Keeping families together safely: six years of evidence on safeguarding reform

When a child is at risk of harm, social services must act. Historically, that action centred on investigation and removal – protecting children by separating them from their families. Over the past decade, local authorities across England have adopted whole-family approaches that aim to address the root causes of risk while keeping families together. But for all their promise, these models lacked robust evidence. Did they actually improve outcomes for children?

Oxfordshire County Council introduced Family Solutions Plus – a relationship-based model that assigns each family a single social worker and brings in adult-facing practitioners to tackle parental difficulties such as substance misuse and mental health. Researchers at the University of Oxford, funded through NIHR ARC OxTV, spent six years finding out whether this reform delivered on its promise.

Our approach and partners

Working in close partnership with Oxfordshire County Council, the team combined in-depth interviews with frontline staff, parents and children (59 participants in total) with analysis of routine administrative data covering 6,816 children. Rather than relying on aggregate statistics, they developed methods to track individual children's journeys through services over time.

Findings were not held back for publication. The team fed evidence to council managers and practitioners as it emerged, enabling real-time troubleshooting and refinement. A national narrative review of 15 safeguarding models across England placed the Oxfordshire findings in wider context, strengthening their relevance beyond the county.

What we found – and why it matters

1. Fewer and less intensive interventions. Children referred under Family Solutions Plus were less likely to escalate to high-intensity statutory involvement – such as child protection plans or care proceedings – than children in the previous system.

2. Shorter time in services. Families moved through the system more quickly, reducing disruption to children's lives and potentially freeing capacity for other families in need.

3. Better experiences for children and parents. Continuity of social worker, clear communication and the involvement of adult-facing practitioners were the elements families valued most – and the ones most closely linked to positive outcomes.

4. Implementation gaps limited impact. Where these elements were delivered inconsistently – often because of high caseloads and staff turnover – benefits were diluted. The reform worked when delivered as intended; the challenge was making that the norm.

5. Children can meaningfully assess safeguarding quality. Young people offered sharp, specific insights into where transparency and trust broke down, demonstrating that their voices should be central to service evaluation.

What children and parents reported in interviews aligned with patterns in the routine data, strengthening confidence that the improvements were real. Together, these studies represent one of the most comprehensive evaluations of safeguarding reform in England.

What this means

For children and families, this evidence points to less time in a system often experienced as intrusive and opaque, and more support to address the difficulties that brought them to social services in the first place. For policymakers and commissioners, the programme provides rare, high-quality evidence on how safeguarding services should be designed and funded – evidence that is transferable to local authorities across the UK.

Further tools and guidance are in development; external partners should check back in 12–18 months for updated resources and a second stage of evaluation.

What needs to happen next

Three priorities stand out. First, local authorities must invest in workforce stability – high staff turnover undermines relationship-based practice at its core. Second, children's participation should become routine, not exceptional; their insights are too valuable to treat as optional. Third, commissioners, practitioners and national policymakers need to engage with this evidence to shape service design and funding decisions.

Barriers remain. High caseloads, fragmented data systems and inconsistent delivery all limit sustainability and transferability. Progress will require investment in data infrastructure, analytical capability and protected time for reflective practice.

Lessons for future research

This programme demonstrates the value of embedding evaluation alongside delivery rather than conducting it retrospectively. Real-time feedback gave the research practical relevance and gave the council actionable intelligence – but it required strong partnerships, shared data infrastructure and trust built over years. Combining qualitative insight with longitudinal routine data – tracking individual journeys rather than relying on aggregate trends – proved especially powerful in a context where randomised trials were neither feasible nor ethical. The approach offers a transferable template for evaluating complex social care interventions, though replication demands time, patience and genuine commitment from both research and practice partners.