Analysis and Getting it right for every child: A
Discussion Paper
Analysis of information plays a vital role in the Getting it right for every child (GIRFEC)
practice model of assessment, planning and review of children. Often in complex cases, a
great deal of information is gathered, especially when there are anxieties about a child who is
thought to be at risk. Making sense of information and using analysis to formulate a plan of
action is likely to be an important part of securing the best possible outcomes for children.
Challenges and Opportunities
Child welfare and protection work is heavily defined by risk, uncertainty and anxiety. These
defining features are a product of both the work and society’s reaction to the populations that
are served by those carrying out the work. A psychoanalytical approach suggests that
defences against anxiety are significant at individual, organisational and cultural levels.
“…the institution with responsibility for child protection functions as a container for the
unbearable anxieties of others” (Taylor et al 2008 p27).
Although the task is defined by uncertainty or ‘shades of grey’, this kind of uncertainty cannot
be tolerated by society. This may leave those in child welfare and protection left with
responsibility for creating certainty in an arena which is fundamentally uncertain. Webb
(2006) identifies social work as operating within a ‘risk society’; that is, a society which views
risk as something which should be managed and can be identified and eradicated. The
projection of this societal desire for a risk- and anxiety-free, predictable, stable world is one
which makes the task of analysis even more fraught. Analytical thinking and reflective
practice therefore need to be supported an all areas and professions concerned with child
welfare.
Analysis forms an important link in the chain which is the circular process of assessment
(Hollows 2003). The starting point is the gathering of information (for example, through
reading files, carrying out home visits and speaking to other professionals). This information
then needs to be analysed before an understanding is developed which allows a judgement
to be formed which can lead to an appropriate decision or action. Practitioners need to be
able to share information appropriately and timeously.
Analysis is recognised by practitioners and researchers alike to be an element of assessment
which has been found to be lacking in contemporary assessment practice (Farmer and Owen
1995, Murray 2001, Cleaver et al 2004). Local authorities in Scotland have acknowledged
continuing concerns regarding analysis in assessment (South Ayrshire Feb 2009). The
provision of the Getting it right for every child practice model is a great help in defining the
parameters of assessment and ensuring that sufficient information is gathered and
appropriately structured (Scottish Government 2008). However, the professional reasoning
and analysis which underpins judgement and decision making is not created by the GIRFEC
model; it can only be supported by it.
Some publications have explored issues of analysis (e.g. Milner and O’Byrne 2002, Hollows
2003, Holland 2004, Munro 2008) in a wider context but this area of knowledge is yet to be
developed more fully in its own right. My own text “Making Sense of Assessment” (due for
Analysis and Getting it right for every child: A Discussion Paper (November 2009)
1
publication as part of the Jessica Kingsley “Best Practice” series in 2010) seeks to address
this gap in the literature and within this paper I outline some basic themes which will be
explored in fuller detail in the book.
What is analysis?
Popular usage and definition of “analysis” suggests that it is a process of breaking down
something complex and working back to what is more fundamental. This allows the logical
structure to be displayed, explained and reconstructed. Analysis is bounded and defined by
the context in which it takes place. In terms of child welfare and protection, it is the part of the
assessment process where meaning is ascribed to raw data or information. At its heart,
analysis in this context might be described as asking of all information “what does this mean
for this child?”
There are two broad schools of thought on the way in which humans carry out analysis.
Some theorists view analysis as an action which is carried out very quickly without recourse
to conscious thinking. This has been referred to as “fast and frugal” analysis (Simon 1987).
Analysis can also be carried out in a more methodical, time-consuming and explicitly
reasoned way (Munro 2008). Hammond (1996) suggested that these two types of analysis
are not an either/or choice but are actually the two ends of a spectrum or “cognitive
continuum” along which we can freely and legitimately move as our needs and our
circumstances dictate.
Why is analysis important?
Using an engineering metaphor; it would be foolhardy to try to fix an engine if you did not
have an understanding of how engines work, what has gone wrong with this one and how
you might fix it. While it would be ridiculous to suggest that a human life could be reduced to
a mechanical allusion, it does serve as a useful way of underlining the importance of
analysis. Without analysis, we can not understand the needs upon which the individual child’s
life is predicated. Without analysis we can not direct the actions and processes required to
attend to those unmet needs. The absence of accurate, empathic analysis can result in a
failure to act or can lead to an intervention which is wasteful, unhelpful or even damaging.
Effective, ethical practice requires the presence of analysis.
Why is it not happening?
Professionals involved in the assessment of children’s needs have indicated that they value
analysis in assessment but also feel that this area of practice needs to improve. Explanations
for this apparent difficulty in supporting analysis are provided through consideration of
individual psychology, sociological theory and the organisational context for practice.
Individual Barriers
Analysis tends to be a solitary activity and the subjective nature of individual judgement
means that it has perhaps not been subject to much scrutiny in a field of practice which, until
relatively recently, has been more preoccupied with managerial and procedural solutions to
perceived failings (Parton 2008). Analysis has perhaps taken on a mystique or mythology
that may be getting in the way of practitioners engaging with the enhancement of existing
Analysis and Getting it right for every child: A Discussion Paper (November 2009)
2
skills and abilities. Analysis can be an abstract topic for consideration and the majority of
published work tends to arise in the more specialised and less accessible fields of philosophy
and cognitive psychology, However, there is a body of literature which is helping us to begin
to understand how human thinking is formed by our cognitive processes (Plous 1993),
evolved human capacities (Gigerenzer 2007) and emotions (such as anxiety and uncertainty)
(Dalgleish 2003).
Munro (2008) identifies a number of “common errors of reasoning” which workers need to be
aware of and guard against. These problematic human tendencies include our tendency not
to generate sufficient different possible explanations (or hypotheses), our tendency to stop
looking for other explanations when the first apparently reasonable explanation has been
found, and our unwillingness to review our thinking once we have formed a belief.
One of the most important weaknesses in human reasoning, in relation to child welfare and
protection, is the tendency towards what is known as ‘verificationism’ (Scott 1998). This is the
tendency to come to a judgement too quickly and to then pay more or less attention to new
information depending on whether it supports or undermines your beliefs. For example, if you
really like a parent and want them to avoid losing their child, verificationism may subtly
encourage you to see the positives (such as the reduction of substance use) but play down
or even fail to see the negatives (such as the continued neglect and scapegoating of the
child). This “confirmatory bias” (Munro 2008) can be likened to reading a map when you are
lost; it’s all too easy to see what you want to see and keep turning the map around until the
picture fits to suit you rather than the reality of the situation.
Group Barriers
Analysis takes place all the time in child welfare and protection work. When making a phone
call or home visit, the practitioner is constantly calling on their practice wisdom or intuition to
unconsciously guide them. Analysis is also required at significant decision points which mark
a transition to another level of intervention (such as referral to the Reporter or
registration/deregistration with the Child Protection Register). As agencies and professionals
come together to make these decisions, we create the opportunities for further errors. As the
scope of this paper is restricted to analysis, group decision making will not be considered in
depth here. However, Milner and O’Byrne (2002) provide a clear overview of some of the key
difficulties in group decision making.
Organisational Context
Taking an ecological perspective, we must consider our cognitive and emotional functioning
within the wider sphere of our professions and organisations. Scott (1998) identified a strong
tendency in workers to restrict their analysis to the information needed to make a specific
judgement. In relation to practice prior to the implementation of GIRFEC, in trying to ‘second
guess’ the thinking (of a Children’s Panel for example) we may have limited our thinking to
the specific outcome (e.g. supervision requirement or new condition) and not the wider issues
of the child’s lived experience or the broader picture of their needs. GIRFEC expects
practitioners to make a plan based on a child’s wider needs, relate them specifically to the
eight well-being indicators and make sure the child is meeting their well-being indicators.
Implementing this approach has called for changes in culture, systems and practice. The
implications of this in an environment of finite resources and high levels of unmet need
means that workers themselves need to be emotionally supported and sustained before they
can ‘hold the child in mind’.
Analysis and Getting it right for every child: A Discussion Paper (November 2009)
3
The Child Protection Audit and Review Report, It’s Everyone’s Job to Make Sure I’m Alright
(Scottish Executive 2002) identified that, while services tended to operate quite effectively in
the short term, longer-term assessments were less effective or focused. While services
appear able to respond effectively to specific incidents of abuse and acts of commission,
there is a need for more robust analysis of children’s developmental needs as underpinning
longer-term needs. The Eilean Siar Report (SWIA 2005) highlighted a wider tendency for
professionals to gather a lot of information but fail to act quickly enough on the basis of that
information to meet the needs of children and young people. This may reflect a tendency to
manage anxiety by “checking” (Taylor et al 2008 p29) which can result in what Reder and
Duncan (2004) have referred to as “assessment paralysis”. Getting it right for every child has
introduced a resilience matrix, based on the work of Daniel and Wassell (2002), which sets
out to help practitioners make sense of large amounts of information in a very practical way
(Scottish Government 2008).
What is thought to support analysis?
Much of the literature (Milner and O’Byrne 2002, Holland 2004, Dalziel and Sawyer 2007,
Munro 2008) implicitly or explicitly acknowledges that analysis can only be developed if it is
nurtured throughout the practice environment.
Worker
Munro (2008) identifies some common errors of reasoning which can affect individuals and
groups in making judgements and decisions. Awareness of the limitations and capabilities of
human judgment needs to be promoted and developed through ongoing professional
development. Recent developments in our understanding of intuition (e.g. Gigerenzer et al
1999) may help harness the kind of analysis which workers use but may not have had the
opportunity to explicitly reflect upon. GIRFEC is based on acknowledging both need and risk,
understanding the part played by child development in children’s well-being. A robust
understanding of developmental theory is therefore essential for a sound basis for analysis in
the first place (Aldgate et al. 2006). In the GIRFEC model, the concept of resilience in child
development is seen as important in helping to analyse children’s strengths and promote
protective factors in their lives when they are vulnerable. An adversarial environment (such
as court or a Hearing) can be challenging but workers may benefit from more readily
available safe opportunities to check that their reasoning and evidence is sound and
defensible (Holland 2004; Aldgate and Rose 2008).
Supervisor
The supervisory relationship is a crucial component of effective analytical practice.
Supervisors and supervisees should approach supervision with a ‘how and why mindset’.
Case management is important but analysis is (or should be) equally weighted. The creation
of “multiple, testable hypotheses” (Milner and O’Byrne 2002) and the creation of opposing
‘null hypotheses’ is required to ensure that we do not fall prey to “verificationism” (Scott 1998)
and that practitioners are supported by more than exhortations to “keep an open mind”.
Given the duality of line managers’ responsibilities (towards the individual worker but also
towards the organisation’s health and survival), consideration needs to be given to a range of
supervisory options including line-managed supervision, peer-aided supervision and the
development of tools to support analysis within the imperatives of case management.
Analysis and Getting it right for every child: A Discussion Paper (November 2009)
4
Organisations
Analysis wilts in an environment which can not tolerate uncertainty and anxiety (Morrison
1997). Professional organisations aspire to create a confident and competent workforce.
Creation of a learning environment is therefore a crucial building block for practice which
sustains meaningful analysis. The concept of the cognitive continuum provides the basis for
the development of GIRFEC structures and practices which facilitate a range of analytical
approaches suitable to the circumstances. Whatever analytical approach is undertaken, it
should be appropriate, proportionate and timely. GIRFEC structures will support methodical
analysis and also make more effective use of the intuition that underpins expert judgement.
Duncan Helm
University of Stirling
August 2009
Analysis and Getting it right for every child: A Discussion Paper (November 2009)
5
Bibliography
Aldgate, J. and Rose, W. (2008) Assessing and Managing Risk in Getting it right for every
child. Scottish Government GIRFEC website. [DN Add details]
Aldgate, J., Jones, D.P.H., Rose, W. and Jeffery, C. (eds) (2006) The Developing World of
the Child. London, Jessica Kingsley.
Cleaver, H., Walker, S. and Meadows, P. (2004) Assessing Children’s Needs and
Circumstances. London, Jessica Kingsley.
Dalgleish, L. (2003) ‘Risks, Needs and Consequences’ in Calder, M. & Hackett, S. (2003)
Assessment in Child Care: Using and developing frameworks for practice. Lyme Regis,
Russell House Publishing.
Dalzell, R. & Sawyer, E. (2007) Putting Analysis into Assessment: Undertaking assessments
of need. London, National Children’s Bureau.
Daniel, B. and Wassell, S. (2002) Assessing and Promoting Resilience in Vulnerable
Children, Volumes 1, 2 and 3, London, Jessica Kingsley.
Farmer, E. and Owen, M. (1995) Child Protection Practice: Private Risks and Public
Remedies. London, HMSO.
Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. & the ABC Research Group (1999) Simple Heuristics That Make Us
Smart. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Gigerenzer, G. (2007) Gut Feelings. London, Penguin.
Hammond, K. (1996) Human Judgement and Social Policy: Irreducible Uncertainty, Inevitable
Error, Unavoidable Justice. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Helm, D. (forthcoming) Making Sense of Assessment. London, Jessica Kingsley.
Holland, S. (2004) Child and Family Assessment in Social Work Practice. London, Sage.
Hollows, A. (2003) ‘Making Professional Judgements in the Framework for the Assessment
of Children in Need and Their Families’ in Calder, M. & Hackett, S. (2003) Assessment in
Chid Care: Using and developing frameworks for practice. Lyme Regis, Russell House
Publishing .
Milner, J. & O’Byrne (2002) Assessment in Social Work (2nd Edition) Basingstoke, Palgrave
Macmillan.
Morrison, T. (1997) ‘Emotionally competent child protection organizations; Fallacy, fiction or
necessity?’ In J. Bates, R. Pugh and N. Thompson (eds) Protecting Children; Challenges and
Change. Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
Munro, E. (2008) Effective Child Protection. 2nd Edition. Sage, London.
Analysis and Getting it right for every child: A Discussion Paper (November 2009)
6
Murray, J. (2001) De-Registering Child Protection Social Work. Sheffield, Sheffield Hallam
University.
Parton, N. (2008) Changes in the Form of Knowledge in Social Work: From the ‘Social’ to the
‘Informational’. British Journal of Social Work 38 pp. 253-269
Plous, S. (1993) The Psychology of Judgement and Decision Making. New York, McGaw Hill.
Reder, P. and Duncan, S. (2004) Lost Innocents: A Follow-up Study of Fatal Child Abuse.
Routledge, London.
Scott, D. (1998) ‘A Qualitative Study of Social Work Assessment in Cases of Alleged Child
Abuse’. British Journal of Social Work 28 pp. 73-88
Scottish Executive (2002) “It’s everyone’s job to make sure I’m alright”: Report of the Child
Protection Audit and Review. Edinburgh, Scottish Executive.
Scottish Government (2008) A Guide to Getting it right for every child. Edinburgh, Scottish
Government.
Sheppard, M. (1995) ‘Social work, social science and practice wisdom’. British Journal of
Social Work 25 pp. 265-293
Simon, H. (1987) in Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. & the ABC Research Group (1999) Simple
Heuristics That Make Us Smart. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
SWIA (2005) An inspection into the care and protection of children in Eilean Siar. Edinburgh,
Social Work Inspection Agency / Scottish Government.
Taylor, H., Beckett, C. & McKeigue, B. (2008) Judgements of Solomon: anxieties and
defences of social workers involved in care proceedings. Child and Family Social Work. 13
pp 23-31
Webb, S. (2006) Social Work in a Risk Society: Social and Political Perspectives.
Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.
Analysis and Getting it right for every child: A Discussion Paper (November 2009)
7