Int J Soc Welfare 1999: 8: 277–287
Discourses of decision making in
child protection: conducting
comprehensive assessments in
Britain
Holland S. Discourses of decision making in child
protection: conducting comprehensive assessments in
Britain
Int J Soc Welfare 1999: 8: 277–287 ß Blackwell, 1999.
Findings from a qualitative study of comprehensive
assessments in child protection social work in the UK are
discussed. The accounts of social workers in formal
interviews, informal interactions and case files are analysed,
examining their explanations and understandings of the
process of decision making. Two discourses of decision
making are discerned: scientific observation and reflective
evaluation. Whilst most social workers understand their
work, at different times, through both discourses, it is argued
that the discourse of scientific observation becomes the
dominant one when communicating with other agencies such
as the court. The findings are discussed in relation to wider
issues in contemporary social work including the
bureaucratisation of social work and the nature of
assessment.
Introduction
This paper uses empirical data to analyse one aspect of
child protection assessment work in Britain: how
social workers understand and explain how they make
decisions about what to recommend in comprehensive
assessment reports. Following introductory comments
on the nature of these assessments, I will move on to
identify two discourses of decision making through
which social workers appear to understand and explain
their work.
Social welfare workers face a complex and often
contradictory task when making decisions in the arena
of child protection. Despite an increasingly legalistic
approach to intervening in child protection, social
workers still maintain within their mandate the dual
role of helper and statutory investigator (Merrick,
1996). Social work as a profession has no unitary
knowledge base to determine which children are best
kept at home and which removed (Lindsey, 1994).
Empirical findings suggest that factors such as
organisation, resources and bureaucratic systems may
be more influential on decision making than variables
associated with children and their families (Banach
1998; Colton, Drury & Williams, 1995; Lindsey,
ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare 1999.
Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden MA 02148, USA
S. Holland
Cardiff School of Social Sciences
Key words: child protection, decision making, assessment,
discourse, scientific, reflective, recommendation, social work
Sally Holland, Cardiff School of Social Sciences, University of
Wales, Cardiff, Wales, UK
Accepted for publication May 30, 1999
1994). In both Europe and the United States there have
been shifts by policy makers towards standardising
assessment decisions (Department of Health, 1988;
Egelund, 1996), with statutory assessment tools
becoming the norm in child protection investigations
in the United States (DePanfilis & Scannapieco, 1994).
However, standardised assessment tools have been
criticised for their lack of empirical basis (Dingwall,
1989; Doueck, Bronson & Levine, 1992; Wald &
Woolverton, 1990) and inability to respond
sufficiently to complex situations in individual
families (Egelund, 1996). The academic literature
has proposed two different ways forward for complex
decision making in child protection. On the one hand,
there have been calls for more empirical research on
the causes and outcomes of child abuse in the hope
that decision making may be made more accurate and
less susceptible to the whims of individual
practitioners (Banach 1998; London Borough of Brent,
1985; Wald & Woolverton, 1990). On the other hand,
there have been suggestions that social workers be
enabled to accept the complexity and subjective nature
of their task, to be reflexive and to acknowledge
uncertainty (Parton 1998; Pozatek, 1994; White,
1997). Several authors have suggested that analytic
techniques developed in qualitative research might be
277

Holland
successfully applied to in-depth assessment (Clifford
& Cropper, 1997; Sheppard, 1995; White, 1997).
This article discusses social workers’ explanations
of how they manage some of these contradictions and
tensions in their task when conducting comprehensive
assessments. Comprehensive assessments are a
process used in child protection social work in Britain
when key decisions regarding children’s futures are to
be made. They are recommended for use after a child’s
name has been placed on the child protection register
or when court proceedings under the Children Act
1989 have begun. The key government publication
regarding these assessments is a book of guidance
(Department of Health, 1988), popularly known as
‘‘The Orange Book’’. This guidance, which includes
167 questions for social workers to ask of parents,
observation checklists and planning tools,
recommends that assessments should take up to 12
weeks to carry out (Department of Health, 1988: 18).
The ‘‘Orange Book’’ provides formal government
guidance to social workers but they are not legally
bound to follow this guidance. The guidance has been
the subject of critiques in the academic literature
(Howe, 1992; McBeath & Webb, 1990–1999;
O’Hagan & Dillenburger, 1995; Parton, 1991), but
there has been no previous empirical attempt to
discover how social workers carry out the assessments
in practice. The author carried out a research study that
explored the process by which social workers conduct
comprehensive assessments. This paper reports social
workers’ explanations of how they reach a
recommendation decision in the assessment.
Research methods
The study was a qualitative case study (Yin, 1984)
based on two sites in Britain. The first was the Family
Centre, a specialist referred family centre which
conducted comprehensive assessments referred by
one urban local authority. It was owned and managed
by a large national voluntary organisation. The second
site was a neighbouring City Social Services
Department (City SSD) where most comprehensive
assessments were carried out ‘‘in-house’’ by social
workers, who also carried a large and varied child and
family caseload. The sites were chosen as examples of
two of the main ways in which assessments are carried
out in Britain, that is, by the statutory and voluntary
sectors. Social workers in both agencies are
responsible for carrying out comprehensive
assessments and making formal recommendations to
a multi-disciplinary case conference or the family
court. However, social workers in the Family Centre
do not hold statutory case responsibility. All families
assessed within the Family Centre also have a state-
employed social worker who is required under the
278
14682397, 1999, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2397.00094 by Egyptian National Sti. Network (Enstinet), Wiley Online Library on [19/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Children Act 1989 to present a care plan for the
children of the family to the court. In most cases the
care plan was based on the comprehensive assessment
recommendations.
In the Family Centre all assessments conducted
within an eight-month period in 1997 were included in
the study, where families gave permission. Ten out of
12 potential cases were studied. These ten assessments
were carried out by six members of the assessment
team, singly and in pairs, all of whom took part in the
study. In City SSD three district managers informed
the researcher of all cases taking place in the same
time period in 1997. The social workers were all
contacted and permission sought to include each
assessment in the research. The eventual sample where
families and social workers gave permission was six.
These were carried out by five social workers. All
social workers in the study possessed a social work
qualification at the level of Diploma in Social Work or
its equivalent. It is not possible to discern how
representative the cases were of comprehensive
assessments as a whole, but there were no significant
differences between the cases from the two different
sites in terms of types of maltreatment, involvement of
the courts or whether the children were at home or in
foster care. The sixteen cases involved 21 children, 17
of whom were in foster care and four (from three
families) at home. Their ages ranged from new-born to
12, but most (15 out of 21) were aged five or under.
Twelve of the cases were undergoing care proceedings
in the family court and in these cases comprehensive
assessments had been ordered by the judiciary to aid
the court’s decision making. In the other four cases,
the assessments had been requested by a multi-
disciplinary case conference. The cases included
alleged physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect and one
case of Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy. The
families undergoing assessment involved couples,
single mothers, single fathers and the maltreated
children and their siblings. The assessments usually
concentrated on the parents, with children assessed
through observation of contact sessions. In three of the
assessments older children’s opinions were asked and
recorded as part of the assessment. All names have
been replaced by pseudonyms to protect anonymity.
All data collection and analysis was carried out by
the author. Data were collected in three ways: by in-
depth interview, through reading case records and by
observation of informal interactions of social workers
in their staff room. In addition, in five of the
assessments studied, permission was given by agencies
and parents to view assessment sessions that were
routinely recorded on video-tape. Interviews and
observations took place during the assessments, where
possible, although in four of the cases the assessment
had recently been completed. Between one and four
ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare 1999

interviews were conducted regarding each case,
depending on the availability of the workers involved.
Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were carried
out with the assessing social workers. Each lasted
between 45 and 90 minutes. Social workers were
asked about their conduct of comprehensive
assessments generally, and about the specific cases
in the study. Questions relevant to the findings
reported in this study included, ‘‘How did you reach
a decision on what to recommend?’’, ‘‘When did you
know what you were going to recommend?’’ and
‘‘How did this compare to other assessments you have
conducted?’’ Where permission was granted (in 13 of
the cases) the interviews were taped and fully
transcribed. In addition, data were collected from
informal interactions between social worker and
researcher and between social workers, with the full
consent of participants. This latter, observational, data
might be expected to provide data on the more
informal aspects of decision making than that reported
in interviews (McKeganey, Macpherson & Hunter,
1988). Case records provided a range of insights due to
the varied nature of their contents, written for a
number of audiences. Files contained formal court
reports, case recording, notes and contributions from
parents. Using systematic within-case sampling
(Stake, 1994) recording and reports from all cases in
the study were photocopied and analysed.
Analysis was aided by the use of computer software
designed for qualitative analysis (NUD*IST 4). This
allows the researcher to handle large amounts of data
and facilitates its speedy retrieval. A grounded theory
method of analysis was used (Strauss & Corbin, 1990)
structured by the case study design. Data from all three
data sources were coded and re-coded as analysis
progressed. Analysis was carried out within cases and
between cases, with a constant search for ‘‘deviant’’
cases (Bloor, 1978) that did not fit with the existing
analysis in order to further develop the emerging
analytical concepts. Findings were validated using two
main methods. Firstly, two further case files from each
site were examined prospectively in order to test
analytical concepts on unseen material. Secondly,
social workers involved in the study were invited to
take part in a presentation of the findings reported in
this paper. Six social workers, all from the voluntary
sector site, agreed to take part. Neither validation
technique led to the alteration of key concepts reported
in this paper, but further insights gained were
incorporated into the analytical framework.
The nature of the decision
Decision making within comprehensive assessment is
constructed by official guidance as ultimately
comprising a choice of three options: ‘‘Child remains
ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare 1999
14682397, 1999, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2397.00094 by Egyptian National Sti. Network (Enstinet), Wiley Online Library on [19/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Child protection decision making
at home . . . short-term separation leading to
rehabilitation . . . permanent separation from parents’’
(Department of Health, 1988: 75–76). In addition most
of the assessment reports in this study recommend
whether a court order is deemed appropriate and some
recommend a form of social work intervention, in
particular where rehabilitation is recommended.
Whilst the assessment will inevitably involve many
types of decisions, including how to conduct the
assessment, whom to involve, and so on, the focus of
this article is the social workers’ decision of what to
recommend at the end of the assessment. These
recommendations invariably are to be found in the
final paragraphs of comprehensive assessment reports.
An example of a recommendation from an assessment
report follows:
Recommendations
In considering all the information available, it is the
assessor’s view that rehabilitation at this present
time is not in the best interests of the children.
To ensure and maintain the ongoing progress the
children are making, the assessor supports the Local
Authority in recommending a Care Order in respect
of Gemma, Andrew, Helen and Sarah (Court
Assessment report, Cooke family assessment).
The social workers conducting comprehensive
assessments are assessing complex family situations
with often rapidly changing home circumstances
(Packman & Randall, 1989). The alleged maltreatment
of a child is rarely open to any specific measurement
and may be subject to conflicting explanations and
opinions. Indeed Wattam (1992) has suggested that
child abuse must be redefined with each new case.
Social workers have the task of converting a mass of
complex information about a family situation into
specific recommendations for a child’s future care;
there is little room for doubt or indecision. The
decision is, by any standard, one that has profound
implications for a child and his or her family. In the
next section the explanations given by social workers
for how they reach these recommendations are
discussed.
The process
The process of decision making has been the subject of
lengthy and extensive academic debate encompassing
a wide range of disciplines (Cuzzi, Holden, Grob &
Bazer, 1993). In this section the processes of decision
making by the social workers, as accounted by them in
interviews, informal interactions and case records, are
set out. These processes often proved to be elusive to
the social workers. Each case was complicated and
with each the social worker had an in-depth
279

Holland
involvement. However, upon analysis of the data,
some patterns and themes of decision making emerged
which spun common threads between the assessments.
Two main patterns of decision making are
discernible. I have labelled these scientific observation
and reflective evaluation. For the purposes of clarity,
they will initially be described in the ways in which they
differ from each other most sharply: the stance of the
assessing social worker and the timing of the decision
making. However, to maintain in this discussion a
framework of two separate decision-making models
might risk exaggeration of the differences. There are
many shared elements in decision making through the
case studies as a whole. Instead, these two ways of
deciding might be seen as tendencies or constellations of
factors rather than separate models with clear
boundaries. As shall be seen below, the differences
between these two ways of deciding relates primarily to
how the social workers understand the process and how
they explain or justify their decision making to a variety
of audiences. Foucault’s concept of discourse provides a
useful means of analysis here. He labelled the ways of
giving meaning to the world and organising social
institutions and processes as discourses or discursive
fields (Weedon, 1997). I wish to suggest that there are
two main discursive fields of decision making operating
here. Within each discourse are favoured methods of
decision making, although some of these methods differ
little in content. It is how they are understood and
explained that places them within one discourse or
another.
(i) Scientific observation
The key elements of this discourse may be sum-
marised as follows. Social workers describe
themselves as maintaining an objectivity and distance
from the family under assessment. They see the key
aims of the assessment as gathering facts and evidence
about a family situation and making a decision based
on the information gathered. They would avoid
reaching a decision until after all information has
been gathered and the decision would be made by
weighing up the positive factors against the negative,
using decision tools and validating their results by
Table 1. Two discourses of decision making.
Decision discourse Stance Aims
Scientific observation Objectivity Gathering information:
Distance facts and evidence
Making decisions
Reflective evaluation Independence, but In-depth knowledge
expecting a close Reaching judgements
engagement with the Providing explanation
family
280
14682397, 1999, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2397.00094 by Egyptian National Sti. Network (Enstinet), Wiley Online Library on [19/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
consulting with others. Each of these aspects will now
be described in greater detail.
Stance and aims of the social worker
Within this discourse the social worker adopts a stance
of neutral observer of the family situation. The social
worker is the professional expert who will use methods
such as observation and measurement in order to form
a professional opinion about the family. An aim of the
assessment is to ascertain the ‘‘facts’’ about a situation.
An analysis of these facts will lead to a clear decision
about which course of action will be in the best
interests of the child or children involved. Social
workers emphasise the clear, planned and structured
nature of their work. The clear structure is firmly in
the hands of the social worker. In this discourse social
workers are aware of their statutory power and use it
overtly. Although the principle of ‘‘partnership’’
between clients and social workers is dominant in
official guidance (see, for example, Department of
Health, 1995), the social workers operating here will
see themselves as ‘‘realists’’ in terms of the nature of
the power relationship between social workers and
parents in child protection procedures. Here, it is seen
as fairer and more honest to be clear about their power
than to maintain a pretence about an equality of
relationship. Fairness and justice in the process is
created by an openness and clarity with families
regarding the concerns about them and the
expectations which they must fulfil during the
assessment time period. Families thus have a clear
opportunity to respond to the challenges laid out by the
social worker. In a general interview about
comprehensive assessments, a social worker described
an assessment she had completed a few months earlier.
So it was a clear case of, ‘‘Yes, I see what you say,
but this is what you do. There were plenty of
warnings, etc.’’. And in each of those six
components, the mother failed at being able to
maintain... you could get to first base in each of
those six requirements as it were, so it was a
sequential thing and she accepted the end of it:
‘‘This is what we’ve done, Mrs X has been able to
identify but not been able to actually carry through;
Timing Methods
Decision delayed until the Weighing up
end Decision tools
Check with others
Ongoing evaluation Evaluation ``pulled together'' at
Outcomes emerge the end
Decision tools
Check with others
ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare 1999

the recommendations are blah, blah, blah’’. That
was very simple. (General interview with social
worker, Laura, unidentified assessment: author’s
emphasis.)
Here, the social worker is able to justify the fairness
of the decision through the clear and open manner in
which ‘‘Mrs X’’ was treated. Parton (1998) argues that
in the increasingly proceduralised world of social work
assessment the underlying assumption is that risk can
be calculated. In the extract above, notions of
scientific calculation and testing are invoked through
the use of phrases such as ‘‘first base’’, ‘‘failed’’ and
‘‘components’’.
A key aim for the social worker within this discursive
field is objectivity, and this is carried out by maintaining
distance between the social worker and the family being
assessed, denying any feelings about the client family
which might influence the resulting recommendation.
This is a difficult aim for many social workers;
therefore, sometimes a distance has to be created when
the time for decision making has arrived.
Sometimes, particularly in supervision, people
think, ‘‘Oh God I have got all this information,
what do I do with this now?’’ You know, ‘‘How do
I?’’ Particularly if you have been working with that
family, say, ten or twelve weeks then you can come
to know the family quite well. And sometimes it is
hard to sort of stand back and look at it critically
really, and evaluate what you have done and what
does all that mean. (Social work manager, Cathy,
general interview.)
Timing and method of the decision
The decision of what to recommend is usually located
at the end of the assessment within this discourse. The
facts and observations have been gathered and brought
together in a fair and neutral manner. The social
worker will then make her decision about what to
recommend. To do this she may weigh up the positives
and negatives. This may be done by listing them side
by side, although as Waterhouse and Carnie (1992)
found, this will not mean that each element will be
equally weighted. The assessment of Ms James
provides an example of a social worker ‘‘weighing
up’’ in decision making. She appears to have listed the
‘‘positive signs’’ and ‘‘areas for development’’ with
the help of her supervisor.
Interviewer: How did you come to your
recommendation?
Gita: There were some positive signs the last
session or two. It was difficult to get to a decision.
Some work could be done before court. But when
ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare 1999
14682397, 1999, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2397.00094 by Egyptian National Sti. Network (Enstinet), Wiley Online Library on [19/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Child protection decision making
we came to summarise the ‘‘Areas for
Development’’, the list went on and on. I had a
long discussion with my supervisor and the play
worker. We looked at the section in the Orange
Book, the questions for social workers. I did a
presentation (to Local Authority Social Worker and
own managers). I thought about the safety of
Patrick. Can he wait for his mother to change?
(Interview with Gita, social worker. James family
assessment.)
Fourteen risks were listed as bullet points at the end
of the assessment report for court. The length of the
list of risk factors made with her supervisor appears to
have been central to the final decision. Similarly,
Farmer and Owen (1995) found that the listing of
concerns was the most common form of risk
assessment in the cases in their study. This decision
model bears some resemblance to a traditional ‘‘costs-
benefits’’ model derived originally from economics
(McGrew & Wilson, 1982) where it is assumed that
the facts about a decision area are assembled and then
weighed up in order to reach a decision. However,
Gita also used two other methods: a decision ‘‘tool’’
contained within the ‘‘Orange Book’’, and consultation
with others.
Use of decision ``tools''
Often, a decision tool of some kind will be used. Some
of these consist of rather more elaborate ways with
which to list the perceived positives and negatives but
factors are weighted or placed on a continuum or
matrix. An element of calculation may be introduced.
Such tools produce an aura of measure and scientific
objectivity to the decision making. However, social
workers use them in the only way which is open to
them, to lay out their opinions in a structured manner
and to make a rough or best guess of a numerical
representation of the child’s safety. These tools do
provide a means for the social worker to take part in
structured thinking about a case, and to display their
opinions about a case transparently. They do not
provide a means to calculate the ‘‘answer’’ to what
should happen to a child and their family.
The most common decision ‘‘tool’’ was that
contained in the ‘‘Orange Book’’ (Department of
Health, 1988). Here a set of four analytical questions is
asked, and a double-paged grid allows for the
information gathered to be summarised and laid out.
Here again, no method of coming up with a definitive
answer is possible (or suggested). Instead, it is implied
that the right answer will emerge or become clear if
the social worker systematically applies herself to the
collecting of information and reflection in the manner
recommended (Parton, Thorpe & Wattam, 1997).
281

Holland
Lastly, under this scientific discourse, the views of
others are sought to confirm or reinforce the social
worker’s decision. The views of peers and supervisors
are sought for private reassurance, the views of outside
‘‘experts’’, especially medical professionals, are
invoked to add scientific credibility to the decision.
(ii) Reflective Evaluation
Social workers’ ways of describing their decision
making using the discourse of reflective evaluation
may be summarised as follows. Here, social workers
are likely to emphasise their close engagement with
the family under assessment. The aims of the
assessment include gaining in-depth knowledge of
the family and reaching a judgement about what
should happen next. There is an emphasis on reaching
an explanation for the family’s difficulties. The social
worker’s final judgement is one that has gradually
emerged during the assessment. The method of
decision making is one of ongoing evaluation ‘‘pulled
together’’ at the end. Like the previous discourse,
social workers here describe the use of decision tools
and consultation with colleagues, although their use
will have different aims. Each of these elements will
be described in detail below.
Stance and aims of the social worker
This discourse of decision making shares many of
the elements of scientific observation. The social
worker is still aiming for independence but in-depth
knowledge is mentioned more than distance and
objectivity, and evolving evaluation more than
suspending judgement until the end of the assess-
ment.
Although within this discourse social workers
maintain that their value base in relation to the family
under assessment is neutral, objective and fair, their
position in relation to the parents is not one of distance
but of in-depth knowledge and involvement. A key
aim is an early and close engagement of the family in
the assessment. As one social worker puts it:
You are hopefully engaging with that person on
such a level that they are able to share with you
those darker sides or those areas of their life that
there is conflict and difficulty. (General interview
with Brian, social worker.)
Through the scientific discourse the social worker
cites the setting of clear boundaries and conditions as
the means of being fair to families. The client is
informed of the results of the assessment at the end of
the structured process. Under reflective evaluation the
fairness comes from providing feedback to the client
about the evolving opinion of the social worker.
282
14682397, 1999, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2397.00094 by Egyptian National Sti. Network (Enstinet), Wiley Online Library on [19/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
George described this process when discussing the
Myers family assessment:
I like to give people a good opportunity but what I
try to do is to try and make sense of, evaluate it as I
go along really. Well this concerns me or this is
positive or this is negative. So when you come to
the end of it you know it is still painful and I
remember sharing the report with mum, it was
painful for her. There should be no real surprises for
either of you really you know. (Interview with
George, social worker, Myers family assessment.)
By utilising decision methods of in-depth
knowledge and ongoing evaluation, the social worker
will expect to be able to reach a professional
judgement about a family situation, and at times, to
be able to provide an explanation of how a family has
reached their current difficult situation.
Judgement
Within the discourse of reflective evaluation the
notion of reaching a judgement about a case appeared
to be often stronger for social workers than the concept
of ‘‘decision’’. In the passage below, the social worker
aligns judgement with ‘‘making sense’’ during an
assessment.
What I try to address is, I try to make, I try to
evaluate and make sense of all the work I do. So I
don’t think that evaluating outcomes, making sense
of it, making judgements is just something that you
do at the end. For me it is something that you do all
the time. And what I try to do with, like day to day
recording, is to try to, even if it is just a couple of
paragraphs, try to make some sense of what people
have said to me. (General interview with George,
social worker.)
Judgement also appeared to be closely aligned to
‘‘getting a feeling’’ about a case. Social workers found
this hard to explain, there appeared to be less of an
acceptable vocabulary in currency than when
explaining processes using the scientific discourse. In
the following excerpt, Laura has been asked how she
reaches recommendations in an assessment:
Right, yeah. Erm . . . (pause). Draw a lot on my own
experience. I don’t rely on that but I must admit
that’s the things that tend because I’ve been
working with families in social work for twenty-
two years – tend to sort of . . . you get feelings about
what’s good enough parenting, but then back that
up by looking at pieces of research. (General
interview with Laura, social worker.)
Similarly George, when discussing the Myers
family assessment, acknowledges that he too uses
ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare 1999
 14682397, 1999, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2397.00094 by Egyptian National Sti. Network (Enstinet), Wiley Online Library on [19/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Child protection decision making

gut feeling or some sort of sense of the case to guide relationships as an adult. Despite there being clearly
his recommendations: documented harmful behaviours in this case, the social
workers chose to include in their assessment some
It is just that when you are so closely involved with
attempt at reflecting on the assessment material and
a case you get the feeling, I know you have to offer
attempting to draw up an explanation for the
facts and evidence but you do get a sort of sense
behaviours noted.
don’t you, a strange sort of it is hard to quantify but
you get a sense of, a gut feeling almost of well you
know this person isn’t going to be good enough in Timing and methods of the decision
the short term you know. (Interview with George,
The intermediary evaluations provide a guide to
social worker, regarding Myers family assessment.)
further assessment lines of enquiry as well as an
For both social workers there appears to have been indication to both social worker and client of the likely
an element of insecurity in naming this aspect of direction of the final recommendations. For example,
decision making. The statements about feeling were the assessment recommendation concerning the Baker
immediately followed by claims that one must also use family was made after 12 months of assessment but,
‘‘facts and evidence’’ such as research findings. The during an interview, the social worker, Geraldine,
social workers here use the language of the scientific revealed that she was considering recommending that
discourse to qualify their statements. This might the child be returned home much earlier:
suggest that the scientific discourse is the dominant
Interviewer: How soon were you thinking you
one, a theme that will be explored further below.
would be making this recommendation?
Geraldine: After about three months. After contact
The role of explanation increased and I did more sessions.
Whilst for some social workers the process described
Workers talking about their decision making within
above, of getting a feel for a case through in-depth
this discourse, as with the social workers
knowledge, will mainly reside in the spheres of the
understanding their work within a scientific discourse,
family’s current and future situations, some social
may use decision ‘‘tools’’ to structure their evidence
workers will also attempt to reach an explanation of
and thinking. However, they are less likely to employ
how the family’s difficulties arose. Howe (1996) has
scientistic language or attempt to calculate the level of
argued that current social work practice is mainly
risk within a family. Rather, decisions are seen to
situated at the ‘‘surface’’, with a concentration on
emerge.
evidence and behaviour rather than explanation.
Within the reflective evaluation discourse, again,
However, within the discourse of reflective evaluation,
the opinions of other professionals are sought. Here
social workers can be seen to be still acting as
there is sometimes the belief that the assessment
‘‘applied social scientists’’ (Howe, 1996: 77) as they
recommendation is the opinion of the assessing social
seek explanations of how and why the family has
worker, albeit one based on a careful and detailed
reached this point of crisis. For example in the
knowledge of the family situation. The reflective
assessment of the Brown family, the social workers
evaluator’s aims might be to check the internal
assessing the family appear to have spent much time
consistency of her reasoning, rather than the scientific
and energy in trying to explain how the mother and
observer’s wish to gain others’ opinions on how best to
stepfather had come to harm their daughter.
weigh up the evidence. Any attempt to seek
Mr Brown’s relationship with his parents reflects on corroboration of views might be seen as a common-
his subsequent relationship with Kathleen and his sense reasoning device (Wattam, 1992).
perhaps misguided attempts at being a parent to her
. . . His primary adult relationship is with his father
whom he perceives as being in poor health with heart The relationship between the two discourses
problems . . . Mr Brown may have used Kathleen’s
The discourses of scientific observation and reflective
‘‘emergencies’’ in a similar way, not least as a gross
evaluation have been presented above as the two key
short cut to assuming and expressing parental
ways in which social workers understand and explain
responsibility. (Extract from assessment report,
the decision-making process. It is not suggested that
Brown family assessment, Social Worker: Sylvia.)
all social workers consistently place themselves within
This passage follows a longer section in which Mr one of these discourses and understand this as the way
Brown’s troubled childhood is outlined and it is they carry out every assessment. Most social workers
speculated that his lack of positive relationships as a seem to understand and discuss their work through
child have led him to be unable to form appropriate both discourses, switching from one to the other in

ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare 1999 283

Holland
particular circumstances. The use of both discourses to
explain decision making was noted in both the Family
Centre and the SSD, with the scientific observation
discourse dominating in both sites. In this section I
shall explore the circumstances in which social
workers might use one or other discourse to explain
and understand their work and in doing so argue that
scientific observation is the dominant discourse in
these assessments.
In general, the discourse of reflective evaluation
appears to be used when engagement of the adults in
the family has been successful and in-depth discussion
on a wide range of issues, especially those involving
personal reflection on the part of the parent, has been
possible. If the information gained about the case
appears to mainly point in one direction, and the
situation does not appear too complex, then the social
worker may feel at ease to explain her recom-
mendation through the discourse of reflective
evaluation.
However, such cases were rare in this study. Only
four of the cases met all of the above criteria, three of
which involved children already living at home and
where court proceedings were not in place. It seems that
the discourse of scientific observation is dominant for
these social workers, in particular when communicating
with other agencies, especially the courts. If the social
worker is concerned that her decision may appear
impenetrable to the court, other agencies, her managers
or the family, then the discourse and methods of
scientific observation is used to understand and present
the decision-making process. Some social workers made
this explicit when discussing how they transform their
work for a court report.
I practice psycho-dynamically therefore I do
believe that what happens to us in our past effects
how we are so I would be looking at what is taking
this person through this process. So there would be
that going on but in terms of conclusions and
recommendations, I would be seeking evidence to
underpin those. Because otherwise they are
challenged and are weak. (Interview with Laura
re. Jones family assessment.)
Similarly, another social worker appeared to see a
conflict between evidence that was acceptable for the
court and personal feelings or judgements about a
case. Following the court hearing for the James family
assessment, she remarked:
I wonder about her. I saw some spark in court
which made me think ‘‘maybe she could do it if she
was lifted out of that environment’’. The court
evidence said No, No, No, but I looked at her and
wondered. (Comment from Gita, social worker, to
interviewer. Field notes 11/3/98.)
284
14682397, 1999, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2397.00094 by Egyptian National Sti. Network (Enstinet), Wiley Online Library on [19/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
During a consultation meeting between local
authority solicitors and family centre staff, social
workers appeared to receive the message that they
should provide facts and evidence rather than relying
on opinions.
Solicitor: Research is very valuable (it) heads off
the advocate who knows little about social work . . .
It’s clear you are working to a body of knowledge,
not just something you thought up last Friday night.
It establishes expertise . . . List the documents you
have read, it’s all lessening the chances of being
caught out. (Field notes 25/6/97.)
There did indeed appear to be a fear of being
‘‘caught out’’ amongst social workers who understood
their work through the discourse of reflective
evaluation; a sense that the use of scientific and
objective methods and ways of explaining the work
are superior and dominant.
It might be suggested that the discourse of scientific
observation is the default position for social workers.
It is the discourse through which they feel their
decisions are more likely to be judged valid and which
responds more closely to the expectations of the court
and official guidance. However in some cases the
social worker appears to be able to justify and explain
her decision making within the reflective evaluation
discourse, to herself and others. In these cases the
social worker engages the client early on in the
assessment process, and is able to see a decision
emerging which appears easily justifiable in the light
of the in-depth knowledge gained by the social worker.
Possibly the clearest link between the two
discourses is the ‘‘Orange Book’’ (Department of
Health, 1988) which all the social workers in this study
used as a guide for both methods of assessment and
decision making. This guidance suggests a largely
verbal assessment, which includes the exploration of
attitudes, feelings and the past. This might be seen to
sit largely within the discourse of reflective evaluation.
It also contains suggestions for the use of checklists
and other pseudo-scientific measures that might be
placed within the discourse of scientific observation.
Therefore any social worker using the ‘‘Orange Book’’
as central guidance may end up using a number of
decision-making methods which might be understood
in more than one of the discourses.
Discussion
The two discourses of decision making form close
parallels to the dominant models in professional
practice identified by Schön (1991). He suggests that
the dominant, but fading, view of the professional’s
role is that of ‘‘Technical Rationality’’ described as
‘‘instrumental problem solving made rigorous by the
ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare 1999

application of scientific theory and technique’’ (Schön,
1999: 21). In a practice model closely associated with
positivist epistemology, the professional applies
theory to practice through the use of professional
skills. In an alternative model, named ‘‘Reflection-in-
Action’’, Schön argues that professionals act as
researchers who are concerned with the issue of
problem setting as well of that of problem solving. By
reflecting through their practice they attempt to make
sense of problems of uncertainty, context and
complexity.
Perhaps the largest potential difference between
the two discourses identified in this study might have
been located in social workers’ ontological positions,
that is, their understanding of the nature of the status
of reality. Schön suggests that the reflecting-in-action
practitioner has an understanding that much of the
world with which we are interacting is constructed:
‘‘These inquirers encounter a problematic situation
whose reality they must construct’’ (Schön, 1991:
165). The professionals who work within the model
of technical rationality are applying objective
theories obtained from controlled experiment
research to problems that are objective and real.
However the social workers carrying out the
comprehensive assessments did not display a marked
ontological split when discussing the status of the
knowledge obtained. The scientific observation
discourse emphasises distance and the assembling
of facts. But to the social worker operating within the
reflective evaluation discourse, with the stance of
closeness to the client and in-depth knowledge, the
information obtained is still real and factual. Indeed,
the social worker has come closer to the ‘‘truth’’
about a family because of her closeness to them. And,
whilst a few social workers might emphasise that
their knowledge of a family amounts to a personal
and possibly idiosyncratic opinion, such claims stand
out for their rarity. Therefore, the adopting of
different stances towards the client and different
processes of decision making, each in the end serves
the same aim: to establish the truth about a family
situation. The security of operating within a decision-
making discourse which a social worker feels is
justifiable to herself and other audiences allows the
social worker to express a confidence in the final
decision of what to recommend.
I would like to think that every one would have
reached the same decision. I’d have concerns about
that person’s judgement if they said, ‘‘Oh yeah,
they should go back’’. And I like to think I’m fair.
(Field notes 29/8/98. Social Worker, Brian,
discussing the Cooke family assessment.)
At some levels, the two discourses might also be
seen as linked to the traditional (although now rather
ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare 1999
14682397, 1999, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2397.00094 by Egyptian National Sti. Network (Enstinet), Wiley Online Library on [19/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Child protection decision making
outmoded) split in social research methods, that of
quantitative and qualitative approaches. Indeed, the
clearest divide in the social work literature on
assessment can be seen between advocates of
quantitative methods in assessment (Ayoub, Jacewitz,
Gold & Milner, 1983; English & Pecora, 1994;
Sheldon, 1987) and those who favour an in-depth
qualitative approach (Franklin & Jordan, 1995; Meyer,
1993; Sheppard, 1995). As was seen above, social
workers using the discourse of scientific observation
used the language of measurement and testing, whilst
the reflective evaluators favoured in-depth knowledge.
However, little discernible difference could be seen in
assessment methods between social workers
describing their work through different discourses.
Essentially, the comprehensive assessment over-
whelmingly involves the use of qualitative methods
to carry out the assessment and to make decisions. All
of the assessments involved in-depth interviewing and
observation methods and all of the decisions appear to
have been mainly made on the basis of some form of
qualitative analysis of the material gathered. As was
seen above, the use of decision tools involves little
more than the provision of structure for the social
worker’s thinking about a case, a way of laying out the
qualitative data about the family. The final decision
will not be a calculation or measurement, but a
judgement reached by the social worker.
Despite the inherently qualitative nature of the task
of comprehensive assessment, it has been suggested
above that the ‘‘default’’ discourse, or that which is
perceived to be safer and of higher status, is that of
scientific objectivity. It has been claimed that faith in
experts is diminishing in late modernity (Giddens,
1990) or the ‘‘risk society’’ (Beck, 1992). The
replacement of the authority of professional
knowledge with a preoccupation with the
management of risk through procedure and regulation
has been applied to the field of social work by several
commentators (for example, Howe, 1994; Parton,
1996). However, Smith and White (1997) have
challenged this analysis, suggesting that social work
has not changed fundamentally and that social
workers have not become technocrats. The social
workers conducting the comprehensive assessments,
whilst relying heavily on procedures and formal
guidance to form a framework for decision making,
appeared to retain faith in both scientific ‘‘certainty’’
and individual professional judgement. Whether
understanding their work within the discourse of
scientific objectivity (where they would be more
likely to invoke scientific knowledge and measures)
or that of reflective evaluation (where professional
judgement would be more prominent), social workers
had the expectation that they would be able to discern
the truth about a family. The key guidance to the
285

Holland
assessments, the ‘‘Orange Book’’ (Department of
Health, 1988) reflects this assumption that a truth is
discernible. Whilst many points of guidance in the
‘‘Orange Book’’ encourage reflective analysis, they
do imply that once the assessment has been carried
out thoroughly, including time for reflection and
checking, then the ‘‘right’’ answer will somehow
emerge (Parton, 1998).
Conclusion
In this paper the process of how the social workers
come to a decision of what to recommend in the
assessment report has been analysed. Two decision
discourses have been identified. The term ‘‘decision
discourse’’ has been used rather than ‘‘decision
model’’ or ‘‘decision method’’ because, whilst the
social workers were seen to use two different ways of
understanding and explaining their decisions, many of
the methods of deciding did not differ greatly.
This case study, whilst limited to a small and
geographically specific sample, may be seen as
relating to wider debates about social work
assessment. The difficulty experienced by some
practitioners in knowing whether to place their
assessment and decision-making skills within the
realms of professional, reflective judgement or
scientific calculation, reflects many of the dilemmas
facing the social work profession. It appears that
assessment, if increasingly routinised, standardised
and distanced from qualitative reflection, may become
a task that may be carried out by those with other
qualifications or none (Lloyd & Taylor, 1995) as is
already the case with community care assessments in
the UK (Payne, 1995).
To recommend whether a child should be reunited
with his or her parents, or separated from them, is one
of the most profound decisions a social worker is
required to make. The discussion above has hopefully
illustrated some of the complexities in the
understandings of the assessment task in child
protection work amongst social workers, highlighting
the challenge for those engaged in policy making in
contemporary social work. To aid practitioners in this
task, policy makers have tended to provide
increasingly structured assessment models that limit
social workers’ ability to reflect and seek
explanations for the complex family situations facing
them (Howe, 1996). An alternative, but challenging,
way forward for social work policy makers and
educators might be:
• To allow social workers to discard the goal of
‘‘scientific’’ certainty and to acknowledge the
complexity and uncertainty involved in decision
making of this nature.
286
14682397, 1999, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2397.00094 by Egyptian National Sti. Network (Enstinet), Wiley Online Library on [19/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
• To give more credence to professional judgement,
when it is based on sound analytic principles and a
reflexive stance.
Acknowledgement
I wish to thank Ian Butler for his helpful advice and
support during the preparation of this paper.
References
Ayoub C, Jacewitz MM, Gold RG, Milner JS (1983).
Assessment of a program’s effectiveness in selecting
individuals ‘‘at risk’’ for problems in parenting. Journal of
Clinical Psychology 39: 334–339.
Banach M (1998). The Best Interests of the Child: Decision-
making factors. Families in Society 79: 331–340.
Beck U (1992). From Industrial Society to the Risk Society:
Questions of Survival, Social Structure and Ecological
Enlightenment. Theory, Culture and Society 9: 99–123.
Bloor M (1978). On the Routinised Nature of Work in People-
Processing Agencies: The Case of Adeno-Tonsillectomy
Assessments in ENT Out-Patients Clinics. In: Davies A, ed.
Relationships Between Doctors and Patients. Farnborough,
Saxon House.
Clifford D, Cropper A (1997). Parallel Processes in
Researching and Assessing Potential Carers. Child and
Family Social Work 2: 235–246.
Colton M, Drury C,Williams M (1995). Staying Together.
Aldershot, Arena.
Cuzzi LF, Holden G, Grob GG, Bazer C (1993). Decision
Making in Social Work: A Review. Social Work in Health
Care 18: 1–22.
DePanfilis D, Scannapieco M (1994). Assessing the Safety of
Children at Risk of Maltreatment: Decision-Making Models.
Child Welfare 73: 229–245.
Department of Health (1988). Protecting Children: A Guide for
Social Workers Undertaking a Comprehensive Assessment.
London, HMSO.
Department of Health (1995). The Challenge of Partnership in
Child Protection: Practice Guide. London, HMSO.
Dingwall R (1989). Some problems about predicting child
abuse and neglect. In Stevenson O, ed. Child Abuse:
Professional Practice and Public Policy. Hemel Hempstead,
Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Doueck HJ, Bronson DE, Levine M (1992). Evaluating Risk
Assessment Implementation in Child Protection: Issues for
Consideration. Child Abuse and Neglect 16: 637–646.
Egelund T (1996). Bureaucracy or professionalism? The work
tools of child protection services. Scandinavian Journal of
Social Welfare 5: 165–174.
English DJ, Pecora PJ (1994). Risk Assessment as a Practice
Method in Child Protective Services. Child Welfare 73:
451–473.
Farmer E, Owen M (1995). Child Protection Practice: Private
Risks and Public Remedies. London, HMSO.
Franklin C, Jordan C (1995). Qualitative Assessment: A
Methodological Review. Families in Society 76: 281–295.
Giddens A (1990). The Consequences of Modernity.
Cambridge, Polity Press.
Howe D (1992). Child Abuse and the Bureaucratisation of
Social Work. Sociological Review 40: 491–508.
Howe D (1994). Modernity, Postmodernity and Social Work.
British Journal of Social Work 24: 513–532.
Howe D (1996). Surface and Depth in Social Work Practice. In:
Parton N, ed. Social Theory, Social Change and Social
Work. London, Routledge.
ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare 1999

Lindsey D (1994). The Welfare of Children. Oxford, Oxford
University Press.
Lloyd M, Taylor C (1995). From Hollis to the Orange Book:
Developing a Holistic Model of Social Work Assessment in
the 1990s. British Journal of Social Work 25: 691–710.
London Borough of Brent (1985). A Child in Trust: The Report
of the Panel of Inquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding
the Death of Jasmine Beckford. London, London Borough of
Brent.
McBeath G, Webb SA (1990–1991). Child Protection
Language as Professional Ideology in Social Work. Social
Work and Social Sciences Review 2: 122–145.
McGrew AG, Wilson, MJ (1982). Decision-making:
Approaches and Analysis. Manchester, Manchester
University Press.
McKeganey N, Macpherson I, Hunter DJ (1988). How ‘‘They’’
Decide: Exploring Professional Decision-Making. Research
Policy and Planning 6: 15–19.
Merrick D (1996). Social Work and Child Abuse. London,
Routledge.
Meyer C (1993). Assessment in Social Work Practice. New
York, Columbia University Press.
O’Hagan K, Dillenburger K (1995). The Abuse of Women
within Childcare Work. Buckingham, Open University
Press.
Packman J, Randall J (1989). Decision-making at the Gateway
to Care. In: Stevenson O, ed. Child Abuse: Professional
Practice and Public Policy. Hemel Hempstead, Harvester
Wheatsheaf.
Parton N (1991). Governing the Family: Child Care, Child
Protection and the State. London, MacMillan.
Parton N (1996). Social work, risk and ‘‘the blaming system’’.
In: Parton N, ed. Social Theory, Social Change and Social
Work. London, Routledge.
Parton N (1998). Risk, Advanced Liberalism and Child
Welfare: The Need to Rediscover Uncertainty and
Ambiguity. British Journal of Social Work 28: 5–27.
ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare 1999
14682397, 1999, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2397.00094 by Egyptian National Sti. Network (Enstinet), Wiley Online Library on [19/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Child protection decision making
Parton N, Thorpe D, Wattam C (1997). Child Protection, Risk
and the Moral Order. Basingstoke, Macmillan.
Payne M (1995). Social Work and Community Care.
Basingstoke, Macmillan.
Pozatek E (1994). The Problem of Certainty: Clinical Social
Work in the Postmodern Era. Social Work 39: 396–403.
Schön D (1991). The Reflective Practitioner. (2nd edition).
Aldershot, Arena.
Sheldon B (1987). The Psychology of Incompetence. In: Blom-
Cooper L, ed. After Beckford: Essays on Themes Connected
With the Case of Jasmine Beckford. London, Royal
Holloway and Bedford New College.
Sheppard M (1995). Social Work, Social Science and Practice
Wisdom. British Journal of Social Work 25: 265–293.
Smith C, White S (1997). Parton, Howe and Postmodernity: A
Critical Comment on Mistaken Identity. British Journal of
Social Work 27: 275–295.
Stake RE (1994). Case Studies. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS,
eds. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Newbury Park,
Sage.
Strauss A, Corbin J (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research:
Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury
Park, Sage.
Wald MS, Woolverton M (1990). Risk Assessment: The
Emperor’s New Clothes? Child Welfare LXIX: 483–511.
Waterhouse L, Carnie J (1992). Assessing Child Protection
Risk. British Journal of Social Work 22: 47–60.
Wattam C (1992). Making a Case in Child Protection. Harlow,
Essex, NSPCC/Longman.
Weedon C (1997). Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist
Theory. (2nd edition). Oxford, Blackwell.
White S (1997). Beyond Retroduction?: Hermeneutics,
Reflexivity, and Social Work Practice. British Journal of
Social Work 27: 739–754.
Yin RK (1984). Case Study Research: Design and Methods.
Beverly Hills, CA, Sage.
287