INFORMATION PRACTICES IN CHILD WELFARE: Do we know the full story

1
INFORMATION PRACTICES IN CHILD WELFARE Do we
know the full story?

• Kellie Thompson
• Lancaster University
• Applied Social Science Department
• Email k.thompson1_at_lancaster.ac.uk

2
Policy aims about sharing information are not new

• Maria Colwell Inquiry (DHSS 1974) revelations
  about insufficient communication and information
  sharing.
• 1980s series of public inquiries 1988 first
  how to guide for working together. Made the
  process of working together into a formalised
  procedure for jointly protecting children.
• Victoria Climbié Inquiry (Laming 2003) -
  exchange and management of information as
  specifically problematic. Professionals reserved
  about sharing information because of concerns
  regarding confidentiality, human rights, and the
  need for parental permission particularly in
  cases that are not clear child protection
  concerns.
• Baby Peter (2007) poor gathering, recording and
  sharing information
• Revised Working Together guidance (December
  2009) emphasis on professional information
  (DCSF, 2009)

3
Information sharing guidance for practitioners
and managers, DCSF, 2008, P.13.
4
How information flows are considered in policy
circles

• The expression information sharing commonly
  denotes an activity that comprises of a simple
  linear flow of facts between agency to agency.
• Mistakes in passing on information are something
  remedial, in that all professionals or their
  organisations need to do is get better at it.
• Professionals are led to believe that if they
  behave in prescribed ways then children should be
  protected from harms.
• Information is considered in abstract terms, and
  the situated detail of everyday information
  practices are lost.
• The work of safeguarding children and supporting
  families is characterised by flows of information.

5
My research
6
Research findings

• Practitioners from diverse professional groups
  share an assumptive framework that parallels
  government discourse.
• Professionals have a range of methods of dealing
  with incomplete and inconsistent information that
  draw on formal procedures but also informal
  heuristics.

7
Child death, public inquiries and information
behaviour

• Improvements to the way information is
  exchanged within and between agencies are
  imperative if children are to be adequately
  safeguarded.....Each agency must accept
  responsibility for making sure that information
  passed to another agency is clear and the
  recipients should query any points of uncertainty
  (Lord Laming, 20039)

8
Policy implementation in practice

• ...you know, touch wood weve not had a
  Climbié...who wants one? But I do have concerns
  that someone will get missed. I do think it
  could happen in local authority. It could
  happen anywhere in the country...you hear about
  tragic cases on the news...every month or so we
  get one. I think it is less likely now that
  things have moved on and information sharing is
  better. I mean we have had a few near misses
  here. We had one earlier this year...it was
  stumbled across by the police, and one of two
  issues have arisen from it in relation to
  previous police responses...but mainly it is
  other agencies. (DVU, Police Officer).

9
Dealing with incomplete information in the
formal way

• I think there are a lot of unknowns there, and
  without an initial assessment, we are not able to
  ring round health visitors, schools to get a
  better picture unless we shout it as a Section 47
  Children Act 1989. So without doing that
  initial assessment, which is about getting more
  information, then we are never going to know.
  (Senior social work practitioner).

10
The informal aspects of information behaviour
credible information?

• Establishing fact from fiction
• Dichotomy between professional and non
  professional information
• Parents are treated as a priori suspicious
• Third party information (family, friends,
  neighbours, anonymous) is treated as malicious.
• These are found across diverse professional groups

11
How we get the facts

• What we see and hear. We get the facts from
  working with children and families, and checking
  that out with other agencies. It is meetings,
  telephone callsseeing chronologies. (NSPCC
  manager).

12
Dichotomy between professional and non
professional information

• It would depend where it was coming from for
  a start off. If it was coming from a specific
  agency , say social services rang and said
  there is this, and this is going on at home then
  we would accept that information readily because
  it is from another recognised professional. So
  we wouldnt have any worries about that. Any
  patient coming in, and if the carer tells you
  they fell off their toy box or something then
  we would probe deeper to find out what the
  mechanism of injury is, as regard to the injury
  so it can be properly evaluated and documented.
  (Sister, A E department)
• Giving and receiving professional
  information is treated as fact and therefore
  unproblematic - nothing is regarded as lost in
  this process. However, non professional
  information (i.e. from carers) is treated with
  suspicion.

13
Parents as suspicious sources of information

• Well you would accept information from
  parents but you may research it a lot more,
  because they dont necessarily tell you the truth
  do they. They tell you what you want to hear, so
  you do have to be a little bit cautious (Family
  support worker).

14
Third party information
15
Family members as sources of information
16
The forthcoming Working Together guidance does
it solve the problem?

• DCSF - strengthen working together to safeguard
  children and childrens trusts must take
  appropriate action to ensure....all referrals to
  childrens services from other professionals lead
  to initial assessment. (ref 19, p.37)
• May reinforce the divide between professionals
  and non professional information. Information
  from professionals will be further prioritised
  from non professional information, and
  opportunities missed.
• Implications of this already seen (in Climbie
  case Ms Ackah, family friend, and more recently
  father and paternal grandmother of Demi Leigh
  Mahon)

17
Why a heuristic based on professional category is
fallible

• Social services are not staffed as well as
  during the day, and sometimes I cant get hold of
  someone with child protection or child related
  knowledgethey say to me you have no worries
  here and then you find out afterwards that their
  background is mental health or I.T. and they have
  no idea about child welfare issues. I have
  actually had someone come back to me two hours
  later and say I have just been speaking to a
  colleague who has told me that I should have done
  something about thisbut I didnt know his
  background, and I trusted him when he said there
  was nothing on the records that suggest you need
  to take this further or make a referral (Sister
  A E department).

18
Some conclusions

• Challenge the unproblematised assumptions in
  relation to professional information. It is an
  unreliable heuristic as illustrated by the AE
  sister.
• Third party information (neighbour, family
  member) is treated as malicious but what does
  someone have to lose (value) in sharing
  information with professional agencies?
• Information from parents is regarded as a priori
  suspicious this idea is reinforced by Baby
  Peter case and the notion of deceptive parents
• Information sharing continues to be considered in
  remedial terms in that all professionals or their
  organisations need to do is get better at it.
• Repeated linear thinking with regards to
  information sharing situated practice suggests
  that it is more complicated than described (e.g.
  ECM flowchart),
• Information behaviour more accurately encompasses
  the less visible, day to day information
  practices rather than the commonly used
  expression information sharing

19
References

• DCSF (2009) The protection of children in
  England action plan. The Government response to
  Lord Laming. Cm 7589, HM Government.
• DCFS (2008) Information sharing Guidance for
  practitioners and managers.
• Nottingham DCSF.
• DHSS (1982) Child Abuse A study of inquiry
  reports 1973-1981. London HMSO.
• DHSS (1974) Report of the Committee of Inquiry
  into the Care and Supervision provided in
  relation to Maria Colwell. London HMSO.
• DHSS and the Welsh office (1988) Working
  Together A guide to arrangements for
  inter-agency co-operation for the protection of
  children from abuse. London HMSO.
• Haringey LSCB (2009) Serious Case review Baby
  Peter, Executive Summary. Accessed from
  http//www.haringeylscb.org/executive_summary_pete
  r_final.pdf on 28/06/09.

20

• Author Kellie Thompson
• Lancaster University
• Applied Social Science Department
• Bowland College North
• Bailrigg
• Lancaster LA1 4YT
• Tel [phone]
• Email k.thompson1_at_lancaster.ac.uk
• http//www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/apsocsci/