In 2022 the Department for Education started to publish the number of children on ‘child in need’ plans. The latest number, published last week, is approximately 105,000. It has not yet published any more detailed statistics about these children, the largest group supported by children’s social care in England, so there is a gap in nationwide evidence on who is on these plans, for how long, what services they receive, and what difference the plans make. As Children’s Commissioner, I want to see this evidence, so that we can assess whether public money is being spent effectively to keep these vulnerable children safe and healthy.
So in March, I published Children on child in need plans, the first analysis of the characteristics of these forgotten and vulnerable children. The variation I found in their use across local authorities shocked me and pushed me to better understand how child in need plans were being used in practice to support families, specifically examining how the progress families make is measured.
On Monday I published a second report. It asks serious questions about the purpose and content of these children’s plans. Many parents are unclear and confused about their objectives. As quoted in the report’s title, one parent asked, ‘what is this plan for?’
I examined a sample of plans and found that an overwhelming majority (85%) of actions recorded within them did not meet criteria for a ‘high quality’ action. A high quality action is actionable, measurable with a measure given, includes details of a timeframe for completion, and has a clear owner responsible for completing the action. This means that for the majority of actions – essential steps that must be completed to reach the plan’s overall objective – it was difficult to assess what had been done and whether progress had been made when the plans closed. The findings suggest a disconnect between completing actions, achieving objectives, and closing child in need plans. Despite statutory guidance setting out the need for children’s views to be captured, 35% of assessments and plans did not include the child’s voice. And only 57% of plans and assessment had parental consent recorded.
I also gathered new data from local authorities. Based on analysis of this, it was positive to see that most are carrying out the majority of their visits to children on child in need plans with safeguarding concerns within their published timescales. However, only one local authority was meeting its published target 100% of the time, visiting all children at least as often as set out in local policy.
There is clearly room for improvement in the use of this imperfect tool. My report calls for a number of changes in policy and practice. The government’s Children’s Wellbeing Bill presents a crucial opportunity for reforms. National thresholds should be set out determining the level of need that children and families must meet to be offered support through a child in need plan under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, as part of a wider review of the Act. There should be guidance on expectations for how often children receive help and how frequently that help is reviewed when on a child in need plan. And a National Child in Need Outcomes Framework should be developed. This would enable the progress children make on child in need plans, if any, to be measured.
There is no better time for us to critically examine how we are using this vital statutory early intervention to support vulnerable children and ultimately to keep families together across the country.
