Approaches to Working with Children and Families
Executive Summary
Key findings
 There are many different formal and informal approaches to working with children and
families, resting on a range of concepts and theories.
 There is little firm evidence that any one approach is more effective or beneficial than
another, either from research evidence or local authority practice.
 Despite this lack of evidence, it appears that local authorities are increasingly opting to
adopt one consistent, formal approach across workforces, although this is more prevalent in
Children’s Social Care than across the whole workforce.
 Research suggests that implementing an approach across a whole workforce would be a
long-term process requiring agreement, involvement and widespread training over time, yet
there appear to be numerous advantages to working in a formalised manner.
Recommendations
1. Given the wide range of available approaches in working with children and families, the
approach currently taken and possible alternatives should be reviewed. Any consideration of
adopting an approach should involve exploring the research evidence and experiences of
other local authorities.
2. Adopting one, standardised approach would require exploring and agreeing upon core
principles, underlying theories, processes for practice, common interventions and strategies,
and a standardised agreement on desired outcomes. Given the costs of adopting and
training staff in a specific approach, exploration of and agreement on these principles should
be sought before a final decision is made. This would also prevent a situation where a formal
approach adopted was at odds with the principles and experiences of the workforce.
3. Any changes to children’s services should be focused on and driven by the needs of children
and their families in the local area, and they should be involved in any decision making,
implementation and testing processes.
4. Munro suggested that “a local authority wishing to implement a particular evidence-based
way of working with children and families’ needs to consider what changes may be needed
in the training, supervision, IT support and monitoring to enable this to be carried out
1
Catherine Goodall
KTP Design and Implementation Analyst
effectively”(Munro 2011:8).
5. If any approach or combination of approaches is to be adopted, this should be implemented
with clear, regular and rigorous testing and evaluation which includes measuring the impact
on systems and processes; performance management information for practitioners, and;
outcomes for children and families. Evaluations should also consider the system as a whole,
and how changes will influence other areas in working with children and families.
6. The current pilot of the SAAF in children’s social care presents an opportunity to explore and
evaluate the use of this approach in Nottinghamshire, and to measure its effectiveness,
appropriateness and implementation within the workforce. It is recommended that the
piloting of this approach be monitored and evaluated internally, taking into account both
practitioners’ perspectives and effects for service users. Doing so would not only test the
SAAF itself, but would also be an opportunity to critically appraise the implementation and
practice of an approach, providing valuable evaluative experience for the authority.
2
Catherine Goodall
KTP Design and Implementation Analyst
Contents
Approaches to Working with Children and Families............................................................................... 1
Executive Summary................................................................................................................................. 1
Key findings ......................................................................................................................................... 1
Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 1
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 4
Needs .................................................................................................................................................. 4
Theory and Practice ............................................................................................................................ 5
Theory ................................................................................................................................................. 5
Overview of Findings............................................................................................................................... 8
Core Principles ...................................................................................................................................... 10
Formal approaches ........................................................................................................................... 15
Solely Social Care Approaches........................................................................................................... 19
Structural and strategic issues .............................................................................................................. 23
Whole Workforce Approaches.............................................................................................................. 24
Participation .......................................................................................................................................... 25
Limitations ............................................................................................................................................ 25
Implementation .................................................................................................................................... 26
A Framework ......................................................................................................................................... 26
Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................. 27
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 28
Glossary ................................................................................................................................................. 30
Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................... 31
3
Catherine Goodall
KTP Design and Implementation Analyst
Introduction
The lives of children and families are diverse, changing and complicated, and as a result the variety
and complexity of children’s service provisions, both in the UK and beyond, is significant. Distinctions
between children’s social care staff and other practitioners, between theory and practice, as well as
in differing levels of skills in staff, and styles of leadership and management, complicate matters
further. This is compounded by the range of organisations involved in providing services, the
tensions between central and local government, and the major reductions on resources forecast for
coming years.
This review will consider a range of possible approaches to working with children and families, using
research, practice examples and evidence. Within this range there are formal models, general
approaches, theories and concepts, any of which could be adopted. It is important to note that,
despite some evidence of positive effects “all of these methods have limitations” (Barlow et al.
2012:21). Limitations and difficulties in implementation do not necessarily rule out an approach as
an option, but would need to be considered and mitigated against if any such approach were to be
adopted.
Children’s services are driven by the principles of making children and families’ lives safer and
happier, yet whilst “safety, permanency and well-being are worthy practice goals…they are not
sufficient as a theoretical framework for child welfare policy and practice”(Lawler et al. 2011:473).
Indeed, it has been argued that “too often, the assumption in our field is that good intentions lead to
better outcomes”(Axford and Morpeth 2013).
However, the principles and determination to do right by families does not in itself necessarily lead
to the best outcomes. The wide range of methods for working with children and families
demonstrates that there are many possible approaches to take. So, whilst a commitment to
protecting children and families and ensuring that they prosper is important and necessary, it may
not be sufficient on its own to guarantee success, and there may be far more effective alternative
methods.
Needs
Any changes to children’s services should be focused on and driven
by the needs of children and their families in the local area (Sloper
2004). The diagram on the right illustrates the ideal scenario for
designing and developing children’s services.
A planning, action, critical reflection, development cycle such as
this is vital in ensuring that services are appropriate, targeted and
4
Catherine Goodall
KTP Design and Implementation Analyst
relevant to service users1. Such a cycle would also help to ensure that services are effective and cost
efficient, as well as providing clear, local evidence for commissioning. This form of cycle is also in line
with the Working Together To Safeguard Children (2013) guidance (Department for Education 2013).
A cyclical process like this needs to be an intrinsic and ongoing part of any approach taken, and a
commitment to be prepared to change and adapt services which are shown to be ineffectual or costinefficient is necessary.
Theory and Practice
There are numerous difficulties for local authorities in managing the links between theory, practice
and outcomes (Connolly 2007:826). Discussion, debate and agreement on the way the local
authority views children and families, and the theories and concepts supporting this would be
beneficial, and would inform any decision on adopting a standardised approach.
For any one approach to be implemented and to be effective, the ideals and principles underlying
this must be made clear, and should be relevant and agreeable to all involved, including service
users (D'Cruz and Stagnitti 2008). Also, both the interventions used with families and the theories
which support these should be evaluated separately on their own merits (Sheldon and Macdonald
2009).
Theory
A theory can be understood to be “a generalised set of ideas that describes and explains our
knowledge of the world around us in an organised way” (Payne 2014:5). Theories and concepts
therefore shape how we understand children and families, and can provide guidance on how best to
support them. Approaches often involve several theories or elements of theories, and they are often
complementary or interrelated.
There is no one theory which entirely encompasses what a family is, or how best to work with them,
due to the variety and diversity of different families, and of practitioners. Also, no singular, agreed
upon definition of what actually constitutes a family exists, and those that do cannot “always
capture the diversity of family forms, traditions and histories”, especially when the structures of
families in the UK are changing (Morris et al. 2008:3). This has meant that ‘family’ has become a
“taken-for-granted and narrowly defined concept within policy documentation…often used
interchangeably with ‘parents’” (Murray and Barnes 2010:533). As policy and legislation could
therefore be insufficient in its guidance on how best to understand and work with families, it is
important to review existing theories and establish a common understanding locally.
Often an approach, particularly in the case of social work, will be based upon a specific theory and
set of concepts. These theories include attachment, psychosocial, cognitive behavioural, social
pedagogy, systems, and these will be described here. Each theory will have a different focus, which
will dictate and guide any approach based on it, and how it is deemed best to work with children and
their families.
1
The term ‘service user’ will be used in this review to include any child or family member who receives any
form of support from the local authority and its partners, not just those who receive children’s social care
involvement.
5
Catherine Goodall
KTP Design and Implementation Analyst
The table below groups the main forms of theories in social work, their objectives and contributions
to practice. This table is useful in visualising the general groupings and purposes of theories, and
how they may be applied in practice. There are a vast number of different theories, both within
social work and beyond, and any or several of these may be relevant and appropriate for the
authority to use as a basis for its work with children and families. The table demonstrates one
method for grouping theories to aid understanding, and is not the only way in which these theories
can be arranged and understood.
6
Catherine Goodall
KTP Design and Implementation Analyst
Table 1 - Payne, 2014 Modern Social Work Theory p33
As such, there is a need to consider and collectively understand the theories and concepts which
define our practice, and this is important for ensuring that an approach is grounded in research
evidence, is relevant to, and accepted and used by all staff.
7
Catherine Goodall
KTP Design and Implementation Analyst
Overview of Findings
Approach
Psychosocial
Psychodynamic
Attachment theory
Cognitivebehavioural
Systemic theories
Social democratic
theories
Context
Based in psychology and
psychiatry.
Person focused on individuals’
capacity to overcome
problems
Based in psychology and
psychiatry.
Person focused, yet the
practitioner is in position of
power
Suggests that infants bond to
primary carers, and that the
bond is crucial for a range of
developmental processes
Based in psychology and
psychiatry. Person focused on
individuals’ capacity to
overcome problems. Looks at
current problems within the
family only. Often used in MH
and crime based settings
Covers range of theories and
approaches. Views families as
systems connected to wider
societal systems. Supported
in government guidance and
policy
Person focused, emphasis on
empowering service users to
overcome issues
Pros
Long history in social work; focus on
individual’s and families’ capacity to change;
relationship focused which is agreeable to
service users; complementary with a range of
interventions
Long history in range of settings; focus on
individual’s and families’ capacity to change;
relationship focused which is agreeable to
service users; evidence supporting use in
specific clinical contexts
Supported by extensive research in a range of
disciplines; provides clear supporting guidance
for practice decisions
Cons
Limited evidence of effectiveness in this context; can overlook
wider influences or causes of a family’s problems; if problems
persist this perspective can lead to allocation of blame; a
personal and emotional focus can be difficult to apply in
statutory settings
Resource intensive and costly
Evidence supports use in clinical settings and in specific
interventions, rather than as a general approach
CB approaches and theories are supported by
a rigorous evidence base and can have
significant positive effects on some families
CB practice focuses on manipulating behaviour making it
ethically precarious and difficult to obtain true consent for these
practices; CB approaches require extensive training and
faithfulness to formal theories and processes, which is resource
heavy; CB approaches can overlook wider influences or causes
of a family’s problems; if problems persist this perspective can
lead to blame being placed on a family or individual
Systemic approaches can be complex and difficult to employ
through a lack of clear practice guidance; these approaches
can overlook an individual’s personal problems and lack of
commitment to change
Useful for practitioners locating family
problems within wider systems; positive for
service users as it acknowledges wider
influences on their needs and problems; can
help families connect to and gain support from
their wider networks; systemic theory is
currently used in certain existing services
Can be positive for service users who’s
perspectives, experiences, strengths and
opinions are taken into account; a focus on
A desire to preserve secure attachments over safeguarding
could increase risks; a sole focus on attachment could overlook
other systemic/family functioning issues
Can be overly optimistic of service users’ potential to change
their situations; this can damage relationships with service
users over time; these principles can be difficult to apply,
particularly in statutory settings
8
Catherine Goodall
KTP Design and Implementation Analyst
Social Pedagogy
Whole family
Signs of Safety
Systemic Unit
Safeguarding
Assessment and
Analysis
Framework
(SAAF)
A general approach or set of
principle which views
education as informative.
Situations are viewed as
learning experiences
Approaches here take focus
on the whole family.
Characterised by a whole
family assessment (beyond
simply a child/children and
parent/s or carers)
Formal model which assesses
the signs of safety for a family.
Provides clear guidance on
assessment tools and
practices with children and
families. Primarily
safeguarding focus.
A structure solely for social
work teams. Designed to
handle cases in a team
environment rather than linear
structure.
A systematic assessment
process for social work teams
in the safeguarding
environment.
empowerment and change can be beneficial
for service users
As a set of principles, social pedagogy can
underpin all work with children and families;
highlights the positive effects of
communication, listening and critical reflection
as important
Wide focus can address a range of issues,
rather than focusing on one individual who
may not be the most at risk or in need. Can be
positive and empowering experience for
families
This is a diverse and ambiguous approach; it does not provide
clear practice guidance; as it has not been adopted widely in
the UK there is little evidence available to support its use here
Costly to train entire workforce in approach; difficult to
implement when adult’s and children’s services are separate
and numerous agencies are involved; whole family approaches
may not be appropriate for every case
Very simple and well-defined; the strong
principle of ensuring safety provides a clear
motive and standpoint; high level of
involvement of service users and children in
particular is positive; it is supported in the
Munro reviews and increasingly being adopted
in local authority practice
Supported by policy developments; increasing
in popularity across local authorities; cases are
dealt with in teams providing a more robust
and supportive environment
Limited in the range of issues it assesses; limited guidance and
support for practice; the simplicity of the model may overlook
wider issues faced by families; focusing on strengths and signs
of safety could lead to increased risks
A clear and systematic approach provides
consistency and standardisation across
workforce; currently being piloted across the
UK (and in Nottinghamshire) by the DfE
Very little evidence of effects or success of the framework;
particularly focused on safeguarding context which possibly
limits its wider applicability and relevance
Little evidence to support approach; supporting evidence
cannot be attributed only to this model as positive effects could
be due to a range of factors; costly and resource heavy
approach
9
Catherine Goodall
KTP Design and Implementation Analyst
Theories and Principles
The following are examples of theories and their core principles which are or support some of the
main standardised approaches to working with children and families. Many of these theories provide
general guidance on an approach, rather than specific instructions or patterns for interventions in
the form of a formalised theory or model (Vickery 1974). There appears to be stronger evidence for
the use of theories in a social work context, than more general in local authority children’s services,
and evidence for both is considered here.
It is important to note that these theories and concepts are often contested and are not necessarily
simple to employ. Child protection and safeguarding are also of key importance, and will shape the
way these approaches are read, understood and used in practice (Gorin and Jobe 2013). Establishing
a common theory or model can be useful as a starting point to explore and guide service design and
practice, and in choosing or creating an approach.
Psychosocial theory
Positives: Long history in social work; focus on individual’s and families’ capacity to change;
relationship focused which is agreeable to service users; complementary with a range of
interventions
Negatives: Limited evidence of effectiveness in this context; can overlook wider influences or
causes of a family’s problems; if problems persist this perspective can lead to allocation of blame;
a personal and emotional focus can be difficult to apply in statutory settings
Psychosocial theories are influenced heavily by psychology and Freudian psychoanalysis, and can be
traced in social work practice to the 1920s (Healy 2005). Focusing on locating problems, and the
capacity to overcome these, within the individuals and the family itself (Sheldon and Macdonald
2009), “goals to restore, maintain, and enhance the personal and social functioning of individuals”
are central (Goldstein 2008). These theories “emphasize the importance of people’s feelings…in
creating and resolving the problems that they face”, and have historically been more prominent in
the US and other countries, than in UK based social work practice (Payne 2014:95).
Overall, the evidence for the use of psychosocial theories is strong, the principles of psychosocial
theories are influential and embedded within social work practice, and could have potential benefits
as part of a formal approach (Payne 2014). However, psychosocial theory is unlikely to be sufficient
on its own to drive a single approach for the whole workforce in working with children and families
due to a lack of associated practice guidance and tools.
Psychodynamic theory
Positives: Long history in range of settings; focus on individual’s and families’ capacity to change;
relationship focused which is agreeable to service users; evidence supporting use in specific
clinical contexts
Negatives: Resource intensive and costly; evidence supports use in clinical settings and in specific
interventions, rather than as a general approach
A key distinction between this set of theories and relationship/person-centred practice is that
psychodynamic practice places the practitioner in a position of power, with expertise and control,
10
Catherine Goodall
KTP Design and Implementation Analyst
compared to involving or collaborating with service users in a different balance of power (Murphy et
al. 2013:705).
There is a range of evidence suggesting that psychodynamic practices are varyingly effective in
different contexts. One of the causes of the conflicting evidence on psychodynamic approaches is
due to the range of contexts for and applications. Whilst focusing on service users’ abilities to
overcome their problems could be seen as a simple practical focus, some psychodynamic theories,
are used for complex, clinical practices which require high levels of clinical expertise and resources,
making them difficult to apply in practice with children and families (Healy 2005).
Recently some “evidence that psychodynamic treatment has a longer, sustaining effect than other
models (e.g. systemic family therapy and cognitive behaviour therapy)” with children has emerged
(Mishna et al. 2013:297). However, much of this evidence relates specifically to individual
treatments which employ psychodynamic theories, rather than a general approach.
There is evidence, therefore, to support the use of psychodynamic practice in a variety of settings
and applications. However, there is little exploration of how psychodynamic theory may inform a
general approach to working with children and families. Considering that these individual treatments
are resource intensive and costly, it is problematic to attempt to use this research evidence to
support the use of a psychodynamic approach in general.
Attachment theory
Positives: supported by extensive research in a range of disciplines; provides supporting evidence
for practice decisions;
Negatives: a desire to preserve secure attachments over safeguarding could increase risks; a sole
focus on attachment could overlook other systemic/family functioning issues;
Originating in the 1930s with the work of John Bowlby, attachment theory proposes that a child’s
early attachment to its mother or primary care giver is crucial for various stages of development
(Mennen and O'Keefe 2005:578). It holds that attachment is “a persistent affective tie that binds one
person to another…Attachments initially develop through interactions with primary caretakers and
continue to stabilise as the child ages” (Johnson and Fein 1991:406). Bowlby’s work cites attachment
as a genetic, cognitive and behavioural imperative, and this assertion has been supported in recent
neuro-scientific research (Haight et al. 2008:197).
Whilst attachment theory is in popular use across a number of disciplines, it has received criticism,
and can lead to negative outcomes if overlooked or misunderstood in practice (Johnson and Fein
1991:397). There are also competing understandings of the application of attachment theory to
specific practice, such as in foster care (Lewis 2001). It has been noted, that despite the popularity of
and reliance upon attachment theory, there is a lack of evaluation and testing of its application to
practice, which is disconcerting (Tucker and MacKenzie 2012). An overreliance on attachment theory
alone, could lead an increase in risks for children and families, if preserving attachment is allowed to
take priority over safeguarding concerns.
However, an understanding that a child’s bonds to its primary care givers are crucial for its
development, and that secure attachment can be a protective factor against negative influences on
its life, is important for practice with children and families. “The nature of the attachment between
parent and child should be a major factor in the decision of what kinds of services to provide the
11
Catherine Goodall
KTP Design and Implementation Analyst
family” (Mennen and O'Keefe 2005:578). As an example, in terms of attachment with regards to
fostering, a child who enters foster care in early infancy could well develop a primary attachment to
foster carers rather than the birth parent/s, but that by understanding the role attachment plays,
birth parents can be supported in this process rather than blamed or ostracised (Haight et al. 2008).
Overall, attachment theory can be extremely beneficial in understanding children and families and
should factor into considerations, however focusing solely on attachment can increase risks and
problems in working with families. Attachment theory alone would not be a sufficient base for an
approach to working with children and families, but understanding of attachment should form part
of any established approach.
Cognitive Behavioural Theory
Positives: CB approaches and theories are supported by a rigorous evidence base and can have
significant positive effects on some families;
Negatives: CB practice focuses on manipulating behaviour making it ethically precarious and
difficult to obtain true consent for these practices: CB approaches require extensive training and
faithfulness to formal theories and processes, which is resource heavy; CB approaches can
overlook wider influences or causes of a family’s problems; if problems persist this perspective can
lead to blame being placed on a family or individual
Originating in psychology and psychiatry, cognitive behavioural approaches focus “on how to
manage and change people’s behaviour to resolve social problems that affect them”, and this is
often used in mental health and criminal justice settings (Payne 2014:150). CB approaches therefore
look at current behaviours of individuals and how to change these in order to improve their lives.
They do not examine wider causes of problems or attempt to explore past experiences in any depth.
Across disciplines CB approaches are regarded as rigorous and effective, but only if they are
employed following substantial training and adherence to models and guidelines (Sheldon and
Macdonald 2009:154). A difficulty in establishing an evidence base for cognitive behavioural
approaches is that often this is considered and tested as Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) , rather
than as a general approach to working with families. CBT as an individual treatment has substantial
evidence of effectiveness in a range of specific and clinical settings, but it is more difficult to
establish evidentiary support for a general CB approach (Scott and Stradling 1991:544).
CB approaches have been criticised in social work for obscuring or overlooking the importance of
cultural and structural effects on families (Healy 2005). Person-centred approaches and concepts are
positive in focusing on individuals’ and their capacity to improve their own lives, but can be negative
if this ignores or misses the wider influences and causes of problems for children and families. This is
especially problematic when socioeconomic deprivation and social exclusion are a key issue for
families (Axford and Morpeth 2013).
Overall, specific cognitive behavioural approaches and interventions are proven to be effective in a
number of (mainly clinical based) settings. But the approach requires significant training and
resources to employ correctly, making it unlikely to be useful on its own as an approach for the
whole workforce. An understanding of the principles of cognitive behavioural approaches could be a
useful addition to any formal model or approach which is developed.
Systemic Theories
12
Catherine Goodall
KTP Design and Implementation Analyst
Positives: Useful for practitioners locating family problems within wider systems; service users can
find this positive as it acknowledges wider influences on their needs and problems; can help
families connect to and gain support from their wider networks; systemic theory is currently used
in certain existing services
Negatives: systemic approaches can be complex and difficult to employ through a lack of clear
practice guidance; these approaches can overlook an individual’s personal problems and lack of
commitment to change
There are a number of different approaches under the general label of ‘systemic’. Systemic family
practices work on the premise that the family must be understood to be a system, related to wider
systems in the community and society (Forrester et al. 2013). “Systems focus on the connections
between, and the resources of, families and groups, and on helping those to connect well” (Payne
2014:185). As such, interventions should be used for the entire family system. A system is
understood here to be “a collection of parts (or subsystems) that interact to accomplish an overall
goal”(Munro and Hubbard 2011:728). These types of approaches have grown in significance and
popularity in recent years, particularly in the light of the Munro reviews (Munro 2011).
“A major advantage of the systems model is its broad scope” (Hepworth et al. 2010:14). Yet whilst
some research acknowledges the theory behind systemic approaches to families is positive, they are
extremely complex and often provide limited practice guidance, making these approaches difficult
for workforces to employ effectively (Payne 2014:184). A variety of problems are encountered by
professionals employing systemic approaches in particular practice situations, for example how the
way in which a family is perceived determines the type, and sometimes appropriateness, of the
service they receive (Morris 2012:10).
Generally, systemic theory can form a model for practice, by providing a deeper insight into the
effects and influences of systems on children and families. There are also several prominent specific
methods of working with a family based on systemic approaches, such as Multisystemic Therapy
(MST) and family systems therapy, which have been shown to have positive effects (Sheldon and
Macdonald 2009). MST in particular has a very strong evidence base, however it is also very costly,
used in limited specific settings and requires a range of resources and systems to be effective (Littell
2008:1302). These are specific interventions guided by systems theory which can be used by
practitioners in particular cases.
Much research has been conducted in recent years into systems theory alongside systemic theory,
which considers the structural and organisational factors of systems such as children’s services.
Munro argued that adopting a “systems approach will help to understand how and why previous
reforms have had both beneficial and adverse consequences and how the review might improve
how the system supports social workers and other professionals”(Munro 2010:10). An
understanding of the range of effects that changes to aspects or services within an organisation can
have, could be beneficial in considering approaches to working with children and families.
Overall, systemic theories are supported by research evidence and policy drivers, and are increasing
in popularity. General systemic theory can be beneficial in working with children and families, and
specific interventions such as MST can be effective in certain settings. It would be entirely possible
to train the entire workforce in systemic theory and practice, but due to the lack of clear and
consistent practice guidance evident in research, this would have to be established locally.
Social Democratic Theory
13
Catherine Goodall
KTP Design and Implementation Analyst
Positives: Can be positive for service users who’s perspectives, experiences, strengths and
opinions are taken into account; a focus on empowerment and change can be beneficial for
service users
Negatives: Can be overly optimistic of service users’ potential to change their situations; this can
damage relationships with service users over time; these principles can be difficult to apply,
particularly in statutory settings
Broadly speaking, social democratic theory focuses on children and families’ rights, strengths and
potential to change. A range of different approaches fall within this category, including feminist,
critical, empowerment, advocacy and strengths-based approaches. Within these models, all
assessments and interventions “should place the service user at the centre of the process, valuing
their perspective as a contributing partner” (Baldwin and Walker 2009:227). In these approaches,
“the social worker-service user relationship is viewed as a central and key component of bringing
about change”(Murphy et al. 2013).
These approaches focus on helping service users to develop greater control over their lives, and to
be involved in their service provision (Payne 2014:294). The balance between a focus on children
and families as individuals with the capacity to change and improve their lives, against the statutory
need to protect them from risks, is difficult to achieve. This is particularly the case considering that
“protecting children (shielding them from painful discussions and difficult decisions) tends to
increase their powerlessness” (Toros et al. 2013:1020).
As such, there has been varied debate about the applicability of social democratic practices to
statutory settings, particularly relating to the psychology based, person-centred approach (Toros et
al. 2013:1015). Whilst on the surface it may appear that work with children and families is personcentred in nature, it has been suggested that a person-centred approach is inherently incompatible
with statutory services (Murphy et al. 2013).
Overall, there is significant discussion of the positive impact that a focus on children and families’
strengths and rights can be positive for service users. The needs and perspectives of service users
should always be at the centre of any work with children and families, and therefore social
democratic theories could form part of a whole workforce approach. However, given the apparent
tensions between a social democratic focus and the demands of statutory services, a singularly social
democratic approach may prove difficult to implement.
Social Pedagogy
Positives: As a set of principles, social pedagogy can underpin all work with children and families;
highlighting the positive effects of communication, listening and critical reflection as important
Negatives: This is a diverse and ambiguous approach; it does not provide clear practice guidance;
as it has not been adopted widely in the UK there is little evidence available to support its
adoption here
Originally developed in education, social pedagogy is not a method, instead this perspective is
“based on the belief that you can decisively influence social circumstances through education”
(Hamalainen 2003:71). Social pedagogy can guide working with children and families, but does not in
itself provide methods or interventions for doing so. This theory is popular across mainland Europe,
but has not acquired much standing in the UK.
14
Catherine Goodall
KTP Design and Implementation Analyst
‘Pedagogy’ simply relates to education and the practice of teaching and learning, and social
pedagogy is a general perspective and understanding of individuals and society. “The basic idea of
social pedagogy is to promote people’s social functioning, inclusion, participation, social identity and
social competence as members of society” (Hamalainen 2003:76).
The key principles involved in this approach are: that children, families and practitioners are all
whole and complete people with the capacity to influence their situation; relationships are
important and listening and communication are key; collaboration and team work is emphasised;
the rights of service users are paramount; and reflection on practice and changes for families is
central (Holthoff et al. 2011:9).
To date this approach does not appear to have been developed or tested routinely in the UK in this
context, meaning that there is a lack of evidence to support the use of this as an approach in
children’s services.
Overall, social pedagogy has beneficial elements which could have a positive influence on an
approach to working with children and families. However, with insubstantial evidence of its
effectiveness, it may be best to review using the principles of social pedagogy, without adopting this
as a solitary approach.
Formal approaches
Whole family approaches
Positives: focus is on the whole family which can address a range of issues, rather than focusing on
one individual who may not be the most at risk or in need;
Negatives: costly to train entire workforce in approach; difficult to implement when adult’s and
children’s services are separate and numerous agencies are involved; whole family approaches
may not be appropriate for every case
Approaches which consider the whole family have been viewed positively both in research and in
government guidance and policy. These approaches operate on the understanding that work cannot
be carried out with a child or a family member in isolation from the others (Adams et al. 2009:308).
In whole family approaches, a whole family assessment is required, which “looks at the needs of
individual family members, as well as the family as a whole. A key distinguishing factor of family
assessment is that it looks at the interrelationships between family members and how these
relationships impact on individuals within the family” (Kendall et al. 2010:10).
However, it is important to note that “it cannot be assumed that whole family approaches are
appropriate or useful for all families or for all needs” (Morris et al. 2008:2). As with other theories
which focus on families as the agents of change, whole family approaches can overlook wider and
systemic effects and causes of family problems. Also, “the knowledge base for practice is thin and,
often, the actual level of family engagement in practice is limited” (Morris 2012:10). In reality,
despite widespread acceptance of the positive influence whole family approaches can have,
evidence of their use in practice is limited (Morris et al. 2008).
15
Catherine Goodall
KTP Design and Implementation Analyst
This is due in part to the issue that conducting a whole family assessment may be particularly
difficult in statutory settings where social workers are already under huge pressure with high case
loads. Due to these issues, few local authorities have adopted a whole family assessment process,
making it difficult to gain evidence on any impact from this (Akister 2006).
‘Think Family’
The ‘Think Family’ pilot was an example of a whole family approach, and was defined by the Department
for Children Schools and Families (now DfE) as “making sure that the support provided by children’s,
adults’ and family services is co-ordinated and focused on problems affecting the whole family”. This
approach, by “assessing and identifying broader needs of all family members and supporting them all in a
co-ordinated way can minimise duplication by frontline services and free up resources to provide
additional support to the families that need it most.”(Glaser et al. 2012).
Think family approaches were piloted in specific and intensive programmes in 15 Family Pathfinder local
authorities between 2007 and 2009. The pilot aimed to aimed to “develop and test the effectiveness of
intensive, family focused approaches to addressing the needs of families who face multiple and complex
problems”(York Consulting 2011:i).
The pilot tested practice at 15 local authorities implementing think family approaches where a “network
is formed around each family comprising an intensive outreach worker (IOW) and relevant professionals
from universal and ‘targeted’ adults and children's services”(Thoburn et al. 2013:229). This pilot focused
specifically on families with severe and complex needs and was not tested in comparison to alternatives.
The evaluation found that this approach had significant positive effects on around 45% of families, with
around 13% experiencing worsening problems or increased needs. The negative impact on these families
was in part due to incomplete or developing initial assessments, coupled with the substantial and
complex problems faced by many of these families, which were prone to worsening. Work with families
was estimated to cost £34,560 and bring an average net benefit of £15,327 per family. In particular, the
evaluation found that using a specific dedicated worker, implementing effective leadership and creating
sustainable, long term family care plans were particularly effective (York Consulting 2011).
Overall, whilst working with a whole family approach is both logical and supported by policy
developments, it can be challenging in practice. To employ a true whole family approach would
require a substantial change to working practices, with creative solutions to service design and
delivery, yet the potential benefits for families in doing so could be substantial. The principles of
addressing, understanding and supporting the whole family are important, could be a key driving
force for, and should form part of, any approach adopted.
Signs of Safety
Positives: the model is very simple and clear; the strong principle of ensuring safety provides a
clear motive and standpoint; high level of involvement of service users and children in particular is
16
Catherine Goodall
KTP Design and Implementation Analyst
positive; it is supported in the Munro reviews and increasingly being adopted in local authority
practice
Negatives: limited in the range of issues it assesses; limited guidance and support for practice; the
simplicity of the model may overlook wider issues faced by families; focusing on strengths and
signs of safety could lead to increased risks
Signs of Safety was developed by Turnell and Edwards in Australia in the 1990s, and is a model which
is being increasingly adopted in local authorities across the country. “It aims to work collaboratively
and in partnership with families and children to conduct risk assessments and produce action plans
for increasing safety and reducing risk and danger by focusing on strengths, resources and networks
that the family have”(Bunn 2013).
The model has “six key elements. These include 1) understand the position of each family member,
2) find exceptions to the maltreatment, 3) discover family strengths and resources 4) focus on goals,
5) scale safety and progress, 6) assess willingness, confidence and capacity”(Bunn 2013). The model
also involves the children in the process and because “case reviews have often found the child’s
views to be absent in child protection work…the inclusion of these in the Signs of Safety approach is
valuable”(Bunn 2013:69).
The model is simple and asks 3 fundamental questions to each assessment, which are:
 What are we worried about?
 What is working well?
 What needs to happen?
(Turnell and Edwards 1997)
The model also involves rating current status and potential for improvement from 0 to 10 where 0
indicates certainty that the child will be abused and 10 represent safety to the point where the case
can be closed. There has been critique of the model in its applicability for use in child protection
cases and its potential for overlooking risks. Also, in a review of models and approaches, Signs of
Safety was shown to be limited in the number of domains it assesses with families, and also lacks
depth and clarity of guidance for practice (Barlow et al. 2012).
17
Catherine Goodall
KTP Design and Implementation Analyst
The Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis below neatly lays out some
of the advantages and disadvantages of the model.
(Bunn 2013:122)
Overall, Signs of Safety has positive elements which have been shown to be effective with families in
some limited studies. The principles of high levels of service user engagement, focusing on strengths
and capacity to change, and the creation of sustainable and long term care plans for families, are
viewed in the research as positive. There are practical issues with implementation and concerns over
the adequacy of the model to deal with issues of risk, which would need to be addressed were this
model to be implemented. Signs of Safety does have potential to be a whole workforce approach,
but this would need to be tested in the local context and it is likely to be an expensive resource to
employ. As with other theories and models, the principles Signs of Safety relies upon could be
adapted and combined with others for local use.
18
Catherine Goodall
KTP Design and Implementation Analyst
Solely Social Care Approaches
A number of local authorities have adopted widespread changes in their children’s social care only.
These changes have been shown to have limited positive effects in the narrow situations they have
been tested in. However, these changes in approach concern only the structure and staff within
children’s social care, and usually only social workers, rather than the wider workforce.
Systemic Unit Approach
Positives: supported by policy; increasing in popularity across local authorities; cases are dealt
with in teams providing a more robust and supportive environment
Negatives: little evidence to support approach; supporting evidence cannot be attributed only to
this model as positive effects could be due to a range of factors; costly and resource heavy
approach
Following from the Munro report which called for a more systemic approach to working with
families, an increasing number of local authorities are adopting a systemic unit approach based on
systems theory, despite the fact that there is currently little evidence to support the widespread
adoption of such an approach.
The systemic unit approach considers that “problems with the family are therefore seen to arise
from systemic difficulties and to require interventions that help the family system change or alter its
interaction with wider systems”(Forrester et al. 2013:4). The approach involves creating teams in
children’s social care to deal with cases in a unit based and collaborative approach. An example from
a pilot detailed below involved systemic units consisting of a consultant social worker, a social
worker, a child practitioner, a unit coordinator and a part-time clinician. These units discuss,
manage, and work with service users as a unit, unlike the traditional structure of a case being
allocated to a social worker who is managed in a linear fashion by senior social workers and
managers.
One London local authority implemented this approach, and Forrester et al. conducted an evaluation with two
other comparable authorities over the course of a year (Forrester et al. 2013). The evaluation involved using a
range of qualitative methods and observation to explore the influence of the approach on departments. The
report details positive findings from the evaluation, finding that a systemic unit structure and approach was
demonstrated well in this specific local authority.
However it also makes clear that these positive findings are not attributable only to the systemic approach, and
that a range of other factors influenced the findings. Also “there is little data that could be considered to relate
to ‘outcomes’ for children or parents” within the evaluation (Forrester et al. 2013:19). It also considers how this
form of unit is extremely intensive in resources and therefore costly. The evaluation indicates positive but
inconclusive findings on this radically different formation for social work provisions.
Overall, there is currently little evidence to suggest the effectiveness of the systemic unit approach.
Given that this is very different in structure to current provisions and would involve significant
investment in time, resources, staff and reconfiguration of services to employ, it may be
19
Catherine Goodall
KTP Design and Implementation Analyst
inappropriate to adopt this approach at this stage. However, as any approach adopted should be
tested and evaluated locally regardless of its evidentiary basis, the lack of sustained evidence for this
model, or any other, should not exclude this from consideration entirely. As this approach concerns
only social work teams, it could be piloted and tested locally to evaluate its appropriateness and
success.
Safeguarding Assessment and Analysis Framework (SAAF)
The SAAF is still in very early stages of development, and as such the positive and negatives of this
framework are yet to be established or proven
Positives: a clear and systematic approach provides consistency and standardisation across
workforce; currently being piloted across the UK (and in Nottinghamshire) by the DfE
Negatives: Very little evidence of effects or success of the framework; particularly focused on
safeguarding context which possibly limits its wider applicability and relevance
The SAAF provides a systematic, robust, and time-efficient model and a range of methods for
assessing and analysing in the safeguarding context.
The SAAF involves assessment and analysis of:



the nature and level of harm to a child or young person
the risks of re-abuse/likelihood of future harm
the prospects for successful intervention in child protection cases
Seven-stage model of assessment, analysis and intervention
1. Identification of harm and initial safeguarding
2. Full assessment of the child’s needs, parenting capacity, family and environmental factors;
creating a comprehensive chronology
3. Establishing the nature and level of harm and harmful effects, and creating a profile of harm
4. Making a ‘safeguarding analysis’ to assess the risks of re-abuse/likelihood of future harm and
to determine the prospects for successful intervention
5. Developing a plan of intervention to include therapeutic work in a context of safety and
protection from harm
6. Rehabilitation of the child to the family when living separately, or moving on from a context
of protection and support
7. Placement of children in new family contexts where rehabilitation is not possible
(Bentovim et al. 2009)
Evidence of the importance of using a systematic approach such as this to assessment and
intervention is growing (Sheldon and Macdonald 2009:170). However, currently there is no
“extensive evaluation data available” for the SAAF according to a systematic review of models,
although it is gaining in popularity and receiving support from the Department for Education (Barlow
et al. 2012:9).
Caution has been advised in adopting standardised approaches to assessments, as some have
claimed that increasingly assessments are being approached in a ‘tick box’ manner which can
overlook or ignore much of a family’s history, and can have a negative effect on relationship building
with service users (Sheldon and Macdonald 2009:95).Research suggests that whilst some
practitioners and managers may find rigid procedures and processes accessible or comforting, that
20
Catherine Goodall
KTP Design and Implementation Analyst
inflexible reliance on these can mean that “practice tools and forms can, over time, become proforma processes”(Stanley et al. 2012:243).
The SAAF is currently being piloted within children’s social care in the authority, which could present
a unique opportunity to explore, evaluate and test the effectiveness and appropriateness of the
model to the workforce and service users. Reviewing the piloting of the SAAF within the authority
should provide the opportunity to investigate how the approach works in Nottinghamshire, as well
as potentially identifying if the approach is appropriate and any areas for improvement in
implementation in the future. The findings from evaluating this pilot could then be used to assess
whether or not the SAAF should be adopted long term.
Hope for Children and Families
Like the SAAF which is a requisite element of this, Hope for Children and Families is still in very early
stages of implementation, and there is currently no evaluation of the manual or programme itself.
There is substantive evidence for the underlying theories and tools used within the programme.
The Hope for Children and Families (HfCF) is a manual which “provides a “menu” of evidence-based,
step-by-step modular interventions targeting the profile of abusive and neglectful parenting and
associated impairments of children”(Bentovim and Elliott 2014:250)
Using evidence from 22 separate RCTs, HfCF is designed to be “a step-by-step modular-systemic
approach to intervention that is suitable to the needs of a variety of frontline practitioners in social
care, health, and education”(Bentovim and Elliott 2014:270). The authors call for research to be
conducted into the impact of the programme, as currently there is no evidence to support the
modular programme arrangement itself, although the content is based on evidence verified in
various studies and RCTs.
The below table details various stages as envisaged by the HfCF programme. Modular training has
been designed around these stages to provide professionals in a range of settings with specific
guidance on theories and practice.
21
Catherine Goodall
KTP Design and Implementation Analyst
(Bentovim and Elliott, 2014:273)
22
Catherine Goodall
KTP Design and Implementation Analyst
The programme consists of 40 different modules covering a range of topics, as detailed in the list
below2.
Structural and strategic issues
There are a range of structural and strategic issues which need to be considered and addressed
when exploring and developing an approach to working with children and families:

Crucially, “children and their families have a range of different needs which do not fall neatly
into separate agency segments” (Sloper 2004:572). Similarly, families’ needs cannot be easily
divided into children’s and parent’s needs, as if often the case in local authority service
provision. It is widely acknowledged that there are “limitations of current organisational
arrangements for provision… and the capacity to develop holistic responses”(Morris et al.
2008:14). The separation of children’s from adult’s services, statutory from discretionary
services and voluntary organisations complicates provision for families further, despite policy
drivers and evidence that a coordinated approach is most effective (D'Cruz and Stagnitti
2
Information gained from presentation available at:
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=%22child%20and%20family%20training%22%20review&source=w
eb&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.londonscb.gov.uk%2Ffiles%2F2010%2
Fdiary%2Fconference_2013%2F2._introducing_resourcepack_london_9.12.13.pdf&ei=lz_zU9exFuWaygPagYG
4Dw&usg=AFQjCNFH9sGdVrxsjorBZ9e4HUNoD2rL_w&sig2=5cspG3TQcHNWwCOQK4LqPg&bvm=bv.73231344,
d.bGQ Accessed 19/8/14
23
Catherine Goodall
KTP Design and Implementation Analyst
2008:831).

Various authors consider the need to collaborate with a range of agencies to ensure that
children and families’ needs are met, yet none suggest that this is an easy process to achieve or
manage (Katz and Hetherington 2006:246). Given the centrality of multi-agency working to the
law, government regulations and statutory procedures, the lack of shared knowledge on how
best to achieve this remains a problem.

Ensuring successful multi-agency working is complicated further by the wide and changing
nature of structures, practitioners and their roles, and families’ needs (Frost 2005). Certainly,
“there are considerable barriers to joint working” (Sloper 2004:526). Barriers which contribute
to this problem include strategic, structural and organisational issues; “issues concerning
professional status and identity”; co-operation and communication between professionals,
agencies and families; and so on (Moran et al. 2007:143, Sloper 2004)((Katz and Hetherington
2006).

Research considers that the professional relationships of managers, practitioners and between
agencies is crucial. Indeed, it has been suggested that “structural factors are far less significant
than day-to-day interactions between practitioners and managers from different agencies” (Katz
and Hetherington, 2006:430). It should be considered, then, that widespread structural changes
may not bring about desired improvements, if they are not coordinated with changes to
professional working and relationships.

A longitudinal study in the US found that “organizational climate is a major predictor of the
quality and outcomes of children’s services” (Glisson and Hemmelgarn 1998:402). This study
highlighted that organisational culture (for example employee outlook, cooperation, definition
of roles, level of conflict) is an important element of children’s services, and should not be
overlooked in assessing and defining a framework, model or approach.

Ofsted reflected this in its 2012-2013 annual report, noting that good authorities “spent
considerable time, energy and focus in understanding front-line practice, in assessing what
needed to improve and in ensuring that there was a coherent and urgent plan to address the
identified areas of need. The quality of social work practice and direct work with families was at
the heart of their change programmes.”(Ofsted 2013:22).

It is important to consider the current and future political climate, and the effects that this may
have on the department, and the choice to adopt a particular approach. Funding from central
government is decreasing, payment is being linked to results, and the structure of funding is
changing, such as schools being given increasing control via pupil premium. Political motivations
and principles can have wide ranging and long term effects, and the general election next year
could cause trickle down effects on the department, which in turn could influence the degree of
control available over adopting any one approach.
Whole Workforce Approaches
24
Catherine Goodall
KTP Design and Implementation Analyst
To involve, train and support a single approach for an entire workforce, especially one as large and
complex as in Nottinghamshire, would be a substantial undertaking requiring a range of associated
resources over time, both financially for training, and for other necessary resources. It is important
to note that “local authority social work services are riddled with experiments and practices that
have been discontinued once short-term funding ceases as well as mountains of guidance and
bureaucracy” (Perrott 2009:113). Therefore, changes should be carefully planned over the longterm, with reflection, evaluation and development built into the process, and contingencies in place
for changes and developments in the authority structure and political context.
Establishing, implementing and maintaining a standard approach across an entire workforce would
also require agreement, common understanding and a consistent culture, which may be difficult to
cultivate in such a diverse workforce. Changes which affect the whole workforce are only likely to be
successful if they are implemented in a ‘bottom-up’ method, with collaboration and consultation of
practitioners (Connolly 2007). This may well be an option worth exploring as such a model for
implementation can have positive effects, despite the potential difficulties (Kendall et al. 2010:32).
Participation
Many of the models, approaches and theories rest on the principle of involving families in the child
welfare and protection process. To a greater or lesser degree, the majority of the approaches
reviewed well in the literature recognise that engaging the family in the process is crucial. Within
these approaches children are viewed as social actors with the potential to influence their care.
Local authorities and policy makers have generally tended to overlook or ignore service users’
experiences and perspectives, particularly when they are deemed at risk (Howarth et al. 2012:155).
This lack of engagement with service users undermines the design, delivery and reception of services
(Beresford 2000:495). Any approach taken to working with children and families should involve the
whole family wherever possible, and should acknowledge that service users have the right to
participate in the process, and may in fact be able to provide greater insight into solutions to their
problems.
Swindon Borough Council
Recently cited on the C4EO website as an example of emerging positive practice, Swindon have placed
children and their families at the centre in redesigning their children’s service provisions. Before beginning
processes of change, the council carried out workshops with around 300 children, young people and families
to capture their views and experiences to inform service design and delivery. Substantial involvement of
service users on such a scale not only ensures that services are relevant, appropriate and meet service users’
needs, but it also places service users at the centre of work to improve their lives.
Limitations
It is worth noting that the evidence considered in this review is almost entirely based on limited
research which draws conclusions based on qualitative evidence, rather than firm evidence of
25
Catherine Goodall
KTP Design and Implementation Analyst
outcomes or impact for children and families (Barlow et al. 2012:9). Much of the research evidence
draws conclusions for the positive effects of certain systems, structures and approaches, however
due to the intensely complex and contested nature of children’s services, none of this has been
attributed only to a change in approach. Any changes to be considered, should be critically and
carefully reviewed and enacted through involvement with and reflection by the entire workforce.
There is a great need to reflect upon and adapt the way the authority works with children and
families, and any approach adopted should be tested locally to ensure its effectiveness and
appropriateness.
Implementation
The implementation of any approach is a crucial issue. In children’s social care in particular, “training
is only likely to be effective if practitioners also have regular times for peer or supervised case
discussions in which new thinking can be embedded” (Glaser et al. 2012). As mentioned earlier,
successful and effective authorities provide structured support for frontline practitioners and
managers.
If an approach were to be adopted, Payne provides a structure for establishing an approach:




Outline professional expectations, background and preferences for theories, concepts and
approaches
Connect these with the needs of service users
Explore both the singular use of a particular theory across the workforce, and individual use
of appropriate theories and interventions in specific cases.
Discuss, debate and test these with the workforce, and identify a central theoretical model
and related methods for practice
(Payne 2014:41)
This could be a useful structure to follow were an approach or framework to be adopted. This would
need to be an iterative process with cycles planning, action, testing and evaluation built in from the
outset.
A Framework
Research has repeatedly demonstrated the need for local authorities to have a clear and explicit
framework or model which lays out the concepts and theories which support its practice. Adopting
an off-the-shelf formal model is not the only method available. One option would be to develop a
single, central framework which would guide both the understanding of children and families, as
well as how best to work with them, providing unity and stability across the workforce.
To create such a framework, the general core principle/s, the desired processes for practice,
common intervention strategies and a guide to desired outcomes would need to be established. It is
also vital to build consideration of practitioners and their relationships with service users into any
approach or framework, as the “relationship between professionals...and clients is fundamental to
ethical and effective practice”(D'Cruz and Stagnitti 2008:159).
26
Catherine Goodall
KTP Design and Implementation Analyst
Example: The New Zealand Practice Framework
As an example, Connolly established the New Zealand practice framework which was based on “three
perspectives: child centred; family-led and culturally responsive; and strengths and evidence-based” (Connolly
2007). This framework clearly lays out the principles, theory and philosophy which underpin standard
interventions and ideal outcomes. In this case, a single approach was studied and implemented which described
both the principles which all staff would adopt, the interventions which were supported by these principles, and
the outcomes for children and families which were anticipated.
As part of the implementation of this framework, a simple poster and a manual were created alongside general
training, which aided in ensuring that the entire department and its staff were working with the same drive,
focus and structure. This framework does not appear to have been evaluated, and therefore its effects on the
workforce and children and families cannot be assessed, but it is a good example of a practice framework.
Exploring and developing a singular framework for practice such as the above could help ensure
consistency and unity across the local authority and its partners. Whilst employing an existing
standardised and formal model or approach may not be a suitable way to proceed, developing a
clear, local framework could be beneficial in providing common understanding and consistency
across services.
Evaluation
27
Catherine Goodall
KTP Design and Implementation Analyst
Due to the lack of consistent and sustained evidence of the use of any one approach in working with
children and families in a local authority setting, it is recommended that any approach adopted is
evaluated and tested to establish local and ongoing evidence of its effects. Building continued critical
evaluation into the process from the outset would ensure that the approach taken is appropriate
and results in the desired positive change on outcomes.
The Head, Heart and Hands2 project began in 2011 and involves piloting social pedagogy for foster care
in several local authorities and private fostering organisations in England and Scotland. This four year
project seeks to promote, establish and test the use of social pedagogy in a fostering setting, evaluating
the effects that this approach can have.
In order to begin the evaluation and measure the impact of the approach so far, a baseline – change
method has been adopted which takes initial measurements of outcome points, and measures the
change in these over time. This also allows interviewees to introduce important issues at the beginning
of the evaluation, which can be tracked and measured for change, which could bring up important issues
which otherwise may have been missed.
The evaluation also separates the project into the impact on children and young people; the impact on
foster carers and practice; and the implementation process, outcomes and changes in the system. By
dividing the evaluation into these three elements, the individual effects on different groupings and
processes can be assessed and measured. The approach may have positive effects for one group, yet
negative for another, and this evaluation strategy allows for easy identification of the impact of the pilot.
3
The above strategy is a useful example of one method of evaluating the effects of adopting an
approach in a local authority setting. There are numerous potential ways to test the impact of
adopting an approach, and a strategy for evaluation should be decided upon at an early stage and
built into the planning and implementation processes.
Conclusions
A variety of options currently exist for models and approaches to use when working with children
and families. Forrester et al, found that their study of local authority implementation of a systemic
units model had far wider implications. “The systemic unit model allows us to re-imagine the
delivery of services in fundamentally different ways” (Forrester et al. 2013:23). In examining this
new model:
it opens up a different way of delivering Children‘s Services. In doing so, it allows us to
question some of the fundamental assumptions that have tended to pervade the way
services are organised and run in the UK and many other countries, such as the almost
universal tendency to allocate families to individual workers and the rarity with which
3
Information on project provided at 4th July 2014 Conference on Safeguarding Children at Loughborough
University by Sam McDermid and others. For more information, see http://www.fostering.net/head-hearthands/what-is-head-heart-hands#.U7qgFZRdW8A
Accessed 7/7/14
28
Catherine Goodall
KTP Design and Implementation Analyst
Children‘s Services specify and then support the intervention methods they think workers
should be using (Forrester et al. 2013:187).
Research supports the need to openly and critically review the structure, strategy and delivery of
children’s services, and to debate the possibility, efficiency, effectiveness and costs of potential
changes, informed by practitioners and with service users’ needs and perspectives at the centre.
However, it should be noted that adopting one, formalised approach such as those examined in this
review is not necessarily the only way of proceeding. Flint et al discussed approaches and concluded
the following:
Rather than attempting to identify one project or model of delivery that is most effective there
is a need to recognise that a range of initiatives and approaches are required to achieve
positive outcomes with a diverse range of young people and families. However, holistic whole
family approaches, multi-agency partnerships, a key worker, intensity and longevity of
engagement and access to specialist and statutory support services will be common elements
of successful approaches.
(Flint et al. 2011:131)
This review has highlighted a range of different approaches for children’s services, many of which
have great potential for improvement, yet no one model stands out as the most appropriate,
effective or efficient. It has also highlighted the incredible complexity and difficulty involved in
making widespread changes in local authorities.
In order to implement changes in such a complex and intricate system there is a need “to prioritise
changes, introduce change incrementally, and support those involved in the change” (Sloper
2004:576). Adopting a singular, fixed and formal approach may not be appropriate or effective for
the authority, but exploring the principles and practice implications an approach could have is crucial
in ensuring that services for children and families are at their best.
29
Catherine Goodall
KTP Design and Implementation Analyst
Glossary
Acronym/Term
CAF
CAMHS
CB
CSC
DfE
EHAF
HfCF
LAC
MST
SAAF
SCR
SEND
Meaning
Common Assessment Framework (now EHAF in
Nottinghamshire)
Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services
Cognitive Behavioural
Children’s Social Care
Department for Education
Early Help Assessment Form
Hope for Children and Families
Looked After Children
Multi-Systemic Theory
Safeguarding Assessment and Analysis Framework
Serious Case Review
Special Educational Needs and Disabilities
30
Catherine Goodall
KTP Design and Implementation Analyst
Bibliography
ADAMS, R., DOMINELLI, L. and PAYNE, M., 2009. Social Work: Themes, Issues and Critical Debates.
3rd edn. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan.
AKISTER, J., 2006. A Systems Approach: Back to the Future—Response to Munro, E. (2005) ‘A
Systems Approach to Investigating Child Abuse Deaths'35(4), pp. 531–46. British Journal of Social
Work, 35(4), pp. 531-546.
AXFORD, N. and MORPETH, L., 2013. Evidence-based programs in children's services: A critical
appraisal. Children and Youth Services Review, 35, pp. 268-277.
BALDWIN, N. and WALKER, L., 2009. Assessment. In: R. ADAMS, L. DOMINELLI and M. PAYNE, eds,
Social Work: Themes, Issues and Critical Debates. 3rd edn. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 209243.
BARLOW, J., FISHER, J. and JONES, D., 2012. Systematic review of models of analysing significant
harm. London: Department for Education.
BENTOVIM, A., COX, A., BINGLEY MILLER, L. and PIZZEY, S., 2009. Safeguarding Children Living with
Trauma and Family Violence : Evidence-Based Assessment, Analysis and Planning Interventions.
London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers Ltd.
BENTOVIM, A. and ELLIOTT, I., 2014. Hope for Children and Families: Targeting Abusive Parenting
and the Associated Impairment of Children. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 43(2),
pp. 270-285.
BERESFORD, P., 2000. Service User's Knowledge and Social Work Theory: Conflict or Collaboration.
British Journal of Social Work, 30(4), pp. 489-503.
BUNN, A., 2013. Signs of Safety in England An NSPCC commissioned report on the Signs of Safety
model in child protection. London: NSPCC.
CONNOLLY, M., 2007. Practice Frameworks: Conceptual Maps to Guide Interventions in Child
Welfare. British Journal of Social Work, 37, pp. 825-837.
D'CRUZ, H. and STAGNITTI, K., 2008. Reconstructing child welfare through participatory and childcentred professional practice: a conceptual approach. Child and Family Social Work, 13(2), pp. 156165.
DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION, D., 2013. Working Together to Safeguard Children: A guide to interagency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. London: HM Government.
FLINT, J., BATTY, E., PARR, S., PLATTS FOWLER, D., NIXON, J. and SANDERSON, D., 2011. Evaluation
of Intensive Intervention Projects. London: Department for Education.
FORRESTER, D., WESTLAKE, D., MCCANN, M., THURNHAM, A., SHEFER, G., GLYNN, G. and KILLIAN,
M., 2013. Reclaiming Social Work? An Evaluation of Systemic Units as an Approach to Delivering
Children's Services. London: Tia Goldberg Centre for Social Work and Social Care.
31
Catherine Goodall
KTP Design and Implementation Analyst
FROST, N., 2005. Professionalism, partnership and joined-up thinking. A research review of front-line
working with children and families. London: Research In Practice.
GLASER, D., PRIOR, V., AUTY, K. and TILKI, S., 2012. Does training in a systematic approach to
emotional abuse improve the quality of children’s services? . London: Department for Education.
GLISSON, C. and HEMMELGARN, A., 1998. The effects of organizational climate and
interorganizational coordination on the quality and outcomes of children's service systems. Child
Abuse & Neglect, 22(5), pp. 401-421.
GOLDSTEIN, E., 2008-last update, Psychosocial Framework [Homepage of Oxford University Press],
[Online]. Available:
http://socialwork.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199975839.001.0001/acrefore9780199975839-e-320?result=1#acrefore-9780199975839-div1-2465 [05/23, 2014].
GORIN, S. and JOBE, A., 2013. Young People Who Have Been Maltreated: Different Needs—
Different Responses? British Journal of Social Work, 43, pp. 1330-1346.
HAIGHT, W., KAGAL, J. and BLACK, J., 2008. Understanding and Supporting Parent-Child
Relationships during Foster Care Visits: Attachment Theory and Research. Social Work, 48(2), pp.
195-207.
HAMALAINEN, J., 2003. The Concept of Social Pedagogy in the Field of Social Work. Journal of Social
Work, 3(1), pp. 69-80.
HEALY, K., 2005. Social Work Theories in Context. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan.
HEPWORTH, D., ROONEY, R., DEWBERRY ROONEY, G., STROM-GOTTFRIED, K. and LARSEN, J., 2010.
Direct Social Work Practice: Theory and Skills. CA, USA: Cengage Learning.
HOLTHOFF, S., FRORUP, A.K., FIELDING, M., BRYDERUP, I. and VANDENBROECK, M., 2011. Social
Pedagogy and Working with Children and Young People: Where Care and Education Meet. London:
Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
HOWARTH, J., KALYVA, E. and SPYRU, S., 2012. “I want my experiences to make a difference”
promoting participation in policy-making and service development by young people who have
experienced violence. Children and Youth Services Review, 34, pp. 155-162.
JOHNSON, D. and FEIN, E., 1991. The Concept of Attachment: Applications to Adoption. Children and
Youth Services Review, 13, pp. 391-412.
KATZ, I. and HETHERINGTON, R., 2006. Co-operating and Communicating: A European Perspective on
Integrating Services for Children. Child Abuse Review, 15, pp. 429-439.
KENDALL, S., RODGER, J. and PALMER, H., 2010. The use of whole family assessment to identify the
needs of families with multiple problems. London: Department for Education.
LAWLER, M., SHAVER, P. and GOODMAN, G., 2011. Towards relationship-based child welfare
services. Children and Youth Services Review, 33, pp. 473-480.
32
Catherine Goodall
KTP Design and Implementation Analyst
LEWIS, M., 2001. Issues in the study of personality development. Psychological Inquiry, 12(2), pp. 6783.
LITTELL, J., 2008. Evidence-based or biased? The quality of published reviews of evidence-based
practices. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, pp. 1299-1317.
MENNEN, F. and O'KEEFE, M., 2005. Informed decisions in child welfare: The use of attachment
theory. Children and Youth Services Review, 27, pp. 577-593.
MISHNA, F., VAN WERT, M. and ASAKURA, K., 2013. The Best Kept Secret in Social Work: Empirical
Support for Contemporary Psychodynamic Social Work Practice . Journal of Social Work Practice,
27(3), pp. 289-303.
MORAN, P., JACOBS, C., BUNN, A. and BIFULCO, A., 2007. Multi-agency working: implications for an
early-intervention social work team. Child and Family Social Work, 12, pp. 143-151.
MORRIS, K., 2012. Thinking Family? The Complexities for Family Engagement in Care and Protection.
British Journal of Social Work, 42, pp. 906-920.
MORRIS, K., HUGHES, N., CLARKE, H., TEW, J., MASON, P., GALVANI, S., LEWIS, A., LOVELESS, L.,
BECKER, S. and BURFORD, G., 2008. Think Family: A literature review of whole family approaches .
London: UK Cabinet Office.
MUNRO, E., 2011. The Munro Review of Child Protection Interim Report A Child's Journey 2011.
MUNRO, E., 2010. The Munro Review of Child Protection. Part One: A Systems Analysis. London: The
Stationery Office.
MUNRO, E. and HUBBARD, A., 2011. A Systems Approach to Evaluating Organisational Change in
Children’s Social Care. British Journal of Social Work, 41, pp. 726-743.
MURPHY, D., DUGGAN, M. and JOSEPH, S., 2013. Relationship-Based Social Work and Its
Compatibility with the Person-Centred Approach: Principled versus Instrumental Perspectives.
British Journal of Social Work, 43, pp. 703-719.
MURRAY, L. and BARNES, M., 2010. Have Families Been Rethought? Ethic of Care, Family and ‘Whole
Family’ Approaches. Social Policy & Society, 9(4), pp. 533-544.
OFSTED, 2013. Annual Report 2012–13: Social care. Manchester: Ofsted.
PAYNE, M., 2014. Modern Social Work Theory. 4 edn. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan.
PERROTT, S., 2009. Social work and organisations. In: R. ADAMS, L. DOMINELLI and M. PAYNE, eds,
Social Work: Themes, Issues and Critical Debates. 3rd edn. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 103208.
SCOTT, M. and STRADLING, S., 1991. The Cognitive-Behavioural Approach with Depressed Clients.
British Journal of Social Work, 21, pp. 533-544.
SHELDON, B. and MACDONALD, G., 2009. A Textbook of Social Work. Oxon: Routledge.
33
Catherine Goodall
KTP Design and Implementation Analyst
SLOPER, P., 2004. Facilitators and barriers for co-ordinated multi-agency services. Child: Care, Health
and Development, 30(6), pp. 571-580.
STANLEY, T., MCGEE, P. and LINCOLN, H., 2012. A Practice Framework for Assessments at Tower
Hamlets Children's Social Care: Building on the Munro Review. Practice: Social Work in Action, 24(4),
pp. 239-250.
THOBURN, J., COOPER, N., BRANDON, M. and CONNOLLY, S., 2013. The place of “think family”
approaches in child and family social work: Messages from a process evaluation of an English
pathfinder service. Child and Youth Services Review, 35, pp. 228-236.
TOROS, K., TIKO, A. and SAIA, K., 2013. Child-centered approach in the context of the assessment of
children in need: Reflections of child protection workers in Estonia. Child and Youth Services Review,
35, pp. 1015-1022.
TUCKER, D. and MACKENZIE, M., 2012. Attachment theory and change processes in foster care.
Children and Youth Services Review, 34, pp. 2208-2219.
TURNELL, A. and EDWARDS, S., 1997. Aspiring to partnership: The Signs of Safety approach to child
protection. Child Abuse Review, 6, pp. 179-190.
VICKERY, A., 1974. A Systems Approach to Social Work Intervention: its uses for Work with
Individuals and Families. British Journal of Social Work, 4, pp. 389-404.
YORK CONSULTING, 2011. Turning around the lives of families with multiple problems an evaluation of the Family and Young Carer Pathfinders Programme. London: University of
London.
34
Catherine Goodall
KTP Design and Implementation Analyst