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

1. 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)

2. 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).

3. 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

4. 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

6. Policy Aims of CAF • Systematisation and standardisation of practice • Emphasizes early intervention. • Accountability, especially of universal services • Promote a ‘Common Language’

7. 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).

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. Themes of paper • ‘Positive’ findings • ICT Child Welfare Professional • Implementation and local practices/systems • Constraining technologies • Uncertain consent

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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)

16. 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

17. 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

18. Constraining nature of technology • Technology is not neutral • Information v knowledge (Lash 2001) NarrativeDatabase (Aas 2005) Beginning, mid, end Compressed Linear causality Additive, stacking Text Hypertext Rational argument Action Order by author Order up to user Creation Selection

19. 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

20. Uncertain ethic of consent • Promoted as consent-driven – will not happen if not agree • Explicit consent features • Principles of information-sharing

21. 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

22. 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?

23. 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

24. 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