Care Review publishes responses to ‘overly critical’ Case for Change

The Case for Change, which was published in June, just six months after the review launched in January, described the current children’s social work system as “bureaucratic” and “risk averse” and said social workers did not spend enough time with children and families.

In a new report, published today (13 October), summarising 324 responses to The Case for Change from across the sector, including from those with care experience, review chair Josh MacAlister admits: “Some respondents felt that The Case for Change was overly critical of local authorities and social workers.”

• Analysis: Call for review to recognise the factors in risk-averse practice

• Children’s social care review: what about tech?

The new report adds: “We are clear that in describing the problems in the system we are not criticising the many dedicated individuals who do an incredibly challenging job, but rather the systems within which they work. 

“If we are going to achieve real change, we think it is important that we do not shy away from the genuine problems in the system that have been described to us in great detail by children and families.”

Responding to a question on how to reduce risk aversion within children’s social care, many respondents raised concerns over “the role of inspection in driving additional work and risk aversion”.

Others warned that high-profile media stories “can lead to social workers not wanting to take and hold risk” while some described non-direct work carried out by social workers as “necessary and valuable”.

Respondents called for a greater use of technology in streamlining processes used by social workers and an investment in support and administration staff for children’s social care departments.

The summary also highlights a divide across the sector over The Case for Change’s suggestion that children’s social care relies too heavily on investigation rather than support for families.

A consultation document published alongside The Case for Change asked respondents: “How do you think we should address the tension between protection and support in children’s social care that families describe?”

One social worker said such tension had led to them feeling “uncomfortable managing both sides of my job” as it led to “service users telling me their secrets in confidence because they wanted help, to [me] then being asked to use it against them e.g. in pre-proceedings,” they added.

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman said the tension was “played out” in its casework “with complaints made to us about children’s social care often describing a perceived bias against a parent, or a sense of being coerced into taking a particular course of action”.

However, other respondents, including social workers and education staff said separating family support from child protection would be a “profound mistake”.

“A recurring theme was the view that the tension can be tackled by addressing social workers’ approach and capacity,” the report states, adding that the review would “continue to hold space for this debate to hear both from those with lived and professional experience of the system about how children’s social care can work in true partnership”.

Ofsted also raised concerns over the review’s view that too many families are being unnecessarily investigated.

In the report, MacAlister also states that the review is “working with Ofsted to interrogate the area of child protection investigations further – including whether inspections look equally for evidence of under- and over-investigation”.

Other key issues highlighted in responses to The Case for Change include concerns over the government’s refusal to ban the use of unregulated supported accommodation for all children, not just those under 16 and the “cliff-edge of care” faced by 18-year-olds.

Responding to the report, Carolyne Willow, director of children’s rights charity Article 39, said it “repeats the misunderstanding of The Case for Change”.

“Today’s document claims that the government’s proposed standards for supported accommodation are the quickest means of improving the plight of 16- and 17-year-olds living in supported accommodation. This misses the point that the draft standards deliberately miss out any requirement to provide day-to-day care for children who are still in care and completing their compulsory education and training. Let’s also remember that the current Secretary of State, Nadhim Zahawi, promised action on this as far back as July 2019 when he was children’s minister.

“It is simply wrong for the review to pretend this is a quick fix – if ministers had treated this with urgency, there would have been significant financial investment to ensure the many thousands of children in unregulated settings are cared for and protected, rather than helping a few children through creating a legal demarcation based on age, not need. The review says it will listen more before coming to a broader position on care options for children, but it has today confirmed that it still backs care ending at age 16.”

Lack of focus on adoption, support for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and children with special educational needs and disabilities were also highlighted by some respondents.

Others called for the review to publish a “small number” of recommendations which include reference to necessary funding and legislation changes.

In a blog about the summary of responses, MacAlister said he hoped its publication would “get us to better answers and recommendations at the end”.

“While The Case for Change allowed us to set out the problems as we saw them, this next stage of the review is about understanding the major drivers of these problems, considering the complex dilemmas in this work and starting to move towards recommendations,” he said.