The child protection conference: A study of process and an evaluation of the potential for on-line group support

Abstract

The processes underpinning child protection decision-making have been less frequently studied than the consequences of decision outcomes. This paper reports the findings of three investigations into the dynamics and processes involved in reaching decisions about the registration of children as at risk. The three studies reflect an approach which is to triangulate onto the core of decision processes by focusing on different aspects of those processes. Study One reports the findings of a linguistic and discursive analysis of transcripts of child protection conferences which has provided a framework for the second and third studies. Study Two reports on the views of child protection chairpersons about the level of satisfaction felt with process and outcomes of child protection conferences. Study Three describes the outcomes of a trial to support the conference process through the use of a group support system. The findings of the research support those of earlier studies. In addition, a number of process-related issues are identified. The paper concludes that a suitably designed form of online group support has the potential to alleviate the effects of the difficulties in communication which have been identified by this and other studies.

Navigations between regulations and gut instinct: the unveiling of collective memory in decision‐making processes where teenagers are placed in residential care

“…The concept of collective memory as a tool for sharing experiences between colleagues as emerged in several different interviews. Research conducted by Britner and Mossler (2002), Prince et al . (2005) and Kelly & Milner (1996) has emphasized the importance of intra‐professional decision‐making.…”

“…But the lack of evaluations and other more objective criteria to relate the discussion to, means that such decisions can be difficult and uncertain, giving much weight to the more influential actors as indicated by other research (e.g. Prince et al . 2005).…”

“…Having said this, Prince and colleagues (Prince et al . 2005) draw the conclusion from studies of multi‐actor/professional case conferences that ‘groupthink’ in collective processes of decision‐making can be hazardous.…”

Parental Participation in Statutory Child Protection Intervention in Scotland

“…Our findings resonate strongly with these observations. Akin to the findings of others, parents were intimidated by the large number of professionals in attendance and experienced the quasi-legal discursive practices which framed these meetings as intimidating and marginalising (Healy et al, 2011(Healy et al, & 2012Buckely, et al, 2011;Dale, 2004;Prince et al, 2005;Thomson & Thorpe, 2004). While parents fundamentally understood the functions of the case conference at the time of interview and discussed being informed about the nature and structure of case conferences, they also reported that this did not prepare them for the emotional impact of attendance:…”

Parental participation in child protection case conferences

“…The child protection register is a confidential record of the details of children who have been identified as being at risk and in need of a multiagency child protection plan. If the CPCC considers that the criterion for registration has been met, then the child will become subject to a child protection plan (Prince et al, ). Further CPCCs will then be held at regular intervals until the child is either removed into the care of the local authority or is no longer considered at risk of significant harm.…”