Reducing Child Protection Error in Social Work: Towards a Holistic-Rational Perspective

Abstract

Social work in the United Kingdom remains embroiled in concerns about child protection error. The serious injury or death of vulnerable children continues to evince much consternation in the public and private spheres. Governmental responses to these concerns invariably draw on technocratic solutions involving more procedures, case management systems, information technology and bureaucratic regulation. Such solutions flow from an implicit use of instrumental rationality based on a 'means-end' logic. While bringing an important perspective to the problem of child protection error, instrumental rationality has been overused limiting discretion and other modes of rational inquiry. This paper argues that the social work profession should apply an enlarged form of rationality comprising not only the instrumental-rational mode but also the critical-rational, affective-rational and communicative-rational forms. It is suggested that this combined, conceptual arsenal of rational inquiry leads to a gestalt which has been termed the holistic-rational perspective. It is also argued that embracing a more rounded perspective such as this might offer greater opportunities for reducing child protection error.

Dimensions for argument and variability in child protection decision-making

“…In the naturalist decision-making approach, paying attention to both the intuitive thinking that professionals use in practice and the organisational and contextual elements in which such decisions occur is essential. Currently, there is also a strong plea for the introduction of a holistic-rational perspective in which professionals consider the emotional elements elicited when issuing judgements and decisions, which can be quite useful for assessing risk in different situations (Houston, 2015).…”

The Role of Contextual Factors in the Influence of ICT on Street-Level Discretion

“…Rationality pressures make managers prioritize productivity where the discretionary power of streetlevel bureaucrats suffers [6,7]. Houston [24] argues that rationality objectives emphasize efficiency excessively on behalf of the quality of service delivery.…”

How everyone’s business can become no one’s business: A systems study of interprofessional referral to child contact centres

“…Wider trends in managing child protection systems have sought to address the challenges of this work through a burgeoning administrative structure focused on technocratic solutions (Houston, 2015). Mirroring this trend, solutions to the problem of communication failures between processionals contributing to the deaths of children in care have tended to focus on the technical transfer of information, instituting tools to support this purpose (Department for Health and Social Security, 1982;Department of Health, 1991 ;Laming, 2003;Reder & Duncan, 2013).…”

“…Mirroring this trend, solutions to the problem of communication failures between processionals contributing to the deaths of children in care have tended to focus on the technical transfer of information, instituting tools to support this purpose (Department for Health and Social Security, 1982;Department of Health, 1991 ;Laming, 2003;Reder & Duncan, 2013). Tools may include, for example, procedure manuals, assessment frameworks and decision making tools (Hall & Slembrouck, 2007;Houston, 2015;Munro, 2011;Reder & Duncan, 2003). Research in child protection systems (Munro, 2011) as well as other high-risk industries (Sidney Dekker, Hollnagel, Woods, & Cook, 2008) has demonstrated that an overreliance on a technocratic approach may not only be ineffective in securing a safer system, but may also produce unwanted consequences.…”

“…The technocratic approach has been critiqued fundamentally because, while tools certainly have a place, a singular focus on them ignores the cognitive, emotional, social and interactional elements involved in working together to protection children (Hall & Slembrouck, 2007;Houston, 2015;Munro, 2011;Reder & Duncan, 2003). As various authors have pointed out, the technical transfer of information is only one aspect of interprofessional communication (Fish et al, 2008;Gillingham & Humphreys, 2010;Hall & Slembrouck, 2009;Munro, 2005;Reder & Duncan, 2003).…”