SAFEGARDING CHILDREN ACROSS
SERVICES :MESSAGES FROM RESEARCH
6th February 2012 –Making Research Count
Understanding the contribution of Sure
Start Local Programmes to the task of
safeguarding children’s welfare
Jane Tunstill,
Visiting Professor , King’s College , London
Emeritus Professor, Royal Holloway; Director
Implementation Module NESS 2000-2007
Relevance to a ‘post ECM’ context
Background to the study
Overview of the methodology
Key findings
Implications for policy & practice in 2012 ?
Although about Sure Start centres , –now children’s centres
–study addressed perennial safeguarding challenges
The current debate about the ideal balance
between centre based and outreach services
Dilemnas about the optimum relationship
between universal and targetted family support
Relationship between ‘newer members of the
workforce ‘e.g. FSWs; Early Years
Professionals, and ’traditional members of the
workforce’ e.g. social workers
Background (1) –overall NESS
method
National Evaluation of Sure Start 20002007.
4 interlinked modulesImplementation/Impact/Local Context
Analysis/Cost Effectiveness
Looking at roll-out and effectiveness of
Rounds 1-4 programmes
Mix of quantitative and qualitative methods
Background (2) Implementation
Module
Studied the ‘big policy & practice questions’ such
as: what is an SSLP? , as well as generating
input data to inform the Impact study of
outcomes;
Establishing programmes; nature of
partnerships; service delivery ; implementation
challenges etc.
National survey of 260 + case studies of 20+
series of themed studies
Background (2 ctd)
Key theme to emerge from the overall
Implementation Study: the attitudinal and
operational challenges (for SSLPs) of
establishing a working relationship between their
own family support activity and the work of the
social services departments in the local
authorities in which they were located .
The roll out of 3, 500 Children’s Centres,
underlined the importance of responding to
these challenges, in order to meet the
requirements of the Every Child Matters
Change agenda
Background (3)
In the 20 Implementation Module case studies, issues
identified by SSLP staff respondents had included :



Tensions between preventive and protective roles : programmes
were anxious to maintain their current capacity for preventive
work- almost all programmes took steps to actively distance
themselves from perceived pressure from social services to take
on work
Workforce shortages- especially social work shortages which
impacted on programmes ; teachers, health visitors,
The need for training and support of staff – eg importance of
supervision/ support for outreach workers around DV, CP work
The Safeguarding Study: Aims &
Objectives
This themed study was designed therefore to examine :
how SSLPs and social services departments worked in
collaboration with each other, including direct referral
rates between the two
if SSLPs were represented on LSCBs
what concerns about individual children, would be likely
to trigger a referral from SSLPs to social care and from
social care to SSLPs
the range and nature of the contribution of SSLPs to
positive outcomes for children, both before and following
referrals to children’s social care
identify examples of good practice in this whole area
Overview of the methodology
Data collected between 2004 and March 2007, in a two-part study,
comprising :

(a) an exploration of the safeguarding policy and practice of 8
local programmes identified by the Sure Start Unit of DfES, as
exemplifying ‘relatively ‘good practice’;
Interviews with key staff; analysis of documentation

(b) a in-depth study of 4 local authorities, to enable the fuller
exploration of wider partnerships and networking activity across
a whole local authority.
Interviews with key staff; analysis of documentation; file study
A conceptual framework devised by team, based on
literature , for exploring good practice in the 8
programmes
Clarity & agreement about respective aims and
objectives =
• Having an unambiguous definition around the
concept of safeguarding and child protection
The existence of easily accessible policy
statements about child protection in the area
Evidence of a robust dissemination strategy for
policy statements around safeguarding
Transcending barriers generated by traditional ways of
working =
Operational linkages between child
protection and family support
Frequency with which staff talk about
‘family support’ rather than child protection
Managing staff with a view to developing
flexible forward thinking about the task of
safeguarding children
Seeing safeguarding services in terms of
‘packages’ rather than as isolated services
Strategic level commitment =
Joined up working as a priority for
mainstream managers
Establishing trust between managers from
SSLPs and social services
Clearly identified roles and
responsibilities=
Designating a central point of contact
Sharing information about roles and
responsibilities
Co-working arrangements
Protocols/procedures for
information sharing=
Information sharing with Social Services
Departments
The Common Assesment Framework as a
solution for information sharing?
Having a multi-disciplinary team
based in one building=
Understanding advantages of co-location
for informal contact
Understanding the advantages of colocation for formal contact
A robust training strategy=
Programme-wide encouragement and
enthusing of staff to access opportunities
for training
A strategic approach to capacity building
through training
Harnessing the potential of induction
training
Having a comprehensive and integrated
training scheme in place
Using referral systems to build
bridges not barriers=
Shared understanding and acceptance
of thresholds
Confidence in information sharing both
with parents and other professionals
Systematic recording systems
Phase 2- exploration through the other
end of the lens- 4 local authorities
4 different authorities: county
/metropolitan borough/2x London
boroughs
Study of documentation/interviews/file
study
Overall Findings
Collaboration between SSLPs and social
services departments around safeguarding has
posed challenges for many local authorities,
which reflect longstanding tensions between
services designed to support families and
services designed to protect children
Staff see the concept of safeguarding as
everyone’s business as a helpful one which
provides a new framework within which their
agencies can develop collaborations , and
overcome old barriers BUT
Key findings
The four study authorities had adopted
three main styles in their collaborative
relationships between children’s services
(social care) and SSLPs/children’s
centres, reflecting local characteristics
and existing relationships : parallel
development; aspirational engagementdevelopment; maximum collaboration .
Key Findings
A range of strategies help overcome staff
resistance to collaborating in safeguarding
activity :
1) operational linkages between child
protection and family support; and:
2) managers helping staff see safeguarding
services in terms of packages, rather than
isolated services.
E.g. of ‘helpful’ operational link
Since the early days of the SSLP a social
worker has been out posted on a half time
basis to each SSLP and this arrangement
continues with the children’s centres in
each cluster area. Other half of their time
is as a Family Support Team member.
She occupies a crucial liaison and expert
advisory role on child protection & family
support issues to colleagues This has
increased the confidence of CC staff re CP
Managers helping staff see the
importance of service packages
Programme manager;
“in all honesty we didn’t set out to provide
packages of support- that developed;
because we were keen to tailor services to
individual needs- and now we are able to
offer amazing support to families”
Family support panels
The multi-agency panels established to
work within the same boundaries as the
children’s centres, had an emphasis on
early intervention. Different providers in
the area met to share information about
the families /children they were working
with in their own organisations-panels
allocate preventive Tier 2 services to
vulnerable children and all professionals
in area able to refer a child or family to the
panel
‘Best’ inter-professional/ inter-agency
collaboration requires a shared
understanding/acceptance of thresholds;
confidence in information sharing with
parents and other professionals; and
systematic recording systems.
Getting forms right
Forms can help as well as hinder:
In one authority all the agencies used a
standardised referral form- demonstrated
the link between record keeping and
access to services , and increased the
reach of the programme, and in particular
to parents who may have been more
challenging to engage
Social services manager:
“We have a common view with all our
partners down the road about what we are
striving to achieve around safeguarding- it
really helps- one of the good things about
the Sure Start programme is it has made
us all reflect on what we are doing and on
common terms”
Key Findings
The CAF can provide a bridge for
communication between members of the
children’s workforce in respect of individual
children; and underpin the provision of a
seamless service at Tiers 2& 3.
Co-location of multi-disciplinary teams has both
strengths and limitations-- the consequences for
different groups of families should be carefully
thought through, so practitioners can offer a
choice of routes to services for parents in
different circumstances.
?? Possible role for family centres alongside-or
at least careful thought about delivering
targetted support in a universal setting
Implications for future policy ( &
evaluation)
Advantages and pitfalls of retrenchment to
‘reactive’ services-unintended
consequences…………..
Added value of systemic service delivery +
children’s centres across all boroughs and
robust commitment to working with
children’s social care staff
‘Narrow service menus’ unlikely to meet
the challenges
A full copy of this and all the NESS reports
can be downloaded from the NESS
website :
www.ness.bbk.ac.uk
And see also : www.surestart.gov.uk
jane@tunstill.plus.com for correspondence