Christopher
Durkin and Sue Kennedy
Senior Lecturers in Social Work, University of Northampton
Assessment has, in recent years, become a key component of children
and families social work. If we look back over the history of
child protection social work we can see that after the Beckford
Inquiry there was thought to be a need for guidance in the assessment
task and along came the framework entitled, Protecting Children:
A Guide for Social Workers undertaking a Comprehensive Assessment
(Department of Health 1988). Although seen as an important
document for practitioners when first introduced, there were many
criticisms of the so called Orange Book which included the fact
that it was Eurocentric, failed to take account of environmental
factors, was too procedurally driven, and appeared to see assessment
as a static event rather than a process.
To
address the criticisms outlined above, The Assessment of Children
in Need and their Families was introduced in 2000 and is
commonly known as the Core Assessment. Five years later and the
Common Assessment Framework has now been introduced, which is
seen by the Government as part of an aim to shift the focus to
a preventative agenda rather than “…dealing with the
consequences of difficulties in children's lives” (1).
This is very much in line with the so called refocusing that started
after Messages from Research (2)was
published ten years ago, and incorporates the 2000 assessment
framework.
The
aim of the Common Assessment Framework is that it will promote
more effective, earlier identification of children's additional
needs and improve multi-agency working. It is also intended to
provide what is described as “a simple, non-bureaucratic
process for a holistic assessment of a child's needs, taking account
of the individual, family and community”(3).
This
obviously builds on the recommendation in the Laming Report to
establish a “common language” across all agencies
and also in recommendation 13 of the same Report “…
disseminate a best practice approach by social services to receiving
and managing information about children at the 'front door'”(4).
There
is nobody involved in child care work who is going to quibble
with the sentiments outlined above, nor are they going to argue
with the six areas of expertise outlined in the Common Core of
Skills and Knowledge (5).
In the latter section of the Framework the skills needed to ensure
good practice are seen as the following:
Although
there is an emphasis on the need to provide a “…non-bureaucratic
process for a holistic assessment of a child's needs”, and
the Framework is seen as an ongoing development in which “The
process involves ongoing consultation, stakeholder involvement
and testing of materials to ensure that they are fit for purpose
and meet real need (6)”
what is deeply puzzling is the current emphasis on the Common
Assessment Framework on structures and procedures. This merely
heightens anxieties for over-stretched professionals.
The
emphasis on multidisciplinary working enshrined in the Children
Act 2004 is not new, nor is the notion of professionals other
than social workers taking responsibility for the assessment because
that could occur under the assessment framework of 2000. We would
accept that there is a renewed emphasis in this area on widening
assessment responsibility away from a social worker (with the
notion of “lead professional”) but again this feels
like yet another structure being put in place.
What
will never change is the need for good practice that sees the
needs of the child as central to our work but the danger with
all these bureaucratic solutions is that they so often are seen
as some form of comfort blanket by government ministers in an
attempt to reassure the general public that bringing in administrative
change will protect children.
For
practitioners and managers across the disciplines it is yet more
administrative change to cope with and implement. The dangers
of adding more and more procedures and structures in place may
in actual fact increase the dangers to children because it reduces
professional judgement, as argued by people like Nigel Parton.
When
we phone a call centre, questions often cannot be answered because
the query does not fit the examples on the screen. If professional
practice once again becomes procedurally driven rather than driven
by evidence-based practice, we are going to turn into tick-box
operatives.
If
the implementation of the Common Assessment Framework is to be
successful and not become yet another barrier/problem because
it is procedurally driven, then how training takes place will
be crucial. Training, like assessment itself, is an ongoing process;
it is not a static event – it needs to change and develop
over time reflecting developments in the wider society.
Equally,
any training needs to take account of the expertise that professionals
working in children’s services have and work with the dynamic
experiences they will bring. If the focus of any training is technological
and procedural at the expense of practitioner knowledge and needs,
then any changes will, at best, be short-term.
In
looking at the training materials currently on the website the
signs are not encouraging with their emphasis on structures rather
than practice. What all these responses have in common, apart
from their need to make changes to reform child protection and
welfare systems, is that they continue to forget the human element
of assessment – the individuals carrying out the assessments
and those being assessed.
1. http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/deliveringservices/caf/
2. DoH, (1995) Child Protection: Messages from Research,
3. http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/deliveringservices/caf/
4. http://www.victoria-climbie-inquiry.org.uk/finreport/6recommend.htm
5. http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/deliveringservices/commoncore/
6. http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/deliveringservices/caf/
