School Failure

AHED - Children at Risk in Schools
1/10 Bright Pupils Failed by Gifted and Talented Scheme
83% Unexcited by Education NUT
8/10 Teens say School is Boring and Irrelevant
List from the Guardian re School Violence
School Revolt - Carlisle

York Report Part 4

A range of views was expressed about electronic records. Seven parents did not foresee any 'real’ confidentiality issues, as they trusted professional integrity. Seven were fearful, questioning who would or could access their records and the degree of information that could be viewed.

I always think that people can tap into them; I don’t think they’re entirely safe. I think if you’re going to start messing about sending stuff like that to other people’s computer, I’d be frightened that people can tap in and get the child’s information and I think there’s too much of if, if you’ve got a child with a disability it feels like everybody knows your business, well everybody could now get to know your business. (Parent)

Two parents felt they should have been given an opportunity to consent to electronic storage of their records prior to transfer. In contrast eight were more pragmatic in saying, like the social workers, that both paper and electronic files faced security issues. For three parents, issues of security were not paramount, as they had ‘nothing to hide’. They felt that a certain loss of personal and family privacy was often the price paid for receipt of services. Only four noted that an ability to e-mail information to their social worker would be advantageous.

The potential advantages parents perceived from electronic records were to enable social workers (and professionals from other agencies) to transfer and share information more effectively. For many (nine) this was based upon past experiences of poor information sharing amongst different workers and agencies. Three parents hoped that improved information sharing may reduce constant repetition of information to social workers and to different professionals who do not communicate with one another, as this was both time-consuming and wearying.

Awareness of ICS

Interviews with families were timed to ensure that they focused on an assessment/review under the new ICS system. Families should have received a written copy or summary of the assessment/review within the new ICS format. However most parents (19) had no knowledge of the ICS system, or that their social services department was piloting a new information and recording system. None had received a formal letter from their authority informing them of the introduction of ICS and what it would mean to them. Despite this lack of information, only nine parents wanted more information, based upon the belief they had a ‘right’ to be informed.

I think you should have a written letter [about ICS] beforehand giving an explanation so that you can then say, ‘right, ok, what’s this about and what’s that about’ and like when you’ve come to see me you sent me this beforehand, so if I had any question I could say, ‘ok, can you explain a bit more about his please?’ and then you know, you’re more prepared for it rather than somebody turn up and suddenly say, this is A, B, C and D and you don’t get a chance to think about it, you know. (Parent)

Where parents did not want more information, this was based upon either scepticism that changes are frequently implemented irrespective of their opinion, or they viewed ICS as peripheral. Their key concern was not how information is collected, but rather the results of assessment/review processes - the services that are provided.

None could recollect their child being informed. This was not viewed as problematic as it was felt the introduction of ICS was a relatively abstract concept with very little meaning or relevance for their child in everyday life. It was also acknowledged that it would be difficult for social workers to explain to the children, many of whom had learning disabilities.

Receipt of written information

Eight families felt they received too much information and that it was frequently overwhelming and confusing. It was often unclear if this was information from social services, education or health, as to some parents it all seemed to merge into one.

Social workers expressed a range of views about the depth and quality of written information they felt parents receive post ICS. Over three quarters of parents (18) had received a written copy or summary of their previous assessment/review. Twelve parents commented on the accuracy of their assessment/review report, 11 felt it was accurate and reflected what they had said; one parent felt it was inaccurate and had challenged some statements and requested amendments. Six parents said that written information recently received had been difficult to understand.

Some people can be a bit put off with, you know, if it all gets too technical, too much jargon, you know. I mean some of the headings here: child/young person’s developmental needs/health and then child/young person’s developmental needs/education, emotional and behavioural development, it can be a little bit, well even I thought that some of the things were a bit heavy. (Parent)

Other parents noted that the language and style of information was formal but not inaccessible and for those that had previously received written information, there was no discernable change post ICS.

In terms of the general usefulness of written reports and summaries recently received, eight families viewed them in as a bureaucratic form to be kept, but of very little interest or value. In contrast, seven parents valued them more highly, noting that it was important to have their own written copy, as this could be a key reference point if disputes arose and gave a sense of security.

A key objective for ICS is family participation and ensuring that parents are informed of and in agreement with proposed outputs and outcomes of their assessment/ review. A tangible symbol of this is ensuring they sign their agreement to the written copy of their assessment/review. However, only five parents could recall signing a copy of their recently conducted ICS assessment/review.

Because these parents had varying degrees of contact with social services, some could not make pre and post ICS evaluations. Amongst those who could (15), 12 did not feel there were any significant differences between the written information pre and post ICS.

Only three families noted changes, two related to Core assessments and one to an updated Initial assessment/care plan. The ICS written information was felt to be more in-depth, structured with clearer headings and more focused with discernable aims and objectives.

The actual format of it [ICS core assessment report] was very, very thorough I thought, in comparison, my comparison will be that of two years or a year previously, I’d been waiting two years for a piece of A4 assessment and I was given two sides of A4, that was my comparison and then I got this very thick document outlining everything really. (Parent)

These three were the only parents who discerned any changes between their ICS assessment/review and previous assessments/reviews. However, in all three families different social workers conducted pre and post ICS assessments, so it is difficult to attribute any change to ICS itself. These parents also noted that the social worker’s personal approach in the recent assessment was more thorough and personally engaging.

Family involvement

Parents’ experiences of participation

All the parents felt they been listened to and felt involved during the assessment/review process. Three factors emerged as important: the format assessments take, especially having relatively informal meetings; being kept informed; and social workers’ personal approach.

Parents valued a relaxed and open atmosphere within which they were given opportunities and time to express their views and raise any issues they considered important. Eleven highlighted the usefulness of an informal pre-meeting chat before the more formal assessment/review. This gave them confidence when entering more formal meetings, as they felt more prepared and in control.

Being kept informed throughout the assessment/review process was the second key factor. The third factor, social workers’ personal approach, underpins the previous two factors, as a good relationship between parents and their social worker helps to facilitate informal, relaxed meetings and regular communication updates. Building such a relationship and open atmosphere was based upon three additional factors. Over three quarters of parents (19) stressed the importance of being respected as a ‘knowing parent’ with social workers asking them for information about their child’s medical and care needs and also wider family needs, such as partners and siblings. Also valued was action and tangible evidence of being listened to, for example, if information has been asked for, it is subsequently provided or if amendments have been requested, these are respected and reflected in revised copies of written information.

Just good communication really, right from the word ‘go’, she’s been brilliant, lots of information, I know I can phone her is I’ve got an issue … and just making sure that, you see when I phone she never brushes you off … it’s always, ‘I’ll get back to you, you know, if I can sort it out now, I’ll fond out for you’ and then within five or ten minutes she’s phoning back saying, ‘this is where you need to go’ or ‘I’ll just ask so and so’. (Parent)

When asked if their level of participation had changed in their most recent assessment/review, only three parents felt it had increased, and again these were parents who had different social workers pre and post ICS.

Parents’ views on their child’s participation

For eleven families their assessment/review had involved a more formal meeting with their social worker and frequently, the involvement of other professionals. These assessment/reviews were predominately ongoing short break or LAC reviews or updated care plan meetings. Five children had attended part of their meeting and six had not attended at all. The five children who had attended were all experiencing reviews rather than assessments. Within the former, procedures are or should be more formally established, whereas in the latter (ie assessments, here updated initial assessments) this is often at the discretion of social workers. For those that had attended part of the meeting, parents felt this had worked well and valued the fact that their child had been included.

I think it’s good to have Henry there so that they [different professionals] know what they’re talking about, otherwise people have no concept of … so to talk about toileting and care, they actually need to see Henry. (Parent)

Discussions with these children focused upon ‘having a chat’ and checking that they were happy with services or, for older young people, what they ‘liked doing’ with a view to the future in terms of independent living and post school routes.

For those not attending a meeting, none of the parents indicated that they wanted their child to attend, as they felt it was not appropriate for their child due to their impairments and level of understanding.

Amongst the remaining 11 families experiencing Initial or Core assessments, meetings were largely informal between parents and the social worker. Here none of the children had been actively involved, although some may have been present.

Attending formal reviews is, of course, only one form of inclusion for children, speaking to social workers at other times is important. Parents were generally satisfied that their social worker had made an effort and taken the time to meet and ‘chat’ with their child. Only two parents suggested that they would like increased participation, with the social worker spending more time listening to their child.

When asked if they could see any difference in their child’s level or type of participation since the implementation of ICS, only one parent noted increased participation comparing a previous core assessment with their current core assessment. This may not be associated with the introduction of ICS, as two different social workers were involved and took very different approaches. However, it is important to note that none of the parents felt social workers spent less time talking to their child post ICS, whereas, as noted above, this was a key concern for social workers.

Discussing disability issues with families

Discussions with parents mirrored the social workers’ comments. All 22 families interviewed felt their social worker had discussed disability issues with them, particularly their child’s disability in relation to medical needs, care routines and any changes recently experienced or regarded as important. Nearly all also felt that the social worker conducting their assessment/review had asked the right questions and given them an opportunity to state their opinions and raise any issues

Over half stressed that they frequently took a pro-active approach to information provision. Many of these parents were those with informal, ongoing social worker relationships. They felt they could - indeed should - take the initiative and knew how to do this. In terms of ICS implementation, the key point here is that none of these families felt there was any different approach to disability issues, pre and post ICS.

Social workers, as discussed earlier, were concerned that ICS exemplars contained inappropriate and insensitive questions for families with disabled children. However, only seven parents noted inappropriate or irrelevant questions and these had not caused offence. Again, this was due to their social worker’s personal approach.

Discussing outcomes with families

Child outcomes

Nearly all the parents were satisfied with the services that they received or were due to receive. When asked if outcomes (that is, aims, goals, benefits) for their child had been raised during the assessment/review process, over half felt this had been discussed, that their discussion of outcomes had been ‘about right’ or that action was or would be taken.

For example, you have reminded me, [daughter] said she wanted to meet people, so they [social workers and carers] followed that through and it came up at the next review and then [daughter] started attending an outward bound sort of thing to meet people and they’re hunting around actively now for a friend. So what will happen is they’ll look round and come back to me with what they’ve found and we’ll talk it over. (Parent)

However, most parents indicated that they rather than their social worker had raised the issue of aims during discussions. Nine felt that they would have liked more discussion. Those wanting more discussion were families experiencing ongoing reviews or updated care plans rather than initial assessments – those with a history of social work help, and so more likely to expect a discussion of outcomes. The vast majority of parents who felt able to make comparisons did not note any discernable change post ICS in how or in what depth aims for their child were discussed with them.

Outcomes for themselves and other family members

Discussion of outcomes for parents and other family members is also a priority within the wider aims of ICS. Over half of the parents interviewed felt they had discussed aims and achievements for themselves with the social worker, such as spending more time with their partner or other siblings or having personal time and space for themselves. A small minority (three) did not view discussion of parental aims and aspirations as a priority or even relevant, based on their desire for privacy and as being beyond the scope of social workers.

Outcomes for siblings raised similar patterns of discussion, as just under half (10) of those who had siblings of a relevant age felt that aims and objectives for siblings had been discussed.

As before parents noted no difference between pre and post ICS assessments/reviews. This is in contrast to the social workers' views, which were that as a result of ICS, they focused more clearly on service aims and achievements with families. Indeed, there were no clear differences between parents from different areas as to whether service aims had been discussed, whereas from social workers’ accounts there were differences in the approaches taken in some authorities pre and post ICS.

Children’s views

All the children interviewed had complex disabilities which included learning and communication impairments. Over half of the interviews were conducted with the aid of symbols. The data gleaned are thus different in nature and depth to that presented by the parents. Throughout the interviews it was also apparent that any discussion of ICS was not meaningful for the children. ICS as both a concept and system of information collecting and recording was too abstract. However, it must also be noted that social workers had not sought to explain ICS to children they worked with. The results presented here focus on children’s perceptions of their informal meetings with social workers and also attendance at more formal meetings.

Six out of seven of the children had been in receipt of ongoing social service support for a number of years and all seven said they were happy with the services currently organised for them which focused on respite care and leisure activities. Five attended specialist leisure clubs/activities or had a youth worker/’buddy’ to facilitate access to mainstream leisure activities. Four received respite care: two with foster carers and two at a specialist unit. Carers were valued and viewed as family members. Over half had had the same social worker for three years or more.

Meeting with their social worker

Six children had seen their social worker recently at home, but one couldn’t remember meeting their social worker at all. All were ‘happy’ with the situation. Those who met their social worker with Mum present explained that they liked Mum to be present; they seemed to find this reassuring.

For five of them, the meeting with their social worker was very clear in their minds. Discussion had focused on what they had been doing recently, important people in their lives and the future. The important people in their lives were members of their nuclear family; Mum, Dad and siblings and relationships with friends from school, foster carers and service providers. The future was discussed in terms of leaving school and becoming more independent. Social workers had discussed courses and becoming more independent, such as shopping, going into town and using a bus.

Spending time talking to their social worker was clearly valued. There was also a general consensus that they understood what their social worker said to them. Being listened to was important. Only one child was able to explain how and why he felt his social worker listened to him.

What does she do that makes you think she listens to you? (Researcher)

She likes looks at us and she doesn’t look away when I’m talking … she doesn’t interrupt us. (Child)

Yeah, is there anything else? (Researcher)

Yeah, she does, she always writes it down. (Child)

Here, key factors focused on the social worker’s interpersonal skills and approach, giving attention, letting him speak and finally, making notes.

More formal meetings

Not all of those interviewed attended more formal meetings. Four were aware that they attended meetings with Mum – although in fact only part of them. However, all were unaware that there were previous elements of the meeting they did not attend or that discussions/decisions had been already made. When asked ‘who did most of the talking in these meetings?’ all said Mum or the social worker. Exploring specific issues was generally difficult.

Once again, as with the parents’ interviews, it is not clear if the practice children described evolved from ICS changes and objectives or was a pre-existing factor of good practice. Indeed, the comments and feelings of these children indicate that the key aspects of social work practice, such as a friendly, informal manner and good inter-personal skills, were commonly valued. Discussions with these children may not indicate how far they actually participated or if the notes written were recorded on ICS records, but it is positive to note that the children, irrespective of their authority and its stage of implementation of ICS, welcomed an opportunity to speak to their social worker and felt valued in the process.

Conclusions

This chapter has presented findings from initial ICS implementation as experienced by parents of disabled children and their social workers. The sample of families, although small, draws on parents caring for a range of children varying in age and impairment and at different stages of the assessment/review process. Some tentative conclusions can be drawn but these should be viewed in the context of the limitations of the study. In particular, the types of assessment/reviews families experienced, and social workers had used, were not evenly spread across pilot authorities. In addition, implementation problems meant that social workers' experiences of using ICS exemplars varied and some views were based on initial experiences.

Families' knowledge of ICS

The majority of parents did not know about ICS, they were not aware until contacted by the research team that anything had changed, that their records were now stored electronically or that they were part of a pilot. Whilst this was not of great concern to most parents, some felt that they should have been informed. This lack of information raises issues of ethical practice. Social workers' stance of providing information ‘as and when appropriate’ may appear pragmatic, but raises wider issues as they are acting as gate keepers to information.

ICS and social work practice

Parents had clear ideas of ‘good’ social work practice in relation to the assessment/review process and everyday social worker interactions. What was most important was social workers’ interpersonal skills and approach, taking a holistic family approach, and aspects of information collection and the format of meetings

Good practice with regard to ‘how’ information should be collected focused on the importance of informality. Parents valued having opportunities to direct the content and scope of information collected. They also wanted to see action - for example, if they asked for information and services, these were provided.

Within parents definition of ‘good’ practice two inter-related themes predominate: first, the importance of building a relationship with the disabled child and family members, and secondly, being sensitive to each family’s needs, recognising that different families require different levels of support, information and advice at different times. However, the importance of ‘good’ social work practice, that is, being sensitive and flexible, is premised on issues that a number of social workers (especially those in Authorities A and B) regarded as being contested with the introduction of ICS. The first issue relates to time, in particular having the time to get to know families and listen to them, especially disabled children. It was feared that this time was being eroded. The second concern was the issue of social worker flexibility and ability to employ professional judgements. Families valued professionals drawing on their expertise, however, social workers in Authorities A and B feared that ICS may stifle this.

Despite these fears, data from parents suggested that the introduction of ICS had not significantly changed everyday practice. Most of those who were able to make pre and post ICS comparisons experienced no difference in the social workers' approach, their preparation for assessment/review and how information was collected and recorded. Those who had noted changes post ICS focused on social workers asking more questions and requiring more in-depth information. However, for these parents, different social workers had conducted pre and post ICS assessments and one family had also moved authority. As yet, it is unclear whether social workers' fears will be realised or they are initial fears about change (Marris, 1986) that in the longer term will be assuaged.

Disability specific issues

Social workers’ comments indicated a number of problems surrounding the appropriateness of the ICS exemplars for disabled children. Over half felt ICS duplicated disability related problems of the Assessment Framework noted by Horwath (2002) and Marchant (2001), particularly, bias towards child protection issues. Exemplars were also viewed as inadequate for recording disability specific information and information about medical conditions. The way exemplars were structured made it difficult to present a holistic picture of the child’s and family's needs and the day to day caring strategies employed. However, it should be noted that social workers had not received training in using the exemplars for disabled children. Some of these issues may be resolved through training and discussion. Nevertheless, modifications to ICS exemplars would be welcomed, especially more designated space to record this information.

Age related exemplars were regarded as largely inappropriate for disabled children whose development differs widely from normative expectations with regard to chronological age. Although they recognised that alternative achievements could be placed in the summary box at the end of each section, practitioners wanted core assessment exemplars to provide more opportunities to record such achievements for disabled children. In addition, it is important to ensure information can be incorporated in different formats into ICS.

These problems led to the continued use of paper records and the risk that this fragmented information collection, as these records may not always be read. This raises wider IT issues - attaching visual information requires more consideration and resources and training to enable staff to do this.

Results of this research suggest that despite the ICS ideals of more coherent and holistic systems which facilitate more efficient and relevant support for all children, especially ‘children in need’, there is still a danger that disabled children and their families remain peripheral. The ICS does promise advantages, such as more consistent information collection/recording and establishing standards amongst practitioners; however, modifications to exemplars would make it more appropriate for disabled children. For Core assessments in particular, disability specific exemplars could be developed. Disability specific modifications could be incorporated into other exemplars.

Chapter Thirteen

Conclusions and Recommendations

In this conclusion we emphasise our main findings, draw conclusions and make our recommendations. These need to be seen in the context of our research. Some parts of our evaluation were affected by the fact that only one of our sites achieved full implementation of the ICS across all of their teams. This meant we had difficulty in viewing full operation of the system for all cases referred into the CSSRs and that the information available for the download and time studies was more limited than anticipated. There were also few service users in the process study with experience of the system who could be interviewed. It is also important that our respondents’ view of the system is necessarily confined to those parts of it of which they had direct experience. They did not, for example, have much to say about the use of ICS for management or monitoring, although the points they did make about these issues have been reported. This means their analysis of this potential use of the system is undeveloped.

However, these limitations were ameliorated by our enhancement of other parts of the research, such as the examination of the exemplars and the in-depth case studies. The disability substudy was delayed but otherwise unaffected because all of the sites implemented the ICS in their disability teams. The disability report was submitted separately, and provides important additional information about the use of the ICS with children with disabilities. The opportunity provided to track the experiences of practitioners and managers across the ups and downs of two years of use of the ICS in different authorities and using different software providers is a further strength of the evaluation, revealing as it does a range of concrete concerns that we recommend are addressed, while at the same time demonstrating that commitment to the principle and aims of the system in CSSRs held firm in spite of the frustrations experienced.

A further strength of the study is that the evidence about the experience and use of the ICS from the three substudies in all of our sites connects and overlaps – despite the differences in their stages of implementation and software provider. A simple example may illustrate this point. Social workers and team leaders in all the focus groups held at the beginning and end stages of the study suggested that many of the exemplars were far too long. The number of blank and incomplete sections identified on the exemplars in the record and download studies also suggests the exemplars are too long. This view related to another consistently made point – that certain exemplars could not easily be used in meetings, or with families, in part because they were so long. The point can be checked against the actual length of some of the exemplars, which do indeed seem longer than previous forms. There seems no reason to think that the simple passage of time will resolve this problem.

So, overall, our conclusion is that the ICS is indeed logically attractive. In principle, it ought to enable clear communication, avoid duplication, make it easier to identify children at risk, and provide a helpful and standard framework for collecting and checking information. In a computerized form it offers the potential to generate much useful management information and save practitioners time in producing reports and checking files. Generally, the practitioners and managers felt that the system was a good idea in theory. They were, however, much less likely to believe it worked well in practice. Their descriptions of the difficulties of introducing the system made this perspective entirely understandable. In time that may diminish. For example, it is to be hoped that lengthy pieces of work will no longer be lost in the computer system. It is not therefore a fatal objection to ICS that participants in our focus groups do not like it.

Our key concern in this report is therefore not primarily with whether the participants liked the system or with their view of its use for management. It is rather with the analysis they put forward of its impact on their work. We think that this analysis is not simply a product of anxieties over change. It is rather a coherent critique and needs to be treated very seriously by those responsible for ICS.

The sites and their implementation of the ICS

Chapter two describes the four pilot sites which were selected for us by the DfES and WAG. These sites included urban and rural authorities in England and Wales, and the two English sites contained sizable ethnic minority communities. All had different software providers, and one developed an in house ICS system. However, because only one site succeeded in implementing all the exemplars across all of its teams in the duration of our evaluation, the opportunities to explore certain aspects of the system, such as its use with BME groups, or its use over time, was limited.

Chapter four presents the findings from the implementation case studies (see also Table 13.1 at the end of this Chapter). Particular concerns here were that the compatibility of ICS with existing databases within the sites and with other agencies had not been addressed, and with the effect of the heavy demands on the organisation made by such a complex system. Other themes discussed here included the relationship between national and local policy-making. This connects with the frequent question put to us about who owned the ICS and how deeply local ownership was rooted. Our participants concerns were about the exercise of managerial power, the perceived lack of congruence of professional values and national policies, and the extent to which ICS learning was embedded across the organization.

On training, for example, the two key problems related to timing and implementation. The first problem arose from a time lag between social workers’ initial operating system training and ICS implementation. The second problem was more practical and focused on receipt of and access to use of a personal computer.

The relationship between national and local policy-making was also witnessed in the ways that local sites increasingly developed local solutions to perceived problems with the Exemplars. Local adaptations took place in a variety of ways. This was one reason why implementation was sharply different between the four authorities. The differences were at least as striking as the similarities. The conclusion is that the launch of the ICS in Wales and England is likely to be received by local CSSRs as offering insufficient operational detail, and wide local variation of the kind we have observed.

This poses the question whether the problems encountered in the ICS are best seen as implementation issues that, with good management and sound resourcing, will disappear, or as problems inherent in the ICS. There are several datasets that suggest some comparison between the early and later stages of implementation. There clearly are shifts over time. One key informant expressed the view that ‘in the early days if people have not used systems before, they take a real dip in their belief’. ‘Once it’s routine’, he suggested, ‘they might be able to see some of the light beyond…the current darkness of, and frustration of, the learning curve’. However, it seems to us that there are three kinds of implementation problems.

1. Implementation problems that with sound management and adequate resources can be resolved.
2. Problems that may prove to be implementation problems, but which nonetheless are likely to prove enduring and possibly intractable.
3. New challenges and problems that are inherent to the ICS.

What proves to be resolvable (ie a Type 1 problem or a Type 2 problem) will vary from one authority to another. In this case several potentially serious problems (Type 2) were either solved or at least contained, such as the issue of referral practice within the case study agency. With less committed and engaged staff, this could have remained either invisible or unsolved. The issue of referral practices from other agencies seems in principle to be a similar level of problem. But in this case there was no evidence that the problem was resolved, or that adjacent CSSRs shared the underlying values around openness that would permit the problem to be tackled.

What proves to be resolvable with difficulty (a Type 2 problem) and what turns out to be inherent within the ICS (a Type 3 problem) is equally difficult to predict. What in the abstract may start as a Type 2 problem may, if not resolved, become entrenched within the local ICS and indistinguishable from a Type 3 problem. Likewise, an openness and mutual trust may lead to resolution of Type 3 problems. However, we suggest that there are several issues posed by this case study where the evidence does not allow us to conclude that they are resolvable within the ICS as currently conceived and that they may be Type 3 problems. These include the promotion of service user engagement with services, the promotion of reflective practice and partnership working across agencies

Three general points can be made. First, the management requirements of introducing ICS are probably similar to those of introducing any large project. They include clarity in explaining the rationale, good IT, training and support for staff, and a businesslike but responsive management. Second, the differing success of the implementation across our sites was not associated with differences in the critique of ICS. The latter was essentially the same in all groups in all authorities. It is therefore unsafe to attribute this critique to difficulties with the implementation, severe though these were. Third, a particular part of this critique had to do with its effects on the social work role. This is a crucial issue and the subject of the later chapters on ICS and social work practice.

Social workers’ responses to the ICS

In Chapters five and six we map in detail how practitioners and practice managers responded to the advent of the ICS in our pilot sites. In the early phase, the social workers saw the system as part of the long-term development of social work. This development had positive as well as negative effects on the social work role. The effects of the system itself, however, were perceived at this stage as mainly negative. It absorbed an enormous amount of time, was not ‘family friendly’, reduced the role of social worker to that of what to some was viewed as akin to an overpaid clerk and had a negative impact on morale. These conclusions are on balance pessimistic. The later picture was more developed, and perhaps in one or two respects more sanguine. But the primary image and response of practitioners to the use, rather than the principle of the ICS and computer records, was still mainly negative. The ICS was seen by the majority of members of the focus groups in the process and audit studies as being too prescriptive, too long, and repetitive and divided unhelpfully into chunks. There was concern that since the exemplars insisted on similarity, they failed to ask questions that were relevant to some children while asking of others questions that were irrelevant. Practitioners were also concerned that the records were not suitable for use with children and families, and that some, such as the core exemplar, were inappropriate for use with children with disabilities.

How the ICS was used in CSSRs

Chapters seven, eight and nine look in detail at the ways in which the exemplars were used by practitioners for case recording and by managers for aggregating statistics. Chapter seven presents the ‘Download’ study - this examined how far the records followed the structures prescribed by the ICS, how far they provide the information requested and how consistently they were completed. The general conclusion we draw from is that the immediate cause of difficulty was that the ICS asked for too much information. Some of this information was not appropriate to the situation social workers faced; some of it required a common conceptual understanding that may not have been present. The result was that much of the requested information was poorly completed. It was then not possible to tell if the information was missing through ignorance or human error or because it was not relevant – a fact that makes it hard to use for statistical purposes.

The extent of missing information was revealed further by the record study, where only one third of the exemplars examined were completed fully and well. The frequency with which social workers did not complete the required data almost certainly varied from worker to worker. In addition, the habit of ‘non-completion’ may have been insidious. Information that was key for the purposes of the case or for sensible case monitoring was often missing.

We were not aware of any criticism of the assessment framework. It encourages social workers to think systematically about a case and to look, for example, for problems at school as well as home. The difficulty arises because problems do not come divided up in the way in which the exemplars are structured. Linked to this, the system cannot easily encompass the logic of analyzing a case. Essentially it adopts an actuarial approach by asking for information which, in a large sample of cases, predicts negative or positive outcomes. This is a sensible approach for management purposes, but an individual case requires a more individual and flexible approach. The problem is that the ICS is based – as we have expanded in detail through this report – on a particular view of the social work task. Essentially it adopts a linear model. Children are ‘referred’. A brief assessment determines whether a fuller collection of information is required. This in turn leads to a decision whether a core assessment is needed. The nature of these assessments is defined by the information requirements and by the time span within which they are to be completed.

As a result of these problems the ICS is at risk of failing to meet many of its aims. The ‘atomised’ method of recording combined with the large areas of blank space hamper the use of the system for communication. The large amount of missing information renders statistical analysis for management purposes or for aggregating national data difficult if not impossible.

In relation to demands on social workers, the survey of the time resources described in Chapter nine found that the time required for assessment, planning and review is very considerable and could easily come to absorb the great bulk of social work time. The demands of ‘data entry’ are also considerable and, in ordinary initial and core assessments, take up slightly more time than direct contact with the family or child. However, these demands are not so extreme that social workers can be regarded as ‘nothing but clerks’. The time demands of assessment, planning and review vary between cases and between authorities. Much of this variation probably has little to do with differences in the form taken by ICS, stemming rather from the different degrees of concern generated by some very young children and, more speculatively, the varying time pressures on social work teams.

In Chapter ten we draw some conclusions regarding the relationship between the ICS and practices within CSSRs. One or two of these have the potential for positive gains. For example, we conclude that the ICS has the ‘ability’ to render social work practice more ‘visible’. This would benefit supervision. It also has the capacity to clarify and tease out social work practice and it brings to the fore issues regarding the relationship between administrative and professional roles in social work. But the key words here are ‘ability’ and ‘capacity’. For too many participants on our sites, this potential had not been realized.

Other conclusions were less neutral. These include that the ICS contains a practice model that is inherent in the mode of ICS work and that it consequently has a tendency – no doubt in part intended by its developers – to shape social work practice in certain directions. The technological features of the ICS bring a range of practice considerations, among which are posed questions about the role of professional judgment and discretion.

Service Users and carers

Chapters eleven and twelve present the data from the interviews with carers and young people in the process study, and the interviews with social workers, parents and children and young people in the disability substudy. Both of these chapters reveal that service users and carers knew very little and in several cases nothing at all about the ICS. On this ground alone, the evaluation poses an immediate difficulty for one of the central policy platforms of the ICS – that it would enhance service users’ involvement in the social work process, and would make decision-making more transparent. Neither of these aspirations has been delivered thus far by the ICS. Indeed, there is some evidence that, ironically, it may have led to some – temporary at least – loss of user engagement and involvement. This may be due partly to the possibility that service users will experience the ICS as more demanding and time consuming of social work time, and partly because social workers may view it as being in service users’ best interests if they are not ‘burdened’ with details of the ICS.

There were important issues that were specific to children with a disability and their families. There were seven broad areas of concern surrounding the usefulness of the ICS when working with disabled children and their families (See the separate full report on this study for an extended discussion). These included a replication of the problems social workers in the field of disability found with the Assessment Framework forms. Over half of social workers were disappointed with the ICS on these grounds. Concern focused on the continuing perceived bias towards child protection issues and the general lack of disability awareness in the exemplars. This was most clearly apparent in the language adopted, such as ‘parenting capacity’, which was viewed as potentially patronising and offensive.

The limited categorization of disability, most clearly indicated when defining a child’s disability and their medical condition, was also of concern. Although it was recognized that the ICS will lead to more information being collected, paradoxically it was also felt that the information recorded was in danger of being bland and generalized. The specific care needs and caring strategies cannot easily be recorded on the current exemplars. As with the LAC system, the use of age-related categories is inappropriate. Concern focused on core assessment exemplars and their mismatch between chronological age and cognitive development for disabled children. These exemplars highlighted disabled children’s lack of achievement, in terms of ‘normal’ milestones. The exemplars were clearly targeted for parents, and the format and language was inappropriate for, and unappealing to children. The need for separate exemplars for children was stressed. The exemplars are also based on and prioritise the written word above all other forms of communication which, for disabled children, can be exclusionary. Timescales, particularly for initial assessments, were too tight, and the need for disability-specific training for the ICS was highlighted.

The ICS and Technology

The commissioned case studies of the technological dimensions of the ICS on two of our sites led to a range of clear issues and points for action. These raise issues that both corroborate and crystallize concerns dealt with elsewhere in the report. We present this here in table form to highlight key points and to suggest implications for action.

Table 13.1 The ICS and technology

Key point 1	Both Sites have dedicated project managers who are identified strongly with the implementation of ICS by managers and practitioners and have been key to the progress made.
Implications for action	Both case study sites were heavily reliant on one lead project manager. In both cases they carried other workloads. Although it was apparent that both leads were committed to ensuring the pilots were a success neither was fully aware of the implications of the technology implementation for service users, practitioners or managers. In Site C a consultant was brought in to ensure an effective process mapping was carried out which appears to have been an effective way of bridging the gap but this step was not so apparent in Site D. It is clear that the successful implementation of ICS is reliant on effective technology but as the literature repeatedly shows it is equally reliant on the relational factors involved such as: paying close and continuing attention to the management of organisational change; end user needs; information and knowledge management and the culture of learning. It was not apparent that a risk assessment had been undertaken in relation to the possible loss through ill health or retirement of the main project lead. Succession and cover planning needs to be built in to the projects. Although both project leads ensured regular meetings of stakeholders it would be interesting to consider whether the end result would have been more successful if a team approach to project management, which might have included dedicated joint leads from Planning, Information Systems and Social Work. Involvement from service users from the beginning of the pilot would have highlighted other factors that need to be taken in to account. It was interesting to note that, in the dual language policy CSSR case study site, cursory, if any, attention had been paid to the need for either input or output to be other than in the English language. It is difficult at this point to envisage that resources will be available to develop the amount of consultation, two way information flow and IT support and training required to roll out ICS across England and Wales.
Key point 2	The developmental and informal nature of the arrangement with the external software supplier in Site D has caused great difficulties in achieving progress.
Implications for action	The expectation of the rapid rise in e-government and information sharing between agencies mean it is unlikely that in-house developments will be able to survive. However, the large commercial information systems providers are working with legacy software in many CSSRs, whilst developing the next generation software platforms, and are struggling to implement new systems that can integrate legacy data and achieve inter-operability across agencies. It would be useful to undertake a comparison of the state of development of the major information systems against national and local expectations for information sharing, audit, policy intelligence and real process and time benefits for practitioners and, as a result, service users. The government has moved to a policy of promoting open source software to ease inter-operability and resource issues. There are obvious disincentives for commercial information system providers to following this route. As with the open access movement in relation to publishing there are other models that could be followed. The nature of the contract between the CSSR and the commercial software provider is crucial, not only in terms of upfront, maintenance and updating costs, but also clarity is needed about the costs of making minor and more major adaptations to the systems to tailor it for local usage. The ICS Exemplars were designed for local adaptation and that has taken place, particularly in Site C. The move to the commercial system that is planned may – for good or ill - increase conformity to the original exemplars.
Key point 3	It has been difficult to populate the ICS forms from the LAC data causing a large overhead of additional work. In both pilot sites dual systems of recording (paper and online) were still in operation. Neither site is planning to move entirely to computer based recording in the foreseeable future.
Key point 4	Both Sites have made strenuous efforts to involve and train managers and practitioners to prepare and support them in their use of ICS. Nevertheless it is recognised there was and is much more to be done both in terms of the flexibility and user friendliness of the IT and in the design and content of the forms.
Implications for action	The dual system of paper and electronic recording will continue so long as there is such an overhead to ensuring all letters, reports, etc can be originated and received electronically. Scanning in of documents has been discussed but would require either a central service in each CSSR or require an overhead of both resources and training if done within each team. Additionally CSCI still require paper records for audit and investigation purposes. The Human/Computer Interface requires a great deal more attention to enable the flexibility and adaptability of use that is familiar to Microsoft software users. Systems demonstrated are somewhat idiosyncratic and do not conform to accessibility and ease of use standards. There are three phases to technology innovation: Stage 1 - Replacement (Using online technology to do the same task as before); and Stage 2 - Enhancement (using online technology to enhance what you did before) to : Stage 3 - Transformation (using online technology to do what you couldn't do before) It is evident that Stage 1 is yet to be achieved. There is evidence that newly qualified practitioners have the necessary ICT skills but are not familiar with the issues involved in ‘social informatics’. In the UK there is little attention paid to this area compared to health informatics which has been researched and developed and is embedded in courses and a discipline in its own right.
Key point 5	There is support for the goal of enhancing practice through the outcomes driven process that ICS supports, but practitioners encounter difficulties in making the conceptual switch, not helped by the issue of the language used in the ICS forms, e.g. corporate parenting, parental capacity. This is seen as a bigger issue than the IT issues in Site C.
Implications for action	All the practitioners interviewed were committed to achieving the best outcomes possible for the users of services and appeared willing to adapt their working practices to embrace the changes required through the ICS implementation. However, they did not feel the systems currently in place supported their practice in that respect. Until the benefits to social workers and service users are clearly seen to outweigh the need to feed the audit system even the willing practitioners in the pilots will be less than enthusiastic. The interrogative approach in the exemplar is perceived to focus on the negative it would be useful to see if similar information can be gathered through more positive questioning. The training received appeared to focus on either the technical use of the information system or the practice issues of assessment, care planning etc. Integration of the two aspects from the beginning of such a major change may have supported practitioners better.
Key point 6	The opportunity of a step change in the use of technology to support practice was under-developed within the pilots. More attention to the following may have served to update working practices: ease or difficulties of remote access; potential for recording whilst in the field; potential for home working; the design of the system in relation to practitioners with disabilities.
Key point 7	The goal of interprofessional and multidisciplinary information sharing appears to be far from being reached because of incompatible systems, data protection issues and the need to align practice processes.
Implications for action	There are still major issues to be addressed in relation to information sharing. Some of these are of course to do with technological infrastructure but the case study material shows that the relational, linguistic, tribal and power issues will require substantial will and resource to overcome.
Key point 8	The length and complexity of ICS forms together with apparent duplication in the forms means it is seen as a less than friendly system and has lengthened the time taken on recording. Several practitioners on both sites thought the forms took twice as long to complete as the previous system.
Key point 9	On both Sites team managers’ perceptions of the impact of the ICS implementation was more positive than the practitioners.
Implications for action	The unfriendliness of the exemplars in relation to the technology factors appeared to impede the potential for enhancing practice but was rather thought of by practitioners as a necessary procedural hindrance. Managers interviewed, on the other hand, appeared confident in saying that the exemplars were enhancing practice though could not provide any real evidence of that. Neither were they taking advantage of the intelligence that aggregate reporting could deliver in relation to policy development, nor it seemed were the senior policy makers. This area of knowledge management can be one of the real bonuses of e-systems. In terms of full roll out of the systems it is an area that needs further attention.

Recommendations

The main thrust of our conclusions and recommendations is that there are fundamental problems with the ICS, and that these should be addressed by a body with responsibility for developing a national system, simplifying it and addressing its operational features. We hope that our report will contribute to the development of policy and practice of the ICS. Our recommendations are intended to be constructive. Electronic recording of social service records by social workers is to be welcomed in principle. However, the complexity and mammoth nature of the task, its importance in addressing the needs of CSSRs, of inter-agency information sharing and of service user involvement in assessment and planning requires it to be effective, usable and safe. We hope that our findings will contribute to the development of a system which improves services to all children and families, improves the quality of social work recording and ensures children’s safety and well-being

1 Practitioners and managers felt that the prescriptive nature of the system and the splitting into sections of the exemplars meant that it was difficult to grasp the key features of a case or to track its coherence. In many cases the ‘family aspect’ of the case got lost. Also, the same information was repeated across the exemplars.

We recommend a review of the design of the exemplars, so that:

• the exemplars are simplified, shortened and made easier to complete, for example by reducing the amount of information requested and the number of sections and tick boxes.
• the facility is provided to give a pen picture of the family and a key case summary of the work being undertaken on each exemplar.
• Pathways are created to enable irrelevant questions to be bypassed or a short version completed, while at the same time some fields, essential to identifying the case, are mandatory.

2 Practitioners and managers felt that the inflexibility and standardisation within the exemplars meant that they were not appropriate for all cases. There were particular difficulties in their use with children with disabilities.

We recommend that:

• Consideration be given to designing, enabling and endorsing a more flexible use of the system
• Exemplars are developed that are user-group specific, in particular the core exemplars for children and young people with disabilities. This would include providing opportunity for information to be included in different formats, for providing designated space to record specific care needs and caring strategies and for recording alternative milestones and achievements for disabled children

3 Practitioners were concerned that the length of the records, their format, the language and the underlying assumptions made it difficult to promote user involvement. It is possible that the ICS could lessen user’s involvement in decisions that affect them because of its inflexible packaging and a probable marked increase in time demands on practitioners.

We recommend that:

• The implementation of the policy aims of the ICS that relate to the involvement of service users is reviewed to ensure that the system can deliver the aspirations.
• consideration is given to the language used so that families can understand them.
• Authorities should, as a matter of course, inform families about ICS, specifically that their records will be stored electronically and who will have access.

4 The evaluation suggests that one reason completion rates go unrecorded is that the same time scales are unrealistic or inappropriate for all cases.

We recommend that consideration is given to also making possible more flexible time scales for their completion, or alternately that the time scales are kept but the criteria for completion are relaxed. (In some cases the full information required to complete the task is simply not available within the time limits.)

5 On our sites there were serious difficulties in inter-agency communication and information sharing, in developing interfaces with other agency databases, and consequently of ‘early-warning’ of risk to children.

We recommend that:

• the implementation of the policy aims of the ICS that relate to inter-agency information sharing and the systems put in place to enable it are carefully reviewed.
• there should be clarity as to how information sharing will be promoted, funded and prioritised across health, education and CSSRs.

6 A number of difficulties were encountered with the operational features of the ICS. Continuing dual paper and electronic record systems are problematic.

We recommend that urgent attention is paid to the operational features of the ICS to enable these problems to be addressed.

• It should be possible to email records, sign them electronically and access them remotely.
• Provision of lap tops is indicated.
• Inter agency and service user input should be enabled, consistent with data protection and maintaining a secure system.
• Consideration should be given to enabling outputs to be created from inputs to enable exemplars to be printed out to share with agencies, such as courts, with children and families and for particular events and procedures, such as initial child protection conferences.

7 Problems arose on our sites from the unclear balance between central government lead and local autonomy. These included a lack of ownership of the ICS, uncertainty about local modifications of the exemplars and exacerbated the technical difficulties in using the system.

We recommend that a process of consultation within the social work and social care community is set up to promote ‘ownership’ of the ICS and consideration of its fitness for purpose. The terms of reference would cover a review of:

• The model and conceptualization of social work practice within the ICS.
• The relationship between the core electronic record and the exemplars, and the intended relationship between electronic and hard copy files.

8 The present arrangement for commissioning ICS package providers is the cause of serious difficulties. On our sites the Local Authorities became bound into expensive systems defined by their suppliers which did not always meet their needs, but which they were unable to alter themselves. While we do not recommend a single national provider, nor centrally agreed contracts, we believe that the emphasis on local autonomy may have contributed to

5. an inadequate sharing of delivery expertise;
6. a risk that future national communication and exchange of information between children’s agencies will be fragmented;
7. difficulties in monitoring any unforeseen delivery problems; and
8. lack of transparent means of estimating true overall national costs, brought to our attention by the coverage of difficulties in the delivery of NHS IT contracts.

We recommend a review of the commissioning policies regarding ICS package providers.

9 The need for social work staff training in IT skills and in the conceptual underpinning of the ICS was consistently revealed in our evaluation.

We recommend that training and support for all staff using the ICS is embedded in the CSSR and continually updated, and that:

• a focus on the use of analysis and evidence in recording practice is promoted
• the particular needs arising from the more diverse and special situations in the disability teams, and in work with children and families from ethnic minorities are addressed.
• the training needs of administrative staff are addressed, including addressing responsibility for inputting data.

10 In conclusion, the evidence from the evaluation suggests that the ICS has yet to demonstrate the degree to which and how it is fit for purpose. Implementing the system in its present form is a massive task, and progress toward a satisfactory system is likely to be slow and incremental.

We recommend, therefore, that further progress takes into account our recommendations for change, and that the ICS is not extended to other services for children before monitoring of the issues identified above has been undertaken.

Integrated Children’s System

Evaluation

Appendices

Appendix A

Agreement with Local Pilot Authorities

Written Agreement between the University of York and the ICS Pilot Authorities

EVALUATION OF THE INTEGRATED CHILDREN’S SYSTEM

The Department of Social Policy and Social Work is undertaking a Research and Evaluation project of the Integrated Children’s System (ICS), funded by the Department for Education and Skills and The Welsh Assembly Government. (DfES contract ref. 005/0131) between April 2004 and March 2006. This document is a letter of agreement between the parties.

The project consists of a study in four Local Authority Social services Departments; two in England and two in Wales. The project objectives are:

• To support and coordinate the introduction of the ICS in the four authorities.
• To assess the impact of ICS on the core processes from referral through to closure from the perspective of

1. Social Service providers
2. Children and young people
3. Their families
4. Their carers.

The evaluation has three distinct sub – studies and there will be a particular focus on children and young people with disabilities and their families, and on children and young people and their families from black and minority ethnic groups.

The Audit Sub-study

• This study will audit computerised data.
• Undertake a case-file study to assess the quality of recording.
• Assess the time requirements on the part of staff to operate the ICS
• Undertake a survey of social workers and team leaders to assess the level of resources available for implementing ICS.

The Process Study

• This study will evaluate the coherence of the ICS from the perspective of the social services’ providers.
• The value and suitability of the ICS as a tool to work with children and young people, birth parents and carers from the perspective of the children, young people and adults concerned.
• Evaluate the technology.

Disabled Children Sub-study.

• The study will investigate the acceptability and suitability of the ICS for disabled children.
• It will study Parents’ and children’s understanding of the process of assessments, plans and reviews and their view of outcomes.
• Practitioners’ use of CDC resources and guidance and views on the appropriateness of ICS for disabled children.

This document sets out the obligations of the Research Team and the participating Local Authority Social Service Departments.

The University of York ICS Research Team:

Professor Ian Shaw – Co-Director with responsibility for management of project and lead on the Process study.

Dr. Margaret Bell, Co-Director with responsibility for management of project and lead on implementation

Professor Ian Sinclair– responsible for the Audit Study.

Jasmine Clayden - researcher for the Audit study.

Professor Patricia Sloper - Responsible for the Disability study.

Dr. Wendy Mitchell researcher – disability study.

Dr. Cathy Walker – Researcher process study.

Mary Ashworth – Researcher process study.

Sam Barrett - Researcher process study.

Paul Dyson – ICS Project Coordinator.

The York ICS Research team will:

1. Be responsible for recruiting and supervising researchers with the necessary skills and experience to undertake work of a sensitive nature.

2. Ensure that the researchers have undergone the necessary Criminal Record Bureau checks and share any concerns that might arise from these checks with the participating authorities.

3. Conduct the research in accordance with the University of York’s Policy and Guidance on Research and the Department for Education and Skills’ research and governance framework for Health and Social Care.

4. Follow the agreed research proposal, subject to any amendments negotiated with the Department for Education and Skills and the Welsh Assembly Government.

5. Maintain the confidentiality of research participants and follow any agreed arrangements for dealing with disclosures or other matters of serious concern.

6. Maintain the anonymity of participating local authorities and individuals, in the presentation of the data in a public domain, (unless otherwise agreed)

7. Keep the nominated representative of the local authority (as 1 above) up to date with the progress of the research.

8. Agree with each authority a strategy for involving and informing social services staff most likely to be involved with the project and attend briefing meetings of staff and managers following negotiation with each participating authority.

9. Provide a leaflet explaining the research proposal for participants.

10. Provide feedback specific to the authority, in addition to the overall research output(s), and disseminate the findings within the authority as appropriate.

11. The Team will meet its obligations under the Data Protection Act (1998) and ensure that research participants are not compromised by their involvement in a research study. The ICS Research Team will:

1. Store all data anonymously and if paper records are examined and there is a need to link an individual to data collected electronically this will be done through a code. The key to the code will be stored separately from the data. All reasonable provision will be made to ensure that codes linking individuals to their data cannot be accessed by anyone outside the research team. Once the need for the link is over the names and contact details will be destroyed prior to archiving the data.

2. Keep all data secure, whether through physical means or through password protection on ICT (Information and Communication Technologies) systems.

3. Only use data for the purposes of the particular research study.

12. The Team will provide feedback to individual participants in the research project by negotiation with the Local Authority and the participants.

[Name] Social Services Department agrees to take part in this study and is aware that participation will require them to:

1. ‘Champion’ the research project across the authority and with any other relevant Agencies.

2. Identify appropriate named members of staff from the authority to act as the link/liaison persons for the various elements of the research - to help with providing information about the authority, publicising the study, assisting the researcher(s) to contact relevant staff, problem solving and dealing with queries. Opportunities will be or have been provided for name of authority to exercise some choice about participation in some aspects of the research.

3. Agree a strategy for involving and informing social services staff most likely to be involved with the project, e.g. presentations by the researcher(s) at divisional and team meetings and publicising the study in departmental newsletters.

4. Identify a member of staff who has a good working knowledge of the authority’s management information system(s) for children’s services and is able to work with the researcher(s) to draw the baseline sample for the study, enable the formation of the focus groups and answer queries.

(Name of identified member of staff to be inserted:………………………………….)

5. Provide the researchers with appropriate facilities for the periods of time they are collecting data in the authority.

6. Provide the research team with non-identifiable information for each element of the study that the authority is involved in to meet the Research design of the three sub-studies

7. Assist the research team to:
• Issue questionnaires to social workers and team leaders.
• Enable the formation of Focus groups as defined in the research design
• Download information from the Database for the audit study to enable the researchers to undertake the Audit Study.

8. Advise the research team on appropriate processes for obtaining consent from users to enable the Research Team to have access to records.

9. Assist the research team in negotiating access with the children, young people and families selected for interview, including identifying where such access would be inappropriate.

10. Agree arrangements for the authority-specific feedback by the ICS research team.

11. Agree arrangements for authority specific feedback by the ICS researchers for children, young people their families and carers.

Signed…………………………………(Name Social Services)

Date………………

Signed………………………………(Dr. Margaret Bell and Professor Ian Shaw, joint Grant holders)

Date………………

Appendix B: Social Workers’ Survey

Evaluating the Integrated Children’s System

Questionnaire to Team Leaders and Social Workers

The Department for Education and Skills (DfES) and the Welsh Office are asking English and Welsh councils to use the ICS (Integrated Children’ System). They have also asked the University of York to find out how the system is working and how it might be improved. This questionnaire is part of this study. It asks about your views of the ICS and its appropriateness for your particular job.

As researchers on the project we will use your replies to write a report. This will go to your authority, the DfES and the Welsh Office. All answers are confidential to the research team. Nothing in the report will allow an individual to be identified.

As you will see, the questionnaire has ‘tick questions’ for statistical analysis and boxes at the end that allow you to put your views more fully if necessary. In trying out the questionnaire we found that the first section took 15 to 20 minutes. The boxes take as long or as little time as you want to spend on them.

If our report is to be useful, it is vital that we have many replies as possible. Please use the one that is easiest for you. In either case please try and answer within ten days.

In the case of questions please contact: Jasmine Clayden (jc27@york.ac.uk)

Jasmine Clayden and Ian Sinclair

Thank you very much for your time

About You (People’s experience of the system may vary with their own past experience or current role. So we need to know how far different individuals make similar points)

Q1 Please write in your name and social work team.

Name
Social work team

Q2 What is your work role? Are you a

(Please circle number	Team leader	1
as appropriate)	Senior Social Worker	2
	Social Worker	3
	Other (please give brief details))	4

Q3 How old are you in years?

Q4 Are you	Female	1
	Male	2

Q5 Please tell us your relevant qualifications? (Please circle all that apply)

	DipSW	1
	CQSW	2
	CSS	3
	PQ Child Care Award	4
	Other (please specify)	5
	None relevant	6

Q6 Are you employed by -	This authority	1
(please circle as applicable)	An agency	2

Q7 How long have you been working -	In this authority?	yrs
(Please write in number of years)	In social services?	yrs

Q8 How many cases are you currently carrying?

Q9 Of these how many of these would you primarily describe as:

		Number
	Duty cases?
	Looked after children?
	Children at risk but not looked after?
	Disabled children who are looked after?
	Other disabled children?
	Other children in need?

Q10 Prior to using the ICs system had you used computers either at home or at work

(Please tick all that apply)	Regularly	sometimes	occasionally	never
For email?	1	2	3	4
Browsing on the internet?	1	2	3	4
Accessing LA system?	1	2	3	4
Research?	1	2	3	4
Internet chat?	1	2	3	4
Word processing?	1	2	3	4
Shopping (including eBay)?	1	2	3	4
Other (please write in)	1	2	3	4

Your Experience of the ICS System

By the ICS we mean the whole system as used by your authority. It includes the thinking behind it, the ‘forms’ or exemplars, its use of computers and its relationship to other systems.

Q11 Roughly how long have you been using ICS? Yr month

Q 12 Do you have personal access at work to	A computer dedicated to you	1
(please circle first that applies)	A computer shared with one other	2
	A computer shared with others	3
	No computer at all	4

Q13 Please tell us about your training the ICS system

How many days formal training have you had on ICS? (Please write in number of days primarily devoted to IT, Practice or both and distinguish by type of provider)
Provider	IT related Issues	ICS practice related issues	Both Practice and IT
In-House
External

Q14 If you have had experience of working in social services without using the ICS please estimate its effect on the time you spend

(please rate from 1 substantial decrease, to 5 substantial increase)?

	Decrease		Neutral		Increase
Collecting information	1	2	3	4	5
Recording and inputting it	1	2	3	4	5
Finding it when it has been recorded	1	2	3	4	5

What you want from the ICS and your Views of it

Q15 How far would you agree the following aims of the ICS are important. Please indicate how important these aims are for you?

x(1 irrelevant to 6 very important)

A way of recording that improves communication with other agencies	1 2 3 4 5 6
Management information for planning	1 2 3 4 5 6
Time-saving ways of completing forms and letters	1 2 3 4 5 6
Records that promote client involvement (e.g. are user friendly, prompt client contributions)	1 2 3 4 5 6
‘An expert system’ that promotes social worker analysis	1 2 3 4 5 6
A useful tool for supervision	1 2 3 4 5 6
A way of checking for the recurrence of suspicious names	1 2 3 4 5 6
A management method of monitoring performance	1 2 3 4 5 6
A structured way of recording information for social workers own use	1 2 3 4 5 6

Q16 Please give a mark out of six for how far you see the system as achieving these aims

(1 means it is worse than useless, 6 that it achieves it outstandingly well)

A convenient way of recording practical details (GP, address etc)	1 2 3 4 5 6
A way of recording that improves communication with other agencies	1 2 3 4 5 6
Management information for planning	1 2 3 4 5 6
Time-saving ways of completing forms and letters	1 2 3 4 5 6
Records that promote client involvement (e.g. are user friendly, prompt client contributions)	1 2 3 4 5 6
‘An expert system’ that promotes social worker analysis	1 2 3 4 5 6
A useful tool for supervision	1 2 3 4 5 6
A way of checking for the recurrence of suspicious names	1 2 3 4 5 6
A management method of monitoring performance	1 2 3 4 5 6
A structured way of recording information for social workers own use	1 2 3 4 5 6

Q17 Here are a number of requirements you might want the system to meet. Please give a mark out of 6 their for importance to you

(1 means unimportant , 6 very important)

Is user friendly for social workers	1 2 3 4 5 6
Is robust (does not crash)	1 2 3 4 5 6
Keeps all the key information on a case electronically	1 2 3 4 5 6
Is secure	1 2 3 4 5 6
Allows essence of a case to be grasped quickly	1 2 3 4 5 6
Produces records that can be submitted in court	1 2 3 4 5 6
Produces records that clients can see, read easily and, if needed, sign	1 2 3 4 5 6
Produces records that can be emailed to others	1 2 3 4 5 6
Makes it easy to detect inaccuracies	1 2 3 4 5 6
Allows enough space for free text	1 2 3 4 5 6
Avoids need to retype duplicate information	1 2 3 4 5 6
Has a spell check	1 2 3 4 5 6

Q18 Please give a mark out of four for how far you see the system as achieving these requirements

(1 means it is worse than useless, 6 that it achieves it outstandingly well) .

Is user friendly for social workers	1 2 3 4 5 6
Is robust (does not crash)	1 2 3 4 5 6
Keeps all the key information on a case electronically	1 2 3 4 5 6
Is secure	1 2 3 4 5 6
Allows essence of a case to be grasped quickly	1 2 3 4 5 6
Produces records that can be submitted in court	1 2 3 4 5 6
Produces records clients can see, read easily and, if needed, sign	1 2 3 4 5 6
Produces records that can be emailed to others	1 2 3 4 5 6
Makes it easy to detect inaccuracies	1 2 3 4 5 6
Allows enough space for free text	1 2 3 4 5 6
Avoids need to retype duplicate information	1 2 3 4 5 6
Has a spell check	1 2 3 4 5 6

Q19 In comparison with your experience of other methods of recording how far would you say the following were true of the ICS?

	Don’t know	Strongly agree	Agree	Disagree	Strongly disagree
The ICS ask for most of the essential information	0	1	2	3	4
The ICS loses the family perspective	0	1	2	3	4
The ICS helps with analysis and assessment	0	1	2	3	4
The ICS makes it easy to review plans	0	1	2	3	4
I have had less training on the ICS than I need	0	1	2	3	4
The exemplars don’t replace the need for reports	0	1	2	3	4
The ICS saves a lot of time	0	1	2	3	4
ICS undermines social worker’s discretion	0	1	2	3	4
The ICS separates pieces of information that should be put together to get the whole story	0	1	2	3	4
ICS makes it easy to get a picture of a case	0	1	2	3	4
Introducing ICS has led to delay and inefficiency	0	1	2	3	4
The ICS cuts the time available for seeing clients	0	1	2	3	4
ICS structures the social work task helpfully	0	1	2	3	4
The ICS is ‘user friendly’ for clients	0	1	2	3	4
ICS is not appropriate for disabled children	0	1	2	3	4
ICS is appropriate for minority ethnic groups	0	1	2	3	4
ICS records are not appropriate for assessing risk	0	1	2	3	4
ICS makes it easier to work jointly on cases	0	1	2	3	4
ICS should be drastically simplified	0	1	2	3	4
ICS will in time lead to major improvements	0	1	2	3	4
ICS often forces SWs to complete irrelevant tasks	0	1	2	3	4
ICS turns social workers into clerks	0	1	2	3	4
It’s good social workers are now using computers	0	1	2	3	4
ICS is an improvement on earlier paper systems	0	1	2	3	4
The ICS should have fewer exemplars	0	1	2	3	4
ICS helps flexible and creative practice	0	1	2	3	4
ICS asks for a lot of unnecessary duplication	0	1	2	3	4
ICS emphasis on objectives distorts practice	0	1	2	3	4
ICS underemphasises ‘events’ and evidence	0	1	2	3	4
The ICS often asks for too much information	0	1	2	3	4

Q20 Experience of particular exemplars Please mark out of ten those of which you have had experience

(circle 1 useless to 10 extremely helpful, 0 if you have not used exemplar)

Contact Record	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Referral and Information Record	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Initial Assessment Record	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
CP1 Strategy- Record of Strategy Discussion	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
CP2 - Record of Outcome of s47 enquiries	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
CP3 - Initial Child Protection Conference Report	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Core Assessment Record – Pre-birth to Child Aged 12 Months	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Core Assessment Record - Child Aged 1 - 2 years	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Core Assessment Record - Child aged 3 - 4 years	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Core Assessment Record - Child aged 5-10 years	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Core Assessment Record - Young person aged 11-15 years	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Core Assessment Record - Young person aged 16 years and over	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Chronology	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Child or Young Person's Plan	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Placement Information Record	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Child or Young Person's Care Plan	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Child or Young Person in Need Review	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Child or Young Person's Child Protection Review	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Child or Young Person's Looked After Review	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Assessment and Progress Record for looked after children - 1 and 2 years	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Assessment and Progress Record for looked after children - 3 and 4 years	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Assessment and Progress record for looked after children - 5 to 10 years	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Assessment and Progress record for looked after children and young people - 11 to 15 years	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Child or Young Person's Adoption Plan	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Pathway Plan	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Closure Record	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Q19 Thinking about your use of the system how far do you agree with the following statements?

	Strongly agree	Agree	Disagree	Strongly disagree
I can easily get to a printer	1	2	3	4
Access to a working computer is easy	1	2	3	4
I can easily find information on ICS	1	2	3	4
Once done exemplars are quickly ‘signed off’	1	2	3	4
I am confident in using the computer	1	2	3	4
It is/would be better for admin to do ICS entries	1	2	3	4
All key information is in the computer	1	2	3	4
The system helpfully alerts me to urgent tasks	1	2	3	4
I like the way I don’t have to retype details	1	2	3	4
The data in the system is inaccurate	1	2	3	4
Any inaccuracy is quickly picked up	1	2	3	4
It’s easy to correct inaccuracy in the system	1	2	3	4
My team uses the information in looking at its overall performance and way of working	1	2	3	4
I can easily see a list of my cases on screen	1	2	3	4
Its easy to get a printed chronology	1	2	3	4
I can easily make a case summary out of text in the system	1	2	3	4
I can easily print ICS text	1	2	3	4
The computer easily locates any of my cases	1	2	3	4
I can easily bring up the latest assessment, plan or review	1	2	3	4
The ICS screens are easy to read	1	2	3	4
You have to be an expert typist to use ICS	1	2	3	4
The mixture of paper and computer files is difficult to manage	1	2	3	4

Q22 How many marks would you give the system as a whole?

I give the system marks (1 useless, 50 average, 100 excellent)

Specific Comments (Please feel free to comment fully, briefly or not at all)

In your experience what are the main good points about the system? In your experience what are the main bad points about the system? Are there any exemplars that are particularly good or bad from your point of view? If so which ones and why? Have you any comments on what you want the system to do and how far it succeeds or not? Have you any suggestions for improving the ICS so that it fits your requirements better?

General Comments (Please use additional paper for anything you would like to say but for which there was not space or opportunity earlier)

Thank you again very much for your time

Appendix C

Evaluating the Integrated Children’s System

ESTIMATE OF TIME USED IN UNDERTAKING:

CORE ASSESSMENT and CHILD IN NEED PLAN.

Local authority:
Assessment completed by:
Age of child/young person:			0- 2 ¨	3 - 4 ¨		5 - 10 ¨	11 - 15 ¨		16 & over ¨
Disability?		Yes ¨ no ¨			Child in Need, section 47			Yes ¨ no ¨
Ethnicity	Please write below)				Child In Need, section 17			Yes ¨ no ¨
					Looked after?			Yes ¨ no ¨

HOW TO COMPLETE THE FORM OVERLEAF:

This form provides an estimate of the time needed to complete a core assessment and draw up a plan. It covers the period from the decision to undertake a core assessment to its completion

• Please record the time taken in HOURS and MINUTES for each activity. Estimates to the nearest 10 minutes are fine.

• Please ensure that all the relevant boxes in the CORE ASSESSMENT AND CHILD IN NEED PLAN and OVERALL TOTAL are completed.

• Your Team Leader should be able to answer any initial queries you have about this form or put you in touch with us if necessary. My own email address is below.

• Many thanks for your help.

Jasmine Clayden

Research Fellow

Activity undertaken for core assessment ü			Hours	Minutes
Liaison and meetings	School
With other agencies:	GP
(please tick if involved)	Health Visitor
	Other health professional
	Police
	Housing
	Other
Estimate of total time spent in liaison and meetings with other agencies
Consultation within	Supervisor
social services	Team Leader/manager
(please tick if involved)	Colleagues
Estimate of total time spent in consultation within social services
Contact with child or young person on their own
Contact with family/carers without child/young person
Contact with family and child/young person
Estimate of total time spent in direct work with the child and family
Contact with other informal networks e.g neighbours
Time taken to complete electronic Core Assessment record
Other activities	Consulting files/system
(please tick if involved)	Reflection and Assessment (Assessing evidence)
	Completing forms **
	Travelling
	Using scales or questionnaires to help with assessment
Estimate of total time spent on other activities
Overall Core Assessment total

Child in Need Plan

IF YOU COMPLETED A PLAN PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING SECTION

Child in Need Plan ü				Hours	Minutes
Liaison and meetings	School
with other agencies:	GP
(please tick if involved)	Health Visitor
	Other health professional
	Police
	Housing
	Other
Estimate of total time spent in liaison and meetings with other agencies
Consultation within	Supervisor
social services	Team Leader/manager
(please tick if involved)	Colleagues
Estimate of total time spent in consultation within social services
Contact with child or young person on their own
Contact with family/carers without child/young person
Contact with family and child/young person
Estimate of total time spent in direct work with the child and family
Contact with other informal networks
Time taken to complete electronic Child in Need Plan
Other activities	Consulting files/system
(please tick if involved)	Reflection and Assessment (Assessing evidence)
	Completing forms **
	Travelling
Estimate of total time spent on other activities
Overall Child in Need Plan total

**Not including electronic exemplars

Thank you

Jasmine Clayden, SWRDU, University of York, Alcuin B Block, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD

* jc27@york.ac.uk (01904 321285

Appendix D

Focus Group Round One Process Study

ICS Process Study – Focus Groups

Part 1: Retrospective

1. Introductory exercise

Introduce yourself and say three words that first come to mind when you think of the Integrated Children’s System…

2. Ranking exercise

From your experiences of ICS to date, whom do you think it will benefit? Please rank the following from those you think will benefit most, to those who will benefit the least:

• 
  
• Practitioners/Social Workers
• Admin staff
• Team managers
• Senior managers
• Service users– Children/young people
• Service users– Carers
• Service users– Parents
• Central government
• Other agencies

[Group facilitator: NB Give participants two minutes to compose an individual list. Group discussion should then try to generate a consensus about the group ranking]

3. Implementation

At Newtown local authority the implementation group were highly organised, but the implementation of ICS has been fraught with difficulties. Problems have included numerous software issues, providing practitioners with access to PCs and motivating staff about the new system.

Prompts:

• Does anything in this story resonate with your experience of the implementation of ICS?
• What problems have you encountered? Have you been able to get around them?
• What aspects of the way your department works here have facilitated the implementation of ICS?
• What aspects of the way your department works here have not facilitated the implementation of ICS?

4. Learning to Use ICS

Sarah, an experienced practitioner who qualified in the 1980s, was worried about using ICS. She had successfully completed an evening class called ‘Computers for the Terrified’, but was concerned about whether she could cope with the ICS software. But following a department-wide training and induction programme, her fears proved unfounded, and the system did not pose her too many problems.

Prompts:

• How do your experiences compare with those of the character in this story?
• Has there been anything particularly helpful about the way ICS has been introduced? [Group facilitator: NB prompt about training]
• Has there been anything particularly unhelpful about the way ICS has been introduced? [Group facilitator: NB prompt about training]
• Do you think the software meets your needs in your role?

5. Data management or a good practice aid?

At Newtown Social Services Department there was some confusion amongst the ICS implementation group about who should input data. Some team members felt a goal of ICS was to reduce the amount of time devoted to administration. Others saw ICS as an aid to practitioners to support and encourage good practice.

Prompts:

• Have you imagined ICS as a data management or practice tool?
• Who inputs data into ICS here- admin or practitioners?
• Who has ICS helped the most in terms of performing their role?

6. Impact on service users

Vicky, a social worker at Newtown, met up with a former colleague, Kate, for lunch. Kate now works for a neighbouring local authority, which hasn’t implemented ICS yet. Kate was curious about ICS, but had to listen Vicky’s lengthy complaints about all the implementation problems they’ve had at Newtown. ‘Okay, you’ve had all these problems’, interrupted Kate, ‘but what about the service users, what do they think about it?’ ‘Little so far, because I’ve made every effort to protect them from it!’ said an only half joking Vicky.

Questions to Discuss:

• To what extent have children/parents/carers or their representatives participated in the ICS process?
• Do they think that ICS will help them or those they represent?
• How do you think it will impact on different groups of service users:
• Minority ethnic groups
• LAC
• CIN
• At different stages of being a child/ young person

Part 2: Future Issues

7. Good practice

Practitioners at Oldtown were aware that one of the reasons for introducing ICS was so that it could be a tool to enable good practice. At a team meeting, discussion drifted towards the impact ICS will make on the team’s practice.

Prompts:

• If a similar discussion happened here, what do you think might be said?

[discussion]

Discussion at the team meeting at Oldtown then moved on to unpicking what is meant by the term ‘good practice’. Some said that the ideas about good practice reflected in ICS did not exactly tally with what they imagined as good practice. Others disagreed.

Prompts:

• What do you think constitutes ‘good practice’?
• Do you think any specific parts of ICS (for example particular exemplars) will detract from or enhance good practice? In what way?

[NB listen for interagency issues, benefits for service users, use in court proceedings]

• Is it appropriate for all children?
• Do you think ICS will impact on good practice in either a positive or negative way in terms of the experiences of specific user groups, like minority ethnic groups?

8. Imagining the possibilities of ICS

[Group facilitator: NB When you are introducing this vignette be clear about its intention e.g. we would like to know whether they think that any current negative aspects are inherent to the ICS itself, or do they think they could potentially be overcome once it is implemented?]

A few of the staff at Newtown were getting a bit fed up with the teething problems associated with implementing ICS. Whilst making coffee one Friday afternoon, Nick and Tarik shared their views. ‘I’m sometimes not sure if it is worth this hassle,’ said Nick. But Tarik was more optimistic, ‘Just think what it could do in the future though, think of all the possibilities, for improving practice, for service users and for us, just imagine what it could do…’

Version for West Sussex:

At Newtown staff had made good progress in implementing ICS, overcoming initial teething problems. Whilst making coffee one Friday afternoon, Nick and Tarik shared their views. ‘Now it’s up and running do you think it’s been worth the effort?’, asked Nick. ‘I don’t know if all the benefits are visible yet’, said Tarik. ‘Just think what it could do in the future though, think of all the possibilities, for improving practice, for service users and for us, just imagine what it could do…’

[Allow brief unprompted comments from the group before supplying prompts]

Issues for Discussion:

• What are the possibilities for:
• Practitioners?
• Service users?
• Good practice?
• Interagency working?
• How would you change about ICS, in terms of:
• The technology you access ICS through
• The process of completing exemplars
• Exemplars
• Impact upon services users
• Any other aspect

Appendix E Interview Schedule for Carers: Process Study

Evaluating the Integrated Children’s System

Interview Schedule – Carers

Welcome and Introduction

• Explain consent and tape recording
• We are independent from your local authority. The interview is private and confidential.

1. Experience as a carer

i) Foster carers

• How long have you worked as a foster carer?

Number of children cared for so far?

• How many children are you caring for at the moment?
• What was it that you made you decide to become a foster carer?

(Check re: kinship as appropriate)?

What do you enjoy about caring?

What aspects of the role do you least enjoy?

ii) Residential carers

• How long have you worked as a carer in this children’s home? (full-time/part-time?)
• Had you worked as a carer anywhere else before you came here?
• Are you X’s key worker?
• Do you have a special responsibility for any other children here besides X?
• What was it that you made you decide to become a carer?
• What do you enjoy about caring?
• What aspects of the role do you least enjoy?

2. The research and ICS

• We’ve been asked to find out what people think about a new way of finding and keeping information. It is called the Integrated Children’s System.

Your Social Services Department is trying it out, and we’d like to know what you think about the information your social worker asks you for, and the information they give to you.

• Have you heard of the Integrated Children’s System (ICS)?
• If YES: how did you find out about it?
• If NO: has anyone told you that social workers have a new way of finding out information and keeping it on a computer?

3. Information from Social Workers.

• Generally, would you say the information you receive is

1. adequate?
2. on time?
3. complete?

NB. to researcher: refer to the LAC documentation:

ie. the Essential Information Record, part 1 and 2. ( EIR 1 & 2)

- what do they think of it? does it provide all the information they need?

• In general, would you say that you are happy or unhappy with the information you have received in the past? Reasons?
• Have you noticed any changes in the information you have received recently?

Prompt

• any specific changes?
• views on the changes?

Show them a copy of the ICS Placement Information Record (PIR)

• When was X’s placement made? (i.e. before or after introduction of ICS exemplars)
• Have you seen one of the new ICS Placement Information Records?
• Have you received an ICS PIR in relation to X?

If YES:

• What do you think of the information it provides?
• What do you like / dislike about it? Reasons?
• Did it help you to understand why X required care? In what way?
• Do you think you received the information at the appropriate time?
• Do you think you were given all the practical information you needed to care for X?
• Was there any information that you did not receive which would have been helpful to you?

• Have you seen / contributed to completing a Core Assessment in relation to X?
• Did you feel your views were / were not taken into account? In what way?

4. Giving Information

• In general, in terms of giving information to social workers, would you say that your views and needs are taken into account?
• Have you noticed any changes recently in this respect?

If YES:

• How do you think things are different from the way they were before?

• Would you say that the changes have been positive?

In what way?

• Would you say that any of the changes have been negative?

In what way?

• Specifically in relation to your care of X, do you think you have been given sufficient opportunity to express your views about their care arrangements?

How have you been able to do this?

(Have they contributed directly to sections of the exemplars, even if they were not aware that this is what they were doing.)

5. Reviews

• Have you taken part in a review of X’s care?

(NB. for researcher: was this after the introduction of ICS?)

If YES:

• How well do you think the review process worked?

What was good / bad about it?

• Do you think you given enough information about the review?

• Was it given to you in good time?
• Is there anything about the information which you would have liked to change?
• Is there anything you would have like to change about the way you received it?

• Do you think you were given sufficient opportunity to express your views?

In what ways were you able to express your views?

• Do you think the review was relevant and responsive to the needs of X?
• Do you think it was clear to X why the review was taking place and what it was about?
• Do you think X was given sufficient information and opportunity to express their views?
• Is there anything you would have liked to change about this review?

• Did you notice anything different about this review compared with ones you’ve experienced in the past, in relation to X or another child you have cared for?

6. Transfer Cases Only

You and X have been affected by ICS and the preceding system.

• Were you aware that the system had changed before you spoke to us?
• Did social services staff explain to you that the new ICS system was being introduced?

Did you receive any explanation in writing?

• Did they explain the new system to X or give them any explanation in writing?
• Do you think the system has changed for the better or worse?

Has it been made things easier for carers?

• Do you think there are any further changes that could be made?
• Do you think X has noticed any changes?

If YES: do you think knowing about these changes has affected him/her in any way?

Negative / positive effects?

If NO: do you think the ICS changes in ways of giving and receiving information have had any effect on him / her, even though they themselves are not aware of the changes?

7.Overview

Finally:

• Is there anything else you would like to tell me about the information you are given by social workers?

Do you think there are any other ways in which this could be improved?

• What about the information you are asked to provide for them? Is there anything else you can think of which would help you as carer to provide them with information.

Thank you very much for talking to me and giving me your time

Appendix F Technology Case Studies – Sample Interview Guide

Interview guide – Social Work Practitioners

Small group interviews took place and the interview guide was used to ensure the majority of areas listed were covered. It was not used as a strict template. This approach was to enable issues to be generated through the semi-structured nature of the dialogue.

Potential question areas

Pre implementation

Involvement in ICS’ specification (inputs and outputs) / implementation / introduction

Description of magnitude of change from previous CIS?

IT infrastructure across LA offices

IT HR resources

Training resources

Integration of IT ICS training with other children’s services training courses

Implementation, changes, training and support, audit and evaluation.

Impact /integration with other IT systems – Finance, HR, Education

Other priorities that impacted on status of ICS development/implementation.

Fit with current standards – accessibility, interoperability, meta tagging, web enabled, security, common terms, etc.

Aim to replace paper files 100% - dual system in operation?

Drivers for practitioner use

Ability to generate letters, emails, diary appointments, schedules, task lists, alerts, warnings, case summaries, chronology reports?

Are free text fields searchable in relation to outputs – or only defined fields.

Who can generate reports – how much flexibility?

Can reports be imported into Word / cut and paste? Formatting?

Guidance, help, bulletin boards, discussion fora

Links to knowledge base – research evidence, guidance and policy documents.

Training and access issues

Access – to networked hardware

Out of office access – from home – mobile computing?

Access for disabled practitioners

Training, technical support across all offices

Do you have the IT skills you need to use ICS – including keyboard skills.

What training have you had / what further training would you like/need

Communication and information sharing

Information sharing re ICS implementation in department– bulletins, meetings, intranet, etc. How often, with whom, at what level?

Implementation issues

Culture for using IT prior to implementation

Culture for using data, evidence, knowledge prior to implementation

Feedback and evaluation activities on ICS from a technology perspective

Changes that have happened / envisaged – to the system – to practice processes

Ownership of the system – both culturally and in technology terms – how do required changes to the system get notified and dealt with

Sharing of information with other agencies

Ability to generate statistical data for policy making purposes

Ability to generate ‘knowledge’ for operational change processes

Is the ‘knowledge’ being used – policy – practice levels – how is it disseminated

Flexibility and customisation

Are the outputs service user friendly? Practitioner friendly? Team leaders? Policy officers/makers?

Ownership issues

Data protection

Security

How decisions are made as to who has access to what

Current usage

Who inputs the data?

Who accesses the data?

Who uses the data once accessed?

What is it used for?

Do you get what you need/want?

If so what else might you want?

If not – what are the issues?

Confidence in the system – accuracy, integrity of data held

Does the system enable you to do things – the same as before, differently from before, that were impossible to do before?

Do you trust the system – do you keep your own paper records?

How user friendly are the screens?

Can you save mid record?

Is it taking more or less time than previous methods of recording – eg LACs?

Do you use case summaries, chronology reports (if available) for your own workload management, supervision?

Conceptual and cultural issues

Is there a good fit between what you need to do and the system supporting you doing it? (Eg system coping with siblings – extended families – community support – significant friends)

Fit with your understanding of the social work process (social work as a conversation and the difficulty of IS supporting conversations)

Is the technology changing your practice?

Information sharing from reports from ICS across the dept? Externally?

Culture for using IT post implementation?

Culture for using data, information, evidence, knowledge post implementation?

Access and use of practice/policy impacting outputs?

System evaluation

Feedback re technological issues from service users, practitioners, team managers – to systems people – to managers – to each other?

Information sharing in department re ICS implementation – bulletins, meetings etc.

Changes that have happened / envisaged – to the system – to practice processes?

Appendix G

Black and minority ethnic groups and the ICS.

This appendix contains the brief report on this part of the evaluation and the data collection instrument.

Methodology

The proposal for our evaluation of the ICS included a focus on the use of ICS with children and families from BME groups. As two of the sites selected have areas where there are sizeable numbers of ethnic minority families (269,500 in Authority D and 25,602 in Authority A) the intention had been to include in our sample for interviewing and record analysis children from black and ethnic minorities and children whose first language is not English. We also hoped to be able to address the extent to which the system facilitates a focus on issues which have a specific relevance to the child and family, such as religion, diet and other cultural observance. In the event, the sites that had been selected to enable us to progress these aims were unable to provide us with this sample. The only BME family included in the Disability study (from Authority C) declined to participate.

Instead, we designed a questionnaire, to be completed by lead managers with responsibility for implementing ICS, seeking some basic data about the BME population served, the employment of BME staff and the use, potential or actual, of the ICS in providing information about need and service provision with this client group.

BME populations and general information.

Table 1. BME population as a % of total population latest estimates as provided by the Authorities.

AUTHORITY	POPULATION	BME POPULATION	BME AS % OF TOTAL
A	753633	25,602	3.3
B	130200	1300	0.9
C	148,594	1188	0.8
D	269,500	18,865	7%

All of the sites used the National Census definitions of BME groups in their statistics. As can be seen from Table 1, two of the four sites have very low BME populations. Authority A has a concentration of BME groups in an area where we had hoped to sample, but where ICS was not implemented. In Authority D, where only the Disability Services implemented ICS, no BME families were included. Although Authority B recently experienced an influx of 4000 immigrant workers, none were captured in the published figures.

Regarding ethnic groupings, in Authorities B and C the predominant cultural groups were mixed, Chinese and Asian. In A and D various cultural heritages are represented, the majority being Asian (Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi), then Afro- Caribbean and with a group of Chinese in Authority A.

Findings: The ICS and BME groups of children.

Table 2 demonstrates the numbers of BME children represented in Children Services. Two authorities stated that the ICS easily provided this information. Authorities B and C found this problematic, suggesting that the software systems in use have a variable capacity to collect this data. This must compromise planning for individual children and strategic planning for management purposes.

Table 2: Numbers of children using specific services from BME groups.

AUTHORITY	Looked After Children	Child Protection Register	CIN Services users.
A	119	25	512
B	4	0 (i)	471 (i)
C	0	0	0 (ii)
D	42	20	305

Footnotes.

i. Return states that data is inaccurate.

ii Return states ‘We cannot be certain about CIN figure. However if there are any BME in this group the figure will be extremely low’.

Employment of staff from BME groups

Having identified the numbers of children in receipt of services, we asked for information about the numbers, proportion and representation of BME staff employed to work with these children. Table 3 shows that, in one Authority, no information was provided, in another none are employed, in another one is employed as a field social worker, and in the last, 23 are employed.

Table 3. Numbers of staff from BME groups employed in Children’s services.

AUTHORITY	TOTAL STAFF	BME STAFF
A	Not known	Not known
B	140	1 (i)
C	192	0 (iii)
D	452	23 (ii)

Notes to Table 3

i. Field social Worker

ii. 8 field Social workers, 2 residential workers, 1 operational manager. The remainder were in admin and ‘miscellaneous post’. (No definition of Miscellaneous).

iii These figures do not represent the whole of the council’s children’s social services workforce or the whole geographic area.

Information supplied by the ICS systems in the Pilot sites.

We then asked the Authorities what information the ICS was able to provide.

• Ethnicity and religion of known cases.

All four authorities reported that the ICS had the capacity to provide information about the ethnicity and religious observance of all active cases. However Authority B reported that entering details of religion is not mandatory and though the database has the capacity to capture the information this does not happen because practitioners do not enter it. Data from the download study found that, in one Authority (C) , in 93 per cent of the non-duplicate referrals the social workers used this ‘opt out’ box for entering religion, where they ticked ‘not known’. In only four cases in a thousand was there any specific information on religion (Christian in the majority of these cases, although two were said to be ‘Roman Catholic’, two ‘Church of Scotland’, one a Jehovah’s witness and one a Moslem’). The result is that there is little detailed information for practitioners to use.

• Children from Dual heritage families.

The questionnaire sought to establish whether parental details of children from dual heritage parents were routinely inputted into the system. All reported that their systems had this capacity, although one stated that this was done through the Referral and Information Exemplar. Again, one authority stated that the information was not routinely entered by practitioners.

• Ethnic background of approved foster carers and adopters and private foster carers.

Two authorities reported that the ICS had the capacity to provide details about the cultural heritage of approved foster carers while two reported it had not (though in one case this was planned). In respect of adopters, the storing of this information was done separately. In the case of private foster carers (see the Children Act 2004), the information is not collected.

• Residential Placements for Looked After Children.

We asked whether, when seeking a placement for a child from a BME background, information about the ethnic make up of residents and staff in children’s homes is routinely accessed, with variable results. Two authorities reported that this exercise was not routinely undertaken; one stated that it would be undertaken and the details inputted into the Placement Information exemplar and one reported that ‘other needs might dictate the use of a particular resource, but it would certainly be part of the considerations’.

• Special Needs of children –first language, diet and religious observation.

All sites reported that their ICS systems have the capacity to collect information about first language, religious and dietary needs. However, as one authority points out, that information is only available ‘ if entered by social workers at the point of assessment and in the course of planning and review’.

The fact that two of our sites report that the ICS is not being used by practitioners to report on basic cultural and special needs of children suggests the need for better management and training. We asked whether managers monitored these aspects. Authority B reported that their system did not have the capacity to produce reports on these issues. Authority A replied that ‘standard monitoring includes sample of files read by three levels of management. This does not include the scrutiny of any specific need areas.’ These answers imply that no special attention is paid to cultural and ethnic needs in the managerial monitoring of files. The other two authorities replied that managers did monitor the records

• The staff as a resource.

Finally we asked respondents whether the authority systematically collected information about the skills and knowledge that their own staff posses in respect of BME groups. Some authorities do audit ethnicity, knowledge and language and other skills in order to maximise the potential of providing services to children and their families from ethnic minority groups. In our authorities practice varied. Authority D did not answer the question; Authority C stated that this is not routinely collected at present; Authority B reported that recent discussions between managers have identified a need for quality diversity training. Authority A tied the response to their annual Performance and Development review process for all staff, writing that ‘The process looks at the past year’s achievements and the needs and targets of the member of staff for the coming year. Any training needs arising from the reviews are (theoretically) aggregated to inform plans. The equalities agenda has also raised the issue of skills and knowledge in relation to working with BME groups. Currently there is no regular collection of information concerning any other staff skills and knowledge areas’.

The overall picture is of little monitoring of the specific cultural, language and other relevant skills possessed by staff that could benefit users from the various BME groups.

Reflections on the ICS.

Within the context that our sites had not fully implemented the ICS, we asked the respondents to reflect upon the potential of the ICS to improve practice with families from BME groups.

One authority did not answer because there had not been a review or auditing of the quality of work undertaken in recording, nor a testing of the relationship between the record and the quality of practice. Three authorities answered that the ICS has either improved or has the potential to improve such practice.

Authority D wrote that ‘ Any new system gathering more background information such as ethnicity and cultural background can only improve and encourage good practice.’

Authority B raised concerns about database maintenance and stated that reporting facilities need to be improved to allow better reporting on BME users. They also commented that there was a need for more training.

Authority C commented that ‘over time we would expect practitioners and managers to routinely record BME status and take the information into account when working with individual children and families, as well as use it in planning and service development. Currently it would be fair to say that BME issues do not feature highly within (this authority)...’

The respondents were also asked if the ICS had encouraged better assessments of children and families from BME populations and/or more reflective and analytic practice. Within the context of the equivocal responses given above authorities were unclear. One said it would be difficult to conclude that there had been any significant practice changes …because so little work is done with BME users. Only authority D stated that both assessment and analysis had been encouraged while also acknowledging that, at this point, the ICS was just beginning in that authority and had not been used with many BME service users.

Authority B reported that their system did not have the capacity to produce reports on these issues. Authority A replied that ‘standard monitoring includes sample of files read by three levels of management. This does not include the scrutiny of any specific need areas.’

Training

Finally, we asked whether issues relating to BME users were addressed in the pre-implementation training. The answer from all sites was no.

Conclusion.

The intention of this questionnaire was to establish what work had been done in the sites specifically about the ICS and BME users, what use was being made of the ICS and to collate their views on its potential. The results have to be seen in the context of the delayed and patchy implementation of the system. Nevertheless, they are of concern.

There is no evidence to suggest that BME issues have been a focus in the development of the ICS, in the training for it or in its implementation. This reinforces the view that, despite race equality being on the agenda for social work for well over two decades, little has changed (Dutt, personal communication, 2006). The evidence is that essential information about race, whether it relates to staff or to CIN, is not routinely collected. This is a pattern not related specifically to the ICS. However, even where ICS is in use, there is no clear evidence of usage, change or improvement.

Firstly, there are practice issues. Practitioners are not entering key information about BME children they know. For example, in relation to questions on ethnicity, religion and dual heritage of known cases practitioners are not required to, and do not routinely, enter information about religion. The question arises are they also not entering the information about ethnicity? Equally, the responses for the question on children’s religious and cultural needs highlights the lack of attention paid to race, religion, language and culture and suggests that practitioners do not feel the need to address these issues because there is no expectation that they should do so.

Secondly, the suggestion that staff skills are not carefully matched with the needs of a particular case is also of concern, though can not be attributed to ICS.

Thirdly, software and data processing issues. While all our sites reported that the ICS had the capacity to provide information about the ethnicity and religious observance of all active cases, only three reported that their database could do this. Further, accessing the data required manipulation using other software packages. More specifically, in the case of private foster carers and adopters the range and detail of information that is vital for practice that is integrated into the ICS is limited.

At this early stage of implementation, and with the paucity of data we have on the use of ICS with BME families, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions about whether or not ICS is providing better information or better opportunities for recording than existed before. What does seem clear at this stage is that the problems in practitioners awareness of- and so recording of- essential cultural information and needs- are endemic and continuing, whatever the system in place for recording..

Moving on to the potential of the ICS to address these deficits, the responses regarding the potential of ICS to improve work with BME children and families from our sites are somewhat bland. Authorities have had a legal obligation under the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000 to collect information on ethnicity; this is not new and has not been initiated by the ICS. It is rather depressing to read that the main potential of the ICS in working with ethnic minority groups is described in these terms. And looking for suggestions that the format of the exemplars will encourage more careful recording of BME specific information, there are none. As it stands, the suggestion that other questions related to ethnicity should be added is unlikely to solve the problem which lies in other areas, such as lack of knowledge, poor training, and the context of many referrals which may not allow the social worker to seek the degree of detail required. There is no evidence that ICS will solve the problem.

The Integrated Children’s System: The Social Services Evaluation.

The impact of ICS on services for Black and Minority Ethnic Groups.

How to complete this questionnaire

• The questionnaire has three sections ‘A. Statistical and general information’, ‘B What can the ICS provide?’, and ‘C. Some reflective issues’.

• It can be completed electronically or by hand.

• Electronic versions can be returned via email to pmd2@york.ac.uk
• Hard copies can be posted to Paul Dyson, Department of Social Policy and Social Work, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD.

Local Authority

A. STATISTICAL AND GENERAL INFORMATION.

QUESTION

ANSWER

1.

What is the total population of your authority? (Please use most recent estimates.)

2.

What is the total Black and minority ethnic (BME) population in your authority? (Please use most recent estimates)

3.

Do you use the National census definition of BME groups in calculating your statistics? If not please explain the system that you use.

4.

What are the major BME groups in your authority? Please indicate: The numbers in each group. The % of the total population that each group represents. The numbers of children/young People aged 0-18 in each group.

5.

Specifically addressing children’s services how many BME children are there in each of the following categories: Looked After Children The Child Protection register Children in Need Service users.

6.

Does ICS provide this information in an easily accessible manner? If not please indicate the reasons.

7.	Please provide the following information:
Total numbers of staff in Children’s Social Services (WTEs)
Total numbers of staff in Children’s Social Services (WTEs) who are from BME population.
BME groups represented in the Children’s Social Services staff population (please list)

8.	In respect of the BME staff group how many are:
Field Social Workers
Residential Care Staff
Managers
Others (Please give examples)

9.

Since April 2004 how many of foster carers approved by your authority come from BME groups? Please indicate, if possible, the cultural heritage of your BME carers.

10

Since April 2004 how many prospective adopters approved by your authority come from BME groups? Please indicate, if possible, the cultural heritage of your BME adopters.

B WHAT INFORMATION CAN THE ICS PROVIDE YOUR AUTHORITY?

1.	Does your ICS system provide (please tick): The ethnicity of all known cases? The ethnicity of all active cases? c) The ethnicity of all new referrals since ICS was implemented?
	If the answer is C are you able to report on ethnicity of service users using data from another source?

2.	Does you ICS system provide (please tick) : a) The religion of all known cases? b) The religion of all active cases? c) The religion of all new referrals since ICS was implemented?
	If the answer is (c) are you able to report on religion of service users from an alternative data source?

3.	If a child is of mixed cultural heritage could the ICS inform you of the heritage of each birth parent, assuming that both are known to the authority? If NO please explain why this information is not available.

4.	Can ICS provide information about the ethnic background of your approved foster carers?

5.	Can ICS provide information about the ethnic background of your approved adopters?

5.	Could the same detail be provided by ICS if a child was privately fostered?

6a.	In planning residential placements for BME children and to inform decision making do you or your staff routinely have access to information about the ethnic make up of residents and staff of children’s homes that being considered for placement?.
6b.	Do staff record that information on the Placement and Information Record?

7.	Can your ICS system report on the religious needs of individual children? Are you aware if managers use this information to monitor practice?

8.	Can your ICS system report on the dietary needs of individual children? Are you aware if managers use this information to monitor practice?

9.	How do you collect information about the skills and knowledge that staff have in relation to working with bme groups?

C. REFLECTIONS ON ICS.

1. In respect of work with BME users in your opinion has ICS the potential or will it encourage:

1. Improved practice?

2. No change in practice?
3. Have a negative impact on practice?

Please explain your answer and give examples where appropriate.

2. Do you think implementation of the ICS system has encouraged:

a) better assessments for children and families from BME populations?

b) more reflective and analytical practice with children and families from the BME population?

Please explain your answer and give examples where appropriate.

3. Did you address issues relating to BME service users in the pre- implementation ICS training?

Please give examples.

4. Are there any other issues about ICS and your authority’s work with BME service users that you would like to comment on?

THANK YOU

Please check that all sections of this questionnaire are completed return by 24.12.05 to:

Paul Dyson at pmd2@york.ac.uk or by post to

Paul Dyson,

Department of Social Policy and Social Work,

University of York,

Heslington,

York

YO10 5DD.

Appendix H: Views from a service user

This information was sent to us by a service user from one of our pilot sites who wished for his experience of the ICS to be made known in our research report. The comments are included with the permission of the DfES and the Wales Assembly Government.

ICS Documents - Issues

One of the biggest concerns we had was upon doing a case file request and seeing that historical documents, such as the Initial Assessment, had information on them that occurred subsequent to the date that the document was created. An example of this is the section for linked organisations, where the Initial Assessment was created in October 2004 and contained a teacher from a school that my granddaughter didn't even start to attend until September 2005. It seems strange that a document such as that was not "frozen" to only reflect data that only applied up to that moment in time - in essence, a snapshot of that moment alone.

Another major concern was that when requesting copies of ICS documents as part of a case file request, that the signature pages were outputted by the system with little or no signatory information on them nor the signatures themselves. Obviously, this could be a very real concern in terms of establishing accountability for documents.

A further issue we encountered was that no category existed to cover my daughter's partner, which meant he was entered on the Child or Young Person's Plan as "Unknown" rather than "Mother's Partner" (in relation to my grandchildren) under the heading Relationship in the Family and Friends section.

We also experienced some confusion with regards to the Appointed Social Worker chronology within the Child or Young Person's Plan, as we had differing appointment dates from those listed on the plan. The Locality office seemed far too willing to accept the dates that were "on the computer", rather than cross checking the dates against other documents or data elsewhere within their own system.

References

Bell, M. (1999) ‘The Looking After Children materials: a critical analysis of their use in practice’, Adoption and Fostering, 22,4

Bell, M. (1999) Child Protection and the Conference Process, Ashgate, Aldershot.

Beresford, B., Sloper, P., Baldwin, S. and Newman, T. (1996) What Works in Services for Families with a Disabled Child. Ilford, Essex: Barnardos.

Cavet, J. and Sloper, P. (2004) Participation of disabled children in individual decisions about their lives and in public decisions about service development. Children & Society, 18, 278-90.

Cleaver, H. and Walker. S. (2003) Assessing Children’s Needs and Circumstances: The impact of the Assessment Framework. London: The Stationery Office.

Cleaver, H. et al, (2003) A pilot study to assess the development of a multi- agency and integrated approach to the delivery of services to children and their families: Porgree Report. Royal Holloway College, University of London; Loughborough University; Open University and University of Wales, Cardiff

Davies, M (1994) The Essential Social Worker. Aldershot: Ashgate

Department of Health, (1999) Local Authority Circular, LAC (99) 29, Care Plans and Care Proceedings under the Children Act.

Department of Health, 1999, LAC (99) 29, Care Plans and Care Proceedings under The Children Act.

DfES Implementing the Integrated Children’s System – a Phased approach, Briefing Paper 6, Accessed at www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/ics on 8.6.06

DfES, 2004, Every Child Matters: Change for Children, TOS, London.

Gatehouse, M. and Ward, H. (2003) Outputs from Information Systems for Children in Need (Data Analysis Network for Children’s Services, Final Report 2002). Loughborough: Centre for Child and Family Research, Loughborough University.

Gatehouse, M., Statham, J. and Ward, H. (2004) Information outputs of children’s social services. Centre for hild and Familiy Research, Loughborough University.

Hallett, C. (1995)Inter Agency Coordination in child protection, HMSO, London

Horwath, J. (2002) Maintaining a focus on the child? Child Abuse Review, 11,195-213.

Marchant, R. (2001) The Assessment of Children with Complex Needs. In: The Child’s World, Assessing Children in Need (ed. J. Horwath), pp. 207-220, Jessica Kingsley, London.

Marris, P. (1986) Loss and Change. Routledge, London.

Qureshi, H., Bamford, C., Nicholas, E., Patmore, C. and Harris, J. (2000) Outcomes in Social Care Practice: Developing an outcome focus in care management and user surveys, Department of Health Report DH1738, 6.00, HQ. York: Social Policy Research Unit, University of York.

Rabiee, P., Sloper, P. and Beresford, B. (2005) Doing research with children and young people who do not use speech for communication. Children and Society, 19: 385-396.

Ritchie, J. and Lewis, J. (2003) Qualitative Research Practice. London: Sage.

Ritchie, J. and Spencer, L. (1994) Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In Bryman, A. and Burgess, R.G. (eds.) Analysing Qualitative Data, pp173-194. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Roberts, K. and Lawton, D. (2001) Acknowledging the extra care parents give their disabled children. Child: Care, Health and Development, 27, 307-319.

Shaw I and Bell M, 2004, Evaluating the Integrated Children’s System – Memorandum for all Project Stakeholders, Internal communication to stakeholders in the University of York ICS Evaluation Project. (Internal communication).

Shaw, I (2006) ‘Human services evaluation’ in Shaw, I., Greene, J. and Mark, M. (eds) Sage Handbook of Evaluation. London: Sage Publications.

Stake, Robert E. and Schwandt, Thomas A. (2006) ‘On discerning quality in evaluation’ in Shaw, I., Greene, J. and Mark, M. (eds) Sage Handbook of Evaluation. London: Sage Publications. Ch 18.

Walker, Scott and Clever. (2004) Implementing the Integrated Children’s System: A Training Pack, TSO, London.

Ward, H. and Skuse, T. (2001) ‘Performance targets and stability of placements for children long looked after away from home’. Children and Society 15 (5) 333-346.

Wise, S. (2003) An Evaluation of a Trial of Looking After Children in the State of Victoria, Australia, Children and Society, 17, (1) 3-17