British Journal of Social Work (2007) 37,1059-1077
doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcl053
Advance Access publication June 19,2006
Assessment Frameworks: A Critical
Reflection
Beth R. Crisp, Mark R. Anderson, Joan Orme and
Pam Green Lister
Beth R. Crisp is Associate Professor in Social Work at Deakin University in Australia, and
formerly Senior Lecturer in Social Work at the University of Glasgow. She has written widely
in the areas of social work education and research, and is particularly interested in evidence
based practice and programme evaluation.
Mark R. Anderson was employed as a researcher on this project at the University of Glasgow. He
is now the research grants officer at RMIT University in Australia.
Joan Orme is Professor of Social Work at the Glasgow School of Social Work. She has written
on many aspects of social work education, practice and research.
Dr Pam Green Lister is a Senior lecturer in Social Work at the Glasgow School of
Social Work and has undertaken research in the fields of social work pedagogy and child
protection.
Correspondence to Associate Professor Beth R, Crisp, School of Health and Social
Development, Deakin University, Waterfront Campus, Geelong, Victoria, Australia 3217,
E-mail: beth.crisp@deakin.edu.au
Summary
Increasing widespread requirements that assessment practice conforms to generic
guidelines contained in assessment frameworks has been contentious and critiques
offered on individual frameworks have been assumed to apply to the concept of
assessment frameworks more generally. After comparing four assessment frameworks currently being used in the UK, this paper argues that although some generalizations can be made, for the most part, they are highly individual documents in
terms of range and depth of content, the extent to which they are evidenced and
the quality of that evidence and implicit expectations as to the skill bases of assessors. Furthermore, the introduction of assessment frameworks is not in itself a panacea to ensure good practice. Even with the most comprehensive frameworks, social
workers will still need comprehensive training in assessment and supervision of their
practice.
Keywords: assessment frameworks, practice guidance, professional practice, social
work assessment
© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of
The British Association of Social Workers. All rights reserved.
1060 Beth R. Crisp et al.
Introduction
Over the last decade or so, the emergence of a seeming proHferation of assessment frameworks has had substantial impact on the rhetoric, if not the practice,
of social work in the UK, Australia and elsewhere. There are frameworks for
assessing people at various hfe stages from infancy to old age, and for people
who may have a diverse set of issues potentially warranting social work or other
forms of intervention (e.g. Berg et ai, 2000; Gimpel, 1997; Lyons et al., 1999). In
the UK, perhaps the most widely known is the Framework for the Assessment of
Children in Need and their Families (Department of Health et ai, 2000) but
numerous frameworks have also been developed over time in community care.
The rationale behind such developments is manifold. The primary aim has
been to improve services and encourage effective outcomes for clients (Campbell
et ai, 2000), and there is an underlying assumption that this will be achieved by
systematizing practice. For example, assessment frameworks typically suggest
the domains which should be considered in an assessment. In the absence of
explicit expectations, assessors may fail to include discussion of topics which
might otherwise be regarded as core information. For example, an analysis of
expert reports submitted by expert witnesses in twenty cases of legal proceedings for alleged child sexual abuse in Sweden (Gumpert and Lindblad, 2001)
found the written reports varied between two and sixty-nine pages in length. Furthermore, there seemed to be no consensus as to whether such reports should
include information about issues such as family and peer relations, emotional
reactions in relation to the disclosure of abuse, psychological symptoms, behavioural disturbances, developmental ability and contact with other health professionals. Hence, it has been argued that the introduction of frameworks can
provide systematized inclusion and analysis of information deemed to be relevant.
In particular, there have been suggestions that assessment frameworks may
limit the effect of poor conceptual skills among assessors. For example, it has
been proposed that child protection workers rarely theorize in an informed or
explicit manner (Buckley, 2000). In the absence of a formalized assessment
framework, some assessors will develop their own set of assessment objectives
which they can readily articulate. However, assessors with weak conceptual
skills may be unable to articulate their own objectives in relation to the assessment process (Parry-Jones and Soulsby, 2001).
It is no coincidence that the recent development of several assessment frameworks has coincided with moves to ensure that practice is evidence based through
the issuing of practice guidance (Berg et al., 2000). Indeed, implicit in the development of some frameworks is that their use might encourage practitioners to draw
on a range of evidence for the decisions that they make. It is often claimed that
busy social workers do not have time to read the empirical literature (Benbenishty
et al, 2003; Sheldon and Chilvers, 2000) and even if they did, many social workers
have reportedly no access to departmental libraries or to professional journals
through their workplace (Sheldon and Chilvers, 2000). Consequently, it is not surprising that research evidence has been found to be rarely used to underpin
Assessment Frameworks 1061
decision making by social workers concerning interventions with their chents
(Rosen, 1994; Rosen etal., 1995). For example, when asked to make an assessment
and recommendations for intervention based on a written scenario, social workers
in both Canada and Israel were unlikely to claim empirical studies as the basis for
their recommendations (Benbenishty et al., 2003). Hence, embedding research in
systems and processes of social work such as standards, pohcies, procedures,
frameworks and tools encourages research utiUzation but places less emphasis on
individual practitioners keeping abreast of research and applying it to their practice (Walter et al., 2004). Furthermore, by being made widely available due to distribution over the internet, assessment frameworks may now be among the most
readuy obtainable new hterature on assessment which practitioners can access.
The introduction of frameworks has not been uncontentious. In this Journal,
Garrett (2003) has critiqued the development of frameworks for work with
children, arguing that is essential that practitioners are aware of the social and
political context in which these have emerged, and Richards (2000) analysed
the impact of the use of frameworks in work with older people, noting that a
mechanistie use of frameworks can render invisible service user perspectives as
to their care needs. While some criticisms have been concerned with implementation, contentions have also been made about the 'theory-neutral stance'
(Munro, 1998, p. 101) of some assessment tools and guidelines which are widely
used in the UK. For example, Garrett (2003) maintained that the schedules
developed for the Department of Health are intrinsically middle-class in their
assumptions about standards and behaviour. It has also been proposed that
many widely used published guides to assessment are not rigorous:
... [they] have not employed a theoretical framework which could evaluate
and integrate the various professions, disciplines and perspectives which
are involved (Clifford, 1998, p. 5).
Nevertheless, because of assumptions that assessment frameworks promote
informed and systematized practice, they are sometimes proposed as the basis
for training students and practitioners in particular forms of assessment
(Velasquez and Velasquez, 1980; Wilkinson, 2000). Yet, research shows that
getting the best out of an assessment framework is about more than rote utilization and may necessitate novice users seeking out expert advice or supervision. As one of the developers of the Darlington Family Assessment System
(DFAS) notes, supervision is key to the effective use of frameworks:
Good supervision is essential, and should aim to enhance the conceptual
skills of relating theory to practice; the technical skills of family interviewing;
and be sensitive to the personal life experiences of novice therapists insofar
as this affects their clinical work. Good supervision should help novice clinicians from what ever profession consider possible psychiatric diagnoses (such
as ADHD, or psychotic conditions) and the need for additional specialist
advice or multi-professional work in complex cases (Wilkinson, 2000, p. 223).
Other writers have been equally cautious about the potential of assessment
frameworks, on their own, to improve assessment practice. For example. Berg
1062 Beth R. Crisp et al.
et al. (2000) contended that explicit guidelines may result in assessment reports in
which the basis for recommendations is more transparent or verifiable, but it does
not necessarily alter the content of recommendations. Furthermore, even if there
are standards as to what sort of information they should collect, the weight which
assessors give some information may vary considerably, with no guarantee that
they will include so-called essential details (Macdonald, 2001). Thus, within the
one agency, the likelihood that eligibility for service is acknowledged may be
dependent on which assessor has been allocated to a case (Jörg et ai, 2002).
Finally, just because assessment gtiidelines have been produced, it shotild not be
assumed that workers are familiar with them. Despite the pubHcation of Practice
Guidance to accompany promulgation of the 1995 Carers (Recognition and Services) Act, a study of Welsh care managers found few were aware of its existence
more than a year after the Act had taken effect. Consequently, many assessments
were being conducted by assessors who were oblivious of the parameters and key
principles of assessment in respect of carers (Seddon and Robinson, 2001).
As social work educators, our own interest has primarily been concerned with
debates concerning the use of assessment frameworks to facilitate learning about
assessment. In a report produced as a resource for the development of learning
and teaching about assessment in the new social work degree in England, we
examined methods of promoting learning which have been used in formal training
programmes in both higher education and in workplaces (Crisp et al., 2003). At
that time, we recognized the potential for both textbooks and assessment frameworks to also play a role in promoting learning about assessment and undertook a
second study exploring these issues (Crisp et ai, 2005). In this current paper, we
move away from our earlier focus concerning the educative potential of assessment frameworks to a critical reflection on the concept of assessment frameworks, based on a comparative study of four assessment frameworks currently
being used in the UK and which we located on the internet. As such, this paper
differs from previously pubhshed critiques which have been based on an individual framework rather than the concept of assessment frameworks more generally.
What is an 'assessment framework'?
Before one can critique the concept, it is necessary to first define what is meant
by the term 'assessment framework'. However, our reading of the literature
revealed much diversity as to what was being proposed. Documents which have
been proposed as assessment frameworks vary in length from journal articles
of a few pages to extensive series of monographs. While some assessment
frameworks are standalone documents, others are incorporated into broader
frameworks for service with particular client groups.
For some, an assessment framework should provide guidance as to the
domains or concepts within which an assessment should be considered
(Scannapieco and Hegar, 1996; Witter, 2004). These may relate primarily to
the individual who is being assessed (Mailick, 1988) or may go beyond the
Assessment Frameworks 1063
domain of service users to consider also the type of organizational unit which is
providing services to users and carers and the resources of the service dehvery system (human, technological, information and financial) (Maher and Illback, 1981)
and, as such, may aim to reshape services (Horwath and Morrison, 2000). For
example, a suggested framework for assessing the needs of carers might consider:
1
2
3
4
Quality of life for the person for whom they care;
Quality of life for the carer;
Managing the caring role; and
Service process outcomes (Nicholas, 2003).
The identification of domains might guide the structure of an assessment report
but 'frameworks are really only aide-memoires, or organising principles'
(Macdonald, 2001, pp. 238-9) for effective practice. Importantly, an assessment
framework is not the same as the assessment tools or data collection instruments
used to collect the information on which the assessment is based. Nevertheless,
tools may be developed to facihtate assessment within a particular framework
(Nicholas, 2003) or frameworks may identify a range of possible assessment tools
from which assessors may select those most appropriate in a particular situation
(e.g. in work with service users with substance misuse problems). While such
tools may 'provide a helpful adjunct' (Skinner et ai, 2000, p. 196) rather than
replace a detailed assessment process, the misuse or misunderstanding of the status of assessment frameworks could potentially lead to uncritical application.
Frameworks are often assumed to be mandatory, particularly when accompanied by policy guidelines for their use. The Department of Health frameworks for children and families' work are explicit about how they are to be
utilized, and the semi-statutory nature of this guidance (Ward, 2000). Assessment frameworks may therefore go beyond guidelines in having an explicit
theoretical or conceptual underpinning.
One further issue for consideration is whether an assessment framework
needs to define itself as a 'framework'. For example, the Darlington Family
Assessment System (Wilkinson, 2000) is arguably an assessment framework,
despite the absence of the word 'framework' in its title. It has a conceptual
basis which sets out the parameters for assessment and guidelines for practitioners. It also includes rating scales and interview schedules which facilitate
exploration of the specific domains identified in the conceptual framework but
notes the importance of 'matching the choice of assessment to the situation, so
that methods are appropriate for the purpose, acceptable to clients, efficient
and effective' (Wilkinson, 2000, p. 215).
Method
Criteria for inclusion
Recognizing that there is no standard definition for the term 'assessment
framework', this study sought to identify assessment frameworks which were:
1064 Beth R. Crisp et al.
•
primarily comprised documentation which proposed a conceptual, philosophical and/or theoretical basis to assessment practice;
•
not primarily a data collection tool and instructions for the completion of
such, although such tools may be included in a broader assessment
framework;
•
developed for assessing social work and social care clients in the UK;
•
developed for national rather than local use;
•
readily available over the internet at no cost to potential users;
•
currently recommended for use with specific populations; and
•
not known to have been superseded.
A further consideration, given that the overwhelming majority of UK qualified
social workers are employed in statutory settings, was that selected frameworks
are likely to be used in statutory social work settings. Such frameworks are
likely to be among the most widely utilized, and the ones that social work students and new practitioners might be most expected to be familiar with.
Identification of sample frameworks
Having determined the sample criteria, the process of identifying potential
frameworks involved identifying frameworks the authors were already familiar with, asking colleagues for details of assessment frameworks in their
fields of practice, and searching the internet to find references to 'assessment
frameworks'.
Where multiple frameworks were identified relating to ostensibly the same
client group, only one framework was selected. As the Framework for the
Assessment of Children in Need and their Families (Department of Health et al.,
2000) is the most widely developed and used assessment framework in the UK,
inclusion of this framework in the sample was considered essential. Other
frameworks were selected on the basis of having been developed for use with
contrasting chent groups. These were:
•
A Practitioner's Guide to Carers' Assessments under the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 (Department of Health, 2001a);
•
Integrated Care for Drug Users: Integration Principles and Practice (Effective Interventions Unit, 2002); and
•
National Service Pramework for Older People (Department of Health,
Whereas the frameworks developed for assessment of children in need and carers
are standalone assessment frameworks, the remaining two are frameworks for service dehvery with particular populations which include an assessment framework.
Assessment Frameworks 1065
Analysis
A standardized proforma was developed for analysis of content of each of the
four selected assessment frameworks (Crisp et al, 2005). This process drew on
processes previously developed for the analysis of educational documents (Ferrell
et al, 2000; Ornstein, 1994) as well as content items reflecting the current
context of assessment practice in the UK. The initial proforma was trialled and
then modified as additional categories emerged that had not been anticipated but
which were potentially relevant. Data entered onto the proforma for each framework included factual information (e.g. number of pages devoted to the topic of
assessment) and content relating to issues of prominence in social work and
social work education in the UK (e.g. policy and legislation, anti-discriminatory/
anti-oppressive practice, evidence-based practice). The completed proformas
have been published elsewhere and provide a detailed analysis of the strengths
and limitations of each framework with respect to content on assessment
(Crisp et al, 2005). Comparisons between the various frameworks provide a
basis for determining whether there are universal critiques which can be
applied to the set of assessment frameworks studied.
Findings
What is an assessment framework?
There was no singular notion of an assessment framework in the four documents reviewed in respect of content (level of details and topics), expectations
of prior knowledge by the intended readership and intentions. Whereas the
authors otA Practitioner's Guide to Carer's Assessments suggest that 'This guide
is designed to be a good practice tool for practitioners carrying out carers'
assessments' (Department of Health, 2001a, p. 1), the emphasis of Framework
for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families is more of a 'conceptual map' (Department of Health et al, 2000, p. 26) than a how-to-do-it guide:
The Guidance is not a practice manual. It does not set out step-by-step procedures to be followed: rather it sets out a framework which should be
adapted and used to suit individual circumstances (Department of Health
et al, 2000, p. ix).
Assessment
Only one of the frameworks actually defined assessment. This was the Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families, which draws
heavily on the work of Compton and Galaway (1989):
Assessment is the first stage in helping a vulnerable child and his or her
family, its purpose to contribute to the understanding necessary for
1066 Beth R. Crisp et al,
appropriate planning and action. Assessment has several phases which
overlap and lead into planning, action and review:
•
•
•
•
Clarification of source of referral and reason;
Acquisition of information
Exploring facts and feelings
Giving meaning to the situation which distinguishes the child and family's understanding and feelings from those of the professionals
• Reaching an understanding of what is happening, problems, strengths
and difficulties, and the impact on the child (with the family wherever
possible);
• Drawing up an analysis of the needs of the child and parenting capacity
within their family and community context as a basis for formulating a
plan (Department of Health et al, 2000, p, 29),
Although not actually defining 'assessment', two other frameworks certainly
hint at a definition by discussing the purpose of assessment. For example, the
Integrated Care for Drug Users contends that:
The purpose of assessment is to identify the needs and aspirations of the
individual in order to inform decisions about treatment, care and support
for drug users. It usually takes the form of one-to-one discussions between
the staff member and the individual. If the assessment process is working
effectively, the individual should be a full participant and understand and
agree the goals of treatment, care and support (Effective Interventions
Unit, 2002, p, 73),
While the purpose of assessment just described is particularly focused on the
needs of service users, A Practitioner's Guide to Carers' Assessments places
greater emphasis on the capacity of service providers to meet the needs of service users and carers:
A carers' assessment under the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 is
carried out at the request of the carer in order:
• To determine whether the carer is eligible for support
• To determine the support needs of the carer (ie what will help the
carer in their caring role and help them to maintain their own health
and well-being
• To see if those needs can be met be social or other services (Department
of Health, 2001a, p, 9),
In each of the four frameworks, determining a need for services was underpinned by an ethos in which the assessment process was concerned with the
identification and management of risk. For example, the Integrated Care for
Drug Users notes that assessment of risk is a core aspect of assessment, in relation to establishing access to services but also priority on any waiting lists for
services. The identification of risk, however, meant different things in relation
to the disparate target groups of the various assessment frameworks. While
both the Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families
and the National Service Framework for Older People seek to identify persons
who are perceived to be 'vulnerable' so that measures can be taken to reduce
Assessment Frameworks 1067
or avoid the potential for significant harm, in respect of older persons, the role
of assessments is also to promote independence where possible by seeking to
prevent deterioration and manage crises. In respect of carers, A Practitioner's
Guide to Carers' Assessments considers risk in relation to the sustainability of
the caring role, i.e. whether it is at risk of breaking down.
With the exception of the National Service Framework for Older People,
assessment was considered by the various frameworks to occur on an ongoing
basis, while taking care not to be too repetitive or intrusive. This approach recognizes that the needs of users/carers change over time, particularly after critical events.
The assessment process
Although the purpose of assessment frameworks is principally to provide practice guidance, a not unreasonable expectation may be that such guidance has
an explicit theoretical underpinning. However, only the Framework for the
Assessment of Children in Need and their Families discusses the need to underpin practice with theory, although it does not identify specific theories, instead
noting other bases for practice:
Each professional discipline derives its knowledge from a particular theoretical base, related research findings and accumulated practice wisdom
and experience. Social work practice, however, differs in that it derives its
knowledge base from theory and research in many different disciplines.
Practice is also based on policies laid down in legislation and government
guidance. It is essential that practitioners and their managers ensure that
practice and its supervision are grounded in the most up to date knowledge
and that they make the best use of the resources described in the practice
guidance as well as other critical materials including:
Relevant research findings;
National and local statistical data;
National policy and practice guidance;
Social Services Inspectorate Inspection Standards;
Government and local inspection, audit and performance assessment
reports;
• Lessons learnt from national and local inquires and reviews of cases of
child maltreatment (Department of Health et ai, 2000, p. 16).
Single Shared Assessment, which utilizes a person-centred planning approach,
is advocated in both Integrated Care for Drug Users and the National Service
Framework for Older People. However, while the former introduces these concepts to the reader and assumes no prior familiarity with these ideas, these concepts are not explained in the latter. No explicit theoretical underpinning is
apparent in A Practitioner's Guide to Carers' Assessments, with the stated
underpinnings of this guide being the 2000 Carers and Disabled Children Act.
Although explicit discussion of theoretical underpinnings would seem somewhat optional in an assessment framework, explicit expectations about the
1068 Beth R. Crisp et al.
assessment process were not. All of the frameworks included hsts of domains
which must be included, or at least considered for inclusion, in an assessment.
Structured recording instruments, and accompanying volumes providing
details of suggested tools, are available for the Framework for the Assessment
of Children in Need and their Families and Integrated Care for Drug Users, but
ultimately, for all of the reviewed frameworks, a high degree of professional
skill is expected, and this includes skills in selecting appropriate measures. The
extent of information and range of domains covered may also be affected by
the level of assessment undertaken. The Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families outlined both 'initial' and 'core' assessment,
while Integrated Care for Drug Users proposed 'simple', 'comprehensive' and
'specialist' assessment for use in differing circumstances.
In addition to outlining the domains which should be covered in an assessment, each of the frameworks outlines a range of expectations about assessors
and their conduct of assessments. These may include prescriptive statements
about timeframes for interviews, minimum requirements for information provision, the content of an assessment report and issues around consent, confidentiality and disclosure. All of the frameworks included expectations that an
assessment may be multidisciplinary in nature. While the Framework for the
Assessment of Children in Need and their Families was most explicit in respect
of the particular responsibilities of different agencies and disciphnes, the general ethos of the frameworks was that (i) a range of expert opinions may be
required, and that (ii) these should be obtained in a co-ordinated and planned
way, seeking to avoid the situation of service users and carers having to provide
the same information on multiple occasions.
Involvement of service users and carers in the assessnnent process
The involvement of service users and carers is considered integral to the
assessment process in all of the frameworks reviewed. Assessment should be
about determining the service users' needs, but should not be a process that
is 'done to' people. In respect of carer assessments, the practice guidance notes:
The assessment is not a test for the carer. It should not be prescriptive but
recognise the carers' knowledge and expertise.
The assessment should listen to what carers are saying and offer an opportunity for private discussion so the carer can be candid.
It should not be a bureaucratic process based on ticking boxes. It must
focus on the outcomes the carer would want to see to help them in their
caring role and maintain their health and well-being (Department of
Health, 2001a, p. 11).
In each of the frameworks, there is an expectation that the needs of the person
who is being assessed are considered paramount, and not allowed to be lost in
Assessment Frameworks 1069
the myriad of needs of other family members such as parents, siblings or carers.
Thus, for example, it is proposed that the focus of an assessment of children
should be the child and the process child-centred, with the perspective of
the child given prominence. Similarly, assessments of carers should be carercentred, with carers being entitled to have their own assessment independently
of any assessments of the person for whom they are caring.
While working in partnership with service users and carers is recommended,
it is nevertheless recognized that some assessments may need to be conducted
when this working arrangement is not possible. As the Framework for the
Assessment of Children in Need and their Families notes:
Generally, all these phases of the assessment process should be undertaken
in partnership with the child and key family members, and with their agreement. This includes finalising the plan of action. There may be exceptions
when there are concerns that a child is suffering or may be suffering significant harm (Department of Health et ai, 2000, p. 53).
Although each of the frameworks reviewed for this study stressed the importance of user-centred assessment, only Integrated Care for Drug Users included
feedback from service users about their experiences of being assessed. This
information came from focus groups which were run as part of the process of
developing the framework.
Anti-discriminatory and anti-oppressive practice
The terms 'anti-discriminatory' and 'anti-oppressive' practice are not specifically mentioned in the reviewed frameworks. However, three of them do discuss the need for assessment practice which takes into account diversity and
which addresses disadvantage and discrimination. Standard One in the
National Service Pramework for Older People is entitled 'Rooting out age discrimination'. In relation to assessment specifically, the need to recognize individual needs, including gender, cultural and religious differences, is mentioned.
Likewise, the Pramework for the Assessment of Children and Need and their
Pamilies includes a section on 'Inclusive practice'. Taking a different approach,
A Practitioner's Guide to Carer's Assessments does not have a separate section
nor use the terms 'anti-discriminatory' and 'anti-oppressive' practice but notes
the need to ensure that carers from black and minority ethnic backgrounds are
not discriminated against. For example, it suggested that one of the questions
which assessors should consider in relation to sustainability of the caring role is
'How appropriate is the role for someone of the carer's culture, religion, gender?' (Department of Health, 2001a, p. 7).
Only two of the frameworks reviewed make mention of service users or carers for whom English is not their first language, and both also discuss communicating with clients or carers with a disability that may require use of British
Sign Language, Braille or some other alternative to standard formats of
1070 Beth R. Crisp et al.
information provision. While the National Service Framework for Older People
only discusses this in relation to the provision of information, the Framework
for the Assessment of Children and Need and their Families raises the issue of
language skills in relation to the assessment process. In particular, it notes that
'Additional specialist help may be necessary if the child's first language is not
English' (Department of Health et al, 2000, p. 34).
Legislation and policy contexts
The reviewed frameworks were all published by government agencies and
reflect current policy objectives. For example, the National Service Framework
for Older People claims that it:
... is the first ever comprehensive strategy to ensure fair, high quality, integrated health and social care services for older people. It is a 10 year programme of action linking services to support independence and promote
good health, specialised services for key conditions, and culture change so
that all older people and their carers are always treated with respect, dignity and fairness (Department of Health, 2001Í), p. I).
Two of the frameworks reviewed were explicitly framed in relation to specific
legislation. A Practitioner's Guide to Carers' Assessments under the Carers and
Disabled Childrens Act 2000 refers to legislation in the name of the framework.
This framework also mentions other legislation and the fact that assessors may
also need to take into account the requirements of other guidance such as the
Framework for the Assessment of Children and Need and their Families—a
framework which, in turn, is informed by legislative requirements:
The Guidance describes the Assessment Framework and the Government's expectations of how it will be used. It reflects the principles contained within the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child,
ratified by the UK government in 1991 and the Human Rights Act 1998. In
addition, it takes account of relevant legislation at the time of publication,
but is particularly informed by the requirements of the Children Act 1989,
which provides a comprehensive framework for the care and protection of
children (Department of Health et al., 2000, p. viii).
The other two frameworks make only brief mention of legislation and/or the
legal context in which assessments occur. It should be noted, however, that
even where legislation is mentioned, a working knowledge of the relevant legislation seems to be assumed, as it is not provided.
Evidence bases
In the hght of the assumptions indicated earlier that assessment frameworks
can be a vehicle for embedding research evidence into practice, this comparison
is particularly significant. Three of the frameworks are extensively referenced.
Assessment Frameworks 1071
The exception was A Practitioner's Guide to Carer's Assessments, in which the
reader is informed that 'Research by The Social and Policy Research Unit at
York University (SPRU) has identified a range of outcomes carers may see as
desirable' (Department of Health, 2001a, p. 11), but other than involving discussions between researchers and carers, it is unclear how such evidence was
collected. In stark contrast, the National Service Framework for Older People
includes a typology of evidence, with eleven possible categories of evidence
including eight categories pertaining to research and other literature and three
categories pertaining to expert opinions, including those of service users and
carers. A similar process is adopted in Integrated Care for Drug Users, which
denotes classifies all references as being one of five different types, with an
explicit hierarchy as to the alleged quality types of evidence (Glasby and
Beresford, 2006), In hierarchical order, beginning with evidence regarded as
being of the highest quality, are Systematic reviews (Type 1), Narrative reviews
(Type 2), Primary research studies (Type 3), User consultations (Type 4) and
working groups and other consultations of the Effective Interventions Unit
(Type 5).
Although the Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their
Families is extensively referenced, the referencing is more akin to that found in
textbooks, in which the evidence bases are not explicitly typologized each time
they are referred to. However, it places greater emphasis on encouraging assessors to adopt an evidence-based approach to their practice:
Practice is expected to be evidence-based, by which it is meant that
practitioners:
• Use knowledge critically from research and practice about the needs of
children and families and the outcomes of services and interventions to
inform their assessment and planning;
• Record and update information systematically, distinguishing between
sources of information, for example direct observation, other agency
records or interviews with family members;
• Evaluate continuously whether the intervention is effective in responding to the needs of an individual child and family and modifying their
interventions accordingly;
• Evaluate rigorously the information, processes and outcomes from the
practitioner's own interventions to develop practice wisdom (Department of Health et al, 2000, p, 16),
Discussion
In this paper, we have sought to critically analyse the concept of assessment
frameworks by comparing four frameworks which have been developed for use
with different populations within the UK, The comparisons indicate that there
are limitations to most frameworks in terms of the way they reference any theory
that has led to their development and any relevant legislation. Some frameworks
1072 Beth R. Crisp et al.
are clearer than others in indicating the way that they should be used, and their
function in delivering services.
We found considerable variety in the frameworks which we reviewed in
respect of the extent of detail and topics covered. While the Framework for the
Assessment of Children in Need and their Families and Integrated Care for Drug
Users provide as much, if not more, detail on the assessment process than many
commonly used social work textbooks (Crisp et al., 2005), frameworks such as
the National Service Framework for Older People provide little of this information, assuming its readership are already skilled assessors.
Nevertheless, based on our findings, it would seem that some generalizations
about assessment frameworks can be made. For each of the assessment frameworks reviewed for this study, the identification and management of risk is a
key purpose of the assessment process with service providers. Another common theme across the frameworks is the expectation that an assessment may
require input from a range or agencies or disciplines. On the other hand, there
is very little discussion as to the theoretical underpinnings of the assessment
process in any of the documents we reviewed. Even if the legislative basis for
assessment is mentioned, a working knowledge of the relevant legislation
seems to be assumed, as it is not provided. Furthermore, although the involvement of service users and carers is considered integral to the assessment process in all of the reviewed frameworks, only one includes any input from
service users about the experience of being assessed.
One area in which some assessment frameworks appear to do better than
textbooks is in the referencing of supporting evidence (Crisp et al., 2005). Two
of the frameworks typologize all forms of evidence cited, and the reader can
readily identify what type of evidence has been used to support particular
guidelines. However, this does not mean that the evidence used within frameworks is well regarded. Some of the criticisms of the Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families have been that much of the
evidence underpinning the framework for children in need is problematic
(Garrett, 2003; Rose, 2002). Similar criticisms have also been made in relation
to the National Service Framework for Older People (Oureshi, 2004).
Most of the reviewed frameworks have one or more accompanying documents which were identified in the process of conducting this study, especially
for the Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families.
These may provide more comprehensive guidance than in the key framework
document. For example, it has been suggested that the Practice Guidance
accompanying this framework provides specific guidance in relation to children
from black and ethnic minorities, and disabled children, but these accompanying documents are far less widely distributed than the framework document
itself (Horwath, 2002).
Implicit in each of the frameworks is an assumption that skilled assessors are
able to articulate the reasoning for their actions. However, evidence that this
may not apply to many experienced practitioners (Fook et al., 1997) suggests
that frameworks should be used with caution. There is a danger that they could
Assessment Frameworks 1073
be used as mechanistic checklists rather than providing conceptual guidance
(Katz, 1997) and inexperienced staff may use the proforma recording forms for
reporting assessments as data collection tools, even though this is not what they
were designed for:
. . . there is a danger the Assessment Framework will become form-led
and interpreted merely as yet another procedure to follow when workers
do not have the opportunity to familiarize themselves with and work to
the principles. In this situation, the focus becomes information-gathering.
Making sense of the information becomes secondary and the focus on
both identifying and meeting the needs of the child is lost (Horwath,
2002, pp. 203-04).
What has to be avoided is the temptation to promote narrow interpretations of
what is perceived as 'good practice', and that these are uncritically aligned with
worker compliance to bureaucratic requirements. As Howe (1992) points out,
child abuse and child deaths create an imperative for procedures and guidelines for defensive practice, more concerned with procedures than people:
Once the powers-that-be have written the rules and established the routines, all that the wary social worker and her supervisor have to do if blame
is to be avoided is to 'go by the book' (Howe, 1992, p. 507).
At the same time, the complexities of assessment are the subject of much academic debate (Milner and O'Byrne, 2002) and our understanding concerning
the process of assessment has been complexified by those who draw on poststructural theory (Fook, 2002) and constructivism (Parton and O'Byrne, 2000).
The production of frameworks might seem to be counter-indicated by such
developments, but this is not necessarily the case. If a framework is a utilized as
a tool, then learning takes place by analysing the assumptions implicit in the
tool, how users are constructed by the tool and how the tool influences the
assessment process. All this is part of critical reflection that equates to good
practice (Fook, 2002; Orme, 2006).
As with any policy document, the extent to which practice occurs as intended
is questionable (Buckley, 2000) and variations between organizations or
regions may be anticipated (Abrahams et ai, 1989). In respect of the Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families, for example, it
has been suggested that the effectiveness of the framework in improving
assessment practice would appear highly dependent on local practices and, in
some places, it would seem that the framework has not been implemented as
envisaged (Horwath, 2002).
Anecdotally, we have heard reports both from within the UK and Australia,
of inexperienced staff being expected to know what to do on the basis of having
been provided with an assessment framework. However, while assessment
frameworks may make explicit some expectations about the assessment process, they may also be based on an implicit assumption that persons conducting
assessments already have some baseline knowledge of that process. Even with
one of the seemingly more comprehensive assessment frameworks, such as the
1074 Beth R. Crisp et al.
Pramework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Pamili&s, it would
be a mistake to assume that students or new practitioners will become expert
assessors simply by following the printed practice guidance. As Richards (2000)
has argued, while there are benefits for workers and service users in using
assessment frameworks, they invariably get in the way of the development of a
relationship between the two parties unless the assessor is highly skilled. Furthermore, the need for training of senior managers and not just direct service
staff has been identified (Horwath and Morrison, 2000), as has the need to
develop better inter-agency working arrangements (Morrison, 2000).
The increasing use of assessment frameworks should not also become a justification for not providing supervision to front line practitioners who may be
using assessment frameworks on a daily basis. Instead, it has been argued that
the provision of professional supervision is essential for the effective implementation of assessment frameworks (Gordon and Hendry, 2001). Good
supervision also has the potential to make inroads against claims that many
professionals are unclear as to their roles and responsibilities in relation to
frameworks, or may not even know about them (Horwath, 2002).
Conclusion
Having compared four different assessment frameworks, we would conclude
that although some generalizations which can be made, for the most part, they
are highly individual documents in terms of range and depth of content, the
extent to which they are evidenced and the quality of that evidence and implicit
expectations as to the skill bases of assessors. As such, critiques which are justifiable in respect of one framework document may not apply to another.
Furthermore, the potential of assessment frameworks to contribute to the
development of effective practice will be dependent upon how they are implemented. Framework documents alone are not a panacea and should not be
considered as an alternative or substitute for training in assessment and ongoing supervision of practitioners.
Accepted: May 2006
References
Abrahams, R., Capitman, J., Leutz, W. and Macko, P. (1989) 'Variations in care
planning practice in the Social/HMO: An explanatory study', Gerontologist, 29,
pp. 725-36.
Benbenishty, R., Osmo, R. and Gold, N. (2003) 'Rationales provided for risk assessments and for recommended interventions in child protection: A comparison
between Canadian and Israeli professionals', British Journal of Social Work, 33,
pp. 137-55.
Assessment Frameworks 1075
Berg, M., Horstman, K., Plass, S. and Heusden, M. V. (2000) 'Guidelines, professionals
and the production of objectivity: Standardisation and the professionalisation of
insurance medicine'. Sociology of Health and Illness, 22, pp. 765-91.
Buckley, H. (2000) 'Child protection: An unreflective practice'. Social Work Education,
19, pp. 253-63.
Campbell, S. M., Roland, M. O. and Buetow, S. A. (2000) 'Defining quahty of care'.
Social Science and Medicine, 51, pp. 1611-25.
Clifford, D. (1998) Social Assessment Theory and Practice, Aldershot, Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Compton, B. R. and Galaway, B. (1989) Social Work Processes, 4th edn. Pacific Grove,
Brooks/Cole Publishing.
Crisp, B. R., Anderson, M. R., Orme, J. and Green Lister, P. (2003) Knowledge Review I:
Learning and Teaching in Social Work Education—Assessment, Bristol, Policy Press.
Crisp, B. R., Anderson, M. R., Orme, J. and Green Lister, P. (2005) Knowledge Review.
Learning and Teaching in Social Work Education: Textbooks and Frameworks on
Assessment, Bristol, Pohcy Press.
Department of Health (2001a) A Practitioner's Guide to Carers' Assessments under the
Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000, London, Department of Health.
Department of Health (2001è) National Service Framework for Older People, London,
Department of Health.
Department of Health, Department for Education and Employment and the Home
Office (2000) Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families,
London, The Stationery Office.
Effective Interventions Unit (2002) Integrated Care for Drug Users: Integration Principles and Practice, Edinburgh, Effective Interventions Unit, Substance Misuse Division, Scottish Executive.
Ferrell, B., Virani, R., Grant, M. and Juarez, G. (2000) 'Current reviews: Analysis of palliative care content in nursing textbooks'. Journal of Palliative Care, 16, pp. 39-47.
Fook, J. (2002) Social Work Critical Theory and Practice, London, Routledge.
Fook, J., Ryan, M. and Hawkins, L. (1997) 'Towards a theory of social work expertise',
British Journal of Social Work, 27, pp. 399^17.
Garrett, P. M. (2003) 'Swimming with dolphins: The assessment framework. New
Labour and new tools for social work with children and families', British Journal of
Social Work, 33, pp. 441-63.
Gimpel, J. (1997) 'The Risk Assessment and Cost Benefit Act of 1995: Regulatory,
reform and the legislation of science'. Journal of Legislation, 23, pp. 61-91.
Glasby, J. and Beresford, P. (2006) 'Who knows best? Evidence-based practice and the
service user contribution'. Critical Social Policy, 26, pp. 268.-84.
Gordon, R. and Hendry, E. (2001) 'Supervising assessments of children and families:
The role of the front line manager', in J. Horwarth (ed.). The Child's World: Assessing Children in Need, London, Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Gumpert, C. H. and Lindblad, F. (2001) 'Communication between courts and expert
witnesses in legal proceedings concerning child sexual abuse in Sweden: A case
review'. Child Abuse and Neglect, 25, pp. 1497-516.
Horwath, J. (2002) 'Maintaining a focus on the child?'. Child Abuse Review, 11,
pp. 195-213.
Horwath, J. and Morrison, T. (2000) 'Identifying and implementing pathways for organizational change: Using the Framework for the Assessment of Children and Need
and their Families as a case example'. Child and Family Social Work, 5, pp. 245-54.
Howe, D. (1992) 'Child abuse and the bureaucratisation of social work'. Sociological
Review, 40, pp. 490-508.
1076 Beth R. Crisp et al.
Jörg, F,, Boeije, H, R,, Huijsman, R,, de Weert, G, H, and Schrijvers, A, J, P. (2002)
'Objectivity in needs assessment practice: Admission to a residential home'. Health
and Social Care in the Community, 10, pp, 445-56,
Katz, I, (1997) Current Issues in Comprehensive Assessment, London, NSPCC,
Lyons, P,, Doueck, H, J,, Koster, A, J,, Witzky, M, K, and Kelly, P, L, (1999) 'The child
well-being scales as a clinical tool and a management information system'. Child Welfare, 78, pp, 241-58,
Macdonald, G, (2001) Effective Interventions for Child Abuse and Neglect: An Evidencebased Approach to Planning and Evaluating Interventions, Chichester, John Wiley
and Sons,
Maher, C, A, and IUback, R, J, (1981) 'Planning for the delivery of special services in
public schools'. Evaluation and Program Planning, 4, pp, 249-59.
Mailick, M, D, (1988) 'Assessment: A critical component of clinical social work practice
with physically ill adolescents'. Child and Adolescent Social Work, 5, pp, 229-39.
Milner, J, and O'Byrne, P, (2002) Assessment in Social Work, 2nd edn, Basingstoke,
Palgrave,
Morrison, T, (2000) 'Working together to safeguard children: Challenges and changes
for inter-agency co-ordination in child protection'. Journal of Interprofessional Care,
14, pp, 363-73,
Munro, E, (1998) 'Improving social worker's knowledge base in child protection work',
British Journal of Social Work, 28, pp, 89-105,
Nicholas, E, (2003) 'An outcome focus in carer assessment and review: Value and challenge', British Journal of Social Work, 33, pp, 31-47,
Orme, J, (2006) Social Work Practice, 4th edn, Basingstoke, Palgrave,
Ornstein, A, C, (1994) 'The textbook-driven curriculum', Peabody Journal of Education
69(3), pp, 70-85,
Parry-Jones, B, and Soulsby, J, (2001) 'Needs-led assessment: The challenges and the
reality'. Health and Social Care in the Community, 9, pp, 414-28,
Parton, N, and O'Byrne, P, (2000) Constructive Social Work: Towards New Practice,
Basingstoke, Palgrave,
Qureshi, H, (2004) 'Evidence in policy and practice: What kinds of research designs?'.
Journal of Social Work, 4, pp, 7-23,
Richards, S, (2000) 'Bridging the divide: Elders and the assessment process', British
Journal of Social Work, 30, pp, 37-50,
Rose, W, (2002) 'Two steps forward, one step back: Issues for policy and practice', in
Ward, H, and Rose, W, (eds). Approaches to Needs Assessment in Children's Services, London, Jessica Kingsley Publishers,
Rosen, A, (1994) 'Knowledge use in direct practice'. Social Service Review, 68 pp
561-77,
Rosen, A,, Proctor, E, E,, Morrow-Howell, N, and Staudt, M, (1995) 'Rationales for
practice decisions: Variations in knowledge use by decision task and social work service'. Research on Social Work Practice, 5, pp, 501-23,
Scannapieco, M, and Hegar, R, L, (1996) 'A nontraditional assessment framework for
formal kinship homes'. Child Welfare, 75, pp, 567-82,
Seddon, D, and Robinson, C, A, (2001) 'Carers of older people with dementia: Assessment and the Carers Act', Health and Social Care in the Community, 9, pp, 151-8,
Sheldon, B, and Chilvers, R, (2000) Evidence-based Social Care: A Study of Prospects
and Problems, Lyme Regis, Dorset, Russell House Publishing,
Skinner, H,, Steinhauer, P, and Sitarenios, G, (2000) 'Family Assessment Measure
(FAM) and Process Model of Family Functioning', Journal of Family Therapy, 22,
pp, 190-210,
Assessment Frameworks 1077
Velasquez, J. S. and Velasquez, C. P. (1980) 'Application of a bicultural assessment
framework to social work practice with Hispanics', Family Relations, 29, pp. 598-603.
Walter, I., Nutley, S., Percy-Smith, P., McNeish, D. and Frost, S. (2004) Research Utilisation and the Social Care Workforce, London, Social Care Institute for Excellence.
Ward, H. (2000) The Development Needs of Children: Implications for Assessment,
London, Department of Health.
Wilkinson, L (2000) 'The Darlington Family Assessment System: Clinical guidelines for
practitioners'. Journal of Family Therapy, 22, pp. 211-24.
Witter, S. (2004) 'Developing a framework for monitoring child poverty: Results from a
study in Uganda', Children and Society, 18, pp. 3-15.
Acknowledgement
This paper has emerged from a series of studies funded by the Social Care
Institute for Excellence (SCIE) on learning and teaching assessment. However,
the opinions expressed herein are solely those of the authors.
Copyright of British Journal of Social Work is the property of BASW Trading Limited and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.