How did we do? What else can we do?

We think our first nine months have shown a clear demand for this site – and worryingly that some of the most popular searches and posts have been do to with section 20 agreements, which suggests that these are both widespread and not well understood or explained.

We hope to expand the activities of the site next year – The Transparency Project will be hosting a multi-disciplinary conference on June 1st, asking if the child protection system is fit for purpose. CPR will also be going to the 2nd Joint Nordic Conference in Helskini in June where Sarah Phillimore will deliver a paper entitled ‘The courage to communicate and the necessary building of relationships between social workers and parents.’

Please let us know what we could be doing better/differently/more or less.

Contact us at [email protected] or via Twitter @C_P_Resource.

This site would not have been possible without the very generous contributions of their time and expertise from a great many people in many different fields. As ever, enormous thanks and gratitude is due to them all.

Overview 1st March – 22 December 2014

• Sessions                                           35,119
• Users                                                25,742
• Pageviews                                        60,763
• Pages / Session                               1.73
• Avg. Session Duration                    00:02:25
• Bounce Rate                                    75.07%
• % New Sessions                              72.68%
• New Visitor/Returning Visitor       27.3%/72.7%

 

Where did our audience come from?

We had visitors from all over the world, but the vast majority from the UK, as reflects the site’s content.

• United Kingdom 31,158 (89%)
• United States 1,418 (4%)
• Australia 371 (1%)
• Ireland 232 (0.66%)
• Canada 217 (0.62%)
• Brazil 193 (0.55%)
• Netherlands 108 (0.31%)
• Germany 78 (0.22%)
• Finland 74 (0.21%)
• France 74 (0.21%)

Where in the UK?

• London 8,579 (24%)
• Bristol 1,551(4.%)
• Manchester 843 (2.%)
• (not set) 796 (2.%)
• Birmingham 712 (2.%)
• Newcastle upon Tyne 683 (2%)
• Liverpool 582 (2%)
• Leeds 546 (1%)
• Cardiff 504   (1%)
• Sheffield 417 (1%)

How did people find us?

71% of traffic came from internet searches. Other sites have linked to us.

• mumsnet.com 1,943 (33%)
• Facebook 1,198 (20%)
• Twitter 1,066 (18.%)
• suesspiciousminds.com 290 (5%)
• netmums.com 213 (4%)
• familylawweek.co.uk 81 (1%)

 

What did they want to read about?

Top Ten internet searches

Annoyingly easily the most popular term was ‘not provided’ at 20,598 being 83% of the total. Of the other keywords, these were most often used:

• interim care order 175 (0.71%)
• section 20 care order 84 (0.34%)
• section 20 child protection 61 (0.25%)
• child protection resource 38 (0.15%)
• section 20 agreement 32 (1%)
• threshold criteria care proceedings 32 (0.13%)
• forced adoption 29 (0.12%)
• interim care orders 26 (0.10%)

What posts were the most popular?

The most popular was not set at 8,817 views (15%).

• category/the-law/key-legal-principles/section-20-agreements/ 4,087 (7%)
• tag/interim-care-orders-2/ 2,879 (5%)
• forced-adoption/ 2,459 (4%)
• category/the-law/key-legal-principles/threshold-criteria/ 2,311 (4%)
• If I report mental health issues / 2,093 (3%)
• category/the-law/key-legal-principles/interim-care-orders/ 1,627 (3%)
• category/the-law/key-legal-principles/significant-harm-key-legal-principles/ 1,591 (3%)
• common-concerns-we-hear-from-parents/ 1,521 (3%)
• category/placement-and-adoption-orders/ 1,057 (2%)