The ICS has been a key feature of the government’s agenda for change in England and has been under construction since 2000 (Cleaver et al., 2008). Shaw et al (2009) commented on the government’s intention for ICS to be central to statutory childcare practice and therefore applicable to all children in need in England. Operational in LAs in England since 1st January 2007 and Wales since 31st December 2006, the ICS provides an electronic record of professional involvement, assessment, decision making and review from first point of contact to case closure (Cleaver et al.,2008).
The Green Paper Every Child Matters (Cm 5860, 2003) led directly to the passing of the Children Act 2004 (there being no associated White Paper) and brought in a range of reforms relating to the e-government agenda particularly relating to information sharing between professionals. The ICS not only relates to children in need and those considered to be at risk of significant harm but also forms part of the wider remit of ensuring children achieve their optimum potential. Part of the process of ensuring children achieve their potential and that information technology enhances professional practice has been the development of processes that seek to ensure information is shared across agencies.
The Children Act 2004 (part 2 s12) underpins the requirement for LA children’s services to establish and operate databases relevant to interagency co-operation to improve the welfare of children and the arrangements to safeguard children. Whilst there is no one national computer system there are requirement for systems to be ICS compatible and systems are required to contain information in a manner which has commonalty across all LAs in England. They are also to be organised around a set of exemplar forms that set out what should be recorded at different stages of social work intervention (Shaw et al, 2009). The ‘Referral and Information Record’ (appendix 7), the ‘Initial Assessment Record’ (appendix 8) and the ‘Core Assessment Record’ (appendix 9) form part of the battery of exemplar documents that were in operation during the data gathering stages of my research.
ICS is now regarded as unhelpful in that it creates a ‘micro-control of workflow’ which, in turn, results in social workers spending time engaged in repetitive form filling and reducing the time available to engage with children and families (DfE 2011). However, in commissioning Munro to undertake a review of frontline child protection services the current government has outlined their commitment to reducing bureaucracy whilst maintaining accountability. Clearly there will be ongoing change and reform but, during the period of my research the ICS was in the early stages of implementation and will be a focus of discussion in subsequent chapters of this thesis.
88
4.5 Conclusion
This chapter has served to outline the legal, procedural and policy context of pre-birth assessment. In doing so the chapter has considered the legal framework of the Children Acts 1989 and 2004 and the statutory guidance contained in Working Together (HM Government 2006) as well as the Assessment Framework (DH 2000). Explanation has also been given relating to the CAF and ICS systems which were in operation during the data gathering process of this thesis.
What is evident is that laws designed to safeguard children do not apply pre-birth as the unborn child does not have any legal rights. Despite this Working Together (HM Government 2006) indicates that procedures applicable for children are also applicable for unborn children. Alongside the lack of legal status of the unborn child, scientific development has opened the door to debate surrounding what scientists can and cannot do to human eggs and furthered the moral debate surrounding the morality of abortion. In response the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Acts of 1990 and 2008 were developed to provide guidance and case law has highlighted that pregnant women have autonomy over their own body. In response to the question what does the law say about pre-birth assessment what is evident is that there are two aspects to the law. Firstly, the aspect that considers child protection, safeguarding and children in need. Secondly, the aspect that considers the fetus.
What emerges is a confusing picture and one which places professionals involved in pre-birth assessments in a difficult situation of being directed by statutory guidance to treat the unborn child the same as any other but with a wider legal framework which supports totally the rights of the mother. From a Lipskyan perspective, street level bureaucrats are left grappling with the same issue debated by the House of Lords when the concluded that an unborn child is a ‘unique organism’ and that to ‘apply to such an organism the principles of a law evolved in relation to autonomous beings is bound to mislead (UK House of Lords Decisions 1994. no page number). In later chapters I will look at how social workers actually approach pre-birth assessment and, in so doing, will consider how, on a day-to-day basis they interpret the confusing framework. However, in the first instance I will consider Local Safeguarding Children Board procedures in order to build on research question one ‘Where does pre-birth assessment fit in the English legislative, procedural and practice framework?’ which has been considered in this chapter.
89