Appendix G: Profile of Families in the Study and Details of Their Contact with Children

Appendix G: Profile of families in the study and details of their contact with children’s social care

Ethnic background

Those who were interviewed were asked to define their ethnicity using the Office for National Statistics harmonised ethnic group categories. Of the 270 families in the sample 73 per cent said they were White English or Scottish or Northern Irish. The other main ethnic groups that were represented were those with other White backgrounds – predominantly from Eastern Europe (5%) – Asian Bangladeshi (5%) and Black Caribbean (3%). A complete list of reported ethnicities are recorded in Table G.1. As the table shows, the two London authorities had the greatest diversity amongst the families in the study but this reflects the ethnic composition of those areas. More than two-thirds (69 per cent) of Tower Hamlet’s population belong to minority ethnic groups: 55 per cent belong to Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) groups and a further 14 per cent are from White minority groups. The broad BME group Asian or Asian British comprises 33 per cent of the population and Black or Black British for 19 per cent.

Parents at home

In approximately 35 per cent of families there were two adults living in the home and performing a parenting role, although in many cases they were not the biological parents to all – and in some cases to any – of the children. In most cases one parent, usually the mother, cared for the children.

Number and age of children in families in the study

The number of children under 18 years living in the home at T1 is recorded in Table G.2. Most families had 3 or fewer children living at home. For 193 instances these were the only children in these families; in a further 34 families there were older adult children in the home or elsewhere. However, in 43 families there were other children not living in the home. In 6 of the families other children were living with a former partner under an agreement between the parents; in another 8 families children were living with relatives under an informal arrangement; and in 7 cases children were living with a relative – usually a grandparent – on a Special Guardianship Order. In 12 families other children had been removed permanently and in 7 children were in temporary foster care. In 3 cases there were additional children but it was not clear where they were living.The age of the oldest child in the family to be included in the relevant referral was recorded. In 5 families the only child was still unborn, in 26 s/he was under 1 year and in 63 they were 4 years old or younger. This means that in over a third of families in the sample the oldest child was under 5 years and in nearly a third (30%) the oldest was between 5 and 10 years of age. In a quarter of the families the oldest child was between 11 and 15 years with the rest (10%) having a young person who was aged 16 or 17 years. Figure G.1 illustrates the age spread of the oldest referred child in the families.

Evaluation of Signs of Safety in 10 pilots: Research report. June 2017. Mary Baginsky, Jo Moriarty, Jill Manthorpe, Jennifer Beecham and Ben Hickman – Social Care Workforce Research Unit, King’s College London

Table G.1 Ethnic background of families in study by local authority

Brent / Bristol / Leics / Lincs / Norfolk / Suffolk / Tower Hamlets / Wake-field / WSCC / Wokingham / Total
White English/Scottish/Irish / 1 / 22 / 18 / 29 / 28 / 23 / 5 / 28 / 23 / 20 / 197
White Irish / 1 / 1 / 2
Gypsy/Traveller / 1 / 1 / 2
Other White b/g / 7 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 2 / 1 / 14
Mixed White and Black Caribbean / 2 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 5
Mixed White and Black African / 1 / 1
Mixed White and Asian / 1 / 1 / 1 / 3
Other Mixed b/g / 1 / 1
Asian Indian / 1 / 1 / 2
Asian Pakistani / 3 / 1 / 1 / 5
Asian Bangladeshi / 1 / 13 / 14
Other Asian b/g / 1 / 1
Black African / 3 / 2 / 1 / 6
Black Caribbean / 5 / 1 / 1 / 2 / 9
Other Black/African/ Caribbean b/g / 2 / 2
Arab / 2 / 2
Kurdish / 1 / 1 / 2
Other / 1 / 1 / 2
Total / 25 / 30 / 19 / 30 / 30 / 25 / 30 / 30 / 29 / 22 / 270

Table G.2 Number of children in families by local authority area

Number of children in families
0
(at home) / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / Not clear
Brent / - / 11 / 5 / 6 / 0 / 2 / 0 / 1 / 0 / -
Bristol / 1 / 14 / 6 / 4 / 2 / 3 / 0 / 0 / 0 / -
Leicestershire / - / 8 / 8 / 3 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / -
Lincs / - / 13 / 10 / 6 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / -
Norfolk / - / 8 / 9 / 9 / 3 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / -
Suffolk / - / 9 / 6 / 5 / 1 / 2 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 1
Tower Hamlets / - / 11 / 4 / 7 / 4 / 3 / 1 / 0 / 0 / -
Wakefield / - / 14 / 9 / 3 / 3 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / -
West Sussex / - / 9 / 12 / 5 / 1 / 0 / 2 / 0 / 0 / -
Wokingham / - / 9 / 8 / 5 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / -
Total / 1 / 106 / 77 / 53 / 15 / 12 / 3 / 1 / 1 / 1

Figure G.1 Age of oldest child in families in the sample

Twenty-eight families reported that they had a disabled child and 3 families said they had two disabled children. However, these figures must be treated with some caution as there were indications from the interview data that the number is higher than this.

Families with one or more of: domestic violence, parental substance and/or alcohol misuse and parental mental health problems

Data were collected on the documented history of these families in relation to domestic violence (DV), parental substance and/or alcohol misuse and parental mental health problems (see Table G.3). Where an issue was not identified it was recorded as ‘not known’. At least one of these was recorded in the present for 192 families – that is 192 of the 262 (73%) who had given the team access to their records.

Table G.3 Parental experiences of domestic violence (DV), substance and alcohol abuse and mental health problems

Issue / Number in past only / Number in present only / Past and present / No/% in present*
DV / 10 / (9) / (119) / 128 / 49%
Substance abuse / 23 / (7) / (74) / 81 / 31%
Alcohol abuse / 30 / (5) / (69) / 74 / 28%
Mental health problems / 11 / (7) / (111) / 118 / 45%

* The percentages have been calculated on the basis of the records examined on the 262 families who gave their permission for this to happen.

A proportion of families currently had more than one of these problems. The most common combinations are shown in Figure G.2.

Figure G.2 Most common combinations of domestic violence, substance and alcohol abuse and mental health problems amongst families in the study

When the alcohol and drug abuse categories are combined the records showed that at least 1 in 5 families had all 3 present.

Previous contact with children’s services

The vast majority (242/90%) of the 270 families had prior contact with children’s services. Of the remaining 28 families 12 had no prior contact and information was missing on the rest. Given that an original criterion for inclusion in the study was that cases should be re-referrals it is not surprising that such a high proportion had been known to children’ services before the referral under consideration. Table G.4 summarises the year in which families in the study were first referred to children’s services for a concern about their children.

Previous and current referrals

There were at least 204 families where there had been at least one previous referral to children’s services that had been investigated. The most common reasons why families had previously been involved with children’s services were domestic violence (27% of families) and neglect (26%).

The greatest number of reported reasons leading to the most recent referral in the 262 families where records were examined were also domestic violence and neglect. Over one-third of the families (37%) had been referred to children’s services after concerns arising from possible neglect and just over a quarter (26%) after an incident of domestic violence witnessed by children/young people or where very young children were in the home. One of the criteria given to the pilot authorities when recruiting Cohort 1 was to include cases where neglect was an issue so it could be that neglect referrals were over-represented. Because of the difficulties pilots reported in using that criterion it was dropped when recruiting Cohort 2, yet the proportion of families where neglect was the main reason for the referral remained constant at just over one-third. Table G.5 contains details of the main reasons why families in this study had been referred in the past and most recently.

Status of cases at T1 and T2

By definition all the cases were open to children’s services at T1. The status of the cases was examined at T2, or where families were not seen at T2 their status 6 months after the T1 interview information was extracted from case records. A summary record is included in Table G.6.

Table G.4 First contact with children’s services by local authority

Brent / Bristol / Leics / Lincs / Norfolk / Suffolk / Tower Hamlets / Wakefield / WSCC / Woking-ham / Total
Pre-1990 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 2
Pre-2000 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 2 / 0 / 3
2001–2005 / 2 / 4 / 2 / 0 / 4 / 2 / 5 / 5 / 1 / 1 / 26
2006 –2010 / 7 / 7 / 2 / 12 / 9 / 5 / 5 / 4 / 8 / 6 / 65
2011 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 7 / 4 / 3 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 1 / 24
2012 / 3 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 0 / 1 / 3 / 1 / 3 / 21
2013 / 2 / 1 / 1 / 3 / 2 / 5 / 3 / 2 / 6 / 2 / 27
2014 / 1 / 2 / 4 / 1 / 5 / 5 / 7 / 5 / 6 / 5 / 41
No previous referral / 5 / 9 / 7 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 5 / 7 / 2 / 2 / 43
Missing / 3 / 5 / 0 / 2 / 0 / 3 / 1 / 2 / 0 / 2 / 18
Total / 25 / 30 / 19 / 30 / 30 / 25 / 30 / 30 / 29 / 22 / 270

Table G.5 Past and current referrals

Reason for previous referrals (number of families) / Total / Reason for current referral (number of families) / Total
Cohort 1 (n=114) / Cohort 2 (n=156) / Cohort 1 (n=114) / Cohort 2 (n=156)
Domestic violence / 41 / 32 / 73 / 29 / 42 / 71
Emotional abuse / 3 / 7 / 10 / 4 / 7 / 11
Neglect / 27 / 43 / 70 / 42 / 58 / 100
Physical abuse / 10 / 9 / 19 / 19 / 20 / 39
Multiple forms of abuse / 4 / 6 / 10 / - / - / -
Pre-birth concerns / 0 / 4 / 4 / 2 / 18 / 20
Sexual abuse / 3 / 3 / 6 / 7 / 7 / 14
Other concerns / 4 / 8 / 12 / 11 / 4 / 15
Not known / 11 / 12 / 23 / - / - / -
Not applicable / 11 / 32 / 43 / - / - / -
Total / 114 / 156 / 270 / 114 / 156 / 270

Table G.6 Types of plans in place at T1 and T2

Number of families with CP Plans at T1 / Number of families with CP Plans at T2 / Number of families with CP Plans at end of study 31 August 2016
210 / 71 / 47 *
CiN Plans at T1 / CiN Plans at T2 / CiN Plans at end of study 31 August 2016
60 / 68 (includes 16 families where CP plans became CiN plans / 17

*Data missing for 8 families where CP plans had been in place

At the time of the T1 interviews the majority of families – 210/78 per cent – in the sample had recently been to an ICPC and their children were the subject of CP plans. Data were collected on the start and, where appropriate, the end dates of these plans. In 60 families their children were on CiNplans (see Table G.7).

Table G.7 Status of cases of families in sample at T1

CP Plan / CIN
Brent / 21 / 4 / 2 CiN cases had been to ICPC – decision to place on a CiN plan rather than a CP plan
Bristol / 29 / 1
Leicestershire / 17 / 2
Lincs / 17 / 13
Norfolk / 22 / 8
Suffolk / 21 / 4 / 1 CiN case had been to ICPC – decision to place on a CiN plan rather than a CP plan
Tower Hamlets / 27 / 3 / 2 CIN cases had been to ICPC – decision to place on a CIN plan rather than a CP plan
Wakefield / 20 / 10
West Sussex / 22 / 7 / 1 CiN case had been to ICPC – decision to place on a CiN plan rather than a CP plan
Wokingham / 14 / 8
Total / 210 / 60
270

By T2/6 months post-interview, 57 of the 210 (27%) families where there were CP plans were no longer in contact with children’s services; a slightly higher proportion of families – 31 per cent (n=66) – still had open child protection plans and 23 per cent (n=48) had moved to CiN plans. Three families where the CP plans had ended in the period between T1 and T2 had a second CP plan by T2.

Over half of the 60 families (34 families) that had CiN plans at T1 had ceased contact with children’s services by T2 and in 17 families the plans were still open. Two families that had CiN plans had been escalated to CP plans by T2, and 3 where plans had closed between T1 and T2 had new ones in place by T2.

In 22 families (8%) children had been removed by T2. In all but one case CP plans were in place at T1; the other was a case where a CiN plan had been in place at T1 and the risk to a child had escalated (Table G.8).

There were differences in the time for which plans lasted. In 2 instances this was because children were removed and the CP plans were no longer required. In 2 instances families had moved to another authority and details of the progress of their plans were not available. This left 29 cases where CP plans had ended within 15 weeks and where it was possible to determine their status at T2. Over half had had no further contact with children’s services, and a fifth were still on the CiNplan that had replaced the CP plan. This left nearly a quarter of families where children had been removed, were the subject of new CP or CiNplans or where there had been a number of re-referrals but no further action had been taken as a result of these (Table G.9).

Table G.8 Status of cases of families in sample at T2

Brent / Bristol / Leicestershire / Lincs / Norfolk / Suffolk / Tower Hamlets / Wakefield / WSCC / Wokingham / Total
Closed CP plan / 4 / 6 / 4 / 7 / 3 / 7 / 3 / 10 / 6 / 7 / 57
Closed CiN plan / 2 / 0 / 1 / 8 / 7 / 2 / 1 / 4 / 3 / 6 / 34
Stepped down to early help / 2 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 3 / 0 / 0 / 6
Open same CP plan / 5 / 7 / 5 / 6 / 10 / 9 / 11 / 5 / 7 / 1 / 66
Open same CiN plan / 1 / 1 / 1 / 3 / 1 / 0 / 4 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 17
Children removed / 1 / 4 / 3 / 1 / 3 / 1 / 3 / 2 / 3 / 1 / 22
CP to CiN / 8 / 10 / 3 / 3 / 5 / 5 / 5 / 0 / 5 / 4 / 48
CiN to CP / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 2
Supervision Order / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1
SGO / 0 / 0 / 2 / 1 / 0 / 1 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 6
CP plan closed and new CP plan / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 2 / 0 / 3
CiN closed and new CiN plan / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 3 / 0 / 0 / 3
Transferred to another authority / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 1 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 3
Missing information / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 2
TOTAL / 25 / 30 / 19 / 30 / 30 / 25 / 30 / 30 / 29 / 22 / 270

Table G.9 Outcomes for families where child protection plans lasted up to 15 weeks

Children removed subsequently / SGO / CP plan(s) to CiN / CP plan(s) closed and new CP plan in place / CP plan(s) closed and new CiN plan in place / Many referrals but no further action / Closed – no further contact / Total
Number of families / 2 / 1 / 6 / 2 / 1 / 1 / 16 / 29