The Effects of Social Service Contact on Teenagers in England

Abstract

ObjectiveThis study investigated outcomes of social service contact during teenage years. MethodsSecondary analysis was conducted of the Longitudinal Survey of Young People in England (n=15,770), using data on reported contact with social services resulting from teenagers' behavior. Outcomes considered were educational achievement and aspiration, mental health, and locus of control. Inverse-probability-weighted regression adjustment was used to estimate effect of social service contact. ResultsThere was no significant difference between those who received social service contact and those who did not for mental health outcome or aspiration to apply to university. Those with contact had lower odds of achieving good exam results or of being confident in university acceptance if sought. Results for locus of control were mixed. ConclusionsAttention is needed to the role of social services in supporting the education of young people in difficulty. Further research is needed on the outcomes of social services contact.

Educational outcomes of children in contact with social care in England: a systematic review

“…One consists of the series of eight statistical releases by the DfE [14], one is a research report of longitudinal data by the DfE [13], two were reports self-published by a research centre [12] and a children’s charity [16] and three were peer-reviewed journal articles [15, 17, 18]. The DfE statistical releases are annual cross-sectional population-level snapshots of Key Stage results and exclusion and absence rates.…”

“…In the cases of the DfE statistical releases [14], DfE research report [13], Sebba et al [12], O’Higgins [18] and Luke and O’Higgins [17], data were available on all or almost all children in the target population. In Henderson et al [15], which used the Next Steps study, the response rate at wave 1 was 74% [19]. Ellison and Hutchinson [16] employed freedom of information requests to all English local authorities with a response rate of 62% for the component of their study involving CSC data.…”

“…None provided an explicit sample size justification as they used all data available. However, this does not detract from study quality, except perhaps in the case of Ellison and Hutchinson [16] where this is a higher risk of non-response bias, as the sample sizes were sufficiently large to support the analyses undertaken, and in the case of Sebba et al [12], Luke and O’Higgins [17] and Henderson et al [15], point estimates with standard errors are presented.…”

“…One key difference between the longitudinal studies was in loss to follow up rates: in Henderson et al [15], 27% of children had been lost by wave 4. Statistical weighting was employed but there may still be bias unaccounted for.…”

“…In Henderson et al [15] exposure status was ascertained at waves 2 and 3 (GCSE results being measured between waves 3 and 4) by asking the main parent whether, in the previous 12 months, they had been in touch with their local council’s social services because of their child’s behaviour at home or school including where the parent or the council initiated contact. It is not clear whether any contact exclusively relates to social work intervention or what interventions, if any, were received.…”