Multi‐agency information practices in children's services: the metaphorical ‘jigsaw’ and professionals quest for a ‘full’ picture

Abstract

As there are a number of high‐profile public inquiries into child death tragedies, ‘information sharing’ has now become a moral and political imperative across England and Wales for improving the welfare and protection of children. This paper discusses multi‐agency information practices, at the stage of referral, which were observed and documented in the day‐to‐day practice of child protection work. Drawing on transcribed, professional narrative accounts, a ‘jigsaw’ metaphor is used to describe the process of piecing information together to ascertain a ‘full’ picture of children and families lives. However, these accounts highlight that there is something of a mismatch between the jigsaw, as articulated in the conceptual abstract accounts, and jigsaw practices operating on the ground. It is argued that abstracting professional information practices from situated contexts creates impoverished understandings of these practices. Thus, reported findings in this paper highlight the inherent complexities of jigsaw practices in the ‘everyday’ of child protection work, which challenges objectivist assumptions about a stability of meaning, and further highlight that the ‘endpoint’ of reaching a ‘full’ picture of a child's life is not fixed, nor does it have the same meaning for all professionals, but rather it is a complex process involving sense‐making, translation in context and organizational relevance.

Facts with feelings – social workers' experiences of sharing information across team and agency borders to safeguard children

“…In fact, it is difficult to think of any tasks that did not involve some form of information sharing – taking contact referrals, undertaking multi‐agency assessments, attending multi‐agency meetings, keeping records so that others can review cases or presenting evidence in court, all involved information work. This confirmed Thompson's (, 2010) observation that information sharing is no longer part of child protection work, rather it has become, the work. Whilst Parton () has theorized the increasingly informational nature of social work, this study has provided empirical evidence of this.…”

“…Increasingly, in view of continued breakdowns of inter‐agency communication in the case of child deaths, questions are raised about the ability of rationally based, linear one‐size‐fits‐all approaches to affect the desired improvements in practice. This is, in part, because of the nature of the information in the child protection process that may be unclear (Munro ), emergent (Thompson ) and constructed (White ) and unsuited to rigid processes for classification and transmission. Commentators have also suggested a range of professional, organizational and individual factors that have the power to influence how information is shared in practice.…”

Managing the flow of private information on children and parents in poverty situations: Creating a panoptic eye in interorganizational networks?

“…Much attention has been devoted to the improvement of communication and to the sharing of information to enhance the continuity of service delivery (Allen, ; Anthony et al, ; Statham, ) and to avoid striking gaps and overlaps in service provision for families (McKeown, Haase, & Pratschke, ; Warin, ). The pressure on sharing information also derives from a protection logic and the need for a higher control of children at risk (Lees, ; Thompson, ). It has been argued that sharing information and documentation prevents the receipt of conflicting information, which often produces frustration on the side of social service providers because it results in a duplication of their efforts (Provan, ).…”

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

“…Alongside these developments in the broader environment of practice, more procedurally driven 'case management' supervision has taken hold, typically at the expense of more reflective modes of supervision. It is widely acknowledged that reflective practice requires the integration of thinking, doing and feeling (Ruch, 2002) but recent research into child care practices more generally (Gibson, 2016;Lees, 2017;Thompson, 2013) and supervision practices more specifically (Ingram, 2013) highlight the complexities embedded in this professional domain and the central role played by emotions. Concerns expressed in The Munro Review reports (2011) about overly proceduralised practice and its commitment to shifting from a 'case management' to a more reflective and 'emotionally inclusive' (Ingram, 2013, p. 6) mode of supervision, for example, have not been straightforwardly achieved.…”