Family Safeguarding Model and integration with anti-poverty interventions

NIHR Three Schools Prevention Programme > Practitioner Engagement > Practitioner Evaluation Scheme > Family Safeguarding Model in Liverpool and the integration with anti-poverty interventions provided locally

Family Safeguarding Model in Liverpool and the integration with anti-poverty interventions provided locally

Research Team: Philip McHale, David Taylor-Robinson, Nathan Hughes, Rachel Crossdale, Michelle Black, Ben Barr, Davara Bennett, Roberta Piroddi, Paul Walmsley, Ruth McGovern

Who's involved: SPHR (Lilac, University of Liverpool, Fuse, Newcastle University); SSCR (University of Sheffield); Liverpool City Council

May 2025 - March 2027

What does this mean for health and social care professionals?

The expectation is that findings will be used to inform the continued implementation of the model, to adapt the model to better mobilise poverty mitigation measures at the right time in families’ trajectories to reduce risks and improve outcomes. It is expected that the findings would also be used by local authorities across Cheshire and Merseyside to inform their approaches.

We expect the results of our evaluation to inform plans to integrate anti-poverty within the Family Safeguarding Model (FSM), whether this is an appropriate activity to undertake, and how best this integration can occur to provide a ‘wrap-around’ offer of support which adequately considers poverty for families with a Child in Need.

What does this mean for the public?

Our expected outcomes will inform the support families receive. By identifying what works and how to improve the support, this may lead to a reduction in child protection intervention and improved household mental health. Additionally, this has potential to reduce pressure on both local government and NHS organisations.

Background

Liverpool recently introduced the Family Safeguarding Model (FSM) to support families with a child on a Child in Need plan. This approach involves taking a whole family approach to support needs and move to a less adversarial approach between social workers and families. The model has been shown to be effective in other parts of the UK. Despite the importance of poverty, this is not explicitly targeted by the model.

Aim

This evaluation has two aims:

Does FSM improve health and social care outcomes for families and children receiving the intervention and is this effect modified when combined with anti-poverty support?
What do practitioners and service users perceive to be the most effective strategies for integrating anti-poverty interventions within the FSM?

The main outcomes of this evaluation will be to identify whether the FSM is effective, whether the FSM can be improved by the inclusion of anti-poverty actions, and how best to integrate the two.

Design and methods

The research will be split into two Work Packages (WP). WP1 will use linked health and social care data to assess the change in child protection and mental health outcomes before and after the intervention in Liverpool. WP2 will examine the contextual implementation of the programme, with a particular emphasis on how it is integrated with local anti-poverty programmes. The evaluation will qualitatively assess how FSM is integrated with anti-poverty programmes and ways in which this integration should be improved, mapping the network of services that the FSM team engage with, and perceived gaps in services.

Public involvement

We will run 3 Public and Patient Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) workshops during the project to continue engagement throughout. Participants of the PPIE workshops will include families who are identified by social care practitioners, care-experienced young people, and members of the public advisors network in the Applied Research Collaboration North-West Coast (ARC NWC). The first workshop will be run at the start of the evaluation and focus on the planned evaluation activities. The second work will be run at approximately the one year point and focus on the interim results, particularly WP2. The final workshop will focus on results interpretation and what the findings mean for policy. Each workshop will be face-to-face and the focus will be to ensure the plans, interpretation and implications are fully informed by the public perspective. Furthermore, we will have an PPIE group which will include care-experienced young people, families and key stakeholders.

Dissemination

We will share our findings via our established network, at conferences, in academic papers, in guidance and advice to professionals, and in reports to policymakers.