of evidence around FGCs as a specific model of support.

Supporting parenting

2.12.        In addition to what we know from CIN statistics[22], recent analyses of 3.6 million social work assessments found a disproportionate rise in complexities around parental mental health as a factor in increased demand on children’s social care.[23]

2.13.        Our Guidebook includes examples of parenting interventions that demonstrably improve parental mental health and reduce the likelihood of child maltreatment – two key drivers of children into the care system.

2.14.        Greater support for evidence-based parenting interventions has the potential to curb problems before they emerge and therefore reduce the likelihood of care entry and improve the long-term outcomes of vulnerable children.

2.15.        An end-to-end system of parenting support is ‘prevention first’ in action – it is one of the single most effective levers available to this Government to fulfil the health, opportunity and safer streets missions, and deliver cross-cutting benefits. It is also essential for giving all children the best start in life – one that helps them to achieve and to thrive, as well as to ensure they are safe and protected.

2.16.        The time is right for a renewed focus on parenting. There is a strong evidence base that tells us that parenting support is effective: we know ‘what works’ and this should be our starting point. There is an opportunity to embed effective parenting support and deliver lasting outcomes for families as part of the 10-year strategy of national renewal and reform. The Government’s welcome ambition for a ‘new era of child-centred government’ requires a cross-cutting focus on parenting as part of the existing missions if it is to be realised.

2.17.        Our vision is for an end-to-end system of effective, evidence-based parenting support which sits at the core of existing Government programmes: Best Start in Life, Family Hubs, family and early help, child protection, and the Child Poverty Strategy. The existing evidence base should be the starting point for policy development with focused attempts to close gaps between the approaches shown to work and what is being commissioned for children and families locally.

2.18.        We want to see a new offer in every area of a ‘menu’ of parenting support interventions, at different stages of child development – from birth, through to the teenage years – covering both universal support and targeted help for families with more complex needs. These could be incentivised or mandated as part of the government’s plans on Best Start in Life and Family Hubs and the expansion of targeted family support via the new Children’s Social Care prevention fund.

2.19.        Workforce training should be underpinned by the common elements of effective parenting support – such as child-directed play, or boundary-setting – so that these can be incorporated as part of routine practice.

2.20.        Areas should be provided with implementation support and capacity to assist them in selecting programmes that are a good fit with local need, ensuring interventions are carefully targeted to those families who need them most, and to support the training and supervision of staff at the local level.

2.21.        Parenting support should be embedded at the national level, within the existing government mission boards, to drive alignment across all relevant departments on both policy and delivery.

2.22.        Parenting will be the subject of Foundations’ second Practice Guide, which will be published in early February  2025. Foundations have been commissioned by the Department for Education to produce a series of Practice Guides – akin to NICE Guidelines for children’s services – which draw on the best available evidence, and are  a key mechanism for achieving measurable improvements in local practice.

3. Alternatives to residential care

Kinship care

3.1.  Kinship care is an important alternative to residential care and has rightly been receiving more prominence and awareness in recent years.

3.2.  Our 2023 study found significant variation in the support that kinship carers receive – both across local authorities as well as across different kinship care arrangements – in areas such as training, preparation, financial support and legal support.[24]

3.3.  The evidence we have generated in this area has also informed our new Kinship Care Practice Guide, which we recently published, and which was informed by our systematic review.[25] This guide supports local authorities to use the best available evidence to improve practice in children’s social care, and recommends, the types of support that are most likely to be effective in supporting kinship families. It also provides key principles for service implementation and delivery, based on the needs, experiences and preferences of kinship carers.

3.4.  To support local leaders to put these recommendations into action, Foundations is working with 11 local authorities across England to develop implementation plans, troubleshoot challenges, encourage effective use of resources, and help them to create an environment in which evidence-based practice can flourish.[26]

4. Improving outcomes for care-leavers

4.1.  Two-thirds of care leavers in England don’t know where to get help and support when they leave care. Building supportive relationships for care-experienced children is a key protective factor and improves outcomes for the most vulnerable – while helping to prevent intergenerational cycles of care.

4.2.  Our 2023 study of care leavers’ experiences of support while leaving care provided several useful findings in this space,[27] which included:

• Participants described how unresolved childhood trauma and isolation caused by independent living and a disconnect from their peers can have a lasting negative impact on emotional wellbeing.
• Participants recognised that managing mental health conditions affected their overall wellbeing, identifying therapy and financial support as key pathways to addressing these challenges.
• Relationships, especially with Personal Advisors (PAs), play a central support role during the period of transitioning out of care. However, issues within these relationships, such as a lack of fit or inconsistency, can affect care leavers’ experiences.
• PAs provide tailored and flexible support which positively affects emotional wellbeing. However, inflexible services, bureaucratic processes, long waiting lists and a wider lack of understanding of care leavers experiences can hinder support.
• Participants felt misunderstood or stereotyped based on race or gender, affecting their experiences of care and support.

4.3.  Our recommendations from this study included:[28]

• Prioritising care leavers on waiting lists for mental health services and improving the process for claiming Personal Independence Payment (PIP)
• Flagging care experience within healthcare and mental healthcare records, alongside training on what care experience might mean for individuals
• Greater support with administrative tasks, and improved preparation for the transition out of care, with assistance from PAs coming earlier.

5. The role of Ofsted

Inspecting local authority services

5.1.  As the regulator in this space, Ofsted has a vital role to play in ensuring the current system works well in protecting vulnerable children and helping them to thrive.

5.2.  Ofsted inspect local authorities using their inspection framework, Inspecting Local Authority Children’s Services (ILACS). While Ofsted will not be measuring compliance with the Practice Guides, we would like to see Ofsted make clear to local authorities that they expect to see the Practice Guides underpin good and better practice locally with children and families.

5.3.  In order to be used effectively, Practice Guides should also be given sufficient status across the sector – by both practitioners and inspectors – and should inform local authority inspections. This could be done, for example, by Ofsted specifically referencing the use of Practice Guides, and the evidence which underpins them, in their blogs.

January 2025