Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T07:13:00.534Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

E-technology and information sharing in child welfare: Learning from the English experience

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 February 2016

Marie Connolly ,
Christopher Hall ,
Sue Peckover  and
Sue White
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The use of e-technology as a way of improving communication and collaboration across services in child welfare has generated significant interest in recent years. The Information Sharing and Assessment (ISA) is an e-technology initiative that has been introduced by the British Government as an attempt to promote better information sharing between professionals, early identification and multi-professional interventions. This article looks at one aspect of ISA, the introduction of the Common Assessment Framework (CAF). It considers some of the issues relating to the introduction and use of the CAF, and discusses some of the ways in which systems of child welfare may learn from the English experience. While acknowledging the potential for e-technology to strengthen practice developments in child welfare, it emphasises the need for careful scrutiny of new developments to ensure that they do not have negative, unintended consequences.

Type
Research Article
Information
Children Australia , Volume 32 , Issue 4 , 2007 , pp. 4 - 8
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brandon, M., Howe, A., Dagley, V., Salter, C., Warren, C. & Black, J. (2006) Evaluating the Common Assessment Framework and Lead Professional Guidance and Implementation in 2005–6, DfSE, London.Google Scholar
Bell, L. (1999) ‘A comparison of multi-disciplinary groups in the UK and New Jersey’, Child Abuse Review, 8(5), (314–324.3.0.CO;2-V>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleaver, H., Barnes, J., Bliss, D. & Cleaver, D. (2004) Developing information sharing and assessment systems. Research Report RR597, DfES, London.Google Scholar
Connolly, M. (2004) Child and family welfare: Statutory responses to children at risk, Te Awatea Press, Christchurch, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Connolly, M. & Doolan, M. (2007) Lives cut short: Child death by maltreatment, Office of the Children’s Commissioner, Wellington, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Department for Education and Skills (2004) Every child matters: Change for children, DfES, London.Google Scholar
Department for Education and Skills (2006) Common Assessment Framework for children and young people: Practitioners’ guide, DfES, London.Google Scholar
Department of Health (2000) A framework for the assessment of children in need and their families, The Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Ferguson, H. (2004) Protecting children in time: Child abuse, child protection and the consequences of modernity, Palgrave, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, C., Slembrouck, S. & Sarangi, S. (2006) Language practices in social work: Categorisation and accountability in child welfare, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Hallett, C. & Birchall, E. (1992) Coordination and child protection: A review of the literature, HMSO, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Hudson, B. (2005) ‘Information sharing and children’s services reform in England: Can legislation change practice?’, Journal of Interprofessional Care, 19(6), (537–546.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mansell, J. (2006) ‘The underlying instability in statutory child protection: Understanding the system dynamics driving risk assurance levels’, Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 28, (97–132.Google Scholar
McIntosh, J.E. (2000) ‘Where service paths cross: Potential for innovative practice’, proceedings of The Way Forward: Children, Young People and Domestic Violence National Forum, April 2000, (87–88, Office of the State of Women for Partnerships Against Domestic Violence, Barton, ACT.Google Scholar
Munro, E. (2002) Effective child protection, Sage, London.Google Scholar
Munro, E. (2005a) ‘Improving practice: Child protection as a systems problem’, Children and Youth Services Review, 27, (375–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, E. (2005b) ‘What tools do we need to improve identification of child abuse?’, Child Abuse Review, 14, (374–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, E. & Parton, N. (2007) ‘Mandatory reporting in child welfare: Developments in England’, Child Abuse Review, 16(1), (5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, L. (2004) ‘Information sharing and assessment (ISA): Can data management reduce risk?’, Children & Society, 18(5), (383–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peckover, S., White, S. & Hall, C. (2006) ‘Making and managing electronic children: E-assessment in child welfare’, paper presented at the Information, Communication and Society Conference, York, September.Google Scholar
Penna, S. (2005) ‘The Children Act: Child protection and social surveillance’, Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 27 (2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, D. (2006) ‘Sowing the seeds of innovation in child protection’, keynote presentation to the 10th Australasian Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect, Wellington.Google Scholar
Spratt, T. (2001) “The influence of a child protection orientation on child welfare practice’, British Journal of Social Work, 31, (933–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomison, A.M. & Stanley, J. (2001) ‘Strategic directions in child protection: Informing policy and practice’, unpublished report for the South Australian Department of Human Services.Google Scholar
Tomison, A.M. (2004) ‘Current issues in child protection policy and practice: Informing the NT Department of Health and Community Services child protection review’, National Child Protection Clearinghouse, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne.Google Scholar