Systematic review of models of analysing significant harm

Abstract

Background Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 places a duty on local authorities to make enquiries where it is suspected that a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm, to enable it to decide whether it should take any action to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child. The framework for assessing such children is set out in chapter 5 of Working Together to Safeguard Children (HM Government 2010). This states that the assessment should “draw together and analyse available information on the child’s developmental needs, parenting capacity, and family and environmental factors in order to provide sound evidence on which to base professional judgment about whether, and how best, to intervene to safeguard the child’s welfare.” Evidence from a range of sources has identified that although practitioners are good at gathering information about children and families, they find it challenging analysing complex information in order to make judgments about whether a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. This is consistent with recent research highlighting the poor accuracy of much decision-making in the child protection field, with assessments being ‘only slightly better than guessing’ (Dorsey et al 2008). There is also increasing consensus about the need to move toward the development of Structured Professional Judgment in which professional decision-making is supported by the use of standardised tools. A number of such standardised tools have been developed for assessing and analysing information gathered about whether a child is suffering, or likely to suffer significant harm, and recent additions include Safeguarding Assessment and Analysis Framework (SAAF) (Bentovim et al 2010); Signs of Safety (Turnell 2010; Turnell and Edwards 1997; Turnell and Edwards 1999); and the Graded Care Profile (Srivastava and Polnay 1997). There is a need now to examine the potential benefits of such tools alongside evidence about their rigour, and this review aims to build on the conceptual model established by The Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families (Department of Health, Department for Education and Employment and Home Office 2000), hereafter known as the ‘Assessment Framework’. The main rationale for this approach is that the Assessment Framework (ibid) comprehensively captures accepted knowledge and best understanding about the range of influences on child development, and provides a concise conceptual model that is accessible and comprehensive for practitioners to use.