The Future of Children’s Care: Critical Perspectives on Children’s Services Reform 9781447368274

Citation preview

THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN’S CARE Critical Perspectives on Children’s Services Reform Edited by Robin Sen and Christian Kerr With a foreword by June Thoburn

First published in Great Britain in 2023 by Policy Press, an imprint of Bristol University Press University of Bristol 1–​9 Old Park Hill Bristol BS2 8BB UK t: +​44 (0)117 374 6645 e: bup-​[email protected] Details of international sales and distribution partners are available at policy.bristoluniversitypress.co.uk © Bristol University Press 2023 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978-​1-​4473-​6826-​7 paperback ISBN 978-​1-​4473-​6828-​1 ePub ISBN 978-​1-​4473-​6827-​4 ePdf The right of Robin Sen and Christian Kerr to be identified as editors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved: no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of Bristol University Press. Every reasonable effort has been made to obtain permission to reproduce copyrighted material. If, however, anyone knows of an oversight, please contact the publisher. The statements and opinions contained within this publication are solely those of the editors and contributors and not of the University of Bristol or Bristol University Press. The University of Bristol and Bristol University Press disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any material published in this publication. Bristol University Press and Policy Press work to counter discrimination on grounds of gender, race, disability, age and sexuality. Cover design: Robin Hawes Bristol University Press and Policy Press use environmentally responsible print partners. Printed in Great Britain by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY

RS: Dr Pam Green Lister, who passed away in 2022. A fine teacher to several generations of social work students in Glasgow. CK: Ian Dickson and Jakeb Arturio Braden, who knew the score.

Contents Notes on contributors Acknowledgements Foreword by June Thoburn

vii xi xii

1

Introduction: critical perspectives on children’s services reform Christian Kerr and Robin Sen

2

Where now? Children’s rights in England into the 2020s Carolyne Willow

14

3

More of memes than schemes: networked propagation in children’s social care Joe Hanley

38

4

Reclaiming social work, the social work complex and issues of bias in children’s services Robin Sen and Christian Kerr

60

5

Humane social work practice: a more parent friendly system? Hopes and challenges in the 2020s Taliah Drayak

85

6

Exploring and re-​imagining children’s services in England through a decolonial frame Isobel Drew, Rebekah Pierre and Robin Sen

101

7

Kinship care for England and Wales in the 2020s: assumptions, challenges and opportunities Paul Shuttleworth

122

8

If adoption is the answer, what was the question? Avery Bowser

145

v

1

The Future of Children’s Care

9

Caring for children and young people in state care in the 2020s John Radoux

161

10

Protecting children: a social model for the 2020s Brid Featherstone and Anna Gupta

178

11

Conclusion: children’s services reform looking back and forwards Robin Sen and Christian Kerr

194

Index

214

vi

Notes on contributors Avery Bowser is a social worker and Fostering Services Manager with Action for Children in Northern Ireland. Co-​chair of the Belfast Local Engagement Partnership, bringing social workers and people with lived experience of services together to improve and promote social work. Co-​author of Social Work and Co-​production (2021; Department of Health –​Northern Ireland) –​ shortlisted for European Social Services Award 2022. Northern Ireland Committee member for the British Association of Social Workers. Chair of the Editorial Board for Professional Social Work, 2012–​2018. Avery is an adoptive parent who currently makes use of health and social care services for children. Taliah Drayak is a care-​experienced mum of nine children. She is the director of the International Parent Advocacy Network and an executive officer for the Parents Families and Allies Network. As well as working as a visiting researcher at Cambridge University, she sits on the oversight board of the Promise, the National Children’s Bureau EbE (experts by experience) board and on the Open University Service User and Carers Group. She co-founded the Society for Family Preservation and works as a children and families advocate. Isobel Drew is Lecturer at the University of Kent, and an experienced social work practitioner. She has developed her skills and knowledge through statutory social work practice, with a clear focus on child welfare and protection. She has held a range of professional positions within statutory service settings, including frontline services, Cafcass and a Local Safeguarding Children Board, and is also a qualified Practice Teacher. Her research interests are broadly focused on the interface between professional and academic

vii

The Future of Children’s Care

practice, ideas of ‘othering’ and belonging, and the scope and potential of visual and sensory research within social work. Brid Featherstone is Professor of Social Work at the University of Huddersfield. She has written extensively, both with Anna Gupta, and separately, on aspects of children’s services and children’s services reform. Their joint work on a social model of child protection has had an international impact. Anna Gupta is Professor of Social Work at Royal Holloway University. She has written extensively, both with Brid Featherstone, and separately, on aspects of children’s services and children’s services reform. Their joint work on a social model of child protection has had an international impact. Joe Hanley is Lecturer in Social Work at The Open University based in England. He has written and researched extensively on social work education, and in particular the impact of fast-​ track training and the segregation of social work education in England. Joe has also gained prominence for his recent work on contemporary policy networks, both within social work and in other professions. Current research projects include examining the potential role for social work podcasts as a medium for professional development and piloting online training to support social workers working in disasters. Christian Kerr is a social worker and Lecturer in Social Work and Social and Community Studies at Leeds Beckett University. He has been a mental health support worker and community worker, and has practised as a social worker with adults with physical disabilities, mental health issues, learning disabilities, neurological conditions and brain injuries. He was a member of the editorial collective of Social Work 2020–​21 under Covid-​19 online magazine. Rebekah Pierre is a care-​experienced social worker and Professional Officer at the British Association of Social Workers. Rebekah has drawn upon her lived experience to expose wider policy failures in publications such as The Guardian. viii

Notes on contributors

Her recent 2020 journal paper ‘Revisiting diary entries from care: an exposition of the challenges of unregulated placement settings’ (Practice: Social Work in Action), is the first-​known auto-​ ethnographic paper to feature childhood diary extracts written in the care of the state. She is the author of Gymtherapy: Developing Emotional Wellbeing and Resilience in Children through the Medium of Movement (Routledge, 2018), and a co-​editor of Out of the Shadows: Social Work in Disasters (Critical Publishing, 2022). John Radoux is a child and adolescent psychotherapeutic counsellor in private practice, providing therapy for children in care, consultations to parents and foster carers, and is commissioned by a local authority to support an outreach service for young people on the edge of care. Prior to this he spent 17 years working in children’s homes. Additionally, he has written regularly, on matters related to children in care, for publications such as Community Care magazine and CYP Now. He spent 14 years in care as a child. Robin Sen practised as a child and family social worker in Glasgow and is currently Lecturer in Social Work at the University of Edinburgh and Honorary Research Fellow at the University of Sheffield. He is the author of Effective Practice with Looked after Children (Palgrave, 2018) and co-​editor of Practice: Social Work in Action journal. He has interests in child and family social work, minoritised identities and social work practice and the political governance of social work. Paul Shuttleworth is Economic and Social Research Council Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Sussex University. He completed his PhD in 2021 on What Matters to Children Living in Kinship Care. Paul has worked as a British Association of Social Workers Professional Officer, an Associate Tutor for the University of Sussex, and completed publications for journals and edited books. Paul, his research, and his innovative child-​centred methodology have been featured on various podcasts. He also co-​hosts the podcast ‘Sarah and Paul Do Do Social Work’. Paul currently chairs the first UK Jewish Social Worker Group. His research interests

ix

The Future of Children’s Care

include child participation, kinship care, permanence, dialogical participation and critical realism. Carolyne Willow is the founder director of Article 39, a children’s rights charity in England. It has led several campaigns against the dilution of children’s rights in England over the last decade, notably forcing the withdrawal of the Department for Education’s so-​called ‘myth busting guide’ in 2019 and then, in 2020, securing a Court of Appeal ruling which found the Education Secretary had acted unlawfully when he introduced secondary legislation (Statutory Instrument 445) which removed and diluted 65 safeguards for children in care without any consultation with the Children’s Commissioner or other organisations representing the rights and interests of children.

x

Acknowledgements We are grateful to all of the authors for providing their chapters within a tight timescale among multiple other pressing commitments. We have very much appreciated the careful consideration and time given to the production of the book throughout by staff at Policy Press, in particular Isobel Bainton and Jay Allan. Time spent producing a book inevitably eats into personal time and we are grateful for the love, support and patience of Paul (RS) and Ellie, G and H (CK). Finally, we would like to take the opportunity to promote the fantastic work undertaken by two organisations in the UK: Social Workers Without Borders (https://​www.soci​alwo​rker​swit​hout​bord​ers.org/​) and Together with Migrant Children (https://​www.toge​ther​migr​antc​hild​ren. org.uk/​). Any editorial royalties received from this collection will be split between these two charities.

xi

Foreword June Thoburn

Emeritus Professor of Social Work University of East Anglia

I take it as a privilege accorded to the writer of a foreword to an edited collection to make a personal response, a privilege lightly claimed since the editors have in their opening and concluding chapters so fully drawn together and reflected on the individual chapters. Having started my social work career as a child care officer tasked with setting up ‘preventive services’ in the heady days of Section 1 of the 1963 Children and Young Persons Act, I greatly appreciated being welcomed into the Care Review Watch Alliance, a ‘loose collective of care experienced people, care professionals and academics’. With the MacAlister Review published but government intentions not yet known, some members of this collective, along with other fellow travellers, have taken the opportunity offered by this book to move beyond commentary and critique of the Review’s processes and conclusions to address the risks of hasty implementation of some of its ill-​thought-​through recommendations, and to share hopes for the future. Some readers will, like me, have been on a social media journey with the authors from even before the Review was announced. Though each chapter author is clear about the inequities and harms of the ‘care system’, and the need for considerably more resources as well as changes, when the government announced an ‘independent’ review of ‘the children’s social care system’ we were not all at one about the scope of the review that was needed. Should the focus be on children in care and care leavers, or was the ‘care system’ to be taken to include the full range of child and family services as legislated for by the 1989 Act? xii

Foreword

I recall a Twitter exchange where I expressed concerns that this broad-​based review, commissioned by a neoliberal-​minded government, that had been seeking for some years to weaken rights to quality, publicly provided and accountable services, could result in harming the balance required by the 1989 Act. Then, as now, balance is essential between helping families within the community, intervening when protective services were needed, and providing good quality care for those whose needs could best be met by out-​of-​home care. The writers of the chapters in this powerful book, as researchers, activists and advocates from across children’s services, and from personal experience of the ‘care system’, came together in pointing to pitfalls as the shape of the Review emerged. A ‘root and branch’ review to be completed in only 18 months, legislated for within three years, and with a requirement for no substantial government funding, was sufficient to cause doubts. But learning that the Review was to be entrusted to someone with no track record of social work practice, service provision, peer-​reviewed research or policy formation to equip him to navigate through the complexity of our past and present, called for action, with the formation of the Care Review Watch Alliance, the Social Work 2020–​21 under Covid-​19 online journal special edition, and now this book. Looking at my bookshelf of government papers I am struck by the contrast with earlier well-​respected review leaders, most of whom took on a smaller part of the service: Eileen Munro, a social work professor who tackled ‘child protection’; Moira Gibb, with a distinguished career as a social worker, director and chief executive, who explored the social work profession and social work training; Bill Utting, a social worker who became Chief Inspector of Social Services, who explored residential child care. Reviews that come to mind which have previously tackled the whole system have been notable for politicians or senior civil servants leading committees who worked collaboratively to review the evidence and produce the report: this was, for example, the case with Rene Short, MP, who prepared the report that led to the 1989 Children Act. So, the disappointment was understandable when it became clear that although there were to be ‘advisory groups’ in the MacAlister Review, selected by the Review leader,

xiii

newgenprepdf

The Future of Children’s Care

no committee was to be constituted to bring in expertise and challenge from within the child and family service community. This book includes scholarly referenced papers mining sociological theories to add to our understanding of the realities of practice and experience and the policy process. But it is also enriched by chapters that move from personal experience of growing up in care or being badly treated by ‘child protection’ services, to exploring ways of helping. Given that the Review took on the task of recommending ‘root and branch’ changes to the whole ‘care system’, as the government chose to define it, it is appropriate that the chapter authors cover the territory from community-​based family services to in care, child custody and leaving care services. Like me, you may think that you will already know what some of the authors have to say –​they have not been shy in coming forward, through social media, short punchy press articles and longer referenced journal articles. But don’t make that assumption. I read every word, and noted the copious supporting references for future use, and found so many new ideas and so much to reflect on. Some will pick and choose, but the book will most reward those who read it as a whole.

xiv

1 Introduction: critical perspectives on children’s services reform Christian Kerr and Robin Sen

Introduction It is an honour to present this collection which brings together the perspectives of a range of contributors with different experiences and expertise. This includes contributors with experiences of the care system as children, experiences of the children’s social care system as parents and carers, as practitioners, as campaigners and as academics with interests in children’s services practice and policy. While the focus is children’s services policy and practice in England, a number of the authors are based in, or bring substantive experience of, practice and policy in other UK countries, and several of the issues here resonate with dilemmas, challenges and debates about child welfare provision internationally. Each of the chapters shines a light on particular aspects of children’s services reform. The chapters adopt, to varying degrees, a critical lens on the MacAlister Review of Children’s Social Care in England which the UK government announced in January 2021 and which concluded with its Final Report in May 2022 (MacAlister, 2022). While the thinking underpinning the chapters is united in advocating for how children’s services policy and practices can and should be different, it is worth stating that the authors have a variety of perspectives on what such changes should be. 1

The Future of Children’s Care

The announcement of the MacAlister Review was the catalyst for the development of this collection. Among those who have taken a critical stance to elements of the reform agenda in children’s services since 2010 there was some concern at Josh MacAlister’s appointment as chair of a notionally independent review (see, among others, Dickson, 2021; Hanley et al, 2021; Jones, 2021; Mansuri, 2021; Radoux, 2021). Mr MacAlister has been closely associated with aspects of the Department for Education’s reform agenda since 2013, and has close connections to a number of individuals and organisations which have been influential within children’s services policy development in this period (Jones, 2019; Interdependence of Independence, 2021). Such associations led to questions about the Review’s ability to provide critical scrutiny of policy developments over the last decade (Hanley et al, 2021). Before MacAlister’s appointment as chair there had been high hopes for the fresh thinking and insight an independent review could bring. There was a consensus that change was needed in children’s services in England (Hanley et al, 2021) though a widespread range of views about what that change should be –​as should be expected in a policy area as broad, complex and controversial as the role of the state in family life, especially after the best part of a decade of austerity cuts. Inspired by the three-​year Duncan Review of the care system in Scotland, which itself concluded in 2020 with the publication of The Promise (Scottish Government, 2020), one of the contributors to this collection, John Radoux, had in 2019 submitted an open letter to the Secretary of State for Education, with overall responsibility for children’s services in England. Radoux’s letter called for an independent review of the care system in England. The letter was supported by 632 people with an interest in children’s services in England (Radoux, 2020). In the case of the Duncan Review, the Scottish government had given political support to the conduct of an independent review of the care system in Scotland –​then First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, had prominently expressed her personal commitment to it. However, following this, the Scottish government appointed a relatively low-​profile care-​experienced chair who had no strong public allegiance to any policy position or networks relating to the care system or government policy in 2

Introduction

Scotland. Once in place, the Duncan Review took time to build agreement on what its purposes and aims should be among its key constituents, involving a range of ‘experts by experience’ and ‘experts by profession’ (see Moore, 2020). It is important not to exceptionalise Scotland. It faces many similar challenges in children’s services delivery to England, and internationally. There remain questions over the Scottish government’s willingness to fund the reform agenda identified in The Promise and, inevitably, any concrete reform proposals in it reflect some perspectives more than others. However, it is uncontroversial to state that the manner in which the Duncan Review was conducted was widely respected within and outside Scotland. It managed to attract widespread commitment for its proposals from key stakeholders in Scotland across the political spectrum and, at least as importantly, across different constituencies of people with experience of receiving and providing services. The Conservative Party had included a commitment in its successful general election manifesto of 2019 to hold a review of the care system in England. However, as the MacAlister Review was officially announced in January 2021, it became clear that the scope of the Review had been enlarged to include the entire children’s social care system in England (Care Review Watch Alliance, 2021). No direct explanation was provided for this change by government, although the government did proclaim the need for a ‘bold and broad review’, implying that this was because different parts of the children’s services system are interlinked (DfE, 2021). We would argue that the claim that the Review would be ‘broad’ was subsequently undermined by the insufficient attention it gave to hugely important parts of the care system, including adoption (see Chapter 8) and residential care (see Chapter 9). It was also undermined by the Review Final Report’s identification of seven wide-​ranging areas of policy as of high relevance to children and families’ lives but ‘sitting outside the scope of this review’ (MacAlister, 2022, p 25). These seven policy areas are noted to be: those relating to poverty and inequality; universal family support services; ‘new and emerging threats’; domestic abuse; mental health; substance misuse; and asylum and immigration (MacAlister, 2022, pp 25–​27). These are critical issues for a self-​proclaimed ‘broad and bold’ (DfE, 2021, np) and 3

The Future of Children’s Care

‘once in a generation’ review (MacAlister, 2022, p 8) to deem as beyond its remit, beyond a generic statement recognising their importance to the lives of many children and families in receipt of children’s services. This discussion touches on a theme underpinning the collection: acts of omission, rather than commission, in policy work. The recent history of reform in children’s services in England is marked by what influential policy figures have not done or recommended, as well as what they have. In this collection various omissions within the MacAlister Review recommendations, as well as its broader coverage, are identified. Omissions were also evident at key junctures as the Review proceeded, before production of its Final Report. Remarkable in this respect, given Mr MacAlister’s call for every child in care to have loving relationships around them, was his failure to call on the UK government to extend the right of regulated care to 16-​and 17-​year-​olds in state care in the Review’s interim report, the Case for Change (The Independent Review of Children’s Social Care, 2021). Doing so in mid-​2021, before the then government’s proposals had become settled law would have presented an important challenge at a time when it could have influenced them. Instead, the Case for Change suggested its support for the government’s position of only guaranteeing regulated care for those children in care aged 15 and younger. The critical discussion of the contents and omissions within the MacAlister Review in this collection should also not obscure two points. First, that while the Review did sideline perspectives significantly different to its own analysis, it involved a range of people with expertise from receiving and providing children’s services and from undertaking respected policy and research analysis. They hold genuine commitments to improving the experiences of families receiving children’s services. Second, there are parts of the Review’s analysis which many will have welcomed, not least recognition of concern around the increasing numbers of children referred to children’s social care, subject to child protection investigations and in state care. The Review’s failure to locate the emergence of these issues within the policy agendas of successive governments from 2010 onwards, and arguably since 1997, is a salient gap. However, it did bring a 4

Introduction

welcome focus to the need to address the lack of support for birth families and kinship carers in the current child welfare system in England. The chapters in the collection The collection begins with Carolyne Willow’s analysis of what might be the future of children’s rights in the UK in the 2020s. Willow’s starting point is grounded in recognition of the social and economic contexts to children’s rights and the ways in which government policies over the last decade have made the recognition of many of these harder. Willow shines a light on the difficulties encountered in trying to persuade the Chair of the MacAlister Review to embed a children’s rights approach within it. The Final Report of the Review (MacAlister, 2022) asserts that children’s rights will be met through assuring family rights. However, Willow illustrates ways in which the Review overlooked giving due recognition to the state’s responsibilities for safeguarding children’s rights to care and protection. Willow also provides forensic analysis of how, since 2010, successive Conservative-​led administrations have repeatedly argued that children’s services are held back by ‘red tape’ and ‘bureaucracy’ and used this as the basis for attempts to remove fundamental protections for children receiving a social work service. In Chapter 3, Joe Hanley extends his prior work on network power in children’s services in England into an exploration of the creation and proliferation of ‘memes’. These are parcels of information that are readily replicated and transmitted through networks of similarly inclined people and organisations. Hanley outlines the memes that constitute the literal and figurative lingua franca of current policy networks in children’s services. In tracing the trajectories of key examples of these memes, Hanley lays bare  the remarkable alignment between key players and organisations in the networks currently influencing policy reform within children’s social care and education. This raises troubling questions about how such a ‘closed loop’ approach to reform excludes voices and perspectives that do not echo and mirror the prevailing orthodoxies that have taken root in these networks, and which are expressed in these memes. 5

The Future of Children’s Care

In Chapter 4, we ourselves analyse different parts of the same terrain by exploring an emergent ‘social work complex’ within children’s services in England since 2010. We contend that in such a complex confluences and potential conflicts of interest, relationships and ideological predilections have created conditions for a closed system of orthodoxies to take root. This contribution also highlights the dangers of exclusive and exclusionary approaches to policy reform, this time through a deep dive exploring the rise and apparent fall of the Reclaiming Social Work model of social work practice. We outline our view of how the biases inherent within the emergent complex are the antithesis of unbiased knowledge production promoted as the ‘gold standard’ of Evidence Based Practice. We conclude by arguing that relationships such as those within the social work complex need to be better acknowledged, scrutinised and managed in future policy developments in the interests of accountability and transparency, as well as effectiveness. In Chapter 5, Taliah Drayak writes from both personal and professional experience on the divisive and harmful impacts the child protection process can have on human relationships: relationships between parents/​carers and children, between siblings and also between professionals and the people they are charged with supporting. In arguing for a more humane system as a parent-​advocate, Drayak calls for a rewriting of prevailing narratives around ‘child protection’ that do not recognise the social conditions that lead families into crises, resulting in contact with social workers. The solutions Drayak proposes at practice and policy levels are co-​produced ones which value the different expertise of all those involved within children’s services. The MacAlister Review recommendation for the greater use of parental advocacy within the child welfare system in England reflects Drayak’s –​and the Parents, Families and Allies Network’s –​own calls. It is to be hoped that the UK government takes up this recommendation in England. In doing so it must also recognise that supporting parental advocacy entails giving parents and their chosen supporters the lead in developing the model of support. Such recognition would mark a fundamental shift from decades of top-​down reform in England. However, if there is a genuine desire to transform the child welfare system in this way, 6

Introduction

as international examples have shown is possible (Tobis, 2013), then the UK government needs to adopt a facilitative approach, ceding elements of its, and professionals’, current control over the process. Contemporary issues of race in children’s services are analysed by Isobel Drew, Rebekah Pierre and Robin Sen in Chapter 6. Drew and colleagues outline how, despite commissioning analyses of government data on racialised disparities in children’s services, the MacAlister Review fails to grapple with the reasons underlying these differences, which, they argue, must include consideration of structural and institutional racism. They note the Review’s silence on the government’s proposals on the age assessment of unaccompanied asylum-​seeking minors under the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which became law during the time of the Review. A number of professional organisations have raised concerns about the government’s misuse of age assessment to deny child refugees their rights. Drew and colleagues go on to consider how the chilling case of Child Q starkly illustrates the need for an intersectional analysis. Child Q was a Black teenage girl who was strip-​searched by Metropolitan Police officers in her school in 2020, while on her period. This occurred after school teachers wrongly suspected her of carrying drugs on her person. Kinship care has potential advantages in terms of children’s maintenance within known networks and communities, but can also be seen by both policy makers and practitioners as a cheaper and easier alternative to state care when children cannot remain with their birth parents. In Chapter 7, Paul Shuttleworth troubles some of the underlying assumptions and generalisations about kinship care which the MacAlister Review appears to have made. In doing so, Shuttleworth notes the variety of arrangements falling under the label of kinship care and the difficulties in clearly classifying or defining different forms of kinship care. As a result, he argues such classifications should not be used as the basis for providing the additional support for kinship placements proposed by the MacAlister Review. Shuttleworth proposes that the broad comparisons which tend to be made between children in unrelated foster care, kinship care and adoption are misleading and unhelpful, arguing that researchers need to develop greater clarity on what particular outcomes are being evaluated in kinship care 7

The Future of Children’s Care

and integrating what children say matters to them within these. Against the thrust of the MacAlister Review recommendations, he also cautions against assuming that the provision of kinship care can easily be expanded. Any such expansion will require significantly increased support and, even then, Shuttleworth argues kinship care will still not be a viable option for some children and families. In contrast to kinship care, in Chapter 8, Avery Bowser reflects on the fact that adoption only receives passing mentions in the MacAlister Review, and no substantive analysis. The Review does not explain this gap, which is all the more notable given the 2010–​2015 Conservative-​led administration’s strong focus on adoption as a preferred placement choice. From his experiences as both a manager of a fostering service and an adoptive parent Bowser engages in some candid thinking about adoption. Bowser calls into question whether adoption is currently ‘fit for purpose’. Reflecting on the complexity of views around adoption within different parts of the adoption triangle, Bowser emphasises the deeply complex relational aspects to it as well as the widely varied experiences of it. He asserts that adoption continues to carry clear advantages over other placement options in the legal security it affords children. However, he also argues that this can lead to the downplaying of the challenges and complexities adoptive children and their families face as they grow up. Bowser suggests the need to move beyond adoption practices which are based on what he terms the ‘legal fiction’ that adoption severs a child’s links to their birth family. He notes that current UK adoption practices put it at odds with practices in most of the rest of world. Instead, he proposes adoption should be grounded in recognition of a child’s ongoing connection to their birth family and networks. This, he argues, should be allied with recognition of the ongoing support needs of children adopted from care, not only through their childhoods, but in adulthood as well. In Chapter 9, John Radoux also draws on personal and professional experiences to outline a vision of what state care may look like in the 2020s. Radoux welcomes the laudable focus on the need for loving relationships in both the Duncan and MacAlister Reviews and usefully starts to unpack what this aspiration may practically mean for those supporting children in care. At its core, he argues, is the concept that those making decisions about a 8

Introduction

child’s care put themselves in the place of how that decision may genuinely feel, look and ‘be’ for that child. Drawing on therapeutic insights, he explores why this may be very difficult for carers to do consistently. Radoux also notes the importance of consulting children in care, many of whom will have had important choices taken away from them previously. However, he also articulates how this should be balanced by recognition of the need of most children in care to feel secure, held and cared for in the decisions that adults are making in respect of them. Radoux notes the lack of detailed focus on both foster care support and residential care in the MacAlister Review Final Report and questions if these absences reflected gaps in expertise within the Review. While the Review recommended the recruitment of 9,000 new foster carers, Radoux argues that the Review is weak on consideration of the support needs of foster carers –​a point also made elsewhere by experienced foster carer Jane Collins who has raised important questions about how well thought through the Review’s proposals are in respect of endowing foster carers with automatic ‘delegated authority’ for all foster children in their care (see Collins, 2022). The neglect of residential care in the Review, Radoux notes, is even more marked. Not one of its 81 recommendations is specifically about residential care, implicitly reaffirming its deeply unhelpful framing as a placement of last resort. Radoux draws together his analysis by considering the interdependent roles that good residential and foster care can play for children with higher level needs. In Chapter 10, Brid Featherstone and Anna Gupta reconsider the social model of child protection they developed along with Kate Morris and Sue White (Featherstone et al, 2014, 2018). Featherstone and Gupta update their ideas on the social model, considering what it may look like into the 2020s. The social model was ignored –​at least in name –​within the MacAlister Review, despite it being highly influential on thinking about how children’s services can be reformed internationally. The context of increasingly individualised, risk-​averse, family-​ blaming narratives around children’s services provision in many countries have created a context in which more coercive and adversarial practices are common. In such a context, the social model has provided a compelling vision of an alternative 9

The Future of Children’s Care

grounded in understandings of family welfare issues and solutions to them as needing to be located within wider social relationships and social influences. In considering the future of the social model Featherstone and Gupta note the particular impacts of COVID-​19 on families. Early hopes for more socially just settlements arising from the mutual aid efforts fostered during the COVID-​19 pandemic lockdowns were extinguished as mounting evidence of the far greater direct and indirect inequalities on poorer and minoritised families grew after the lockdowns ended. The authors note that the billions of pounds of public money deployed by the Johnson government during the pandemic resulted in large transfers to global corporations and private, web-​based platformed alternatives to traditional, physical provision of educational and cultural learning. In looking to a more hopeful future, they draw on the Care Collective’s (2020) work to advocate for global fiscal reform to help move us towards a more economically just society at the macro level, underpinned by recognition of our interdependence and relationality at the micro level. In Chapter 11 we ourselves conclude by taking a slightly longer historical overview of children’s services reform from New Labour, in the late 1990s, onwards. It situates the MacAlister Review’s welcome emphasis on better supporting birth family care within a broader analytical framework grounded in Fox Harding’s analysis of values positions in child welfare and Stuart Hall’s notion of the ‘double shuffle’ in policy development. Drawing on insights from the chapters in this collection, it identifies the potential for the MacAlister Review recommendations to be used to move children’s services policy reform in contradictory value-​orientated directions via a double shuffle. This would entail an apparent move towards a greater family support orientation which is undercut by further neoliberal-​influenced state defunding of children’s services and/​or greater deregulation and privatisation of the delivery of children’s services provision. The chapter concludes by arguing for the importance of dissent in future policy development in children’s services. Together we believe the chapters in this collection make a valuable contribution to debates both in the UK and internationally about the direction that children’s services are 10

Introduction

going in, and the direction they should be going in, during the next decade. Whether or not you agree with all that they contain, we hope you benefit from their insights and that they generate further discussion and debate about what the future of children’s services should be. References Care Collective (2020) The Care Manifesto: The Politics of Interdependence. London: Verso. Care Review Watch Alliance (2021) ‘Response to the Case for Change’ [blog]. Available at: https://​web.arch​ive.org/​web/​202​1082​ 0183​912/​https://​care​revi​ewwa​tcha​llia​nce.com/​care-​rev​iew​watch-​allia​nce-​respo​nse-​to-​the-​mac​alis​ter-​care-​rev​iew-​case-​ for-​cha​nge/​ [Accessed 1 October 2022]. Collins, J. (2022) ‘Thoughts on the care review recommendations from a foster carer’s perspective’ [blog]. Available at: https://​ web.arch​ive.org/​web/​2 02​3 012​1 192​3 28/​h ttps://​c are​revi​ ewwa​t cha​l lia​n ce.com/​t houg​h ts-​o n-​t he-​c are-​rev​i ew-​reco​ mmen​dati​ons-​from-​a-​fos​ter-​car​ers-​pers​pect​ive/​ [Accessed 21 January 2023]. DfE (Department for Education) (2021) ‘Terms of reference for the independent review of children’s social care: a bold and broad approach to support a fundamental review of children’s experiences’. Available at: https://w ​ eb.archi​ ve.org/​web/​202​1100​ 62057​ 08/h ​ ttps://​ass​ets.pub​lish​ing.serv​ice.gov.uk/g​ ove​ rnme​ nt/ ​uplo​ads/​sys​tem/​uplo​ads/​atta​chme​nt_​d​ata/​file/​952​624/​terms_​ of_​reference_​independent_​c​hild​rens​_​soc​ial_​care​_​rev​iew.pdf [Accessed 21 January 2023]. Dickson, I. (2021) ‘Experts by experience’, Social Work 2020–​21 under Covid-​19. Available at: https://​sites.goo​gle.com/​sheffi​eld. ac.uk/​sw2​020-​21-​covi​d19/​editi​ons/​spec​ial-​editi​ on/e​ xper​ ts-b​ y-​ exp​erie​nce?authu​ser=​0 [Accessed 24 January 2023]. Featherstone, B., White, S. and Morris, K. (2014) Re-​imagining Child Protection: Towards Humane Social Work with Families. Bristol: Policy Press. Featherstone, B., Gupta, A., White, S. and Morris, K (2018) Protecting Children: A Social Model. Bristol: Policy Press.

11

The Future of Children’s Care

Hanley, J., De Luca-​Ruane, A. and Moth, R. (2021) ‘Why we are worried about the “independent” review of children’s social care in England –​and why we think you should be too’, Critical and Radical Social Work 9(2), 301–​306. Independent Review of Children’s Social Care, The (2021) The Case for Change. Available at: https://​chil​dren​ssoc​ialc​are. inde​ p end​ e nt-​ rev​ i ew.uk/​ w p-​ c ont​ e nt/​ u plo​ a ds/​ 2 022/​ 0 6/​ IRCSC​_​The​_​Cas​e_​fo​r_​Ch​ange​_​27.05.22.pdf [Accessed 30 July 2022]. Interdependence of Independence (2021) A Network Map of Children’s Services. Available at: https://​www.childr​enss​ervi​ces. netw​ork/​ [Accessed 1 September 2022]. Jones, R. (2019) In Whose Interest? The Privatisation of Child Protection and Social Work. Bristol: Policy Press. Jones, R. (2021) ‘Prescience of paranoia? Reflecting on the future’, Social Work 2020–​21 under Covid-​19. Available at: https://​sites. goo​gle.com/​sheffi​eld.ac.uk/​sw2​020-​21-​covi​d19/​editi​ons/​ spec​ial-​edit​ion/​pre​scie​nce-​of-​paran​oia-​ref​lect​ing-​on-​the-​ fut​ure?authu​ser=​0 [Accessed 21 January 2023]. MacAlister, J. (2022) The Independent Review of Children’s Social Care. Final Report. London: Department for Education. Mansuri, N. (2021) ‘A review of children’s social care in England or a social work apocalypse?’, Social Work 2020–​21 under Covid-​19. Available at: https://​sites.goo​gle.com/​sheffi​eld.ac.uk/​sw2​020-​ 21-​covi​d19/​editi​ons/​spec​ial-​edit​ion/​a-​rev​iew-​of-​childr​enss​ oc​ial-​care-​in-​engl​and-​or-​a-​soc​ial-​work-​apo​calyp​ se?authus​ er=0​ [Accessed 24 January 2023]. Moore, R. (2020) ‘A review like no other’, Social Work 2020–​21 under Covid-​19. Available at: https://​sites.goo​gle.com/​sheffi​eld. ac.uk/s​ w20​ 20-2​ 1-c​ ovid​ 19/e​ ditio ​ ns/5​ th-e​ diti​ on-1​ 4-j​ uly-2​ 020/​ a-​rev​iew-​like-​no-​other [Accessed 1 October 2022]. Radoux, J. (2020) ‘Are children in care in danger of slipping out of view again?’, Social Work 2020–​21 under Covid-​19. Available at: https:// ​ s ites.goo​ g le.com/ ​ s heffi ​ e ld.ac.uk/ ​ sw2 ​ 0 20- ​ 2 1-​ covi​d19/​editi​ons/​2nd-​edit​ion-​24-​april-​2020/​are-​child​ren-​ in-​care-​in-​dan​ger-​of-​slipp​ing-​out-​of-​view-​again [Accessed 1 October 2022].

12

Introduction

Radoux, J. (2021) ‘Reviews, independence and lies’, Social Work 2020–​21 under Covid-1 ​ 9. Available at: https://​sites.goo​gle.com/​ sheffi​eld.ac.uk/​sw2​020-​21-​covi​d19/​editi​ons/​spec​ial-​edit​ion/ ​ revi ​ ews- ​ i ndep​ e nde​ n ce-​ a nd-​ l ies?authu​ s er=​ 0 [Accessed 24 January 2023]. Scottish Government (2020) The Promise. The Independent Care Review. Available at: https://w ​ ww.care​ revi​ ew.scot/​wp-​cont​ent/​ uplo​ads/​2020/​02/​The-​Prom​ise.pdf [Accessed 1 June 2022]. Tobis, D. (2013) From Pariahs to Partners: How Parents and their Allies Changed New York City’s Child Welfare System. New York: Oxford University Press.

13

2 Where now? Children’s rights in England into the 2020s Carolyne Willow

Introduction The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which the UK ratified in 1991, puts children and their interests and perspectives centre stage. It makes them a political priority: The essential idea about the rights of the child is that society has an obligation to satisfy the fundamental needs of children. It is on this very point the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is so important. One of its main messages is that children’s issues are political and should be put high on the political agenda. (Hammarberg, 1990, p 4) Ratifying states parties are meant to uphold all of the UNCRC’s provisions and obligations, unless they have registered reservations with the UN (the UK’s final reservations were lifted in 2008). Article 4 requires that maximum available resources are ploughed into fulfilling the economic, social and cultural rights of children which, for a rich developed nation like the UK, would mean an end to child poverty, and certainly the end of children being admitted to hospital due primarily to malnutrition (42 school-​aged 14

Where now?

children in 2020/​2021 –​NHS Digital, 2021) or entering the care system principally because of their family’s low income (at least 50 children each year –​see DfE, 2021a). Article 20 grants ‘special protection and assistance’ to children temporarily or permanently separated from their parents. Article 39 provides that children who have endured abuse or other rights violations have the right to recover in environments which nurture their health, self-​respect and dignity. The treaty’s general principles –​Articles 2, 3, 6 and 12 –​entitle children respectively: to enjoy all of their UNCRC rights without discrimination; to have their best interests treated as a primary consideration in all matters affecting them (at individual and group level); to maximum survival and development; and to be able to express their views freely in all matters concerning them, and to then have these views given due weight in accordance with their age and maturity. Fundamentally, the UNCRC lifts the status of children, and implores adults to have deeper, more meaningful and respectful relationships with children, resting upon the understanding that children have their own agency and integrity and that they are neither the property of their parents nor the state (Willow, 2021). Scotland’s parliament acknowledged as much when unanimously passing legislation making the UNCRC part of Scots law in March 2021 –​a move which the Supreme Court was later to find went beyond the legislature’s powers. A government fully committed to the UNCRC faces the child as a person in their own right. This does not mean that children are to be viewed as detached from their parents, families and communities; these are vital for children’s well-​being and development, and the treaty accordingly defends them. However, like all human rights instruments, the UNCRC makes provision for the worst of human circumstances and behaviours: it is both visionary and pragmatic in demanding a much better world for children while being clear-​sighted about the realities of their lives. Rights-​respecting governments seek to understand what life is like for children; they have mechanisms in place to ensure children’s views and experiences are known and acted upon; and they marshal society’s resources into making sure that every child can reach their potential. A government embracing its children’s 15

The Future of Children’s Care

rights obligations always has one eye on creating the conditions for children to have fulfilling adult lives, but the UNCRC’s true purpose is to cherish children for the people they are today. With its 54 separate articles and more than 40 substantive rights, the treaty requires the state to be active and expansive in transforming children’s lives. This large state responsibility towards children mirrors the obligations fulfilled every day at micro level by parents and other adult family members whose routines, histories and sense of purpose are invariably powered by love for children. This continues under conditions of extreme financial stress –​a poll of single parent families found 29 per cent of parents had cut back on food or missed meals so their children could eat (Gingerbread, 2022). A Sunderland anti-​poverty action group reported: There was one man who was going without food to feed his son. He had a part-​time job and was walking four miles to work and four miles back. He recently collapsed with a heart attack and the hospital told him he’d become malnourished and it had happened because of the strain on his body. (Cox, cited in Fatkin 2022, np) When the UK was last before the Committee on the Rights of the Child –​the international body of children’s rights experts which monitors implementation of the treaty –​the UK government’s failure to remove the archaic defence of ‘reasonable chastisement’ was once again strongly challenged (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2016). This defence is available to parents prosecuted for assaulting their children and derives from an 1860 case where a headteacher beat to death a child with learning difficulties (R v Hopley). It is a litmus test of children’s human rights since interpersonal violence is not legally sanctioned for any other group of people. Its genesis is patriarchal ideology that holds that children belong to their parents. The terminology selected by adults seeking to defend it –​‘light smacks’ and ‘tapping’ –​does not reflect the experiences and feelings of children (Willow and Hyder, 1998), and child protection is fatally undermined while England still clings to it. 16

Where now?

Call for a children’s rights-​based review That millions of children’s lives in England are diminished and made harder through social and economic policies running counter to the UNCRC was the backdrop for the author being part of a coalition which sought to encourage the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care in England (hereafter, the MacAlister Review) to use the treaty as its guiding framework. Announcing its Chair, Josh MacAlister, the government had promised the review would ‘set out to radically reform the system’ (DfE, 2021c) and we therefore sought a public commitment that the Review would uphold ‘the principles and provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) through its working methods, analytical framework and proposals for change’ (Coalition of Coalitions, 2021). The coalition government had promised ‘that the government will give due consideration to the UNCRC articles when making new policy and legislation’ (Teather, 2010), a pledge reaffirmed by the Conservative government several years later (Zahawi, 2018), so this ought to have been pushing at an open door. In his written response to our request, MacAlister stated his ‘unequivocal support for the UNCRC’ but went on to state: [T]‌he 54 articles on their own are not enough to ensure that all children grow up with safety, stability and love and that the state provides the same foundation for the children in its care. For this, we need to go beyond a discussion simply of rights to one that includes a focus on the relationships that children need in their lives and this is a significant focus for the review. (Article 39, 2021, p 27) Notably, however, the UNCRC is steadfast in its support for children’s relationships with their parents, and a children’s rights approach requires professionals and organisations to get to know and understand each child’s feelings and experiences, including finding out which people matter most to them. As an experienced children’s rights campaigner it was simply implausible to me that the Review had considered a scenario where the UNCRC was 17

The Future of Children’s Care

implemented fully for each and every child in England, and then considered that this didn’t go far enough. Nonetheless, MacAlister did promise a children’s rights impact assessment of the Review’s recommendations, and a statement analysing a selection of recommendations was published alongside the Final Report. A steady and persistent government agenda to deregulate children’s social care was the context for the MacAlister Review, and it is to this we turn now. Children’s services as red tape Children’s services was among 29 policy areas selected for potential deregulation through the Red Tape Challenge launched by the then Prime Minister David Cameron in April 2011 (Cameron, 2011). The public were invited to examine legislation as diverse as the membership of local safeguarding children boards, the frequency of children’s homes inspections and the requirement for independent special schools to comply with fire safety recommendations. In the event, only a small number of children’s social care regulations were removed, and then only those which were redundant or had been superseded by other secondary legislation. At the end of 2014, the then business minister Matthew Hancock announced, “Today is a milestone for businesses of all shapes and sizes. I am very proud that the government is the first in modern history to cut red tape and free up business to create jobs and prosperity” (Hancock, 2014). He did not mention that child protection measures had been put through the same ministerial ‘Star Chamber’ process which had led to the government saving businesses £10 billion. This negative framing has continued apace for over a decade and is woven into the MacAlister Review –​including through its claim that the statutory scheme relating to children in care is too prescriptive, its recommendation to abolish independent reviewing officers for children in care, its proposal for a deregulation mechanism for local authorities and a new regional structure for planning children’s care, which will move functions out of the direct control of individual councils. 18

Where now?

Moving children’s services from local authorities As the Red Tape Challenge was nearing its close, the Department for Education (DfE) sought views on permitting local authorities to outsource nearly all of their children’s social care functions (DfE, 2014a). Secondary legislation had already been passed allowing local authorities to contract out services for individual looked after children and care leavers –​a move first piloted in six local authorities through the Children and Young Persons Act 2008. Now, the government proposed to allow virtually every local authority children’s social care function to be run by charities and the private sector. Its consultation document outlined: [This] will allow authorities to harness third party expertise, and/​or set up more agile delivery structures outside traditional hierarchies. … The current position, where innovation of this kind can only take place in the context of failure and as a result of government direction, is illogical and is already causing some local authorities difficulties as they re-​think how best to provide services. (DfE, 2014a, np) Senior social work academics expressed alarm that companies such as G4S, Serco and Atos could be put in charge of child protection services (Butler, 2014); a petition launched by Children England attracted more than 77,000 signatures (Falcon, 2014); and 1,315 submissions were made to the government consultation (DfE, 2014b). In response, the government promised to amend the draft regulations to prevent profit-​making entities from running more children’s social care services (services to individual looked after children and care leavers would remain open to the private sector). The final regulations prohibited profit-​making companies from taking on social services functions. Except this was not the whole story: the government’s explanatory memorandum published at the same time revealed the profit ban would ‘not prevent an otherwise profit-​making company from setting up a separate non-​profit making subsidiary to enable them to undertake such functions’ (DfE, 2014c). 19

The Future of Children’s Care

Bonfire of children’s rights Then came a constitutional shockwave. The Children and Social Work Bill arrived in the House of Lords in May 2016 without any prior Green or White Paper and contained a series of clauses which, had they been enacted, would have allowed local authorities in England to opt out of any number of children’s social care duties for up to six years as a trial for national deregulation. Emma Lewell-​Buck, Labour’s then Shadow Children’s Minister, obtained from the House of Commons Library a list of affected legislation –​it spread to 11 pages. All of the Children Act 1989 was to be up for area-​based deregulation, as was the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the Children Act 2004, the Care Act 2014, as well as all other primary legislation with social services functions passed since 1933, and thousands of provisions in secondary legislation. Local authorities would even be permitted to opt out of duties contained within the Bill itself, including new support for care leavers. Moreover, ministers intended to empower themselves to force struggling local authorities to rescind their duties. Tunstill and Willow (2017, p 47) explained: In a particularly Orwellian move, one of the clauses permitted the Secretary of State … to remove statutory duties from local authorities currently under government intervention for failing to meet their legal obligations. No consultation or consent was required from these local authorities. Richard Watts, chair of the Local Government Association’s children and young people board, which strongly opposed this particular clause, was to warn, ‘A lot of councils see that as potentially a backdoor to mass privatisation of children’s services’. (Cited in Hayes, 2016, np) A ‘Together for Children’ coalition of children’s rights campaigners, care-​experienced people, social workers, academics, lawyers and trade unionists was formed to fight the exemption clauses. Members briefed parliamentarians and the media and met with government ministers and civil servants; a petition gathered 20

Where now?

more than 108,000 signatures (Willow, 2016). Very few publicly backed the government (Timpson, 2017), though the Children’s Commissioner for England, the Chief  Social Worker for Children and Families and social policy professor Eileen Munro were high-​ profile supporters. Munro had previously undertaken a national review of child protection for the government (Munro, 2011) and was positioned prominently in a government document promoting opt-​out powers. She later disowned the policy in an email to Article 39’s Director, Shadow Children’s Minister Emma Lewell-​Buck and former Children’s Minister Tim Loughton: I have reached the conclusion that the power to have exemption from primary and secondary legislation creates more dangers than the benefits it might produce. … While I understand and respect the motivation of the current Government, there is a serious danger in having such wide-​reaching powers in statute. Some future Secretary of State might use them in ways that are completely contrary to the current intentions and consequently subvert the will of Parliament. (Munro, 2017, np) Conversely, the then Children’s Commissioner for England, Anne Longfield, and Chief Social Worker for Children and Families, Isabelle Trowler, never relinquished their support. The Children’s Commissioner for England is the statutory body for the promotion and protection of children’s rights, and the legislation creating the office requires the postholder to use the UNCRC when interpreting the rights and interests of children. Non-​ discrimination in the enjoyment of rights is one of the treaty’s four general principles: the exemption clauses, if implemented, would have meant children and young people living in different parts of the country having different rights and protections. Although the Chief Social Worker for Children and Families is a senior civil servant role (McGregor, 2013), as a registered social worker the postholder is required to meet professional standards which include promoting the human rights of those who have social workers (Social Work England, 2019). Universality of protection is a fundamental tenet of human rights. Ahead of a critical vote 21

The Future of Children’s Care

in the House of Lords, Trowler widely circulated a three-​page letter describing children and their families as being ‘entrapped’ by legislation: For 25 years I have often been puzzled as to why we do things in the way we do. I have witnessed, as you have too, a vast array of legislation and regulation which has emerged over time intending to plug a deficit in national practice systems, all entirely honourable. But, it has inevitably happened in a piecemeal way, and the unintended consequence is we have a morass of well-​meaning rules, in which practitioners but most importantly children and families, kinship carers, foster carers and prospective adopters are entrapped. … This is bold and I understand why people are cautious about it. But I believe that this is the only way to free our practitioners from the bureaucracy that has built up over the years. With the right safeguards this is the safest way to find out if there is a better way. (Trowler, 2016, np) Here we go again –​and again and again Eleven months after the exemption clauses were removed from the Children and Social Work Bill, through the government supporting a Labour Party delete amendment (the government had also lost the earlier vote in the House of Lords), the report from a national review of fostering was published (Narey and Owers, 2018). Recommendations included the abolition of independent reviewing officers, allowing local authorities to reduce social worker support in foster care placements lasting a year and a review of the need for fostering panels. These had all been indicated as potential trials for the exemption clauses. Many of the organisations and individuals who had been involved in the Together for Children coalition therefore wrote to the then Children’s Minister, Nadhim Zahawi, urging him not to implement these recommendations. It seemed that the 43 signatories had been heard until the DfE published a ‘myth busting’ guide in July 2018, which claimed 22

Where now?

to inform local authorities of the content of statutory guidance relating to children in care, care leavers and children in contact with the criminal justice system. The document contained many inaccuracies about the statutory framework and was withdrawn the following spring after Article 39 children’s rights charity applied for a judicial review. Then in April 2020 the Adoption and Children (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (known as Statutory Instrument 445) were laid before parliament and overnight deleted and diluted 65 safeguards for children in care. Local authorities’ duties to have panels to review and scrutinise adoption and fostering decisions were deleted; their duties to visit children in care were weakened; their duty to review a looked after child’s care every six months was diluted; the duty for senior manager approval before sending children outside their home area was removed; and the timeframe for triggering safeguards for children in short breaks (mostly affecting disabled children) was considerably extended. Many of the stated objectives of the exemption clauses, the themes covered in the fostering review recommendations and the inaccurate information contained in the withdrawn ‘myth busting’ guide were now achieved under cover of the COVID-​19 crisis. The secondary legislation was due to expire in September 2021 but ministers had the power to extend it. No time was given for parliamentary debate or public consultation, though a hand-​ picked number of local authorities and other organisations were invited by the Chief Social Worker for Children and Families and other civil servants to provide their views in confidence. Critically, no single organisation was given sight of all of the planned legal changes, and the Children’s Commissioner for England and other children’s rights bodies were not consulted. Article 39 once again launched legal action. The charity lost in the High Court, however the judge rejected the framing of children’s legal safeguards as ‘burdens’ and ‘small procedural changes’ as the DfE’s paper trail described them. In November 2020, the Court of Appeal found that the then Education Secretary, Gavin Williamson, had acted unlawfully in making ‘substantial and wide-​ranging’ changes to the statutory scheme without consulting the Children’s Commissioner or any other 23

The Future of Children’s Care

body concerned with children’s rights. Giving the leading judgment, Lord Justice Baker stated: The regulations which were under consideration for amendment are an integral part of the whole statutory scheme governing children’s social care. They supplement, support and amplify the provisions in the principal statutes … the amendments manifestly had the potential to change the substance of the services being provided to children in care. (Article 39 v Secretary of State for Education, 2020, paragraph 79) No new funding for children and their families A couple of months after losing in the Court of Appeal, the DfE announced that Josh MacAlister would be leading its review of children’s social care. It was later to emerge that MacAlister had signed a contract agreeing that any recommendations ‘must be affordable to [Her Majesty’s Government]’ and that the DfE ‘cannot assume any additional funding from the Exchequer to meet the recommendations’ (DfE, 2021b). This was a government austerity, rather than a children’s rights, starting position, which failed to reflect the state’s moral and legal obligations towards children. A children’s rights approach to the Review would have not swerved from making robust recommendations about eradicating child poverty, insofar as this relates to children’s social care. The MacAlister Review’s Final Report stated, ‘the underlying problem [of child poverty] must be comprehensively addressed’ (MacAlister, 2022, p 25) and ‘[t]‌he chances of children in poverty living safely in their family and community are significantly lower than for their wealthier peers’ (MacAlister, 2022, p 61). Yet there is not a single recommendation for directly improving the material conditions of families living in poverty, other than the provision of allowances for relatives and family friends looking after children who would otherwise come into care. Even within its narrow line of vision, the Review’s Final Report lacks any analysis of the funds required by local authorities to implement section 17 of the Children Act 1989 (and its 24

Where now?

accompanying Schedule 2 provisions). This legislation empowers local authorities to provide (and make arrangements for) practical and financial support to families in order to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, and to promote their upbringing within their families. Laundry facilities, family centres, help with accessing services, recreational activities and holidays are written into the 1989 Act, as is the ‘maintenance of the family home’. New ‘Family Help’ practices are proposed, with around £2 billion funding over five years (2022/​2023 to 2026/​2027) –​the bulk of the Review’s total funding request to government (it asks for £2.6 billion overall). In its submission to the Spending Review 2021 (HM Treasury’s process for agreeing departmental spending to 2024/​2025), the Association of Directors of Children’s Services (ADCS) sought between £4.1 and £4.5 billion for children’s services (excluding innovation and research) in each of the following three years (ADCS, 2021a). The Local Government Association called for an extra £2.8 billion for children’s social care by 31 March 2025 (Local Government Association, 2021). Leaving aside its decision to omit any proposals for ending child poverty, the amount requested by the Review is patently inadequate. One further point must be made about Family Help practices. Although presented as neighbourhood services run by local authorities, the Review urges the government to pilot: [A]‌more radical model of devolution of power to neighbourhoods through enabling directors of children’s services to delegate operational responsibility for individual geographic areas to a Family Help director with their own budget, delegated decision making and the freedom to work with communities from the ground up to design and build services. (MacAlister, 2022, pp 44–​45) The vision is that these would be not-​for-​profit organisations, though presumably the profit-​making subsidiary loophole (see DfE, 2014c) would apply. If the long-​term goal is to remove family services from local authorities altogether, this would echo modelling considered by LaingBuisson at the request of the DfE several years ago (LaingBuisson –​Cobic and Cicada, 2016). 25

The Future of Children’s Care

Family rights as a means to protect (or evade) children’s rights The Review’s Final Report makes the case for financial, peer and legal support for kinship carers, highlighting that the only guaranteed means of monetary assistance presently is through the child’s relatives or family friends becoming approved foster carers. For families where there is a special guardianship order or a child arrangements order, the Review recommends a new statutory allowance, at the same rate as foster carers, without the child having to be looked after by the local authority. No proposals are made for replacing some or all of the lost leaving care financial entitlements which children and young people would have acquired with looked after status –​including a setting up home allowance, monetary support through further education or university and council tax exemption (though this is currently left to the discretion of individual councils). It may be that for some young people, the kinship allowance will be sufficient to help prepare for their early adult lives, and that the considerable emotional and psychological benefits of remaining within their families cushions any economic struggles. The risk is that for older children especially, the state’s obligation to take on the parenting role when clearly necessary becomes obscured by an idealised notion of family life (Pierre, 2022). A critique of the R (G) v London Borough of Southwark [2009] judgment appeared in the Review’s interim report, called the Case for Change (The Independent Review of Children’s Social Care, 2021, p 21). This was the landmark ruling which affirmed local authorities’ duty to look after 16-​and 17-​year-​olds who are estranged from their families. In its Final Report, the Review states: Our concern [over the Southwark judgment] is that this could mean those children cared for by their family and friends unnecessarily become looked after, and for their carers to have to be assessed as foster carers –​even where a family led arrangement outside of the care system is in the best interest of the child. (MacAlister, 2022, p 103) 26

Where now?

The Children Act 1989 allows 16-​and 17-​year-​olds to request to be accommodated by a local authority. The Review is silent on whether it wants this protection removed and fails to mention the continuing practice of councils shunting older children to homelessness departments to avoid the costs of meeting their needs as a child in care, and then a care leaver –​a practice which Southwark should have brought to an end. Research by Just for Kids Law estimates that at least 2,500 16-​and 17-​year-​olds are housed by councils outside the care system. Of 29 children aged 16 and 17 helped by the charity in 2018/​2019 after their local authorities refused to look after them, 78 per cent were subsequently accepted as a child in care (Just for Kids Law, 2020, pp 1–​2). Contracting of care Shortly after the Review launched, ADCS published an updated policy document questioning whether the concept of alternative parenting applies to adolescents entering care. It signposted two groups of older children –​those who arrive in the UK without a parent or carer (‘unaccompanied children’) and remanded children –​as potential candidates for help outside the care system (ADCS, 2021b). The Home Office’s placement of more than 1,600 unaccompanied children in hotels over the past two years (Durán, 2022, p 5), with the DfE’s consent, has effectively removed this group of children from the care system. While there is no critique of this discriminatory practice in the Review’s Final Report, it does assert the necessity of care for unaccompanied children (MacAlister, 2022, p 47). As for remanded children –​granted automatic looked after status since April 2013 in recognition of their vulnerabilities and the risks arising from time spent in custody (the majority of remanded children are detained in prison) –​the Review’s Case for Change report queried whether the care system was right for them, though did not pursue this in its Final Report. We cannot, however, assume that remanded children are safe from future ejection from the care system. Following increasing concerns about the safety and well-​being of looked after children living in properties which are unregulated (i.e. not registered with Ofsted and therefore not legally required to provide care in accordance with the children’s homes quality 27

The Future of Children’s Care

standards), in 2021 the government laid regulations before parliament which require that children aged 15 and under are always placed in regulated care settings. Article 39 children’s rights charity is challenging this secondary legislation through the courts as discriminatory against 16-​and 17-​year-​olds. This is the first time that placement decision-​making on the basis of age has been sanctioned by law, and the message it gives about older children not requiring care reverses years of progressive policy making. The White Paper that preceded Labour’s last children’s social care legislation, the Children and Young Persons Act 2008, pledged a series of reforms to bring the care system closer to family life: Young people in care should expect the same level of care and support from their carers that others would expect from a reasonable parent. … We should not expect young people to make changes that would be difficult for any 16 year old –​let alone for vulnerable 16 year olds –​where the local authority has had to assume responsibility for their care. (Department for Education and Skills, 2007, pp 108–​109) On 31 March 2007, 2,800 children (5 per cent of all children in care) were living in what today is called supported accommodation –​ flats, hostels, shared houses and bedsits which are unregulated and provide no care and consistent adult supervision (DfE, 2010). By 31 March 2021, this had increased to 6,040 children (7 per cent of all children in care) (DfE, 2021a). Ministers have decided to develop standards for supported accommodation which omit care, and have given the go-​ahead for Ofsted to inspect only a sample of properties (‘provider-​level’ inspection). The Review’s Case for Change report welcomed government plans and its support was noted by counsel for the DfE in the High Court hearing challenging the secondary legislation. By the time of its Final Report, the Review had changed its position and now agreed with the 10,700+​individuals who had signed a petition demanding that all looked after children receive care where they live. However, its proposed universal care standards have a delayed start date of 2025 and the Review seeks fewer and less prescriptive standards than those currently existing in fostering 28

Where now?

and residential care. Illustrating a staggering absence of knowledge and understanding of the evolution of children’s safeguards, the Review’s Final Report claims the current ‘web of guidance and laws has developed over decades without pause to consider how they combine to support a good childhood and outcomes for children in care’ (MacAlister, 2022, p 114). Care-​experienced people consistently advocate the removal of artificial endpoints within the care system, wanting care and support to follow the needs of each individual person rather than prescribed ages (Our Care Our Say, 2021, p 32). A report from a national conference of care-​experienced children and adults, aged 14 to 82 years, summed up: ‘We are the same as your children and we may need help at any time in our lives’ (The Care Experienced Conference, 2019, p 10). Slight tinkering is advocated instead –​ the Review calls for the state to extend ‘staying put’ with foster carers and ‘staying close’ to children’s homes from 21 to 23 years. The Review’s recommendation that, by 2027, no young person leaves care without at least two loving relationships has the most potential for combating the loneliness and abandonment that care-​experienced people have reported time after time. For this to be realised requires a transformation in how care is experienced by children and young people, a major and sustained investment of public funds and all government departments, including the Treasury, embracing their obligations towards children in the care of the state. A standalone review of the care system, as promised in the Conservative Party’s 2019 election manifesto, would have been the platform to achieve this. Children’s voices and experiences Official statistics show that 219,190 social care assessments identified abuse or neglect as children’s primary need in the year preceding the Review (DfE, 2021d). Separately, police data illustrates that 15,529 children under the age of 16 in England and Wales reported that they had been raped in 2021/​2022 (22 per cent of all reported rapes that year) (Home Office, 2022). Both the Review’s Case for Change and its Final Report give scant attention to the experiences of children who have endured serious violence. There is not a single paragraph in either report examining the 29

The Future of Children’s Care

findings of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, which is the largest public inquiry ever held in the UK. The 19th-​ century legal defence sanctioning parental violence against children is not mentioned at all. Taken together, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse’s published investigation, research and truth reports portray shocking levels of child abuse across all parts of society. That there is no exploration of the role of children’s social care in challenging this, and ensuring children receive the help they need to recover, is a grave omission. A children’s rights approach would have recognised power relationships within families and institutional settings and given far more prominence to children’s accounts. Further, while the Final Report proclaims that it ‘met 2,000 people with lived experience of children’s social care’ (MacAlister, 2022, p 15), Freedom of Information requests reveal that it kept no record of the ages of those participating in its consultation events and, once the Review disbanded, official notes made during those events were destroyed. Process is incredibly important to children’s rights advocates, because children’s voices are often diluted and muted when heard alongside adults with competing needs and interests. This is a constant message in reviews of serious case reviews (since 2019, child safeguarding practice reviews) when children have died or suffered serious harm following abuse or neglect (Brandon et al, 2008, 2009; Sidebotham et al, 2016). In our children’s rights appeal to the Review, we had referenced the Committee on the Rights of the Child’s guidelines on implementing Article 12 (2009), in an effort to make the process as meaningful and inclusive as possible. But the Review’s timetable was led by a desire to ‘seize the agenda’ through making use of the government’s majority before the next general election (MacAlister, 2021). Whack-​a-​mole Government attempts to deregulate children’s social care over the past decade, with the concomitant resistance of children’s rights advocates, have been like the fairground ‘whack-​a-​mole’ game –​and the Review may well have found a way for ministers to finally win their prize. It has the appearance of a comprehensive consultation process and has produced lengthy reports which are 30

Where now?

unlikely to attract the studious and careful reading they demand. Much of the detailed implementation is left to Whitehall, including, critically, the formation of a national reform board to which local authorities can raise ‘examples where they perceive a lack of freedom to act in the best interests of children and families’ so that action can be taken to eradicate these ‘national regulatory blockers’ (MacAlister, 2022, pp 202–​203). Using almost identical language as that adopted by the government when it sought to introduce the exemption clauses, the Review’s Final Report advocates ‘fewer but better rules to help the system best meet the needs of children and families’. ‘Reset’ is the ubiquitous language used by MacAlister and government ministers to describe the Review’s overarching goal; this was also what England’s Chief Social Worker called for as the Review started its work (Dugan, 2021). Time will tell whether the Review beckons real change for children and their families, or remains business as usual for a government determined to deregulate children’s social care. References ADCS (Association of Directors of Children’s Services) (2021a) ADCS Submission to the 2021 Spending Review. Available at: https://​adcs.org.uk/​fund​ing/​arti​cle/​adcs-​sub​miss​ion-​to-​the-​ 2021-​spend​ing-​rev​iew [Accessed 6 March 2023]. ADCS (2021b) Position Statement: What is Care for? Available at: https://a​ dcs.org.uk/a​ sse​ ts/d​ ocumen ​ tati​ on/A ​ DCS_P ​ osition_​ ​ Stat​ emen ​ t_W ​ h ​ at_​is_​ca​ re_​for.pdf [Accessed 1 September 2022]. Article 39 (2021) Article 39’s Response to the Case for Change. Available at: https://​articl​e39.org.uk/​wp-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​ 2021/1​ 2/A ​ rtic​ le-3​ 9-r​ espon ​ se-t​ o-C ​ ase-f​ or-C ​ ha​nge-​13-​Aug​ust​ 2 021- ​ w ith- ​ n umbe ​ r ed- ​ r eco ​ m men ​ d ati ​ o ns.pdf​ A rti​ c le 39 [Accessed 8 March, 2023]. Article 39 v Secretary of State for Education [2020] EWHC 2184 (Admin). Brandon, M., Belderson, P., Warren, C., Howe, D., Gardner, R., Dodsworth, J. and Black, J. (2008) Analysing Child Deaths and Serious Injury through Abuse and Neglect: What Can We Learn? A Biennial Analysis of Serious Case Reviews 2003–​2005. London: Department for Children, Schools and Families. 31

The Future of Children’s Care

Brandon, M., Bailey, S., Belderson, P., Gardner, R., Sidebotham, P., Dodsworth, J., Warren, C. and Black, J. (2009) Understanding Serious Case Reviews and their Impact: A Biennial Analysis of Serious Case Reviews 2005–​07. London: Department for Children, Schools and Families. Butler, P. (2014) ‘Child protection services too important to be privatised’, The Guardian, [online] 16 May. Available at: https://​ www.theg​uardi​ an.com/s​ ocie​ ty/2​ 014/m ​ ay/1​ 6/​child-​pro​tect​ion​pri​vati​sed [Accessed 19 June 2022]. Cameron, D. (2011) ‘Letter from the Prime Minister on cutting red tape’, GOV.UK, [online] 7 April. Available at: https://w ​ ww. gov.uk/​gov​ernme​ nt/n ​ ews/l​ ett​ er-f​ rom-t​ he-p​ rime-​minis​ter-​on-​ cutt​ing-​red-​tape [Accessed 19 June 2022]. Care Experienced Conference, The (2019) The Conference for Care Experienced People. Liverpool Hope University, 26 April 2019. Summary Report. Available at: https://​704c1​ef3-​b156-​4576-​ ba4b-​ac467​91ae​6e2.files​usr.com/​ugd/​7773fa_​ad69b​ab9a​0614​ bc59​6591​841a​9db9​2b6.pdf [Accessed 30 June 2022]. Coalition of Coalitions (2021) Joint Submission: Children’s Rights and the Care Review. Available at: https://​nyas.s3.eu-​west-​1.amazon​ aws.com/​Docum​ent%20Stor​age/​404%20Back​ups/​Sec​tor-​ wide-​Sub​miss​ion-o ​ n-C ​ hildre​ ns-R ​ igh ​ ts-E ​ ngla​ nd-C ​ are-R ​ evi​ ew​21.05.2021.pdf [Accessed 3 March 2023]. Committee on the Rights of the Child (2009) General Comment no. 12. The Right of the Child to be Heard. Geneva: United Nations. Committee on the Rights of the Child (2016) Concluding Observations on the Fifth Periodic Report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Geneva: United Nations. Department for Education and Skills (2007) Care Matters. Time for Change. London: Department for Education and Skills. DfE (Department for Education) (2010) Children Looked After in England Including Adoption: 2009 to 2010. Available at: www. gov.uk/​gov​ernm​ent/​sta​tist​ics/​child​ren-​loo​ked-​after-​by-​local-​ auth​orit​ies-​in-​engl​and-​year-​end​ing-​31-​march-​2010#:~:text=​ there%20w​ere%2064%2C400%20loo​ked%20af​ter,year%20end​ ing%2031%20Ma​rch%202​006 [Accessed 6 March 2023].

32

Where now?

DfE (2014a) Powers to Delegate Children’s Social Care Functions. Available at: https:// ​ a ss​ e ts.pub​ l ish​ i ng.serv​ i ce.gov.uk/ ​ g ov​ e rnm ​ e nt/ u ​ plo​ads/​sys​tem/​uplo​ads/​atta​chme​nt_​da​ ta/​file/3​ 046​ 60/P ​ owe​ rs_ ​to_​D​eleg​ate_​Con_​Doc.pdf [Accessed 6 March 2023]. DfE (2014b) Consultation on Powers to Delegate Children’s Social Care Functions. Government response. Available at: https://a​ sse​ ts.pub​ lish​ing.serv​ice.gov.uk/​gov​ernm​ent/​uplo​ads/​sys​tem/​uplo​ads/​ atta​chme​nt_​d​ata/​file/​321​863/​Extension_​regs_​consulta​tion​_​ res​pons​e200​614_​for_​web.pdf [Accessed 6 March 2023]. DfE (2014c) Explanatory Memorandum to the Children And Young Persons Act 2008 (Relevant Care Functions) (England) Regulations 2014. 2014 No. 2407. Available at: www.legis​ lat​ion.gov.uk/​uksi/​ 2014/​2407/​mem​oran​dum/​conte​nts [Accessed 6 March 2023]. DfE (2021a) ‘Children looked after in England including adoptions’, [online] 18 November. Available at: https://​expl​ore​educat​ion-​sta​tist​ics.serv​ice.gov.uk/​f ind-​sta​tist​ics/​child​ren-​ loo​ked-​after-​in-​engl​and-​includ​ing-​adopti​ons/​2021 [Accessed 18 November 2021]. DfE (2021b) Contract for the Independent Review of the Children’s Social Care Sector, [online] 2 March. Available at: https://​bidst​ats. uk/​tend​ers/​2021/​W09/​745996​650 [Accessed 19 June 2022]. DfE (2021c) ‘Education Secretary launches review of children’s social care’, [online] 15 January. Available at: https://​www.gov. uk/​gov​ernm​ent/​news/​educat​ion-​secret​ary-​launch ​ es-r​ evi​ ew-o ​ f-​ childr​ens-​soc​ial-​care [Accessed 19 June 2022]. DfE (2021d) ‘Characteristics of children in need’, [online] 28 October. Available at: https://​expl​ore-​educat​ion-​sta​tist​ics.serv​ice. gov.uk/ ​ f ind- ​ s ta ​ t ist ​ i cs/ ​ c har ​ a cte ​ r ist ​ i cs- ​ o f- ​ c hild ​ ren- ​ i n- ​ n eed [Accessed 19 June 2022]. Dugan, E. (2021) ‘Too many children wrongly taken into care, admits chief social worker Isabelle Trowler’, The Times, [online] 14 March. Available at: https://w ​ ww.thetim ​ es.co.uk/​arti​cle/​too-​ many-​child​ren-​wron​gly-​taken-​into-​care-​adm​its-​chief-​soc​ial​wor​ker-​isabe​lle-​trow​ler-​95g5ft​0ss [Accessed 10 July 2022]. Durán, L. (2022) Outside the Frame: Unaccompanied Children Denied Care and Protection. London: ECPAT UK. Falcon, R. (2014) ‘Yes. We did it!’, 38 Degrees, [online] 24 June. Available at: https://​home.38degr​ees.org.uk/​2014/​06/​24/​yes-​ we-​did-​it [Accessed 19 June 2022]. 33

The Future of Children’s Care

Fatkin, N. (2022) ‘Parents going without food to feed their children and others frightened to heat their homes –​the reality of the cost of living crisis in Sunderland’, Sunderland Echo, [online] 8 April. Available at: https://​www.sun​derl​ande​cho.com/​news/​ polit​ics/​pare​nts-​going-​with​out-​food-​to-​feed-​their-​child​ren-​ and-​oth​ers-​fri​ghte​ned-​to-​heat-​their-​homes-​the-​real​ity-​of-​ the-​cost-​of-​liv​ing-​cri​sis-​in-​sun​derl​and-​3645​664 [Accessed 26 June 2022]. Gingerbread (2022) ‘New data shows cost-​of-​living crisis has meant over a quarter of single parent families have already gone without food’, [online] 21 March. Available at: https://​ www.ging​erbr​ead.org.uk/​what-​we-​do/​news/​cost-​of-​liv​ing-​ crisi​ssin​gle-​par​ent-​famil​ies-​gone-​with​out-​food/​ [Accessed 26 June 2022]. Hammarberg, T. (1990) Making Reality of the Rights of the Child. The UN Convention: What It Says and How It Can Change the Status of Children Worldwide. Sweden: Rädda Barnen, Swedish Save the Children. Hancock, M. (2014) ‘The government’s red tape drive has saved business £10 billion over the last four years, new data reveals’, GOV.UK, [online] 30 December. Available at: https://w ​ ww.gov. uk/​gov​ernm​ent/​news/​hanc​ock-​red-​tape-​drive-s​ aves-b​ usine​ ss-​ a-​rec​ord-​10-​bill​ion [Accessed 30 July 2022]. Hayes, D. (2016) ‘LGA Board Chief: Let Councils Solve Childrens’s Services Challenges’, Children and Young People Now, [online] 8 November. Available at: www.cyp​now.co.uk/​other/​ arti​cle/​lga-​board-​chief-​let-​counc​ils-​solve-​child​ren-​s-​servi​ces-​ cha​llen​ges [Accessed 6 March 2023]. Home Office (2022) ‘Police recorded crime and outcomes open data tables’, GOV.UK, [online] 21 July. Available at: https://​ www.gov.uk/​gov​ernm​ent/​sta​tist​ics/​pol​ice-​recor​ded-​crime-​ open-​data-​tab​les#full-​publ​icat​ion-​upd​ate-​hist​ory [Accessed 30 July 2022]. Independent Review of Children’s Social Care, The (2021) The Case for Change. Available at: https://​chil​dren​ssoc​ialc​are. inde​pend​ent-​rev​iew.uk/​wp-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​2022/​06/​IRCSC​ _T ​ he_​ C ​ ase​ _f​ o​r_​Ch​ange​_2​ 7.05.22.pdf [Accessed 30 July 2022].

34

Where now?

Just for Kids Law (2020) ‘Not in care, not counted. A legal loophole: homeless 16 and 17 year-​olds and unregulated accommodation’, Just for Kids Law. Available at: https://w ​ ww.just​ for ​ k ids ​ l aw.org/​ s ites/​ d ef a​ u lt/​ f iles/​ f ie ​ l ds/ ​ d ownl ​ o ad/​ Just%20for%20K ​ i ds%20Law%20- ​ % 20Not%20in%20c​ a re% 2C%20not%20coun​ted%20-​%20J​une%202​020.pdf [Accessed 30 July 2022]. LaingBuisson –​ Cobic and Cicada (2016) The Potential for Developing the Capacity and Diversity of Children’s Social Care Services in England. Independent research report. London: Department for Education. Local Government Association (2021) Spending Review 2021 Submission, [online] 5 October. Available at: https://​www. local.gov.uk/​publi​cati​ons/​spend​ing-​rev​iew-​2021-​sub​miss​ion #prior​ity-​5-​educat​ion-​and-​childr​ens-​soc​ial-​care [Accessed 10 July 2022]. MacAlister, J. (2021) ‘The Adoption and Fostering Podcast: an interview with Josh MacAlister, the chair of the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care’, [online] 3 July. Available at: https://​adopt​iona​ndfo​ster​ing.podb​ean.com/​e/​an-​interv​iew​with-​josh-​mcalis​ter-​the-​chair-​of-​the-​inde​pend​ent-​rev​iew-​of-​ childr​ens-​soc​ial-​care/​ [Accessed 26 June 2022]. MacAlister, J. (2022) The Independent Review of Children’s Social Care. Final Report. London: Department for Education. McGregor, K. (2013) ‘Government renews drive to recruit chief social workers at £120k per post’, Community Care, [online] 14 February. Available at: https://​www.commun​ityc​are.co.uk/​ 2013/ ​ 0 2/ ​ 1 4/ ​ g ov​e rnm ​ e nt- ​ ren ​ ews- ​ d rive-​ t o-​ recr​ u it-​ c hief-​ soc​ial-​work​ers-​at-​120k-​per-​post [Accessed 19 June 2022]. Munro, E. (2011) The Munro Review of Child Protection: Final Report. A Child-​centred System. London: The Stationery Office. Munro, E. (2017) Email to Emma Lewell-​Buck, Tim Loughton and Carolyne Willow, 9 February. Narey, M. and Owers, M. (2018) Foster Care in England: A Review for the Department for Education. Available at: https://​ass​ets. pub​lish​ing.serv​ice.gov.uk/​gov​ernm​ent/​uplo​ads/​sys​tem/​uplo​ ads/​atta​chme​nt_​d​ata/​file/​679​320/​Foster​_​Car​e_​in​_​Eng​land​_​ Rev​iew.pdf [Accessed 30 June 2022].

35

The Future of Children’s Care

NHS Digital (2021) Hospital Admitted Patient Care Activity 2020– ​ 2 1: Diagnosis, [online] 16 September. Available at: https:// ​ d igi​ t al.nhs.uk/​ d ata-​ a nd-​ i nfo​ r mat​ i on/​ p ubli​ c ati​ ons/​stat​isti​cal/​hospi​tal-​admit​ted-​pati​ent-​care-​activ​ity/​2020-​ 21#:~:text=I​ n%202​020%2D21%20th​ere%20we​ re%2016.2%20 milli​ on%20FC ​ Es%20re​ cord​ ed.&text=I​ n%202​020%2D21%20th​ ere%20we​ re%2012.8%20mill​ion%20F​AEs%20re​ cord​ ed.&text=​ There%20w​ere%20235%2C262%20usea​ble%20c​r iti​cal%20c​ are%20reco​rds%20re​ cord​ ed%20in%2020​ 20%2D21 [Accessed: 6 March 2023]. Our Care Our Say (2021) Is This the Time People are Actually Going to Listen? Report. Available at: https://​www.basw.co.uk/​sys​tem/​ files/​resour​ces/​our_​c​are_​our_​say.pdf [Accessed 30 June 2022]. Pierre, R. (2022) ‘England’s care system is failing children. This new overhaul is based on a middle-​class fantasy’, The Guardian, [online] 23 May. Available at: https://​www.theg​uard​ian.com/​ commen​tisf​ree/​2022/​may/​23/​child​ren-​soc​ial-​care-​rev​iew-​ engl​and-​comm​unit​ies [Accessed 19 June 2022]. R v Hopley [1860] 2 F&F 202. R (G) v London Borough of Southwark [2009] UKHL 26. Sidebotham, P., Brandon, M., Bailey, S., Belderson, P., Dodsworth, J., Garstang, J., Harrison, E., Retzer, A. and Sorensen, P. (2016) Pathways to Harm, Pathways to Protection: A Triennial Analysis of Serious Case Reviews 2011 to 2014. Final Report. London: Department for Education. Social Work England (2019) Professional Standards. Available at: https://​ www.social​ work​ e ngl ​ a nd.org.uk/ ​ s tanda ​ rds/ ​ p rofe ​ s sio ​ n al​standa​rds [Accessed 26 June 2022]. Teather, S. (2010) ‘Children’s commissioner review’, [online] 6 December. Available at: https://​www.the​ywor​kfor​you.com/​ wms/​?id=​2010-​12-​06a.5WS.1 [Accessed 22 August 2022]. Timpson, E. (2017) Written Answer to Parliamentary Question, [online] 30 January. Available at: www.par​liam​ent.uk/​busin​ess/ ​publi​cati​ons/​writ​ten-​questi​ons-​answ​ers-​sta​teme​nts/​writ​ten-​ quest​ i on/​ C omm​ o ns/​ 2 017-​ 0 1-​ 2 5/​ 6 1767/​ [Accessed 19 June 2022]. Trowler, I. (2016) Letter from Chief Social Worker for Children and Families, 11 October.

36

Where now?

Tunstill, J. and Willow, C. (2017) ‘Professional social work and the defence of children’s and their families’ rights in a period of austerity: a case study’, Social Work and Social Sciences Review 19(1), 40–​65. United Nations General Assembly (1989) United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. New York: United Nations. Willow, C. (2016) ‘Protect the rights of vulnerable children and care leavers’, 38 Degrees [online]. Available at: https://​you.38degr​ees. org.uk/​petiti​ons/​prot​ect-​the-​r ig​hts-​of-​vul​nera​ble-​child​ren-​ and-​care-​leav​ers [Accessed 19 June 2022]. Willow, C. (2021) United They Stand: Moving Beyond the Participation-​protection Divide. Discussion paper. Sweden: Save the Children International. Willow, C. and Hyder, T. (1998) It Hurts You Inside: Children Talking about Smacking. London: National Children’s Bureau. Zahawi, N. (2018) Written Ministerial Statement for Universal Children’s Day, [online] 20 November. Available at: https://​questi​ons​sta​teme​nts.par​liam​ent.uk/​writ​ten-​sta​teme​nts/​det​ail/​2018-​11-​ 20/​HCWS1​093 [Accessed 22 August 2022].

37

3 More of memes than schemes: networked propagation in children’s social care Joe Hanley

Introduction The networked connections that influence policy decisions in children’s social care in England have been the subject of increasing attention in recent years (Jones, 2019; Tunstill, 2019; Purcell, 2020; Rogowski, 2020; Hanley, 2022). This is in line with a broader body of work on networks, including that of Spanish sociologist Manuel Castells (2010), who argues that the functions and systems of contemporary society are now predominantly organised around networks. This chapter does not seek to replicate this existing literature, and instead examines one of the chief ways that networks influence and guide policy: through the perpetuation and reinforcement of policy concepts or ideas, and in particular how this is done using pieces of cultural information known as memes. The word meme is short for mimeme, meaning to imitate, and was coined by Richard Dawkins, who saw memes as cultural parallels to biological genes in the way they perpetuate and spread across generations and space, while also being subject to mutation (Dawkins, 1976). The creation of the internet popularised the term meme and it is now used widely to denote information, most commonly photos, but also videos 38

More of memes than schemes

and text, transmitted through repetition, imitation and alteration (Cavanagh, 2019). The chapter starts with an overview of relevant theory related to networks, alongside a brief introduction to the existing literature on the networked connections in children’s social care policy. The discussion then moves to looking at how these theories address the proliferation of ideas within networks, including through the use of memes. These insights are then applied to children’s social care in England, looking at two illustrative examples of highly influential memes within this sector: ‘reclaiming social work’ and ‘high-​quality’. Finally, the MacAlister Review is discussed, with a particular focus on how the meme of ‘safe and stable’ shaped that review, but also looking at a range of additional memes used throughout that review process. Ultimately it is suggested that while the power and influence of policy networks can at times be enacted through purposeful collusion (schemes) it is more likely to be felt through the perpetuation and reinforcement of concepts and policy ideas (memes) that do not receive sufficient scrutiny within such policy networks. Network society Castells’ (2010) theory of the network society argues that ‘as an historical trend, dominant functions and processes in the information age are increasingly organised around networks’ (p 500). He sees this as constituting a new social order where the fundamental form of domination is the capacity of dominant networks to impose their values and interests on those outside of these networks. Inside dominant networks the potential for new possibilities and opportunities relentlessly increases, while the cost of being on the outside also increases commensurately. However, entry into these networks tends to be restricted to those with substantial resources, connections and ideological compatibility, all of which are seen as valuable to the survival and expansion of the network. One of the most significant aspects of these networks is that they are characterised by constant change and fluidity, which helps them persist in their domination, because if any particular node is discredited or ceases to be of value to the network, the network will simply adapt and bypass that node. 39

The Future of Children’s Care

As a result of this fluidity, Castells (2010) suggests that work has to be done to identify and understand the specifics of each network within its own context. Educational sociologist Stephen Ball could be said to have undertaken much of this work in relation to the networks that dominant education policy making, both within the UK and internationally. In common with Castells, Ball (2008) describes the increasing influence of fluid policy networks, as well as highlighting the importance of money, connections and ideological compatibility in gaining access to these networks. His network mapping work has included looking at the influence of philanthropy (Ball, 2008), privatisation (Ball, 2009) and think tanks (Ball and Exley, 2010, p 151) in education policy making. In addition Ball and colleagues have charted the networks surrounding a myriad of influential educational organisations, including the education charities Ark (Junemann and Ball, 2013) and Teach First (Olmedo et al, 2013). Notably much of this work overlaps with network mapping undertaken in children’s social care, with key network actors like Josh MacAlister arguably spanning across networks (Jones, 2019; Hanley, 2022). For example, Teach First provided MacAlister’s professional training as a teacher, and the organisation he founded and ran for eight years, Frontline, was based on the Teach First model and remains partnered with them. Meanwhile Ark provided the seed funding for Frontline to get started (Interdependence of Independence, 2021). Therefore, the network mapping work undertaken by Ball and colleagues should be considered as relevant to all children’s services, and in many ways it is the same policy network as that being explored here. While there is no body of literature that can match Ball’s extensive mapping of education networks, as was noted in the introduction there is increasing interest in the network connections in children’s social care policy too (Jones, 2019; Tunstill, 2019; Rogowski, 2020; Purcell, 2020; Hanley, 2022). There has also been some visual mapping of this network undertaken in a similar vein to the work of Ball. This includes a map of ‘key players’ included in Ray Jones’ (2019) book In Whose Interest? that chronicles the growing influence of private business and financial networks in children’s social care (p 92). Jones’ map identified Josh MacAlister as central to this network, as well as other network actors such as the Chief Social Worker 40

More of memes than schemes

for Children and Families in England, Isabelle Trowler, who will be discussed more later in this chapter. A larger network mapping project in 2021 recorded over 1,000 publicly verifiable connections between individuals and organisations within children’s services, encompassing both education and children’s social care (Interdependence of Independence, 2021). In the analysis of the network map, once again MacAlister was shown to be a centrally influential figure, in this case being the individual with the most verifiable network connections in the map, ahead of all others working across children’s services in England (see Interdependence of Independence, 20211). Proliferation Ball and Exley (2010) describe the various ways that individuals within policy networks interact: They act as trustees for each other’s organisations and sit on each other’s advisory councils. They write, speak and ‘appear on platforms’ at one another’s events. Ideas gain momentum and support and are disseminated through and beyond networks by repetition, reiteration, rearticulation, quotation, cross-​referencing, collaborations and co-​authoring, co-​publishing and associate memberships. (Ball and Exley, 2010, p 155) The second half of the quotation, related to ‘ideas’, is particularly significant in relation to this chapter, highlighting the role that insular policy networks play in spreading ideas and creating a false feeling of consensus. Elsewhere, Ball (2008) describes this as the flow of influence, noting that this influence is carried back and forth between the public and private sector by various network players, and acts to ‘give institutional force to policy utterances, ensuring what can count as policy’ (p 753). He further suggests that the opacity created through this process means that it has become almost impossible to chart the course of policy development today, including what may have been said to whom, when, and in exchange for what. 41

The Future of Children’s Care

Both Castells (2010) and Ball (2017) highlight the importance of shared network rules and logic that facilitate these processes, seeing them as constituting the ‘culture’ of networks. Ball (2017) describes how this cultural influence transforms these networks from pragmatic relationships to constitute moral and epistemic communities, where particular viewpoints, perspectives and approaches are legitimised. However, this culture is not set, and is constantly changing. Castells (2010) describes it as ‘ephemeral’, or a patchwork culture made up of the experiences, interests and established principles of the network (p 214). While this inherently means that the culture of these networks is multifaceted and variable, this does not diminish the power maintained by that culture, and indeed any attempt to formalise or crystallise the culture of a network would inherently render that network obsolete, as it would lose the flexibility and malleability required to compete within the network society. This ensures that while individual members within the network can disagree about specific policy decisions, the power and dominance of the network never faces any real challenge from within. Understanding this can also help to explain why those within dominant networks find contexts and forums that do not conform to their network culture so discomforting, and why they usually avoid these. The concept of power being utilised to spread ideas and beliefs that maintain that power is not novel within sociological theory, and in his work on networks Castells (2021) draws heavily on the concept of hegemony, or the symbolic influence and construction of authority, as formulated in the works of Foucault and Gramsci. As with these theorists, Castells describes the key processes of power as primarily enacted through the shaping of hearts and minds. However, Castells (2015) shifts the focus of these discussions to the importance of electronic communication networks, seeing these as the ‘decisive sources of power-​making’ within the network society (p 7). He describes a process of ‘mass self-​communication’ enacted through these networks: ‘mass’ because any communication can reach a potential global audience, and ‘self ’ because of the self-​generated, self-​directed and self-​selected nature of much of the communication (Castells, 2007, p 248). 42

More of memes than schemes

Castells (2010) further outlines how political messaging has taken advantage of this mass self-​communication, favouring simple messages that can be shared widely and ‘largely built around images, not necessarily visual, but images. The most powerful message is a simple message attached to an image’ (p 242). This description is in line with the definition of meme provided in the introduction, and correlates with research in this area that has found that memes now play a significant role in framing news events and shaping political attitudes (Beskow et al, 2020; de Saint Laurent et al, 2021). However, memes rarely grasp the full context or details of an event or situation, and therefore it remains up to the person reading or viewing a meme to place it within the context of own social understanding, a context that is increasingly shaped by the use of memes. Children’s social care It would be wrong to suggest that visual memes are never influential within the children’s social care sector, and indeed an internet image search of ‘social work meme’ brings up hundreds of examples. However, these are more often than not of an explicitly humorous tone and they are a different phenomenon to the types of text/​spoken policy memes that are being looked at here. Garrett (2017) has referred to the similar use of symbolic language within social care as ‘keywords’, analysing the influence of terms like ‘social enterprise’ and ‘customer choice’ (p 272). However, the examples presented here, being spread rapidly through digital communication networks and subject to frequent imitation and mutation, are argued to be more accurately described as memes within the understanding presented earlier. This will now be demonstrated through two particularly influential memes in children’s social care: ‘reclaiming social work’ and ‘high-​quality’. Reclaiming social work The meme ‘reclaiming social work’ is probably most recognisable today as the name of a specific model of children’s social work developed by Isabelle Trowler and colleagues working in the London Borough of Hackney in the late 2000s (hereafter, the 43

The Future of Children’s Care

Hackney model). Several other individuals involved in the development or early positive evaluation of that model, including Steve Goodman, Alan Wood and Donald Forrester, have also been shown to have been influential in the shaping in children’s social care policy (Jones, 2019; Interdependence of Independence, 2021). However the terminology of ‘reclaiming social work’ did not originate with that model, and there were actually a number of earlier books titled Reclaiming Social Work (Harris et al, 2000; Paylor et al, 2000; Ferguson, 2008). As a result, when they released their own book on the Hackney model, Trowler and Goodman had to alter the meme, instead titling the book Social Work Reclaimed (Trowler and Goodman, 2012). Probably the most notable book that was already titled Reclaiming Social Work was released in 2008 by Professor Ian Ferguson, around the time the Hackney model was being developed (Ferguson, 2008). In that book Ferguson advocated for a more traditionally radical approach to social work, a vision that stands in sharp contrast to the more neoliberal approach promoted through the Hackney model that would subsequently adopt the title (McGrath-​Brookes et al, 2021). The borrowing of language from grassroots movements and colonising it with new policy meaning has been identified in this area previously, including the co-​option of the terms ‘radical’, ‘challenging the status quo’ and even ‘revolution’ (Garrett, 2012; Higgins and Goodyer, 2014; McGrath-​Brookes et al, 2021). Notably, all of this terminology can also be found within the MacAlister Review’s Final Report (MacAlister, 2022). Iterations of the meme ‘reclaiming social work’ continue to be used within the dominant network in children’s social care. The MacAlister Review’s Final Report uses the terminology of reclaiming several times in reference to a professed desire to ‘reclaim the original intentions of the Children Act’ (MacAlister, 2022, p 30). The meme has also been utilised in promoting the Review’s recommendations. For example, in a June 2022 presentation by Isabelle Trowler and Josh MacAlister, MacAlister declared his desire that the review would ‘get social work reclaimed’ (Trowler and MacAlister, 2022). However, it is notable that as the Hackney model has declined in prominence, and the key elements of the approach have instead been subsumed into other reforms and 44

More of memes than schemes

initiatives like Frontline, the meme of ‘reclaiming social work’ appears to be gaining wider usage once more, including in a recent journal article promoting social justice models of social work (Postan-​Aizik et al, 2020) and in the title of the 2022 Joint Social Work Education and Research Conference: Reclaiming the Social in Social Work (JSWEC, 2022). High-​quality The search for some ill-​defined ‘high-​quality’ has dominated many of the discussions surrounding children’s social care for at least the past two decades, and has been particularly effective in promoting some very controversial reforms. This may be most notable in the introduction of fast-​track social work qualifying training models, including through Frontline. In the 34-​page proposal report for Frontline the word ‘quality’ appears 55 times, in reference to everything from the ‘quality’ of social workers to the ‘quality’ of training, but in particular in relation to the need for ‘high-​ quality new recruits’ (MacAlister et al, 2012, p 21). However, the Frontline proposal has been shown to have been only one in an extended series of government documents and related texts that perpetuated the meme around the need for ‘quality’ social work students to replace those currently undertaking courses, claims made largely without evidence beyond reference to previous usages of the meme (Hanley, 2021a). This demonstrates how powerful a meme like this can become, as it had been perpetuated within the policy network so frequently and effectively that it no longer required evidentiary support. A number of additional reforms in children’s social care have been justified based on the need for high-​quality, including the Hackney model (Forrester et al, 2013), as well as the introduction of Teaching Partnerships in social work education (Interface Associates, 2020), the development of the What Works Centre for Children’s Social Care (Turner, 2018) and the introduction of the National Assessment and Accreditation System (House of Lords, 2017). Since ‘quality’ is presented as a neutral term in each of these contexts, it can effectively speak to anyone’s understanding of what constitutes quality, in particular when the term is not defined elsewhere in the text. This has allowed 45

The Future of Children’s Care

it to be used as a powerful tool in consensus-​building related to these reforms. MacAlister has also continued to use the ‘quality’ meme habitually, including in a 2019 report he led on proposing to introduce the Dutch community nursing model, Buurtzorg, into child protection in England (MacAlister et al, 2019). Usage of the meme in that report included a call for ‘high-​quality social workers’ while also ‘compassionately exiting the social workers who are not good enough’ (p 18). Despite there being no existing examples, nationally or internationally, of Buurtzorg being applied to child protection contexts, and major concerns about the evidence base and consultation process MacAlister had followed (Hanley et al, 2021), the report received significant media attention, which included the repetition of the various memes the report propagated (for example, Brindle, 2019). As memes tend to do, the usage of ‘high-​quality’ within children’s social policy circles has been evolving in the past few years, potentially in response to criticisms about the elitism and discrimination inherent in the terminology (Murphy, 2016; Hanley, 2021a). The meme is now more likely to be couched in terms of ‘quality decision making’ (Hood et al, 2022, p 3) or ‘quality workforce’ (MacAlister, 2021a, p 78). This altered use can also be seen in the MacAlister Review, where quality is used prominently, but not to distinguish individuals (MacAlister, 2022). Instead the Review focuses on the need for ‘high-​quality’ services and practice, with recommendations including calls for ‘high quality, evidence based help’ (MacAlister, 2022, p 49), ‘high quality training and peer support’ (MacAlister, 2022, p 136) and ‘high quality advocacy’ (MacAlister, 2022, p 142). The MacAlister Review will now be looked at in more detail. MacAlister Review The influence of MacAlister as a central network node within children’s services could be seen from the inception of the Review, including when the Review was launched at an invitation-​only event, in the selection of advisory groups, and in the commissioning of certain organisations to undertake research on behalf of the Review (Hanley, 2021b). The behind-​the-​ scenes machinations were further evidenced in the week prior 46

More of memes than schemes

to the Final Report’s publication, as a number of individuals and organisations who were later revealed to have received advanced copies and forewarning of the report wrote articles and letters of support for the recommendations that had yet to be made public (Simpson, 2022; Wood, 2022). Unsurprisingly, then, memes perpetuated within this policy network have also been highly influential in shaping the MacAlister Review, and in particular the recommendations that stemmed from it. Safe and stable One of the most prominent memes in children’s social care since 2016 has been ‘safe and stable’. This meme is usually evoked to suggest that these are the fundamental elements needed to support a child. There is some limited public evidence of the meme being used prior to 2016, for example in a 2010 adoption research note from the conservative think tank Policy Exchange, which referred to ‘secure, safe and stable homes’ (Groves, 2010, p 1). This early usage is also notable because Michael Gove, who as Education Secretary appointed Isabelle Trowler as Chief Social Worker for Children and Families in England, and first funded Frontline, was a founding member of Policy Exchange. However, appearances of the meme remained sporadic until it featured heavily in the 2016 government policy Putting Children First (Department for Education, 2016). The 11 uses of various iterations of the meme in that document, including in the ministerial foreword and the foreword from Isabelle Trowler, suggest that the language was prominent within this policy network prior to the publication of that document, and was being strategically incorporated into this new policy. Following Putting Children First, the use of ‘safe and stable’ suddenly became prolific within the dominant policy network. For example, Frontline adopted the meme as a central part of its messaging, and in its most recent trustee report describe its organisation mission being ‘to create social change for children who do not have a safe or stable home’ (Frontline, 2022, p 4). Significantly, that mission appears nowhere in Frontline’s original proposal (MacAlister et al, 2012). Another example of the meme being used to promote a private organisation within policy circles 47

The Future of Children’s Care

is the example of The Difference, an education leadership training organisation. The Difference was founded in 2018 following a report by the think tank the Institute for Public Policy Research. The report made reference to both ‘unstable and unsafe’ (Gill et al, 2017, p 7) and ‘safe and stable’ (p 20) to make the case for this new organisation. This example is particularly notable from a network perspective, because the Institute for Public Policy Research is the same organisation through which MacAlister developed the proposal for Frontline in 2012, and as with MacAlister, the lead author of The Difference proposal, Kiran Gill, would go on to become founder and chief executive officer of that organisation. MacAlister would also act as a founding director of The Difference, and among the myriad of additional network connections, The Difference has ongoing partnerships with Ark, Teach First and Frontline. Other examples of ‘safe and stable’ being used by influential individuals and organisations within this policy network include by Barnardo’s (Fortune and Smith, 2021), the Children’s Commissioner (De Souza, 2021) and the Commission on Young Lives (Longfield, 2021), a commission founded by Anne Longfield, who MacAlister previously acted as advisor to. As with any meme the usage of ‘safe and stable’ has experienced both imitation and alteration. The most notable alteration that can be seen today is the inclusion of the word ‘love’. This new usage was evident in the MacAlister Review from its inception, with MacAlister (2021b) highlighting on the day that he took on the role of Chair that the overarching question of the Review would be ‘how do we ensure children grow up in loving, stable and safe families, and where that is not possible, care provides the same foundations?’ (2021b, p 1). In that statement MacAlister suggested that this question was generated as a result of a public ‘Call for Advice’ (2021b, p 1), However, as has been shown here, it also built from a meme that he and others in his network had been perpetuating for at least five years. MacAlister and others working within and promoting the Review would go on to use the meme habitually, and it eventually formed a central part of the Final Report (MacAlister, 2022), with iterations of the meme appearing at least 14 times, including: ‘safety and stability’ (p 13), ‘loving, safe and stable’ (p 18) and ‘safety, stability and love’ (p 20). 48

More of memes than schemes

The significance of this meme as it relates to the MacAlister Review can perhaps most clearly be seen as it was referenced in the statements from both Minister for Children and Families Will Quince and Shadow Minister Helen Hayes when they welcomed the Review’s Final Report in parliament the day it was published (House of Commons, 2022). Other memes The memes included in the MacAlister Review are so numerous that a short chapter like this cannot do them all justice. However, there are some additional memes that are worth highlighting: • ‘Case for change’ –​the interim report of the MacAlister Review was titled Case for Change, a meme that is used habitually in policy circles to introduce reform proposals. Notable earlier uses include in the original proposal for Frontline (MacAlister et al, 2012) and in Putting Children First (Department for Education, 2016). • ‘Once in a generation’ –​the Review was self-​described from its inception as a ‘once in a generation opportunity’, a meme that was used frequently to underscore the significance of the Review in the media, as well as being used in the first line of the Final Report (MacAlister, 2022, p 8). Uncritically framing the Review in this way ignores the frequent evocations of generational opportunity in relation to reports like this. For example, Putting Children First also professed to ‘bring about the widest reaching reforms to children’s social care and social work in a generation’ (Department for Education, 2016, p 4). There were also various attempts by the MacAlister Review to develop and inject new memes into the discourse but that didn’t really gain the longer-​term traction they may have desired: • ‘Runaway train’ –​in an interview with The Times prior to the publication of the Case for Change, MacAlister referred to a ‘runaway train’ of child protection investigations, a meme that was soon abandoned, potentially as a result of a widespread 49

The Future of Children’s Care

reporting of a number of high-​profile child deaths in the media shortly thereafter (Dugan, 2021). • ‘Jenga tower’ –​in one of the more picturesque attempts at a meme, the Case for Change prominently referred to children’s social care as ‘a 30-​year old tower of jenga held together with sellotape’ (MacAlister, 2021a, p 3), a meme that was broadly picked up in the media at the time, but was relegated to a passing reference in the Final Report (MacAlister, 2022). Interestingly the MacAlister Review also adopted a number of memes that are popular within contemporary political networks. These include: • ‘Levelling up’ –​ the Case for Change featured the political meme of ‘levelling up’ prominently, including two references to ‘levelling up outcomes for the poorest children’ (MacAlister, 2021a, pp 10, 23). The meme is less apparent in the Final Report, although there are a large number of references to the Conservative government’s ‘levelling up’ policy and the newly created post of Levelling Up Secretary, a post held at the time by Michael Gove (MacAlister, 2022). • ‘The civil rights issue of our time’ –​ MacAlister refers to the disadvantage faced by the care-​experienced community as ‘the civil rights issues of our time’ (2022, p  5), a meme frequently used in politics, in particular in American politics (Rothman, 2018). • ‘Reset’ –​maybe the most prominent meme in the MacAlister Review is the professed need for a reset in children’s social care, a term that is used 17 times in the Final Report (MacAlister, 2022). The ‘reset’ meme has also been adopted widely in the media reporting surrounding the care review (for example, Sky News, 2022). As with ‘safe and stable’, Minister Will Quince and Shadow Minister Helen Hayes both also used the meme of ‘reset’ in welcoming the Review’s publication in parliament (House of Commons, 2022). The idea of a ‘reset’ can be seen to have been borrowed directly from political networks, where it is used regularly to signal a change in policy (Allegretti, 2022). It is therefore noteworthy that Will Quince has described that during his first meeting with MacAlister upon becoming 50

More of memes than schemes

minister he was the one who suggested to the review team that what was needed in children’s social care was a ‘reset’ (Adoption and Fostering Podcast, 2022). Memes or schemes? This chapter’s focus on memes should not detract from the very real examples of purposeful collusion that we frequently see revealed in relation to dominant networks. Castells (2010) argues that it is the need within dominant networks for hidden agreements, edge gaining and even ‘marginally illegal’ activities that explains why, despite the almost limitless potential for transparency afforded by modern communication technology, so much policy development still takes place behind closed doors (Castells, 2010, p 416). Occasionally, and often through expensive legal challenge, we are afforded a glimpse into these otherwise hidden processes. The response to the COVID-​19 pandemic in particular provides numerous examples, the most high profile likely being the unlawful use of a high priority ‘VIP’ lane to award billions of pounds in contracts to those put forward by ministers and other officials (Siddique, 2022). There are also examples in children’s social care, including the ‘informal consultation process’ that led to the temporary dilution of the rights of children during the pandemic through Statutory Instrument 445, also found to have been unlawful after a legal challenge was posed (Turner, 2020). In relation to the MacAlister Review a number of Freedom of Information requests have provided glimpses into private discussions held by those behind the review. This includes the example of Andy Elvin, chief executive officer of the fostering organisation TACT and board member of Frontline, engaging in an email exchange with Josh MacAlister and others in the review team about his draft proposal for a national care service (Quarmby, 2021). Elvin was revealed to have been able to contact MacAlister directly via email, bypassing public submission process and timescales, and MacAlister not only praised and encouraged the proposal, but also suggested amendments, and even recommended Elvin alter the opening of the proposal to make it appear less like he had insider knowledge of the Review’s direction. Notable even 51

The Future of Children’s Care

in this short email exchange, memes appear frequently, including the proposal being described as a ‘radically new idea’ several times. This suggests that memes maintain their influence within this network even when they are engaged in private discussions. This links back to the moral and epistemic nature of networks that was described earlier in this chapter (Ball, 2017), whereby a shared logic and language reinforces the collective belief within the network that their activities, even those they seek to conceal or that gain them significant personal advantage, have moral legitimacy. The use of memes also acts to signal belonging within this network, and this can help explain why once memes are introduced to the network they often perpetuate so rapidly. Those using them are signalling their belonging, and deference, to the network’s logic and culture. Therefore, while it remains important to identify and expose examples of networks engaging in illicit collusion in order to gain advantage, examining the usage of memes can provide a broader understanding of how policy is developed through this network, as they influence and shape both public edicts and private machinations. Conclusion Returning to the concept of hegemony, Garrett (2009) highlights that for a hegemonic project to work, it has to speak to the views and experiences of those being subjugated. In relation to children’s social care this often means engaging with the social work profession’s values and institutions, and there is growing evidence that the MacAlister Review has failed in this regard. For example, the British Association of Social Workers undertook a survey of members following the publication of the Case for Change and found that only 19 per cent felt able to meaningfully engage with the Review (BASW, 2021). The responses from social workers also highlighted concerns about the networks involved in the Review, with members commenting about the ‘usual suspects’ (BASW, 2021, p 3), ‘exclusive invites’ (BASW, 2021, p 4) and ‘no transparency’ (BASW, 2021, p 6). These findings mirror a snap poll of 1,100 readers of the industry news outlet Community Care following the publication of the Final Report that found limited support for the recommendations, with 63 per cent of 52

More of memes than schemes

respondents instead highlighting that reducing caseloads should be the priority (Turner, 2022). While the persistence of many of the memes discussed in this chapter is impressive, it is important to highlight that several of the memes used frequently by this network, including ‘reclaiming social work’ and ‘high-​quality’, have had to be altered in their usage following challenge. In some cases this has even led to the retirement of what was previously a prominent meme. This can be seen in the case of ‘best and brightest’, a meme that was used frequently to justify organisations like Frontline providing disproportionate funding support to certain students (MacAlister et al, 2012). Following consistent challenge about the elitism and inequality that the meme promoted, it has gradually fallen out of usage (Murphy, 2016; Hanley, 2021c). However, the fact that ‘best and brightest’ was used so often and for so long within children’s social care, including by many social workers, despite the elitism it propagated, demonstrates the power of memes within this policy network, and the lack of challenge around their use. Furthermore, the fact that so many of the memes contained within the MacAlister Review were also present in 2016’s Putting Children First shows just how little the dominant policy network in this sector have travelled since this previous generational opportunity for reform, and how entrenched their thinking is. The fall of the ‘best and brightest’ meme provides hope, but as this chapter has outlined, there remain many more memes to draw back the curtain on. Note See ‘Statistical Analysis’ section, available at: https://​www.childr​enss​ervi​ces. netw​ork/​analy​sis.html

1

References Adoption and Fostering Podcast (2022) ‘Podcast special: an interview with the children’s minister Will Quince’, Adoption and Fostering Podcast, [online] 25 June. Available at: https://p​ odcas​ ts. apple.com/​gb/​podc​ast/​podc​ast-​spec​ial-​an-​interv​iew-​with-​ the-​childr​ens/​id116​4600​703?i=​100056​7667​676 [Accessed 29 June 2022]. 53

The Future of Children’s Care

Allegretti, A. (2022) ‘Hitting reset: Boris Johnson’s attempts to reboot No 10 image’, The Guardian, [online] 9 June. Available at: https://w ​ ww.thegu ​ ardi​ an.com/p​ oliti​ cs/2​ 022/​jun/​09/​hitt​ing​ r eset- ​ b oris-​ j ohns​ o ns-​ a ttem​ p ts-​ t o-​ r eb​ o ot- ​ n o- ​ 1 0- ​ i mage [Accessed 29 June 2022]. Ball, S. (2008) ‘New philanthropy, new networks and new governance in education’, Political Studies 56(4), 747–​765. Ball, S. (2009) ‘Privatising education, privatising education policy, privatising educational research: network governance and the “competition state”’, Journal of Education Policy 24(1), 83–​99. Ball, S. (2017) ‘Laboring to relate: neoliberalism, embodied policy, and network dynamics’, Peabody Journal of Education 92(1), 29–​41. Ball, S. and Exley, S. (2010) ‘Making policy with “good ideas”: policy networks and the “intellectuals” of New Labour’, Journal of Education Policy 25(2), 151–​169. BASW (British Association of Social Workers) (2021) Response to the Care Review Case for Change. Birmingham: BASW. Beskow, D., Kumar, S. and Carley, K. (2020) ‘The evolution of political memes: detecting and characterising internet memes with multi-​modal deep learning’, Information Processing and Management 57(2), 102170. Brindle, D. (2019) ‘Radical plans aim to give power back to frontline social workers’, The Guardian, [online] 20 November. Available at: https://w ​ ww.thegu ​ ardi​ an.com/s​ ocie​ ty/2​ 019/n ​ ov/​ 20/r​ adic​ al-p​ lans-​power-​back-​soc​ial-​work​ers-f​ amili​ es [Accessed 29 June 2022]. Castells, M. (2007) ‘Communication, power and counter-​power in the network society’, International Journal of Communication 1, 238–​266. Castells, M. (2010) The Rise of the Network Society. Chichester: Wiley-​Blackwell. Castells, M. (2015) Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age. Cambridge: Polity Press. Castells, M. (2021) ‘From cities to networks: power rules’, Journal of Classical Sociology 21(3–​4), 260–​262. Cavanagh, S. (2019) Hivemind: The New Science of Tribalism in Our Divided World. London: Orion Spring. Dawkins, R. (1976) The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 54

More of memes than schemes

Department for Education (2016) Putting Children First: Delivering Our Vision for Excellent Children’s Social Care. London: Department for Education. de Saint Laurent, C., Glăveanu, V. and Literat, I. (2021) ‘Internet memes as partial stories: identifying political narratives in coronavirus memes’, Social Media +​Society 7(1), https://doi. org/10.1177/2056305121988932 De Souza, R. (2021) Big Ask: The Big Answer. London: Children’s Commissioner. Dugan, E. (2021) ‘Social workers too quick to wade in, review finds’, The Times, [online] 13 June. Available at: https://​www. theti​mes.co.uk/​arti​cle/​soc​ial-​work​ers-​too-​quick-​to-​wade-​in-​ rev​iew-​finds-​qtd076​3wd [Accessed 29 June 2022]. Ferguson, I. (2008) Reclaiming Social Work, Challenging Neoliberalism and Promoting Social Justice. London: SAGE. Forrester, D., Westlake, D., McCann, M., Thurnham, A., Shefer, G., Glynn, G. and Cillian, M. (2013) Reclaiming Social Work? An Evaluation of Systemic Units as an Approach to Delivering Children’s Services. Luton: Tilda Goldberg Centre for Social Work and Social Care. Fortune, R. and Smith, N. (2021) No Place Like Home: A Look at Young People’s Experience of Leaving the Care System. London: Barnardo’s. Frontline (2022) Annual Report and Accounts 2020–​2 022. London: Frontline. Garrett, P.M. (2009) Transforming’ Children’s Services? Social Work, Neoliberalism and the ‘Modern’ World. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Garrett, P.M. (2012) ‘Re-​enchanting social work? The emerging “spirit” of social work in an age of economic crisis’, British Journal of Social Work 44(3), 503–​521. Garrett, P.M. (2017) ‘Keywords, care and neoliberalism’, Critical and Radical Social Work 5(3), 269–​285. Gill, K., Quilter-​Pinner, H. and Swift, D. (2017) Making the Difference: Breaking the Link between School Exclusion and Social Exclusion. London: IPPR. Groves, J. (2010) No Place Like Home: Improving Adoption Services in England. London: Policy Exchange.

55

The Future of Children’s Care

Hanley, J. (2021a) ‘The “quality” of social work students in England: A genealogy of discourse 2002–​2018’, Critical and Radical Social Work 9(2), 253–​268. Hanley, J. (2021b) ‘Network ethnography of the care review’, Social Work 2020–​21 under Covid, special edition, [online] 28 April. Available at: https://​sites.goo​gle.com/​sheffi​eld.ac.uk/​sw2​020-​ 21-​covi​d19/​editi​ons/​spec​ial-​edit​ion/​netw​ork-​ethn​ogra​phy​and-​the-​care-​rev​iew https://​sw2020​covi​d19.group.shef.ac.uk/​ 2021/​04/​28/​confli​cts-​of-​inter​est-​and-​the-​nolan-​pri​ncip​les/​ [Accessed 29 June 2022]. Hanley, J. (2021c) ‘“The best and the brightest”: widening participation and social justice in contemporary English social work education’, European Journal of Social Work 24(3), 504–​514. Hanley, J. (2022) ‘Networks of power and counterpower in social work with children and families in England’, Critical Social Policy 42(3), 408–​427. Hanley, J., McGrath-​Brookes, M. and Higgins, M. (2021) ‘Dismantling the blueprint: Buurtzorg in English child protection social work’, European Journal of Social Work 24(6), 990–​1000. Harris, J., Froggett, L. and Paylor, I. (2000) Reclaiming Social Work: The Southport Papers: Volume 1. Birmingham: BASW. Higgins, M. and Goodyer, A. (2014) ‘Contradictions of contemporary social work: an ironic response’, British Journal of Social Work 45(2), 747–​760. Hood, R., Abbott, S., Coughlan, B., Nilsson, D., Duschinsky, R., Parker, P. and Mannes, J. (2022) Improving the Quality of Decision Making and Risk Assessment in Children’s Social Care: A Rapid Evidence Review. London: What Works for Children’s Social Care. House of Commons (2022) Independent Review of Children’s Social Care: Volume 715. London: UK Parliament. House of Lords (2017) Children and Social Work Bill: Volume 782. London: UK Parliament. Interdependence of Independence (2021) A Network Map of Children’s Services. Available at: https://​www.childr​enss​ervi​ces. netw​ork/​ [Accessed 29 June 2022]. Interface Associates (2020) Social Work Teaching Partnerships: An Evaluation. London: Department for Education. Jones, R. (2019) In Whose Interest? The Privatisation of Child Protection and Social Work. Bristol: Policy Press. 56

More of memes than schemes

JSWEC (Joint Social Work Education and Research Conference) (2022) Reclaiming the Social in Social Work. Leeds: JSWEC. Junemann, C. and Ball, S. (2013) ‘ARK and the revolution of state education in England’, Education Inquiry 4(3), 22611. Longfield, A. (2021) Out of Harms Way: A New Care System to Protect Vulnerable Teenagers at Risk of Exploitation and Crime. London: COYL. MacAlister, J. (2021a) The Case for Change. London: Independent Review of Children’s Social Care. MacAlister, J. (2021b) Early Plans. London: Independent Review of Children’s Social Care. MacAlister, J. (2022) The Independent Review of Children’s Social Care. Final Report. London: Department for Education. MacAlister, J., Crehan, L. and Olsen, A. (2012) FrontLine: Improving the Children’s Social Work Profession. London: Institute for Public Policy Research. MacAlister, J., Rose, K., Ruseler, M., Wise, R., Hiskens, R., Khagram, A., Bagnera, E., Aslanidis, J. and Martin, B. (2019) A Blueprint for Children’s Social Care. London: Boston Consulting Group. McGrath-​Brookes, M., Hanley, J. and Higgins, M. (2021) ‘A Fisher-​eye lens on social work reform’, Journal of Social Work 21(5), 1261–​1277. Murphy, T. (2016) ‘The Frontline Programme: Conservative ideology and the creation of a social work office class’, Critical and Radical Social Work 4(2), 279–​287. Olmedo, A., Bailey, P. and Ball, S. (2013) ‘To infinity and beyond …: heterarchical governance, the Teach for All network in Europe and the making of profits and minds’, European Educational Research Journal 12(4), 492–​512. Paylor, I., Froggett, L. and Harris, J. (2000) Reclaiming Social Work: The Southport Papers: Volume 2. Birmingham: BASW. Postan-​Aizik, D., Shdaimah, C. and Strier, R. (2020) ‘Positioning social justice: reclaiming social work’s organising value’, British Journal of Social Work 50(6), 1652–​1668. Purcell, C. (2020) The Politics of Children’s Services Reform: Re-​examining Two Decades of Policy Change. Bristol: Policy Press.

57

The Future of Children’s Care

Quarmby, K. (2021) ‘The influential figures dictating children’s social care policy’, Byline Times, [online] 19 July. Available at: https://​byli​neti​mes.com/​2021/​12/​21/​infl​uent​ial-​figu​res-​ dictat​ing-​childr​ens-​soc​ial-​care-​pol​icy-​via-​gov​ernm​ent-​back-​ door/​[Accessed 19 July 2022]. Rogowski, S. (2020) Social Work: The Rise and Fall of a Profession? Second edition. Bristol: Policy Press. Rothman, N. (2018) ‘The battle to own the “civil rights issue of our time”’, Commentary, [online] 21 December. Available at: www.com​ment​ary.org/​noah-​roth​man/​the-​civil-​r ig​hts-​issue-​ of-​our-​time/​ [Accessed 29 June 2022]. Siddique, H. (2022) ‘Use of “VIP lane” to award Covid PPE contracts unlawful, high court rules’, The Guardian, [online] 12 January. Available at: www.thegu ​ ardi​ an.com/​polit​ics/​2022/​jan/​ 12/​use-​of-​vip-​lane-​to-​award-​covid-​ppe-​contra​cts-​unlaw​ful​high-​court-​rules [Accessed 19 July 2022]. Simpson, F. (2022) ‘Charity leaders issue please for “ambitious” implementation of care review’, CYPNow, [online] 18 May. Available at: www.cyp​now.co.uk/​news/​arti​cle/c​ har i​ ty-l​ eade​ rs-​ issue-​plea-​for-​ambiti​ous-​imp​leme​ntat​ion-​of-​care-​rev​iew?utm​ _​med​ium=​Soc​ial&utm​_​sou​rce=​Twit​ter#Echo​box=​165​2874​ 492-​1 [Accessed 29 June 2022]. Sky News (2022) ‘Children’s social care: system needs “radical reset” to prevent “enormous” problems down the line –​report’, Sky News, [online] 23 May. Available at: https://n ​ ews.sky.com/​story/​ childr​ens-​soc​ial-​care-​sys​tem-​needs-​radi​cal-​reset-​to-​prev​ente​ norm​ous-​proble​ ms-d​ own-t​ he-l​ ine-r​ epo ​ rt-1​ 26194​ 08 [Accessed 29 June 2022]. Trowler, I. and Goodman, S. (2012) Social Work Reclaimed. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishing. Trowler, I. and MacAlister, J. (2022) Strengthening Families, Protecting Children, programme in the context of the Care Review Recommendations, [conference] 15 June. Tunstill, J. (2019) ‘Pruned, policed and privatised: the knowledge base for children and families social work in England and Wales in 2019’, Social Work and Social Sciences Review 20(2), 57–​76.

58

More of memes than schemes

Turner, A. (2018) ‘Social work isn’t falling to bits –​it has some deep challenges to which we can provide remedies’, Community Care, [online] 13 December. Available at: www.commun​ityc​are.co.uk/​ 2018/​12/​13/​soc​ial-​work-​isnt-​f all​ing-​bits-​deep-​cha​llen​ges​can-​prov​ide-​remed​ies/​ [Accessed 29 June 2022]. Turner, A. (2020) ‘DfE “unlawful” in consulting too narrowly on changes to children in care legislation’, Community Care, [online] 24 November. Available at: www.commun​ityc​are.co.uk/​2020/​ 11/​24/​dfe-​unlaw​ful-​con​sult​ing-​narro​wly-​chan​ges-​child​ren-​ care-​legi​slat​ion/​ [Accessed 19 July 2022]. Turner, A. (2022) ‘Lower caseloads –​not expert units or staff –​ best way to improve safeguarding, say social workers’, Community Care, [online] 21 June. Available at: www.commun​ityc​are.co.uk/​ 2022/​06/​21/​lower-​caselo​ads-​not-​exp​ert-​units-​or-​staff-​best-​ way-​to-​impr​ove-​safeg​uard​ing-​say-​soc​ial-​work​ers/​ [Accessed 29 June 2022]. Wood, A. (2022) ‘Why only specialist child protection teams will tackle the annual child death toll’, Community Care, [online] 20 May. Available at: www.communi​ tyca​ re.co.uk/2​ 022/0​ 5/2​ 0/w ​ hy-​ only-​spe​ciali​ st-​child-​pro​tect​ion-​teams-​will-​tac​kle-​the-​ann​ual​child-​death-​toll/​ [Accessed 29 June 2022].

59

4 Reclaiming social work, the social work complex and issues of bias in children’s services Robin Sen and Christian Kerr

Introduction This chapter draws on a case study of the Reclaiming Social Work (RSW) model in England. We trace its links to the social work training provider, Frontline, and the government-​funded centre for Evidence Based Practice (EBP), the What Works Centre for Children’s Social Care (WWCCSC), to illustrate issues around the emergence of a ‘social work complex’ of close alliances between influential individuals and organisations in the spheres of knowledge production, knowledge utilisation, policy making and practice in children’s services. The ‘social work complex’ is an adaptation of the term the ‘military-​industry complex’ used by US President Dwight Eisenhower in his farewell presidential address of January 1961. Eisenhower took the opportunity to warn of the dangers of the overly close links that had developed between his nation’s military and the defence industry which profited from supplying it. He identified the need to ‘guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-​industry complex’ and the possibility of ‘misplaced power’ arising from the complex, alongside the risks it posed to liberties, peace and democracy. 60

Reclaiming social work

We draw on the concept here as metaphor. We do not suggest the stakes in children’s services in England are equivalent to those Eisenhower outlined, but use the metaphor to highlight ways in which we believe the close alliances which do exist within children’s services in England today exert a distortive influence on children’s services policy and practice which the MacAlister Review has further entrenched (see also Purcell, 2020; Interdependence of Independence, 2021; Hanley, 2022). The close alliances of which we speak have developed alongside the greater involvement of a layer of organisations involved in children’s services provision outside of local government and public universities, including newer charities, social enterprises, private companies and large financial corporations. Within this mixed provision, accountability for policy and practice decisions in children’s services has in our view become opaque. Since our argument critiques the inadequate scrutiny of, and reflection on, positions, relationships and interests within children’s services, we also summarise some of our own. Both of us have for a number of years maintained a publicly critical approach to policy developments within social work in the UK, and in particular the encroachment of neoliberalism on children’s services provision. While we share scepticism towards claims sometimes made in the name of EBP, the chapter does not assume agreement with such a position but adopts an immanent critique by taking the espoused principles of EBP and considering the (in)consistency of their application in England. It is also relevant to note that the first author was part of the Leeds Family Valued evaluation (Mason et al, 2017), which was an Innovation Programme initiative funded by the UK government’s Department of Education (DfE). He has been an advocate for the greater use of Family Group Conferencing and was an overt critic of the WWCCSC’s proposals to conduct a Randomised Control Trial (RCT) of them in England. The second author was for two years a consultant social worker responsible for supervising students on Think Ahead, the adult mental health social work programme in England modelled on Frontline and which has attracted some similar criticisms to those made of Frontline, including from the second author himself. 61

The Future of Children’s Care

Evidence Based Practice and the search for unbiased knowledge We start by exploring the rationale behind EBP and the search for unbiased evidence it valorises. Since the 1990s there have been calls for social work to become more ‘evidence based’ (Sen, 2018). While the broader view of using research evidence to inform practice is uncontroversial, the ‘what works’ perspective goes beyond this in asserting the primacy of research evidence in leading practice and in advocating for the use of particular ‘evidence based’ ways of working in practice. These are typically practices which have been shown to be effective via experimental evaluation methods, particularly RCTs (Tunstill, 2019). This narrower view of evidence utilisation is sometimes referred to as EBP to distinguish it from the broader, widely held, view that practice should be informed by research. We follow that convention from this point on in this chapter. The WWCCSC was established in 2017 (becoming fully operational in 2019), with a £20 million grant from the UK government with a remit to produce and transfer knowledge about evidence in children’s social care in England (DfE, 2017). Its aims are formally aligned with the EBP paradigm in its invocation of evidence as the primary driver of practice in children’s services and its advocacy for the use of RCTs as the evaluation method of choice. In its web page the WWCCSC (2022) refers to ‘evidence’ five times in its aims, while in his first blog as executive director of the WWCCSC in 2019, Professor Michael Sanders articulated the conventionally held ‘what works’ view that RCTs are the ‘Gold Standard’ of evaluation evidence (Sanders, 2019). In actuality, a number of the studies commissioned by the WWCCSC have utilised a range of methods other than RCTs. While we welcome this openness to greater methodological and evidential plurality, it further highlights the inconsistency of arguing that RCTs must be used to evaluate particular social work practices at the same time as other social work practices are left untouched by such calls, as we illustrate. The first academic director of the WWCCSC, Professor Donald Forrester, has been a consistent and vocal advocate for the greater use of RCTs within social work. In a 2012 chapter Forrester 62

Reclaiming social work

states that: ‘The methodology for RCTs is one of the greatest intellectual achievements of the 20th century’ (2012, p 442). It is hard to disagree with Forrester’s characterisation of RCTs as having an ‘elegant simplicity’ (2012, p 442). If an evaluator wants to test an ‘intervention’ a group of people are randomly allocated between those who receive it (‘an intervention group’) and those who do not and who receive either the service as usual and/​or an alternative intervention (‘a control group’). If the sample of people in the study is large enough then it is argued that any other differences between the groups are evened out such that the outcomes measured between the two groups regarding the interventions’ effects can be causally attributed to the interventions themselves. It can therefore be determined whether there is causal evidence that an intervention is effective or not. The formal objectives of EBP are admirable –​to identify ways of practising which most effectively meet the needs of those receiving social work services and also the most cost-​effective methods of doing so. Despite its admirable aims, the social work profession has tended to adopt a questioning attitude towards it (Tunstill, 2019). Key concerns include questions about the undue narrowing of the social work knowledge base, the misplaced reification of experimental methods, the potential for greater centralised control over practice and the marginalisation of the voices of those using services and practitioners within decisions about practice methods (see also Webb, 2001). Specific concerns about the use of RCTs in social work include ethical, epistemological, methodological, political and pragmatic ones. Our purpose is not to explore this terrain in detail here, other than to note our view that some of the arguments for EBP gloss over the messiness underlying evaluative research in ‘social interventions’ and the implications of such messiness for claims about the production of unbiased knowledge. In medical science evaluation, where the use of RCTs is more developed, the issue of minimising bias –​conscious or unconscious –​is rightly taken very seriously. Trials routinely involve allocation concealment (Schulz and Grimes, 2002) as well as multiple forms of masking so that as few people as possible are aware of who is in the treatment and control groups during a trial. Karanicolas et al (2010) specify five potential groups who may be masked during a medical RCT to minimise the possibility of 63

The Future of Children’s Care

bias influencing trial outcomes, intentionally or otherwise: trial participants; clinicians/​practitioners; data collectors; outcome adjudicators; and data analysts. Masking to the same extent is impossible in ‘social interventions’ as people know what intervention they are providing and receiving. Nonetheless, the issue of minimising bias remains a predominant concern and the strongest argument for using RCTs in social work evaluation. We quote again from Donald Forrester (2012) regarding ways in which bias may enter the knowledge production process: [T]‌here are myriad forms of bias –​defined as potential other explanations for an outcome associated with evaluative research. These include the fact that those delivering a service will tend to consider that it works and report positively about it and that service users tend to report positively about services they receive (at least for services they have a choice about receiving) but this does not help differentiate the relative impact of the service. In short, there is no well-​established link between the views of those who use a service and its impact. In addition, being employed to evaluate a service and working closely with those who deliver a service produces formal and informal pressures to identify the positives about a service. This can lead data collection and analysis to be biased toward a particular set of findings, such as those the funder or workers might wish to hear (see Torgerson and Torgerson, 2008). Indeed, unless evaluations are independently funded, it is relatively rare for them to conclude a service is not worthwhile, appreciated, and effective. One is often left wondering whether such evaluations constitute genuine research or a more complicated element of the policy making process designed to justify funding decisions (see Butler and Pugh, 2004; Taylor and Balloch, 2005). (Forrester, 2012, pp 443–​444) The idea of RCTs as a counter to such human frailties has an alluring modernist optimism: scientific progress achieved through utilisation of a gold standard research method to eliminate bias and 64

Reclaiming social work

produce objective evidence of which practices are effective and ineffective, without fear or favour. A more residual position within EBP is that any method of practice should at least be causally shown not to have negative effects. In children’s services this is generally taken to mean that a practice should not produce more negative effects than had it not been used at all based on common research measures of child outcomes.1 The spectre that practice designed to help could in fact be harmful –​or have so-​called ‘iatrogenic effects’ –​is alarming. It has on a number of occasions been raised in respect of Family Group Conferencing by those working within an EBP paradigm (for example, Little et al, 2012, p 98; Creemers et al, 2017; Montgomery, 20192). Such concerns would appear to have influenced the WWCCSC’s decision to undertake an RCT into Family Group Conferencing despite considerable opposition on ethical and methodological grounds (see Schout, 2022). Within the EBP paradigm, the rationale for undertaking the RCT goes along the following lines: the evidence for Family Group Conferencing’s effectiveness is lacking. The need for unbiased causal evidence that it is, at the very least, not harmful must come first. This need trumps particular families’ ability to choose a Family Group Conference during the research evaluation at a time when there is a serious possibility that the family’s children could be removed from their care and when a Family Group Conference might facilitate them to develop their own family plan to safeguard children within their own family network. The science of evidence demands that families must be randomised into intervention and control groups without their prior knowledge and agreement, for that is the only way gold standard evidence can be produced. Ultimately, children and families’ welfare will be promoted via such evidence. While we do not agree with this rationale, we note its logic, which places the concern for producing unbiased causal evidence as the paramount need. Social work reclaimed? We turn now to the way in which another model of social work practice, RSW, was promoted within English social work, despite the lack of causal evidence for its effectiveness. RSW was a 65

The Future of Children’s Care

model for child and family social work developed in the London Borough of Hackney by Isabelle Trowler and Steve Goodman, and others, in the late 2000s when they were senior managers under the directorship of Alan Wood. It has been described as a ‘whole system change to the way statutory children and family work is practiced and managed’ (DfE and Spring Consortium, nd, np). It is influenced by family systems and social learning theories and is known for delivering social work via a ‘unit model’ comprising a consultant social worker, a social worker, a child practitioner, clinical therapist and a unit administrator. Following the apparent success of the model, in 2010, Trowler and Goodman left Hackney to form Morning Lane Associates (hereafter ‘Morning Lane’) as a social enterprise to promote RSW, with Mary Jackson, before Trowler left on becoming the first Chief Social Worker for Children and Families in England in 2013. The RSW model was positively evaluated in two evaluations (Cross et al, 2010; Forrester et al, 2013), each of which included one of two prominent social work academics on the evaluation teams–​the first evaluation Professor Eileen Munro, and the second Professor Donald Forrester. Gains attributed to RSW in these early evaluations were considerable and included the quality of practice, cost savings, reductions in the number of children in care, greater placement stability for children, reduced staff sickness and better multi-​agency working (Cross et al, 2010; Forrester et al, 2013). The Munro Review of Child Protection (2011) –​the last major Review of children’s services in England before MacAlister’s own –​and its progress report (Munro, 2012) were also led by Eileen Munro. Both Review reports cite RSW as a case study in successful system redesign in children’s services. Highly unusually, the then cabinet minister at the DfE, Michael Gove, referenced the RSW model in glowing terms in a major, highly publicised, speech in November 2013, citing findings from the then recently published evaluation by Forrester and colleagues. Gove lauded ‘Hackney’s success in pioneering a whole new –​and highly successful –​model’ and declared that he was ‘determined to spread this rigour throughout the children’s social care profession’ (Gove, 2013, np, emphasis added). From the perspective of the EBP paradigm it should be noted that this praise was lavished despite the absence of causal evidence in support of RSW as it 66

Reclaiming social work

had not been successfully subject to an RCT or other rigorous quasi-​experimental evaluation. That around a third of Hackney’s original social work workforce had lost their jobs after the introduction of RSW was presented as a success by Gove in this speech, who linked this to the claimed rigour and high standards of RSW: ‘It also involves holding social workers to the highest professional standards with close and rigorous management. It’s why, in Hackney, up to a third of those who were in place when the current DCS [Director of Children’s Services, Alan Wood] introduced Reclaiming Social Work have had to move on’ (Gove, 2013, np). On a linked theme, Gove also praised the newly launched Frontline programme which Josh MacAlister had at that time recently established, suggesting it would help drive up standards in social work (Gove, 2013). The emergent social work complex could be seen in the linkages between the government, Frontline, RSW and Trowler. The government’s announcement of Trowler’s appointment as Chief Social Worker simultaneously announced the government’s support for the establishment of Frontline, and noted that Trowler had helped design its curriculum (DfE, 2013). These links continued to strengthen: Forrester became the first academic lead for the Frontline programme in 2013; Steve Goodman provided training to Frontline students via Morning Lane; and, in 2015, Mary Jackson left Morning Lane to join Frontline to set up its new ‘Firstline’ programme, after it had received Innovation Programme funding from the DfE. Jackson would later become Chief Executive of Frontline when Josh MacAlister left that position to Chair the MacAlister Review. In 2014 Morning Lane itself received central government funding via the DfE Innovation Programme: a £4.4 million DfE award to ‘scale up’ the RSW model to five local authorities who were not using it (NAO, 2016). All of the Innovation Programme projects were administered by Spring Consortium which was itself a combination of two social enterprises–​the Innovation Unit and Mutual Ventures –​and Deloitte, a large financial corporation. While we are not averse to the principle of innovation it is our belief that some of the framing of the DfE Innovation Programme initiative can be characterised as neoliberal influenced: many of the organisations involved in the programme were from outside 67

The Future of Children’s Care

the public sector. This development appeared premised on the belief that greater deregulation of children’s services, and the entry of more non-​public-​sector providers into local authority social work and university social work education, would bring greater dynamism, creativity and efficiency to those areas of provision (see Jones, 2019; see also LaingBuisson et al, 2016; Sebba et al, 2017). Each Innovation Programme project had an evaluation team attached to it to explore the project’s trajectory. Forrester was also a member of the team which undertook the initial evaluation of the Innovation Programme funded scaling up of RSW (Bostock et al, 2017). The evaluation team reported some difficulties in implementing RSW in the five authorities, but also found the quality of social work practice of those using RSW to be among the highest they had ever observed. The evaluation was unequivocal in recommending the wider roll-​out of the RSW model, even though there was still a lack of causal evidence in its favour: ‘RSW is a model for excellent social work that has been demonstrated to be deliverable in a variety of different types of local authority. Other authorities should consider it as an option for delivering high quality services that work effectively to keep families together’ (Bostock et al, 2017, p  11). The overall government-​commissioned summary of learning from the first wave of Innovation Programme projects cemented this recommendation. It contained only two policy recommendations which appear closely aligned with Conservative government’s reform agenda for children’s services since 2013: one recommends reinforcing ‘the current policy to support deregulation in order to allow a wider range of innovations’; the second greater use of ‘systemic social work’ (Sebba et al, 2017, p 9). It is our view that the apparent success of RSW, alongside the fact that its key supporters were highly influentially networked (Interdependence of Independence, 2021), provided important ideological support for controversial parts of the Conservative government’s reform agenda from 2013. That an ingredient of RSW’s apparent success was suggested to be its dismissal of social workers deemed insufficiently competent to apply the model underpinned a wider claim that the poor quality of the social work workforce had been a substantive block to producing better outcomes in children’s services. This claim bolstered the argument 68

Reclaiming social work

that alternative models of training social workers were needed, and most notably aided the development of MacAlister’s Frontline (see MacAlister et al, 2012; Goodman and Trowler, 2012; Gove, 2013; see also Pemberton, 2014; McGrath-​Brookes et al, 2021). The evidence base for the claim was, and remains, weak but this has been no barrier to policy and government investment being made on back of it. A second claimed facet of RSW’s success was its ability to free social workers up from administrative tasks, allowing them to engage more with families (Cross et al, 2010; Forrester et al, 2013). Administrative burden within child and family social work practice is an important consideration and there are long-​standing concerns about the imbalance between the time social workers spend on administrative tasks rather than engaging with families. There are also a broader set of concerns that children’s services have become too procedural and risk-​averse. These issues were comprehensively analysed in the Munro Review (2011, 2012), drawing on a persuasive body of evidence and Munro’s own incisive application of systems thinking to children’s services. However, this nuanced analysis started to resolve itself into suggestions that children’s services should adopt particular practice models and embed ‘deregulatory innovations’ to improve (Sebba et al, 2017). These were simplistic solutions to a complex set of challenges in children’s services, particularly during unprecedented austerity cuts. RSW’s apparent success reinforced the government’s encouragement of local authorities investing their scarce, austerity-​decimated, resources in particular practice models. There continues to be a lack of clear evidence that this is a path to improving children’s services (Isokuortti et al, 2020; Baginsky et al, 2021). At the same time the government and its senior advisors have overlooked evidence regarding the significance of locality deprivation and service funding in the quality ratings children’s services departments receive (Webb et al, 2022). RSW’s claimed successes also provided a backdrop to the proposed deregulatory reforms in children’s services from 2016. Such proposals were premised on a narrative that an ill-​defined bureaucracy needed to be overcome to improve children’s services –​ a narrative unsurprisingly continued within the MacAlister Review itself. The deregulatory reforms proposed since 2016 have all involved 69

The Future of Children’s Care

diminishing important legal and procedural protections for children and families, and there has been no rigorous attempt at distinguishing between necessary and unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy during this time (see Tunstill and Willow, 2017; McGrath-​Brookes et al, 2021; Chapter 2, this volume). From 2018, however, there were indications that the RSW model had run into difficulties. The first full external inspections by the English inspectorate, Ofsted, of the five Innovation Programme RSW local authorities indicated concerns: two of the five authorities were given the lowest rating (‘inadequate’), and one the second lowest rating (‘requires improvement’). Given that RSW has been described as a ‘whole system change’ to how child and family social work is practised and managed in a local authority (DfE and Spring Consortium, nd) these inspection results raise questions about its positive impact in those three local authorities. The questions about RSW were underpinned by Steve Goodman’s decision to liquidate Morning Lane in 2018 and stop providing training in the RSW model. Accounts on the company’s liquidation showed it had amassed assets of £2.2 million (Parkes, 2019) illustrating that its activities, overwhelmingly funded by the public purse during a period of unprecedented central government austerity cuts, had been very profitable. There are legitimate questions about how well Ofsted ratings reflect the quality of children’s services provision. But, Conservative governments since 2010 have given credibility to their validity by removing a number of children’s services departments subject to ‘inadequate’ Ofsted judgments from local authority control (Jones, 2019). Given this, it might have been expected the inspection results cited earlier, in RSW-​adopting local authorities, would have generated public ministerial comment, if not action. To our knowledge there was none. To the DfE’s credit a further follow-​up evaluation of the five RSW Innovation Programme funded local authorities was commissioned (Bostock and Newlands, 2020). It was, though, released to very little publicity, and has generated no public ministerial comment that we were able to find, in distinction to the prior very public praise and promotion of the RSW model. The latest evaluation (Bostock and Newlands, 2020) reported that four of the five local authorities had kept some aspects of RSW, but only one had kept what are described as its ‘five key 70

Reclaiming social work

elements’. The evaluators clearly describe the difficulties longer-​ term implementation of RSW had encountered: ‘[T]‌he overall longer-​term impact of RSW on key performance outcomes was limited. Analysis of key performance indicators suggests that trends were volatile or unclear for the majority of indicators analysed’ (Bostock and Newlands, 2020, p 51). There was no discernible impact on reducing the proportions of children in care between 2015 and 2019 in the five local authorities. Four of the five also saw increasing use of agency social workers and greater social worker turnover –​ironically these were two of the negative indicators in the social work workforce that Josh MacAlister had successfully used to argue for the establishment of the Frontline programme, eight years previously (MacAlister et al, 2012, pp 6–​7). Given these findings the evaluators were in our view diplomatic to state that ‘RSW remains an approach that aims for excellence in social work practice’ (Bostock and Newlands, 2020, p 52). Undoubtedly RSW aims for excellence, but the evaluation provides little evidence of its production. Within the logic of the EBP paradigm the difficulties that the RSW model had encountered should have led to questions about the strength of the evidence base behind it, the policy developments which had been directly and indirectly premised on its claimed successes as well as the lessons to take from these difficulties. In 2019, when the WWCCSC had become fully functional, it is hard to conceive of a more fitting practice for it to explore. The centre had received generous public funding with an explicit remit to identify ‘gaps in evidence’ and to ‘review evidence’ in children’s social care (WWCCSC, 2022, np). There were already indicators by 2018 that the RSW model had begun to struggle despite previous positive evaluation. Morning Lane had received significant UK central government funding to provide training in RSW, in addition at least 30 local authorities in the UK and abroad had spent public money buying into the model from 2008 (DfE and Spring Consortium, nd). The model had received strong public support from an influential Cabinet minister who had stated it was a model that all children’s services departments should follow. And, it was associated with, or supported by, a number of other highly influentially networked actors in children’s services. However, now in its fourth year of 71

The Future of Children’s Care

full operation, the only substantive comment that we could find from the WWCCSC about RSW is a short statement, in passing, in a 2021 blog from its then executive director, Professor Michael Sanders, who commented that: ‘Reclaiming Social Work, the model of practice developed in Hackney, is effectively inevaluable, both because nowhere is “doing it”, and because it has in some senses entered the water supply of social care, and everywhere is “doing it to some extent” ’ (Sanders, 2021, np). In this comment, unlike any other social work practice of which we are aware, RSW is effectively given a ‘get out of evaluation card’ by the director of a centre tasked with developing better evidence for children’s services. Equally, Sanders does not suggest this as any impediment to RSW’s continued usage. Beyond the absence of a fresh evaluation of RSW, we could find no evaluative commentary by the WWCCSC on the model’s trajectory post-​2017. At the time of writing, the formal evidence base in respect of RSW does not contradict the claim that it is a model for excellent social work practice which all local authority children’s services in England should consider using. If RSW does produce excellent social work then children’s services leaders in England are behaving irrationally in rejecting it and a centre promoting EBP should be highlighting this. Or, if use of the RSW model has been rejected by most of the local authorities which had used it as it was impossible to implement successfully, then there is an important role for a centre promoting EBP to state this, and to explore the lessons. As early as 2013, Professor Ray Jones had raised concerns that the ‘unit model’ in RSW was unsustainable (Pemberton, 2013). Was he right? We do not have the data to clearly answer this question though the WWCCSC could have gathered it. Michael Sanders was correct, though, to suggest that RSW has entered the water supply of children’s services in England: Frontline’s qualifying programme continues to be strongly influenced by the model and is now the largest single provider of social work training in England. But is RSW fortifying the water supply, having no effect on it, or poisoning it? The spectral, somewhat pious, concerns of potential harm and iatrogenic effects raised regarding Family Group Conferencing have been absent in respect of RSW. It seems to us that an explanation of this discrepancy lies in bias, conscious or otherwise, and the power of networks resulting from 72

Reclaiming social work

the close alliances within a social work complex of influential players in children’s services in England (Interdependence of Independence, 2021; Hanley, 2022). We turn now to explore some of these in more detail. Connections within a complex The potential for ‘myriad forms of bias’ to have influenced the rise of RSW and the subsequent failure to explore its apparent abeyance is highlighted by the close relationships and crossover roles of key individuals closely connected to it. Eileen Munro helped evaluate RSW in a knowledge production role (Cross et al, 2010) and had subsequently recommended it in a policy advisory role as chair/​recent chair of the Munro Review, a central government commissioned national review. Isabelle Trowler was herself a ‘member of the team’ of the Munro Review (DfE, 2023). Munro had known Trowler since teaching her as a social work student at the London School of Economics in the 1990s and Munro wrote the foreword to Goodman and Trowler’s book (2012) on the RSW model. In the same book, Goodman and Trowler describe that in developing RSW they had surrounded themselves with ‘a small army of like-​minded people, all wanting to do the right thing’ (Goodman and Trowler, 2012, p  164, emphasis in original). One of this ‘small army’ is noted to be Professor Donald Forrester. These connections do not invalidate all the findings of the evaluations in which they were involved. But, they do point towards the heightened possibility of, in Forrester’s (2012, p 443) words, ‘potential other explanations for an outcome associated with evaluative research’. There were also sources of potential bias outside the formal evaluation process that could have influenced the treatment of RSW. After 2013, Trowler and Wood moved from practice to national policy advisory roles. This included both sitting on the initial five-​person Innovation Fund programme investment board which awarded central government supported Innovation Fund grants. The other three board members came from outside children’s services, with backgrounds in hedge and investment fund management (Jones, 2019). In the first round of Innovation funding, RSW/​Morning Lane, MacAlister’s Frontline/​Firstline, 73

The Future of Children’s Care

and Signs of Safety run by the Munro, Murphy, Turnell company, which Eileen Munro had helped establish after the Munro Review, were all given multi-​million pound central government Innovation Programme funding. Another Hackney-​incubated project, Pause, was also funded. Trowler had divested herself of any shares in Morning Lane on becoming Chief Social Worker in 2013, and a National Audit Office inquiry (NAO, 2016) found no evidence of her influencing the Innovation award to Morning Lane. However, it did criticise the lack of recording regarding the management of this conflict of interest. The National Audit Office inquiry was told that Trowler had left the room while Morning Lane’s Innovation Fund application was being discussed, and accepted this, but noted there was no minuted record of this happening (NAO, 2016, p 7, para 7). Wood’s own presence on the Innovation panel introduced another source of potential bias since it was under his directorship at Hackney that both RSW and Pause had developed, and Wood’s own role in helping implement RSW in Hackney has been significantly publicised. For example, a biographical paragraph in respect of Wood on the WWCCSC’s own web pages states: ‘Between 2006–​16, Alan was the Corporate Director of Children and Young People’s Services in Hackney ensuring the implementing of the nationally acclaimed model of Reclaiming Social Work’ (WWCCSC, 2018, np). Finally, there are links between the emergent social work complex and the WWCCSC. Trowler and Wood were appointed to its initial founding Board on its inception and remained there until 2021, with Wood appointed as Founding Chair. Forrester was appointed as the first academic lead of the centre in 2018. Again, these links provide the potential for bias, conscious or otherwise, in the WWCCSC’s decisions about what it would seek to establish evidence about. The EBP paradigm focuses on reducing bias within the technical evaluation process. However, it is a glaring case of missing the wood for the trees to advocate for RCTs as a counter to human biases within the evaluation process while ignoring their possibility in the personal and political relations outside it which nonetheless influence knowledge production, knowledge utilisation and policy development. To draw on Dreyfus and Rainbow’s (1982, p  160) description, this position exemplifies ‘[t]‌aking what is 74

Reclaiming social work

essentially a political problem, removing it from the realm of political discourse, and recasting it in the neutral language of science. Once this is accomplished, the problems have become technical ones’. The MacAlister Review and the social work complex Josh MacAlister’s appointment as Chair of the MacAlister Review, alongside the close involvement of Isabelle Trowler and Donald Forrester within it, are illustrations of the continued influence of ‘like-​minded’ individuals who had already had significant roles influencing the direction of social work education, policy and practice in England since 2013. There are also linkages between Mr MacAlister and the WWCCSC. MacAlister sat on the board that helped initially develop the WWCCSC (ThirdSector, 2018). In formally appointing MacAlister to run the Review of Children’s Social Care in 2021 the DfE contractually stipulated that members of the WWCCSC must be involved in the ‘supporting panel’ for the Review (Bright, 2021). One of the MacAlister Review’s recommendations was subsequently that the Early Intervention Foundation and the WWCCSC should merge into a joint new organisation. Since the MacAlister Review has ended MacAlister has been appointed as Chair of this new organisation (Simpson, 2022). The strongest overt rationale for an elected government to commission an independent review of instead of moving directly to legislate on the basis of its democratic mandate is that it will: subject extant policy and practices to independent external scrutiny; recommend alternatives previously unconsidered by government through broader consultative mechanisms and processes than are usually employed in policy development; and, engender broader coalitions of support for new proposals than a government would have been able to garner by itself. The integral involvement of those already closely connected to a government’s prior policy agenda delimits a review’s ability to fulfil these aims. We develop this point by illustrating some key gaps within the MacAlister Review’s analysis. While the MacAlister Review did identify the lack of support for families in the current child welfare system in England, and 75

The Future of Children’s Care

make some useful recommendations to address these, it failed to cite the government policies which have been a contributory cause of it. The unwillingness to call out the brutal impacts of austerity policies since 2010 is a hole within the Review: these impacts include an estimated 20 per cent reduction in spending per child and a 60 per cent fall in spending on preventative services from 2010 (Kelly et al, 2018) as well as, more broadly, a staggering estimated 335,000 additional deaths in the UK between 2012 and 2019 (Walsh et al, 2022). In place of identifying these structural roots of poor support for families in England, during the Review MacAlister instead appeared to attribute such poor support to individual social work practice failings (see Dugan, 2021). Second, the furthering of the government’s deregulatory agenda in children’s services can be seen within parts of the Review’s recommendations. One example is the recommendation to abolish the Independent Reviewing Officer role, a move which has for a number of years been previously advocated by those close to government, including by Isabelle Trowler in 2016 (see McNicoll, 2016). This illustrates how aspects of the MacAlister Review represented the attempted consolidation of a prior policy agenda, rather than offering much-​needed fresh thinking. Finally, the Review failed to scrutinise the accountability gap arising from the entry of more private providers into different parts of children’s services provision. The Review argued that newly proposed Regional Care Cooperatives ‘should be owned and fully accountable to local authorities’ (MacAlister, 2022, p 125) but its proposed windfall tax on the largest residential care providers was a weak recommendation that falls far short of the ambition to eliminate profit in the sector recently announced by the Welsh government. A windfall tax would entrench profit-​ making providers in England by validating profit generation as a normal part of children’s placement provision. More broadly, the Review was silent about the accountability gaps created by contracting out various aspects of English children’s services provision to non-​public-​sector companies during the last decade. Some of these companies –​Morning Lane included –​have since exited the sector having made substantial profit, with no ongoing responsibilities to the local authorities they worked with, or the families receiving their services. 76

Reclaiming social work

Conclusion Some overlap of networks in the field of children’s services in one country are inevitable. We would contend that what makes the alliances we refer to in this chapter a ‘complex’ are the strong, repeated linkages and overlaps, which cross multiple spheres in children’s services and which have exercised influence on policy, practice and the allocation of public funds since 2013. The emergence of a social work complex has resulted in greater potential for significant conflicts of interest in the period since the Conservative Party re-​entered power in 2010. These potential conflicts of interests –​or greater risks of bias –​need to be better acknowledged, scrutinised and managed in the interests of accountability and transparency, as well as effectiveness. The involvement of those closely aligned with core parts of the government’s policy agenda within the MacAlister Review is totemic of the way in which potential biases have not only been overlooked but seemingly encouraged by recent governments. The resolution of these issues will require some reform of institutional relationships within children’s services. It has long been said that governments enact ‘policy-​based evidence’ rather than ‘evidence-​based policy’, but the close involvement of those allied, or recently previously allied, to government policy positions within nominally independent knowledge production and policy review roles takes this a step further. These activities risk conscious or unconscious capture by the agendas and interests they are supposed to be providing scrutiny of. Beyond epistemological argument as to whether entirely unbiased knowledge is ever possible, there is broad acceptance of the importance of producing knowledge which provides independent assessment of the successes and limitations of children’s services’ operation. If this is a desirable end, then it must be accepted that a necessary condition of it is an openness to knowledge production that contains data, arguments and conclusions that challenge prevailing beliefs, positions and expectations, particularly those held by those in positions of influence and power. Within the recent UK governmental history there are broader good and bad examples of the institutional autonomy of nominally independent bodies. The Sewell Report (Commission on Race and 77

The Future of Children’s Care

Ethnic Disparities, 2021) was widely criticised for misrepresenting key evidence and delivering messages that were closely aligned with the government’s own underpinning policy direction regarding racialised disparities. There were similar concerns that the Johnson government was trying to influence the Equalities and Human Rights Commission –​a statutory non-​departmental public body supposed to operate independently –​by appointing a commissioner who appeared sympathetic to its policies on race and immigration (Gentleman, 2020). On the other hand, though not without their challenges, the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, the Office for Budgetary Responsibility and the UK Statistics Authority are examples of relatively settled institutional arrangements where those bodies have maintained sufficient separation from prevailing government policy agendas to be accepted as undertaking scrutiny of monetary policy, public finances and the production and utilisation of official statistics that provides independent analysis of government practices. Centres for evidence and independent reviews of policy need to similarly maintain such separation from governmental policy agendas if they are to have the capacity to reach genuinely independent conclusions that can improve the experiences of children and families. Notes Typically such as children’s entry into care, placement stability, involvement with statutory child and family social work, estimates of child maltreatment, educational attainment, behaviour and psychological adjustment. 2 Comment by Paul Montgomery, Professor of Social Intervention, in response to magazine article by Michelle Janas. 1

References Baginsky, M., Ixer, G. and Manthorpe, J. (2021) ‘Practice frameworks in children’s services in England: an attempt to steer social work back on course?’, Practice 33(1), 3–​19. Bostock, L. and Newlands, F. (2020) Scaling and Deepening the Reclaiming Social Work Model: Longitudinal Follow Up. Evaluation report. London: Department for Education. Bostock, L., Forrester, D., Patrizo, L., Godfrey, T., Zounouzi, M., Antonopoulou, V., et al (2017) Scaling and Deepening the Reclaiming Social Work Model. London: Department for Education. 78

Reclaiming social work

Bright, S. (2021) Reform Without Funding? Renewed Concerns Over Government’s Children’s Social Care Review. Available at: https://​ web.arch​ive.org/​web/​202​3012​2135​823/​https://​byli​neti​mes. com/​2021/​03/1​ 7/i​ ndep​ ende​ nt-c​ oncer​ ns-c​ hild​ren-​soc​ial-​care-​ rev​iew-​contr​act-​publis​hed/​ [Accessed 22 January 2023]. Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities (2021) The Report, March 2021. Available at: https://​ass​ets.pub​lish​ing.serv​ice.gov. uk/​gov​ernm​ent/​uplo​ads/​sys​tem/​uplo​ads/​atta​chme​nt_​d​ata/​ file/​974​507/​202103​31_​-_​ C ​ RED_​Repo​rt_​-_​ F ​ INA ​ L_-​ _​ W ​ eb_​ ​ Acc​essi​ble.pdf [Accessed 30 June 2022]. Creemers, H.E., Sundell, K., Deković, M., Dijkstra, S., Stams, G.J.J. and Asscher, J.J. (2017) ‘When the “golden” standard should be the general standard: response to a commentary on the use of randomised controlled trials to examine the effectiveness of family group conferencing’, British Journal of Social Work 47(4), 1262–​1267. Cross, S., Hubbard, E. and Munro, E. (2010) Reclaiming Social Work: London Borough of Hackney Children and Young People’s Services. London: Human Reliability and London School of Economics and Political Science. DfE (Department for Education) (2013) ‘Press release: first ever chief social worker for children and fast-​track training to lead social work reform’. Available at: https://​web.arch​ive.org/​web/​ 202​2091​9190​339/​https://​www.gov.uk/​gov​ernm​ent/​news/​ first-​ever-​chief-​soc​ial-​wor​ker-​for-​child​ren-​and-​f ast-​track-​ train​ing-​to-​lead-​soc​ial-​work-​ref​orm [Accessed 30 September 2022]. DfE (2017) ‘£20 million improvement programme for children’s social care’. Available at: https://​web.arch​ive.org/​web/​202​2082​ 8164​501/​https://​www.gov.uk/​gov​ernm​ent/n ​ ews/2​ 0-m ​ illi​ on-​ impr​ovem​ent-​progra​mme-​for-​childr​ens-​soc​ial-​care [Accessed 30 September 2022]. DfE (2023) ‘Chief social worker for children and families and child safeguarding practice review panel member Isabelle Trowler’. Available at: https://​web.arch​ive.org/​web/​202​3012​1111​031/​ https://​www.gov.uk/​gov​ernm​ent/​peo​ple/​isabe​lle-​trow​ler [Accessed 21 January 2023]. DfE and Spring Consortium (nd) Case Study #1, Reclaiming Social Work in Hackney, UK. London: DfE. 79

The Future of Children’s Care

Dreyfus, H. and Rainbow, P. (1982) Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Dugan, E. (2021) ‘Social workers too quick to wade in, review finds: a “runaway train” of child protection investigations damages families and risks putting the young in even greater danger’, The Sunday Times, 13 June. Forrester, D. (2012) ‘Evaluation Research’, pp 440–​453, in M. Gray, J. Midgley and S.A. Webb (eds), The SAGE Handbook of Social Work. London: SAGE. Forrester, D., Westlake, D., McCann, M., Thurnham, A., Shefer, G., Glynn, G., et al (2013) Reclaiming Social Work? An Evaluation of Systemic Units as an Approach to Delivering Children’s Services. Luton: University of Bedfordshire Tilda Goldberg Centre for Social Work and Social Care. Gentleman, A. (2020) ‘Equalities campaigners criticise senior EHRC appointment’, The Guardian, 13 November. Available at: www.thegu ​ ard​ian.com/​soci​ety/​2020/​nov/1​ 3/c​ ampa​ igne​ rs-​ critic​ise-​sen​ior-​ehrc-​appo​intm​ent-​david-​goodh​art [Accessed 1 June 2022]. Goodman, S. and Trowler, I. (2012) Social Work Reclaimed: Innovative Frameworks for Child and Family Social Work Practice. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Gove, M. (2013) ‘Michael Gove speech to the NSPCC: getting it right for children in need’, 12 November. Available at: https://​ web.arch​ive.org/​web/​202​2091​9190​114/​https://​www.gov.uk/​ gov​ernm​ent/​speec​hes/​gett​ing-​it-​r ight-​for-​child​ren-​in-​need-​ spe​ech-​to-​the-​nspcc [Accessed 22 August 2022]. Hanley, J. (2022) ‘Networks of power and counterpower in social work with children and families in England’, Critical Social Policy 42(3), 408–​427. Interdependence of Independence (2021) A Network Map of Children’s Services. Available at: https://​www.childr​enss​ervi​ces. netw​ork/​ [Accessed 1 September 2022]. Isokuortti, N., Aaltio, E., Laajasalo, T. and Barlow, J. (2020) ‘Effectiveness of child protection practice models: a systematic review’, Child Abuse & Neglect 108, 104632. Jones, R. (2019) In Whose Interest? The Privatisation of Child Protection and Social Work. Bristol: Policy Press.

80

Reclaiming social work

Karanicolas, P.J., Farrokhyar, F. and Bhandari, M. (2010) ‘Blinding: who, what, when, why, how?’, Canadian Journal of Surgery 53(5), 345–​348. Kelly, E., Lee, T., Sibieta, L. and Waters, T. (2018) Public Spending on Children in England: 2000 to 2020. London: Children’s Commissioner/​Institute for Fiscal Studies. LaingBuisson, COBIC and CICADA (2016) The Potential for Developing the Capacity and Diversity of Children’s Social Care Services in England. Independent research report. London: Department for Education. Little, M., Jodrell, D. and Karakurt, S. (2012) ‘Social policy and child protection: using the heart and the head’, pp. 90–​ 104, in M. Davies (ed) Social Work with Children and Families. Basingstoke: Palgrave. MacAlister, J. (2022) The Independent Review of Children’s Social Care. Final Report. London: Department for Education. MacAlister, J., Crehan, L. and Olsen, A. (2012) Front Line: Improving the Children’s Social Work Profession. London: IPPR. Mason, P., Ferguson, H., Morris, K., Munton, T. and Sen, R. (2017) Leeds Family Valued Evaluation Report. London: Department for Education. McGrath-​Brookes, M., Hanley, J. and Higgins, M. (2021) ‘A Fisher-​eye lens on social work reform’, Journal of Social Work 21(5), 1261–​1277. McNicoll, A. (2016) ‘Isabelle Trowler on practice, professionalism and private influence in social work’, Community Care, 2 June. Available at: https://​web.arch​ive.org/​web/​202​2092​3134​056/​ https://​www.commun​ityc​are.co.uk/​2016/​06/​02/​qa-​isabe​ lle-t​ rowl​ er-p​ ract​ice-​syst​ems-​prof​essi​onal​ism-​priv​ate-​influe​nce-​ soc​ial-​work/​ [Accessed 6 October 2022]. Montgomery, P. (2019) ‘Public comment on article by Janas, M. (2019) “Randomised control trials for family group conferences are a practical and ethical quagmire”’, Community Care, 20 June. Available at: https://​web.arch​ive.org/​web/​202​ 2083​1202​253/​https://​www.commun​ityc​are.co.uk/​2019/​06/​ 20/​ran​domi​sed-​con​trol​led-​tri​als-​f am​ily-​g roup-​conf​eren​ces-​ ethi​cal-​quagm​ire/​ [Accessed 31 August 2022]. Munro, E. (2011) The Munro Review of Child Protection: Final Report, a Child-​centred System. London: The Stationery Office. 81

The Future of Children’s Care

Munro, E. (2012) The Munro Review of Child Protection: Progress Report: Moving towards a Child Centred System. London: Department for Education. NAO (National Audit Office) (2016) Investigation: The Department for Education’s Management of a Potential Conflict of Interest, HC 789 Session 2016–​17, 26 October. Available at: www.nao.org. uk/​wp-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​2016/​10/​11298-​001-​Confli​cts-​of-​ inter​est-​at-​DoE.pdf [Accessed 17 August 2019]. Parkes, J. (2019) ‘Children’s services consultancy morning lane closes’, Children & Young People Now, 6 June. Available at: https://​ web.archi​ ve.org/​web/​202​3020​4210​151/​https://​www.cyp​now. co.uk/​news/​arti​cle/​child​ren-​s-​servi​ces-​cons​ulta​ncy-​morn​ing-​ lane-​clo​ses [Accessed 8 March, 2023]. Pemberton, C. (2013) ‘I am now anxious about how the Hackney model is being interpreted and rolled out’, Community Care, 24 October. Available at: https://​web.arch​ive.org/​web/​202​2091​ 9194​037/​https://​www.commun​ityc​are.co.uk/​2013/​10/​24/​ i-​am-​now-​anxi​ous-​about-​how-​the-​hack​ney-​model-​is-​being-​ inte​r pre​ted-​and-​rol​led-​out/​ [Accessed 1 October 2022]. Pemberton, C. (2014) ‘ADCS president accuses universities of turning out “crap social workers”’, Community Care, 9 July. Available at: https://​web.arch​ive.org/​web/​202​2091​9191​544/​https://​ www.commun ​ i tyc ​ a re.co.uk/ ​ 2 014/ ​ 0 7/ ​ 0 9/ ​ a dcs- ​ p resid ​ e nt​accu​ses-​unive​rsit​ies-​turn​ing-​crap-​soc​ial-​work​ers/​ [Accessed 1 October 2022]. Purcell, C. (2020) The Politics of Children’s Services Reform: Re-​ Examining Two Decades of Policy Change. Bristol: Policy Press. Sanders, M. (2019) ‘You can always ignore us, and take your own road, but if you ever need us, we’ll be here’ [blog], What Works Centre for Children’s Social Care. Available at: https://w ​ eb.archi​ ve. org/​web/​202​2082​8161​215/​https:/​whatwo​rks-c​ sc.org.uk/b​ log/​ you-​can-​alw​ays-i​ gno ​ re-u ​ s-a​ nd-t​ ake-y​ our-o ​ wn-r​ oad-b​ ut-i​ f-y​ ou-​ ever-​need-​us-​well-​be-​here/​ [Accessed 28 August 2022]. Sanders, M. (2021) ‘Carts and horses’, [blog], What Works Centre for Children’s Social Care. Available at: https://​web.arch​ive. org/​web/​202​2083​1212​916/​https:/​whatwo​rks-c​ sc.org.uk/b​ log/​ carts-​and-​hor​ses/​ [Accessed 31 August 2022]. Schout, G. (2022) ‘Into the swampy lowlands: evaluating family group conferences’, European Journal of Social Work 25(1), 41–​50. 82

Reclaiming social work

Schulz, K.F. and Grimes, D.A. (2002) ‘Blinding in randomised trials: hiding who got what’, The Lancet 359(9307), 696–​700. Sebba, J., Luke, N., McNeish, D. and Rees, A. (2017) Children’s Social Care Innovation Programme: Final Evaluation Report. London: Department of Education. Sen, R. (2018) Effective Practice with Looked after Children. London: Palgrave. Simpson, F. (2022) ‘Josh MacAlister to chair merged EIF and What Works for Children’s Social Care’. Children & Young People Now, 19 October. Available at: https://​web.arch​ive.org/​web/​ 202​2123​0101​011/​https://​www.cyp​now.co.uk/​news/​arti​cle/ ​josh-​mac​alis​ter-​to-​chair-​mer​ged-​eif-​and-​what-​works-​for-​ child​ren-​s-​soc​ial-​care [Accessed 30 December 2022]. ThirdSector (2018) ‘Third Sector Awards 2018: Charity Chief Executive –​ Josh MacAlister, Frontline’, ThirdSector, 21 September. Available at: https://​web.arch​ive.org/​web/​202​3012​ 8123​733/​https://​www.thir​dsec​tor.co.uk/​third-​sec​tor-​awa​rds​ 2 018- ​ c har ​ i ty- ​ c hief- ​ e xecut ​ ive- ​ j osh- ​ m ac ​ a lis ​ t er- ​ f rontl ​ i ne/​ man​agem​ent/​arti​cle/​1492​646 [Accessed 28 January 2023]. Tunstill, J. (2019) ‘Pruned, policed and privatised: the knowledge base for children and families social work in England and Wales in 2019’, Social Work and Social Sciences Review 20(2), 57–​76. Tunstill, J. and Willow, C. (2017) ‘Professional social work and the defence of children’s and their families’ rights in a period of austerity: a case study’, Social Work and Social Sciences Review, 19(1), 40–​65. Walsh, D., Dundas, R., McCartney, G., Gibson, G. and Seaman, R. (2022) ‘Bearing the burden of austerity: how do changing mortality rates in the UK compare between men and women?’, Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 76 (12), 1027–​1033. doi:10.1136/​jech-​2022-​219645. Webb, C.J., Bennett, D.L. and Bywaters, P. (2022) ‘Austerity, poverty, and children’s services quality in England: consequences for child welfare and public services’, Social Policy and Society, 1–​22. doi:10.1017/​S147474642200001X. Webb, S.A. (2001) ‘Some considerations on the validity of evidence-​based practice in social work’, British Journal of Social Work, 31(1), 57–​79.

83

The Future of Children’s Care

WWCCSC (What Works Centre for Children’s Social Care) (2018) ‘Sir Alan Wood announced as centre’s founding chair’ [blog]. Available at: https://​web.arch​ive.org/​web/​202​2091​3135​607/​ https://w ​ hatwor​ ks-c​ sc.org.uk/b​ log/s​ ir-a​ lan-​wood-​announ​ced​as-​cent​res-​found​ing-​chair/​ [Accessed 24 January 2023]. WWCCSC (2022) ‘About What Works CSC: seeking better outcomes for children, young people and families’. Available at: https://​web.arch​ive.org/​web/​202​2082​8165​651/​https://​ whatwo​rks-​csc.org.uk/​about/​ [Accessed 25 October 2022].

84

5 Humane social work practice: a more parent friendly system? Hopes and challenges in the 2020s Taliah Drayak

Introduction We are living in some very strange times. A time when we all share the same values: equality, community, taking care of our most vulnerable and an abhorrence of discrimination. There is consensus, however challenged, that human rights are vital freedoms which all people should enjoy. Nonetheless, an insidious, alarming thing has been happening –​as a society, across health, social care, education and across the general public –​we have let fear creep in and steal our sense of unity. We have let fear drive us to judgement and division. Our current child protection system is full of fear and in thrall to risk. It begets controversy and adversarialism. From risk assessments to supervised contact, the ‘toxic trio’ (Skinner et al, 2021) to Fabricated and Induced Illness, we struggle to find safety. We flail about in the depths of our fears as we grapple with how to support families and, just as crucially, how to support our social workers. From a parent’s perspective, it can feel like social workers charge forth on their noble steeds to rescue princes and princesses from their cold, neglected dragon (parent) guarded towers. Equally, from a parent’s perspective, I can see that social workers have a sincere and earnest 85

The Future of Children’s Care

desperation to make a difference, to help people, and they too feel every bit as terrified of having their actions seen in the most negative light as parents. It is this fear that is dividing us, and it is precisely where we are going wrong. Research in trends in separation of parents shows that while child protection investigations have tripled there has been no reduction in child deaths (Bilson and Hunter Munro, 2019). Doing more of the same is not creating better outcomes. We need to reflect on our current practices because child protection investigations cause harm, and it is vital that we do not cause harm to prevent the possibility of harm. From all angles, we need to rewrite this child protection narrative. We want a happy-​ever-​after for our children, and we can co-​write the story to succeed in this goal, but we must do it together and we need to prioritise those who are facing the challenges that lead to family crisis at the heart of creating solutions. This is a crucial shift in narrative, because in the real world, in real life, there are very few monsters and very few baddies. Rather, we have lots of people with good hearts, lots of people who are trying their best and lots of people who are struggling with insurmountable challenges –​on every side of the child protection table. Unless we start coming together, breaking down stigma and changing our perceptions, we will continue to fail our most vulnerable children and families. We owe it to our children to go back to our shared values, the foundation of which is reinvestment in our communities and our relationships. Consider, from a parent’s perspective, how challenging it is to be labelled a ‘bad parent’. From childhood, we imagine our future selves as parents to our dolls and teddies. Davies expresses the ‘crushing force of being suspected of being a bad mother’ (2011, p 208). To have and raise children is a milestone in our lives, a significant piece of our identity, and to be deemed to have failed creates a grief beyond simple explanation. It is stigmatising and it isolates. Being expected to build a good working relationship with someone who has the power to take away your child and with whom there is a perception of being judged negatively is beyond what should be asked of anyone. It is a measure of our denial that we label such circumstances as supportive. Child protection assessments are largely judgemental and judging a person is not 86

Humane social work practice

support. Undergoing a child protection assessment requires parents to completely subjugate their own needs in the name of prioritising their child’s in a way that grossly underappreciates that they are inextricably linked. There is no room for parental dignity or anything that could be construed as ego in child protection assessments. During an assessment your entire life, warts and all, is on display and it often feels that your entire life is reduced down to only warts, that your mistakes are the total of your person. To willingly undergo such an experience should be considered proof of a parent’s willingness to place their child’s well-​being far above their own, and yet there is little acknowledgement of the effect this has on parents. A parent advocate is a parent who has gone through child protection investigations and often removal of their own child. Having had this life-​changing experience, they have made the decision to take their experience and use it to support other parents who are going through similar investigations in the hopes of supporting these parents to create the best outcomes for their children. Parental advocates offer a unique enhanced kind of advocacy. This kind of advocacy extends beyond the boundaries of independent advocacy. There is a significant level of peer-​to-​ peer support and mentoring, as well as advocacy. Parent advocates tend to work around the clock and build a trusting relationship with the parent they are supporting. This is quite an intense role which requires being available emotionally while also sourcing and supplying a wealth of complex information. Being a parent advocate can feel like needing to be a lawyer, counsellor, parenting coach, financial advisor, housing officer, social worker and best friend all in one. In my role as a parent advocate, I have the privilege of working with multiple organisations here and abroad to see the growth and empowerment that can occur when parents are supported to make the changes their children so desperately need. Currently, I am the director of the International Parent Advocacy Network, an executive officer of the Parents, Families and Allies Network (PFAN), and an Oversight Board member for The Promise Scotland. I sit on the expert by experience board for the National Children’s Bureau, on the board of Harmeny Education Trust and work with ATD Fourth World. I have the privilege of taking up the role of a visiting researcher at Cambridge 87

The Future of Children’s Care

University’s Institute for Public Health and as a service user and carer, I participate in reviewing social work training and interviewing with the Open University. This is in addition to my role as a parent advocate and like other parent advocates this is entirely due to the deep passion and commitment to trying to find a way to support other families who are impacted by the child protection system. It is not easy to change a system and it needs to be emphasised that individual change is also hard. Parents are expected to make changes under incredibly challenging circumstances. Imagine you are struggling with mental health problems, and in a bid to soothe the distress caused by an illness, you turn to substances. Imagine further that your mental health is being impacted by your loved one abusing you. Imagine how bad you might feel about yourself. Can you imagine how hard that might be? One mother found herself in this position. What struck me from the first time I spoke to her was how down she was on herself. Over and over again, she would say, “I don’t deserve anything good. I don’t deserve your kindness. I don’t deserve support. I don’t deserve my children”. She was so broken, so wounded from trauma and pain and health issues. The sledgehammer remedy of removing her children was a devastating blow. I will never forget taking turns with another parent advocate to sit with this distressed woman, a victim of domestic abuse, a care leaver herself, who was now so broken that she was suicidal. Help should not hurt, it should heal. I found it very upsetting indeed that over that long weekend following her children being traumatically removed she received not one call of concern or support. The system stepped in, ripped her heart out and never thought to make a single enquiry in relation to her well-​being. This kind of experience is what drives parents to feel that the system sees them as disposable, replaceable and unnecessary. It fell to other parents to pick up the pieces and bridge the gaping chasm in support for adults who are vilified for falling apart when they are put under too much pressure, too ill, too underconfident to believe they deserve to be loved, to be safe, to be well. We picked her up and carried her forward through meeting after meeting, through hearing after hearing, we sat with her as she crumbled time and again. We stayed by her side 88

Humane social work practice

and built her back up, as we do for many other parents and as other parents have done for us. Make no mistake, it was never going to be in her children’s best interests to have their mother destroyed, discarded or dead. That is not meeting the needs of her children. What her children needed was someone to support their mummy. Among parents, we don’t judge, we don’t other. We cheerlead, we support, we advise and we hold space for the toughest emotions a heart can hold. This mother, against all the odds, has fought and won against her addiction. She has fought and won to escape a domestic abuse relationship. She has fought and won to rebuild her mental health. She fights every day to believe she deserves to be safe, respected and never abused in any relationship. Now, two of her children are home and she has begun the process of rebuilding her life, a life that was ripped apart. She is a success story, but not because of having her children removed. She is a success story despite that enormous blow she suffered at her lowest point. Children need their parents and parents want to be what their children need. Challenges Lack of support One truth learned from years of experience as a parent advocate is that when a parent seeks out support, they are looking for support to deal with the straw that broke the camel’s back. Families are rarely facing a single challenge. Equally, parents rarely reach out for support before having already exhausted all the solutions they know. This is important to remember because too frequently it is completely overlooked and goes unacknowledged. Parents try their best within their means to solve their challenges. By the time a parent finally feels there is no other choice but to reach out and ask for help, they are beaten down, exhausted and overwhelmed. Parents take pride and joy in caring for their children and they want to be enough for their children. Most parents have a significant amount of anxiety around seeking help; hence, it takes a colossal level of stress to bring them to the breaking point of seeking help which they are concerned may actually fail to address the problems they are facing and instead create new ones. 89

The Future of Children’s Care

Too often help comes in the form of being told what you have to do or what you should have done. Being dictated to does not feel supportive and can actually place huge hurdles in the way of achieving the much-​needed solutions. This fails to recognise or understand that in many cases a family has a challenge that could be solved by having a shovel. Unfortunately, all the family have at their disposal is a brick. Telling the parent to turn the brick into a shovel is unhelpful. This is not, contrary to some assessment practice, a true reflection of the parent’s capacity to care for their child but rather that of the inequality of not being able to access the tools they need. Additionally, a huge shortage in available services and resources is seeing families wait extraordinary lengths of time for support. Support which is extremely scarce and doled out only after proving you are in great enough need, at which point you are in fact perceived as the source of the problem. Indeed, many families, for instance those with a disabled child, report that they were judged and scrutinised through the assessment process. These families reflect that while the assessment upheld that their child needed support, that support failed to materialise and the entire experience was so energy-​draining and upsetting that they feel unable to ask for support in future. Poor capacity available within the workforce to build relationships Half of all social workers consider leaving the profession due to stress, and 95 per cent stated funding cuts associated with austerity are preventing them from doing their jobs to the best of their ability (Anonymous, 2019). Trusting relationships that can meet the needs of families in crisis take an enormous amount of time but the very people dedicating their lives to serving others are not being given the tools they need to serve those in need. The care system is empty without the caring, passionate souls of those who wake up each day determined to serve and support vulnerable children and families. The high rates of staff turnover lead to trust issues and a lack of continued care for children and families. As much as families need support, so too do social workers to succeed in their professional missions. Neither parent nor professional can 90

Humane social work practice

give that which they do not have. It is important that we support our care system workforce to give positive, strength-​based support. This requires that our care system workforce receive positive, strength-​based support. When the system restricts the workforce from building the relationships with families that can bring about real change it fails children, families and social workers. Extending this, the challenge of supporting care leavers as parents is also an ongoing issue. Children in care need consistent support by people who have time to be with them and to help them overcome society’s hurdles. However, care leavers, statistically, experience worse outcomes in most domains, including when it comes to the attentions of child protection service. If the care system was successful, we would see far fewer care leavers who go on to have children who subsequently become looked after. Indeed, it should be a rare event. Feeling sceptical At present, despite some very positive and beneficial recommen­ dations, such as the need to promote effective practice for engaging with families, there remain serious concerns regarding the lack of any solid implementation plan from both the Duncan (Scottish Government, 2020) and MacAlister reviews. It is vital that these once-​in-​a-​generation reviews do not simply sit on the shelf gathering dust. However, from those whose lives have been most deeply affected by the system, there is a level of cynicism regarding whether the recommendations of such reviews will be used to truly care for our most vulnerable, address the underlying issues that lead families to crisis and support families to care for their children successfully, or whether these reviews will be used to further agendas that increase investigations, increase the number of children in care and increase adoptions. There is the very real potential that if these reviews increase the drive for performance targets and create an ever-​g reater reliance on formulas there is the risk of creating an illusion of improvement (Munro, 2011). Where targets and perverse incentives become the marking system within the office, it may fail to deliver the level of change needed by those most in need (Hood, 2019). 91

The Future of Children’s Care

Care-​experienced people who have gone on to become parents with children looked after by the current system frequently remark how little has changed. The system has a proven penchant for generational involvement in families’ lives (Roberts, 2017). One of the many concerns voiced by young care leavers is their fear of becoming parents who are separated from their children. Recent care leaver discussion groups explored the idea that many are choosing not to pursue having children due to the severity of this concern and the very real fear is another review gathering dust. Generally speaking, the parents and extended families of children within the care system feel deeply undervalued and under-​represented across the care system. There is an overarching theme of feeling othered and of being treated with suspicion. One of the many reasons for this is that the care system doesn’t feel like it shares the same values as the families it serves. The Duncan Review certainly tries to sincerely address this gap by recognising again and again that where children are safe, they must remain with their families, that sibling relationships are irreplaceable and that the system must prioritise the development of whole family support. The MacAlister Review states outright that the care system must be ‘a system that is relentlessly focused on children and families’ (MacAlister, 2022). These recommendations are certainly to be welcomed as good steps in the right direction; however there remains the challenge of consistent implementation across the multitude of areas that make up a very complex care system. Meanwhile, missing from the MacAlister Review narrative is an overall acknowledgement that the care system makes a lousy parent. Children who have been looked after by the care system have significantly worse outcomes and there is insufficient evidence to support the use of the many methods of investigation and intervention that are currently conducted (Townsend et al, 2020). The entire care system has a narrative which focuses on parents as the problem. Parents feel as though they are perceived as being the locus of greatest risk to their children. This is as stressful as it is inaccurate. It is vital that we have open conversations and explore a narrative that considers not only that children may be at risk with their parents but explores the risks to children of state intervention and exposure the care system. Much like in 92

Humane social work practice

medicine the potential for iatrogenic harm needs to be considered before intervention. Hope Through organisations like PFAN we are seeing the most incredible work being done. PFAN first brought together parents and professionals to begin advocating for policy change and to increase awareness of the need to work together with parents and families. By bringing parents into research projects, media campaigns and supporting parent-​led training of professionals, PFAN has led by example in how to co-​produce projects and has challenged perceptions of what parents are capable of achieving. Working together to learn together and support one another there is a shared respect and a growing understanding. PFAN, as a community passionate about getting the very best outcomes for our children, is thriving. Recognising that the system needs to change and that this change cannot be done by one or even a hundred people alone, PFAN began bringing together parents and professionals from children’s services and organisations working to support families to share learning and build a community. This community stretches the width and breadth of the country. In Southwark and Camden peer advocacy is well underway. More than 20 local authorities have created parent and/​or family advisory boards or councils. In Wales, experts from overseas, brought in by the Parent Advocacy Network to train their parent advocates, have brought with them community-​focused innovations such as Parent Cafes and Vitality Cafes. All of these brilliant pockets of work are leading change and inspiring others to join this revolution in how we ensure genuine parent and child participation in services and support. Parent advocacy is proving to play a powerful and vital role in creating systematic change through improved outcomes and changing the narrative from parents being seen as perpetrators to parents being seen to be those in need of support. The Parent Advocacy peer-​to-​peer support model has proven incredibly effective in New York, for example. Meanwhile, across the UK, professionals and parents are gathering together to discuss their shared concerns about a system that isn’t meeting the needs of 93

The Future of Children’s Care

children and their families and which is driving social workers out of the profession at a rapid pace. Social workers report working conditions which are not suitable for doing the work that they came into the profession to do. Working with student social workers at the Open University, it is clear to me the incredible amount of care and determination that drives an application to study social work. Student social workers are largely passionate, justice-​driven individuals who are eager to support and help other people. That we manage time and again to take such bright, caring, dedicated people and pound them into being so exhausted and disillusioned they border on apathy is beyond me. The silver lining is that many of these social workers do not accept a not good enough system. Some are even angry. They came into this profession with a calling to help people, with a heartfelt desire to change lives in the best way possible. It is gutting when the system does not support social workers to do the work they came into the field to do. Thankfully, some of the very best social workers refuse to give up. Instead, these champions for social justice and human rights are raising a banner of solidarity with parents, children and families. Together we are working together in unified ways to bring change. There is real and genuine hope for the future, but we cannot gloss over how much work needs to be done to create a system that supports children and families in a way that ensures every child is safe, loved and achieving. The Way Forward (PFAN et al, 2022) report states: ‘Children’s social care as it is operating across England is not fit for purpose. It alienates families and communities, fails to protect children, and places older children at increased risk of involvement in gangs and sexual exploitation’ (p i). Our current system is steeped in fear-​based, risk-​averse practices that are not working. This is every bit as true here as it is in many post-​industrial countries. Consider that, between 2003 and 2016, the number of children in foster care in Norway gradually and steadily increased, from 5,693 to 9,080 (IPAN and Rise, 2022). A key trigger for this trend was the physical abuse and death of an eight-​year-​old boy named Christoffer at the hands of his stepfather in 2005, a case that shocked the country and became a national symbol of a child welfare system not capable of protecting 94

Humane social work practice

children. Here in the UK, we have our own case, Baby P, which has led to increasing child protection investigations in response to public outcry. Parents and social workers alike experienced outrage from the public and an overall diminishing level of trust. The more we investigate, the greater the number of children and families harmed by traumatic investigations, the greater the strain of social workers and, sadly, no positive effect on the reduction in children harmed by their parents. This is not working. Returning to Norway, it is heartening that as the number of children placed in foster care continued to grow, child protection faced mounting criticism from families, advocates and in the media for providing minimal support to system-​involved parents and for inadequately protecting the parent–​child bonds of families with children placed in foster care. In 2011, in the midst of these tensions, child welfare-​affected parents and their allies came together to create a parent advocacy organisation aimed at ensuring that parents had greater support and greater protection within Norway’s child welfare system. Parent advocates, in addition to launching appeals in the European Court of Human Rights and the Norwegian High Court (Christopoulou, 2018), leading to reforms within Norway’s child welfare system, have now seen the number of children in foster care in Norway declining. There is hope, but we need to work together. Ultimately, it all comes down to relationships Relationships are the keystone to promoting rights and well-​ being. Children, whether in care or not, need reliable relationships that make them feel valued, respected and give them a sense of belonging. The care system has shown time and again that it is not succeeding at building and maintaining the relationships which children need. Young people have strong views about who they wish to have a relationship with. It is important not to make assumptions about which relationships are important to them based on your own expectations or experiences. The Duncan Review concluded that in order for children to grow up to be safe, respected, loved and able to reach their full potential we must focus on five key areas: Voice, Family, Care, Relationships and Scaffolding (Scottish Government, 2020). 95

The Future of Children’s Care

It is essential that children are listened to and meaningfully and appropriately involved in decision-​making about their care. It is inexcusable for all those involved to fail to properly listen and respond to children. There must be a compassionate, caring, decision-​m aking culture focused on children and those they trust. The Duncan Review states outright: ‘Where children are safe in their families and feel loved they must stay –​and families must be given support together to nurture that love and overcome the difficulties which get in the way’ (Scottish Government, 2020). Support over separation is vital. When children are separated from their families there is lasting trauma, a significant damage to identity, and a loss of heritage and community. With the best will in the world we cannot overlook the need for care within the care system. The care system must ensure that children stay with their brothers and sisters where safe and that children need to belong to a loving and consistent home. Relationships are made by people. All children require and deserve to be actively supported to develop and maintain lasting relationships with people they trust (Scottish Government, 2020). Without a well-​supported workforce, the care system will continue to fall short of meeting the needs of the families it serves. In order for our care system to become a system that understands the children and families it serves we have to make changes and that can only happen when children and families are empowered to achieve their goals in the ways that work for them and not based on practices that work for budgets and targets. One difficult key change must be to cease the demonisation of parents whose children enter the care system. When children feel their parents are viewed in a negative light this has a traumatic impact on their sense of self and on their ability to have a trusting relationship. We must change this narrative and knock-​on, unsubstantiated concern that parents’ rights are in conflict with children’s rights. Parents’ rights can and do protect the rights of their children. When children in the care of the state age out of that care it is the family who picks up the pieces and supports the child through adulthood and beyond. When overstretched systems do not have the time to connect with each individual young person, do not have the staffing and resources 96

Humane social work practice

to get to know the child as an individual, that child remains a unique individual to their loved ones, who know and understand them in ways the state cannot. Children need their parents and parents want to be what their children need. To achieve this requires that we support parents and family to participate at the care system table as vital voices in the conversation of how to support and promote the rights and well-​being of their children and adolescents. Parent advocacy Where parents who once lost their children to alternative care have found roles supporting other parents to keep or bring their children home, parents reunify their families more quickly, and children spend less time in alternative care (Better Care Network and IPAN, 2020). Recent, as yet unpublished, interviews of care-​ experienced youth by care-​experienced youth in Scotland and Canada facilitated by Teen Advocacy found that many youths believe that the loss of their parents’ rights and power has meant the loss of their own rights. One interviewee stated: “Being in care takes away your rights. Now strangers who don’t know you and don’t care make all the decisions” and “It should not be a choice between support or your family. … You should get to have both” (Teen Advocacy, 2022, np). A 2009 study found that when parents had a Parent Partner on their legal team, approximately 60 per cent of families reunified within 12 months, compared to 26 per cent where parents did not have a Parent Partner, while a 2012 study found that families were four times as likely to reunify if parents participated in a Parent Partner programme (Better Care Network and IPAN, 2020). In Washington state, for parents who also received individual parent advocacy support, reunification rates rose to 79 per cent (Trescher and Summers, 2020). A return to values and an emphasis on the value of lived experience Contrary to popular belief, we don’t have to reinvent the wheel. We already have the skills, understanding and pathway to creating a 97

The Future of Children’s Care

system of support that can meet the needs of our most vulnerable. The ‘global definition of social work’ states: Social work is a practice-​based profession and an academic discipline that promotes social change and development, social cohesion, and the empowerment and liberation of people. Principles of social justice, human rights, collective responsibility and respect for diversities are central to social work. Underpinned by theories of social work, social sciences, humanities and indigenous knowledges, social work engages people and structures to address life challenges and enhance wellbeing. (International Federation of Social Workers, 2014, np) A return to our core values is essential; however, changing times and needs of families and the social workers working to support them need to be flexible and underpinned by solid relationships. In order to support families successfully, social workers need to be properly supported. How we support people is unique and deeply personal and it will always be essential that those with lived experience are included in the decisions being made about them and the development of support to meet their needs. In order to build relationship bridges between parents and professionals, parent advocates are proven to improve outcomes for children and families and amplify the support provided by professionals. Working together is the best way we can create the changes we need in order to have a care system that truly cares. References Anonymous (2019) ‘Half of social workers consider leaving the profession for “less stress”, survey finds’, Community Care [online]. Available at: https://w ​ ww.communi​ tyc​are.co.uk/​2019/​ 06/​19/​half-​soc​ial-​work​ers-​consi​der-​leav​ing-​pro​fess​ion-​less-​ str​ess-​sur​vey-​finds/​ [Accessed 30 June 2022]. Better Care Network and IPAN (2020) International Review of Parent Advocacy in Child Welfare: Strengthening Children’s Care and Protection Through Parent Participation. New York: Better Care Network and IPAN. 98

Humane social work practice

Bilson, A. and Hunter Munro, E. (2019) ‘Adoption and child protection trends for children aged under five in England: increasing investigations and hidden separation of children from their parents’, Children and Youth Services Review 96, 204–​211. Christopoulou, D. (2018) ‘How Norway’s child welfare service is creating world-​wide controversy+​’, The Culture Trip [online]. Available at: https://t​ hec​ ultu ​ retr​ ip.com/e​ uro ​ pe/n ​ orw ​ ay/a​ rticl​ es/ ​how-​norw​ays-​child-​welf​are-​serv​ice-​is-​creat​ing-​world-​wide-​ cont​rove​rsy/​ [Accessed 30 June 2022]. Davies, P. (2011) ‘The impact of a child protection investigation: a personal reflective account’, Child & Family Social Work 16(2), 201–​209. Hood, R. (2019) ‘What to measure in child protection?’, The British Journal of Social Work 49(2), 466–​484. International Federation of Social Workers (2014) ‘Global definition of social work’. Available at: https://​www.ifsw. org/​what-​is-​soc​ial-​work/​glo​bal-​def​i nit​ion-​of-​soc​ial-​work/​ [Accessed 30 July 2022]. IPAN (International Parents Advocacy Network) and Rise (2022) ‘Human rights violations and the creation of a parent advocacy network’ [online]. Available at: https://​tool​kit.par​enta​dvoc​acy. net/​human-​r ig​hts-​vio​lati​ons/​ [Accessed 30 June 2022]. MacAlister, J. (2022) The Independent Review of Children’s Social Care. Final Report. London: Department for Education. Munro, E. (2011) The Munro Review of Child Protection: Final Report. A Child-​centred System. London: The Stationery Office. PFAN (Parent Families and Allies Network), Love Barrow Families, New Beginnings, Parent and Carer Alliance, Southwark Family Council and Parent to Parent Peer Advocacy (2022) Children’s Social Care: The Way Forward [online]. Available at: https://​ www.pfan.uk/​ w p-​ c ont​ e nt/​ u plo​ a ds/​ 2 022/​ 0 2/​ C hildr​ e ns​soc​ial-​care-​the-​way-​forw​ard.pdf [Accessed 30 June 2022]. Roberts, L (2017) ‘A small-​scale qualitative scoping study into the experiences of looked after children and care leavers who are parents in Wales’, Child & Family Social Work 22(3), 1129–​1347. Scottish Government (2020) The Promise: The Independent Care Review. Available at: https://w ​ ww.care​ revi​ ew.scot/​wp-​cont​ent/​ uplo​ads/​2020/​02/​The-​Prom​ise.pdf [Accessed 1 June 2022]. 99

The Future of Children’s Care

Skinner, G., Bywaters, P., Bilson, A., Duschinsky, R., Clement, K. and Hutchinson, D. (2021) ‘The “alarmingly weak” evidence base for the “toxic trio”’, Community Care [online]. Available at: https://w ​ ww.communi​ tyca​ re.co.uk/2​ 021/​01/​28/​ala​r min​gly​weak-​evide​nce-​base-​toxic-​trio/​ [Accessed 30 July 2022]. Teen Advocacy (2022) ‘Interviews of care-​experienced youth by care-​experienced youth in Scotland and Canada’, unpublished peer-​advocacy research. Scotland: Teen Advocacy. Townsend, I.M., Berger, E.P. and Reupert, A.E. (2020) ‘Systematic review of the educational experiences of children in care: children’s perspectives’, Children and Youth Services Review 111. Trescher, S. and Summers, A. (2020) Outcome Evaluation Report for Washington State’s Parents for Parents Program. Washington, DC: Capacity Building Center for Courts.

100

6 Exploring and re-​imagining children’s services in England through a decolonial frame Isobel Drew, Rebekah Pierre and Robin Sen

Introduction This chapter identifies significant issues connected to race and children’s services, explores the gaps in their coverage in the MacAlister Review and advocates for them to be better addressed going forward. After outlining the framework for our approach, we analyse the coverage and omissions on race in the MacAlister Review and illustrate how these omissions are not accidental but arise from an unwillingness to criticise current government policies and practices. We draw on the case of ‘Child Q’ to exemplify concerns about adultification before suggesting ways forward for children’s services. Salient matters concerning race and children’s services in England include the over-​representation of some groups of racially minoritised children in state care and the criminal justice system; the adultification of racially minoritised children, particularly Black children; harsh professional judgements of, and a lack of support for, Black families; the under-​representation of racially minoritised practitioners in senior management positions in children’s services; and, the treatment of unaccompanied asylum-​seeking children. While there is not space to do justice to all of these here, the underlying themes identified are of relevance to each. 101

The Future of Children’s Care

Our analysis is influenced by an intersectional and decolonial approach to critical race theory. Core aspects of our approach are the belief that for many racially minoritised families racism is not an exception but a regular experience, which can go unnoticed by those who are not subject to it (Kolivoski et al, 2014; Delgado and Stefancic, 2017). It also holds that lived experiences of racism are influenced by a range of other social identities a person holds, notably gender and class (Crenshaw, 1989, 1991), but also often less well considered factors such as migration status and experiences of colonialism (Mehrotra, 2010). The experience of any person receiving a social work service will be influenced by a complex and fluid interplay of such social identities (Bernard, 2021) and it is therefore essential to explore linkages between such identities and underlying structural and power inequalities (Valentine, 2007). Third, our approach emphasises the importance of centring the experiences of those subject to racism (Mehrotra, 2010; Delgado and Stefancic, 2017). Finally, we use a decolonial frame to highlight the legacy of colonialism on contemporary expressions of racism, and to seek to move beyond these framings in our understandings (Harms Smith and Rasool, 2020). A note on terminology. We acknowledge the problematic nature of common descriptors connected to race and ethnicity in the UK but also the lack of agreed alternatives. Inevitably, whichever words are used cannot capture the full diversity of thought in this area, and we respect there will be other preferences. To set out the major conventions we follow: we employ ‘Black’ and ‘White’ using capitals. We use ‘Black’ to refer those who are of Black African or Caribbean descent and ‘Asian’ to include both those of South Asian and East Asian descent. We use ‘people of colour’, to refer to those who are non-​White collectively together and ‘racially minoritised’ to refer to people of colour as well as White minoritised groups –​for example Gypsy, Roma Traveller communities, White Jewish people and White Eastern Europeans. While we do not focus on White minoritised groups in this chapter, we acknowledge that they will experience racism. Of particular note in this regard in children’s services is emergent evidence of the over-​representation of Gypsy, Roma Traveller children within state care over the last decade (Allen and Hamnett, 2022). This over-​representation has occurred within a context of 102

Exploring and re-imagining children’s services

marked broader prejudice and stigmatisation of those communities in policy and popular discourse. The MacAlister Review It is not that the MacAlister Review Final Report does not raise issues connected to race and children’s services, it is instead the lack of sustained analysis or consideration of underlying causes in respect of key issues that is the notable gap. This sits uneasily with the Review’s claim to be a ‘once in a generation opportunity to reset children’s social care’ (MacAlister, 2022, p 8). The principal issue the Review does touch upon is racial disparities in statutory children’s services’ involvement with families. Appendices to the Final Report include two new Department for Education (DfE) analyses of government data around ‘ethnicity’ and children’s services (Ahmed et al, 2022; Fitzsimons et al, 2022). It is welcome that the Review prompted these. Although there are complexities to the findings, they confirm there are marked disparities between likelihood of children’s services involvement for different ethnic groups. Ahmed and colleagues (2022) report that children from Black and Mixed groups are over-​represented in children’s social care statutory intervention, although children from Gypsy, Roma Traveller backgrounds show the highest degree of over-​representation. By contrast, Asian children are under-​represented (see also Fitzsimons et al, 2022). Despite commissioning these studies, the Review does not then grapple with why these differences occur or suggest specific measures to address them. The studies’ findings chime with a small but notable recent research literature on racialised disproportionality within children’s services in England, but which the Final Report overlooks. For instance, Allen and Hamnett (2022) have identified the over-​representation of Gypsy, Roma Traveller children in children’s services and explored potential reasons for it. The analysis of Webb et al (2020; see also Webb, 2020) has also reported that the racialised disparities in children’s services are neither fully explained by differential poverty rates between groups, nor explained at all by differences in known child abuse rates. Notably, the findings of Webb and 103

The Future of Children’s Care

colleagues demonstrate that poverty interacts differently for different ethnic groups in relationship to increased likelihood of statutory children’s services intervention, particularly their placement in state care. These findings sit alongside recent qualitative evidence (Okpokiri, 2021) as well as longer standing evidence (Barn, 1993) which highlight the harsher experiences Black children and families can have when in contact with children’s services. The Review Final Report comments are limited to noting that racialised disparities exist in children’s services (MacAlister, 2022, p  62) before it cites perceptions from families and professionals that children’s services do not always recognise ‘different cultural norms’ (MacAlister, 2022, p 62). However, the Report neither probes what this means, nor states its own position. It does acknowledge that racially minoritised families can both receive too much and too little attention from children’s services –​that is they can be more likely to receive a high-​end statutory intervention, such as the removal of a child, and less likely to receive a family support service aimed at preserving a family unit (MacAlister, 2022, p 63). However, the Final Report implies that such disparities will be addressed by ‘[b]‌ringing services closer to communities through a population health management approach’ (MacAlister, 2022, p  63), without providing further detail. While genuine community-​led planning could indeed be transformative, the Review does not explain how such planning will be brought about. Nor it is clear how such planning can address racialised disparities without first acknowledging institutional and structural racism. There is not a single reference to either institutional or structural racism in the Final Report, and not a single one of the Review’s 81 recommendations is targeted at addressing racialised disparities for those receiving children’s services. These omissions already appear to be filtering through into social work practice: since the Review reported the social work regulator in England, Social Work England, released a set of 78 new standards which do not explicitly reference anti-​racist, anti-​oppressive and anti-​ discriminatory practice (Samuel, 2022). There is a notable contrast between this silence and the only other issue connected to race and children’s services the 104

Exploring and re-imagining children’s services

Final Report discusses: the lack of ‘diversity of leadership’ in children’s services. The Review notes that only 6 per cent of Directors of Children’s Services are from racially minoritised backgrounds, while nearly a quarter of social workers are. In response to this matter the Review does present a specific, tailored recommendation –​that the DfE should strengthen leadership programmes in order to ‘increase the diversity of leadership’ (MacAlister, 2022, p 192). One inference that might be taken from the differential treatment of these two issues is that the Review believes better representation of racially minoritised people within leadership positions in children’s services will address broader issues of racism in their delivery. If so, this belief needed to be spelt out and explored, especially as the Review also reports findings that nearly a third of social workers have experienced racism within their own organisations. While organisational leadership is undoubtedly important, the belief that better representation will address structurally influenced institutional racism may problematically solely responsibilise leaders from minoritised backgrounds for effecting change. Practically and morally, this onus should be shared across wider organisational and governmental structures, and the structural and institutional causes of racism in children’s services need to be better identified and tackled (Sen, 2020). Such a belief also implies that leaders from racially minoritised backgrounds will be more supportive of anti-​racism. While this may in many cases be accurate, it cannot be taken as a given in respect of all forms of racism, as has recently been illustrated by membership of the last two Conservative governments. Several of its most prominent members have been from racially minoritised backgrounds but they have also been among the most hawkish in promoting hostile immigration and asylum policies rooted in racist framings of new entrants to the country as a burden and menace, or in criticising policies, ideas and legal protections aimed at protecting people from racism and discrimination. In short, the MacAlister Review appears to have been comfortable making a generic recommendation about ‘diversity’ focused at the level of individual senior managers, but unwilling to grapple with how issues of institutional and structural racism impact on children’s services provision. 105

The Future of Children’s Care

Asylum and immigration The MacAlister Review explicitly declines to comment on asylum and immigration, despite noting it as one of seven wider contextual factors which impact on children’s rights and the support of children within family networks. There is a perfunctory nod to the racialised nature of the immigration system in the UK as the Review recognises that ‘home office delays significantly disadvantage non-​British children’ (MacAlister, 2022, p  27). However, while identifying these factors, the Final Report does not comment further claiming that they ‘sit outside the scope of this review’ (MacAlister, 2022, p 25) and further, that ‘[w]‌hile this review is wide ranging it does have boundaries’ (MacAlister, 2022, p 27). That such systemic issues are acknowledged but not engaged with critically further underscores the Review’s unwillingness to hold the government to account for creating untenable, dangerous and actively harmful conditions within which children’s social care services operate. Instead, the Review merely asserts that ‘without wider action, reforms to children’s social care risk treating the symptoms and not the cause’ (MacAlister, 2022, p 27). While true, this assertion leads to the question of why the Review Final Report refused to state what such wider action should be. Its silence on the treatment of unaccompanied asylum-​seeking children and, in particular, the government’s proposed use of age assessments, is one of the glaring gaps that results. Before exploring each of these, we turn to consider the concept of adultification, which is relevant to both the subsequent discussion of the treatment of unaccompanied asylum-​seeking children and Child Q. Adultification and its disappearance in the MacAlister Review Davis and Marsh (2020, p 256) define adultification to be ‘when notions of innocence and vulnerability are not afforded to certain children. This is determined by people and institutions who hold power over them. When adultification occurs outside of the home it is always founded within discrimination and bias’. Davis (2022) further notes how Black children are at increased risk of adultification due to racism. Morris (2016) refers to the 106

Exploring and re-imagining children’s services

compression of Black childhood and highlights the resulting dangers for Black children driven by such institutional and societal responses. Bernard and Harris’ (2019) analysis of Serious Case Reviews involving Black families notes that adultification bias contributes to a skew in the understanding of risk and vulnerability in older Black children, and all too frequently assumptions, stereotypes and labelling that inform professional responses to their detriment. The MacAlister Review interim report, The Case for Change, did in fact make reference to the phenomenon of adultification and cited the Davis and Marsh (2020) paper in respect of the criminalisation of Black youth –​ showing the Review had knowledge of the relevance of the concept and its applicability to the operation of children’s services. Oddly, then, there is no mention of adultification in the Final Report. This change is particularly puzzling as the Local Child Safeguarding Review into the case of Child Q, in which adultification is a predominant issue, was published and attracted large media attention in March 2022. The adultification of Black children within children’s services was, therefore, being prominently discussed as an issue in children’s services in the time between the publication of the MacAlister Review’s interim and Final Reports. Despite this, the Review decided to remove rather than extend the discussion of adultification in its Final Report. Indeed, the case of Child Q did lead the Children’s Commissioner for England’s Office to investigate and report on the strip-​searching of children by the Metropolitan Police (CCE, 2022), further highlighting the omission of the issues related to adultification within the MacAlister Review Final Report itself. Punitive age assessments In deeming wider factors beyond its remit, the MacAlister Review tacitly green-​lights the Home Office’s deeply problematic use of age assessments on unaccompanied asylum-​seeking children. One of the ancillary research reports commissioned by the MacAlister Review confirms that the vast majority of unaccompanied asylum-​seeking children are from racially minoritised backgrounds (Ahmed et al, 2022). Age assessment is a key mechanism by which 107

The Future of Children’s Care

racially minoritised children are adultified in the UK today –​in this instance, quite literally, by being found to be adults when they submit an asylum claim in the UK as a child. For unaccompanied asylum-​seeking children age assessment can result in the denial of state care as a looked after child, and the violation of their social and legal rights as children due to claims about their supposed ‘real’ age. Based on several decades of working with unaccompanied asylum-​seeking children, the Refugee Council report that they have ‘repeatedly seen children incorrectly identified as adults’ (Refugee Council, 2022a, np), which has led to vulnerable children ‘being housed with adults, and losing access to schooling, social care, and other support’ (Refugee Council, 2022a, np). In a separate report (Refugee Council, 2022b) they documented that in 2021 they had worked with 233 young people who had been deemed by the government to be ‘certainly’ adult, while subsequent assessment found only 14 of them to be so. The introduction of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 means such injustice will increase (Refugee Council, 2022b). The Act received Royal Assent during the lifetime of the MacAlister Review but, again, the Review is silent on it. This Act legitimises the widespread use of age assessment on asylum-​seeking children. To this end it establishes the National Age Assessment Board and National Age Assessment Teams within the remit of the Home Office, and outside of local authority control. The government has proposed that measures for age assessment should include the use of X-​rays, bone measurement and the analysis of DNA. It has claimed these practices to be ‘scientific’ despite repeated questions about their evidence base from medical bodies. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health states that it ‘does not support paediatricians being involved in age assessments of asylum-​seeking young people because of the concerns regarding the evidence base for accurate age assessment and ethical considerations’, citing Article 3(1) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to support its stance (RCPCH, 2022, np). Similarly, the British Dental Association’s evidence to parliament noted its vigorous opposition to the use of dental X-​rays to establish age, describing the method as inaccurate. The Association also stated that it is ‘unethical to take radiographs of people when there is no health benefit for them’ (Parliament UK, 108

Exploring and re-imagining children’s services

2021, np). The British Association of Social Workers has also recognised the conflicting position social workers are in when undertaking age assessments and advises that they should ‘only be undertaken when required in the interests of the child/​young person; only in conjunction with other professionals, and only with a recognition of their indeterminate nature’ (BASW, 2015, np). The Refugee Council (2022b, p 5) provides an overview of key safeguards that must apply in any such social work assessment, which include that: they should not be conducted in immigration detention; an appropriate adult must present in all interviews; an interpreter must be provided if needed; and, adequate reasons must be given for arriving at an age assessment which differs from the age claimed by a young person, with an opportunity for the young person to respond. Despite this opposition, social workers have been recruited by the Home Office to conduct age assessments as part of the 2022 Act. The job adverts for the new social work posts have claimed the Home Office’s age assessment approach would be child-​ centred, trauma-​informed, Merton compliant1 and underpinned by a statutory right of appeal (Home Office, 2023, np). These are bold claims given that age assessments are inherently traumatising due to the invasive nature of the biological tests carried out on young people whose bodies have often been violated and attacked, as well as the psychological stress caused by such assessment and its potential consequences. A United Nations High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR) report into the use of age assessments on children found that the process has had a devastating impact –​ affecting children’s access to education and housing, increasing the chance of being re-​trafficked and negatively impacting on their mental and physical health (UNHCR, 2019). The stakes for unaccompanied asylum-​seeking children are made even higher by the 2022 Act’s provision that allows for the removal of asylum-​seekers from the UK to processing centres in Rwanda when an asylum seeker is deemed to have arrived in the UK via ‘inadmissible routes’. The UNHCR has condemned this policy as incompatible with the Refugee Convention (UNHCR, 2022), while over 150 organisations have raised concerns about Rwanda’s own poor human rights record (Bail for Immigration Detainees, 2022). The combined elements of the 2022 Act now 109

The Future of Children’s Care

mean that a child arriving by themselves seeking safety in the UK, fleeing persecution and torture in their home country, can be deemed an adult via flawed and invasive assessment methods and then forcibly removed to a detention centre in Rwanda until a final decision is made on their claim. A wider context of adultification unaddressed Concerns about the adultification of unaccompanied asylum-​ seeking children are broader than age assessment. This group of children are notably in a different category to most other looked after children in that they have no birth family member with parental responsibilities living in the UK and, therefore, they are especially dependent on the UK state promoting their welfare and ensuring their legal and social rights are respected. Unfortunately, there is evidence of wider failings in this regard, which fits a modern historical pattern whereby racially minoritised people are viewed as ‘less than’, and their presence in the UK is viewed as a gift they should be grateful for, rather than a right they have (Sanghera, 2021). One further example of this is that unaccompanied asylum-​ seeking children are disproportionately placed into ‘unregulated accommodation’ where they are expected to cope with limited support and without formal care. Over half of children in such settings are from Black and minoritised communities, and of these, 40 per cent are unaccompanied asylum-​seeking children (Article 39, 2022). Government officials have long insisted that such provision will only be used sparingly and where appropriate; however, it cannot be a coincidence that almost half of children in such settings are from racially minoritised backgrounds. There are but two possibilities here: either racially minoritised children are inherently more able to care for themselves, or they are being adultified. It is clear that only the latter stands to reason and consequently urgent reform is needed to address the racist thinking –​conscious or not –​which leads to social workers repeatedly placing racially minoritised children in higher-​risk, care-​less, settings. This was another issue of which the MacAlister Review was aware. In its interim report it welcomed that the government was introducing legislation to outlaw unregulated 110

Exploring and re-imagining children’s services

accommodation for children under 16, noting that ‘[t]‌his change will particularly help Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children who are overrepresented in unregulated homes’ (MacAlister, 2021, p 63). However, this brings into stark relief the Final Report’s failure to call for an immediate ban on care-​less accommodation for all children in state care, not just those aged 15 and under. The weight of this omission will be disproportionately felt by unaccompanied asylum-​seeking children who are 16 and over. Child Q We discuss the example of Child Q in this chapter in order to offer greater exploration of how issues of race, racism, disproportionality and adultification may occur in children’s services in the 2020s. Child Q was a 15-​year-​old Black girl who, in 2020, was strip-​ searched at her school in north London by the Metropolitan Police, leading to a Local Child Safeguarding Review (LCSR) (Gamble and McCallum, 2022). Such a review is conducted when a child has come to significant harm. School teachers reported that Child Q had arrived at school smelling strongly of cannabis and they consequently searched her clothing and bag, believing she may have drugs on her person. Having found nothing, they contacted the Safer Schools police liaison officer. Due to COVID-​19 staffing shortages, the liaison officer advised the school to call the general police telephone number and ask for two female officers to attend the school, which school staff did. Four officers from the Metropolitan Police subsequently attended the school to speak to Child Q, including two male police officers. The teachers allowed the police officers to take Child Q aside and question her in a medical room outside of their presence. The two female police officers subsequently subjected Child Q to a full strip-​search in this room. Child Q was menstruating at this time and was required to remove her sanitary pad as part of the search. The police officers did not contact Child Q’s mother before conducting the questioning or search, and there was no appropriate adult in the room when Child Q was strip-​searched, as protocols dictate should happen other than in an emergency. No drugs were found on Child Q. The LCSR reports that Child Q described the incident in the following way: ‘Someone walked 111

The Future of Children’s Care

into the school, where I was supposed to feel safe, took me away from the people who were supposed to protect me and stripped me naked, while on my period’ (cited in Gamble and McCallum, 2022, p 11). Adultification, Black children and their families In the LCSR, Child Q’s family were clear that the strip-​search had its roots in racism: Child Q was adultified and strip-​searched because she was Black. The report’s author is less trenchant, but concludes that racism was likely a factor in her treatment: ‘It might also relate to elements of disproportionality and racism leading those involved to make certain assumptions about Child Q and what response was required’ (Gamble and McCallum, 2022, p 24). The treatment of Child Q provides a clear illustration of adultification bias against Black children. While the LCSR report itself found that teachers’ initial decision to search Child Q’s external clothing and bag was justified on welfare grounds, it is clear that subsequent responses adultified Child Q as a criminal suspect rather than as a child whose welfare was the primary concern. It is impossible to otherwise understand why the police officers who strip-​searched Child Q did so without first discussing it with her mother, or her teachers at the school, and without having an appropriate adult present. The lack of engagement and meaningful communication undertaken with Child Q’s parent is also sadly familiar. Chand (2005) discusses the ‘Eurocentric’ make up of service provision and the impact that this has in establishing relationships with racially minoritised families. We do not know the detail of Child Q’s background, but it appears that this was a state school in an area of London which, though gentrifying, was previously known as a poorer, working class, area of London and which still has localities of high deprivation. Though the LCSR does not address how class, gender and ethnicity intersected in Child Q’s case, as Crenshaw (1989, 1991) has influentially argued elsewhere they do, it is very likely that class was an intersecting factor. It is hard to imagine the Metropolitan Police conducting themselves in such a manner had they been responding to a similar concern about a Black child in a prestigious private school. Indeed, the link to social class is 112

Exploring and re-imagining children’s services

underlined by the fact that the police’s attendance at Child Q’s school that day was facilitated via the Safer Schools Partnership which attaches police officers to particular state schools, and sometimes locates officers permanently in them. State schools in more deprived, or higher crime, areas are more likely the focus of the initiative (Parveen et al, 2021). The scheme’s ostensible goals are to promote pupils’ welfare and better working relationships between pupils and the police. However, concerns about the scheme’s potential to criminalise pupils, and disproportionately affect racially minoritised youth, have previously been raised, including via judicial review (Parveen et al, 2021). It is striking that the very concerns which the LCSR raises regarding the police’s criminal justice response to Child Q had previously been predicted and legally challenged in respect of the Safer Schools Partnership. Child Q’s gender meant she was statistically less likely to be strip-​searched by the Metropolitan Police. Figures obtained by the Children’s Commissioner for England showed that 95 per cent of the 650 children strip-​searched by the Metropolitan Police between 2018 and 2020 were male, the majority of whom (58 per cent) were Black boys. Seventy-​five per cent of those searched were over 16 and the majority of searches took place in a police station (CCE, 2022). It is also notable that, despite the requirements for an appropriate adult to be present, in nearly a quarter of the searches conducted one was not there (CCE, 2022). These data indicate there are wider questions regarding the adultification of Black youth and institutional racism within the Metropolitan Police. They also suggest that the police’s strip-​ searching of Child Q, given her younger age, gender and location (that is, at school) was statistically more unusual. To understand why the Metropolitan Police officers who attended that day should think it was correct to subject a 15-​year-​ old girl on her period to such an intrusive criminal justice oriented procedure necessitates locating the response within wider cultural stereotypes. Common stereotypes about Black youth in both the US and UK involve associations with criminality, drug use and drug dealing (Welch, 2007; Davis and Marsh, 2020). Though uncomfortable for professionals, the concept of aversive racism is likely to hold some of the answer within the case of Child Q, and more broadly. Aversive racism sits in opposition to the more 113

The Future of Children’s Care

familiar dominative racism, which is characterised by overt and direct bigotry and discrimination. In contrast, aversive racism is frequently obscured from view by non-​conscious elements. Those engaging in aversive racism often align themselves with non-​ prejudicial positions and formally support racial equality ‘but at the same time possess conflicting, often non-​conscious, negative feelings and beliefs. … The negative feelings that aversive racists have toward Blacks typically do not reflect open antipathy, but rather consist of more avoidant reactions of discomfort, anxiety, or fear’ (Pearson et al, 2009, p 316). Aversive racism can be seen in the two key professional approaches which informed the response to Child Q. The first was the ‘absence of a safeguarding first approach’ (Gamble and McCallum, 2022, p 15), and the second was the predominance of a criminal justice response. The case of Child Q is also illustrative of the marginalisation and dismissal of the experiences and perspectives of racially minoritised children and their families as peripheral and speaks to the ubiquity with which ‘White normativity’ is accepted and reflected within practices, institutions and structures (Bonnett, 1997). Moving forward on race and children’s services Moving forward to address racialised issues in children’s services, there is a need for social workers and their organisations to grapple with issues of institutional and structural racism. Such work will need difficult, deliberate, conscious work and effort to help unpick organisational practices that both disadvantage racially minoritised employees working for social work service providers, and the families they serve. There was some sign of such work in the aftermath of George Floyd’s killing and the soul searching that it gave rise to: the British Association of Social Work temporarily appointed a number of employees from racially minoritised backgrounds with a specific remit to provide greater focus to issues of racism and anti-​racism in social work. Similarly, a small number of local authorities, such as Brighton, have created similar roles (Kerr, 2022). These have undoubtedly helped shine greater light on issues of race within social work and helped give greater focus to disparities of treatment for minoritised social workers or student social workers at the hands of their employers, 114

Exploring and re-imagining children’s services

universities or the statutory regulator. There is always, however, the possibility that such momentum recedes, and it is notable that the British Association of Social Work posts were temporary and have now come to an end. Further, raising important issues about disparities among the social work workforce should not overshadow the need to do work to address how social work organisations can better support racially minoritised children and families within the constraints of policies, practices and discourse that systematically disadvantages them. A first step in this regard is for children’s services organisations to acknowledge potential biases in their responses to minoritised families. That it could just have well been social workers as teachers who stood by while Child Q was strip-​searched should surely not be in doubt. Undertaking such reflection will be challenging for social workers and their organisations. Social work as a profession has long emphasised its commitment to ‘Anti-​Oppressive Practice’ and ‘Anti-​Racism’, so it may be difficult for social workers to conceive that there are racially driven biases within individual or team practices, despite the broader data showing such biases exist at a national level (Webb et al, 2020; Ahmed et al, 2022; Allen and Hamnett, 2022). To assist this work, individual social work teams need to access data on racialised disproportionalities within their own locality, they need space to discuss why any disparities there are may exist and to explore the potential impact of individual and team assumptions and beliefs about particular families or groups of families. In interrogating such practices an intersectional approach is needed (Bernard, 2021) which recognises the dual operation of race and class (Webb, 2020), as well as wider factors such as migration status (Mehrotra, 2010). For example, in exploring the analysis of national data on the over-​representation of children from poorer White families, and of children from Black families of all incomes, Webb (2020) identifies widely established cultural tropes about both these groups which are likely to feed into, consciously or otherwise, individual social work practice decisions and services responses and result in racialised disproportionality. For such hard reflective work to be effective requires giving teams the time and space to do it properly, providing appropriate facilitation, training and managerial support. The input of 115

The Future of Children’s Care

minoritised families into their experience of how children’s services are responding to them and their needs, and how practice and services may be further improved, is also crucial. To get this input in a way that is not tokenistic or shallow will take time, the building of trust with both families and communities, and a clear commitment to action on the basis of gaining such experiences. There is also a need for social workers and their organisations to publicly speak out about wider national policies that sustain racism and stigmatise groups of minoritised children and families with whom social workers practice. For instance, there is no prospect that the government’s policy on the age assessment of unaccompanied asylum-​seeking children within the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 will be implemented in a way that is consistent with both the spirit and letter of international state treaty obligations. Consequently, we hold that our profession must be vocal in calling out this policy. Social workers’ active involvement in the administering of such policies is inconsistent with social work’s claims to be a social justice profession. There is need for social workers to work within their own organisations as well as with charities, campaign groups, trade unions and other professional bodies to challenge policies and legislation of this ilk. Conclusion We have outlined how the MacAlister Review Final Report avoids grappling with the issues of structural and institutional racism, including the contribution of government policies and discourse to these. These issues were overlooked, we would contend, precisely because the Review was unwilling to challenge the government’s –​and indeed previous governments’ –​failures in these matters. We have briefly outlined some alternative responses. Such alternatives will take hard work, time and commitment at all levels of children’s services to be progressed. In advocating for them we finish with Audre Lorde’s assertion that it is not people’s differences that separate them, but an unwillingness to recognise, examine and challenge them (Rawsthorne, 2019). The purpose of recognising and addressing racialised differences within the delivery of children’s services should not be to reify differences for their own end, or to berate an already hard-​pressed social 116

Exploring and re-imagining children’s services

work profession. It should be about supporting interconnection, developing shared commitments to addressing the sources of family difficulties and hardship, and co-​creating more responsive, culturally attuned and socially just practices. Note Merton compliant refers to guidance around age assessments in the UK, which was founded upon case law (see R (B) v London Borough of Merton [2003]). Local authorities must be Merton compliant in order to make lawful age assessments of asylum seekers claiming to be under the age of 18.

1

References Ahmed, N., James, D., Tayabali, A. and Watson, M. (2022) Ethnicity and Children’s Social Care. London: Department of Education. Allen, D. and Hamnett, V. (2022) ‘Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children in child welfare services in England’, The British Journal of Social Work 52(7), 3904–​3922. Article 39 (2022) Department for Education’s Consultation on Unregulated Accommodation [online]. Available at: https://​articl​ e39.org.uk/​ d ep ​ a rtm ​ e nt- ​ f or- ​ e du ​ c ati ​ o ns- ​ c onsu ​ l tat ​ i on- ​ o n​unre​gula​ted-​accomm​odat​ion/​ [Accessed 22 August 2022]. Bail for Immigration Detainees (2022) ‘BID and 150+​ organisations oppose plans to send people seeking asylum to Rwanda’ [online]. Available at: www.biduk.org/​artic​les/​bid-​ and-​150-​organi​sati​ons-​opp​ose-​plans-​to-​send-​peo​ple-​seek​ing-​ asy​lum-​to-​rwa​nda-​ [Accessed 10 July 2022]. Barn, R. (1993) Black Children in the Public Care System. London: BT Batsford Limited. BASW (British Association of Social Workers) (2015) BASW Position Statement: Age Assessment [online]. Available at: http://​ cdn.basw.co.uk/​upl​oad/​basw​_​114​345-​7.pdf [Accessed 17 July 2022]. Bernard, C. (2021) Intersectionality for Social Workers: A Practical Introduction to Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. Bernard, C. and Harris, P. (2019) ‘Serious case reviews: the lived experience of Black children’, Child & Family Social Work 24(2), 256–​263.

117

The Future of Children’s Care

Bonnett, A. (1997) ‘Constructions of whiteness in European and American anti-​racism’, pp 172–​192, in P. Werbner and T. Modood (eds) Debating Cultural Hybridity: Multi-​cultural Identities and the Politics of Anti-​racism. London: Zed Books. CCE (Children’s Commissioner for England) (2022) Strip Search of Children by the Metropolitan Police Service: New Analysis by the Children’s Commissioner for England. London: Children’s Commissioner for England. Chand, A. (2005) ‘Do you speak English? Language barriers in child protection social work with minority ethnic families’, British Journal of Social Work 35(6), 807–​821. Crenshaw, K. (1989) ‘Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: a black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics’, University of Chicago Legal Forum 140, 139–​167. Crenshaw, K. (1991) ‘Mapping the margins: intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color’, Stanford Law Review 43(6), 1241–​1299. Davis, J. (2022) Adultification Bias within Child Protection and Safeguarding. Manchester: HM Inspectorate of Probation. Davis, J. and Marsh, N. (2020) ‘Boys to men: the cost of “adultification” in safeguarding responses to Black boys’, Critical and Radical Social Work 8(2), 255–​259. Delgado, R. and Stefancic, J. (2017) Critical Race Theory: An Introduction. Third edition. New York: New York University Press. Fitzsimons, P., James, D., Shaw, S. and Newcombe, B. (2022) Drivers of Activity in Children’s Social Care. Research report. London: Department of Education. Gamble, J. and McCallum, R. (2022) Local Child Safeguarding Practice Review Child Q. London: The City & Hackney Safeguarding Children Partnership. Available at: https://​chscp. org. uk/​portfolio/​local-​child-​safeguarding-​practice-​review-​ child-​q [Accessed 8 March, 2023]. Harms Smith, L. and Rasool, S. (2020) ‘Deep transformation toward decoloniality in social work: themes for change in a social work higher education program’, Journal of Progressive Human Services, 31(2), 144–​164.

118

Exploring and re-imagining children’s services

Home Office (2023) ‘Customer services group: national age assessment board –​social sorker’ [online]. Available at: https://w ​ eb. arch​ive.org/​web/​202​3012​8141​617/​https://​www.civil​serv​ice j​obs.serv​ice.gov.uk/​csr/​jobs.cgi?jcode=​1828​462 [Accessed 28 January, 2022]. Kerr, M. (2022) ‘My role as England’s first anti-​racist lead practitioner’. Available at: https://​www.commun​ityc​are.co.uk/​2022/​02/​ 02/​my-​role-​as-​engla​nds-​f irst-​anti-​rac​ist-​lead-​pract​itio​ner/​ [Accessed 25 August 2022]. Kolivoski, K.M., Weaver, A. and Constance-​Huggins, M. (2014) ‘Critical race theory: opportunities for application in social work practice and policy’, Families in Society 95(4), 269–​276. MacAlister, J. (2021) The Case for Change. London: Independent Review of Children’s Social Care. MacAlister, J. (2022) The Independent Review of Children’s Social Care. Final Report. London: Department for Education. Mehrotra, G. (2010) ‘Toward a continuum of intersectionality theorizing for feminist social work’, Affilia 25(4), 417–​430. Morris, M.W. (2016) Pushout: The Criminalization of Black Girls in Schools. New York: The New Press. Okpokiri, C. (2021) ‘Parenting in fear: child welfare micro strategies of Nigerian parents in Britain’, The British Journal of Social Work 51(2), 427–​444. Parliament UK (2021) Nationality and Borders Bill [online]. Available at: https://​publi​cati​ons.par​liam​ent.uk/​pa/​cm5​802/​ cmpub​lic/​Nat​iona​lity​Bord​ers/​memo/​NBB02.htm [Accessed 17 July 2022]. Parveen, N., McIntyre, N. and Thomas, T. (2021) ‘UK police forces deploy 683 officers in schools with some poorer areas targeted’, The Guardian, 25 March. Available at: www.theg​uard​ian. com/​educat​ion/​2021/​mar/​25/​uk-​pol​ice-​for​ces-​dep​loy-​683-​ offic​ers-​in-​scho​ols [Accessed 15 August 2022]. Pearson, A.R., Dovidio, J.F. and Gaertner, S.L. (2009) ‘The nature of contemporary prejudice: insights from aversive racism’, Social and Personality Psychology Compass 3(3), 314–​338. Rawsthorne, M. (2019) ‘Introduction’, pp 1–10, in D. Baines, B. Bennett, S. Goodwin and M. Rawsthorne (eds) Working Across Difference, Social Work, Social Policy and Social Justice. London: Red Globe Press. 119

The Future of Children’s Care

RCPCH (Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health) (2022) ‘Refugee and unaccompanied asylum seeking children and young people: guidance for paediatricians’ [online]. Available at: www.rcpch.ac.uk/​resour​ces/​refu​gee-​unacco​mpan​ied-​asy​lum​ s eek​ i ng-​ c hild​ ren-​ young-​ p eo​ p le-​ g uida​ n ce- ​ p ae ​ d iat ​ r ici ​ a ns [Accessed 17 July 2022]. Refugee Council (2022a) ‘What is the Nationality and Borders Bill?’ [online]. Available at: https://​ref​ugee​coun​cil.org.uk/​ infor​ mati​ on/r​ efug​ ee-a​ syl​ um-f​ acts/w ​ hat-i​ s-t​ he-​nati​onal​ity-​and-​ bord​ers-​bill/​ [Accessed 17 July 2022]. Refugee Council (2022b) ‘Identity crisis: how the age dispute process puts refugee children at risk’ [online]. Available at: www.ref​ugee​coun​cil.org.uk/​wp-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​2022/​09/​ Ident​ity-​Cri​sis-​Septem​ber-​2022.pdf [Accessed 1 December 2022]. Samuel, M. (2022) ‘Social Work England issues proposed expectations of graduates to show readiness for practice’, Community Care, [online] 4 July. Available at: www.commun​ity c​are.co.uk/​2022/​07/​04/​soc​ial-​work-​engl​and-i​ ssu ​ es-p​ ropos​ ed-​ standar​ ds-t​ o-e​ ns​ure-​gradua​tes-​are-​ready-​for-​pract​ice/​ [Accessed 22 August 2022]. Sanghera, S. (2021) Empireland. London: Penguin. Sen, R. (2020) ‘Where now? Social work and social work education in the slipstream of the Black Lives Matter movement’, pp 55–63, in W. Reid and S. Maclean (eds) Outlanders, Hidden Narratives from Social Workers of Colour from Black & Other Global Majority Communities. Litchfield: BASW England/​Kirwin Maclean. UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) (2019) A Refugee and then … Participatory Assessment of the Reception and Early Integration of Unaccompanied Refugee Children in the UK [online]. Available at: www.unhcr.org/​uk/​5d271c​6a4. pdf [Accessed 19 August 2022]. UNHCR (2022) UNHCR Analysis of the Legality and Appropriateness of the Transfer of Asylum Seekers under the UK-​Rwanda Arrangement [online]. Available at: www.unhcr.org/​uk/​62a317​d34.pdf [Accessed 25 August 2022]. Valentine, G. (2007) ‘Theorizing and researching intersectionality: a challenge for feminist geography’, Professional Geographer 59, 10–​21. 120

Exploring and re-imagining children’s services

Webb, C. (2020) ‘Anti-​racist and anti-​poverty social work must be both: child welfare inequalities at the intersection of race and class’. Available at: www.calumw​ebb.uk/​posts/​anti-​ rac​ist-​and-​anti-​pove​rty-​soc​ial-​work-​must-​be-​both/​ [Accessed 15 August 2022]. Webb, C., Bywaters, P., Scourfield, J., Davidson, G. and Bunting, L. (2020) ‘Cuts both ways: ethnicity, poverty, and the social gradient in child welfare interventions’, Children and Youth Services Review 117, 105299. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.chi​ld yo​uth.2020.105​299 Welch, K. (2007) ‘Black criminal stereotypes and racial profiling’, Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 23(3), 276–​288.

121

7 Kinship care for England and Wales in the 2020s: assumptions, challenges and opportunities Paul Shuttleworth

Introduction Kinship care is when children remain within their family constellation if they cannot remain with their primary carers, usually birth parents. In high-​income countries, it is typically classified into two types of care –​formal and informal (Hallett et al, 2021). Formal kinship care involves social work intervention, and children are usually cared for in statutory foster placements within the child’s birth family constellation. Informal kinship care, which makes up around 95 per cent of UK kinship care arrangements, is where there is no statutory involvement, and the private family arrangement is not typically known to social services (Nandy et al, 2011). In England and Wales, these classifications can become muddled. For example, although a child under a Special Guardianship Order (SGO) or a Child Arrangement Order (COA) may not formally be in the ‘care system’, some families may still have social work intervention as part of a court-​ordered care plan. This can lead such arrangements to be described in regulations as formal (MacDonald et al, 2018). This messiness concerning definitions will be returned to later in the chapter. 122

Kinship care for England and Wales in the 2020s

Kinship care is a concept and a practice that can be attractive to various political persuasions and ideologies. Kinship care not only satisfies the aim of keeping families together as much as possible but is also a cost-​effective strategy for cash-​strapped local authorities (McGhee et al, 2018). These two significant benefits of kinship care can lead politicians, policy makers and large reviews of children’s social care to make promises to grow kinship care. Indeed, a recommendation from the section ‘Unlocking the potential of family networks’ from the MacAlister Review (2022) is: ‘Recommendation: A Family Network Plan should be introduced and enabled in law to support and give oversight to family-​led alternatives to care’ (MacAlister, 2022, p 103). The reasons given for this are that ‘[d]‌elivering this recommendation should provide better outcomes for children. It would also be less expensive than providing foster or residential care’ (MacAlister, 2022, p  103). Increasing the use of kinship care is seen as a common-​sense solution to reduce costs, improve outcomes for children, and allow the continuation of care by the community and family members for children who are past care-​leaving age. However, such assumptions are made by drawing unsubstantiated conclusions on unresolved debates regarding kinship care. The underlying assumptions are typically: 1. It is better for the responsibility and care for children to be positioned with families, peer support and charity support rather than with the state. 2. Kinship care should be recognised as a permanence solution that is a direct alternative to non-​kinship foster care and non-​ kinship adoption. 3. Children in kinship care are more likely than those in non-​ kinship state care to achieve better outcomes regarding their well-​being, safety and future as adults (for example, education, employment, health and housing). 4. There is an extensive untapped resource in families and communities with the social and economic capital to care for their children who have experienced trauma. Utilising this, by better supporting kinship care, will reduce the number of children needing more costly state care involving non-​ related carers. 123

The Future of Children’s Care

At first glance, these assumptions may seem reasonable, well-​ founded and morally attuned. It is highly appealing for more children to remain with their families rather than being brought up by strangers with expensive statutory social work interference. The following chapter will take a closer look at these assumptions, keeping in mind that kinship care can be exploited as a private family practice to suit statutory social work budgets (McCartan et al, 2018). To progress past the challenges of kinship care and to benefit from the opportunities, the starting points must reflect where kinship care is positioned in the current reform agenda for children’s services in England and the UK, and its socio-​political, historical and legal discourse. The chapter will first use examples from the policy and political discourse embedded in England’s MacAlister Review (MacAlister, 2022). Then, using England’s Children Act 1989 as an anchor point, the first assumption, framed here as the private matter versus public concern debate, will be examined. Most of the Social Services and Well-​being (Wales) Act 2014 echoes the Children Act 1989 regarding kinship care. Within this context, the other three assumptions will then be evaluated with the overall suggestion that, while the assumptions may be true for some children and families, they are empirically and theoretically unfounded. They should not be the basis for the future direction of kinship care policy. Instead, kinship care must be seen as a unique, complex permanency option distinctly different to other ‘out-​of-​home’ family care arrangements, where children require a sense of permanence across their family networks, not just with particular primary carers. Kinship care should not be compared to fostering and adoption and just be drafted in to reduce the number of children in state care. Kinship care should also be viewed as one of the many intersections of private family responsibility and public concern with a nuanced recognition of risk. The central rhetoric of kinship care in the current reform agenda Two well-​evidenced certainties underlie the history of how society, policy and child welfare practitioners have treated kinship care. Children in kinship care and their families require better financial 124

Kinship care for England and Wales in the 2020s

and practical support (Brown et al, 2019). This is something that every kinship care advocate, lobbyist, charity, researcher, child welfare practitioner, policy maker and legislator can agree on. It has been treated as a ‘Cinderella service’ (Kiraly, 2015) and the under-​recognised third pillar of the child care system (KCPT, 2020). In relation to other family arrangements, it has received less acknowledgement, research and funding despite being the most used long-​term care option for children that cannot remain with their birth parents. The other certainty, affirmed internationally, is that for many children, remaining within their birth family networks is the right choice and the best choice for them to achieve a sense of permanence and safety (Skoglund et al, 2022). As we move further into the 2020s, these critical points are being heard by some MPs and policy makers, such as through a cross-​parliamentary Taskforce (KCPT, 2020) and recent All Party Parliamentary Groups (Family Rights Group, 2020) and Reviews (for example, MacAlister, 2022). For example, in the MacAlister Review, there are recommendations for financial allowances at the same rate as fostering allowances, the provision of legal aid for prospective kinship carers, kinship leave and more peer support. However, the dilemmas of achieving more support for kinship carers become quickly embroiled in the febrile polarised political debates. They centre on whether the care and protection of children should be reliant on social workers and statutory intervention. A dominant government discourse is that social work and state intervention should be avoided wherever possible as it is costly, seemingly often unnecessary and often poorly applied. This echoes neoliberal politics wishing for as little state intervention as possible, especially in family life (Brockmann and Garrett, 2022). Family life has become surrounded by a politics of withdrawal (Edwards et al, 2012). Families should receive therapeutic, financial and educational support, but there is seemingly an aversion to the support being delivered by statutory social workers. For example, ‘[k]‌inship carers are forced into an unenviable choice between having parental responsibility for their family member but receiving no support (as a Special Guardian or through a Child Arrangement Order), or becoming a foster carer to get financial support but handing parental responsibility to the local authority’ 125

The Future of Children’s Care

(MacAlister, 2022, p 97). In my view, this statement is misleading. First, statutory guidance and case law has explicitly stated that children on an SGO and a CAO should receive support (Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, 2021). However, regrettably, this still seems at the discretion of the local authorities (KCPT, 2020). Second, parental responsibility is not simply handed to the local authority. Often the English courts order that a local authority holds joint parental responsibility with a birth parent or birth parents until another Order is made, usually an SGO (Neil et al, 2019). The demarcating of different types of kinship care, formal and informal, is reductionist and does not reflect many children’s journeys through their family life. There are many hybrid kinship arrangements (Berrick and Hernandez, 2016). Often a child will have social work intervention before being in supposed informal family arrangements. There are also often periods when a child has been living in a private arrangement when their family situation later gets referred to social work. It is important not to generalise or essentialise kinship care (MacDonald et al, 2018). Assumption 1: it is better for the responsibility and care for children to be positioned with families, peer support and charity support rather than with the state In 2001, Joan Hunt stated that ‘kinship care is genuinely unique in that it straddles the gap between care by birth parents and care by the state’ (Hunt, 2001, p 47). Alongside ideals over whether families are deserving and undeserving of support, these tensions can be seen throughout the history of kinship care in the UK (Owusu-​Bempah, 2010). Like many changes to legislation, the Children Act 1989 arose from child protection scandals concerned with harmful occurrences of both under-​intervention and over-​intervention (Pierson, 2011). It was hoped that the Children Act 1989, among other things, would mitigate the overwhelming power that the local authorities had over parents. It was anticipated that the Children Act 1989 would reinforce the preference that children should remain in the care of their families, first and foremost, and only be removed if they were likely to suffer significant harm 126

Kinship care for England and Wales in the 2020s

(s.23(6)). Furthermore, social work, the Children Act 1989 stated, should work in partnership with families favouring voluntary arrangements rather than compulsory intervention. The Children and Families Chief Social Worker, Isabelle Trowler, later reiterated this viewpoint in the 2018 ‘Clear blue water’ report (Trowler, 2018). Such recognition that families had prime responsibility towards children without unnecessary court or social work interventions fit into the family-​first ideologies more prevalent after the Children Act 1989 (Featherstone et al, 2014). The Children Act 1989 also stipulated that if a child is to be cared for by family members, then the local authorities must take practical steps to approve them as foster carers under Regulation 38 of The Fostering Services Regulations 2002. For Wales, this is stipulated under Regulation 24 Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulation 2015. Such steps involve a six-​week initial viability assessment intended to evidence the ability of the carer(s) to safeguard and promote the child’s welfare. A more in-​depth assessment is then undertaken on the potential carers. Only in emergencies can they be placed with relatives without the approval of a fostering panel. As highlighted by the MacAlister Review (2022), this shows the central challenge of kinship care in the current political climate. The emphasis is to keep children with their families as a priority. However, the state must interfere in family life if a formal placement is made. This is against the wishes of many kinship carers who are reticent to have state intervention due to some of the media’s portrayal of social workers as unreasonably interventionist and inept (MacDonald et al, 2018). The Children Act 1989 and the subsequent Social Services and Well-​being (Wales) Act 2014 attempted to balance keeping family together with the statutory necessity to protect children from familial and extra-​familial harm. To some extent, this has been successful. Yet, due to the chronic underfunding of services (Bennett et al, 2022) and the foster care crisis (Care Crisis Review, 2018), the balance has been heavily influenced by a lack of resources and by economic frugality. On the one hand, legislation and policy mandate the support of formal arrangements for children in kinship care. On the other, it also provides a lot of potential diversionary routes for the cash-​strapped local authorities 127

The Future of Children’s Care

and social work to avoid providing practical and financial assistance (Munro and Gilligan, 2013). Part of a proposal to challenge this can be found in a recommendation from the MacAlister Review’s (2022) section on ‘unlocking the potential of family networks’, which looks at definitions of kinship care: ‘Recommendation: Government should develop a new legal definition of kinship care, taking a broad range of circumstances into account’ (MacAlister, 2022, p  108). The Review suggests there is no appropriate legal definition of kinship care. This is, in my view, misleading. While there may be no single definition, there are definitions in law currently which reflect many diverse kinship care arrangements. The Children Act 1989 defines informal arrangements, private fostering, private court orders and formal kinship care. Who can be a kinship carer is defined in the Children Act 1989 and later amended in the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the Children and Young Person’s Act 2008 and the Children and Families Act 2014 to include those known to the children but not genetically related. There is also the ‘Family and Friends Care’ statutory guidance (Department for Education, 2011). Although it is evident that the definitions are indeed spread out and well hidden in legislation and guidance, attempting to essentialise kinship care so that the private versus state care debate is better resolved may have unintended consequences. Although, as previously stated, separating formal and informal kinship care is challenging, this does not mean that the government should treat the ‘broad range of circumstances’ (MacAlister, 2022, p 108) for kinship care arrangements as the same. This may lead to menus of care and incremental financial and practical support that may not be based on specific needs. This is despite the Review’s wish to provide bespoke care. Also, although relatively under-​researched, it is known that there are disproportionally greater amounts of children from ethnic minoritised groups in kinship care and even greater amounts in informal kinship care compared to formal kinship care (Nandy et al, 2011). This is concerning due to the links between ethnicity and poverty (Webb et al, 2020). Therefore, those from ethnic minoritised groups may be disadvantaged by broad sweeping definitions. Governmental support through a broad definition or even demarcating smaller ones may even unwittingly exacerbate inequality. 128

Kinship care for England and Wales in the 2020s

One solution to the complex, diverse nature of kinship care and the private versus public debate would be to consistently acknowledge that all families are always interdependent with the state. The aim should not be to promote kinship care as a method of deinstitutionalisation and deregulation. Both research and history suggest that the state and public life cannot be separated, especially regarding social work, care and poverty (Schiettecat et al, 2018). It is futile to push kinship care into particular definitions or the domain of either complete statutory control or an over-​reliance on peer support, charities or the families themselves. These are false dichotomies. Instead, state intervention should be reframed as an ongoing life-​long interdependent relationship based on need. This alters any questions about whether kinship carers and their children should be a burden to the state, whether social work should be involved, and under what definition(s) or comparisons. It is no longer whether the state should support the needs of kinship care families, as all families are supported and support others to some extent, but rather to what degree state support continues, monitors and changes over the life course. This should be tackled by a more attuned assessment of need led by more peer-​reviewed research with children and carers’ voices at the centre. Assumption 2: kinship care should be recognised as a permanent solution that is a direct alternative to non-​ kinship foster care and non-​kinship adoption The integration of kinship care into the child welfare system was reactive and piecemeal rather than planned and integrated (O’Brien, 2012). Kinship care systems, policies and practices are typically based on foster care service and adoption delivery models (Kirton, 2020). It is almost viewed as somewhere between them. Nevertheless, in the last two decades, kinship care has been compared to and prioritised over other out-​of-​home care (Skoglund et al, 2022). There are three issues with simply slotting in kinship care policies and practices (including carer training) into those of fostering and adoption or even comparing them. First, foster care and adoption have historically drawn on a model of an ideal nuclear two-​parent heteronormative Eurocentric middle-​class 129

The Future of Children’s Care

mother-​and-​father dyad caring for children (Baginsky et al, 2017; Kirton, 2020). While this may not be how fostering and adoption are presented mainly now, it nonetheless highlights how kinship care –​a more diverse and varied arrangement of care –​may not be best served by fitting it into pre-​existing out-​of-​home care models that are not as diverse. Second, traditional fostering and adoption ideals suggest that the maltreated child has a substitute family away from the child’s maltreating family (Kirton, 2020). Even logistically, this would be hard for children in kinship care to achieve. By the very nature of kinship care, the children have a new family life within a new family setting while remaining within the care of their previous family constellation. Third, not knowing where exactly to place kinship care leads to social workers’ and local authorities’ ambivalence around the strengths and challenges of kinship care (Peters, 2005). Does kinship care sit with the old adage of the ‘apple doesn’t fall far from the tree’ and concerns regarding intergenerational risk, or should non-​birth parental family members be expected to care for their children without kudos or payment (O’Brien, 2012)? Should kinship care be positioned with family support services, or is it almost a traditional ‘out-​of-​home placement’ (Kiraly and Farmer, 2020)? Social workers and local authorities can be unsure of what to do and be easily led by the cheapest intervention, if any, rather than specific needs-​centred approaches that will secure permanence for a child (McCartan et al, 2018). Unresolved debates and ideals of permanence are the issue here. The UK permanence movement developed independently from the US and gave greater prominence to adoption as a method of addressing ‘drift’ (Biehal et al, 2010). As discussed by Avery Bowser in Chapter 8 of this volume, for a long time, adoption became the priority if children could not remain with their birth families (Narey, 2011). This ‘child rescue’ model (Fox Harding, 1982), notably encapsulated by Goldstein et al (1979), suggests that children should cut all ties with previous dysfunctional family members and start anew. They proposed that children could not hold two families in mind without this being psychologically damaging. This notion of substitute families has been vehemently opposed by academics such as Biehal (2014), Boddy (2019, Cossar and 130

Kinship care for England and Wales in the 2020s

Neil (2013) and Thoburn (1994). They agree that it is vital to recognise the value of permanency in a child’s identity formation. However, they state that children’s kin networks are essential to them coming to terms with their past, present and future identities. This recognises that there will be ongoing connections between multiple families, so it may often be more appropriate to maintain somehow birth family involvement in a child’s life (Boddy, 2019). Children can keep multiple families in mind (Rustin, 1994), especially in kinship care arrangements (Shuttleworth, 2021). Children cannot be discreetly separated from their previous carers/​ parents as there will always be reminders. These can be overt, such as continued contact with birth parents, or more subtle, such as family resemblances. Such authors maintain that a child’s sense of permanence is most vital (Thoburn, 1994). This is a sense of belonging and mutual connectedness so that a child feels ‘part of the family’ (Schofield et al, 2012). For kinship care, current research demonstrates that children acknowledge there will be various carers throughout their childhood and life. Possibly due to their previous care arrangements breaking down, they constantly think about different carers over their life course. They wish for their permanence to be the family’s responsibility rather than that of just one or two carers (Shuttleworth, 2023). Legal standing and orders can provide a degree of security from which a child can establish a sense of security. The physical stability of a ‘placement’ can also play a part, as identity formation is a continuing process. However, research clearly shows that it is crucial to think beyond legal permanence, definitions and particular models of care to find the right match for children’s needs. Permanence depends on ‘securing the right placement, for the right child at the right time’ (Boddy, 2013, p 2). Children living in kinship care will have different needs and meanings for a sense of permanence than children in fostering and adoptions. This needs to be recognised as the starting point for solutions to providing practical and financial support. Despite the difficulties highlighted, comparisons between kinship care, fostering and adoption persist. For example, kinship carer advocates ask for parity of payments and support for children and carers in kinship arrangements with those in foster 131

The Future of Children’s Care

care (Kinship, 2022). This can also be seen in the MacAlister Review (2022): ‘Recommendation: All local authorities should make a financial allowance paid at the same rate as their fostering allowance available for special guardians and kinship carers with a Child Arrangement Order looking after children who would otherwise be in care’ (MacAlister, 2022, p 106). Approximately 75 per cent of UK kinship carers live in financial hardship (Selwyn et al, 2013). One reason is local authorities shirking their responsibilities due to chronic underfunding (McCartan et al, 2018). For example, many local authorities try to dissuade kinship carers from taking the formal foster care route while not making it clear that carers are likely to receive less support if they make private arrangements (Hunt and Waterhouse, 2013). When kinship carers are foster carers, they are paid significantly less in foster allowances than their non-​relative foster carer counterparts (McCartan et al, 2018). This is despite rulings such as the 2001 judicial Review of Manchester’s City Council’s policy on allowance payments to kinship foster carers, which deemed it unlawful to discriminate against carers in this way (R (L & Others) v Manchester City Council [2001] EWHC (Admin). 707, (2002) 1 FLR 43, 8 CCLR 268). More recent rulings, such as the London Borough of Southwark v D [2007] EWCA Civ 182 and SA, R (on the application of) v Kent County Council (2011) EWCA Civ 1303 (10 November 2011), demonstrate that unlawful strategies of local authority claiming discretion remain to avoid paying kinship carers appropriate allowances even when they are directly asked to care for children by social workers (Heath, 2013). There remain discrepancies between local authorities in how many kinship care arrangements are made and how they are supported, if at all (KCPT, 2020). Nevertheless, urging for parity with fostering and adoption will likely cause further difficulties down the line. For example, it is possible that by comparing kinship carers to foster carers, kinship carers will be expected to be held to similar responsibilities, statutory social work monitoring, thresholds and procedures to non-​kinship foster carers. As highlighted earlier, these will not necessarily match or address the particular circumstances or permanency needs of a child living in kinship care.

132

Kinship care for England and Wales in the 2020s

Assumption 3: children in kinship care are more likely than those in non-​kinship state care to achieve better outcomes regarding their well-​being, safety and future as adults This need to compare ‘placement’ types can also be seen in most kinship care research (Winokur et al, 2018). Most kinship care research also tends to understand it solely as a service within child protective services. Due to the policy agora, where only certain types of research are seen as relevant to policy makers and therefore funded (Brown, 2014), kinship care is studied ‘more as a technology and less as a family’ (Skoglund and Thørnblad, 2019, p  4). This directs studies towards seemingly more measurable quantitative outcomes such as placement stability, financial savings, well-​being and opportunities as adults. Many kinship care placements are also compared to other out-​of-​home placements rather than as a context in which family life is practised. Andersen and Fallesen (2015) state that researching these outcomes and effects is useful as descriptive evidence but has limited use for policy recommendations or whether or not to use kinship care for a particular family. It can produce false assumptions, and the knowledge produced from such kinship care studies is not easily transferable to practice (Frost, 2002; Ribbens McCarthy and Edwards, 2011). Generally, it has been found that a key benefit of kinship family arrangements is that children maintain a family history, identity, ethnic identity and cultural consistency that is not available in non-​kinship foster care (Winokur et al, 2018). Kinship care arrangements are also more liable to promote secure attachments and relationships between the child and the carer than other placements (Hunt et al, 2010). However, some US studies have produced different findings, suggesting no significant differences (Strijker et al, 2003) or even that children’s relationships with others are likely to be worse within kinship foster homes (Harden et al, 2004). A systematic review by Winokur et al (2018) suggests mixed findings, and there may be very little difference in overall permanency outcomes between different placement types. Another difficulty with assessing kinship care as a ‘placement service’ is that it is difficult to disaggregate kinship care as a

133

The Future of Children’s Care

phenomenon in itself as a cause of particular outcomes. By considering factors such as whether there were prior relationships, the reasons for coming into care, and the risk of financial insecurity, favourable starting points often lead to perceived favourable permanency outcomes (Koh and Testa, 2008; McSherry et al, 2016). A recent study by Ferraro et al (2022) has also emphasised confusion around causality. They found that once research considers child and carer characteristics, the effects of kinship care are not significantly different on behavioural and emotional well-​being compared to children in non-​kinship foster care, although the effects slightly favour kinship. Lastly, the recent Nuffield LACGro Project (Sacker et al, 2021) that compared the health and social functioning outcomes between kinship care, foster care and residential care found that children in kinship care fared better for both behavioural and emotional outcomes. However, it warns that kinship care should not just be seen as a panacea. ‘These outcomes might be a consequence of the early life experiences that led children to being in care and/​or could be consequential to their experience of the care system’ (Sacker et al, 2021, p 7). Another factor that may influence outcomes is safety and risk. There is surprisingly little discussion regarding risk and intergenerational risk in kinship care research and literature. However, there has been a recent scoping review regarding safety in high-​income countries (Hallett et al, 2021). This found that the risk of neglect is higher in kinship care settings than in other forms of ‘out-​of-​home’ care, but there are lower risk rates for sexual and physical abuse. The scoping review suggested little difference in rates for emotional or psychological abuse. It was acknowledged that fraught family relationships between carers and the birth family were higher in kinship care, raising the risk of abuse towards carers. While these generalised findings regarding risk are helpful, some research contests them. For example, one study found no difference in physical abuse rates (Burgess and Borowsky, 2010), and another found a higher risk of sexual abuse (Litrownik et al, 2003). It is too simplistic to overly generalise from research, much of which is not peer-​reviewed, that kinship care is as good as 134

Kinship care for England and Wales in the 2020s

or better than other ‘out-​of-​home’ placements depending on circumstances. It is also unhelpful because researchers and child welfare practitioners need to identify what these circumstances are for each child, and this needs to be grounded in appropriate policy. If not, children may wittingly be exposed to identified risks due to the overwhelming drive to keep families together (Morris et al, 2017) or unwittingly exposed to unidentified ones. Furthermore, suppose a new child scandal highlighted a death within a kinship care placement, such as the murder of Victoria Adjo Climbié by her great-​aunt. Negative public opinion of kinship care may make policy makers and local authorities more reticent to promote it as a viable family solution. We must acknowledge that generalising from very little peer-​reviewed evidence can be used in arguments against as well as for kinship care. Assumption 4: better supporting kinship care will reduce the number of children needing to be cared for through more costly statutory interventions As a result of the policy [proposing financial allowances at the same rate as fostering allowances, legal aid, kinship leave, and more peer support], we assume an increase in Special Guardianship Orders and Child Arrangement Orders corresponding to a reduction of 0.5% in the number of looked after children, resulting in a reduction of expenditure on children’s social care services due to children prevented from entering care. (The Independent Review of Children’s Social Care, 2022, p 77) The key word here is ‘assume’, which is mentioned 57 times in the evidence annexe to the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care. Currently, there is an assumption that increasing kinship care will decrease the number of looked after children and therefore decrease costs for the state. There are claims of an ‘untapped resource’ of prospective kinship carers (Care Crisis Review, 2018). This is partly correct. Deprivation, thresholds and potential kinship carer access to information and legal aid affect the prevalence of kinship care (McCartan et al, 2018). This 135

The Future of Children’s Care

must be addressed. However, it is difficult to claim that increasing support to kinship carers will significantly increase the number of kinship care arrangements and reduce the number of children looked after in non-​kinship ‘out-​of-​home’ statutory placements. There is no reliable data on how many children currently live in kinship care under different forms of Court Orders or private family arrangements. Additionally, the number of children looked after each year in non-​kinship state care has risen, as has the number of kinship care placements and SGOs (Department for Education, 2021). It must be noted that this is without the appropriate financial and practical support that kinship carers require. This is not to say there may not be correlations between the availability of support, the number of children in kinship care and the number of children in non-​kinship state care, but instead suggests that the complete data is not as yet available. The solution is more complicated than increasing support and kinship care placements to decrease the number of looked after children. Most concerningly for children, with increases in poverty exacerbated by the cost-​of-​living crisis, even with extra financial support, many families may not be willing, suitable, or have the social and economic capital to care for children. Thresholds and standards for the care and protection of children should not be lowered, and this may happen due to the pressing rhetoric of the family-​first ideologies (Morris et al, 2017). Even more concerning is that the MacAlister Review (2022) assumes that through better support, there will be an increase in the number of children on SGOs and CAOs by 10 per cent who would otherwise be looked after through state foster care. This may mean less monitoring from social workers for the families that may require it. Conclusion In recent years, there has been a renewed interest in the benefits and challenges of kinship care at policy, research and practice levels. Recognition of kinship care is welcomed. It has been a neglected area for too long, certainly in terms of being inadequately resourced (Delap and Mann, 2019). Kinship care 136

Kinship care for England and Wales in the 2020s

must be adequately examined and conceptualised alongside the views of carers and the children in their specific kinship care family arrangements. The concern remains that still not enough is known. Therefore, reviews and policies will stake claims based on outdated and empirically unfounded assumptions. UK kinship care policy and practice should be founded on the reality of what family life is, underpinned by theoretical understandings. Legislative and policy changes should not be based on assumptions and hoping for the best. What matters to children and families living in kinship care cannot just be estimated from generalised inferences from broad studies on ‘out-​of-​home’ care, or fostering and adoption ideals. Changes to kinship care policy will impact the well-​being and safety of children. They must be securely tethered by robust evidence. Having, for many years, researched kinship care with the children’s perspectives at the centre of knowledge production, I will summarise alternative assumptions on which to address the challenges but also the opportunities for kinship care policy and practice. 1. Kinship care as a family practice, like all family practices, will always, in some form or another, be interdependent with the state over a life course. Kinship care should not be used to promote deinstitutionalisation and support over-​reliance on peers, charities or the families themselves. Furthermore, broad sweeping definitions, or even simplistic demarcating definitions, such as informal and formal kinship care, should not be determinants for support. 2. Children living in kinship care will have different needs and meanings of a sense of permanence than children in fostering and adoption. Comparisons are neither appropriate nor helpful for addressing the specific localised needs of specific families in specific family arrangements. 3. There needs to be more research regarding specific outcomes for kinship care that consider particular variables and what the children say matters to them. Currently, it is difficult to disaggregate between outcomes based on family setups, carer characteristics, child characteristics and favourable starting points. 137

The Future of Children’s Care

4. It should never be presumed that the number of children in care can be significantly reduced by relying on ‘an untapped resource’ from increasingly impoverished families and communities. Even with more support, these families may still not have the capabilities or economic or social capital to care for children who have experienced abuse and neglect and cannot remain with their birth parents. This is not to say that opportunities are not missed, and there are no national and international discrepancies. However, it is specious to oversimplify the complex relationships between family life, the state, social work, social policy, poverty, resources, inter-​and extra-​familial risk, and what actually matters to these children and their families. References Andersen, S.H. and Fallesen, P. (2015) ‘Family matters? The effect of kinship care on foster care disruption rates’, Child Abuse & Neglect 48, 68–​79. Baginsky, M., Gorin, S. and Sands, C. (2017) The Fostering System in England: Evidence Review. London: Department for Education. Bennett, D.L., Schlüter, D.K., Melis, G., Bywaters, P., Alexiou, A., Barr, B., Wickham, S. and Taylor-​Robinson, D. (2022) ‘Child poverty and children entering care in England, 2015–​20: a longitudinal ecological study at the local area level’, The Lancet Public Health 7(6), 496–​503. Berrick, J.D. and Hernandez, J. (2016) ‘Developing consistent and transparent kinship care policy and practice: state mandated, mediated, and independent care’, Children and Youth Services Review 68, 24–​33. Biehal, N. (2014) ‘A sense of belonging: meanings of family and home in long-​term foster care’, The British Journal of Social Work 44(4), 955–​971. Biehal, N., Ellison, S., Baker, C. and Sinclair, I. (2010) Belonging and Permanence: Outcomes in Long-​term Foster Care and Adoption. London: British Association for Adoption and Fostering. Boddy, J. (2013) Understanding Permanence for Looked After Children: A Review of Research for the Care Inquiry. Brighton: The Care Inquiry. 138

Kinship care for England and Wales in the 2020s

Boddy, J. (2019) ‘Troubling meanings of “family” for young people who have been in care: from policy to lived experience’, Journal of Family Issues 40(16), 2239–​2263. Brockmann, O. and Garrett, P.M. (2022) ‘“People are responsible for their own individual actions”: dominant ideologies within the neoliberal institutionalised social work order’, European Journal of Social Work, 25(5), 880–​893. Brown, C. (2014) ‘The policy agora: how power inequalities affect the interaction between researchers and policy makers’, Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice 10(3), 421–​438. Brown, R., Broadhurst, K., Harwin, J. and Simmonds, J. (2019) Special Guardianship: International Research on Kinship Care. London: Nuffield Family Justice Observatory. Burgess, A.L. and Borowsky, I.W. (2010) ‘Health and home environments of caregivers of children investigated by child protective services’, Pediatrics 125(2), 273–​281. Care Crisis Review (2018) Care Crisis Review: Options for Change. London: Nuffield Foundation, Family Rights Group. Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulation (2015) SI 1818 (W. 261). Cossar, J. and Neil, E. (2013) ‘Making sense of siblings: connections and severances in post-​adoption contact’, Child & Family Social Work 18(1), 67–​76. Delap, E. and Mann, G. (2019) ‘The paradox of kinship care: the most valued but least resourced care option –​a global study’ [online]. Available at: https://​better​care​netw​ork.org/​sites/​ defa​ult/​files/​2020-​02/​Kins​hip-​Care-​Glo​bal-R ​ evi​ ew-F ​ inal.pdf [Accessed 20 June 2022]. DfE (Department for Education) (2011) Family and Friends Care: Statutory Guidance for Local Authorities. London: HMSO. DfE (2021) ‘Children looked after in England including adoptions, reporting year 2021’ [online]. Available at: https://​expl​ore-​ educat​ion-​sta​tist​ics.serv​ice.gov.uk/​f ind-​sta​tist​ics/​child​ren-​ loo​ked-​after-​in-​engl​and-​includ​ing-​adopti​ons/​2021#expl​ore-​ data-​and-​files [Accessed 20 July 2022]. Edwards, R., McCarthy, J.R. and Gillies, V. (2012) ‘The politics of concepts: family and its (putative) replacements’, The British Journal of Sociology 63(4), 730–​746.

139

The Future of Children’s Care

Family Rights Group (2020) ‘Lost in the legal labyrinth: how a lack of legal aid and advice is undermining kinship care. Report of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Kinship Care’ [online]. Available at: www.family​supp​ort.group/​s/​APPG-​Kins​hip-​Care-​ Legal-​Labyri​nth-​Rep​ort-​May22.pdf [Accessed 20 June 2022]. Featherstone, B., White, S. and Morris, K. (2014) Re-​imagining Child Protection: Towards Humane Social Work with Families. First edition. Bristol: Policy Press. Ferraro, A.C., Maher, E.J. and Grinnell-​Davis, C. (2022) ‘Family ties: a quasi-​experimental approach to estimate the impact of kinship care on child well-​being’, Children and Youth Services Review 137, 106472. Fostering Services Regulations, The (2002), SI 2002/​57. Fox Harding, L. (1982) ‘Two value positions in recent child care law and practice’, The British Journal of Social Work 12(3), 265–​290. Frost, N. (2002) ‘A problematic relationship? Evidence and practice in the workplace’, Social Work & Social Sciences Review 10(1), 38–​50. Goldstein, J., Freud, A. and Solnit, A.J. (1979) Beyond the Best Interests of the Child. New York: Free Press. Hallett, N., Garstang, J. and Taylor, J. (2021) ‘Kinship care and child protection in high-​income countries: a scoping review’, Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 1(4), https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​152483​ 8021​1036​073 Harden, B.J., Clyman, R.B., Kriebel, D.K. and Lyons, M.E. (2004) ‘Kith and kin care: parental attitudes and resources of foster and relative caregivers’, Children and Youth Services Review 26(7), 657–​671. Heath, M. (2013) ‘Developing kinship care: a case of evidence based social work practice? Family ties: a quasi-​experimental approach to estimate the impact of kinship care on child well-​ being’, doctoral thesis (PhD), University of Sussex. Hunt, J. (2001) Friends and Family Care: A Scoping Paper for the Department of Health. London: Department of Health. Hunt, J. and Waterhouse, S. (2013) It’s Just Not Fair! Support, Need and Legal Status in Family and Friends Care. London: Family Rights Group.

140

Kinship care for England and Wales in the 2020s

Hunt, J., Waterhouse, S. and Lutman, E. (2010) ‘Parental contact for children placed in kinship care through care proceedings’, Child and Family Law Quarterly 22, 71–​92. Independent Review of Children’s Social Care, The (2022) ‘Recommendation annexes: additional detail on review recommendations’ [online]. Available at: https://​chil​dren​ssoc​ial c​are.inde​pend​ent-​rev​iew.uk/​wp-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​2022/​05/​ Rec​omme​ndat​ion-​anne​xes.pdf [Accessed 1 June 2022]. KCPT (Kinship Care Parliamentary Taskforce) (2020) ‘First thought not afterthought: report of the Parliamentary Taskforce on Kinship Care’ [online]. Available at: https://​frg.org.uk/​ wp-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​2020/​10/​Kins​hipC​are_​parl​iame​ntar​y rep​ort-​sep​t20.pdf [Accessed 3 June 2022]. Kinship (2022) ‘Out of the shadows: a vision for kinship care in England’ [online]. Available at: https://​kins​hip.org.uk/​wp-​ cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​Out-​of-​the-​Shad​ows-​2022-​WEB-​003.pdf [Accessed 3 June 2022]. Kiraly, M. (2015) ‘A review of kinship carer surveys: the “Cinderella” of the care system?’, Child, Family, Community, Australia (CFCA) Information Exchange 31, 1–​28. Kiraly, M. and Farmer, E. (2020) ‘Kinship care in Australia and the United Kingdom’, pp 175–192, in E. Fernandez and P. Delfabbro (eds) Child Protection and the Care Continuum: Theoretical, Empirical and Practice Insight. Abingdon and New York: Routledge. Kirton, D. (2020) ‘Adoption wars: inequality, child welfare and (social) justice’, Families, Relationships and Societies 9(2), 253–​268. Koh, E. and Testa, M.F. (2008) ‘Propensity score matching of children in kinship and nonkinship foster care: do permanency outcomes differ?’, Social Work Research 32(2), 105–​116. Litrownik, A.J., Newton, R., Mitchell, B.E. and Richardson, K.K. (2003) ‘Long-​term follow-​up of young children placed in foster care: subsequent placements and exposure to family violence’, Journal of Family Violence 18(1), 19–​28. Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (2021) Investigation into a Complaint against Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (reference number: 19 014 589). Available at: https://​democr​acy.bcp​coun​cil.gov.uk/​docume​nts/​s28​675/​ Appen​dix%202%20Om​buds​man%20Rep​ort.pdf [Accessed 8 March 2023]. 141

The Future of Children’s Care

MacAlister, J. (2022) The Independent Review of Children’s Social Care. Final Report. London: Department for Education. MacDonald, M., Hayes, D. and Houston, S. (2018) ‘Understanding informal kinship care: a critical narrative review of theory and research’, Families, Relationships and Societies 7(1), 71–​87. McCartan, C., Bunting, L., Bywaters, P., Davidson, G., Elliott, M. and Hooper, J. (2018) ‘A four-​nation comparison of kinship care in the UK: the relationship between formal kinship care and deprivation’, Social Policy and Society 17(4), 619–​635. McGhee, J., Bunting, L., McCartan, C., Elliott, M., Bywaters, P. and Featherstone, B. (2018) ‘Looking after children in the UK: convergence or divergence?’, The British Journal of Social Work 48(5), 1176–​1198. McSherry, D., Fargas Malet, M. and Weatherall, K. (2016) ‘Comparing long-​term placements for young children in care: does placement type really matter?’, Children and Youth Services Review 69, 56–​66. Morris, K., White, S., Doherty, P. and Warwick, L. (2017) ‘Out of time: theorizing family in social work practice’, Child & Family Social Work 22, 51–​60. Munro, E.R. and Gilligan, R. (2013) ‘The “dance” of kinship care in England and Ireland: navigating a course between regulation and relationships’, Psychosocial Intervention 22(3), 185–​192. Nandy, S., Selwyn, J., Farmer, E. and Vaisey, P. (2011) Spotlight on Kinship Care, research report. Bristol: University of Bristol. Narey, M. (2011) ‘The Narey report: a blueprint for the nation’s lost children’, The Times, [online] 5 July. Available at: www.the ti​mes.co.uk/​arti​cle/​the-​narey-​rep​ort-​a-​bluepr ​int-​for-​the-​ nati​ons-​lost-​childr​ en-7​ b2kt​ mcrf​ 0w [Accessed 5 October 2018]. Neil, E., Gitsels, L. and Thoburn, J. (2019) ‘Children in care: where do children entering care at different ages end up? An analysis of local authority administrative data’, Children and Youth Services Review 106, 104472. O’Brien, V. (2012) ‘The benefits and challenges of kinship care’, Child Care in Practice 18(2), 127–​146. Owusu-​B empah, K. (2010) The Wellbeing of Children in Care: A New Approach for Improving Developmental Outcomes. London: Routledge.

142

Kinship care for England and Wales in the 2020s

Peters, J. (2005) ‘True ambivalence: child welfare workers’ thoughts, feelings, and beliefs about kinship foster care’, Children and Youth Services Review 27(6), 595–​614. Pierson, J. (2011) Understanding Social Work: History and Context. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Ribbens McCarthy, J. and Edwards, R. (2011) Key Concepts in Family Studies. London: SAGE. Rustin, M. (1994) ‘Multiple families in mind’, Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry 4(1), 51–​62. Sacker, A., Murray, E.T., Lacey, R. and Maughan, B. (2021) The Lifelong Health and Wellbeing Trajectories of People Who Have Been in Care. London: University College of London and King’s College. Schiettecat, T., Roets, G. and Vandenbroeck, M. (2018) ‘Hide and seek: political agency of social workers in supporting families living in poverty’, The British Journal of Social Work 48(7), 1874–​1891. Schofield, G., Beek, M. and Ward, E. (2012) ‘Part of the family: planning for permanence in long-​term family foster care’, Children and Youth Services Review 34(1), 244–​253. Selwyn, J., Farmer, E., Meakings, S. and Vaisey, P. (2013) The Poor Relations? Children and Informal Kinship Carers Speak Out. Bristol: Family Policy and Child Welfare. Shuttleworth, P.D. (2021) ‘What matters to children living in kinship care: “another way of being a normal family” ’, doctoral thesis (PhD), University of Sussex. Shuttleworth, P.D. (2023) ‘Recognition of family life by children living in kinship care arrangements in England’, The British Journal of Social Work, 53 (1), 157–​176. Skoglund, J. and Thørnblad, R. (2019) ‘Kinship care or upbringing by relatives? The need for “new” understandings in research’, European Journal of Social Work 22(3), 435–​445. Skoglund, J., Thørnblad, R. and Holtan, A. (2022) Childhood in Kinship Care: A Longitudinal Investigation. London: Routledge. Strijker, J., Zandberg, T. and van der Meulen, B.F. (2003) ‘Kinship foster care and foster care in the Netherlands’, Children and Youth Services Review 25(11), 843–​862. Thoburn, J. (1994) Child Placement: Principles and Practice. Second edition. Aldershot: Ashgate.

143

The Future of Children’s Care

Trowler, I. (2018) Care Proceedings in England: The Case for Clear Blue Water. University of Sheffield: Crook Public Service Fellowships. Webb, C., Bywaters, P., Scourfield, J., Davidson, G. and Bunting, L. (2020) ‘Cuts both ways: ethnicity, poverty, and the social gradient in child welfare interventions’, Children and Youth Services Review 117, 105299. Winokur, M.A., Holtan, A. and Batchelder, K.E. (2018) ‘Systematic review of kinship care effects on safety, permanency, and well-​being outcomes’, Research on Social Work Practice 28(1), 19–​32.

144

8 If adoption is the answer, what was the question? Avery Bowser

Introduction Adoption is contentious. That is not new but in today’s social media cauldron, it is an area of social work and social policy that will generate instant heat. This chapter has been written as the MacAlister Review of Children’s Social Care in England delivered its Final Report. For this author, it was somewhat of a surprise to find that in the end the Review was almost silent on adoption, particularly when it has been a central plank and ‘gold standard’ for successive recent governments in England. Adoption UK (2022), in their response to the Final Report of the MacAlister Review, were certainly disappointed: [T]‌here are two significant problems with the decision to sideline adoption. Firstly, it means a vital part of the care story is missing. Most adopted people come from the care system. Adopted children have the same terrible starts in life as those still in care, with the same lasting effects. Currently we have a care system that invests heavily in creating adoptive families and then fades away, leaving adopters to pick up the pieces of their child’s trauma. 70% of adoptive families say they face a continual struggle for support. Secondly, it risks 145

The Future of Children’s Care

perpetuating siloes and competition in the system, which is not in the best interests of children. (Adoption UK, 2022, np) It is very difficult to work out a reason for the Review’s adoption minimalism. Adoption, as this chapter will argue, is complex. Perhaps, as many argued when the Terms of Reference were set out, the scale of the Review was too great for the timeframe and the expertise utilised. Some of the recommendations on Family Network Plans (MacAlister Review Final Report, p 103), delegated authority (p 135) and lifelong guardianship (p 156), plus an overall emphasis on children remaining with families and kinship care, feel like a move away from adoption. It may be a genuine desire to push the benefits of adoption upstream. Or, when faced with the cost of properly resourcing adoption support, it may be another ‘Big Society’ move that leans on kinship and special guardianship to provide a ‘get out of funding free’ card for government, harvesting the goodness and finances of citizens. An article by Mark Owers (2022) in Children & Young People Now, responding to the final Report, could be read as concluding that the adoption strategy has failed and that the future mapped out by the MacAlister Review lies elsewhere. As an adopter that would make me fearful that kinship care and special guardianship would be condemned to adoption’s resource desert. While the MacAlister Review is big on bold rhetoric and ambition, when you spend time with it and try to put the pieces together, it is difficult to discern an understanding and overarching coherence of the approach to ‘reform’. In that respect its opaqueness may have achieved what government required –​ bits that can be ignored and bits that can be cherrypicked. In any case, the Review we have lacks the elegance of Pauline Hardiker (Hardiker et al, 1995), the insight of Eileen Munro (2010) and the breadth of Featherstone et al (2018a). While the ‘generational’ MacAlister Review had little to offer on the subject, this chapter does lean heavily on a recent British Association of Social Workers (BASW) Enquiry, The Role of the Social Worker in Adoption: Ethics and Human Rights, which was led by Professors Brid Featherstone and Anna Gupta in 2018. I write this chapter as a social worker who manages a fostering service 146

If adoption is the answer, what was the question?

in the charitable sector. I am also an adoptive parent and I took part in the BASW Enquiry, with both hats on (and as a BASW member). My practice experience is from Northern Ireland not England. That said, I have just spent a good part of the last year following and contributing to the passage of the Adoption and Children Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 into law (it only took 15 years), which means our adoption law catches up with the position England has been in for 20 years. This is not a chapter from the academy, based on a study of adoption in England. It is, however, written from a closely related jurisdiction, looking in and looking out, making an attempt to build on the UK-​wide conversation started in the BASW Enquiry. It is a professional and personal perspective, wondering if there is, or should be, a future for adoption. The aim is to explore, to promote thought and discussion, not to be definitive or prescriptive. A definition in context The MacAlister Review provides an accessible definition of adoption as: The legal process of a child becoming a permanent member of a new family. Once an adoption order has been made, the child is no longer legally related to their birth family. Legal parenthood, which encompasses all parental rights, passes to the adopter. This can only happen if a court orders it. (MacAlister, 2022, p 242) As a result, adoption practice is heavily legislated and regulated. In England current practice is governed by the Adoption and Children Act 2002. A key aspect of this legislation was the introduction of placement orders (Section 21), which were designed to speed up the process of an adoption particularly once a full care order (Children Act 1989, S.31) had been granted and it was clear that a child would not be returning to their family of origin.1 Of course, culturally, conceptually and legislatively, adoption has deeper roots than the end of the last century. For England and Wales, the Adoption of Children Act was passed in 1926, introducing adoption into English law for the first time. ‘Until that year it 147

The Future of Children’s Care

was impossible to transfer parental rights permanently, although in practice de facto adoptions did occur’ (Thomas and Pierson, 1995, p 6). The Adoption of Children (Scotland) Act 1930 introduced similar provision into Scottish law a few years later. The move to legislate seems to have been partly driven by concerns that birth parents might take their children back –​a motif I shall return to in a discussion of the present. Adoption in the UK also followed what might be regarded as the beginning of ‘modern’ adoption in America as the 20th century began. In the UK, what is reflected in our law and our practice is a concept of adoption that has its roots in an English-​speaking and Christian cultural approach. Around the world not everyone thinks the same about adoption and throughout history the idea of adoption has been understood and practised differently. For example, in ancient Rome adoption was something done by the ruling senatorial class and more about the advantages to the adopter. ‘Abandoned’ children were more likely to end up in slavery, and women had little value as potential adoptees in a patriarchal system (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs/​Population Division, 2009). This reflects a thread in adoption across the centuries where the care aspect of adopting children is inextricably linked with property, inheritance and children’s own status as the property of their parents. In medieval times adoption loses its appeal for the nobility with greater concern about the integrity of bloodlines. But it is also a time when there is growing concern about the fate of orphaned and abandoned children, and we see the beginning of the role of the church in orphanages and alms houses. This carries us into the 19th century and the role of many churches and reformers in helping and ‘saving’ children. The novels of Charles Dickens come immediately to mind, and the formation of many of the UK’s leading children’s charities is in this period, driven by concerns about the exploitation of children, particularly the orphaned, abandoned, neglected and abused. But the darker side of this, as we have become only too aware of in recent decades, is that the solutions included the indenturing of children and transportation to other countries for ‘better lives’, even with suggestions that some of these children may not have actually been orphaned or abandoned. This touches again on themes of class and poverty 148

If adoption is the answer, what was the question?

that are themes throughout millennia of adoption. The modern concept, particularly in English-​speaking, ‘Western’ countries, of adoption to build or create a family is relatively recent, dating from the turn of the 20th century, taking its impetus from a desire to empty orphanages and to provide children for couples who could not have children. In the UK that practice of creating families, primarily for heterosexual married couples who cannot have children, is probably the thing which casts the longest shadow over where we find ourselves today as we think about a role for adoption, now and in the future. You do not have to go far to listen to the most painful stories of mothers who were forced to give up their children for adoption because of the social stigma of the child being ‘born out of wedlock’, or for reasons of poverty, or both (Triseliotis et al, 2005). And those stories are matched by the testimony of adults, some now in their 60s, 70s and 80s, finding out, if records still exist, that they were not ‘abandoned’ and were actually wanted by, at the very least, their mothers (Triseliotis et al, 2005; Boyle, 2020). And for the children who were not adopted we know only too well, particularly in Ireland, that the institutional options for children and mothers provide an ignoble chapter in history, some of which is more recent than we might wish to imagine, and still included transportation (Hart et al, 2017; House of Commons and House of Lords Joint Committee on Human Rights, 2022). Where we are today marks a significant shift in adoption across the UK over the last four decades, which sees a move from a ‘supply’ of children, principally babies, that came from single mothers and poverty (or both), to children being available for adoption because they have been in the care of the state. The reasons for that are to be found in a change in social attitudes towards children being born outside marriage, allied to a profound change in women’s role and rights in society, but also in a transformation of the structure and legislation underpinning children’s social services, particularly in child protection, although poverty still has a role in this story (Featherstone et al, 2018). In recent decades in the UK we have also seen the rise and fall of intercountry adoption. In a strange reversal, rather than exporting our own children to a variety of ‘new worlds’, we brought in 149

The Future of Children’s Care

children, mainly babies, from other countries, often less wealthy and certainly with less developed protections for children. This intensified as the number of babies available from single mothers in the UK decreased sharply. The number of intercountry adoptions has diminished substantially over time due to increasing scrutiny in the receiving jurisdictions and the countries of origin (Selman, 2009). This was inevitable given the inherent cultural, language, ethnic, racial and religious challenges involved allied to questions about unscrupulous practices which amount to selling children including, in an echo of past forced emigrations, children who may not actually be orphaned or abandoned and who may well be leaving siblings and extended family behind. In another ripple from the past, intercountry adoption was seen as a way of rescuing children from orphanages in less developed countries, images of which often evoked a Dickensian world. But the failed intercountry adoptions, the number of children carrying undiagnosed disabilities and trauma, and changes in attitudes in countries of origin have made intercountry adoption much more difficult and rarer in the UK. Today, other than a decreasing number of intercountry adoptions and a small number of adoptions by step-​parents, adoption’s key role in the UK is as part of the child protection and looked after child system, where adoption is one of a number of permanent paths for children. These can be summarised as: 1 . A return to parents. 2. Living with extended family (kinship placement). 3. Living in foster care with people who are not extended family –​ or stranger foster care. 4. Adoption, which can take a number of paths. 5. Residential care. This is generally not seen as a permanent option, however there is a reality that it will be the permanent result for some children and we do them a disservice by not facing this fact. The good, the bad and the dilemmas There is a widely held view, typically from a moral, philosophical and human rights standpoint, that adoption is not a good thing; 150

If adoption is the answer, what was the question?

that while a child might need to come into care, and may never be able to return to its parents or live with extended family, it is wrong to interfere to this extent in family life and a child’s identity. Judges will refer to it as the most draconian measure available to the court. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations General Assembly, 1989), at its heart, reflects this view, although it leaves space for countries that wish to allow adoption to do so, provided it is a judicial process with adequate safeguards. The practice of closed adoptions that was the dominant practice model of the middle decades of the 20th century in the UK did little to enhance the image of adoption. The legal fiction of replacing a birth certificate was supported by a social fiction where a child’s history and identity were a secret, even from the child themselves (Triseliotis, 1973). And there was no contact with birth parents or extended family. I remember well being told as a child that my friend had been adopted but that they did not know and I was not to say anything. It is difficult to imagine any way in which that can be healthy. But even looking at it in this way we will encounter different experiences and perspectives. As I have already said, there are many adoptees, particularly from the closed adoption years, who view adoption as an evil that was visited on them, taking them from their family of origin. This will be particularly acute for adoptees who had negative and even abusive experiences in their adoptive family, only to find out that they had been wanted by their parents, typically young, working-​class mothers who were forced to give them up. But there are also adoptees who will talk about how good adoption was for them, that for them their adoptive parents were their parents, full stop, and they felt no need to find their birth parents and know more about them. The adoption we have today is not the adoption of the 1950s and it is an outcome of trying to protect children rather than a method of dealing with social shame. But it remains problematic because it carries reminders of the aspects of adoption that seem anachronistic. The first is, not only changing the name of the child (particularly last or family name), but issuing a new birth certificate, creating an alternate history like some strange trip through the multiverse. And the reality of the law is that while 151

The Future of Children’s Care

practice might discourage the changing of first and other names, particularly for children who are verbal and using their given name, the granting of an adoption order is a pretty absolute moment and it is ultimately up to the adopters. And while we talk about open adoption it is more of an aspiration than a lived experience. There are profound difficulties in maintaining contact, particularly with siblings in different placement types with varying legal status. While there has been a step away from suggesting that adoptive children were born to their adoptive parents, and details of birth family and some sense of their pre-​adoption life story are provided, the very nature of an adoption order and the lack of resources to support open adoption, pre-​and post-​ adoption, means that this is more policy rhetoric than practice as normal. Recommendation 30 (p 110) of the MacAlister Review deals briefly with contact and touches on digital solutions. As an adopter I am not convinced that the Review really grasped the complexity of contact in adoption –​the support that is needed from social workers with the right skills and experience, and the time those social workers need to do the work. A few words about adopters in the midst of this legal, moral and social quagmire. Historically there seems to be very little middle ground for characterising the role of adopters in the system we have had and the one that exists today. On the one hand they are all saints, willing to open their lives to children who are not their own, giving back to society. Most adopters will have heard something close to the following in their time –​‘Oh, I think you’re wonderful, I couldn’t do what you are doing.’ On the other hand, are they mostly people driven by infertility to have a family at any cost, prioritising their needs over those of a child? Or are they living out some kind of rescue fantasy, complicit with social workers and the system, in stealing babies in forced adoptions? The way closed adoption operated in the past might support that narrative and certainly the move to intercountry adoption, when the number of babies available in the UK dropped, would reinforce that perspective. As an aside, there is an interesting aspect of doublethink in both fostering and adoption assessments where there is very often a deep suspicion about applicants’ fertility journey and the need/​wish for family, yet this drive to build family and home are essential. The MacAlister Review may have 152

If adoption is the answer, what was the question?

overplayed the love card, but it is undoubtedly essential, if not sufficient, and we should not be afraid to recognise its importance. To borrow from The Godfather, caring for other people’s children is personal, it’s not just business. Relationships, attachment, enduring commitment, selfless care –​aren’t these the realness and possibility of love? Even foster carers are encouraged towards a restrained ‘claiming’ of the child, and it is celebrated when any carer says they treat the child as their own –​and mean it. An area where adopters have a distinct advantage over foster carers in the current system is when it comes to advocacy for their children. We know that many children in adoption and in long-​ term foster care face many challenges. Traumatic early life and family experiences often give rise to developmental trauma, along with attachment difficulties and deep-​rooted loss. These issues are frequently accompanied by a range of disabilities including autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, foetal alcohol syndrome and learning disabilities. Individually, and particularly in combination, these factors can often give rise to very challenging behaviour both inside and outside the home, with children who struggle to manage in mainstream school settings. When I have trained joint groups of adopters and long-​term foster carers I have always been struck by the advantage that parental responsibility provides for adopters in being a difficult parent on behalf of your child who is being ill served by the system, the very agencies that placed them in care. I see that same drive in foster carers but it is very often thwarted because power and decision-​making is in the hands of social workers and placing agencies (and education systems). Recommendation 37 (p 135) of the MacAlister Review seeks to enhance delegated authority for foster carers, but I worry that this may be more about social work and service withdrawal rather than sharing power as a team around a child. The paradox is that a common factor in foster carers deciding not to adopt or go for a Special Guardianship Order is that they know that despite the promises of continuing support it probably won’t be there in the long run. While adopters may have the impetus that parental responsibility confers, they rapidly discover that when help is needed they find themselves having to start at the beginning again when asking for support. Adopters and foster carers share common experiences of asking for support to care for 153

The Future of Children’s Care

very distressed children, only to encounter a risk-​based mindset that only seems to know how to respond to all families with child protection tools. The other thing to say about adoption is that it requires a secure income which creates the impression that adoption is the preserve of the middle class, while fostering is seen as a more working-​class activity. A serious consideration for any long-​ term foster carer thinking of adopting the child in their care or moving to special guardianship is not only the lack of social work and other support in the long term, but the reduction and removal of financial support. While our focus may be the best interests of the child, there are undoubtedly significant financial advantages for placing authorities when children who cannot return to their family move to options outside of the formal state care system including Child Arrangement Orders (England and Wales), Residence Orders (Northern Ireland and Scotland), special guardianship and adoption. Adoption is different today. It’s not about babies arriving straight from mothers ‘giving them up’. Despite moves towards concurrent planning, dual approval of carers and foster to adopt schemes, babies entering care do not typically go straight into an adoption placement. They may have been with foster carer(s) or in a kinship placement or both. Even with a child arriving early, and speedy court timetabling, it can take time for care orders, placement orders and adoption orders to process. There has been strong encouragement to think about adoption for older children but it still remains an easier option for children who are pre-​school and pre-​verbal. And while it is possible to see the logic of dual approval and concurrent placement to sustain adoption as an option in the system, it is far from straightforward. If your primary motivation is for what adoption delivers, a child living with you permanently as part of your family, you could only accept a foster child into your home who was clearly not returning to family. Even very late in the legal process there could still be a risk of the child not remaining with you. I am not sure that dual approval is as much of a solution as it is often presented to be, and I do worry about how prospective dual approved adopters are able to make informed decisions if they

154

If adoption is the answer, what was the question?

do not have a good understanding of social work, legal language and how the system works. A future? Adoption is a complex historical, moral, legal, social, policy and practice construct. As the MacAlister Review discovered, coming up with a working definition is the easy bit, which is perhaps why it restricted itself to considering contact and support to birth parents. I find myself wondering, if adoption is the answer, what was the question? Setting aside adoption’s historical baggage –​the forced and closed adoptions, the connection to poverty (and property), the movement of children between countries, and a prevailing sense that the rich(er) are exploiting the poor –​the primary role of adoption in England and the UK today is as a long-​term, permanent option for children who cannot live with their parents or extended family of origin for reasons relating to child protection. Because adoption offers a high degree of legal certainty and the assessment bar for adopters is seen as higher than that for foster carers, it is regarded as the ‘gold standard’ for permanence. The effect of this view, which is questioned by research (McSherry et al, 2016) and which does not match my own experience of delivering permanence in long-​term fostering, is to distort permanence decision-​making, policy priorities and resource allocation. There is a danger that time and resources are spent looking for the adoptive match that does not exist when effort would be better spent on the kinship or foster placement that is happening now in front of us, which with support, could be sustained over the long term. There are a number of advantages to adoption as the system is currently constructed. Social workers will pursue adoption for permanence over long-​term fostering due to concerns that parents can continue to challenge a care order and this will be destabilising (remember the 1926 Act?). This is a legitimate concern, but it is also accompanied by some magical thinking about the effect of an adoption order on resolving the difficulties a child will almost certainly be bringing with them into an adoptive family. Most adopters know that the granting of an adoption order is only

155

The Future of Children’s Care

the end of the beginning and that Adoption Support Funds and other arrangements do not last and do not go far enough. There is also a cynical view of the value of adoption to the system and the public finances –​it’s cheap. The care system benefits from the good will and human desire of citizens to have or extend their family, and effectively subcontracts its responsibilities for children in care and voids future costs. This transaction has and continues to play itself out in encouragement to kinship carers and foster carers to consider freeing themselves of monthly visits and looked after children reviews by seeking Residence or Child Arrangements Orders, special guardianship, and particularly for foster carers, to have a think about adoption. Today’s system is in crisis with increasing numbers of children in care, which the legacy of the COVID-​19 pandemic and the current cost-​of-​living crisis are only likely to intensify. The number of adoptions is dropping in England (UK Government, 2021) and finding more foster carers and adopters, even if they existed, will not resolve the problem. The solution lies in reversing the impact of austerity on local authority services, voluntary and community organisations, and on the incomes and communities of the poorest. However, if we did turn that around, and found ourselves in a much better place, there will still be children coming into care who cannot return to family. Should adoption as it is today still be part of the answer? I find myself having arrived at the same point as a fellow adopter had in the focus groups for the BASW adoption enquiry (Featherstone et al, 2018a). As an adopter who has been on a 15-​year journey, I do not think the way adoption is currently configured is fit for purpose. The legal fiction it creates is unsustainable and is out of step with much of the rest of the world. We need to look at understandings from elsewhere, say in the cultures of Pacific peoples, with the broader understanding of family and community, and in Islamic approaches, where a sense of wardship is favoured over the type of adoption we practice that still leans towards denial of connection to family of origin. In some way special guardianship attempts to do that but fails to deliver the permanence in relation to parental responsibility that adoption delivers –​a Special Guardianship Order can be challenged and revoked. In my own work, every day I see the 156

If adoption is the answer, what was the question?

power of well-​matched, long-​term foster placements that are well supported, that in their attachments, sense of enduring family and home, are adoptions in all but name. One of the intents of the Children Act 1989 was to bring the powers of the High Court into the lower courts to enable speedier decision-​making for children. The downside is that, rather than the flexibility and tailoring that was present in wardship, we have been left with a less nuanced position, with very sharp binary options around how to manage the legal status and parental responsibility of children who will not return to their family of origin. We need a more graduated approach that can grant increasing responsibility and authority to carers over time that is congruent with the specifics of each situation. A system that provides legal clarity without trying to care for children in court. Equally this must not be a charter for gradual withdrawal –​an important lesson for social work and placing authorities is that while coming into care starts in child protection, the journey through placement is about a therapeutic and family support mindset. That means resources, and for all children with experience of care, planning and commissioning for needs in adulthood. We also need to have a conversation about how inheritance law is woven through adoption –​in reviewing the Northern Ireland legislation I was reminded of how intertwined these are. I wonder if this in some respects distorts the care intent and power of adoption, and whether inheritance law generally needs a different conversation. The long view historically and cross-​ culturally suggests that this has been the greater preoccupation in adoption law and practice, rather than our more recent focus on what permanence can deliver for children. The MacAlister Review seems to have stumbled into this area with its suggestion of Lifelong Guardianship Orders (MacAlister, 2022, p  156). It seems particularly ill thought through and has an echo of the class and property perspective encoded in adoption since antiquity. The Review seems to have dodged tackling adoption head on, in favour of a flight of fancy, alighting on an area more suited to reform of the law in general as it applies to inheritance and next of kin status. It feels like a classic Big Society move, where government exits stage left, leaving citizens to meet its obligations for free. 157

The Future of Children’s Care

The intent of our legislation and human rights standards, not to interfere in family life unless necessary, is of course correct. But where children cannot remain with their family of origin they have a right not only to safety but to experience being parented, an enduring experience of family and home, and, yes, love. They also have a right to know where they have come from and to have connection with their family of origin. Frustration with the current system’s ability to deliver for children, alternative carers and families of origin is widespread. Adoption is providing powerful outcomes for many children, but it is not a gold standard, it cannot meet the demand for alternative families and it is, in today’s world, a flawed construct. Four years on from the BASW adoption enquiry I am saying that we really need to keep talking about this and find a way to change adoption that preserves its best qualities, some of which might be delivered better, in a more graduated way, over time, in other types of placement. In thinking about the history of adoption and its future, I have been very aware of the influence of the Judeo-​Christian and Islamic traditions. While contemporary children in the care system are rarely orphans, much of the moral imperative that has led, over centuries, to our endeavour to care properly for children who cannot live with their family of origin, is rooted in the preoccupation of all three traditions with the abandoned, the orphan and the foundling. With that in mind we might move forward applying the words of Isaiah and the Psalms to the children in our care. Cease to do evil Learn to do good Seek justice Defend the orphan. (Isaiah 1: 16–​17) Give justice to the weak and the orphan; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed. (Psalms 82: 3) Note Colleagues in Northern Ireland should refer to The Children (NI) Order 1995 and the Adoption and Children (NI) Act 2022.

1

158

If adoption is the answer, what was the question?

References Adoption UK (2022) ‘An adoption perspective on the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care’. Available at: https://​web. arch​ive.org/​web/​202​3030​9060​423/​https://​www.ado​ptio​nuk. org/​ blog/​ a n-​ a dopt​ i on-​ p ers​ p ect​ ive-​ o n-​ t he-​ i nde​ p end​ e nt-​ rev​iew-​of-​childr​ens-​soc​ial-​care [Accessed 9 March, 2023]. Boyle, T. (2020) ‘Wondering not knowing, a way of life’, Social Work 2020–​21 under Covid-​19. Available at: https://​sites.goo​gle. com/s​ heffie​ ld.ac.uk/s​ w20​ 20-2​ 1-c​ ovid​ 19/e​ ditio ​ ns/5​ th-e​ diti​ on-​ 14-​july-​2020/​wonder​ing-​not-​know​ing-​a-​way-o ​ f-l​ ife [Accessed 4 July 2022]. Featherstone, B., Gupta, A., Morris, K. and White, S. (2018a) Protecting Children: A Social Model. Bristol: Policy Press. Featherstone, B., Gupta, A. and Mills, S. (2018b) The Role of the Social Worker in Adoption –​Ethics and Human Rights: An Enquiry. Birmingham: BASW. Hardiker, P., Exton, K. and Barker, M. (1995) The Prevention of Child Abuse: A Framework for Analysing Services. Second edition. London: The National Commission of Inquiry into the Prevention of Child Abuse. Hart, A., Lane, D. and Doherty, G. (2017) Report of the Historical Institutional Abuse Inquiry. Belfast: The Inquiry into Historical Institutional Abuse 1922 to 1995 and The Executive Office. House of Commons and House of Lords Joint Committee on Human Rights (2022) The Violation of Family Life: Adoption of Children of Unmarried Women 1949–​1976. London: House of Commons and House of Lords. MacAlister, J. (2022) The Independent Review of Children’s Social Care. Final Report. London: Department for Education. McSherry, D., Fargas Malet, M. and Weatherall, K. (2016) ‘Comparing long-​term placements for young children in care: does type of placement really matter?’, Children and Youth Services Review 69, 56–​66. Munro, E. (2010) The Munro Review of Child Protection –​Part One: A Systems Analysis. London: Department for Education.

159

The Future of Children’s Care

Owers, M. (2022) ‘It’s time to abolish the adoption and special guardianship leadership board’, Children & Young People Now, [online] 22 June. Available at: www.cyp​now.co.uk/​opin​ion/​ arti​cle/​mark-​owers-​it-​s-​time-​to-​abol​ish-​the-​adopt​ion-​and-​ spec​ial-​guard​ians​hip-​lea​ders​hip-​board?utm_​t​erm=​Autof​eed& utm​_​med​ium=​Soc​ial&utm​_​sou​rce=​Twit​ter#Echo​box=​165​ 5901​296 [Accessed 4 July 2022]. Selman, P.F. (2009) ‘Intercountry adoption: research, policy and practice’, pp 276–303, in G. Schofield and J. Simmonds (eds) The Child Placement Handbook: Research, Policy and Practice. London: British Association of Adoption and Fostering. Thomas, M. and Pierson, J. (1995) Dictionary of Social Work. London: Collins Educational Ltd. Triseliotis, J. (1973) In Search of Origins: The Experience of Adopted People. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Triseliotis, J., Feast, J. and Kyle, F. (2005) The Adoption Triangle Revisited. London: BAAF. UK Government (2021) Children Looked After in England, Including Adoptions –​Reporting Year 2021, published online 18 November 2021, last updated 5 April 2022. Available at: https://​ expl​o re- ​educat​ ion-​ sta​ t ist​ ics.serv​ ice.gov.uk/​f ind-​sta​tist​ics/​ child​ren-​loo​ked-a​ fter-i​ n-e​ ngla​ nd-i​ ncludi​ ng-a​ dopti​ons [Accessed 4 June 2022]. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs/​ Population Division (2009) Child Adoption: Trends and Policy. New York: United Nations. United Nations General Assembly (1989) United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

160

9 Caring for children and young people in state care in the 2020s John Radoux

Introduction It would be remiss not to comment on personal experience –​ although this was all over 30 years ago –​which included a few foster homes, a children’s home, kinship care and, through adolescence, a local authority boarding school for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. The relationship between these experiences and my current ideas about the care system is peripheral, consciously at least, and I am much more influenced by the experiences I have had, and witnessed, over nearly two decades working in the care system. That said, to be care-​experienced gives any discussion about the care system an emotional resonance that is bound to affect thinking. Much of my career, and therefore day-​to-​day involvement with children in care, has been spent working in residential children’s homes –​for the most part as a care worker, often in senior/​team leader roles, a brief period as a registered manager, developing staff training and so on. The nature of the role of children’s homes within the care system (the de facto ‘last resort’) means a significant majority of the children and young people I have been involved in caring for have had multiple foster homes, and sometimes a number of children’s homes too, before I knew them. Many, of course, went on to have other homes when my part in their lives 161

The Future of Children’s Care

ended. I have witnessed many ‘placement breakdowns’ –​to use the rather cold jargon. Similarly, I have seen numerous young people leave care, but rarely to a situation or accommodation that I considered good enough. In short, the vast majority of children I have been involved with have not only had to contend with the very difficult experiences, sometimes horrific, that led to them coming into care, but they have been manifestly let down by the care system too. More recently, my contact with children in care has been with those I see as a therapist and I have been involved, at one remove, with children in foster care who have experienced developmental trauma and disrupted attachment in a role supporting carers to think about the experiences and needs of their foster children. I have had no involvement in my career with children who are very settled where they are living and quietly getting on with their lives with no particular difficulties. This must skew my thinking –​perhaps I see the care system as more inadequate than it is. However, it is ultimately the children and young adults that the care system is failing, that we as a society are failing, that are my concern in this chapter. The needs of children in care In many ways, the needs of children in care do not differ from those of other children and could adequately be summarised by Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1943): physiological, safety, social, esteem and self-​actualisation. Arguably, it is a flawed approach to place these needs in a hierarchy, because, for example, children are very unlikely to have a felt sense of safety unless their social –​relational –​needs are being met, for reasons described by Bowlby (1969) among many others. All models for understanding the human condition have their limitations and blind spots, but attachment theory –​first developed by Bowlby and modified and expanded upon by developmental psychologists such as Crittenden (2008) –​points to a basic relational need so often missing for children in care. Namely reliable, safe and ongoing relationships with one or two key individuals. The MacAlister Review recognised this with its ‘Mission 1: No young person should leave care without at least two loving relationships, by 2027’ 162

Caring for children in state care in the 2020s

(MacAlister, 2022, p  151). A laudable objective, and whether the recommendations of the MacAlister Review could create the conditions for this to happen will be discussed throughout this chapter. Ongoing, trusting relationships in childhood that sustain into adulthood play a crucial role in helping us navigate an interdependent society (Radoux, 2019a). The MacAlister Review itself states, in the foreword from the Experts by Experience Board: ‘A focus on ensuring young people leaving care have at least two loving relationships to support them, will help us reimagine leaving care as a time of “interdependence”, rather than “independence” ’ (MacAlister, 2022, p 9). It is disappointing, therefore, that this is the only use of the word ‘interdependence’ throughout the entire report, and the general thrust of the relevant chapters remains one of young people moving through care and becoming independent (a word used repeatedly) in adulthood. Had the MacAlister Review consistently promoted the concept of interdependence, and rejected the impossible expectation that children in care should be ‘prepared for independence’ and become independent by the time they leave care, this could have been genuinely radical. Both the MacAlister Review and the Duncan Review (Scottish Government, 2020) emphasise the need for children in care to have loving relationships and the –​much harder to define –​ concept of ‘love in the system’. A possible way to describe a system that is loving is one where those making decisions for and about a child first imagine into that child’s world, consider how their decision/​s will be experienced by the child and act with empathy. This is easy to suggest, it is much harder to do. It is hard because it means professionals taking moments of pause during often high pressure and busy working days to think about a child’s age, stage of development, what they have experienced in their life so far and what impact these experiences have had on them –​attempting, ultimately, to imagine what it would be like to be that child. This is necessary because this is the context for the decision that is being made. Those responsible for making and delivering policy may not have an individual child in mind, but they should nevertheless imagine into the lives of those they are designing policy for. 163

The Future of Children’s Care

Those involved in the lives of children in care or care-​ experienced adults, such as foster carers, social workers, teachers, commissioners, Secretaries of State or numerous others often, consciously or unconsciously, avoid this type of thinking and attunement –​ at least in part because it is emotionally uncomfortable. From a psychodynamic perspective, much of the children’s social care system seems designed, unconsciously, to be a ‘manic defence’ (Winnicott, 1975) –​everyone too busy, rushing from one thing to the next, no one with time to stop and think or, as importantly, feel. While some level of dissociation is probably necessary –​it would likely be intolerable for any individual to be fully in touch with the pain and distress they will come across during a career in the care system –​the pendulum often appears to swing too far in this direction. If we do not allow the experiences of children in care, our role in their lives and the decisions we make to emotionally resonate with us, there will not be love in the system, however it is defined, and poor decisions, which lead to poor experiences for children in care, will continue to be made. ‘The system’ is an abstract construct, it is made up of people, the relationships, in all their different forms, between those people, and the decisions they make. There is a considerable comment in the MacAlister Review regarding freeing up social workers to spend more time with children and families, often referred to –​perhaps unhelpfully –​ as ‘direct work’. Certainly, it would be helpful if more children in care were able to have meaningful relationships with their social workers. To achieve this, social workers do need to be able to spend more time with these children, whether that is through a reduction in what the MacAlister Review calls ‘too much unnecessary bureaucracy’ (MacAlister, 2022, p 180) or the recruitment of more social workers. Few people would argue for more bureaucracy so this may be a popular line, but it is worth recalling the words of Mrs Justice Lieven in her judgment on the judicial review regarding Statutory Instrument 445 and the government’s argument that it simply removed some ‘administrative burdens’ on local authorities: ‘These are not administrative burdens, or minor matters, they are fundamental parts of a scheme of protecting vulnerable children’ (R (Article 39) v Secretary of State for Education, 2020, para 76). One risk of 164

Caring for children in state care in the 2020s

this emphasis on direct work is that it feeds an existing dynamic and tension common throughout children’s social care that could be described as ‘thinking versus doing’. ‘Thinking’ is already too often subordinate to ‘doing’, partly for the dissociative reasons already explained, and also, as the MacAlister Review states: ‘High workloads and a focus on compliance, too often means that supervision is focused on managerial oversight, processes and timescales, rather than meaningful reflection’ (MacAlister, 2022, p 70). Perhaps it is indicative of the MacAlister Review’s primary focus being children and families social work, but the quotation in the previous paragraph comes from its relatively brief discussion on reflective supervision in its chapter discussing child protection. What is required are many more opportunities to reflect, think and feel throughout the entire ecology of the care system from Secretaries of State and Directors of Children’s Services to foster carers and residential staff. This can only partly be achieved through the creation and protection of formal spaces such as supervision and reflective practice groups. There also needs to be time for the informal chat with a colleague or just to stop for a moment and reflect on one’s own. Of course, if individuals involved with children in care are to be asked to allow those children’s experiences to resonate, to notice their own emotional affect, then they must be provided with meaningful support beyond social media memes about ‘self-​care’. As well as ‘imagining in’ to a child’s world, if we want to understand a children’s experiences, and what they need and want, we must ask them. Ideally, this can be done in a relatively informal, ordinary way via a professional’s or carer’s relationship with a child, but it is also necessary, not least because of how often children have been abused in the care system, to have formal structures for consulting children in care. The MacAlister Review (2022, pp 140–​142) argues for a presumption that children in care have an advocate unless they choose to opt out. It appeared to confuse the issue by suggesting advocates should also replace Independent Reviewing Officers and Regulation 44 inspections of children’s homes, but, setting aside this misguided thinking, the argument that all children in care should have an advocate is compelling. The recommendation should go further –​even children who ‘opt 165

The Future of Children’s Care

out’ should continue to have a named advocate, so if they choose to ‘opt in’ again the process for doing so is straightforward. How much weight is given to a child’s views will depend on numerous factors, including a child’s age and stage of development, their immediate emotional/​psychological state, the significance of the decision, the risks involved and so on. Often this is an ordinary part of day-​to-​day care, on other occasions it might require discussion with a child’s wider network. Many would argue for the importance of a child’s agency, including Bowlby, when discussing the role of primary carers: ‘In essence this role is one of being available, ready to respond when called up to encourage or perhaps assist, but to intervene actively only when clearly necessary’ (Bowlby, 1988, p 12). Arguably, it is perhaps even more important to regularly consult children in care than children growing up in ordinary families –​ from the moment a child is taken from the care of his or her parents and transported, in a blur, to the care of a stranger, in a strange house, often in a strange town, a feeling of abject powerlessness and being ‘done to’ can be engendered. This feeling, increasingly entrenched through a child’s experience of being buffeted over his or her years in the care system, can become a pervasive sense of not mattering and not being able to affect change in, or impact on, the world or other people. This can have consequences for psychological and emotional health, and material well-​being, long into adulthood. Nevertheless, caution is required when emphasising a child’s agency, otherwise these arguments can easily lead to a sexually exploited 15-​year-​old girl being described as making ‘a lifestyle choice’ or a 16-​year-​old, having been seduced by the notion of ‘independence’, making distressed late night phone calls to his former children’s home asking if he can move back in. Taking the latter example, if we are going to be serious about allowing young people to make choices, even ones we might consider ill-​advised, surely this must include the right to change their mind? The circumstances in which children come into the care of the state vary a great deal, but there is often a common theme –​those (usually the parents) who were meant to be caring for them were unable or unwilling to take up adult responsibility. The care system, and individuals working in it, must be very careful not to replicate this. 166

Caring for children in state care in the 2020s

It is worth noting too that for children to feel safe they need to have a strong sense that the grown-​ups know what they are doing and, while a child can be given appropriate levels of autonomy, ultimately, the adult/​s caring for them have responsibility for their welfare. This is especially true of traumatised children who are likely to have experienced unsafe and non-​boundaried adults. Ensuring this entirely necessary power imbalance is not used in an abusive, coercive or punitive way involves recognising that any professional or carer could be capable of doing so in certain circumstances or under particular kinds of psychological pressure, and considering it as a regular topic of supervision and reflective practice. It appears axiomatic to say that children in care need to be loved. Would anyone attempt to argue that children in care should not be loved? But we should not deny complexity here. Even in the best of circumstances, love –​whether that be between parent/​ child, romantic, friendship or any other kind –​is never static and almost invariably includes feelings of ambivalence from time to time. Whether love can, or should, ever be unconditional is a philosophical question beyond the scope of this chapter, but one worth bearing in mind. We must also remember that the word ‘love’ and similar language can be used coercively or by those who abuse children –​indeed as a justification for doing so. Certainly, carers must consider carefully what they mean, and the impact it might have, on a child in their care before they tell them they love them. What is the carer communicating? ‘I love you in this moment’? Or, ‘I will love you forever’? Or, ‘I love you irrespective of how you behave towards me’? And so on. It is also vital to consider whose need is being met by this declaration –​the child or the adult? Is the carer, or worker, hoping the child will say it back to them? It is advisable for any carer or social care worker experiencing an entirely human and powerful urge to tell a child in care that they love them to think this through with someone else in the child’s professional network. All this said, squeamishness regarding the issue of love and use of the word has meant children spending entire childhoods in care without feeling loved or being told they are loved –​this is deeply problematic too. ‘Love’ is subjective and incredibly difficult to define and measure, which means it does not lend itself to legislation or policy, but that does not make it wrong to state, as an aspiration, that children 167

The Future of Children’s Care

in care should be loved, or leave the care system with long-​term loving relationships –​to name it as something to strive for, even if this is largely symbolic. The question is, how do we provide children in care with a genuine experience of being loved? Clearly, it is not possible to simply instruct someone to love another human being. If we are going to get anywhere close to achieving this aim, we must consider why it is so difficult –​including why some children in care appear to reject love and care –​and we cannot afford to be sentimental. Many children in care, due to their early experiences and, often, because of experiences within the care system, find relationships both with other people and themselves difficult. They need more than, what might be called, ‘ordinary’ child care or parenting. To acknowledge the impact of early years trauma, ruptured attachments, abuse and neglect on a child’s psychological and emotional health is not to pathologise or stigmatise children in care. Nor is it to suggest they cannot go on to have ordinary and fulfilling lives –​indeed it is to help make this more likely. That said, harms experienced in childhood can be so profound that some individuals may continue to need significant support throughout adulthood –​this should not be a matter of shame or judgement –​and wealthy, industrialised nations such as the UK should have no difficulty in providing it. Types of care When children cannot live with one or both parents, the options available are residential children’s homes or schools, kinship care, foster care and adoption. It can often seem as if there is an implied hierarchy in provision or routes to ‘permanence’, but none is intended by the order of the list here. The MacAlister Review appeared to have a preference for kinship care: ‘many children should and could safely –​with the right help –​remain within their family network rather than enter care’ (MacAlister, 2022, p 94). In my view the MacAlister Review is in no position to assert this, but perhaps this ambition is why it had relatively little to say about other forms of care. Both kinship care and adoption are considered more thoroughly in other chapters, therefore the focus of this chapter is residential and foster care. 168

Caring for children in state care in the 2020s

Prior to the MacAlister Review, there were separate reviews, in England, of residential care and foster care led by Martin Narey (Narey, 2016; Narey and Owers, 2018). This siloed approach did not reflect the experience of children as they live and move through the care system, nor did it offer an opportunity to consider how these types of care might dovetail in ways that might better meet the needs of some children. This is one of the reasons some called for a whole system review and it was hoped the MacAlister Review might better consider this. That said, for coherence, the following sections will consider foster care and residential care in isolation, before discussing how they might work together. Secure care will be discussed separately. Foster care The majority of children who cannot live with parents or family members will continue to live with foster carers. For many this will be appropriate and, in most cases, these children would ideally have one foster home until either they return to the care of their birth family, or they are genuinely ready to live interdependently, but with less need for day-​to-​day care and support –​probably in early adulthood. Ideally too, those that want to will continue to have a relationship with their foster carers long into adulthood (in line with the MacAlister Review’s ‘Mission one’ discussed previously). Unfortunately, there is a shortage of foster carers, and the MacAlister Review calls for the recruitment of 9,000 new carers. It correctly states that foster carers need ‘the right parenting skills to meet the varying and complex needs of children’ (MacAlister, 2022, p 12). However, implicit here is that not everyone has ‘the right parenting skills’. In other words, not everyone who wants to be a foster carer, however well intentioned, should become one. It is almost contradictory for the MacAlister Review to later speculate about teachers, or other adults in a child’s wider network, fostering specific children. There would need to be a process to ensure they had ‘the right parenting skills’ (and, it will be argued here, other necessary attributes required to foster traumatised children). The impact of a breakdown in the relationship between a child and a teacher or other known adult (experienced, almost 169

The Future of Children’s Care

inevitably, by the child as a rejection) could be more harmful and problematic than with an otherwise unconnected foster carer. That is not to say it would never be appropriate for a child to be fostered by a teacher, or maybe a family friend, for a period, but it is unlikely to prove the solution to the shortage of foster carers the MacAlister Review appears to imagine. A key consideration when recruiting, and for any applicant themselves, is what need is the potential foster carer trying to meet? This is beyond discussion regarding overt motive –​such as wanting to make a positive difference to a child’s life, income, or a combination –​but the applicant’s own psychological and emotional needs, which they might not be fully conscious of. One example, which, from this writer’s observations, appears common not just to foster carers but many in what might be called ‘helping’ roles and professions, is the need to be needed. Of course, this ‘need’ does not preclude someone from becoming a foster carer, but if it is unrecognised and unthought about then it is likely to be very difficult for the carer when a foster child does not meet this need. At best the foster child, certainly in the early months, will be ambivalent, but just as likely rejecting and actively hostile. Typically, just at the point when a child appears to be settling, is gradually accepting care and beginning to trust the carer, she will experience the greatest anxiety (essentially that she will be rejected) and the cycle will start again. Even the most robust, committed and psychologically informed foster carer will feel buffeted by this –​intellectually the carer might understand it is neither fair or realistic to expect the child to be ‘grateful’ but, emotionally, resentment can start to build. Mixed with these resentful feelings is guilt (perhaps even more so if lip service is given to unsophisticated notions of ‘love’). What does the carer do with these feelings? Unacknowledged, unthought about, unexpressed feelings are usually acted out in some way –​ this is the psychological pressure mentioned previously, under which someone may act abusively or punitively. Frequently, the response from the carer will be to inform the local authority, or fostering service, that they are no longer able to care for the child –​sometimes even unable to see through a 28-​day notice period. This picture is bleak, but versions of it are commonplace within the care system. 170

Caring for children in state care in the 2020s

To help avoid this, or other equally fraught dynamics, foster carers should really be supported to undertake in-​depth personal reflective work prior to becoming carers. There is an argument for a robust assessment, similar to an adult attachment interview, which could also be used, later, for matching purposes. This process should continue via ongoing reflective spaces throughout their time as foster carers –​facilitated by psychologically informed practitioners. A space where not just feelings of ‘love’ towards foster children are voiced, but less benign feelings such as resentment and anger, can be heard, thought about and contained. Of course, foster carers need substantial ongoing training and learning –​not least because a framework for understanding what is happening for a foster child, and the carers’ internal responses, is vital. There is not the space for detailed descriptions of therapeutic parenting models here, but those devised and described by attachment and trauma influenced clinical psychologists such as Dan Hughes (2006) or Kim Golding (2007) have much to recommend them. However, without meaningful ongoing support, simply learning these models is unlikely to be sufficient. Additionally, specialist intervention maybe needed –​ either a dyadic form of psychotherapy designed to encourage the attachment between child and carer, individual psychotherapy for the child or both. In some cases, counselling or psychotherapy for the foster carer might be more productive. It is to be noted that many foster carers would argue they do not require this level of support and they, and their foster children, would experience it as intrusive. Perhaps for many fostering families this might be true, but caution is urged before taking all such protestations at face value. It is, understandably, more emotionally comfortable for some carers to believe that the stress and tension is not caused by the foster child, and their relationship with them, but all the external ‘interference’ and ‘noises off’ –​ the fantasy that everything would be okay if they, and the child, were left alone is alluring, but often it is not grounded in reality. Perhaps it is unreasonable to expect a government policy review to speak to these kinds of complexities, but given that the MacAlister Review stated that ‘for a child in care, our obsession must be putting relationships around them that are loving and lasting’ (MacAlister, 2022, p 12), it is a shame it did 171

The Future of Children’s Care

not give more thought to what is required to make that happen, beyond recommending an off-​the-​shelf model of foster care –​ Mockingbird (MacAlister, 2022, p  138). Mockingbird, which attempts to mirror the support network an extended family provides by creating a constellation of foster carers, is not without merit, but nor is it a panacea. The fact that this was the only recommendation on foster care directly related to supporting foster carers and foster children suggests a lack of practitioner expertise within the Review team and, again, illustrates the MacAlister Review’s primary focus was children and families social work, not the experiences of children in the care of the state. Residential care The lack of practitioner expertise at the heart of the MacAlister Review (and perhaps policy making more generally) was most noticeable in its almost complete dismissal of residential care –​foster care is given a chapter subheading, residential care is not, and none of the Review’s 81 recommendations are specifically about residential care. This is a salient gap for a review described by its own Experts by Experience Board as ‘the most wide ranging rethink of children’s social care in more than a generation’ (MacAlister, 2022, p 8). The MacAlister Review’s position appears to be, if enough foster carers are recruited there will be little, if any, need for residential care, claiming: ‘There are many children living in children’s homes today who would be better suited to living in a family environment with a foster carer if we had enough foster carers’ (MacAlister, 2022, p 12). It later cites Ofsted research, which ‘highlighted that one third of children living in children’s residential homes had originally had foster care on their care plan’ (MacAlister, 2022, p 122). That still equates to over 6,000 children, currently, with residential home on their care plan (potentially tens of thousands over the next generation) and ‘originally had foster care on their care plan’ does not mean it was not in the child’s interests for the care plan to change. Many of the reasons residential care maybe a better option for some children and young people have been described by this writer previously: 172

Caring for children in state care in the 2020s

Perhaps living with a substitute family is simply too painful –​too stark a reminder of what they have lost or never had –​or perhaps a child might feel that if they attach or bond with another family, they will be betraying their own. It could also be a child’s early experience of a family home was frightening and abusive –​so they just do not feel safe in that environment. (Radoux, 2019b, np) Another, more straightforward, reason is that some young people state it as a clear preference. For those with a well-​intentioned desire to end or significantly reduce the use of residential children’s homes, who, understandably, wish to see children grow up in family environments, what would they say to a young person who told them clearly he does not want to? Further, imagine a child who has lived in ten foster homes, possibly because of repeated cycles of the rejection/​resentment dynamic with foster carers described earlier. What is it that foster carer 11 might be able to provide that the previous ten could not? If this question cannot be answered, it is surely time to try something else. Further, even if the long-​term aim is for a child to have a positive experience of living in a family environment, she could be more able to emotionally and psychologically bear this following a period of specialist help in a genuinely therapeutic children’s home such as a children’s therapeutic community similar to those described by Ward et al (2003). For example, the Mulberry Bush school, a residential therapeutic community for children in Oxford, which offers 38-​or 52-​week boarding, has an upper age limit of 13 –​ the intention being to have sufficiently helped children with their social and emotional needs for them to be able to live in a family environment. Some of the children who board for 38 weeks live with foster carers in the holidays and the children will be cared for by the foster carers full-​time when they leave the school. The advantage of these types of provision (usually influenced by psychodynamic models of thinking), although not necessarily helpful for all children, is that reflective thinking both with and about a child, and staff members’ internal responses, can be built into the day-​to-​day culture and structures of the environment. It is not that the types of feelings and dynamics described previously 173

The Future of Children’s Care

do not occur, but that they can be recognised quickly, thought about and understood –​the child can be helped to understand too. More prosaically, if an interaction between a child and a carer is becoming too fraught, another carer can step in. Although it is likely, and to be hoped, that a child living in a residential setting will form particularly significant relationships with two or three key staff members, what can at first seem a disadvantage of residential care –​too many primary carers, shift handovers and so on –​could, counterintuitively, be helpful for some children, taking some of the painful intensity out of relationships that can be experienced with just one or two carers in a foster home. Much more consideration should be given to how children can transition, where it is right for them, from residential homes to foster care. One difficult dilemma is that just as a child is settled and, perhaps, appears ‘ready’ to live in a family environment, moving him from all he knows and relationships he trusts is likely to significantly unsettle him. An option would be for transitions to take place over a much longer period than is currently the norm –​ not a couple of dinners and an overnight stay, but several months. There should also be the possibility of ongoing relationships with key adults from the residential home. Organisations and businesses who run both residential and fostering provision are in a position to offer options similar to this, but there is no evidence currently of a genuinely joined-​up approach. Residential homes are perhaps better placed than foster carers to help facilitate relatively quick reunifications to young people’s birth families –​trained staff potentially providing support to parents or outreach for young people. North Yorkshire’s No Wrong Door is a version of this and there are some indications of positive outcomes (Lushey et al, 2017). Curiously, although the MacAlister Review includes this research in its list of references, it does not discuss No Wrong Door or other possible uses for residential care in the body of the report. Not all residential care is, or necessarily needs to be, highly specialist but currently much of it is mediocre. This is not helped by increasingly large chains of children’s homes –​where the owners or shareholders and decision-​makers have no relationship at all with the children they are paid to care for. Specialist or not, it remains the case that it is possible to start work in a children’s home with no 174

Caring for children in state care in the 2020s

prior training or experience. This is not adequate for a role caring for children who often have significant social, emotional and mental health needs. Many children’s home staff will start with substantially less training than a foster carer will be expected to undertake prior to having a child placed with them –​this is not coherent. The University of Strathclyde offers an MSc in Advanced Residential Child Care, and although it does not follow that those individuals working in residential homes should all be graduates or postgraduates, this points to taking the role of children’s homes and those who work in them seriously. It is a specific and complex task that requires substantial and psychologically informed study and understanding. Residential child care should be professionalised, and residential child care workers should have status (and remuneration) similar to teachers, nurses or social workers. It is hard to see how there will be an improvement in the overall quality of residential care for the children who will continue to live in, and need, residential homes given the lack of attention to residential care in the MacAlister Review. There is a cohort of young people, often traumatised, often with mental health issues, who are very distressed and at significant risk to themselves. They do not meet the criteria for admission to an inpatient mental health ward, nor would this likely be a helpful environment. Currently, there is no provision adequately meeting the needs of these young people. Too often, as evidenced by a number of court cases, they live in unregulated settings, subject to Deprivation of Liberty orders and cared for by a revolving group of staff who are neither appropriately experienced or qualified. Too often, nothing will happen during the period of the Deprivation of Liberty order to meaningfully address the young person’s distress or behaviours which cause them harm. To address this issue, meaningfully therapeutic secure provision must be created. Although the MacAlister Review rightly describes the need for an increase in the number of secure homes, and a greater geographical spread, it does not describe the type of care they should offer. Conclusion Inevitably, this chapter has only touched on a small number of the issues involved in caring for children and young people in 175

The Future of Children’s Care

state care, but hopefully it has given a flavour of the complexity. This complexity makes developing review recommendations or policies, which need to have clarity, difficult. For this reason, it is understandable that policy makers and, indeed, campaigners can be seduced by ideas that appear unarguable –​children should be loved, children should live with a family member or, if not, a substitute family –​or ideas that appear superficially attractive: what if children were fostered by their teachers? And so on. These ideas feel pleasing and emotionally comfortable, but we do many children in care a disservice if we do not confront realities. Any honest policy recommendation would come with a number of caveats. For example, this writer is strongly of the view that children should have as few ‘placements’ as possible throughout their childhoods, but there are clearly a number of reasons why it might be in the best interests of children (or other children they live with) to move them. Finally, many of the ideas suggested in this chapter would come with a cost burden, but if we are serious that ‘our obsession must be putting relationships around them that are loving and lasting’ (MacAlister, 2022, p 12) then this is a cost that must be borne. It might be that investing in the care system now could mean saving money on services later, but this should not be the motivation for doing it. It is a moral imperative –​if, as a society, we are to remove children from the care of their parents then we must be certain we are doing all we can to ensure they are receiving better care than they would at home –​ideally helping them to recover from their original trauma, but as a bare minimum not causing any more harm. References Bowlby, J. (1969) Attachment and Loss Volume 1: Attachment. London. The Hogarth Press, Bowlby, J. (1988) A Secure Base: Clinical Applications of Attachment Theory. Abingdon: Routledge. Crittenden, P. (2008) Raising Parents. London: Routledge. Golding, K. (2007) Nurturing Attachments: Supporting Children who are Fostered or Adopted. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

176

Caring for children in state care in the 2020s

Hughes, D. (2006) Building the Bonds of Attachment: Awakening Love in Deeply Troubled Children. Second edition. Lanham, Maryland: Jason Aronson. Lushey, C., Hyde-​Dryden, G., Holmes, L. and Blackmore, J. (2017) ‘No Wrong Door’ Innovation Programme: Evaluation. London: Department for Education. MacAlister, J. (2022) The Independent Review of Children’s Social Care. Final Report. London: Department for Education. Maslow, A.H. (1943) ‘A theory of human motivation’, Psychological Review 50(4), 430–​437. Narey, M. (2016) Residential Care in England: Report of Sir Martin Narey’s Independent Review of Children’s Residential Care: July 2016. London: Department for Education. Narey, M. and Owers, M. (2018) Foster Care in England A Review for the Department for Education. London : Department for Education. R (Article 39) v Secretary of State for Education [2020] EWHC 2184 (Admin). Radoux, J. (2019a) ‘Before they can be independent, we need to give children in care opportunities to be interdependent’, Community Care, 9 December. Available at: www.commun​ity c​are.co.uk/​2019/​12/​09/​bef​ore-​they-​can-​be-​inde​pend​ent-​ child​ ren-​ i n-​ c are- ​ n eed- ​ t o- ​ l earn- ​ t o- ​ b e-​ i nt​ e rde​ p end​ e nt/​ [Accessed 18 June 2022]. Radoux, J. (2019b) ‘How the narrative around children’s homes harms young people’, Community Care, 16 May. Available at: www.commun ​ i tyc ​ a re.co.uk/ ​ 2 019/ ​ 0 5/​ 1 6/​ n eed-​ work-​ towa​rds-​going-​back-​fos​ter-​care-​narrat​ive-​aro​und-​childr​ens-​ homes-​harms-​young-​peo​ple/​ [Accessed 10 July 2022]. Scottish Government (2020) The Promise. The Independent Care Review. Available at: www.car​erev​iew.scot/​wp-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​ 2020/​02/​The-​Prom​ise.pdf [Accessed 1 June 2022]. Ward, A., Kasinski, K., Pooley, J. and Worthington, A. (eds) (2003) Therapeutic Communities for Children and Young People. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Winnicott, D.W. (1975) ‘The manic defence’, pp 300–​305, in Through Pediatrics to Psychoanalysis: Collected Papers. London: Hogarth Press.

177

10 Protecting children: a social model for the 2020s Brid Featherstone and Anna Gupta

Introduction Protecting Children: A Social Model was published in 2018. In this chapter we revisit some core arguments and critically interrogate these, in the light of the experience of COVID-​1 9. Our conclusions are sobering as we reflect on what the pandemic revealed about the state, its responses and the deepening of patterns of power, wealth, inequality and exploitation (Davies et al, 2022). However, we also note that many of the core assumptions of the social model have been reinforced by what we have learned about our vulnerabilities and interdependencies during the pandemic, and we argue for the importance of engaging with the array of constituencies who are seeking to build more progressive futures. Background The social model of protecting children emerged from, and continues to be nourished by, those carving out spaces for resistance to old and harmful child protection policies and practices. Essentially, it challenged the following highly individualising narrative: • The harms children and young people need protecting from are normally located within individual families and are due 178

Protecting children

to acts of omission or commission by parents and/​or other adult caretakers, with the assessment of intra-​familial risks and strengths core business for professionals. • These acts are normally understood through frames that focus on the role of individual choices or psychological and relational dynamics with considerations such as the socio-​economic contexts in which families live largely screened out. • Developing expert practice methodologies to change behaviours and choices is a key policy objective, particularly since 2010. • Developing expert-​led procedures, multi-​a gency work and professional expertise are all key to protecting children from harm. In the social model we located our challenge to this narrative within wider understandings of how notions of responsibility and causation have shifted over the last decades, thus placing developments within child protection within a broader economic and societal canvas. We noted the shift in discourses from explanations for social problems that refer to history, backgrounds and contexts, to ones which discount these, replacing understanding with moral judgment of individuals and correction of their behaviour: Individuals are thus held largely or wholly responsible for their fortunes. If their pasts have been difficult, they can and must take steps to free themselves from their pasts from now on. This individualistic understanding of society fits well with common sense thought. The fallacy of composition –​that what is possible at certain times for some individuals must also be possible for all simultaneously –​is a staple of neoliberal political discourse; zero-​sum games cannot be acknowledged. Individuals are thus ‘responsibilised’ for dealing with problems that may originate elsewhere and which formerly might have been addressed by the welfare state. (Sayer, 2017, p 157) As Hoggett (2009) has noted, one of the functions of the state, and those employed by the state, is to manage social divisions and 179

The Future of Children’s Care

the social suffering that arises from them. Making sense of the suffering as it manifests itself within individual families can be very difficult for practitioners though in a climate of impoverished societal discourses. Our research found they had a very narrow set of intellectual, as well as practical and emotional, resources available to them. Individualised behavioural risks were assessed and dealt with by deploying a shrinking and formulaic set of resources, such as parenting classes (Morris et al, 2018). This was understandable given how impoverished political and social discourses have become over the decades as Sayer (2017) has highlighted. Individualised constructions of responsibility were invested in by those on the right of the political spectrum, in a project overwhelmingly focused on the poor. But these were too often met with responses from progressives that were also overly reductive, framing those in poverty in a one-​dimensional way, as powerless or unable to exercise responsibility, which poses real problems when seeking to understand sexist or racist behaviours as by those in poverty (Sayer, 2017). In such contexts, there is a great deal of potential for othering and misrecognition of those who harm as well as those being harmed. Frost and Hoggett (2008) develop the helpful concept of ‘double suffering’ to decode the complexities and possibilities for practitioners. Drawing on the notion of social suffering as developed by Bourdieu, which refers to the unequal distribution of goods and the accompanying humiliation, they highlight the issues when the subjects of social suffering may not draw easily upon compassion from others, including professionals, if they do not present themselves as innocent victims, but as aggressive, resentful or suspicious people whose hurt and loss is directed at others rather than themselves (Frost and Hoggett, 2008, p 453). Or indeed where they are not able to rise above their hurt to recognise the pain of others alongside their own. It is little wonder, perhaps, that, as we noted in 2014, the tendency in child protection has been for professionals to wrap themselves in the mantle of child protection (‘I’m only here for the child’) as a way of bypassing the need to engage with the manifold moral injuries and injustices they encounter among the differing members of families (Featherstone et al, 2014). This has, however, become an increasingly contested space to occupy, 180

Protecting children

destabilised by a host of developments that the social model has been part of and nourished by. Broadening the gaze: the social model of protecting children The thinking behind the social model has drawn from a wide range of influences (for a full account see Featherstone et al, 2018). The literature on social harms (Pemberton, 2016) prompted us to ask the most fundamental of questions about what was framed as harmful and by whom and what power relations were obscured in such framing. For example, the focus on parental behaviours in the causation of harms to children meant not only that responsibility was individualised but whole areas of policy that impact upon children were ignored. Why has traffic pollution, for example, not been considered a child protection issue, given the evidence of its contribution to premature child deaths, particularly in deprived areas? Perspectives informed by the public health inequalities literature have been highly influential in directing our gaze to systematic patterns and tendencies in relation to risks and vulnerabilities within populations thus eschewing policy approaches that are solely focused on individual behaviours and risks (Wilkinson and Pickett, 2009). Thus, attention is directed to trends in physical and mental health problems, violence, substance misuse and the links between these and how societies are organised and the policy choices around equality and fairness. This is a very different perspective from the established narrative within child protection as outlined earlier which is firmly focused on individuals and their behaviours. The core argument of the social model that the protection of children needed to be linked to understanding what all families needed to flourish drew from the then growing, but now extensive, evidence on the role of poverty in increasing rates of child maltreatment and the chances of children becoming subject to the child protection gaze. The research evidence increasingly challenged the bifurcating premise which underlay policy directions from the Department for Education (DfE) from 2010 onwards. This posited a unique group of highly stressed families, 181

The Future of Children’s Care

separate from the rest of society, requiring expert practice methodologies to correct their behavioural and interactional dynamics. The research evidence, however, highlighted that there was a social gradient in rates of maltreatment and service interactions. This is a key observation in the current context of the cost-​of-​living crisis and is strengthened by the findings from a recent international review of the evidence on the relationship between poverty and rates of child maltreatment. This provides very up-​to-​date and credible evidence that increasing poverty increases rates of child maltreatment and, therefore, demand on services and highlights the positive difference increases in income (such as increase in minimum wage or benefit levels) can make to reducing rates of child maltreatment (Bywaters et al, 2022). The role of both the national and local state was key to our analysis in the social model but, as we explore further here, on reflection was limited by our failure to grasp the implications of financialised capitalism and the role of the state in a context where: [T]‌oday’s capitalist free markets are quintessential systems of moneyed class domination, rather than of societal welfare maximisation through Adam Smith’s famous notion of the ‘invisible hand’. The prevalence of such a free-​market system has been anything but a natural outcome. It has been actively enabled by national governments and transnational institutions. (The Care Collective, 2020, p 72) In our original analysis we placed great faith in the possibilities for both the local and national state to promote the flourishing of its citizens if firmly located within a decentralising and democratising framework. We wanted the state to be bigger and yet smaller, or closer to home. As we argued in Featherstone et al (2021), robust social protections and a re-​imagining of the promise of the welfare state, with decent income support strategies, housing, education and health for all were basic prerequisites for the achievement of a decent life. However, we also argued for the need to rethink how services were delivered, with a focus on the local, on community and, crucially, on a commitment to co-​production. We noted 182

Protecting children

the importance of fostering social connections and argued for a decentring of the professional and professionally led approaches to child protection. We argued that collective strategies needed to be considered in a project that promoted community work, locality-​based approaches and peer support, and saw children, young people, families and communities as sources of expertise about system design and best practice. We turn now to look at how COVID-​19 has impacted our analysis going forward. COVID-​19: a game changer? The experience of the COVID-​19 pandemic has reinforced some of the core assumptions behind the social model but has also highlighted some of the limitations in our thinking so far, especially, as indicated earlier, on the potential of the state in a context of financialised capitalism. A settlement that denied our interdependence as human beings, our vulnerability and our need for care at all stages of the life cycle was exposed as quite simply delusional, as well as utterly cruel, by COVID-​19 (The Care Collective, 2020). A host of evidence reinforced the need to think beyond individual risk factors, to explore the ‘causes behind the causes’ of illness and mortality rates and to recognise the intersecting nature of inequalities and the consequences. Who died, why and where? These questions obliged a reckoning with the consequences of a social settlement that in its rhetoric of individual responsibility had obscured the systematic patterning of risks. In seeking to understand gross inequalities, for example, in the mortality rates of those from Black and Minority Ethnic backgrounds, the need to lay bare the inadequacies of a frame that focused solely on the role of individual choices and behaviours to manage and control risk was underscored and a wider frame became imperative in order to drill down into why individuals imperilled their own lives and health by going out to work and did not self-​isolate if ill (IPPR and Runnymede Trust, 2020). This required making connections between individual choices and public troubles, notably, the systemic racism underpinning occupational arrangements and policies that baked 183

The Future of Children’s Care

in long-​standing health, income and housing inequalities that were the consequences of policy choices and failures (Featherstone et al, 2021). During the COVID-​19 pandemic, not only did the unspooling of a direct causation frame occur with a recognition of systemic complexity, but there was also an associated recognition of the resultant ethical demands placed upon us as individuals and members of families and society. What did it mean to be a good father or mother? Was it to stay at home and avoid infection but risk not feeding children, or to go to work to feed them and risk one’s own health, and that of others? Such desperate ‘choices’ exposed how threadbare the social fabric had become due mainly to deliberate policy decisions impacting on income support systems and family support resources (Featherstone et al, 2021). Overall, as we attempted to understand and decode the individual tragedies of lives cut short, we were forced to make connections that had been disavowed for decades –​connections between the individual and the social, the public and the private, and the economic and the political. Such connections refused to be silenced in the face of the evidence that while human beings faced a universal storm, they were not in the same boat. Who got ill and died, how we locked down, in what circumstances, who were exposed to risks, how children and young people were equipped to continue learning –​all issues riven by intersecting inequalities –​were exposed at least initially to a societal gaze that had hitherto been averted. It has become commonplace to observe that we must not go back and that we need to construct a different, more care-​full and equal post-​pandemic world (Marmot et al, 2020). Such observations feed into, and echo, long-​standing efforts by a wide range of constituencies to construct a new social settlement. In previous work we have located ourselves within this framework and explored how we might develop a social model post-​ pandemic (Featherstone et al, 2021). We return to such efforts in a subsequent section but do so having taken a more pessimistic and rigorous look at what kind of state has developed in England and how long-​standing and problematic power relations were reinforced during the pandemic. 184

Protecting children

Illuminating and intensifying underlying tendencies According to Davies et al (2022, p 213) COVID-​19 photosynthesised various tendencies of British capitalism, in a manner similar to how sunlight works on plants. It illuminated, as well as fed, underlying conflicts and tendencies, simultaneously shining a light on key features while also contributing to their growth. They noted that in terms of the state, its size in the UK relative to gross domestic product had fallen steadily in the decade leading up to the pandemic, as a result of austerity, with cuts to public spending concentrated especially in local government and the benefit system. COVID-​19 saw a big leap in public spending –​ from around 35 per cent of gross domestic product to 45 per cent. However, this statistic concealed questions of power: what kind of state, what sources of profit and what types of exploitation were underway (Davies et al, 2022 p  214)? Indeed, it was to become clear that the main beneficiaries of a larger state were asset-​owning households, financial elites, digital platforms and outsourcing contractors. Therefore, the growth of the state did not automatically imply reduced power for capital, but actually was a really big opportunity for certain forms of capital to expand and profit (Davies et al, 2022). As is well documented, the UK was a leader in outsourcing, privatisation and new public management in the early 1990s and this has continued. But Davies et al argue that the ‘post-​2020 version of public-​private collaboration adds several distinguishing features that characterize … “rentier nationalism” ’ (p 215). Key is that the relationship between the state and private businesses has become even more intimate as the ideological veneer of competition and the market for contracts is abandoned. The greater willingness of the state to deploy the full potential of its balance sheet has produced more money to be diverted to global companies. A further feature of ‘rentier nationalism’ identified by Davies et al (2022, pp 216–​217) is that rhetorical and symbolic appeals to the nation have become increasingly integral to state legitimacy claims. Thus, the dawn of the COVID-​19 pandemic coincided with numerous culture war interventions against a range of institutions and experts. While appeals to nationhood are made in 185

The Future of Children’s Care

cultural and ethnic terms, they have economic implications. The rhetoric of nation and protection of an ‘indigenous’ population works to conceal how society is sustained and whose work is, in reality, essential. So certain forms of work (such as care work) are cheap because it is expected that they are performed for the greater good and paid for ‘in claps’ or because they have been performed by migrants, women or both. This rhetoric also plays a key role in ostracising centres of professional expertise who are perceived to be disloyal or ‘woke’ such as teachers and academics hastening the rise in private-​based alternatives to traditional schools, campuses and cultural institutions. The platform-​based model refers to a range of phenomena beyond education with Uber and Airbnb as ­examples –​they are not about providing a product but harnessing and enabling networks of users and producers. Third, COVID-​19 has meant the significance of the platform business model has been raised even further than previously, meaning that the extraction of data is often just as significant to business strategies as the extraction of profit as the mining of data can support a range of strategies particularly in terms of identifying new business possibilities and expanding new networks. In aiding this extraction of data, states wield crucial economic power. Governments are still needed to unlock access to populations, especially in sensitive areas such as health. Thus, Davies et al (2022) note that COVID-​19 could signal the beginning of a whole new era of public–​private partnerships, in which states and platforms strike deals over access to different forms of population data. Davies et al (2022) applied key features of ‘rentier nationalism’ to analysis of what happened in education. Over the course of 2020–​2021 education policy followed a familiar pattern, reflecting on the centres of economic power within the UK economy and state more generally: A cluster of firms hovering around the state, offering to fix particular problems at speed, extracted revenue from the public balance sheet. Some of these were established outsourcers … others were friends of the Conservative party … others were global technology giants. … But this rapid turn to commercial entities, and the chaos that repeatedly engulfed schools, was 186

Protecting children

also a symptom of a longstanding ideological project in education policy: to disempower local authorities, unions and teachers themselves. An alternative form of decentralisation would involve trusting those who are vocationally invested in education as such, but such are the pathologies of English government. (Davies et al, 2022, p 209) Going forward, they highlight the continuing centralising tendencies and resumption of Ofsted inspections as key obstacles towards understanding and engaging with the social geographies of inequalities and the role of education in mitigating or compounding these potentially. Policies that work with the grain of local desires and hopes and harness the expertise of those who live and work in particular spaces and places are less likely in an outsourced and digitally informed landscape. The analysis by Davies et al (2022) has relevance to understanding trends in child protection and children’s social care more broadly, as other contributions to this book explore in much greater detail than we can here (see Chapters 2, 7 and 8, this volume). The growth of the for-​profit sector and private equity in the care of vulnerable children has reached scandalous proportions. Moreover, local authorities have been hollowed out in a consistent and determined fashion with the most deprived local authorities bearing the brunt of the cuts, despite clear evidence that they are the most in need (Webb and Bywaters, 2018). As Webb et al (2022) note, in England the dominant DfE policy narrative recognises no association between spending on children’s services and quality, and a limited association between quality and deprivation. However, their analysis of 374 inspection outcomes between 2011 and 2019 with the data on preventative and safeguarding expenditure and Indices of Multiple Deprivation suggested each £100 increase in preventative spending per child was associated with a 69 per cent increase in the odds of a positive inspection. A one-​decile increase in deprivation was associated with a 16 per cent decrease. They found that deprived communities had worse access to good-​quality children’s services and government policies that had increased poverty and retrenched preventative services had likely exacerbated this inequality (Webb et al, 2022). 187

The Future of Children’s Care

The pernicious impacts of Ofsted inspections on the morale of staff, in combination with the centralising imperatives of the DfE, has impeded the ability of local authorities to take a rigorous and independent stance towards their local needs and plan accordingly. While many celebrate this hollowing out of what have been seen as bureaucratic top-​down regimes, sadly, the locus of accountability has not shifted in a more democratic fashion towards communities and the seeds for further outsourcing, as has happened in education, have been well and truly sown. Given this gloomy picture, is it viable to hold onto the hope that the state, both at local and national levels, can be rescued in pursuit of the aspirations of the social model for a settlement that promotes the flourishing of children and their families? Reasons to be cheerful or not? The first lesson a disaster teaches is that everything is connected. … At moments of immense change, we see with new clarity the systems –​political, economic, social, ecological –​in which we are immersed as they change around us. We see what’s strong, what’s weak, what’s corrupt, what matters and what doesn’t. I often think of these times as akin to a spring thaw: it’s as if the pack ice has broken up, the water starts flowing again and boats can move through places they could not during winter. The ice was the arrangement of power relations that we call the status quo –​it seems to be stable, and those who benefit from it often insist that it’s unchangeable. Then it changes fast and dramatically, and that can be exhilarating, terrifying, or both. (Solnit, 2020, np, emphasis added) The Care Manifesto (The Care Collective, 2020) provides an analysis of our current travails alongside a roadmap for how we might live differently and, in so doing, provides some help to us in moving our thinking forward. First, it is important to outline the contours of this conceptual work, work that we feel the social model is extremely well aligned with. The writers comprising the Care Collective argue that we are in urgent 188

Protecting children

need of a politics that puts care front and centre: ‘Care is our individual and common ability to provide the political, social, material, and emotional conditions that allow the vast majority of people and living creatures on this planet to thrive –​along with the planet itself ’ (The Care Collective, 2020, p 6). While we recognise that many readers of this chapter may take issue with the term care here, and we respect such reservations, we consider its deployment by the Care Collective helpful in signalling an alternative to our current impoverished language of markets or decontextualised relationships (see Williams, 2021, for an intersectional analysis and Featherstone et al, 2018, for a critique of the current deployment of a language of relationships in social work and child protection). The Care Collective (2020) argue that taking care seriously means engaging properly and robustly with its paradoxes and ambivalences and they note its origins in the Old English word caru, meaning care, concern, anxiety, sorrow, grief, trouble (p 27). Taking care seriously means uncovering and rejecting the premises behind our current care-​less international, national, local and intimate settlements and uncovering the connections between issues such as the elevation of the profit motive as a supreme good, short-​termist and disrespectful approaches to the planet, the construction of local and national states in hock to vested interests and the outsourcing of hands-​on caring practices to the most exploited and least valued. Our capacities to care are interdependent –​a crucial insight integral to the social model. When we are assessing a mother’s capacity to care for her children, how can we ignore the psycho-​ social contexts in which she cares? What sources of income and employment are available to her? What kinds of child care support? What kind of housing is available to her? What kind of friendships and adult relationships does she have? What family support services are available in her area? It is a travesty, as we have remarked elsewhere, that we have needed to make this case for ‘social work’ but we have had to as the evidence has uncovered the reductive nature of the assessments so often carried out and the subsequent responses (Featherstone et al, 2018). Our intellectual and emotional resources have been hollowed out by policy contexts which are care-​less in the choices made about 189

The Future of Children’s Care

who and what is most worthy of resourcing, whose voices matter and what stories can get heard. There is an urgent need for those of us concerned with protecting children and supporting families to make links between the practices that manifest in families that are care-​less and damaging, with the practices of those professionals working for local and national states in contexts where, despite their best intentions, the ‘solutions’ open to them are heavily constrained by care-​less politics and economics. This means the making of links between the hollowing out of family support services under austerity and the resources available to the young mother described earlier. The privatisation of so much of social care, including that offered to vulnerable young people, means that ‘helping’ so often morphs into harming. Providing resources at a range of levels to young people to live safely within their families and communities and hearing from them what they need to do so is not core business for many professionals and their managers. Meanwhile significant sums of money are being paid by local authorities to remove such young people to institutions run by private equity firms, who too often provide insufficient levels of care: this issue was identified in the MacAlister Review Final Report itself which refers to the ‘high cost and profiteering’ of current placement provision (MacAlister, 2022, p 120) and notes that ‘[t]‌here are also few indicators to suggest that high prices are leading to better quality homes for children’ (MacAlister, 2022, p 121). The lack of robust attention to care and the interconnectedness of its personal, familial, economic, political and international dimensions also reinforces an ethical hollowing out which is rooted in a care-​less approach to generativity and history. What are our responsibilities not only to future generations in terms of what kind of planet and society we bequeath them? But also, what about making a reckoning with our past? When those young people we removed from their families because they were being harmed ask us to account for our decisions to remove their children because of harm, how do we respond? Where is our sense of moral accountability? It is vital not only that we embrace the interconnected nature of the multiple crises we find ourselves in but also pay serious attention to the construction of alternatives. The Care Collective contains a range of examples that we can learn from, going 190

Protecting children

forward. These examples involve developing caring economies, politics, states, communities and kinships and are inter-​related even if actions are taking place at different levels. What is crucial is to carry on highlighting the different examples and opening up spaces for dialogue between those who are engaging in resistance and progressive politics around the world. Some of the examples highlighted by the Care Collective include: • Developing and strengthening alliances to expose and tackle tax fraud is vital –​a third of the world’s wealth is held offshore, spurring campaigns for international financial transactions tax such as the Tobin Tax. • Insourcing at local levels –​in the UK, the Preston Model has provided inspiration with its focus on supporting local businesses that provide decent wages and work conditions. • The Green New Deal, an intra-​and transnational multifaceted social justice strategy to deal with climate crisis through joined-​up policies aimed at restructuring work, energy and financial systems. • The World Health Organization, an important transnational institution that works effectively by building alliances across the globe. • Amartya Sen’s work with the World Institute for Development Economics Research on the Capability Approach –​this has been very influential in our thinking on the social model but is also being embraced by progressive networks worldwide, providing an important common language and unifying framework. To those we would add international developments in child protection such as the abolitionist approach promoted by Roberts (2022) in the US and some of the developments in transformative justice. Here links are being made between the different forms of state violence (including child protective services) towards communities of colour and the need to develop alternative settlements. Conclusion There has long been a need to broaden spaces and places for dialogue in child protection in England. We consider the social 191

The Future of Children’s Care

model continues to provide a helpful space for us to contribute to that dialogue obliging us to engage with the fundamental question: What do children, young people and families need from each other, their communities and the local and national state to flourish? In this chapter, we have reflected upon the limitations of our previous work in understanding the role of local and national states in the context of financialised capitalism and broadened our gaze further to explore the work of scholars in the field of economics and political economy, among others. While there remains much to be done, it is important to recognise that there is considerable momentum for change as this edited collection itself evidences. Alternatives to individualising risk-​averse and blaming narratives that reinforce the manifold inequalities experienced by so many are being developed and articulated. Of vital importance are the many possibilities for dialogue that are now to be found. References Bywaters, P., Skinner, G., Cooper, A., Kennedy, E. and Malik, A. (2022) The Relationship between Poverty, Child Abuse and Neglect: New Evidence. Huddersfield: University of Huddersfield. Care Collective, The (2020) The Care Manifesto: The Politics of Interdependence. London: Verso. Davies, W., Dutta, S.J., Taylor, N. and Tazzioli, M. (2022) Unprecedented? How Covid-​19 Revealed the Politics of Our Economy. London: Goldsmiths Press. Featherstone, B., White, S. and Morris, K (2014) Re-​imagining Child Protection: Towards Humane Social Work with Families. Bristol: Policy Press Featherstone, B., Gupta, A., Morris, K. and White, S. (2018) Protecting Children: A Social Model. Bristol: Policy Press. Featherstone, B., Gupta, A. and Morris, K. (2021) ‘Post-​ pandemic: moving on from “child protection” ’, Critical and Radical Social Work 9(2), 151–​165. Frost, E. and Hoggett, P. (2008) ‘Human agency and social suffering’, Critical Social Policy 28(4), 438–​460. Hoggett, P. (2009) Politics, Identity and Emotion. London: Taylor & Francis.

192

Protecting children

IPPR (Institute for Public Policy Research) and Runnymede Trust (2020) ‘Ethnic inequalities in Covid-​19 are playing out again: how can we stop them’ [online]. Available at: www.ippr. org/​blog/​ ethnic-​inequalities-​in-​covid-​19-​are-​playing-​out-​ again-​how-​can-​we-​stop-​them [Accessed 19 August 2022]. MacAlister, J. (2022) The Independent Review of Children’s Social Care. Final Report. London: Department for Education. Marmot, M., Allen, J., Boyce, T., Goldblatt, P. and Morrison, J. (2020) Build Back Fairer: The COVID-​19 Marmot Review. London: Health Foundation. Morris, K., Mason, W., Bywaters, P., Featherstone, B., Daniel, B., Brady, G., et al (2018) ‘Social work, poverty and child welfare interventions’, Child and Family Social Work 23(3), 364–​372. Pemberton, S. (2016) Harmful Societies: Understanding Social Harm. Bristol: Policy Press. Roberts, D. (2022) Torn Apart: How the Child Welfare System Destroys Black Families –​and How Abolition Can Build a Safer World. New York: Basic Books. Sayer, A. (2017) ‘Responding to the Troubled Families programme: framing the injuries of inequality’, Social Policy & Society, 16(1), 155–​164. Solnit, R. (2020) ‘The impossible has already happened’, The Guardian, [online] 7 April. Available at: www.thegu ​ ardi​ an.com/​ world/​2020/​apr/​07/​what-​coronavirus-​can-​teach-​us-​about-​ hope-​rebecca-​solnit [Accessed 12 August 2022]. Webb, C.J. and Bywaters, P. (2018) ‘Austerity, rationing and inequity: trends in children’s and young peoples’ services expenditure in England between 2010 and 2015’, Local Government Studies 44(3), 391–​415. Webb, C., Bennett, D. and Bywaters, P. (2022) ‘Austerity, poverty, and children’s services quality in England: consequences for child welfare and public services’, Social Policy and Society, 1–​22. Wilkinson, R. and Pickett, K. (2009) The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Do Better. London: Penguin. Williams, F. (2021) Social Policy: A Critical and Intersectional Analysis. Cambridge: Polity.

193

11 Conclusion: children’s services reform looking back and forwards Robin Sen and Christian Kerr

Introduction In this chapter we locate Josh MacAlister’s calls for a ‘reset’ of the children’s social care system (Crew, 2022; MacAlister, 2022) within the policy reform agenda of the last 25 years in England. We situate the Review’s welcome emphasis on better supporting birth family care within a broader analytical framework. Drawing on insights from the chapters in the collection, this chapter identifies the potential for the MacAlister Review to be used as a vehicle for moving children’s services policy reform in contradictory directions via a ‘double shuffle’. This would entail an apparent shift towards a greater family support orientation within the child welfare system which is undercut by neoliberal-​influenced state defunding of children’s services and/​or greater deregulation and privatisation of the delivery of children’s services provision. The chapter concludes by arguing for the importance of dissent within future policy development in children’s services. We start by introducing two concepts that anchor the analytic framework we employ –​Fox Harding’s classic analysis of values positions in child welfare, and Stuart Hall’s (2005) notion of the ‘double shuffle’ in policy development.

194

Conclusion

Lorraine Fox Harding produced an enduring typology of four different values positions within discussions of child welfare, family life and the role of the state within each (1991, 2014 [1997]): 1. Laissez-​faire and patriarchy (‘laissez-​faire’ position hereon): that the state should stay out of family life as much as possible and intervene only when it is clearly necessary to prevent harm. 2. State paternalism and child protection (‘child protection’ position hereon): that the state should prioritise the protection and prevention of harm to children within the family home. 3. Children’s rights and child liberation (‘children’s rights’ hereon): that the state should promote the participation of children about their own care as much as possible, seeing them as beings in their own right apart from adults. 4. Defence of the birth family and family rights (‘family rights’ hereon): that the state should respect families’ rights to care for children and support them to do so as much as possible, recognising the socio-​economic influences on poor parenting. This typology is not mutually exclusive in that views of the role of the state in family life will almost always contain elements of more than one of these positions at the same time (Smith, 2005) and Fox Harding’s own analysis illustrated how all four value positions are represented within provisions of the Children Act 1989. Social theorist Stuart Hall (2005) used the dance move, the ‘double shuffle’, as a metaphor by which to analyse the contradictory nature of early New Labour’s domestic policies from 1997. The double shuffle is a move which involves stepping in opposing directions, one quick step after another. Hall applied this metaphor to analyse how, in his view, New Labour’s welfare and public services policy agenda was marked by an attempt to make the contradictory stances of neoliberalism and redistributive social-​democracy appear compatible. In Hall’s original analysis, a ‘subaltern’ secondary shuffle towards social democratic policies was needed to try and reassure New Labour’s traditional social democratic base of the party’s sound intent given it had previously, and primarily, moved towards implementation of neoliberal-​influenced reform within public services and the welfare system. Importantly, Hall argued that 195

The Future of Children’s Care

while this double shuffle could be seen as part of New Labour’s infamous PR ‘spin’ operation, the underlying need for it arose from very real underlying contradictions in its positioning as a social democratic party which was embracing neoliberal reform. The MacAlister Review can be viewed as encouraging a policy shift from a predominant (neoliberal-​influenced) child protection orientation in children’s services policy during the period since 2010, to a more family rights orientated one. While we would ourselves welcome a genuine move in this policy direction, we also highlight the risk of this shift developing into a variant of a double shuffle given extant governmental political priorities and ideological predilections. In developing our analysis in this chapter, we also note the MacAlister Review’s oversight of a children’s rights perspective in its Final Report. To provide background context to this analysis, we next provide a brief overview of children’s services reform since 1997. Missteps on the children’s services policy dance-floor Conservative Party policy since 2010, especially under the Cameron 2010–​2 015 government, can be summarised as representing a neoliberal-​influenced child protection policy position (Parton, 2014; Smith, 2018). This policy stance has emphasised the necessity of the state protection of children ‘at risk’ alongside a markedly negative discourse on some (marginalised) birth families’ care (Narey, 2011; Gove, 2013; see also Parton, 2014; Purcell, 2020). The marked move to a more overt child protectionist stance during the period of the first Cameron government was also underpinned by drawing on evidence and arguments that state care improves children’s welfare and should therefore be considered as a positive alternative to birth family care (see Forrester et al, 2009; Narey, 2011; Narey and Owers, 2018). This child protectionist stance was though combined with a neoliberal-​influenced laissez-​faire approach to welfare reform marked by vastly reduced state funding to local authorities under austerity, and proposals –​though only partially achieved –​to deregulate, privatise or otherwise disrupt local government management of children’s services and public universities’ management of social work education (Jones, 2019). The impacts 196

Conclusion

of welfare and public spending cuts by successive Conservative administrations since 2010 can be seen in, among other things, rising poverty rates, rising demand for children’s services and rising rates of children in care (Bywaters and the Child Welfare Inequalities Project Team, 2020; Hood et al, 2020). Misplaced children’s service reform attempts have also drained time and money from scarcely resourced services. Such reforms include some questionable investments in particular practice models (see Chapter 4), the ill-​fated National Assessment and Accreditation System (see McGrath-​Brookes et al, 2021) as well as the already noted attempts to undermine aspects of public sector management of children’s services (Jones, 2019). However, it needs to be acknowledged that the difficulties in children’s services in England have a longer ancestry than this. While a fuller historical analysis falls beyond the scope of this chapter, it is important to identify some key current challenges within children’s services which emanated within New Labour policy reforms from 1997 to 2010. After its first two years in power from 1997, New Labour invested significantly in public services, including in children’s services, following 18 years of more modest public sector spending under successive Conservative governments from 1979 (Purcell, 2020). Evidence has shown that this New Labour investment brought clear, tangible benefits to families. The benefits included reductions in child poverty and gains in child health and well-​ being which were facilitated by increases in child and family welfare benefits and investment in universal services, such as the flagship ‘early intervention’ Sure Start programme (see Cattan et al, 2019). At the same time, however, New Labour brought further neoliberal-​influenced New Public Management approaches to bear on public services. These included attempts at embedding market mechanisms and incentives within public services’ operation and a consumerist emphasis on user ‘choice’ as a key driver of public sector improvement (Clarke et al, 2008). It was in respect of this Janus-​faced approach to public sector reform that Hall (2005) invoked the metaphor of the double shuffle. In Fox Harding’s typology New Labour’s investment in family support could be characterised as family rights orientated reform. However, it is important to remember New Labour’s 197

The Future of Children’s Care

agenda was framed through the lens of the social investment state, foregrounding the discourse of children’s and communities’ productive futures, responsibility, inclusion and opportunity (Lister, 2004) rather than that of equity, family support or redistribution. A counter-​side to New Labour’s social investment state discourse was an interventionist, child protectionist, discourse and policy towards ‘problem families’ who fell outside of this framing, many of which had multiple complex needs and difficulties (Sen, 2016). In child and family social work, New Labour’s approach was overlaid by a heavy, central government directed, performance target and audit apparatus (Munro, 2004). This apparatus became particularly prominent after the Laming Inquiry (Laming, 2003) into the death of Victoria Climbié (White et al, 2010). There was also some evidence that the universalist elements of children’s services provision under this system were not leading to reductions in the numbers of children being referred for higher tier child protection assessment and support, as had been envisaged when it was designed (Carpenter et al, 2007). The New Public Management influenced performance and audit culture was premised on the belief that more standardised approaches to child and family social work would reduce the chances of professional error and, ultimately, future child harm and deaths. This thinking reached its zenith with the introduction of the highly regimented Integrated Children’s System in England, the design of which deliberately micro-​managed the social work flow via cumbersome IT processes with the goal of minimising professional error (White et al, 2010). Rather than minimising the latent chance of error within child and family social work practice, however, this system increased it: social workers had to spend far greater time navigating user-​unfriendly, time-​consuming IT processes, leaving less time to work with families (Broadhurst et al, 2010). The thinking behind the design of the Integrated Children’s System was also symptomatic of a mistrust of the social work profession within New Labour governments (Rogowski, 2018). Following the New Labour governments’ contributions to the scapegoating of social workers and social work managers after the murders of Victoria Climbié and Peter Connelly –​two young children who were tragically killed by their carers while known to children’s services –​it is reasonable to suggest the mistrust ran both ways (Jones, 2014; Shoesmith, 2016). 198

Conclusion

This mutual dissatisfaction paved the way for the Munro Report, chaired by Professor Eileen Munro (Munro, 2011) and commissioned by the incoming 2010 Conservative–​Liberal Democrat coalition government. The Munro Report deftly summarised a system burdened by managerialism and an audit culture which had become overly proceduralised and risk-​averse. The idea that social workers should be freed to exercise their professional judgement and discretion so that instead of ‘doing things right’ (following procedures), they and the children’s system focused on ‘doing the right thing’ (making sure children and young people were actually being helped), was the compelling central argument of the Review (Munro, 2011, p 6). While Eileen Munro had a distance from the commissioning government’s policy agenda in a way which was not the case in the MacAlister Review, the Munro Review still occurred in a politicised context: it took place during the first years of a new Conservative-​led administration keen to distinguish itself from New Labour, including by making the case for unprecedented cuts to public sector funding as part of austerity economics. While the Munro Review did make passing reference to the impact of poverty on families, and the need to reduce it, it was not a heavy emphasis in the Review and the implication of the government’s austerity plans for children’s services’ delivery did not receive a mention in the Final Report. The Cameron government’s quick, positive, written response to the Munro Review recommendations suggested there was a will in the Conservative–​Liberal Democrat government to take forward Munro’s central recommendations regarding prescriptive proceduralism. However, the Munro-​influenced critique of proceduralism subsequently become clouded by its association with ham-​fisted attempts by successive Conservative governments to use it as a rationale for removing fundamental protections for children and families, the details of which Carolyne Willow has outlined in detail in Chapter 2. The immediate post-​Munro child and family social work policy landscape was also notable for its heavily prescriptive child protectionist stance, which was particularly focused on removing younger children from poorer ‘neglectful’ families and promoting the greater use of adoption (Narey, 2011; Gove, 2013). This stance jarred with the thrust of the Munro Review since 199

The Future of Children’s Care

it encouraged rigid, proceduralist practice rather than freeing social workers up to engage in more creative practice as Munro had suggested. The co-​existence of a child protection orientated stance with the Cameron government’s sweeping austerity cuts to children’s services and broader welfare funding also resulted in significant net-​widening: a children’s services system which had been designed by New Labour administrations on the premise of relatively generous family support provision via universal and non-​statutory services, retained the referral mechanisms, but not the resourcing, under the Conservatives (Hood et al, 2020). As both welfare benefits and family support services were slashed under austerity the result was unsustainable increases in demand across children’s services. Hood et al (2020) evidence that such demand has fed social worker workforce churn and thereby a negative downward spiral in children’s service delivery, which is increasingly incapable of meeting families’ needs. More families than ever before are referred to children’s services in England, significant proportions of which are subject to assessment or investigation without provision of subsequent children’s services support (Bilson and Martin, 2017). This activity is also disproportionately focused on poorer, as well as some groups of racially minoritised, families (Bywaters and the Child Welfare Inequalities Project Team, 2020). Joe Hanley and colleagues (see Chapter 3; McGrath-​Brookes et al, 2021) have usefully identified ways in which influencers of recent children’s services policy reforms in England have frequently invoked the notion of ‘crisis’ while co-​opting the language of radical change to make the case that the changes that they propose are solutions which must be adopted to address the invoked crisis. However, while only a modest number of the policy changes over the last decade are, in our view, helpful responses to the difficulties in children’s services, the analysis here highlights that the need for genuine radical reform is very real. Neoliberal models of family support? The potential for a new double shuffle As noted, at one level the MacAlister Review marked an attempt to strategically shift the direction of children’s service policy towards 200

Conclusion

a family rights value orientation by asserting the primacy of birth family care: greater support for birth parental care; the promotion of kinship care; and an explicitly expressed aim of reducing the number of children involved in all aspects of children’s services statutory provision. This appears to mark a pronounced change from the thrust of Conservative Party policy in children’s services in England from 2010. Some of these proposed changes chime with parts of the vision outlined by Taliah Drayak in Chapter 5, and Brid Featherstone and Anna Gupta in Chapter 10. However, reasons to be cautious are also to be found in this collection. Paul Shuttleworth, in Chapter 7, provides helpful challenge to easy assumptions that kinship arrangements are always best for those children who need alternative care arrangements. Avery Bowser’s contribution, in Chapter 8, illustrates how the MacAlister Review’s overarching focus on birth family care has resulted in the omission of detailed consideration of the role of adoption and adoptive families in the future of children’s services. We would also note that some of the MacAlister Review recommendations appeared to be influenced by a laissez-​faire orientation, offering consolidation of elements of the deregulatory and privatisation agenda evident prevalent in children’s services in England during the previous decade. These included the proposed abolition of the Independent Reviewing Officer role as well as the decision to resist recommending the elimination of profit-​making in children’s placement provision. It is also unclear which organisations would deliver the new ‘Family Help’ services envisaged by the MacAlister Review. The development of such services could be a mechanism by which further public resources are directed away from local authorities to private companies and/​ or the new ‘social enterprise economy’. However, the main potential for a double shuffle arising from the proposals in the MacAlister Review lies in its underlying message of keeping an undefined ‘state’ out of family life to a greater degree. Such an aim could be taken as impetus for greater investment in communities, particularly poorer communities. But, it may also be used as justification for further state de-​ investment, as David Cameron’s ‘big society’ discourse provided an ideological smoke screen for the massive cuts to state spending in poorer communities under his governments’ austerity policies. 201

The Future of Children’s Care

The risk of a double shuffle arising from the MacAlister Review recommendations is credible due to the superficial similarity underlying family rights and laissez-​faire orientations: both argue for the desirability of the state intervening less in family life in respect of child protection issues. The positions, however, differ strongly in that a family rights position advocates the achievement of this via the provision of greater (state) support to families, usually also calling for such support to be better directed and controlled by communities and families. This view is well encapsulated by the call of Featherstone et al (2018; see also Chapter 10) that the state should become ‘bigger and smaller’ at the same time. While sharing the aim of reduced state intervention in family life, a neoliberal-​influenced laissez-f​ aire value position is associated with the removal of state involvement in family life rather than its reconfiguration. This raises the possibility that an apparent policy move towards a pro-​family rights position could be followed by a shuffle towards reduced state spending on children’s services. A double shuffle could be a deliberate policy strategy, using the cover of birth family support as a cypher for the enactment of neoliberal-​influenced policies based on ‘rolling back the state’. However, influenced by Hall’s original analysis (2005), we suggest that a double shuffle towards further neoliberal-​influenced children’s services policy reform could arise without intention due to the contradictions in trying to render a child welfare system more supportive of families without allocating sufficient resources for it to be so. Of significant concern in this regard should be the fact that the MacAlister Review developed its pro-​family support positioning within a premise that there should be no additional spending on children’s services: Mr MacAlister’s contract with the government included the stipulation that no new state spending on children’s services should be assumed (Bright, 2021). While the Final Report includes recommendations for new investment, this is relatively modest over the given time period, and the Final Report and its annexes go to extensive lengths, sometimes employing questionable predicted cost savings, to try to justify that any investment will be ‘cost neutral’ over time. There is one further element of a potential double shuffle towards greater neoliberal-​influenced policies to consider. In exploring this element it is important to be mindful that neoliberalism is 202

Conclusion

not necessarily predicated on reduced state expenditure, but is more fundamentally premised on minimising state intervention in markets’ operations (Harvey, 2005). It is therefore consistent with neoliberalism for the state to make greater transfers of public resources to private companies and individuals, particularly ones whose operation is made possible through the creation of new markets in previously state-​dominated spheres, such as children’s services. The current predominance of profit-​making placement providers in England is one example of this. This phenomenon has involved greater state expenditure on placement provision but this is now mainly in the form of state transfers to private companies whose predominance, as well as profits, have increased (MacAlister, 2022): such a development sits very well within the core tenets of a neoliberal agenda. Featherstone and Gupta similarly note in Chapter 10 that during the COVID-​19 pandemic in England vast amounts of public resources were transferred to private companies, in some cases without any useful service being furnished in exchange. There is potential for this possibility to be reproduced by the creation of a neoliberal model of family support. As Carolyne Willow observed in Chapter 2, of interest in this regard is a report produced for the Conservative government in 2016 by the private health market analysts LaingBuisson (LaingBuisson et al, 2016), under the supervision of Alan Wood and Isabelle Trowler (Jones, 2019). This report proposes ways in which family support services (in that report referred to as ‘Early Help’ rather than ‘Family Help’) could be contracted out of local authority provision to private sector providers. Neoliberal influenced policy reform may both seek to reduce overall state spending on children’s services and result in the diversion of larger proportions of the remainder into the hands of private companies and/​or new start-​up social enterprise companies. Under such a model private companies would generate considerable profits from state investment, but any failures would see them able to leave this new ‘market’, with the maligned public sector left to pick up the pieces. Other than, perhaps, reputationally this model of family support provision would be virtually risk-​free for profit-​making providers: there would be guaranteed returns on investment and minimal market entry and exit costs. If such a scenario may sound far-​fetched, then 203

The Future of Children’s Care

minds should be cast back to 2010: who predicted that just over a decade later UK governments would have overseen offshore, tax-​haven located, venture capital firms generating multimillion pound profits from running a significant proportion of residential care home provision for some of our most vulnerable children in England, while other parts of children’s services strain due to systematic underfunding? Troubling the ‘social workers too quick to wade in’ narrative There is evidence of an ‘investigative turn’ in children’s services provision (Bilson and Martin, 2017) which is not limited to England, or indeed the UK, but evidenced in the child welfare systems of several post-​industrial states in the 2010s (Burford et al, 2019; Sen and Webb, 2019; Hyslop, 2022). However, it is important to note that this analysis is only one part of the picture in rising intervention and care rates in England. One of the stronger sections of the MacAlister Review Final Report is the recognition that older children, aged ten and above, have been the largest growing cohort of children involved in both child protection responses and in the care system from 2010 to 2021. The Final Report does name the impact of cuts to youth services on such increases, albeit without exploring the policy origin of these cuts. It also identifies some of the complex needs and extra-​ familial harms that are linked to these increases: For teenagers, the most prevalent factor at assessment is the child’s mental health. From the age of 12, there is a sharp increase in child alcohol and drug misuse, child sexual exploitation, trafficking, gangs, missing children, socially unacceptable behaviour and self harm (Fitzsimons et al, 2022). When older children enter care they are more likely to remain in care long term compared to the youngest entrants (Neil et al, 2019). (MacAlister, 2022, p 60) The issues facing older children on the edge of care are frequently complex. They tend to have needs and/​or behaviours that carers 204

Conclusion

or parents are struggling to respond to, and there is far greater likelihood of serious relational breakdown between carers or parents and older children than in the case of younger children (Sen, 2018). Older children can, and should, be supported to remain within their birth families wherever possible. However, their situations are substantially more textured and complex than the ‘keep the state out of family life’ narrative that appeared to be perpetuated by some close to the MacAlister Review. In one Sunday Times article, based on an interview with Josh MacAlister before publication of his interim Case for Change report in June 2021, MacAlister was reported to have declared that his Review had found ‘social workers were too quick to wade in’ to families (Dugan, 2021a). A story written by the same journalist in The Times three months earlier had a similar tone (Dugan, 2021b). On this occasion it followed an interview with Isabelle Trowler, the Chief Social Worker for Children and Families integrally involved in the MacAlister Review, in which Trowler had said too many babies were being wrongly removed from families by social workers. A similar story and interview with Trowler appeared in the Daily Mail the day after that (Doolan, 2021). There is an absence within such media discourse, as well as the MacAlister Review itself, of a focus on a children’s rights value orientation. Despite Mr MacAlister’s own discourse about loving childhoods during the Review, the focus on children’s rights in the MacAlister Review Final Report is very weak indeed, meriting only two direct mentions. This absence is mirrored in contemporary child and family social work practice in England, despite the formal integration of a ‘children’s rights’ agenda into English law, policy and practice over 30 years ago (Dillon, 2021). It would be a significant step backwards if older children, whose needs dictate they require good quality care placements, or who do not wish to live with their birth families, or who are otherwise unable to, are denied state care in even greater numbers than currently due to ill-​designed targets for reducing the numbers of children in state care based on a simplistic narrative of ‘keeping the state out of family life’. It is notable in this regard that the Review had very little to say about the care that should be provided to older children with complex needs within the care system, beyond statements that they should be loved. As John Radoux 205

The Future of Children’s Care

argues in Chapter 9, it is indeed essential that children in the care system should feel they are loved. But, as an injunction to those providing care to those children it is by itself far too ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations. Radoux’s own chapter has started to provide a better sense of what care for older children in care system with complex needs might consist of in the future. The focus on family-​based care arguably also underlies the Review’s overlooking of the needs of unaccompanied asylum-​ seeking children in any detail, as identified by Isobel Drew, Rebekah Pierre and Robin Sen in Chapter 6. These children should be legally classed as ‘Looked-​after Children’ by definition. The number of unaccompanied minors in the care system in England has varied, but they represent a significant proportion of Looked-​after Children: in 2019, there were 5,070 unaccompanied asylum-​seeking children in state care, which constituted nearly 7 per cent of all children in care in England that year (DfE, 2019). These numbers reduced in the immediate years after, but this is likely to have been at least partially due to the effects of COVID-​19 pandemic travel restrictions. Future numbers are likely to be influenced by geopolitical events, external to the control of children’s services. Attempting to reducing the numbers of children in state care via the state foregoing its responsibilities to those children trying to claim asylum in the UK would clearly be a betrayal of progressive principles rather than their realisation. Conclusion Drawing on insights from the chapters in this collection we have analysed the potential for the MacAlister Review recommendations to be used to move children’s services policy reform in contradictory directions via a variation of a double shuffle. In this case the double shuffle would involve signalling an initial move towards greater family support while subsequently leading to state defunding of children’s services and/​or greater deregulation and privatisation of service delivery within children’s services. We genuinely hope this analysis is overly pessimistic. However, as noted, there is already some suggestion within the discourse used by key influencers of the current children’s services policy reform agenda of reduced state 206

Conclusion

intervention with families, rather than differential state activity harnessed in support of families, and better directed by them. This matter will require close scrutiny in any future children’s services policy proposals. We also note that one of the merits of Fox Harding’s description of her typology is that it identifies potential limitations and strengths in each of the four child welfare values positions she sets out. It can thereby facilitate discussion around differences people hold about the aims and principles, as well as the delivery, of children’s services (Smith, 2005). Since we have taken a critical line towards an interpretation of the laissez-​faire orientation here, it is worth emphasising that in Fox Harding’s presentation all four value positions are underpinned by important arguments they present for the role, or lack of role, of the state in family life. It is a regret that the tensions underlying these value positions were not more openly discussed during the MacAlister Review itself as they reflect importantly different perspectives on the state’s role in family life which filter through into different views and expectations about children’s services policy and practice. Better exploring such differences and tensions would be valuable in thinking through the direction in which children’s services reform should go in the coming years. It will require more explicit openness from those drawing up policy on the thinking behind any future policy proposals, as well as greater openness to the possibility of dissension to them. It is on the matter of dissent that we finish. Joe Hanley’s chapter and our own (Chapters 3 and 4) raise concerns about the potential for a small number of highly networked actors to exert disproportionate influence on children’s services policy development and social work practice. A core contention behind this collection is the belief that this needs to change. Dissent has a key role to play within such change. Dissent –​speaking truth to power –​is a core part of what good social work is, and should be (Garrett, 2021). One of us has previously argued that dissent is a professional requirement in contemporary social work: it is codified within the professional standards, codes and frameworks social workers in the UK must abide by, in however etioliated a form (Kerr and Watts, 2022). In the face of continuing injustices, a key characteristic of the international social work profession 207

The Future of Children’s Care

remains an explicit articulation of social justice aims as core to its purpose (International Federation of Social Workers, 2014). Effective dissent also comes with its own responsibilities: that it is reasoned, proportionate and, wherever possible, constructive, leading to suggestions of alternatives. A key issue in challenging unpopular deregulatory reforms in children’s services in England over the last decade has been that too much energy has been expended on opposition to government proposals, rather than developing alternatives. There are, undeniably, good examples that have provided constructive articulations of alternatives in children’s services delivery in England and internationally (Featherstone et al, 2018; Burford et al, 2019; Firmin, 2020; Pennell, 2022, among others). These occupy the ground of human and socially oriented policy and practice. However, dissent is never only determined by dissenters but those in positions of power and influence whose proposals are the subject of opposition. If dissenters have a responsibility to constructively dissent, those in positions of influence have a responsibility to engage with critical voices who say ‘I/​we do not accept this’, and ‘There are other ways’. If chapters in this book have challenged the notion that the reform of children’s services should be left to an army of ‘like-​minded people’, then this leads to the overarching critical question: What is the right way to make policy in this area? This is not easy to answer. A quick and ready answer would likely preclude the complexities and tensions within any such endeavour. That is precisely why we need ambitious and open discussion about what the purposes, values and aims of the children’s services system should be, as well as how they should be achieved. Such discussion needs to be held in a way that eschews the illusion that an easy consensus ever exists on complex matters, while seeking to move policy and practice forward in ways that are sufficiently open to debate and scrutiny that they can at least satisfy and integrate parts of multiple perspectives and interests. A counter to the narrow politicisation of knowledge and expertise is the better inclusion of more diverse viewpoints. This would help avoid the cognitive and epistemic pitfalls associated with closed networks and the over-​confidence that 208

Conclusion

can result (Moore and MacKenzie, 2020). Disagreement can help draw out values-​based assumptions, disciplinary biases and intellectual blind spots while demonstrating an openness to scrutiny. Politicians who value disagreement provide themselves with a means to openly change or reverse their positions in light of new information and understandings, rather than feeling as if they must plough on regardless. Harnessing dissenting views is, no doubt, challenging and frustrating for policy makers and their advisors. It requires slow, deliberate, difficult work rather than headline-​grabbing discourse that implies quick fixes are possible. The discourse of quick fixes appeases the political, media –​and sometimes –​public demands to see evidence of policy impact and change within electoral cycles. However, it is ill-​suited to changing children’s services for the better. It was slow, deliberate, inclusive work that laid the groundwork for the complex balances which were struck between children’s welfare, children’s rights, child protection intervention and family life within the Children Act 1989 (Purcell, 2020). The statute is not without faults. But it has endured over 30 years and is widely accepted to have been a significant legislative step forward in England and Wales. That the Act and the work leading to it occurred under two Thatcher governments, which many involved with children’s services would have been unlikely to support, is a case in point. We should not have to agree on everything to be able to agree on enough to support improvements in children’s services that will make tangible improvements to families’ lives. References Bilson, A. and Martin, K.E. (2017) ‘Referrals and child protection in England: one in five children referred to children’s services and one in nineteen investigated before the age of five’, British Journal of Social Work, 47(3), 793–​811. Bright, S. (2021) ‘Reform without funding? Renewed concerns over government’s children’s social care review’, Byline Times, 17 March. Available at: https://​web.arch​ive.org/​web/​202​3012​ 2135​823/​https://​byli​neti​mes.com/​2021/​03/​17/​inde​pend​ent-​ conce​r ns-​child​ren-​soc​ial-​care-​rev​iew-​contr​act-​publis​hed/​ [Accessed 22 January 2023]. 209

The Future of Children’s Care

Broadhurst, K., Wastell, D., White, S., Hall, C., Peckover, S., Thompson, K., et al (2010) ‘Performing “initial assessment”: identifying the latent conditions for error at the front-​door of local authority children’s services’, British Journal of Social Work, 40(2), 352–​370. Burford, G., Braithwaite, J. and Braithwaite, V. (2019) Restorative and Responsive Human Services. New York: Routledge. Bywaters, P. and the Child Welfare Inequalities Project Team (2020) The Child Welfare Inequalities Project: Final Report. London: CWIP and Nuffield Foundation. Available at: https://​ pure.hud.ac.uk/e​ n/p​ ublic​ atio ​ ns/t​ he-c​ hild-w ​ elfa​ re-i​ nequa​ liti​ es-​ proj​ect-​final-​rep​ort [Accessed 27 August 2022]. Carpenter, J., Brown, S. and Griffin, M. (2007) ‘Prevention in integrated children’s services: the impact of Sure Start on referrals to social services and child protection registrations’, Child Abuse Review, 16(1), 17–​31. Cattan, S., Conti, G., Farquharson, C. and Ginja, R. (2019) The Health Effects of Sure Start. London: Institute for Fiscal Studies. Available at: https://​web.arch​ive.org/​web/​202​2113​0232​048/​ https://​ifs.org.uk/​sites/​defa​ult/​files/​outpu​t_​ur​l_​fi​les/​R155-​ The-h ​ eal​ th-e​ ffec​ ts-o ​ f-S​ ure-S​ tart.pdf [Accessed 2 January 2023]. Clarke, J., Newman, J. and Westmarland, L. (2008) ‘The antagonisms of choice: New Labour and the reform of public services’, Social Policy and Society, 7(2), 245–​253. Crew, J. (2022) ‘Children’s social care system needs “radical reset,” review leader warns’, The Independent, 23 May. Available at: https://​web.arch​ive.org/​web/​202​3010​1135​420/​https://​ www.inde​pend​ent.co.uk/​news/​uk/​gov​ernm​ent-​child​ren-​soc​ial-​ care-​nad​him-​zah​awi-​b2084​871.html [Accessed 2 January 2023]. DfE (Department for Education) (2019) Children Looked After in England Including Adoption: 2018 to 2019. London: DfE. Dillon, J. (2021) ‘“Wishes and feelings”: misunderstandings and missed opportunities for participation in child protection proceedings’, Child & Family Social Work, 26(4), 664–​676. Doolan, A. (2021) ‘Too many babies and young children are being unnecessarily taken into care, country’s leading social worker says’, The Daily Mail, [online] 15 March. Available at: www.dailym​ail. co.uk/ ​ n ews/ ​ a rti ​ c le- ​ 9 362 ​ 0 83/ ​ Too- ​ b ab ​ i es- ​ u nnece ​ s sar ​ i lyt​ aken-c​ are-c​ ount​rys-​lead​ing-​soc​ial-​wor​ker-​says.html [Accessed 10 July 2022]. 210

Conclusion

Dugan, E. (2021a) ‘Social workers too quick to wade in, review finds’, The Times, [online] 13 June. Available at: www.theti​mes. co.uk/​arti​cle/​soc​ial-​work​ers-​too-​quick-​to-​wade-​in-​rev​iew-​ finds-​qtd076​3wd [Accessed 10 July 2022]. Dugan, E. (2021b) ‘Too many children wrongly taken into care, admits chief social worker Isabelle Trowler’, The Times, [online] 14 March. Available at: www.thetim ​ es.co.uk/​arti​cle/​too-​many-​ child​ren-​wron​gly-​taken-​into-​care-​adm​its-​chief-s​ oci​ al-w ​ ork​ er-​ isabe​lle-​trow​ler-​95g5ft​0ss [Accessed 10 July 2022]. Featherstone, B., Gupta, A., Morris, K. and White, S. (2018) Protecting Children: A Social Model. Bristol: Policy Press. Firmin, C. (2020) Contextual Safeguarding and Child Protection. London: Routledge. Forrester, D., Goodman, K., Cocker, C., Binnie, C. and Jensch, G. (2009) ‘What is the impact of public care on children’s welfare? A review of research findings from England and Wales and their policy implications’, Journal of Social Policy, 38(3), 439–​456. Fox Harding, L.M. (1991) ‘The Children Act 1989 in context: four perspectives in child care law and policy (I)’, The Journal of Social Welfare & Family Law, 13(3), 179–​193. Fox Harding, L.M. (2014 [1997]) Perspectives in Child Care Policy [e-​book]. London: Routledge. Garrett, P.M. (2021) Dissenting Social Work: Critical Theory, Resistance and Pandemic. London: Routledge. Gove, M. (2013) ‘Michael Gove speech to the NSPCC: getting it right for children in need’, 12 November. Available at: https://​ web.arch​ive.org/​web/​202​2091​9190​114/​https://​www.gov.uk/​ gov​ernm​ent/​speec​hes/​gett​ing-​it-​r ight-​for-​child​ren-​in-​need-​ spe​ech-​to-​the-​nspcc [Accessed 22 August 2022]. Hall, S. (2005) ‘New Labour’s double-​shuffle’, The Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 27(4), 319–​335. Harvey, D. (2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hood, R., Goldacre, A., Gorin, S. and Bywaters, P. (2020) ‘Screen, ration and churn: demand management and the crisis in children’s social care’, British Journal of Social Work, 50(3), 868–​889. Hyslop, I.K. (2022) A Political History of Child Protection: Lessons for Reform from Aotearoa New Zealand. Bristol: Policy Press. 211

The Future of Children’s Care

International Federation of Social Workers (2014) Global Definition of Social Work. Available at: www.ifsw.org/​what-​is-​soc​ial-​work/​ glo​bal-​def​i nit​ion-​of-​soc​ial-​work/​ [Accessed 30 July 2022]. Jones, R. (2014) The Story of Baby P: Setting the Record Straight. Bristol: Policy Press. Jones, R. (2019) In Whose Interest? The Privatisation of Child Protection and Social Work. Bristol: Policy Press. Kerr, C. and Watts, N. (2022) ‘Against a bitter tide: how a small UK charity operationalises dissent to challenge the “hostile environment” for migrant children and families’, Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 34(3), 61–​73. Available at: https://​anzsw​jour​nal. nz/​anzsw/​arti​cle/​view/​938 [Accessed 30 September 2022]. LaingBuisson, Cobic and Cicada (2016) The Potential for Developing the Capacity and Diversity of Children’s Social Care Services in England. Independent research report. London: Department for Education. Laming, W. (2003) The Victoria Climbié Inquiry: Report of an Inquiry by Lord Laming. Norwich: The Stationery Office. Lister, R. (2004) ‘The Third Way’s social investment state’, pp 157–181, in J. Lewis and R. Surender (eds) Welfare State Change: Towards a Third Way? Oxford: Oxford University Press. MacAlister, J. (2022) The Independent Review of Children’s Social Care. Final Report. London: Department for Education. McGrath-​Brookes, M., Hanley, J. and Higgins, M. (2021) ‘A Fisher-​eye lens on social work reform’, Journal of Social Work, 21(5), 1261–​1277. Moore, A. and MacKenzie, M.K. (2020) ‘Policy making during crises: how diversity and disagreement can help manage the politics of expert advice’, British Medical Journal, 371. Munro, E. (2004) ‘The impact of audit on social work practice’, British Journal of Social Work, 34(8), 1075–​1095. Munro, E. (2011) The Munro Review of Child Protection: Final Report. A Child-​centred System. London: The Stationery Office. Narey, M. (2011) ‘The Narey report: a blueprint for the nation’s lost children’, The Times, [online] 5 July. Available at: https://​ www.theti​mes.co.uk/​arti​cle/​the-​narey-​rep​ort-​a-​bluepr ​int​ f or-​ t he-​ n ati​ o ns-​ l ost-​ c hild​ ren-​ 7 b2k​ t mcr ​ f 0w [Accessed 5 October 2018].

212

Conclusion

Narey, M. and Owers, M. (2018) Foster Care in England: A Review for the Department for Education. Available at: https://a​ sse​ ts.publ​ ishi​ ng. serv​ice.gov.uk/​gov​ernm​ent/​uplo​ads/​sys​tem/u ​ ploa​ ds/a​ ttac​ hme​ nt_​d​ata/​file/​679​320/​Foster​_​Car​e_​in​_​Eng​land​_​Rev​iew.pdf [Accessed 30 June 2022]. Parton, N. (2014) The Politics of Child Protection: Contemporary Developments and Future Directions. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Pennell, J. (2022) A Restorative Approach to Family Violence: Feminist Kin-​Making. Abingdon and New York: Taylor & Francis. Purcell, C. (2020) The Politics of Children’s Services Reform: Re-​ Examining Two Decades of Policy Change. Bristol: Policy Press. Rogowski, S. (2018) ‘Critical social work with children and families in the neoliberal world’, in S. Webb (ed) The Routledge Handbook of International Critical Social Work: New Perspectives and Agendas [e-​book]. New York and London: Routledge, ­chapter 11. Sen, R. (2016) ‘Building relationships in a cold climate: a case study of family engagement within an “edge of care” family support service’, Social Policy and Society, 15(2), 289–​302. Sen, R. (2018) Effective Practice with Looked After Children. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Sen, R. and Webb, C. (2019) ‘Exploring the declining rates of state social work intervention in an English local authority using Family Group Conferences’, Children and Youth Services Review, 106, 104458. Shoesmith, S. (2016) Learning from Baby P: The Politics of Blame, Fear and Denial. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Smith, R. (2005) Values and Practice in Children’s Services. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Smith, R. (2018) ‘Reconsidering value perspectives in child welfare’, British Journal of Social Work, 48(3), 616–632. White, S., Wastell, D., Broadhurst, K. and Hall, C. (2010) ‘When policy o’erleaps itself: the “tragic tale” of the Integrated Children’s System’, Critical Social Policy, 30(3), 405–​429.

213

Index References to endnotes show both the page number and the note number (231n3).

A administrative burden within child and family social work practice  69 adoption  145, 168 advantages of  151–​152, 155 BASW Enquiry  146–​147, 156 children’s rights  158 delivery models  123, 129–​132 disadvantages of  150–​151, 155–​156 inheritance law  157 MacAlister Review’s definition of  147 problems with decision to sideline adoption  145–​146 recommendations of MacAlister Review  146 regulations  154–​155 role of adopters  152–​154 in UK  147–​150 Adoption and Children (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 see Statutory Instrument  445 Adoption and Children Act (2002)  20, 128, 147 Adoption of Children (Scotland) Act (1930)  148 Adoption UK  145 adultification  Child Q case  112–​114 in MacAlister Review  106–​107 of unaccompanied asylum-​seeking children  110–​111 age assessments  in race and children’s services  107–​110 of unaccompanied asylum-​seeking children  116

Ahmed, N.  103 alternative parenting  27 Andersen, S. H.  133 Anti-​Oppressive Practice  115 Anti-​Racism  115 Ark  40 Article 39  15, 21, 23, 28 Association of Directors of Children’s Services (ADCS)  27 Atos  19 attachment theory  162 aversive racism  114

B Baker, C.  24 Ball, Stephen  40–​42 Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee  78 Barnardo’s  48 Bernard, C.  107 ‘best and brightest’ meme  53 bias  myriad forms of  73 outside formal RSW evaluation process  73–​74 Biehal, N.  130 ‘big society’ discourse  201–​202 Black children  112–​114 Boddy, J.  130 Bourdieu, P.  180 Bowlby, J.  162, 166 Bowser, Avery  8, 130 British Association of Social Work  114, 115 British Association of Social Workers (BASW) Enquiry  52, 146–​147 British Dental Association  108–​109

214

Index

C ‘Call for Advice’  48 Cameron, David  18, 201 Care Act (2014)  20 Care Collective  10, 188–​191 care-​experienced people  92 Care Manifesto  188 care system in England  1, 90, 92, 95–​97, 122, 156, 161, 166 children positions in  158 Conservative Party’s manifesto for  3–​4 Duncan Review of  2–​3 kinship  129 series of reforms  28 caring for children and young people  161–​162, 175–​176 foster care  169, 169–​172 needs of children in care  162–​168 preference for kinship care and adoption  168 residential care  169, 172–​175 Case for Change report  4, 26–​28, 49–​50, 52, 107, 205 Castells, Manuel  38, 51 highlighting importance of shared network rules and logic  42 theory of network society  39 Chief Social Worker for Children and Families  21, 23 Child Arrangement Order (COA) 122, 126, 132, 135, 136, 154 child maltreatment  181–​182 child protection in England  165, 180–​181, 195, 207 assessments  86–​87 gaze  181 human relationships  6 investigations  86–​88 see also social model of protecting children Child Q case  7, 101, 107, 111–​114 children  in care system  206 hope for  93–​95 in kinship care  123, 124–​125, 133–​135, 137 older children on edge of care  204–​205 poor capacity available within workforce build relationships  90–​91

relationships to  95–​97 responsibility and care for  123, 126–​129 Children & Young People Now (Owers)  146 Children Act (1989)  24–​25, 27, 124, 126–​128, 157, 209 Children Act (2004)  20 Children and Families Act (2014)  128 Children and Social Work Bill  20, 22 Children and Young Persons Act (2008)  19, 28, 128 Children’s Commissioner for England (CCE)  107 Children’s Commissioner for England  21, 23, 48 children’s rights and child liberation  see children’s rights in England children’s rights in England  195, 196, 207 agenda of  205 bonfire of children’s rights  20–​22 call for children’s rights-​based review  17–​18 children’s services as red tape  18 children’s voices and experiences  29–​30 contracting of care  27–​29 family rights as means to protect  26–​27 moving children’s services from local authorities  19 ‘myth busting’ guide  22–​23 no new funding for children and families  24–​25 Statutory Instrument 445  23–​24 UNCRC and  14–​16 ‘whack-​a-​mole’ game  30–​31 children’s services in England  analysis of values positions in child welfare  194, 195 close alliances within  61 connections within complex  73–​75 ‘double shuffle’ in policy development  194, 195–​196, 200–​204 EBP and search for unbiased knowledge  62–​65 Hanley’s work on network power in  5 215

The Future of Children’s Care history of reform in  4 issues of race in  7 MacAlister Review  75–​76 missteps on policy dance floor  196–​200 moving from local authorities  19 policy reform agenda  206–​207 Reclaiming Social Work  65–​73 as red tape  18 reform from New Labour  10 social work complex  6, 75–​77 troubling ‘social workers too quick to wade in’ narrative  204–​206 ‘child rescue’ model  see adoption delivery models child welfare system in England  6 family support orientation within  194 Harding’s analysis of values positions in  10, 194, 207 integration of kinship care into  129 practitioners  124–​125 Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act (1970)  20 ‘civil rights issue of our time’ meme  50 ‘Clear blue water’ report (2018) 127 Climbié, Victoria Adjo  135, 198 ‘closed loop’ approach  5 Collins, Jane  9 Commission on Young Lives  48 Committee on the Rights of the Child  16 Community Care  52 Connelly, Peter  198 cost-​of-​living crisis  34, 136, 156, 182 COVID-​19 pandemic  10, 51 impact in social model of protecting children  183–​184 and platform business model  186 tendencies of British capitalism  185 Crenshaw, K.  112 Crittenden, P.  162 customer choice  43

D Davies, W.  86, 185–​187 Davis, J.  106, 107 Dawkins, Richard  38

defence of birth family and family rights  see family rights Deloitte  67 Department for Education (DfE)  19, 612 Deprivation of Liberty  175 DfE Innovation Programme  67 Dickens, Charles  148 Difference, The (organisation)  47–​48 direct work of social workers  164–​165 dissent  207–​208 ‘diversity of leadership’ in children’s services, lack of  105 ‘double shuffle’ in policy development  10, 194, 195–​196 Drayak, Taliah  6, 201 Drew, Isobel  7, 206 Dreyfus, H.  74 Duncan Review  of children care system in Scotland  2–​3, 91, 92 key areas in care system  95–​96 ‘love in the system’ concept  163–​ 164, 167–​168

E ‘Early Help’ services  203 Early Intervention Foundation  75 Eisenhower, Dwight  60–​61 Elvin, Andy  51 Equalities and Human Rights Commission  78 ethnicity and children’s services  103 Evidence Based Practice (EBP)  60, 61 paradigm focuses on reducing bias  74 and search for unbiased knowledge  62–​65 Exley, S.  41

F Fallesen, P.  133 family-​based care  206 ‘Family and Friends Care’ statutory guidance  128 Family Group Conferencing  65, 72 ‘Family Help’ practices  25, 201 family rights  195, 196, 202, 207 as means to protect children’s rights  26–​27 216

Index orientated reform  197–​198 value orientation  201 Featherstone, Brid  9–​10, 146, 182, 201, 203 Ferguson, Ian  44 Ferraro, A. C.  134 ‘Firstline’ programme  67 Floyd, George  114 formal kinship care  122, 128 Forrester, Donald  44, 62, 66 argument for using RCTs in social work evaluation  64–​65 characterisation of RCTs  62–​63 involvement in MacAlister Review  75 foster care  169–​170 Mockingbird  172 role of foster carers  170–​171 service  123, 129–​132 see also residential care foster carers  153–​156 Foucault, Michel  42 Freedom of Information  30 Frontline  40, 45, 60 funding support to certain students  53 MacAlister’s proposal for  48, 49 ‘safe and stable’ meme  47 Frost, E.  180

G G4S  19 Garrett, P. M.  43, 52 Gill, Kiran  48 Golding, Kim  171 ‘gold standard’ of Evidence Based Practice  6 Goldstein, J.  130 Goodman, Steve  44, 66, 67, 70, 73 Gove, Michael  47, 66, 67 Gramsci, A.  42 Green New Deal  191 Gupta, Anna  9–​10, 146, 201, 203 Gypsy, Roma Traveller communities  102, 103

H Hackney model  43–​45, 66, 67, 74 Hall, Stuart  10, 194–​196, 202 see also ‘double shuffle’ in policy development Hancock, Matthew  18

Hanley, Joe  5, 200, 207 Hardiker, Pauline  146 Harding, Lorraine Fox  10, 194, 195, 197, 207 Harris, P.  107 Hayes, Helen  49, 50 hegemony concept  42, 52 ‘high-​quality’ meme  45–​46, 53 Hoggett, P.  179, 180 Hood, R.  200 Hughes, Dan  171 human rights  85 Hunt, Joan  126

I iatrogenic effects  65 Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse  30 Independent Review of Children’s Social Care in England  see MacAlister Review of Children’s Social Care in England individualised behavioural risks  180 individualised constructions of responsibility  180 informal consultation process  51 informal kinship care  122, 128 Innovation Fund programme investment board  73–​74 Innovation Programme initiative  61 Innovation Programme of RSW  67–​68, 70 Innovation Unit and Mutual Ventures  67 Institute for Public Policy Research  48 Integrated Children’s System in England  198 intercountry adoption in UK 149–​150, 152 ‘interdependence’ concept  163 International Parent Advocacy Network  87 In Whose Interest? (Jones)  40

J Jackson, Mary  66, 67 Janas, Michelle  78n2 ‘Jenga tower’ meme  50 Joint Social Work Education and Research Conference (JSWEC)  45 Jones, Ray  40, 72 217

The Future of Children’s Care

K Karanicolas, P. J.  63 Kerr, Christian  1, 60, 194 kinship care for England and Wales  7–​8, 122, 136–​137, 169 alternative assumptions  137–​138 benefits of  123 children in kinship care  123, 133–​ 135, 137 formal  122, 128 foster care service and adoption delivery models  123, 129–​132 increasing support to kinship carers  123, 135–​136 informal  122, 128 preference for  168 responsibility and care for children  123, 126–​129 rhetoric in current reform agenda  124–​126 kinship carer  123, 128, 135–​136 kinship family arrangements  133

L LaingBuisson  25, 203 laissez-​faire and patriarchy  see ‘laissez-​faire’ approach ‘laissez-​faire’ approach  195, 196, 201, 202, 207 leadership, organisational  105 Leeds Family Valued evaluation  61 legal fiction  8, 151, 156 legal parenthood  147 ‘levelling up’ policy  50 Lewell-​Buck, Emma  20, 21 Lieven, Justice  164 local authority children’s services in England  72 Local Child Safeguarding Review (LCSR)  107, 111–​113 Longfield, Anne  21 ‘Looked-​after Children’  206 Lorde, Audre  116 Loughton, Tim  21 ‘love in the system’ concept 163–​164, 167–​168

M MacAlister, Josh  2, 17, 24, 31, 40, 44 argument for Frontline programme establishment  71

using ‘high-​quality’ meme  46 Institute for Public Policy Research  48 ‘reset’ of children’s social care system  194 role in MacAlister Review  75 role in The Difference  48 views on Elvin’s proposal for national care service  51–​52 MacAlister Review of Children’s Social Care in England  1–​2, 17, 101, 145, 196, 200–​201 abolition of Independent Reviewing Officer role  201 adoption minimalism  146 and adoption practices  8 adultification and disappearance in  106–​107 age assessments in race and children’s services  107–​110 asylum and immigration in race and children’s services  106 Case for Change report  4, 26–​28 children care system  91, 92 children’s services in England 61 for children’s services in England  75–​76 children’s services policy reform  206 consideration for UNCRC’s scenario  17–​18 definition of adoption  147 direct work  164–​165 discussion of contents and omissions within  4–​5 ‘Family Help’ practices  25 Final Report  3–​5, 9, 24, 26, 28–​29, 31, 44, 116, 204–​205 ‘interdependence’ concept  163 issues of structural and institutional racism  116–​117 kinship care  7–​8 ‘love in the system’ concept 163–​164, 167–​168 for networked propagation in children’s social care  46–​47 other memes  49–​51 preference for kinship care  168 in race and children’s services  103–​105 recommendation for financial allowances from  125

218

Index recommendation for fostering allowance  132 recommendation for use of parental advocacy  6 recommendations on Family Network Plans  146 recommendation to abolish Independent Reviewing Officer role in  76 relational need  162–​163 risk of double shuffle from  202 ‘safe and stable’ meme  47–​49 support to kinship carers  136 unlocking potential of family networks  123, 128 Marsh, N.  106, 107 Maslow’s hierarchy of needs  162 mass self-​communication  42–​43 memes  38–​39, 43, 53 ‘best and brightest’  53 ‘civil rights issue of our time’  50 of Hanley  5 high-​quality  39, 45–​46, 53 ‘Jenga tower’  50 ‘levelling up’ policy  50 ‘once in a generation’  49 reclaiming social work  39, 43–​45, 53 ‘reset’  31, 50–​51 ‘runaway train’  49–​50 ‘safe and stable’  47–​49 social work  43 Merton compliant  109, 117n1 military-​industry complex  60 Mockingbird  172 Montgomery, Paul  78n2 Morning Lane Associates  66, 67, 74, 76 Morris, Kate  9, 106–​107 Mulberry Bush school  173 Munro, Eileen  21, 66, 66, 73, 74, 199 Munro, Murphy, Turnell company  74 Munro Report  199–​200 Munro Review of Child Protection  66, 69, 73 ‘myth busting’ guide  22–​23

N Narey, Martin  169 National Assessment and Accreditation System  45, 197 National Audit Office inquiry  74

Nationality and Borders Act (2022)  7, 108, 109–​110, 116 needs of children in care  162 child protection  165 consultation with children  166–​167 direct work of social workers  164–​165 ‘interdependence’ concept  163 ‘love in the system’ concept 163–​164, 167–​168 need of advocates  165–​166 relational need  162–​163 trusting relationships in childhood  163 Neil, K.  131 neoliberal-​influenced child protection policy position  196 neoliberalism  202–​203 neoliberal models of family support  200–​204 networked propagation in children’s social care  38 Castells’ theory of network society  39–​41 children’s social care  43–​46 MacAlister Review  46–​51 proliferation of ideas within networks  41–​43 New Labour  199 agenda  197–​198 investment in family support  197 PR ‘spin’ operation  196 welfare and public services policy agenda  195 New Public Management approaches  197, 198 nondiscrimination in enjoyment of rights  21 Nuffield LACGro Project  134

O Office for Budgetary Responsibility  78 Ofsted  27, 28, 70, 187 ‘once in a generation’ meme  49 organisational leadership  105 ‘out-​of-​home’ care  134–​135, 137 Owers, Mark  146

P parent(s)  advocate/​advocacy  87–​89, 95, 97 219

The Future of Children’s Care challenges in taking care of children  85–​86 child protection assessment  86–​87 feeling sceptical across care system  91–​93 issues with bad parenting  86 rights of  96 seeking help to care for children  89–​90 Parent Advocacy Network  93 Parent Advocacy peer-​to-​peer support model  93 parental responsibility  126 Parent Cafes and Vitality Cafes  93 Parent Partner  97 Parents, Families and Allies Network (PFAN)  6, 87, 93 Pause project  74 Pierre, Rebekah  7, 206 placement service in kinship care  133–​135 Policy Exchange  47 power, concept of  42 proliferation of ideas within networks  41–​43 Promise, The  2, 3 Protecting Children: A Social Model  178 see also child protection in England Putting Children First policy  47, 49, 53

Q quality decision-making  46 quality workforce  46 Quince, Will  49, 50

R race and children’s services 101–​102 adultification, Black children and their families  112–​114 adultification of unaccompanied asylum-​seeking children  110–​111 Child Q case  101, 111–​112 intersectional approach  115–​116 issues of institutional and structural racism  114–​115, 116–​117 MacAlister Review  103–​110 racial conventions  102–​103 racism  102 aversive  114

issues of institutional and structural  114–​117 Radoux, John  2, 8–​9, 205–​206 Rainbow, P.  74 Randomised Control Trials (RCTs)  61, 74 Forrester’s characterisation of  62–​63 role of masked groups  63–​64 use in social work  63 reasonable chastisement, archaic defence of  16 Reclaiming Social Work (RSW) model in England  60, 65–​66 claims of success  68–​69 deregulatory reforms  69–​70 difficulties  70–​71 effectiveness of social work practice  72 evaluations  66–​67 Innovation Programme  67–​68, 70 policy developments  71–​72 ‘reclaiming social work’ meme 43–​45, 53 rigour and high standards  67 social work complex  67 of social work practice  6 social work via ‘unit model’  66, 72–​73 Reclaiming Social Work  44 Reclaiming the Social in Social Work 45 Red Tape Challenge  18, 19 Refugee Council  109 Regional Care Cooperatives  76 relationships  to children  95–​97 poor capacity available within workforce build  90–​91 trusting  87, 90, 96, 163 rentier nationalism  185, 186 ‘reset’ meme  31, 50–​51 ‘reset’ of children’s social care system  194 Residence Orders  154 residential care  150, 169, 172 advantages of  172–​173 children’s therapeutic community  173–​174 disadvantage of  174 residential homes  174–​175 see also foster care 220

Index Roberts, D.  191 Role of the Social Worker in Adoption, The: Ethics and Human Rights  146 Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH)  108 ‘runaway train’ meme  49–​50

S ‘safe and stable’ meme  47–​49 Safer Schools Partnership  112 ‘safety, stability and love’ meme  48–​49 Sanders, Michael  62, 72 Sayer, A.  180 Scots law in March 2021  15 Sen, Amartya  191 Sen, Robin  1, 7, 60, 194, 206 Serco  19 Sewell Report  77–​78 Shuttleworth, Paul  7, 201 social care of children  43 function of local authority children  19 ‘high-​quality’ meme  45–​46 ‘reclaiming social work’ meme  43–​45 regulations  18 social enterprise  43, 61, 66, 67 social interventions  63–​64 social model of protecting children  9–​10, 178–​179, 191–​192 Care Collective  188–​191 COVID-​19 pandemic impact  183–​184 illuminating and intensifying underlying tendencies  185–​188 impacts of Ofsted inspections  188 literature on social harms  181 moral judgment of individuals  179 othering and misrecognition  180 policy directions from DfE  181–​182 public health inequalities literature  181 role of national and local state  182–​183 social suffering  180 see also child protection in England Social Services and Well-​being (Wales) Act (2014)  124, 127 social suffering  180 social work  85, 114

child protection assessments  86–​87 complex  60, 67, 75–​76, 77 definition of  98 feeling sceptical across care system  91–​93 hope for children  93–​95 lack of support  89–​90 parent advocate/​advocacy  87–​89, 95, 97 poor capacity available within workforce build relationships  90–​91 relationships to children  95–​97 return to values  97–​98 value of lived experience  97–​98 Social Work England  104 social workers  85–​86, 94, 109, 155 Social Work Reclaimed  44 Southwark  27 Southwark and Camden peer advocacy  93 Special Guardianship Order (SGO)  122, 126, 135, 136, 153, 156 Spring Consortium  67 ‘Star Chamber’ process  18 state paternalism and child protection  see child protection statutory guidance and case law  126 Statutory Instrument 445  23–​24, 51, 164 Sturgeon, Nicola  2 substitute families  130–​131 supported accommodation  28 Sure Start programme  197

T Teach First  40 Teen Advocacy  97 Thoburn, J.  131 Tobin Tax  191 ‘Together for Children’ coalition  20–​21, 22 Trowler, Isabelle  21, 41, 43, 44, 47, 66, 76, 203, 205 ‘Clear blue water’ report  127 involvement in MacAlister Review  75 letter to House of Lords  22 National Audit Office inquiry  74 role in Munro Review  73 see also Reclaiming Social Work (RSW) model in England 221

The Future of Children’s Care trusting relationship  87, 90, 96, 163 Tunstill, J.  20

defence of birth family and family rights  195, 207 laissez-​faire and patriarchy  195, 196, 201, 202, 207 state paternalism and child protection  195, 196, 207

U UK Statistics Authority  78 unaccompanied children  27 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)  14 about adoption of children 151 Article 39 of  15 provisions and obligations  14–​16 social and economic policies running counter to  17 support for children’s relationships  17–​18 United Nations High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR)  109 ‘unit model’ in RSW  66, 72–​73 Universality of protection  21–​22 University of Strathclyde  175 ‘unstable and unsafe’ meme  48

V values positions in child welfare, analysis of  194, 195 children’s rights and child liberation  195, 196, 207

W Watts, Richard  20 Way Forward, The  94 Webb, C.  103–​104, 115, 187 ‘whack-​a-​mole’ game  30–​31 What Works Centre for Children’s Social Care (WWCCSC)  45, 60, 62, 71–​72, 74, 75 White Eastern Europeans  102 White Jewish people  102 white normativity  114 White, Sue  9 Williamson, Gavin  23 Willow, Carolyne  5, 20, 203 Winokur, M. A.  133 Wood, Alan  44, 66, 73, 74, 203 World Health Organization  191 World Institute for Development Economics Research on the Capability Approach  191

Z Zahawi, Nadhim  22

222