Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:39:36.211Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Child-Centric Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and the Fragmentation of Child Welfare Practice in England

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2010

CHRISTOPHER HALL ,
NIGEL PARTON ,
SUE PECKOVER  and
SUE WHITE
CHRISTOPHER HALL
Affiliation:
Social Care Researcher, Research Design Service, School of Medicine and Health, Durham University, Queen's Campus, University Boulevard, Stockton-on-Tees TS17 6BH email: c.j.hall@durham.ac.uk
NIGEL PARTON
Affiliation:
Centre for Applied Childhood Studies, University of Huddersfield, Queensgate, Huddersfield HD1 3DH
SUE PECKOVER
Affiliation:
Centre for Applied Childhood Studies, University of Huddersfield, Queensgate, Huddersfield HD1 3DH
SUE WHITE
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Social Science Lancaster University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The ways in which government supports families and protects children are always a fine balance. In recent years, we suggest that this balance can be characterised increasingly as ‘child-centric’, less concerned with families and more focused on individual children and their needs. This article charts the changes in families and government responses over the last 40 years, and the way this is reflected in organisational and administrative arrangements. It notes in particular the impact on everyday practice of the introduction of information and communication technologies. Findings are reported from recent research which shows the struggles faced by practitioners who try to manage systems which separate children from their familial, social and relational contexts. As a consequence, we suggest, the work has become increasingly fragmented and less mindful of children's life within families. While the data and analysis draw on research carried out in England, we suggest that similar changes may be going on in other Western liberal democracies.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 39 , Issue 3 , July 2010 , pp. 393 - 413
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aas, K. (2005), Sentencing in the Age of Information, London: Glasshouse Press.Google Scholar
Axford, N., Berry, V., Little, M. and Morpeth, L. (2006), ‘Developing a common language in children's services through research based inter-disciplinary training’, Social Work Education, 25: 2, 161–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, U. and Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002), Individualization, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Bell, M., Shaw, I., Sinclair, I., Sloper, P. and Rafferty, J. (2007), ‘Integrated Children's System: an evaluation of the practice, process and consequences of the ICS in councils with social services responsibilities’, Report to the Department for Education and Skills/Welsh Assembly Government, University of York, http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/spsw/staff/shaw.html.Google Scholar
Brandon, M., Howe, A., Dagley, V., Salter, C., Warren, C. and Black, J. (2006), ‘Evaluating the common assessment framework and lead professional guidance and implementation in 2005–6’, Research Report RR740, Department for Education and Science, London.Google Scholar
Broadhurst, K., Wastell, D., White, S., Hall, C., Peckover, S., Thompson, K., Pithouse, A. and Davey, D. (2009), ‘Performing “initial assessment”: identifying the latent conditions for error at the front-door of local authority children's services’, British Journal of Social Work, Advance Access published 18 January 2009, doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcn162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cabinet Office, Social Exclusion Task Force (2008), Think Family: Improving the Life Chances of Families at Risk, London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
Chief Secretary to the Treasury (2003), Every Child Matters, Cmnd 5860, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Children's Workforce Development Council [CWDC] (2007), Common Assessment Framework for children and young people: Managers’ Guide, Leeds: CWDC.Google Scholar
Cleaver, H., Barnes, J., Bliss, D. and Cleaver, D. (2004), ‘Developing information sharing and assessment systems’, Research Report RR597, Department for Education and Skills, London.Google Scholar
Cleaver, H., Walker, S., Scott, J., Cleaver, D., Rose, W., Ward, H. and Pithouse, A. (2008), The Integrated Children's System: Enhancing Social Work and Inter-Agency Practice, London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
Corby, B., Doig, A. and Roberts, V. (2001), Public Inquiries into Abuse of Children in Residential Care, London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
Dencik, L. (1989), ‘Growing up in the postmodern age’, Acta Sociologica, 32: 2, 155–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Department for Children, Schools and Families [DCSF] (2008a), ‘About the Integrated Children's System’, DCSF website http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/socialcare/integratedchildrenssystem/about/.Google Scholar
Department for Children, Schools and Families [DCSF] (2008b), ‘Core assessment record exemplars’, DCSF website http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/socialcare/integratedchildrenssystem/resources/exemplars/?asset=document&id=33956.Google Scholar
Department of Health [DH] (2000), Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Ermisch, J. and Francesconi, M. (1998), ‘Cohabitation in Britain: not for long, but here to stay’, Paper 81–1, University of Essex, ESRC Research Centre on Micro-Social Change.Google Scholar
Ferri, G., Bynner, J. and Wadsworth, M. (eds.) (2003), Changing Britain, Changing Lives: Three Generations at the Turn of the Century, London: Institute of Education, University of London.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1967), Studies in Ethnomethodology, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Gatehouse, M., Statham, J. and Ward, H. (2004), ‘Information outputs for children's services’, Report of a research project commissioned by the Department for Education and Skills and the Welsh Assembly Government, Centre for Child and Family Research, Loughborough University, Thomas Coram Research Institute, University of London.Google Scholar
Gubrium, J. and Holstein, J. (1998), ‘Narrative practice and the coherence of personal stories’, Sociological Quarterly, 39: 1, 163–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, C. (1997), Social Work as Narrative: Storytelling and Persuasion in Professional Texts, Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Hall, C., Slembrouck, S. and Sarangi, S. (2006), Language Practices in Social Work: Categorization and Accountability in Child Welfare, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Government, HM (2009), The Protection of Children in England; Action Plan. The Government's Response to Lord Laming, Cm. 7589, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Hurwitz, B. (2000), ‘Narrative and the practice of medicine’, The Lancet, 356: 2086–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackson, S. and Kilroe, S. (eds.) (1996), Looking After Children: Good Parenting, Good Outcomes Reader, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
James, A. and James, A. (2004), Constucting Childhood: Theory, Policy and Social Practice, Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiernan, K. and Estaugh, V. (1993), Cohabitation, Extra-Marital Childbearing and Social Policy, London: Family Policy Studies Centre.Google Scholar
Laming, Lord H. (2009), The Protection of Children in England: A Progress Report, HC 330, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Lash, S. (2001), The Critique of Information, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Lewis, J. (2001), The End of Marriage? Individualism and Intimate Relations, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Lewis, J. (2007), ‘Families, individuals and the state’, in Hills, J., Le Grand, J. and Piachaud, D. (eds.), Making Social Policy Work: Essays in Honour of Howard Glennerster, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Lister, R. (2006), ‘An agenda for children: investing in the future or promoting well-being in the present?’, in Lewis, J. (ed.), Children, Changing Families and Welfare States, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Marsh, A., McKay, S., Smith, A. and Stephenson, A. (2001), Low Income Families in Britain: Work, Welfare and Social Security in 1999, Report No. 138, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Office of National Statistics [ONS] (1998), Living in Britain: Results from the 1996 General Household Survey, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Parker, R., Ward, H., Jackson, S., Aldgate, J. and Wedge, P. (eds.) (1991), Looking After Children: Assessing Outcomes in Child Care, Report of the Independent Working Party established by the Department of Health, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Parsloe, P. and Stevenson, O. (1978), Social Service Teams: The Practitioner's View, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Parton, N. (1991), Governing the Family: Child Care, Child Protection and the State, Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parton, N. (2006), Safeguarding Childhood: Early Intervention and Surveillance in a Late Modern Society, Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan.Google Scholar
Parton, N. (2008), ‘Changes in the form of knowledge in social work; from the “social” to the “informational”’, British Journal of Social Work, 38: 2, 253–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peckover, S., White, S. and Hall, C. (2008), ‘Making and managing electronic children: E-assessment in child welfare’, Information, Communication and Society, 11: 3, 275–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peckover, S., Hall, C. and White, S. (2009), ‘From policy to practice: implementation and negotiation of technologies in everyday child welfare’, Children and Society, 23: 2, 136–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pithouse, A. and Atkinson, P. (1988), ‘Telling the case: occupational narrative in a social work office’, in Coupland, N. (ed.), Styles of Discourse, London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Pithouse, A., Hall, C., Peckover, S. and White, S. (2009), ‘A Tale of 2 CAFs: the impact of the electronic Common Assessment Framework’, British Journal of Social Work, 39: 4, 599–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, M. (ed.) (2008), Modernising the Welfare State: The Blair Legacy, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Rustin, M. (1979), ‘Social Work and the Family’, in Parry, N., Rustin, M. and Satyamurti, C. (eds.), Social Work, Welfare and the State, London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Satyamurti, C. (1981), Occupational Survival: The Case of the Local Authority Social Worker, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Secretary of State for Social Services (1988), Report of the Inquiry into Child Abuse in Cleveland, Cm 412, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Seebohm, F. (1968), Report of the Committee on Local Authority and Allied Social Services, Cm 3703, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Smart, C. and Neale, B. (1999), Family Fragments? Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Social Work Task Force (2009), ‘First report of the social work task force’, www.dcsf.gov.uk/swtf (accessed 5 May 2009).Google Scholar
White, S., Hall, C. and Peckover, S. (2009), ‘The descriptive tyranny of the Common Assessment Form: technologies of categorization and professional practice in child welfare’, British Journal of Social Work, 39: 1197–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, S., Wastell, D., Broadhurst, K., Hall, C. and Peckover, S. forthcoming, ‘When policy o'erleaps itself: the tragic tale of the Integrated Children's System’, submitted to Critical Social Policy.Google Scholar
Winter, K. (2006), ‘Widening our knowledge concerning young looked after children: the case for research using sociological models of childhood’, Child and Family Social Work 11, 55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar