During periods of observation I was able to gather data on workflow management and consider how this cultural practice assisted the ‘filtering out’ of perceived inappropriate referrals. Based on information presented, the filtering out process took place where practitioners identified referrals as not meeting the threshold for intervention. I observed how the duty social worker’s judgement that a referral or CCN did not meet the threshold and/or otherwise required NFA helped keep the number of IAs down. This practice of filtering referrals provided further data illustrating the implicit means by which practitioners’ face-to-face contact with children and families in child protection is mediated as a second-order pursuit. Again, as Broadhurst et al. (2010c) found, my study highlights how a dominant performance culture encourages early categorisation and potentially premature filtering where information is interpreted as incomplete and/or requiring a lower-level response.
Although, through observation of workflow management, data on social workers’ frustrations at having to operate within the constraints of a culture where direct work with children and families was seen as a second-order activity was captured. As the following observation field notes highlight, the main cause of practitioners’ frustrations with workflow cultural rules and practices included: (1) being ‘stuck’ in the office and unable to engage face-to-face with children and families (2) having to prioritise new referrals and/or (3) having to complete IAs speedily to meet agency performance targets:
I feel like everything I do is half arsed, I just do it quickly because I have to, and it feels like a race against the clock all the time [SW: 6]
- 190 -
In my opinion…meeting families and [working on] open cases should be a priority, but they’re not because it’s all about graphs and targets…and I find it really frustrating having to be in the office writing up assessments all the time
[SW: 2]
Here insight into how sense-making in child protection is constrained by organisational priorities including the prioritisation of workflow management and the meeting of performance targets is offered. Throughout my study, where performance targets were identified as being prioritised, social workers’ sense- making and judgement formulations were evidenced as compromised. Examples of this compromise included where practitioners acting as duty social workers were afforded limited time to discuss CCNs with children and families. These constraints in relation to strength of engagement with children and families were evidenced, for example, where cases were categorised as at a lower level due to presenting information. A limited strength of engagement with children and families was also identified where practitioners’ sense-making, judgement and decision-making was accomplished following an IA completed having been based on a single ‘home visit’.
Where referrals remained at a high level and/or were these were received from authoritative sources (e.g. the police or health professionals) some social workers were observed as becoming stressed and/or anxious. In relation to making sense of referrals from authoritative sources, while these were usually seen as a priority, several duty social workers’ sense-making was observed as being reliant on dialogue with the manager. This was observed as encouraging a sense of certitude in cases categorised as ‘more important’ than others due to referral source. Among referral sources identified by participants as less authoritative were those received from
- 191 -
members of the public known as unreliable and/or from professionals known to be risk-anxious.
Although, whatever the source, where referrals remained ambiguous in nature due to a lack of information stress and anxiety continued to be expressed by some duty social workers. Data highlighting this finding on cause of stress and anxiety due to inherent uncertainty in child protection is exemplified within the following comment:
You have just got these referrals to get through, and sometimes it feels really scary and it’s worrying because there is no time to do what needs to be done. I would work much different if I had the time instead of filling in boxes. I need to talk to people, get more information. Working like this makes me feel uncomfortable [Field note extract]
Evidenced here is how sense-making in child protection, where informed by organisational priorities, contrasted with the professional values, ethics and moral reasoning of some practitioners. Also evidenced is the practitioner’s need for a communicative approach to sense-making and how this was compromised by a child protection system that discourages face-to-face contact with children and families. Again, as Broadhurst et al. (2010c) found, this data indicates how some social workers remain concerned about depersonalised practice that discourage reflexive dialogue with children and families. The data also indicates some social workers remain concerned about being required to make sense without information to inform reasoned judgement.
Where cases were deemed as not an immediate priority I observed a standardised practice where letters were forwarded to parents informing them of a referral or CCN.
- 192 -
These letters usually requested parents to contact children’s services so CCN information received could be discussed. With this cultural practice an implicit workflow ‘delay’ and ‘rationing’ tactic was evidenced. Although, despite pressure to filter, delay and ration some referrals I observed how some cases were identified as in need of an immediate response. This was observed in several scenarios including where: (1) it had proven difficult for the practitioner to determine a reason to ‘dispose’ of a referral (2) the information gathered on a referral meant the nature of the concern remained ambiguous and/or incomplete and/or (3) regardless of available information the manager decided further inquiry remained necessary.
Notable was several practitioners’ personal concerns in relation to what one participant described themselves as being a cause of ‘disarray’ to children and families. This type of moral concern about unnecessary family intervention was observed as often more prevalent where the IRT manager was on leave. In such cases, a manager from another area team would be relocated to the IRT. Through observation of the different management styles the data I collected highlighted how acting team managers were identified as either risk-avoidant or risk-taking. The following extract highlights a study participant’s concern for a families’ right to privacy in one case where she was directed to undertake an IA by an acting manager:
Do you not think we take things too far, get involved with every Tom, Dick and Harry? I think we get too involved in far too many people’s lives. I hate it when we have to act when we don’t have to or when we have to because we do not have all the information [Field note extract]
Evidenced here is how sense-making in child protection can involve the utilising of the IA as a risk-avoidant bureaucratic ‘tool’ and risk assessment strategy.
- 193 -
Additionally, this extract presents data on how some practitioners demonstrate a capacity to critically and reflexively question the administrative use of prescriptive policy and practice frameworks. Also demonstrated is how a directive style of management can result in practitioners feeling disempowered and/or stigmatised through intervening into the lives of families reluctantly and/or in a coerced way. In several cases practitioners were observed as becoming frustrated with the acting manager’s judgement and decision-making resulting in them having to either: (1) undertake family interventions and complete IAs when they did not agree with the decision or (2) agreeing to NFA when they felt an IA was necessary. On no occasion was the acting manager’s decision observed as formally challenged by duty social workers. However, as the previous extract indicates, practitioners sometimes disputed the manager’s decision surreptitiously with colleagues.
During the period I was situated within the IRT I was afforded the opportunity to observe several different styles of management utilised by the designated and acting managers. As indicated, where some managers were identified as risk-averse, corresponding with the literature on the influence of managerialism on the practice context (e.g. Lonne et al., 2009), their style of management was observed as monologic and directive. Although, where the designated IRT manager was concerned, the data I collected through observation, interview and personal experience of supervision identified how a more collaborative and/or dialogical approach was adopted. Other management styles identified included where acting managers were prepared to afford more senior practitioners the discretion to formulate judgement and make their own decisions on being presented with CCNs. Here, where sense-making in child protection was encouraged as an independent
- 194 -
accomplishment, some practitioners’ responses to CCNs were observed as being informed by what Archer (2003: 210) describes as an ‘autonomous reflexive’ approach.