Reunification, defined as the planned or unplanned return of a child in care to their birth family, is the most common route out of local authority care in England. It is a central principle within children’s rights frameworks, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Children Act 1989.

Whilst reunification is reflected within the Children's Social Care National Framework and Working Together to Safeguard Children, there remains no dedicated national reunification framework, no statutory guidance focused exclusively on reunification, and no ring-fenced funding. Even though it is associated with high rates of placement breakdown and re-entry to care (Farmer, 2014; Ford and McKay, 2024). In comparison to other permanence routes such as adoption and special guardianship, which are supported by statutory guidance and national funding streams, reunification has historically received comparatively less dedicated policy, practice and research attention.

Recent research has identified significant variation in reunification practice across English local authorities. This includes differences in the use of reunification assessment and planning processes, organisational arrangements and the provision of support before and after children return home (Ford and McKay, 2024). Furthermore, reunification decision-making continues to be characterised by a reliance on professional judgement in the absence of a clearly defined policy framework (Carlson et al., 2020).

Instability, outcomes and support

National analysis shows that one in five children return to care within a year, and more than one third re‑enter within six years (Goldacre et al., 2022). The consequences of unsuccessful reunification are not limited to the impact of repeated separations on children and families but also extend to public expenditure. Costing analysis research estimated that it costs an average of £105,804 for each child who returns to care following unsuccessful reunification. This is compared with £7,857 per child to provide support and services to families when children return home (Holmes, 2024).

Research consistently demonstrates that preparation, phased return and sustained support are associated with more stable reunification outcomes. Yet these elements are irregularly delivered across local authorities. The Home Again study found that the majority of local authorities reported wanting to provide more support both before and after reunification but identified funding and workforce capacity as major barriers (Ford and McKay, 2024).

Only a minority of local authorities operate specialist or dedicated reunification teams. Instead, reunification work is often absorbed into safeguarding, children in care or court teams in most areas (Ford and McKay, 2024). This contributes to significant variation in how reunification is assessed, planned and supported, reinforcing the fragmented nature of practice.

Reunification and race

Within this already inconsistent practice landscape, reunification involving families from the Global Majority requires particular attention. The term Global Majority is used to describe populations often referred to as ‘Black and Minority Ethnic’. This is to reflect how these groups constitute the majority of the world's population and avoiding language that implies marginality or ‘less than’ status within professional systems. Attention to culture, ethnicity and identity is recognised as a key aspect of children's social care practice. This is particularly important in supporting children's sense of belonging and understanding of themselves within family and community contexts.

National safeguarding analysis highlights a persistent absence of explicit engagement with race, racism and racial bias within professional decision-making, despite their clear relevance to children's and families' lived experiences (Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel, 2025). This silence is particularly significant given well-documented ethnic disproportionality across children's social care pathways.

Department for Education analysis demonstrates ethnic disproportionality within children's social care. Children of Black and Mixed ethnicity are over-represented in comparison to the general child population, alongside marked variation in the speed of escalation following referral for children from some ethnic groups (Department for Education, 2022). While these data do not establish causality, they describe the system-level context in which decisions about assessment, care entry and reunification are made.

These patterns should be understood within a wider context of structural inequality and growing concerns regarding the role of race and racism within children's social care (Bywaters and the Child Welfare Inequalities Project Team, 2020). There is increasing recognition of ethnic inequalities within children's social care, although the evidence available to explain these disparities remains limited (Edney, Alrouh and Abouelenin, 2023). The experiences of many Global Majority children and families cannot be fully understood without consideration of the enduring legacy of slavery, colonialism and racism, which continue to shape lived experiences, relationships with services and access to support (Cheruvallil-Contractor et al., 2026). As Bartoli (2013) argues, the absence of explicit racial analysis within social work practice is not neutral, as professional judgement may inadvertently reproduce existing inequalities.

Despite this context, limited attention has been paid within the English reunification literature to how race, ethnicity and cultural identity influence reunification practice. Existing studies tend to report ethnicity as a demographic characteristic or outcome variable rather than exploring how race and culture shape reunification assessment, decision-making, support and outcomes (Goldacre et al., 2022; Murphy and Fairtlough, 2015; Neil et al., 2020). Emerging international research has begun to explore these issues in greater depth, but significant gaps remain within the English evidence base. Where race, culture and identity are under-examined, interpretations of parental capacity, risk and change may be subtly influenced by racialised assumptions and broader structural inequalities.

Why this matters for practice

For Global Majority families, the challenges associated with reunification practice may be magnified by structural inequalities, cultural misunderstanding and bias embedded within statutory systems. Where race, culture and identity are under-examined, interpretations of parental capacity, risk and change may be subtly influenced by racialised assumptions and broader structural inequalities. Attention to race within reunification practice should therefore be situated within a wider understanding of how multiple forms of inequality can interact in children’s lives.

In everyday practice, social workers are required to navigate reunification with families from the Global Majority without consistent access to structured frameworks, specialist advice or research‑informed guidance that embeds cultural responsiveness within assessment and support planning. This can create uncertainty in interpreting parenting practices, assessing capacity for change and identifying culturally relevant protective factors, particularly within complex and high‑pressure contexts. Reflective supervision can therefore provide an important space to consider how assumptions about parenting, risk, and family change are formed, and whether cultural norms or unconscious bias may be influencing professional judgement.

Resources to support practice

Reunification represents a critical site where discretion, power and inequality intersect.  The absence of explicit attention to race within reunification mirrors wider findings from sector reviews. A Research in Practice briefing on promoting anti-racism in children and family services offers practical support for practitioners, managers and leaders seeking to strengthen anti-racist approaches within Children’s Services.

While research exploring the relationship between race and reunification remains limited, there are practical steps that practitioners and leaders can take to support more reflective and equitable decision‑making. Creating space for explicit discussion of race, ethnicity, culture and identity within assessment, supervision and professional meetings may help ensure that these issues are actively considered rather than remaining implicit within professional reasoning. Practitioners may also benefit from drawing on resources that support children’s identity development and sense of belonging. Explore a Research in Practice publication on understanding, exploring and supporting children’s identity development. It offers practical approaches to exploring identity with children and young people, which may be particularly relevant when supporting children returning home and navigating questions of family relationships, culture and belonging.

Practitioners seeking evidence‑informed approaches to reunification may also find the Foundations Reunification Practice Guide and the NSPCC Return Home Practice Framework useful resources for supporting assessment, planning and post‑reunification support.

Greater attention to how reunification is understood, assessed and supported for families from the Global Majority is essential if children’s social care is to move towards more reflective, equitable and just decision‑making. Alongside further research, there are opportunities now for practitioners and leaders to strengthen attention to race, culture, identity and belonging within reunification assessment, supervision and service development.