THE BACKBONE OF OUR CAMPAIGN
Every child deserves to be safe. Every family deserves decisions that are honest, evidence-led, proportionate and open to proper challenge.
Safeguarding and fairness belong together
Step Up for Change campaigns for children’s social care that protects children while treating families with dignity. Concerns must be investigated properly, but allegations, professional opinions and predictions must never be presented as proven facts. Records should show the source of information, the evidence considered and how a decision was reached.
This campaign is shaped by experiences reported by families, carers and supporters. Listing a concern here does not establish wrongdoing in any individual case. It sets out the practices we want prevented, independently examined and corrected wherever evidence shows they have occurred.
1. Evidence, records and the truth
Evidence before narrative
We oppose fabricated, misleading or unverified information; allegations repeated until they appear established; and conclusions that are unsupported by contemporaneous evidence.
We want: every significant assertion labelled as direct observation, reported allegation, hearsay, professional opinion or verified fact, with its original source recorded.
Opinion must not masquerade as fact
Professional judgement matters, but suspicion, prediction and interpretation must be clearly distinguished from evidence. Labels such as “hostile”, “aggressive”, “uncooperative” or “lacking insight” should never be used without a clear factual basis and context.
We want: reports that show the reasoning, evidence, alternative explanations and limits of any professional opinion.
End circular and repeated evidence
We oppose disputed information being copied across reports or agencies and later presented as independent corroboration when it came from one original source.
We want: source-tracing that makes clear when records rely on earlier records, and fresh checking when facts are disputed or circumstances change.
2. Complete, balanced and auditable records
The whole picture
We oppose one-sided assessments that omit parental progress, cooperation, positive parenting or evidence from schools, health professionals and others, while giving disproportionate weight to negative information.
We want: balanced assessments that address evidence both for and against a conclusion and explain the weight given to each.
Transparent changes and corrections
We oppose undisclosed alterations, retrospective notes presented without explanation, missing original versions and inaccurate information continuing to circulate after it has been challenged.
We want: version histories, dated amendments, named decision-makers, visible corrections and notification to organisations that received inaccurate information.
Challenge confirmation bias
We oppose selectively seeking evidence that supports an existing theory, interpreting ambiguity only negatively and failing to reconsider an assessment when credible new evidence emerges.
We want: reflective supervision and independent scrutiny that actively test assumptions and plausible alternative explanations.
3. Respect, disability and family circumstances
Distress is not misconduct
We oppose fear, panic, trauma or understandable distress being automatically characterised as aggression, hostility, instability or evidence of risk. A complaint or request for evidence must not become proof of “non-engagement”.
We want: trauma-aware communication, fair descriptions of behaviour and a genuine opportunity for families to explain context.
Disability understood and accommodated
We oppose disability-related needs, communication differences or the consequences of missing support being misclassified as unwillingness, incapacity or neglect.
We want: accessible communication, reasonable adjustments, specialist input and practical support shaped around the child and family.
Poverty is not neglect
We oppose financial hardship, poor housing or unavailable equipment being treated as proof of poor parenting without full context and an assessment of what support would resolve the problem.
We want: practical help and family support before avoidable hardship is used to justify escalation.
4. Help before escalation
Early help that arrives in time
We oppose requests for help being missed, delayed or withheld and the resulting deterioration then being attributed entirely to parental failure.
We want: timely practical and specialist help, clear responsibility for delivery and honest recording when promised services are unavailable.
Proportionate thresholds
We oppose potential risk being treated as established harm, historical concerns being treated as current danger and safeguarding language escalating without proportionate new evidence.
We want: lawful, consistent thresholds; reasons that link evidence to decisions; and regular reassessment of whether the current level of intervention remains necessary.
Least-intrusive safe options
We oppose removal or more intrusive intervention becoming the default when practical support, family networks, specialist services, reasonable adjustments or other safe alternatives have not been properly considered.
We want: recorded consideration of workable alternatives, alongside decisive protective action where evidence shows a child is at risk of significant harm.
5. Transparent decisions and information rights
Families included in decisions
We oppose assessments, reports or important decisions being withheld until families have no meaningful opportunity to understand, respond or correct factual errors.
We want: timely sharing, accessible explanations and the family’s response included before major decisions wherever urgency and lawful restrictions allow.
Access without artificial barriers
We oppose arbitrary limits on record searches, unexplained delay, incomplete searches and excessive or poorly explained redactions that prevent effective challenge.
We want: lawful, thorough and timely responses to information requests, proportionate redaction and clear explanations of what has been withheld and why.
Responsible multi-agency sharing
Information-sharing can protect children, but disputed allegations should not be circulated as established facts or used to pressure other professionals into adopting one interpretation.
We want: necessary, proportionate sharing that preserves source, status, context and later corrections.
6. Complaints and accountability that work
No retaliation for speaking up
We oppose complaints being reframed as hostility or non-cooperation, and families being disadvantaged because they ask questions, request evidence or challenge inaccuracies.
We want: a clear firewall between raising a complaint and decisions about a child’s welfare, while relevant safeguarding information is still considered fairly.
Independent, evidence-led complaints
We oppose missed deadlines, misrouting, defensive responses and investigations that rely only on the records being challenged while ignoring contradictory material.
We want: the correct complaints route, published timescales, genuinely independent review, reasoned findings and completion of agreed remedies.
Accountability beyond the council
Families’ evidenced concerns should be taken seriously by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, Social Work England, Ofsted and other appropriate bodies within each organisation’s legal remit.
We want: accessible routes, transparent decisions, effective remedies, learning from patterns and clear follow-up when standards are not met.
7. Care placements, carers and children’s voices
Safe, suitable and registered homes
We campaign against children being placed in unsuitable or unregistered homes without proper regulatory oversight, and against a shortage of placements being allowed to dictate unsafe care.
We want: enough suitable local homes, transparent sufficiency planning and prompt action where provision is operating unlawfully.
Value foster and kinship carers
Foster and kinship carers often know a child’s day-to-day needs exceptionally well. Their observations should not be sidelined, and important placement information should not be withheld from them.
We want: carers treated as valued members of the team, properly supported and included in decisions, without their views automatically overriding the child’s wishes or other evidence.
The child’s welfare and voice first
Systems, budgets and professional reputations must never become more important than a child’s safety, stability, relationships and lived experience.
We want: child-centred planning, age-appropriate participation and decisions that explain how the child’s wishes, feelings and best interests were considered.
8. Lawful process and institutional responsibility
Consent must be genuine
We oppose a voluntary arrangement being presented as the only option, or families being left unclear about its legal basis, their rights and who holds parental responsibility.
We want: Section 20 accommodation to be based on properly informed and continuing consent, with clear written explanations and timely review rather than being used as a substitute for the correct legal process.
Honest evidence for courts and panels
We oppose inaccurate or incomplete statements, material evidence being omitted and disputed allegations or professional opinion being presented to decision-makers as established fact.
We want: reports that are balanced, source-labelled, current and tested against contemporaneous evidence, with substantive amendments and contradictory evidence disclosed as the law requires.
End institutional defensiveness
We oppose organisations protecting earlier decisions, budgets or reputations instead of acknowledging mistakes, independently reassessing evidence and learning from challenge.
We want: managers accountable for decision quality, resource pressures recorded honestly, staff safe to raise concerns and organisational learning that can be seen by the public.
The reforms we are asking for
- National standards for source-labelled, balanced and auditable children’s social care records.
- Visible document version histories, correction trails and named decision-makers.
- A recorded right of response before major decisions, except where urgency or law prevents it.
- Trauma-aware practice, accessible communication and reasonable adjustments.
- Clear evidence that early help and less-intrusive safe options were considered.
- Genuinely informed consent for voluntary accommodation and accurate, balanced evidence for courts and panels.
- Independent complaint investigation, published timescales and tracked remedies.
- Public reporting of recurring problems by council so patterns cannot remain hidden.
- Safe, registered placements and genuine respect for children, families, foster carers and kinship carers.
Standards already point in this direction
These campaign aims build on existing expectations for accurate and objective social work records, evidence-informed professional judgement, family participation, lawful complaints handling, data accuracy and safe registered care. We are campaigning for those standards to be applied consistently, transparently and with meaningful accountability.
- Social Work England: professional standards guidance
- Department for Education: children’s social care complaints guidance
- Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman: statutory complaints procedure
- Information Commissioner’s Office: right to rectification
- Ofsted: annual report on children’s social care
Help turn these principles into change
Your experiences can reveal recurring patterns, and your support helps show decision-makers that reform matters.