New research led by Kingston University has found that even very modest uplifts to family finances could reduce children’s chances of entering the child protection system.
The study, based on data from six local authorities, shows that children living in the poorest households, where the families were below the poverty line and expenditure often exceeded their scarce income, were more likely to experience repeat involvement with children’s social care services and to be placed on child protection plans than those in slightly better off families.
Researchers, including Professor of Social Work at Kingston University Rick Hood, analysed over 100,000 linked benefits and children’s social care records, comparing families below the poverty line with other households on means-tested benefits.
The research, led by Kingston University in collaboration with the National Children’s Bureau, Policy in Practice, the University of Sussex and Research in Practice, with funding from the Nuffield Foundation, found that while poverty alone does not increase initial referrals, it significantly raises the likelihood of repeat referrals and escalation to more intensive interventions.
The economic cost to local authorities
Across the six councils studied, around 300 additional child protection plans were associated with children in the most financially disadvantaged households, highlighting the role of severe poverty in shaping child welfare involvement once families enter the system. The researchers estimated these plans could cost local authorities around £3.6 million over three years – around 1 per cent of the total safeguarding expenditure across the councils studied, excluding the costs of out‑of‑home care.
Nationally, 2.3 million children live below the poverty line, suggesting substantial costs are being borne by child welfare services while responding to safeguarding concerns driven by financial hardship.
The research also examined the 2020 uplift to Universal Credit during the pandemic, which reduced levels of financial hardship. During this period, children in affected households were more likely to receive lower‑level support and less likely to progress to child protection plans. This suggests that modest increases in income can help prevent escalation of social care needs.
The lived experience of financial precarity
Researchers also spoke with parents and carers about their experiences of living in financial precarity. They described:
Struggling to make ends meet due to debt, rising living costs, childcare expenses, housing insecurity, and related health challenges.
How financial hardship intensified child welfare issues, having an effect on their health, welfare, school attendance, and emotional wellbeing. It also contributed to parental stress, domestic conflict, substance abuse, housing instability, and missed school or medical appointments.
How the benefits system is both a vital safety net and a source of stress, with complex processes that even child social care practitioners found difficult to navigate on behalf of families.
A new framework for safeguarding policy
While financial hardship on its own is not a reliable indicator of safeguarding risk, the findings suggest poverty plays a key role in shaping what happens to families once they come into contact with services.
The researchers argue that addressing financial hardship should be a central part of safeguarding policy and practice. This should include:
Understanding that addressing child and family poverty requires national policy leadership that recognises this as part of the core business for child welfare professionals.
Identifying financial hardship at the initial contact with children’s social care teams, when assessments of a family’s needs are first made.
Giving social care teams the knowledge and training to identify a family in financial hardship and know where to seek specialist advice.
Supporting practitioners to hold sensitive, respectful conversations about family finances. These discussions should be clearly framed as supportive and voluntary, as distinct from safeguarding risk assessments. This should help to reduce stigma and encourage families to share information about financial needs.
Professor Hood said the study showed there is a correlation between family income and the need for children’s social care services. “This study shows when families’ incomes fall, involvement with children’s social care increases – and when incomes rise, it can reduce the need for more intensive intervention. Even relatively small improvements in income can make a meaningful difference to families under pressure.
“This has clear implications for policy. Decisions that reduce support for low-income families risk increasing demand on child protection services, while measures that strengthen family finances can help prevent problems escalating in the first place.”
Senior Research at the National Children’s Bureau, Keith Clements, said the study shows changes needs to be made. “During the course of this study, the social care professionals we spoke to described being powerless to support families at an early stage where addressing their financial needs might make a difference in preventing their problems from escalating.
“This clearly needs to change. But it must be done in a way that recognises the considerable stigma, judgement, and discomfort that parents feel when quizzed about their incomes by social care staff.”
