Child-Centric Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and the Fragmentation of Child Welfare Practice in England

Abstract

Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. AbstractThe ways in which government supports families and protects children are always a fine balance. In recent years, we suggest that this balance can be characterised increasingly as 'child-centric', less concerned with families and more focused on individual children and their needs. This article charts the changes in families and government responses over the last 40 years, and the way this is reflected in organisational and administrative arrangements. It notes in particular the impact on everyday practice of the introduction of information and communication technologies. Findings are reported from recent research which shows the struggles faced by practitioners who try to manage systems which separate children from their familial, social and relational contexts. As a consequence, we suggest, the work has become increasingly fragmented and less mindful of children's life within families. While the data and analysis draw on research carried out in England, we suggest that similar changes may be going on in other Western liberal democracies.

Current Debates on Variability in Child Welfare Decision-Making: A Selected Literature Review

“…Gilbert et al [5] outline the differences between the policy orientations of nation states, deriving three main types: child protection, child welfare and child focussed. Others have examined the interrelationship between these orientations and decision reasoning, noting that the first leads to a focus on specific acts of abuse, the second locates the cause of problems in family needs, while the final one can result in a 'child-centric' practice that protects children's individual rights and wellbeing, but may downplay family relationships [37][38][39][40][41].…”

The Changing Politics and Practice of Child Protection and Safeguarding in England

“…The focus of concern had broadened considerably from those children who might suffer child abuse or 'significant harm' to include all children, particularly those who were at risk of poor outcomes and therefore who may not fulfil their potential. In the process, the systems designed to screen and identify those in need of attention had grown in size and complexity and the challenges and responsibilities placed upon a wide range of agencies and practitioners increased considerably (Parton, 2010). As a result, it seemed that important changes were taking place in the relationships between children, families and the state, which I characterised at the time as the emergence of the 'preventive-surveillance state' (Parton, 2008a;.…”

“…deflecting front line practitioners from their core task of working directly with children, young people and parents (Hall et al, 2010); increasing the bureaucratic demands of the work (Parton, 2008b;Broadhurst et al, 2010a;2010b;White, Hall and Peckover, 2010);…”

“…In addition, in broadening the focus of what was meant by risk there had been an elision or conflation (Munro, 2009;Parton, 2010) of concerns about children and young people who might be at risk from a whole variety of threats, including abuse, with other concerns about children and young people who might pose a threat to others particularly by falling into crime or anti-social behaviour. The agendas around the care and control of children and young people and those who might be either victims or villains were in danger of becoming very blurred (Sharland, 2006;James and James, 2008).…”

“…Effective measures to safeguard children were seen as those which also promoted their welfare, and should not be seen in isolation from the wider range of support and services provided to meet the needs of all children and families. There was a broadening of concerns from 'child protection' to 'safeguarding', or, as I have argued elsewhere (Parton, 2010), from 'dangerousness' to 'risk'. This is not to say, however, that child protection disappeared, but that it was located in the wider concerns about 'safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children'.…”