1. Centre for Research on the Child and Family Social work: experiences of a longitudinal study of children living with significant harm Dr Marian Brandon University of East Anglia m.brandon@uea.ac.uk

2. Centre for Research on the Child and Family Stage 1 - the original study ‘Safeguarding Children with the Children Act 1989’ (1999, 2001)  Detailed picture of 105 consecutive cases (4 sites) of children (aged 0-18) newly identified as suffering or likely to suffer significant harm  Progress of children tracked over one year to see whether effective protective and supportive action for children and parents was taken  Circumstances for many children still unresolved one year on – impetus for follow up study

3. Centre for Research on the Child and Family Mechanics of Follow Up - Permission from 3:4 original Local Authorities to study SSD files -Permission from DH to access files of children who have been adopted - New sample of 77 children -39 from original ‘interview’ sample - 38 from original ‘background’ group

4. Centre for Research on the Child and Family Methods Used  Quantitative: Structured file searches of 76 cases loaded and coded on SPSS  Qualitative: Interviews: - 22 Children (semi-structured schedules adapted from Steele et al for children) with -12 Parents ( 8 birth mothers, 1 adoptive mother, 3 birth fathers), - 7 Carers (2 sets of grandparents, 1 aunt, 2 foster carers)  Standardised questionnaires Goodman SDQ, Rutter Malaise Inventory (parents/carers) Gibbons Family Problem Questionnaire)

5. Centre for Research on the Child and Family Struggles of consent, tracking - limitations  Only 3:4 original authorities agreed to participate this time (only lost 13% of original cases, but changes the profile of the 77:105 cases).  Only SSD files - limited information about other agencies.  Access via gatekeepers and public records (eg addresses)  Easier to track ‘long term’ cases. Children without problems are hard to trace - case ‘severity’ highlighted. Good/better outcome cases likely to have been missed (eg competition standard ice skater)

6. Centre for Research on the Child and Family Limitations of data contd.  SSD Files not compiled in a standardised way – variable, sometimes limited information, sometimes overwhelming quantities of information (information in 1:3 files good, 1:2 satisfactory, 1:5 seriously deficient.  Children’s own views missing in ¼ of files.  Information about parents dwindles over time – information about fathers is very sparse

7. Centre for Research on the Child and Family Nature and intensity of intervention From files  Length and pattern of involvement  Child protection status/ legal status  Child’s ‘story’ From interviews  Views about the nature and intensity of involvement (from a range of practitioners)

8. Centre for Research on the Child and Family Same carer 30 Away from home, stayed away 3 Went home, left, stayed away 10 Stayed home throughout 30 Left home, stayed away 20 Went home, stayed home 14 Safeguarding Process 93-01 Child Protection Family Support (57 CPR) 34court orders (20 s17) The 77 Children 1993-4 (Time 1) In placement At home removed at birth 4 70 3 Change of carer 47

9. Centre for Research on the Child and Family Were the children abused again? ( evidence in files of CPR or orders to protect eg epo, ico, so or co) 57% of the 77 children were abused again 6 children were abused at all 3 time points

10. Centre for Research on the Child and Family Outcomes for the children

11. Centre for Research on the Child and Family Outcomes to date  A researcher rating from the range of aspects of well being (quant scales and qual information)  72% protected (to some extent) 28% still concerns about well being /protection But qualified successes

12. Centre for Research on the Child and Family Wellbeing outcomes from file search  Overall development eg mental health (60% had long standing conduct problems)  Stability and loss – eg moves between carers, loss and death, cumulative losses  Re-abuse rates (CP plan or protective order)

13. Centre for Research on the Child and Family Outcome evaluation in child mental health treatments (Fonagy et al 2002) Developmental domains*  Absence of symptoms of mental ill health  good adaptation to the psychosocial environment  strong cognitive and emotional capacity  transactional aspects of development (ability to cope with individual and developmental changes alongside changes within the environment)

14. Centre for Research on the Child and Family Summary of outcomes of the children 1. Now protected (at least average well being Time 3) 9 (12%) 2. Protected at Time 3 but still some concerns 20 (26%) 3. Closed cases26 (34%) 4. Still concerns about well being. No clear improvement since Time 1 3 (4%) 5. Still serious concerns about child’s well being/well being deteriorated 19 (24%) Total77

15. Centre for Research on the Child and Family Reflections

16. Centre for Research on the Child and Family Change Over Time Reflections: Maltreatment over 8 years  Problems of keeping longitudinal study going - funding, access  Small sample size and large age range poses problems for methodology eg use of scales/measures and comparability  having a whole cohort (ie all maltreatment cases from all study sites) provides rigour  Problem of measuring and tracking success – if ‘success’ is a closed case.

17. Centre for Research on the Child and Family  Complexity of the children’s stories and experiences can be captured by a mix of methods  Not clear whether success was linked to intervention  New learning: mental health worse for children living at home (with sig harm) than in care, return home a riskier outcome  Challenge to get routine data to tell a coherent story – but possible