Consultation over children’s social care exemptions ‘not valid’, damning review claims

The review, written by eight academics specialising in social work, claims that consultation documents, including the survey, may “influence consultation responses”.

Its design will “seriously compromise the validity of any data gathered through it”, the document adds.

• Analysis: Changes to care responsibilities divides opinion among leaders

• Analysis: Timeline for relaxation of social care duties

The survey, published last week, aims to collect views from across the sector on the extension of certain emergency amendments to legislation relating to children’s social care introduced as a response to Covid-19 through a series of five questions.

The changes were introduced in April through the Adoption and Children (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020, also known as Statutory Instrument 445, and are set to expire on 25 September.

However, some elements are now being considered for extension until March 2021. These include:

• Medical reports on prospective foster carers and adopters to be approved at a later date

• For visits between social workers and children to take place virtually when local lockdowns or self-isolation make in-person visits impossible

• Enable Ofsted to phase in their return to children’s social care inspections between now and April 2021.

The group of academics, including Professor Brid Featherstone, from the University of Huddersfield and Emeritus Professor Ray Jones, from Kingston University, describe the survey as “methodologically compromised”.

The review accuses the DfE of failing to use unambiguous and neutral language in its survey and attempting to persuade respondents to give certain answers. It also claims that some questions "do not make it clear what the respondent is agreeing to".

This “is likely to lead to biased data”, it adds.

The group criticises a preamble to the survey in which DfE claims “the reason the amendments to the regulations were needed and what we have been doing to monitor the use of the flexibilities”.

• Blog: The rights of children in care are in lockdown

• More news: Article 39 granted judicial review against DfE

The review states that this introduction to the survey is based on “government claims about the introduction of SI445, and they are highly contested”.

“The government should have restricted itself to factually stating the changes which have been introduced in SI445, rather than seeking to justify them in the preamble to a consultation document,” it adds, stating that ministers should also have “recognised that the introduction of SI445 has been both controversial and contested”.

The review goes on to claim that questions laid out in the survey and preambles to them are aimed at “leading the respondent towards a particular preferred answer”.

Using a preamble to the first question which states “our National Health Service still faces significant challenges as we enter a period of recovery” as an example, the academics claim that “the implication is that the respondent who disagrees with this proposal is objecting to necessary changes which will allow essential services to continue to function”.

It also highlights a change in tone surrounding questions which ask respondents if they “agree” with government proposals.

Question four states: “Do you agree we should allow the regulations (listed below) to expire on 25 September?”

“Question four may be one where the government would be content if respondents disagreed with their proposal given that it has tried to argue that all of the changes in SI445 were necessary,” the review suggests.

The authors add: “Both question four and question five (which asks about whether respondents think there should be additional safeguards on any remaining ‘flexibilities’ after September) are problematic in that the design of the questions assumes that a respondent agrees that the regulatory changes in SI445 should continue until September – yet the government knows that there is a high level of opposition against SI445 continuing at all.

“The way question four is currently drafted means that the government has no means of knowing whether a respondent selected ‘disagree’ because s/he wishes SI445 to expire before 25 September, or because s/he wishes the regulatory changes in SI445 to be extended beyond 25 September.”

The amendments have sparked controversy across the sector since they were introduced in April.

Children’s rights charity Article 39 has been granted a judicial review against the DfE on the issue which is set to take place at the High Court next week (27/28 July).

Carolyne Willow, director of Article 39, called on supporters of a #ScrapSI445 movement launched by the charity to “hold off” completing the survey.

She added: “This latest development in the government's attempt to justify its radical deregulation of safeguards for children in care continues the theme of lack of careful, expert attention to the task in hand. 

“That a children's rights impact assessment and an equalities impact assessment were published at the same time indicates this wasn't a piece of work undertaken at speed, so that cannot be the excuse. The Scrap SI445 campaign steering group meets next week to consider this academic review; meanwhile, we're asking our supporters to hold off completing the online survey."

Jonathan Stanley, chief executive of the National Centre for Excellence in Residential Child Care, described the review as both “historic” and “necessary”, adding that it is “unprecedented for a government to have need of such a reminder of first order research principles”.

“The consultation being so poor shows a failure in DfE quality control, necessary checks have not happened. Overall, along with the framing of the survey the failures of checks and balances are a remarkable conjuncture,” said Stanley.

“This action has not been necessary as previous governments, across political parties, have seen social work researchers and educators as partners along with social work professional organisations, lawyers, children's organisations, and many more. This situation simply could not have occurred with such wide involvement.”