A Tale of Two CAFs – children’s services and new technology

Christopher Hall, Sue Peckover (University of Huddersfield),

Andy Pithouse (University of Cardiff)Sue White (University of Lancaster)

E-Assessment in Child Welfare

Response to failures identified in Victoria Climbie case: Laming Inquiry and ‘Every Child Matters’

The spread of new technology: reflects wider moves towards e-government.

‘Integrated working’ in child welfare services aimed at better information sharing, multi-agency working and early intervention:

Common Assessment Framework Children’s Database (ContactPoint).

Common Assessment Framework (CAF)

standard tool for all professionals working with children.

based upon ‘Assessment Framework’ already used in social work

wide view of child - key domains: child health and development parenting capacity family and environment factors

Common Assessment Framework (CAF)(cont’d)

first stage assessment of a child’s needs

identification of services to meet those needs,

existence of a completed CAF will be indicated on ContactPoint, although not the CAF itself.

different versions – paper, template, internet

plans for e-CAF to be developed on a national basis

Policy Aims of CAF

Systematisation and standardisation of practice

Emphasizes early intervention.

Accountability, especially of universal services

Promote a ‘Common Language’

Grand claims v strong criticisms

“Practitioners are able to make better decisions and take quicker action … to build a fuller picture of the child’s circumstances … real benefits in service effectiveness and safety” (Minister 8/12/05).

“We are heading towards a situation in which an entire generation of kids won’t know what privacy is” (Liberty 26/6/06).

Reactions to the CAF

In contrast to Contactpoint, there is little critical comment - surprising, given potential for producing and transferring considerable information about children.

Report on children’s databases (Foundation for Information Policy Research 2006: 32-36) – concern about technical security issues (eg access and search facilities), and difficulties of achieving consent

Our Research Funded by ESRC (2005-2007)

4 research sites in England: 2 ISA ‘Trailblazers’ and 2 Comparator Local authorities.

Ethnographic orientation: researchers located with teams in Trailblazer sites Observation of meetings, training, decision

making sites Qualitative analysis of cases eg where a CAF has

been completed. Focus groups. Quantitative analysis of cases involving

assessment

Our Research (cont’d) Funded by the Welsh Assembly

2 pilot local authorities.

Implementation of prototype CAF Participatory model Interviews with professionals and users Before and after analysis. Quantitative analysis changes in information

sharing, especially referrals to children’s social care

Themes of paper

• ‘Positive’ findings

• ICT Child Welfare Professional

• Implementation and local practices/systems

• Constraining technologies

• Uncertain consent

Positives

• Welsh study found more consistent information was provided in referrals, reduced number of referrals without more CP inquiries, assessments provided more information on parents and family strengths, resulted in more initial assessments

• English study found particular enthusiasm from groups who appreciated the structure of the Assessment Framework in order promote more holistic assessments

• Some versions encouraged careful evaluative of the assembled information

Positives (cont’d)

DFES evaluation in 12 pilot sites (Brandon et al 2006): largely positive, although early days, e.g. think beyond traditional mindset, contributing to improved information sharing, replacing other assessments

BUT: extra time needed for practitioners to complete, variable practices between professional groups &

agencies limited capacity of practitioners to complete all

sections of the CAF and engage with children as part of process

requires supportive local processes to enable practitioners to work with new systems without increased resources

Assumes an ICT child welfare professional

An e-office environment Constant access to a computer, Appropriate ICT skills, Confidential and private spaces to work, and

to store information, The straightforward character of e-

assessment – conceptual skills, information-sharing protocols, e-case files systems etc.

If they don’t, they should

But

Nearly half of 82 practitioners we interviewed either did not have their own computer at work or shared one with a colleague (often ‘hotdesking’).

Wide variation of ICT skills, confidence and experience

59%thought the computer they used was in a ‘quiet and confidential space’.

Very mobile working practices, eg

community health staff worked in multiple locations (home, school or clinic)

Local Implementation

• Some local variations based on a national model

• Varying practices in how characterised – especially referral v assessment• who is the audience• who owns it – individual v collective• Not sure what constitutes a good CAF

Local Implementation (cont’d)

• Certain agencies took lead and set the character - education v health

• Spread of the network - directive- restricted v permissive - wide-ranging

• Written with occupational disposition – gaps, emphasis

Constraining nature of technology

Technology is not neutral Information v knowledge (Lash 2001)

Narrative Database (Aas 2005)Beginning, mid, end CompressedLinear causality Additive, stackingText HypertextRational argument ActionOrder by author Order up to userCreation Selection

Constraining nature of technology (cont’d)

Little room for background information/ context / history

The child’s needs now

Not clear how to write the parents’ needs

Subversion – work-arounds

Uncertain ethic of consent

Promoted as consent-driven – will not happen if not agree

Explicit consent features

Principles of information-sharing

Uncertain ethic of consent (cont’d)

Both research projects found significant proportion without explicit consent recorded – 16% in Welsh study and 24% English study

CAF as referrals in particular take place without consent.

Similarly there was little recorded parents and children’s views – 33% parents, 25% children in English study; 10% and nil in Welsh study

Time to gain consent

Part of child protection system

Uncertain ethic of consent

If it is the first assessment, is it to be updated?

If not, what is its status as other interventions develop?

Without a standard approach, how do other readers interpret, especially across local authorities

When is it destroyed?

Colonisation by the CAF?

CAF is becoming central to standardisation of the child welfare network Consistent approaches to assessment,

information sharing and early intervention

Clearer consent and involvement in information sharing

Electronic storage and manipulation of information

Colonisation by the CAF? (cont’d)

Colonisation of the child welfare network: Draw in a wide range of groups – what is the

boundary of child welfare

Standardises practice around particular model of assessing children and families

Other ways of viewing families – rights, history, risks

Information becomes byte size and potential for ‘data mashing’

What future surveillance does this promote