Previo a la construcción del pavimento de concreto hidráulico se debe considerar:

D’Cruz (2004a) describes three stages in the child protection process including: (1) the intake (2) categorisation and (3) response to referrals and/or child concern notifications (CCN). From: (1) receiving information (2) planning and undertaking intervention (3) reviewing and (4) closing cases each step involves sense-making, judgement and decision-making. Throughout this process, a practitioner’s approach to sense-making will influence their judgement and the decisions which determine the outcomes children and families experience (Taylor and White, 2001). Encouragingly, on examining the child protection process, Broadhurst et al. (2010a) identified how some social workers adopted a critical and reflexive approach to sense-making. In doing so, despite being situated within settings influenced by a NPM agenda, practitioners were able to reason, formulate judgement and decide on responses to CCNs tailored to the complex needs of children and families. Broadhurst et al. (2010a) noted this ‘informal logic of risk management’ was most evident where practitioners demonstrated a willingness to engage parents in reflexive dialogue to discuss concerns, discern risk and negotiate child safety.

However, findings of a study undertaken by Kirkman and Melrose (2014: 29) indicated how some social workers, while required to make ‘sequential decisions’ throughout the course of a day, did not demonstrate an approach to sense-making informed by criticality or reflexivity. Consequently, Kirkman and Melrose (ibid: 30) illustrate how sense-making ‘short-cuts’ informed by intuitive reasoning processes were utilised by those practitioners observed as experiencing ‘decision-making

- 34 -

fatigue’10_{. Conclusions drawn from the study by Kirkman and Melrose imply how}

practitioners’ potential for critical-reflexivity is constrained by a NPM agenda that encourages biased reasoning processes as a means of addressing the problems of: (1) high referral intake (2) management of workload (3) determination of thresholds and (4) establishment of practice priorities.

Despite some informative conclusions, the findings of Kirkman and Melrose’s (2014) study can be viewed as tenuous. This is due, for example, to the single source of data collection being participant observation. In contrast to Broadhurst et al. (2010a) who combined research methods, with participant observation alone potential for identifying aspects of judgement informed by reflexive practice through in-depth interviews and/or case study samples was overlooked. The researchers’ data examination was informed by the evidence-base developed within cognitive psychology. Consequently, with an a priori template for a deductive (theory-driven) analysis, the benefit of an inductive (data-driven) analysis was overlooked.

In addition, Kirkman and Melrose are members of the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT). The BIT was established by the coalition government with the key objective of producing knowledge to contribute to policy-making. According to BIT the development of ‘intelligent ways to encourage, support and enable people to make better choices for themselves’ is achieved through applying behavioural and social psychological approaches to practice (BIT, 2001: 3). Adoption of this approach offers insight into the epistemological bias of Kirkman and Melrose (2014), and

10 _{Social psychologist Roy Baumeister (2003) defines decision-making fatigue as the deterioration in} human reasoning and self-regulation which can influence their quality of judgement where an individual is required to make decisions across a prolonged period.

- 35 -

consequently the limitations of a study where the cognitive and social psychological evidence-base has been adopted to inform data analysis and interpretation. Primarily overlooked within the study is the potential reasoning, self-regulation and/or causal power of practitioners’ reflexivity on their sense-making activity.

In contrast to the findings of Kirkman and Melrose, in my experience decision-making in child protection is far from the mentally depleting exercise the idea of ‘decision- making fatigue’ proposes. This is especially so where practitioners are supported in their sense-making and judgement formulation through reflexive dialogue with managers and/or colleagues. However, as Rojek, Peacock and Collins (1988) and Elder-Vass (2012) indicate, sense-making in child protection remains a discursive- dialogical process potentially informed by the dominant culture and/or received ideas of practitioners where situated as collective members of a professional norm circle.

Although, while offering insight into how inter-professional perspectives might influence sense-making in child protection, Rojek, Peacock and Collins overlook practitioners’ capacity to challenge the perspectives of other professionals through practising critical-reflexivity. Nevertheless, as Taylor and White (2000: 15) highlight, social workers’ sense-making will be influenced by their everyday ‘professional talk’ with colleagues and/or the dominant perspectives of managers which are often administratively focused and culturally defined. Consequently, where sense-making is uninformed by critical-reflexivity, Broadhurst el al. (2010b) highlight a key pitfall in the child protection process is where erroneous judgement can lead to children ‘at risk’ being categorised as ‘in need’.

- 36 -

This was the case with Peter Connolly whose (mis)categorisation as a child ‘in need’ contributed to fatal consequences. In Peter’s case, despite bruising being identified by practitioners as present on his body, agreed was an inter-professional decision for him to remain in the care of his mother (Laming, 2009). White (2013: 46) highlights how this sense-making (mis)calculation was exasperated by Peter’s care teams’ collective reasoning being based on: (1) a ‘psychological commitment’ to the shared notion his mother was a safe carer and (2) an erroneous judgement about the perceived self-inflicted cause of markings on his body. Resultantly, it was through a lack of critical-reflexivity, and therefore a biased approach to sense-making based on ‘unquestioning, comfortable collective settlement’ about the reality of Peter’s family functioning, which contributed to his death (White, ibid: 48).

Following Peter’s death, Eileen Munro11 _{undertook a government sanctioned review}

of the UK child protection system. Among recommendations made within the Munro Report (2011) was the need for a child-focused and relationship-based practice orientation. Munro argued, to move the UK system forward, child protection needed to be informed by ‘expert’ knowledge and an up-to-date research and evidence-base. However, Featherstone, White and Morris (2014) argue child-focused and evidence- based practices are not new ideas. Although, what is forward-looking, as Munro (2011) recommended, is how increased timescales for child and family assessment (CFA) can create opportunities for relationship-based practice and/or ‘first-order’ social work encounters with children and families.

11 _{Professor Eileen Munro is a leading researcher, academic and commentator on child protection with} the London School of Economics and Political Science.

- 37 -

Following Munro’s recommendation for research-based evidence to support child protection practice(s) this has continued to be developed within the academic literature (e.g. Holt and Kelly, 2012, 2014). However, despite evidence regarding the negative consequences of prescriptive policy and practice frameworks on the outcomes experienced by children and families, proposals within research-based literature remain limited in their utilisation. Despite the recommendations of Munro (2011) therefore, a techno-rational paradigm and NPM agenda continues to dominate practitioners’ sense-making, judgement and decision-making in child protection. It does so by encouraging prescriptive policies and practices that emphasise the imperative for social workers to meet agency targets and manage performance. Meanwhile, as Featherstone, White and Morris (2014) argue, the need for development of an anti-prescriptive, multi-rational and family-minded child welfare practice remains outstanding.

Trevithick (2014) identifies how, since the Munro Report (2011), early intervention into family life using the early help assessment (EHA) has been encouraged. However, on criticising the preceding EHA format known as the CAF (Common Assessment Framework), White, Hall and Peckover (2009) argue the early help approach to child and family assessment has contributed to higher thresholds for statutory intervention. Consequently, the range of social, economic and psychological constraints experienced by children and families continues to be overlooked within a one-size-fits-all child protection discourse. This is especially so where EHAs are encouraged as an alternative to the single assessment process when a high level of CCNs are received by children’s services (White, Hall and Peckover, 2009).

- 38 -

Although, it is reasonable to acknowledge some family-based problems will be similar and/or less complicated than others. Therefore, it may be some needs can be addressed through a residual early help-child protection system? Nevertheless, a mother’s passiveness toward her child due, for example, to undisclosed fear of a violent partner is not a problem easily identified via: (1) ambiguous referral information (2) non-statutory EHAs and/or (3) a single home visit from a social worker utilising a one-size-fits-all child and family assessment (CFA) format. Where family interventions are undertaken, a contemporary social constructionist perspective can help draw practitioners’ attention to the ontological impact unobservable causal mechanisms can have on a parent’s: (1) personal reflexivity (2) sense of (in)active agency and/or (3) (in)capacity to provide safe care.

However, without a critically-reflexive understanding of the influence a range of structural constraints can have on parent-child relationships, social workers informed by a child-focused discourse risk practising oppressively. They do so where a mother’s lack or warmth towards her child due to fear of undisclosed male violence, for example, becomes the foci of concern and consequent rationale for their removal. Anger displayed by parents toward social workers perceived as acting in the ‘best interests’ of a child in these kinds of circumstances has been noted in serious case reviews (SCR) (e.g. Laming, 2003). However, a mother’s hostility toward social workers, due to fear for the future of her family, is often misinterpreted by ‘child rescuing’ practitioners as a lack of capacity to be a safe parent (Featherstone, White and Morris, 2014: 17).

- 39 -

Messages from Research (Department of Health, 1995) highlighted how, potentially

dubious intervention into the life of children and families can result in parents being left feeling angry, frustrated and stigmatised. In my experience, this is often the case at the close of child protection ‘investigations’ where child abuse allegations remained unsubstantiated. I recall how families identified as ‘in need’ were often left under-supported due to a lack of resources and/or where ‘at risk’ families remained an agency priority. Although, due to their high degree of reasoning accuracy, White (2013) indicates many social workers will be able to discern the required action(s) following receipt of a CCN. Nevertheless, when it comes to deciding whether to intervene into the life of a family, practitioners remain caught in a double-bind. This double-bind, as discussed by Dingwall et al. (1995), can be understood in the context of an ‘uncertainty dilemma’ where social workers contemplating family intervention are dammed if they do, and damned if they do not!

Fook (2002: 3) claims social work in the twenty-first century with its’ ‘expert’ knowledge, ‘theories, perceptions, function[s] and espoused ideas [about]…safe and normal’ parenting, represents a morally conservative profession. Meanwhile, White (2009) argues social work intervention into the life of a family can be seen to serve the dominant ideological interests of the state. In my experience, confusing to many parents is the ambiguous ‘care-control’ role of social workers that is often not made clear during visits to families. Consequently, I have felt disheartened by those practitioners who, while welcomed by parents who desperately seek their support, prefer to look in the kitchen cupboards and/or examine a child’s bedroom to determine capacity for safe care. As Parton and O’Byrne (2000: 135) argue, historically the UK child protection system has remained ‘riddled with moral, civic and

- 40 -

theoretical’ assumptions about what constitutes safe parenting. Despite the identified need for a more just and humane approach to practice, where sense- making in child protection remains uninformed by a critically-reflexive approach, as White (2013) argues, social workers will continue to practice as morally naïve representatives of the state.