From First Questions to Fair Outcomes: The Case for Intentional, Non-Biased Inquiry

ATA Consultancy strongly believes that the foundation of a robust child protection investigation (and safeguarding for children and families) is laid in the first phase of the work. The questions asked, the position the worker takes with the family, and the way information is captured either set in place a model of disciplined, balanced information-gathering or take the case down a path of subjectivity and paternalism that is difficult to reset.

Safeguarding Together starts with the view that those early contacts are make-or-break. Targeted, intentional, non-biased, and balanced questioning at the outset is not an act of politeness; it is a core safeguarding function that has consequences for children’s safety, well-being, and support, and for sustaining a consistent line of practice over handovers and throughout the life of the file. The tone problem is both practical and ethical. When the worker’s first questions to the family imply judgment or assume conclusions, when first notes are drenched in assumption or frustration, then the family’s experience of the service tilts away from protection and towards punishment, trust is difficult to earn, and information-gathering suffers, case drift occurs, and outcomes worsen for children. In turn, those early notes frame the lens through which the next worker sees events.

Deficit-heavy language, globalizing phrasing, and sentences tinged with frustration are often repeated as if they were facts, creating a form of inertia. Over time, such language closes down space for alternative hypotheses, tips decisions towards over-response or under-response, and erodes procedural fairness. The consequences for children and families are real. A paternalistic position risks sidelining natural supports, alienating networks, and drawing the system into interventions that are not necessarily proportionate to the child’s level of danger.

A non-inquisitive position risks normalizing harmful patterns and missing crucial signals that a more searching, balanced line of inquiry might have turned up. To combat these risks, ATA has articulated four non-negotiables for the first phase of work. Questioning must be purposeful, which means that every question is linked to a clear information need that is itself tied to a reason why knowing is essential for the child’s safety, well-being, and success. Questioning must be intentional, which means the worker explains why they are asking and how the information will be used, and checks that the family understands. Questioning must be unbiased, meaning actively testing competing hypotheses, avoiding leading and loaded phrasing, and seeking both discrepant and confirmatory information. Finally, questioning must be balanced, meaning the same level of rigour in eliciting information about harm and danger as is devoted to identifying existing protections, exceptions when the worry did not occur, and the natural network already helping the child. It is not that these principles are hard to grasp; their power lies in their integration with tools, supervision, and documentation standards that lock in quality over time.

Safeguarding Together has translated these principles into a simple practice sequence at the very first contact with families and children. Before first contact, the worker drafts a one-page briefing note that clearly identifies the alleged harms, the specific dates and times, and any protective actions already taken by the family or network. The worker writes a one-sentence intent statement to anchor their position going in, for example, “I am going to ask questions to understand what happened, what is happening now, what people are already doing to keep the child safe, and what still needs to happen.” This small step primes curiosity and counteracts drift towards assumption. In first contact, the worker begins with transparency. They explain their purpose, the limits of confidentiality, and the range of possible decisions, and they commit to giving as much attention to what is working as they give to the worries. This is not performative window dressing; it is instrumental. It increases cooperation, enhances the accuracy of information obtained, and signals to the family that the process is about discernment, not accusation.

In information-gathering, the worker should run parallel inquiries. On the harm and danger track, they seek information about pattern, severity, frequency, recency, and likely future danger. On the protection and capacity track, they identify concrete protective actions and circumstances in which the worry could have occurred but did not. On the child’s daily life track, they elicit school, health, routines, relationships, and the child’s voice in their own words. On the network track, they map the people the family trusts, those who show up, and what those people can do over the next two days. The method matters. Open, time-bound, behaviour-specific questions generate facts rather than impressions, and the balanced structure ensures deficit-only narratives do not take over the file.

Notes should then respect the same discipline. Writers should distinguish what they observed from what they think; they should use brief, labelled quotations for any critical statements, and they should attribute information to its source. A summary records “what we are worried about” and “what is keeping the child safe today,” and those summaries should be populated with specific, observable statements rather than generalities. The worker records at least two plausible hypotheses and the information that would confirm or disconfirm each, and then documents the next steps required to test those. This is not paperwork for its own sake. It ensures the file can be mirror-read by another practitioner without inheriting the writer’s tone, and that decisions are anchored to facts that can be checked.

Supervision closes the loop. The supervisor and worker should meet around five disciplinary questions. What happened, and how do we know? What is currently keeping the child safe, and who does it? What competing hypotheses are we testing and how? What would enough safety and well-being look like in observable terms? And what is the minimum next safe step with the network in the next two days? Leaders should embed this checkpoint as a rigid routine, not a discretionary add-on. The supervisor should review whether hypotheses were tested or repeated and ensure that any escalation of concern is based on new evidence rather than new subjective assumptions.

Guardrails against bias should be explicit. Workers should avoid leading questions that smuggle in a judgment, should avoid global labels such as “non-compliant” or “chaotic” without describing observable behaviours and context, and should avoid turning a single event into an assumed pattern. For every paragraph of concern in the file, the documentation should include either a corresponding section of protections and strengths (directly related to the worries, not simply ‘fluffy’ unrelated strengths or safeguards that are not critical to the issues at hand such as ‘mom loves the children’), or a clear statement that none were found and what was done to look for them. This design choice ensures that files do not become deficit-only records and reduces the risk that a future reader will unconsciously absorb an unduly negative stance.

To protect against transfer of tone, teams should use a short bias checklist for a second pair of eyes on early notes, and supervisors should require edits when language strays from observation into opinion. A quick illustration. A social worker taking an intake record that a father is “volatile, possibly intoxicated, yells at child.” If the worker then documents in their contact note, “Father is aggressive and non-cooperative, child unsafe in father’s care,” the file is already tipped toward opposition and escalation. If the worker instead records, “On September 23 at 7 p.m., neighbour called and reported shouting. The child reported that the father yelled for two minutes, no physical contact observed. On September 24 and 26, the aunt supervised the after-school routine without incident,” and the worker documents two hypotheses, one about episodic conflict mitigated by structure and support, another about an escalating pattern that will require a network plan. The case can still be open to disciplined testing. Implementation is as much a leadership responsibility as a practice skill.

Executives should also adopt the four non-negotiables as an organizational standard, integrate them into policies, induction, and performance expectations, and provide brief, high-value training focused on questioning, documentation, and immediate network engagement.

Quality assurance makes the standard visible. Monthly dip-samples score a small set of new files against evidence tests for specificity, observability, corroboration, balance, and child’s voice, and supervisors share concise written feedback with teams.

Metrics worth tracking include the percentage of new investigations with competing hypotheses documented, the percentage with at least one network member involved within three days, a balance score in early documentation, and family-reported clarity and fairness at first contact. These measures do more than report performance; they signal to staff what the organization values and help to sustain disciplined practice over time. Safeguarding Together assembles those components into a coherent system.

By committing to purposeful, intentional, non-biased, and balanced questioning in the first phase of work, the service can activate the child’s natural network early, hold hypotheses open until tested, build plans around observable behaviours rather than opinions, and ensure that what is written can be trusted across handovers. The approach is collaborative, rigorous, and transparent, and is designed to be sustained. Most importantly, it is an approach intended not to harm.

When cases start with disciplined curiosity and balanced documentation, paternalism is less likely to take root, families are more likely to engage, networks are more likely to get involved, and children are more likely to experience practical, day-to-day safety and well-being that can be monitored and repeated. In short, the first questions are the rails. Deliberately set them, and they carry the case in the right direction. Allow bias and subjectivity to build those rails, and the system will amplify them with each handover, creating avoidable dangers for children and families.

ATA Consultancy’s standard is a direct, workable alternative. Ask with purpose, act with intention, test without bias, record with balance, and supervise with discipline, from day one through to closure.