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

1. 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

2. 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)

3. 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 work
Data
protection/ethical
concerns about
research use

4. What might UK cohort studies offer?
rich and comparable data
include some data on
social work contact
unique potential for
examining without recall
bias and over longer
period than ever before:
• on child and family
circumstances
• following individuals and
households over time
• much used by other disciplines
• but little input from, or use by
social work
• (some notable exceptions)
• determinants of social work
contact for children and families
• comparative outcomes for
children with social work contact

5. Research
Questions:
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?

6. Study name, population and
date 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 1m
Also 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 15-16
Also data on entry into care
Millennium Cohort Study (MCS)
- 1999-present
- 18,818 children recruited at birth
Has carer received advice from a social worker? (reason
not asked)

7. 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

8. 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 sources
Nurse/Midwife Family drop in centre Toy library
Doctor Support groups Babysitting groups
Health visitor Social worker
Chemist
Relgious group
Telephone advice line
Internet

9. 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

10. 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)

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

12. 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)?

13. 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!

14. 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