Abstract
When children are killed or seriously harmed from abuse or neglect, there is pressure to ‘learn the lessons’ to prevent similar events. England has a long-established system of locally-based multi-agency reviews for this, but the recurrence of tragedies and repetitive findings raise questions about its effectiveness. Reflecting and building on our research into reviews completed between 2017 and 2021, we analyse the complexity that routine criticisms of inter-agency working disguise, and argue that reviews are shaped by their multiple, competing functions. The stated purpose is to improve practice. Within this are other overt but ambiguous goals: establishing what happened, accountability, reassurance and commemoration. Then there are covert functions: to dissipate public outrage, deflect attention from underlying causes, and distort understandings of the work by making it seem straightforward. Reviews would benefit from paying more attention to the dynamics of frontline practice and the local actions to implement the lessons.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Number of pages | 21 |
| Journal | Critical Social Policy |
| Early online date | 19 Dec 2023 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | E-pub ahead of print - 19 Dec 2023 |
Bibliographical note
FundingStudies 1 and 2 were funded by the Department for Education, studies 3 and 4 were funded by the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel. We are grateful to both funders for their assistance over the course of the studies. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors, not necessarily either of the funders.
