Returning home from care: guide to successful family reunification

Judging when it is safe for a child who has been taken into the care of the state to return home to their birth family is one of the toughest decisions children's social workers face. In most cases, the care plans of looked-after children will be working towards successful reunification of a family that has been split apart. But as the evidence shows (see box), around a third of children who return home end up re-entering care within a few years.

By their very nature, the home circumstances in which neglected and vulnerable children live are often chaotic and complex, so the failure of a family reunification may be down to the re-emergence of a parent's deep-rooted problems.

These can be hard to predict. But a new practice framework developed by the NSPCC and backed by the Department for Education highlights that failed reunifications are associated with poor social work practice, including lack of, or limited, assessments, and inadequate support for children and families before and after reunification.

Published today (2 February), the framework pulls together the key messages from research into a practice guide for frontline children's professionals on what good social work looks like.

It does this by breaking down the reunification process into five stages and includes practice tools and checklists to help practitioners judge when the circumstances are right for reunification to happen.

The NSPCC has worked with 14 local authorities since 2012 to develop and implement the framework, including Enfield (see box below), while the universities of Bristol and Loughborough have evaluated its effectiveness. The NSPCC says the evaluation found that managers, workers and families viewed the framework positively.

Alongside the framework, an implementation checklist has also been published to help managers and children's services leaders develop robust systems to ensure the right foundations are in place locally for successful reunification.

While the framework is not statutory guidance, its authors say that it links in with scrutiny of case files of children who have returned home as part of Ofsted's single inspection framework.

Here is a guide to the five-stage process outlined in the framework.

1. Assessing risk and parental capacity to change

The framework says the purpose of the assessment is to "gather and analyse information about the risk and protective factors to the child if they were to return home, and each parent's capacity to change".

An additional worker should be appointed to compile a case history and work alongside the child's allocated social worker. The framework recognises that lack of resources may hamper this, but adds: "We strongly suggest an additional worker is brought in to review the evidence and support decision making."

When assessing risk, workers need to be guided by research findings about the likelihood of abuse recurring, it explains.

Particular attention should be given to the high rates (78 per cent) of repeat maltreatment of parents with substance misuse problems. Research by Wade in 2011 found that four out of five children reunified with alcohol or drug misusing parents experienced a return breakdown.

Other indicators strongly linked with reunification failing include children who have experienced previous failed returns; those who have suffered chronic neglect or abuse; and parents who have failed to make substantial changes six months after a child's birth.

A key element of the assessment process is understanding parental capacity to change, the framework explains. "Parents should be given opportunities and support to change, but this needs to be balanced with the best interests of the child," it adds.

2. Making a decision on reunification potential

The framework includes an adapted version of the risk classification framework developed by researchers in 2012. This classifies risk to reunified children as severe, high, medium or low. Each category has a list of characteristics to aid practitioners in making an assessment.

"The classification of risk will guide the decision about a return home," the framework states. "The worker, the team manager, and either the worker who wrote the case history or someone who has independently reviewed the case will independently classify risk, and then confer and make a collaborative decision about the potential for reunification."

Crucial to this process is for parents to demonstrate their ability to sustain behaviour changes over a period of about six months.

"There is a widely held misconception that returns home are most successful if they happen within the first six months of a child becoming looked after," it states. "Research shows that when reunifications happen without enough time to support parents to change, the children are more likely to re-experience abuse and neglect, and to come back into care."

3. Establishing parental agreements and setting goals

Where reunification is deemed possible, clear goals must be set on what milestones parents need to achieve for children to return home.

"This pre-reunification stage will lay solid foundations for those children who do end up returning home. Much of the support and services offered at this stage will continue once children return home," the document explains.

It recommends setting up written agreements with parents "in all cases", with workers striking a balance between "giving parents ownership over the agreements" while retaining the focus on what changes need to happen.

It adds: "Case supervisors need to offer support and critical challenge to make sure that agreements are clear for parents and goals are genuinely Smart (specific, measurable, agreed with families, realistic and timely)."

The worker should also co-ordinate a package of support based on the specific needs of the family. Ongoing support is critical to the outcome of reunification and should be reviewed regularly.

In addition, senior managers should ensure barriers to accessing services are removed. "For example, it is important they ensure that services like parenting support (where needed) are still available to parents when children are looked after and that services for looked-after children remain available on return home."

4. Reviewing the plan

Using the risk classification tool, workers should assess parental progress against key targets and decide whether it has been sufficient to now consider reunification.

The framework includes a template for a reunification plan, which can be used to record the roles and responsibilities of each agency and practitioner involved in supporting the parents and children to return home.

While social workers need to arrange an appropriate level of support, the framework states that they "should be mindful not to 'prop up' a family if they are unlikely to be able to meet the children's long-term needs for safety and stability without intensive support".

Work must then focus on preparing children and parents for reunification and ensuring practical issues, such as bedrooms being ready, are addressed.

5. The return home

Maintaining support at a "high level" is important at the beginning of the return home "as parental stress is likely to increase as they are getting to know their child again and the child may test out their commitment", the guide explains.

Also, authorities need a clear plan about where they can and cannot intervene if, as often happens, families then decide not to accept further help.

Leading up to the return, the frequency and amount of contact between child and parent should be gradually increased, with schools being involved in monitoring how this goes.

A child's emotional distress can appear once the "honeymoon" period after reunification has ended, and parents say that having a "crisis service" offering support any time of the day and night is helpful.

The framework authors highlight that one-third of returns home can break down within three months, but problems do not appear for up to two years in a further third of cases, so workers need to monitor cases closely.

"Be alert to risks re-emerging and take prompt protective action when necessary," they advise workers.

Cases should have their classification reviewed after six months and remain active at least until "low risk" has been maintained for six months.

ENFIELD COUNCIL SHARPENS UP REUNIFICATION PRACTICE

The London Borough of Enfield appointed a reunification manager to work with the looked-after children manager on an authority-wide strategy to improve the knowledge and skills of the workforce in relation to reunification. Its approach includes the following elements:

Briefings and support for key staff about reunification The reunification manager met with all social work and family support teams to discuss using the framework and offer training and support to workers and team managers. A conference on reunification for all children's social care staff and their key partners is also being organised. This will cover the research messages around reunification, the core content of the framework, how it is being used in Enfield and how it links with Enfield's strategic priorities.

Focusing on improving the standards of analytical chronologies The strategic implementation team identified analytical chronologies as a priority practice improvement area. The steps include:

• The council's assistant director is running focus groups with frontline staff to better understand the barriers to improvement in current practice. Messages from these focus groups will shape the training and support offered to staff.
• A training programme that integrates practice improvement with the case recording system will be developed, so that staff understand how the system supports practice.
• Analytical chronologies have been added to every relevant staff member's performance appraisal.

Source: Reunification Practice Framework implementation checklist, NSPCC

OUTCOMES FOR CHILDREN RETURNING FROM CARE

Latest Department for Education data shows that 10,300 looked-after children returned home from a period in care in 2013/14. This is 34 per cent of the roughly 30,000 children who left care over the year, a rate that has stayed around the same since 2010

A DfE study of the 10,270 looked-after children who returned home in 2006/07 found 30 per cent had re-entered care by March 2012 (see graphic)

A study by Farmer (2011) found one in three children experienced two or more failed returns from care

The Farmer study also found 45 per cent of children who returned home were abused or neglected within two years (see graphic); while in Wade's research (2011) 47 per cent of returns were found to have been made inappropriately after six months

Wade found that 81 per cent of children reunified with alcohol or drug misusing parents experienced a return breakdown

Nearly four out of five substance misusing parents abused or neglected a child after a return home, compared with 29 per cent of those without problems

While a third of failed reunifications will break down within the first three months of a child returning, a further third will fail after two years

Source: An Evidenced-informed Framework for Return Home Practice, NSPCC

30% of looked-after children who returned home in 2006/07 had re-entered care by March 2012

Source: DfE

45% of children who returned home were abused or neglected within two years

Source: Farmer, 2011