Danielle Turney

The role of professional judgement in social work assessment: a comparison between Norway and England

ABSTRACT Good quality assessment has a significant role to play in contributing to better outcomes for children in need of protection, so it is important to understand what supports best practice. This paper focuses on the role of professional judgement in assessment, and compares two very different national approaches. In England, governmental responses to perceived failings in the child protection system have led to a highly proceduralised and bureaucratised system and a corresponding down playing of the role of professional judgement. In Norway, professional discretion and judgement have been seen as key to the assessment process, and governmental response to criticism of child protection practice has been to support their use through provision of increased resources. However, too much emphasis on professional judgement and too little procedure may be as problematic as the reverse [Report of Auditor General of Norway. (2012). Document 3:15. Norway: Fagbokforlaget]. So this paper explores the different ways in which professional judgement is understood and addressed in each system and asks what we can learn from them in terms of best assessment practice. Acknowledging child protection as a ‘wicked problem’, we propose a model of Grounded Professional Judgement based on notions of epistemic responsibility and accountability to support the exercise of professional judgement in situations of uncertainty.

Interventions in Chronic and Severe Neglect: What Works?

In 1984, a paper published by Wolock and Horowitz in the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry drew attention to what they described as ‘the neglect of neglect’ in the prevailing understandings of and responses to child maltreatment. Thirty years on, this expression still resonates even though child neglect has moved out of the shadows and become a central concern for child welfare practitioners and policy makers, and the focus of much research activity. But, while considerably more is now known about the aetiology, identification and assessment of neglect, effective interventions have proved harder to develop. Why is this so, and what can we do about it? The papers in this special issue help us to consider these two questions in more detail. We take as a starting point that child neglect is a complex phenomenon with a range of possible inter-connecting ‘causes’, and that continuing chronic neglect has been shown to have a range of adverse effects on children’s health, development and wellbeing. These effects are wide-ranging, cumulative and damaging over the long-term. If neglect is unlikely to be mono-causal, it seems equally unlikely that any one intervention is going to be successful across the board. Therefore, a variety of intervention responses will be needed, including early intervention strategies that attempt to engage families as soon as neglect is identified, but also encompassing later intervention responses that can be used with families where early identification has not been possible and/or where neglect has become entrenched. This special issue gives us a chance to draw together some reflections on current knowledge and some new ideas about ‘what works’ in practice with families where neglect is a feature of family dynamics. The challenges of developing appropriate responses to neglect are perhaps most usefully understood from a transactional ecological perspective (Brandon et al., 2008) that recognises the complex interplay of factors that can compromise parents’ abilities to offer satisfactory care to their children. Such an approach can also help to make sense of the relational difficulties of this work, in terms of engaging parents in the intervention process. While we know that the long-term effects of neglect are pernicious, practitioners need also to be aware that neglect can be fatal. In the paper that opens this special issue, Brandon et al. (2014) present the results of a study that re-analysed data from 800 serious case reviews (where deaths or very serious maltreatment are examined in detail) in England, interrogating in-depth anonymised information

What makes it so hard to look and to listen? Exploring the use of the Cognitive and Affective Supervisory Approach with children’s social work managers

ABSTRACT This paper reports on the findings of an ESRC-funded Knowledge Exchange project designed to explore the contribution of an innovative approach to supervision to social work practitioners’ assessment and decision-making practices. The Cognitive and Affective Supervisory Approach (CASA) is informed by cognitive interviewing techniques originally designed to elicit best evidence from witnesses and victims of crime. Adapted here for use in childcare social work supervision contexts, this model is designed to enhance the quantity and quality of information available for decision-making. Facilitating the reporting of both ‘event information’ and ‘emotion information’, it allows a more detailed picture to emerge of events, as recalled by the individual involved, and the meaning they give to them. Practice supervisors from Children’s Services in two local authorities undertook to introduce the CASA into supervision sessions and were supported in this through the provision of regular reflective group discussions. The project findings highlight the challenges for practitioners of ‘detailed looking’ and for supervisors of ‘active listening’. The paper concludes by acknowledging that the CASA’s successful contribution to decision-making is contingent on both the motivation and confidence of supervisors to develop their skills and an organisational commitment to, and resourcing of, reflective supervisory practices and spaces.

Special Issue: Editorial - Interventions in chronic and severe neglect

In 1984, a paper published by Wolock and Horowitz in the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry drew attention to what they described as ‘the neglect of neglect’ in the prevailing understandings of and responses to child maltreatment. Thirty years on, this expression still resonates even though child neglect has moved out of the shadows and become a central concern for child welfare practitioners and policy makers, and the focus of much research activity. But, while considerably more is now known about the aetiology, identification and assessment of neglect, effective interventions have proved harder to develop. Why is this so, and what can we do about it? The papers in this special issue help us to consider these two questions in more detail. We take as a starting point that child neglect is a complex phenomenon with a range of possible inter-connecting ‘causes’, and that continuing chronic neglect has been shown to have a range of adverse effects on children’s health, development and wellbeing. These effects are wide-ranging, cumulative and damaging over the long-term. If neglect is unlikely to be mono-causal, it seems equally unlikely that any one intervention is going to be successful across the board. Therefore, a variety of intervention responses will be needed, including early intervention strategies that attempt to engage families as soon as neglect is identified, but also encompassing later intervention responses that can be used with families where early identification has not been possible and/or where neglect has become entrenched. This special issue gives us a chance to draw together some reflections on current knowledge and some new ideas about ‘what works’ in practice with families where neglect is a feature of family dynamics. The challenges of developing appropriate responses to neglect are perhaps most usefully understood from a transactional ecological perspective (Brandon et al., 2008) that recognises the complex interplay of factors that can compromise parents’ abilities to offer satisfactory care to their children. Such an approach can also help to make sense of the relational difficulties of this work, in terms of engaging parents in the intervention process. While we know that the long-term effects of neglect are pernicious, practitioners need also to be aware that neglect can be fatal. In the paper that opens this special issue, Brandon et al. (2014) present the results of a study that re-analysed data from 800 serious case reviews (where deaths or very serious maltreatment are examined in detail) in England, interrogating in-depth anonymised information

Interventions in Chronic and Severe Neglect: What Works?: Editorial

In 1984, a paper published by Wolock and Horowitz in the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry drew attention to what they described as ‘the neglect of neglect’ in the prevailing understandings of and responses to child maltreatment. Thirty years on, this expression still resonates even though child neglect has moved out of the shadows and become a central concern for child welfare practitioners and policy makers, and the focus of much research activity. But, while considerably more is now known about the aetiology, identification and assessment of neglect, effective interventions have proved harder to develop. Why is this so, and what can we do about it? The papers in this special issue help us to consider these two questions in more detail. We take as a starting point that child neglect is a complex phenomenon with a range of possible inter-connecting ‘causes’, and that continuing chronic neglect has been shown to have a range of adverse effects on children’s health, development and wellbeing. These effects are wide-ranging, cumulative and damaging over the long-term. If neglect is unlikely to be mono-causal, it seems equally unlikely that any one intervention is going to be successful across the board. Therefore, a variety of intervention responses will be needed, including early intervention strategies that attempt to engage families as soon as neglect is identified, but also encompassing later intervention responses that can be used with families where early identification has not been possible and/or where neglect has become entrenched. This special issue gives us a chance to draw together some reflections on current knowledge and some new ideas about ‘what works’ in practice with families where neglect is a feature of family dynamics. The challenges of developing appropriate responses to neglect are perhaps most usefully understood from a transactional ecological perspective (Brandon et al., 2008) that recognises the complex interplay of factors that can compromise parents’ abilities to offer satisfactory care to their children. Such an approach can also help to make sense of the relational difficulties of this work, in terms of engaging parents in the intervention process. While we know that the long-term effects of neglect are pernicious, practitioners need also to be aware that neglect can be fatal. In the paper that opens this special issue, Brandon et al. (2014) present the results of a study that re-analysed data from 800 serious case reviews (where deaths or very serious maltreatment are examined in detail) in England, interrogating in-depth anonymised information

Special Issue: Editorial - Interventions in chronic and severe neglect: What Works?

In 1984, a paper published by Wolock and Horowitz in the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry drew attention to what they described as ‘the neglect of neglect’ in the prevailing understandings of and responses to child maltreatment. Thirty years on, this expression still resonates even though child neglect has moved out of the shadows and become a central concern for child welfare practitioners and policy makers, and the focus of much research activity. But, while considerably more is now known about the aetiology, identification and assessment of neglect, effective interventions have proved harder to develop. Why is this so, and what can we do about it? The papers in this special issue help us to consider these two questions in more detail. We take as a starting point that child neglect is a complex phenomenon with a range of possible inter-connecting ‘causes’, and that continuing chronic neglect has been shown to have a range of adverse effects on children’s health, development and wellbeing. These effects are wide-ranging, cumulative and damaging over the long-term. If neglect is unlikely to be mono-causal, it seems equally unlikely that any one intervention is going to be successful across the board. Therefore, a variety of intervention responses will be needed, including early intervention strategies that attempt to engage families as soon as neglect is identified, but also encompassing later intervention responses that can be used with families where early identification has not been possible and/or where neglect has become entrenched. This special issue gives us a chance to draw together some reflections on current knowledge and some new ideas about ‘what works’ in practice with families where neglect is a feature of family dynamics. The challenges of developing appropriate responses to neglect are perhaps most usefully understood from a transactional ecological perspective (Brandon et al., 2008) that recognises the complex interplay of factors that can compromise parents’ abilities to offer satisfactory care to their children. Such an approach can also help to make sense of the relational difficulties of this work, in terms of engaging parents in the intervention process. While we know that the long-term effects of neglect are pernicious, practitioners need also to be aware that neglect can be fatal. In the paper that opens this special issue, Brandon et al. (2014) present the results of a study that re-analysed data from 800 serious case reviews (where deaths or very serious maltreatment are examined in detail) in England, interrogating in-depth anonymised information

Interventions in chronic and severe neglect

In 1984, a paper published by Wolock and Horowitz in the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry drew attention to what they described as ‘the neglect of neglect’ in the prevailing understandings of and responses to child maltreatment. Thirty years on, this expression still resonates even though child neglect has moved out of the shadows and become a central concern for child welfare practitioners and policy makers, and the focus of much research activity. But, while considerably more is now known about the aetiology, identification and assessment of neglect, effective interventions have proved harder to develop. Why is this so, and what can we do about it? The papers in this special issue help us to consider these two questions in more detail. We take as a starting point that child neglect is a complex phenomenon with a range of possible inter-connecting ‘causes’, and that continuing chronic neglect has been shown to have a range of adverse effects on children’s health, development and wellbeing. These effects are wide-ranging, cumulative and damaging over the long-term. If neglect is unlikely to be mono-causal, it seems equally unlikely that any one intervention is going to be successful across the board. Therefore, a variety of intervention responses will be needed, including early intervention strategies that attempt to engage families as soon as neglect is identified, but also encompassing later intervention responses that can be used with families where early identification has not been possible and/or where neglect has become entrenched. This special issue gives us a chance to draw together some reflections on current knowledge and some new ideas about ‘what works’ in practice with families where neglect is a feature of family dynamics. The challenges of developing appropriate responses to neglect are perhaps most usefully understood from a transactional ecological perspective (Brandon et al., 2008) that recognises the complex interplay of factors that can compromise parents’ abilities to offer satisfactory care to their children. Such an approach can also help to make sense of the relational difficulties of this work, in terms of engaging parents in the intervention process. While we know that the long-term effects of neglect are pernicious, practitioners need also to be aware that neglect can be fatal. In the paper that opens this special issue, Brandon et al. (2014) present the results of a study that re-analysed data from 800 serious case reviews (where deaths or very serious maltreatment are examined in detail) in England, interrogating in-depth anonymised information