EVIDENCE ABOUT SOCIAL WORK OUTCOMES FROM COHORT AND PANEL STUDIES

Jonathan Scourfield, Cardiff University

Morag Henderson, UCL Inst. of Education

Sin Yi Cheung, Cardiff University

Elaine Sharland, University of Sussex

Luke Sloan, Cardiff University

Meng Le Zhang, Cardiff University

scourfield@cardiff.ac.uk

A wake-up call• Kreisberg and Marsh (BJSW advance access) - of the 100 most-cited papers

in social work journals 2000-9.......• 65% of European papers were not empirical (c.p.42% of US ones)• 3% of European papers (n=1) were about outcomes (c.p.19% of US ones)

Why not use social services administrative data?

Social services administrative

data are problematic for

research use

Most data are qualitative not designed for quantification

Do not include standardized

social functioning measures

Record keeping practices are very variable

Don’t allow comparison with wider population or others

with similar problems but no social workData

protection/ethical concerns about

research use

What might UK cohort studies offer?

rich and comparable data

on child and family circumstancesfollowing individuals and households over time much used by other disciplines

unique potential for examining without recall bias and over longer period than ever before:

determinants of social work contact for children and families comparative outcomes for children with social work contact

How do the circumstances of social work service users compare with the rest of the population?

To what extent are there people with similar difficulties who do not have social work contact, and how do their circumstances compare with those who do?

What is the relationship between use of social work and other related services?

What are the outcomes of social work contact for children’s wellbeing, welfare and safety, and how do they compare with others’ outcomes?

How do these patterns of social work contact and outcome vary and change over time?

Study name, population anddate coverage

Social work contact (in last 12 months)

Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC)- 1991-present- 17,000 recruited at time of birth

Has carer had contact with social worker? (reason not asked)

• asked of carer when child aged 1yr 9m, 2yr 9m, 6yr 1mAlso data on child protection register

British Household Panel Survey (BHPS)- 1991- present - 5,500 households originally- annual waves

Has adult respondent made use of social worker or welfare officer? (reason not asked)

• asked of carer at each wave

Longitudinal Study of Young People in England (LSYPE)- 2004-10-15,770 young people recruited age 13-14- annual waves

Has child’s behaviour at home or school resulted in contact with a social worker?

• asked of young person aged 13-14, 14-15 and 15-16Also data on entry into care

Millennium Cohort Study (MCS)- 1999-present- 18,818 children recruited at birth- 5 waves to date

Has carer received advice from a social worker? (reason not asked)

• asked of carer when child aged 3 & aged 5; not since

Limitations and Challenges

Small social work contact samples – range from 0.8% to 4.7% of total survey population

All studies based on self report – may under-report social work contact

Attrition rate (varies): social work contact cases 25% lower attrition for BHPS waves 1-5; but 25% - 50% higher for others

Reason for social work contact: young person related for LSYPE, but not known in other studies

Duration of social work contact not known - though BHPS and LSYPE are best (same question asked annually)

Intensity of social work contact not known – though LYSPE has data re entry into care and ALSPAC re child protection register

Millennium Cohort Study: Sources of advice

• MCS reports who parents turned to for help/advice at wave 2 (age 3) and wave 3 (age 5)• Reduce 13 sources of help/advice into 3 distinct advice groups using PCA• Different associations with mothers’ self-efficacy (controlling for multiple adversities)

Universal sources Targeted sources Voluntary sourcesNurse/Midwife Family drop in centre Toy libraryDoctor Support groups Babysitting groupsHealth visitor Social workerChemist Relgious group Telephone advice line Internet

Millennium Cohort Study: Predicting Social work advice

• Looking at children who are ‘at risk’ (> 3 life adversities) already and chances of seeking or receiving SW help/advice

• Larger households, households speaking other languages than English and children of mixed ethnicity are more likely to have sought or received social work help/advice.

• No evidence to suggest that religion affects likelihood of seeking or receiving SW help/advice

LSYPE: predicting social services contact because of YPs’ behaviour

Predictor OR SE

Lower class background (compared with higher service) eg. routine non manual: 3.16*** (0.88) routine manual: 2.46*** (0.66)

Young person (YP) in step-family (compared with non step family)

1.32* (0.17)

Young person frequently argues with parents (compared with hardly ever argues)

eg. argues most days: 2.13*** (0.32) argues > 1 per week: 1.96*** (0.27)

Parent gets on badly with YP (compared with gets on well) 3.76*** (0.92) Parents attend specially arranged meetings at school due to YP’s behaviour (compared with do not attend)

1.66*** (0.21)

YP is female (compared with male) 1.39*** (0.13) YP is mixed race (compared with white) 1.26* (0.12) YP has special educational needs compared with none 1.88*** (0.22)

YP reports risky behaviours - eg. truanting , alcohol, cannabis, smoking, vandalism, police involved ( compared with none)

eg. one risky behaviour: 1.58*** (0.20) two: 2.06*** (0.31) eight: 7.79*** (4.11)

LSYPE: Outcomes of contact

Inverse-probability-weighted regression adjustment. Controls for variables which influence both selection and outcomes

• Social work associated with lower educational achievement and confidence• No difference in mental health• Mixed results for locus of control – either more external LOC or no

difference

Why these findings from LSYPE?• Unobserved characteristics e.g. adverse childhood experiences• Nature, extent or intensity of social services contact is insufficient/

inappropriate? • Quality of social services practice is not sufficiently good or effective?• Labelling – construction of self identity becomes self fulfilling?• Learned helplessness – social services contact increases dependency,

reduces resilience?• Beneficial effects are not experienced in the short-term?• Outcome thresholds too high – what can social services contact reasonably be

expected to achieve (e.g. staying in education)?

Limitations – what can we make of this?

• Observational data • Self report – misattribution? reporting bias? stigma?• Validity of reason for contact ‘young person’s behaviour’• No information about nature of contact

• voluntary or involuntary?• brief or sustained? frequency or intensity?• what did it involve – referral? assessment? support?• whom did it involve?

• Other datasets and analyses (BHPS, fixed and random effects) so far suggest similarly concerning findings but have similar limitations

• More work to be done, including on dynamic factors and use of other services

• WE NEED MORE AND BETTER DATA!

Kreisberg, N. and Marsh, J.C. (2015) ‘Social work knowledge production and utilisation: An international comparison’, British Journal of Social Work. Online advance access.

Henderson, M., Cheung, S-Y., Scourfield, J. and Sharland, E. (2014) ‘The effects of social service contact on teenagers in England’, Research on Social Work Practice. Online advance access