The Role of Child Care Social Work 159Copyright © 2006 Joh.docx

The Role of Child Care Social Work 159
Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Child Abuse Review
Vol. 15: 159–177 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/car
Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 6 March
2006
Child Abuse Review Vol. 15: 159–177 (2006)
Published online in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/car.942
∗ Correspondence to: Professor Brian Corby, Department of
Social Work, Univer-
sity of Central Lancashire, Preston PR1 2HE, UK. Tel: 01772
893451. Fax: 01772
892974. E-mail: [email protected]
Brian Corby*
Department of Social Work
University of Central Lancashire
Preston, UK
The Role of Child
Care Social Work in
Supporting Families
with Children in
Need and Providing
Protective Services—
Past, Present and
Future

This article examines the way in which child care social work
with
deprived families has changed and developed since the
inception of
Children’s Departments in 1948. It is argued that between 1948
and
1970 child care social workers enjoyed a fair measure of social
support.
A variety of reasons are considered for explaining this—
specialization,
smallness of size, privacy and a consensus about the needs of
children.
From the early 1970s it is argued that broader societal changes,
including a shift away from social solidarity towards
individualism,
organizational changes and the advent of child abuse as a public
concern, resulted in conflicting demands on child care social
workers
and a subsequent loss of credibility and confidence. The 1990s
have
seen a return to emphasis on family support policies which has
been
further accelerated in the new millennium by New Labour’s
stated
commitment to eliminating child poverty and creating better life
opportunities for all children. The implications of these new
developments for child care social workers engaged in meeting
the needs of children living in highly disadvantaged families are
considered. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS: child care social work; child protection; children
in need;
family support
T he aim of this paper is to examine the part played byBritish
child care social workers with disadvantaged

children and their families from 1948 to the present time,
‘Conflicting
demands on child
care social workers
and a subsequent
loss of credibility
and confidence’
160 Corby
Vol. 15: 159–177 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/car
considering their dual but linked role of supporting such fami-
lies in the care of their children and of safeguarding children
from abuse and neglect. It will then proceed to review new
proposals for the future development of child care services
and the role that child care social work may play in these new
arrangements. It will be argued that broader societal factors
have had a major influence on what has been required of child
care social workers in this area of activity and also on the way
in which their interventions have been perceived, portrayed
and understood. The implications of this analysis are consid-
ered in relation to current proposals for service provision for
disadvantaged families with children. While reference is made
mainly to legislation and guidance for England and Wales, the
general tenor of the developments described here also holds
for Scotland and Northern Ireland.
At the outset, it is important to clarify what is meant by
‘child care social work’. For the purposes of this article, the
term is being used mainly in relation to state social work,

though clearly it has its roots well before 1948 in voluntary
organizations such as Barnardos (Wagner, 1979) and the
NSPCC (Behlmer, 1982) and continues to thrive in such set-
tings today. Also, it should be noted that after 1971, with the
demise of Children’s Departments, child care social work in a
discrete sense ceased to exist in the state sector, though most
social workers in the new generic departments were specializ-
ing again by the end of the 1970s. By the early 1990s, when
the 1989 Children Act and the 1991 Community Care Act
were implemented, a clear organizational divide between child
care social work and social work with other service user groups
was reestablished. The recent formation of Children’s Serv-
ices Departments, which have taken on all local social and
educational services provided for children, means that child
care social work, though not officially titled as such, is clearly
demarcated again.
Arguably, there have been three phases in the provision of
care and social services to poor children and families since the
Second World War. The first of these, it is suggested, dated
from between 1948 and the early 1970s and was character-
ized by a family breakdown prevention approach. The second,
stemming from 1974 to the mid-1990s, was a period domi-
nated by the goal of protection of children. The third phase,
into which we have now moved, is one of support for families
with children living in or on the margins of poverty with safe-
guarding of children within such families seen as an impor-
tant but subsidiary goal. Recent proposals for the development
of children and family services to be found in the Green
Paper Every Child Matters (DfES, 2003) and the subsequent
‘Broader societal
factors have had a
major influence’
‘Child care social

work, though not
officially titled as
such, is clearly
demarcated again’
Vol. 15: 159–177 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/car
Children Act have taken things a step further in that they point
to state responsibility (working alongside parents) for all chil-
dren. They propose that services for disadvantaged children
be seen within this wider framework, alongside the provision
of universal services for all children.
From 1948 to the 1970s—Children’s
Departments: A Success Story?
From Substitute Care to Prevention
Child care social work as an identifiable occupational group-
ing was a product of the 1948 Children Act and the forma-
tion of Children’s Departments. The key aim of the Act, in
response to the findings of the Curtis Committee (Curtis,
1946), was to provide adequate care for children separated
from their families. The Committee, having commissioned a
survey of residential provision for children, concluded that,
despite some examples of good caring practices, the overall
quality was very poor, and argued for the establishment of a
dedicated service to work to raise standards. The key instru-
ments in this process were to be child care officers specifically
trained for the task and one of the key early influences on their

training was the research of John Bowlby into the psychologi-
cal short- and long-term ill-effects of institutional care on
children (Bowlby, 1953). Throughout the 1950s the new Chil-
dren’s Departments were, therefore, particularly concerned to
improve the quality of substitute care, with fostering and small
group family homes being seen as the most desired forms of
such care because of their potential for providing children
with individualized attention and a family atmosphere in which
to grow and develop.
By the mid- to late 1950s, attention was also being centred
on working with families to prevent children coming into care.
The focus had shifted from improving the quality of substi-
tute care to working to prevent admissions to care in the first
place by supporting parents and carers in the community both
materially and through relationship-building. In 1963, follow-
ing the passing of the Children and Young Persons Act, Chil-
dren’s Departments were given statutory support for carrying
out this type of preventive work. A major step forward was
that they were empowered to help financially (albeit in a very
limited way) to achieve this goal. By this time, there were also
many progressive initiatives being developed to assist at a
broader level in the prevention of children coming into care,
such as the establishment of community-based children and
family centres.
‘Providing children
with individualized
attention and a
family atmosphere
in which to grow
and develop’
162 Corby

Vol. 15: 159–177 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/car
High Morale
Hard though it is to imagine, given the way in which child care
social work has been viewed in more recent times, morale
within Children’s Departments was generally high. Bob
Holman and Olive Stevenson, themselves ex-child care offic-
ers, writing in a 1998 edition of Child & Family Social Work
celebrating the 50th anniversary of the introduction of the
1948 Children Act, attest to this (Holman, 1998; Stevenson,
1998).
It is interesting to speculate why child care social work was
viewed as so relatively successful in this period. Holman’s ac-
count points to the specialist nature of child care work and to
the small size and simple organizational structures of child care
departments, which resulted in limited but attainable goals and
facilitated a sense of cohesion, identity and confidence among
its workers. He noted that ‘The Children’s Departments bred
a highly committed work force. The officers were in a service
which conveyed a crusading zeal to improve the lot of deprived
children’ (Holman, 1998, p. 206).
However, probably more important was the fact that Chil-
dren’s Departments had a following wind, in terms of societal
support for their enterprise. They were established at a time
characterized by a collectivist ideology that found its expres-
sion in the formation of the welfare state (Parton, 2005). For
much of their existence, there was a consensus about the need
to provide a service dedicated to meet the needs of deprived
families. Linked to this was the fact that during this period
there was not a great deal of media attention or bad press about

child care social work except for periodic reporting of ‘tug-of-
love’ cases (cases where children who had developed close
attachments with foster-parents over a long period of time
were returned to their birth parents (Wilson et al., 2000)).
Child neglect and ill-treatment remained more in the province
of the NSPCC (Housden, 1955) and excited little public
concern. Ferguson (2004) uses the term ‘sequestration’ to de-
scribe what was happening, noting that it was a consequence
of a societal view that ills of this kind were best left to those
with a professional responsibility for dealing with them.
Some Caveats
It should not, however, be thought that everything in Chil-
dren’s Departments’ gardens was rosy. One of the negative
offshoots of progressive workers’ desire to concentrate on
working more and more intensively with families to prevent
admissions to care (and, if care was necessary, to use foster
‘The Children’s
Departments bred
a highly committed
work force’
‘Child neglect and
ill-treatment
remained more in
the province of the
NSPCC and excited
little public
concern’

Vol. 15: 159–177 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/car
parents) was that residential care came to be seen as a last
resort and therefore did not greatly improve its quality and
standards in the way in which the Curtis Committee had
hoped that it would (Corby et al., 2001).
It could also be argued that child care practice was some-
what maternalistic in its approach and characterized by a
degree of professional certainty that would not go unchal-
lenged now, when there is greater emphasis on the rights of
service users (Stevenson, 1998). For instance, child care
social workers then had much greater discretion to make key
decisions without legal scrutiny. Local authorities could as-
sume parental rights over children placed voluntarily in their
care at any time (until the passing of the 1975 Children Act)
and thus maintain considerable authority over parents in
deciding what was in their children’s best interests.
Yet, despite these caveats, child care social work during this
period was a success story, certainly when compared with what
took place later. As already noted, key factors in this were the
specialist nature of the work, a shared and relatively straight-
forward remit and philosophy, and the overall backing of
society.
From 1974 to the Mid-1990s; Child Care Social
Work in Social Services Departments. Child
Abuse—A Tale of Woe?
The setting up of social services departments in 1971 heralded
an end to the relatively sheltered but successful existence de-
scribed above, though the true impact of this change did not
take effect until a little later, with the advent of child abuse in

the shape of the Maria Colwell Inquiry in 1974 (DHSS, 1974).
Between this time and the late 1980s, the public image of child
care social work shifted from that of a reasonably respected
and necessary occupation to one which was seen to be of low
status, staffed by not very competent practitioners who were
deemed to be out of touch with the realities of life. Indeed,
this view has not changed a great deal since (see Guardian,
2001). The situation in which child care social workers found
themselves during this period could not have been more dif-
ferent from that of their Children’s Department predeces-
sors—they had a contradictory remit, there was no clear focus
to their work, and the managerial requirements of their tasks
and the range of their responsibilities militated against a sense
of cohesion, identity and confidence. The result was low
morale among qualified practitioners which was influential
in creating a massive shortage of frontline practitioners and
‘They had a
contradictory
remit, there was no
clear focus to their
work’
‘Child care
social workers then
had much greater
discretion to make
key decisions
without legal
scrutiny’
164 Corby

Vol. 15: 159–177 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/car
the proliferation of unallocated child protection cases (Chief
Inspector of Social Services, 2003, para 2.21).
There were several factors which contributed to this drastic
shift in the popularity of child care social work over this
period of time.
Societal and Organizational Shifts
Firstly, there were considerable developments occurring in
family life. Changes in family composition, such as rises in the
numbers of lone parents and divorces, were taking place as a
result of shifts in relation to the role of women and develop-
ments in the spheres of sex, sexuality and sexual mores.
Family size was also reducing with wider use of contraception
and the legalization of abortion.
Secondly, in the political sphere, there was a shift from
welfarism to greater emphasis on individualism (Parton,
2005). This shift could be attributed to increased affluence,
greater geographical mobility and the development of the
consumer society.
As a result of the combination of these factors, reliance
on traditional welfare methods (i.e. encouraging males to
find work and supporting females in their domestic and
childcaring roles) fast became outmoded. There was increas-
ing concern about the impact of changes in family life and
structure on the care of children, particularly in relation to
antisocial behaviour and offending (Dingwall et al., 1984),
added to which was the development of a child abuse
syndrome in the USA which had considerable influence on
the British child care scene (Parton, 1985). All these factors

combined to create a climate in which concern about chil-
dren’s care and treatment within the family reached a level
of intensity that had not been seen since the early days of
the NSPCC.
The Rise of Child Abuse
The advent of child abuse was the key factor in the demise of
child care social work’s good reputation. The Maria Colwell
Inquiry Report published in 1974 was the catalyst (DHSS,
1974). Olive Stevenson, who was on the Inquiry panel, con-
sidered that, ‘That report has come to symbolise a sea change
in British child welfare practice and public attitudes to it’
(Stevenson, 1998, p. 159). Abuse of children had by no means
been unknown in the preceding period, but child cruelty and
neglect, as it was then termed, was seen as a problem that
occurred in a small number of the poor families which social
‘Considerable
developments
occurring in
family life’
‘Seen as a problem
that occurred in a
small number of
the poor families
which social
workers were
trying to keep
intact’

Vol. 15: 159–177 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/car
workers were trying to keep intact and it was to be tackled
within this context.
The procedures established in 1974 following the Maria
Colwell Inquiry demanded a much more abuse-focused ap-
proach (and they also made child care social work a much
more public activity). They required social workers to shift
from working with the family to ensure that children were not
admitted to care at all costs to viewing the child as at poten-
tial and actual risk from its parents and to operating authori-
tatively to remove that risk. Social workers were thus required
to move away from working through parents to support the
welfare of children to providing children with protection from
their parents and families. Social workers did not easily adapt
to this new approach. In a study of social work practice with
child abuse cases in Liverpool in the early 1980s (Corby,
1987), it was clear that they were then still adopting a whole-
family approach to working with child abuse cases, albeit
within the new child abuse frameworks (ironically, a form of
practice that would now receive plaudits from the Department
of Health or Department for Education and Skills).
These new requirements placed on child care social work-
ers were exacerbated by major organizational changes taking
place throughout this same period. In 1971, social services
departments were introduced which, with their emphasis
on the generic nature of social work, resulted in child care
social workers experiencing a loss of cohesion and specialist
expertise. For instance, they were no longer necessarily
managed by those with child care backgrounds. Their new
generic managers were largely occupied with handling hugely
increased budgets and the complex task of coordinating

the delivery of a wide range of services to various service user
groups. The loss of a specialist approach at this time resulted
in diminution of focus and certainty. A good case example
of these developments is to be found in the North Wales
Tribunal of Inquiry Report, where the lack of child care
expertise in higher management in Clwyd and Gwynedd over
a period of 20 years was seen as a key factor in the poor stand-
ard of children’s residential provision there (Waterhouse,
2000).
Yet another problem for child care social work identified
in this report was the impact of the number of reorganizations
of social services departments which took place during this
period and the fast rate of legislative change.
The demands of child abuse concerns continued through-
out the 1970s and 1980s. By the mid- to late 1980s, following
the findings of the Beckford (London Borough of Brent,
1985), Carlile (London Borough of Greenwich, 1987) and
‘They were then
still adopting a
whole-family
approach to
working with child
abuse cases’
‘The number of
reorganizations
of social services
departments which
took place’
166 Corby

Vol. 15: 159–177 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/car
Henry (London Borough of Lambeth, 1987) inquiries, social
workers had gone much further along the road to more pro-
cedurally driven and authoritative interventions in what were
now termed child protection cases (Howe, 1992). The impact
of media reporting of inquiries reinforced the public image of
social workers as being indecisive and failing to protect vulner-
able children from dangerous parents (Aldridge, 1994). On the
other hand, child care social workers were being termed by
some service users as the SS or child-snatchers, eponyms that
were not justified by care proceedings statistics but which
reflected a clear shift in terms of style of intervention. In 1985,
the Parents against Injustice group was set up to support
parents against what they saw as excessive intrusion by social
workers in response to false allegations.
A Return to Family Support
By the end of the 1980s, the dominance of the child protec-
tion perspective started to be more widely challenged. This
change in thinking commenced with the furore raised about
interventions into families where child sexual abuse was sus-
pected in the county of Cleveland. The subsequent inquiry
(Butler-Sloss, 1988) was the first of its kind to criticize child
protection workers for responding too precipitately to abuse
allegations and its findings led to a tranche of Department of
Health sponsored research projects which, reporting in 1995,
were highly critical of what was seen to be excessive child
protectionism (DoH, 1995). Not only was child care social
work seen as over-intrusive into families, it was considered
to have allowed child protection concerns to eclipse all other
concerns. In particular, the family support sections of the 1989

Children Act were simply not being implemented in their own
right, and only those families where there was concern about
the safety of their children were being assessed and gaining
access to resources.
By the early 1990s, there was beginning to be a consider-
able backlash against the intrusiveness of child protection
social work, a situation that had also occurred earlier in the
USA (Myers, 1994). At this time, there were a series of inves-
tigations into ritual abuse taking place up and down the coun-
try. One of these cases, that which took place in the Orkneys,
resulted in a public inquiry which was highly critical of the way
in which professionals conducted their interventions (Clyde,
1992). Subsequent research into a wider range of ritual abuse
investigations, again sponsored by the Department of Health,
concluded that there was no evidence to support the existence
of such abuse cases (Lafontaine, 1994).
‘Media reporting of
inquiries reinforced
the public image of
social workers’
‘The family support
sections of the 1989
Children Act were
simply not being
implemented in
their own right’
Vol. 15: 159–177 (2006)

DOI: 10.1002/car
Similar rises and falls in concerns about forms of child
abuse have taken place with regard to institutional abuse
(Webster, 1999) and, most recently, with regard to
Munchausen’s syndrome by proxy (Doward, 2004).
Thus, since the early 1990s, child protection work has been
under extremely close scrutiny, with emphasis being placed
largely on the negative effects of what has been seen as over-
intrusive intervention. However, the messages emanating from
central government over this period have by no means been
consistent in that, although they have raised concerns about
over-reaction to certain types of abuse and have encouraged
refocusing on the need for more family support work, there
has at the same time been a widening of the range of abuse
types requiring a child protective response. The 1999 Work-
ing Together to Safeguard Children lists the following range of
abuse concerns: physical abuse, children in whom illness is
fabricated or induced, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, neglect,
abuse of disabled children, abuse by children and young
people, children living in situations of domestic violence,
children involved in prostitution, children who may be
approached via the internet, children who go missing, female
genital mutilation, organized or multiple abuse and institu-
tional abuse (DoH, 1999).
New Managerialism
Another important factor impacting on the morale of child
care social workers in this period was that of the increasing
managerial demands being placed on them. Throughout the
1980s and 1990s, a series of Conservative administrations
pushed through health and welfare reforms which consistently
promoted the market over statism, consumerism over
clientelism and managerialism over professionalism (and this

trend has continued under subsequent Labour governments).
The impact on child care social work (particularly in the field
of child protection) was twofold. In terms of the families with
which they were working, their intervention tasks were, as a
result, made more difficult and contradictory. While child care
social workers were being enjoined to place parenting under
closer scrutiny (at least until the early to mid-1990s), consumer
rights and wider participation were also being encouraged and
greater emphasis was placed on individuals and families hav-
ing more choice and less interference from external sources.
Another consequence of these shifts has been to increase the
amount of procedural and bureaucratic work required in child
care interventions ( Jones, 2001). Child care social workers
have been required to adopt more case management roles such
‘A widening of the
range of abuse
types requiring a
child protective
response’
‘Increasing
managerial
demands’
168 Corby
Vol. 15: 159–177 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/car
as conducting formal assessments, servicing child protection
procedures, managing core groups and, more recently, pur-
chasing services. Involvement in these activities has greatly

reduced opportunities for face-to-face contact with service
users and for child care social workers to make use of core
professional skills. Indeed, it is estimated that at present child
care social workers spend only 30% of their time working
directly with service users and, as will be seen in the next
section, this trend is likely to increase in the future (DfES,
2003, p. 85). It is small wonder therefore that most child care
social workers by the end of the 1990s were finding their work
stressful and morale-sapping.
Summary
On the face of it, therefore, compared with the previous era,
the period between 1974 and the mid-1990s was a disastrous
one for child care social work in many respects. As has been
noted, closer examination of the reasons for this shift points
to a range of factors, including a decline in social support for
child care social work, the loss of specialist focus, the advent
of child abuse and the greater bureaucratization of their work.
Child care social workers in recent times have operated in a
much more turbulent and complex environment than their
predecessors.
Recent and Planned Developments for
Supporting Families and Safeguarding
Children
New Labour Initiatives
The incoming Labour Government in 1997 initially concurred
with much of the analysis and policy direction developed by
the Department of Health under the previous Conservative
administration in relation to child and family social work, i.e.
with its emphasis on refocusing from child protection onto
family support. Between 1997 and 2001, therefore, it intro-
duced a wide range of new initiatives aimed at raising the

general standards of child care social work interventions,
including the Quality Protects programme in 1998 (DoH,
1998) and new requirements for the assessment of children
in need (DoH, 2000). It also introduced new legislation for
children leaving care (Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000),
for the registration and inspection of a wide range of social
care activities, including children’s homes (Health and Social
Care (Community Standards) Act 2003) and for adoption
‘Involvement in
these activities has
greatly reduced
opportunities for
face-to-face contact
with service users’
Vol. 15: 159–177 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/car
(Adoption and Children Act 2002). In relation to social work
training, it introduced post-qualifying child care programmes
across the country and confirmed the establishment of 3-year
generic social work qualifying courses (at undergraduate
level). In addition to these more specific developments, the
Labour administration also committed itself to raising an
estimated 3 –4 million children out of poverty by means of
a series of provisions such as tax credits, the Neighbourhood
Nurseries Initiative, Sure Start, the Children’s Fund and
the Connexions service. It made it clear that its intention
was to develop the potential of all children to the full and
that a key means of achieving this was to be concerted and

coordinated interprofessional activity.
Child Abuse Again
Despite the emphasis on wider-based family support work, the
issue of child abuse would not go away. Key landmarks in the
late 1990s were the inquiries into the death of Ricky Neave
(Bridge Child Care Consultancy, 1997), poor inspection re-
ports about the handling of cases on child protection registers
and the inquiry into institutional abuse in North Wales (2000).
Concern culminated again following the death of Victoria
Climbié and the subsequent inquiry into the circumstances
surrounding it (Lord Laming, 2003). Victoria died in hospi-
tal in February 2000 having suffered appalling injuries and
neglect from her aunt and her partner. The Inquiry, chaired
by Lord Laming, demonstrated what almost all previous in-
quiries had shown, namely, how poor communication between
agencies, lack of attention paid to a child in her own right and
failure to follow up concerns could have disastrous conse-
quences. What was different from previous inquiries was the
complete condemnation of the way in which child protection
work was organized and conducted at all levels. Lord Laming
was at pains not to point the finger just at frontline workers.
His criticisms extended to managers, councillors and the work-
ings of bodies such as Area Child Protection Committees, and
even pointed to the shortcomings of central government for
failing to establish clear lines of accountability up to the high-
est levels of administration. Laming was also particularly criti-
cal of standards of training and the lack of effective systems
for sharing information.
Current Child Care Initiatives
The recommendations of the Climbié Report ensured that
safeguarding children was high on the Government’s agenda

‘Introduced post-
qualifying child
care programmes
across the country’
‘Lord Laming was
at pains not to
point the finger just
at frontline
workers’
170 Corby
Vol. 15: 159–177 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/car
when it finalized its proposed transformation of child care serv-
ices in the Green Paper Every Child Matters (DfES, 2003) and
the subsequent Children Act passed on November 15, 2004,
the main concerns of which were originally to make service
provision for lifting disadvantaged families out of poverty. The
key proposals in the Act resulting from the safeguarding
concerns are as follows:
• The appointment of a national Children’s Commissioner with
a remit to represent children and develop and enhance chil-
dren’s rights
• The formation of Children’s Services Departments incorpo-
rating both education and social services for children under
the leadership of a Director of Children’s Services. These
may eventually be replaced by Children’s Trusts, which are
now being piloted and monitored across 35 local authorities

with a view to enhancing interprofessional work across the
whole range of services for children, including health serv-
ices, Connexions and youth justice teams as well as educa-
tion and social services
• The replacement of Area Child Protection Committees with
Local Safeguarding Children’s Boards with stronger statutory
and fiscal powers
• The production of detailed procedural guidance about how to
respond to and monitor safeguarding children referrals, in-
cluding the development of common assessment frame-
works and of computerized systems for sharing and tracking
information across all relevant agencies
• Closer management surveillance of frontline work with more
specific tasks and goals set in order to ensure consistency
and effectiveness of practice
• Greater emphasis on joint training
The broader aspects of the new Act reflect the Govern-
ment’s aspirations for providing a seamless interprofessional
service to maximize the potential of all children. It identifies a
range of facilities for achieving its goals, including Children’s
Centres, after-school activities, the development of a Young
People’s Fund for out-of-school activities and improved
mental health services for children and young people. Its
emphasis is on the development of a preventive strategy,
one which consists of tackling poor parenting early on and
of linking families with young children to a wide range of
supportive community services.
Issues Arising
What are the implications of these new developments for child

care social work? The Green Paper makes it clear that child
care social workers will retain responsibility for five key areas
of service provision:
‘To make service
provision for lifting
disadvantaged
families out of
poverty’
‘The Government’s
aspirations for
providing a
seamless
interprofessional
service’
Vol. 15: 159–177 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/car
• Disabled children
• Looked after children
• Management of arrangements for adoption
• Family support to children in need
• The safeguarding of children
They will do this from the newly formed Children’s Serv-
ices Departments, which combine mainly education and child
care services. This arrangement clearly provides better condi-
tions for communication with pre-school and school-related
personnel than before and may well lead to earlier alerting of

concerns in relation to children in these settings. On the other
hand, splitting child care social work from health-related
social work means that other areas of communication might
be weakened, such as those of mental health and child care
(Stanley et al., 2003).
The new proposals aimed at facilitating interprofessional
communication, i.e. Children’s Centres, Children’s Trusts
arrangements, Local Safeguarding Children Boards and the
use of Common Assessment Frameworks across key agencies,
should in theory improve matters in an area which has been
highlighted by almost every public inquiry since that of Maria
Colwell as being the main reason for failures to protect chil-
dren at risk (Corby et al., 2001). However, achieving effective
interprofessional working with disadvantaged families is not
an easy proposition and poor interprofessional communication
in such situations is often not simply the outcome of some
individuals forgetting to inform others. Factors such as reluc-
tance to get involved in difficult situations, fear and low
expectations of other professions (often on the part of child
care social workers) are important too. Another key concern
in relation to interprofessional work is that related to profes-
sional identity and security. In order for professionals to work
effectively together, they need to value their own and each
other’s perspectives and contributions (Frost et al., 2005;
White and Featherstone, 2005).
The Impact on Child Care Social Work
What, however, is the likely impact in practice of all these
changes on child care social workers? As yet, we do not know
exactly what will be expected of child care social workers in
the new scheme of things, nor whether there is enough confi-
dence and support for them to achieve these expectations.
There are some superficial similarities with the 1948–71 era
in that we are seeing a return to a specialist approach and

greater emphasis on family support, but there is little chance
‘Other areas of
communication
might be
weakened, such as
those of mental
health and child
care’
‘There are some
superficial
similarities with
the 1948 –71 era’
172 Corby
Vol. 15: 159–177 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/car
of child care social work attaining the relatively high level of
public confidence that it had then. The events of the ‘child
protection era’ from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s and the
continuing poor image of social work as a result of its associa-
tion with the ‘failures’ of that time preclude this. Public
concern about the mistreatment of children remains intense
despite the backlash against professional practices in relation
to certain forms of abuse. Indeed, there is now even greater
pressure on those with responsibilities for safeguarding chil-
dren. They must both ensure that children under their remit
are properly protected and also avoid wrongfully attributing
culpability to a person subsequently proved to be innocent.
Of course, this is not particular to child care social work and

reflects the problems of a much wider social movement
towards achieving a risk-free existence (Beck, 1992). What we
do know, however, is that social workers are more likely to
do an effective job if they have a better image and improved
professional standing. Do the new proposed arrangements
point to the likelihood of this happening?
One of the problems in answering this question is that child
care services are still in a state of flux. There are many new
initiatives taking place, but it is not clear how they will map
out and how and whether different parts of the jigsaw will fit
together. In relation to safeguarding children, we do know that
social workers will carry a lead role in coordinating work and
it seems that, following the Climbié Report, there will be much
more emphasis on greater communication between agencies
than before and more technological and managerial supports
for this kind of work. Hopefully, this means that responsibil-
ities will be more shared and, if so, this will result in a more
balanced view of the role of social workers if and when serv-
ices fail to protect a child. At present, we do not know the
extent to which the new safeguarding boards will be able to
influence developments in this area and what resources they
will have at their disposal to make improvements, but their
roles and duties have been clearly set out in recently published
guidance (DfES, 2006).
It should be noted, however, that despite sharing the load
of responsibility, safeguarding children work remains a very
public activity and those with lead roles within it remain very
much in the firing line. What past experience suggests is the
need for some public awareness-raising about the inevitability
of a number of child deaths by abuse per annum and for those
whose remit it is to deal with these matters to be as well
equipped as possible to keep these numbers to a minimum.
There is need, therefore, for constant updates in training for
child care social workers and others involved in this field.

‘More likely to
do an effective job
if they have a
better image
and improved
professional
standing’
‘Safeguarding
children work
remains a very
public activity’
Vol. 15: 159–177 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/car
While, quite rightly, the need to do this has been highlighted
in the Green Paper proposals, and it is one of the duties placed
on the new safeguarding boards, it is worth noting that
interprofessional training of this kind was implemented after
the Cleveland Inquiry, but not maintained over time.
The Green Paper’s emphasis on family support also provides
opportunities for social workers to broaden their perspective
in child and family social work and, thereby, to improve their
image. It is important that these opportunities are taken up.
There are still many organizational and public pressures on
child care social workers to play safe and focus on child pro-
tection concerns (Spratt, 2001). To continue to do so, however,
would be a mistake. Child care social workers should be

proactive in making constructive use of new assessment frame-
works (Millar and Corby, 2006). They also need to be proactive
in Children Centre work and in the formulation of local plans
for children and young people. Working outside the caseload
is not a strong point for social workers. Yet, it could do much
to enhance the status of the profession and help in the build-
ing of good relationships that are crucial to successful inter-
ventions in individual cases.
The fact that the new Children’s Services Departments
and Children’s Trusts will be multidisciplinary is a positive
factor. Child care social workers need to embrace these
developments and work strategically and constructively with
other agencies to ensure more broad-based supportive and
protective interventions. By so doing, they can utilize the
strengths that they undoubtedly have to offer in relation to
working with disadvantaged families (see below) with greater
assurance of shared responsibility. The shift towards special-
ist organizations for children and their families also provides
opportunities for child care social workers to consolidate and
develop professional expertise and identity.
Conclusion
Despite its recent history and the poor public image that
child care social work has acquired, it clearly remains a pro-
fession that has developed massive experience in working with
families and children facing difficulties and problems. The
strengths of child care social work lie in several areas:
• Its well-established knowledge base in key areas such as
attachment theory and the needs of children (for consist-
ency, the development of identity and feeling safe) (Howe
et al., 1999)
‘It could do much

to enhance the
status of the
profession’
‘It clearly remains
a profession that
has developed
massive
experience’
174 Corby
Vol. 15: 159–177 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/car
• Its extensive knowledge of, and experience in working with,
families where children’s health and safety are at issue
(Munro, 2002)
• Its role in, and knowledge of, the law in relation to children
and families (Braye and Preston-Shoot, 1997)
• Its strong ethical value base, with emphasis on individual
worth and interpersonal skills (based on casework methods)
for working closely and patiently with disadvantaged families
with multiple problems (Searing, 2003)
These strengths need emphasizing and building on in the
new organizations now being developed for working with
children and their families. Clearly, child care social work
has much to offer and will be playing a key role in future
alongside other professions. However, given what has been
reviewed in this paper, it also has a lot of ground to recover

before it can regain the credibility that it needs to do such
work. To some degree, the analysis that has been offered here
could assist in this, as it points to the environment in which
child care social work is carried out and the social support it
receives as being key factors in the way in which its success
(or lack of it) is judged. Social work practitioners need to be
much more aware of this and work to improve their image in
what I have argued is a climate that offers more opportunity
than before. But there is much more that needs to be done,
particularly in the areas of education and training and in
developing interprofessional ways of working.
With regard to education and training, while the 3-year
degree is to be welcomed, it is noteworthy that the curricu-
lum remains generic and is unlikely to provide the depth of
knowledge required to work effectively in the child care field.
Although additional training is being provided by the new post-
qualifying child care awards schemes, it could be argued that
there is a need for a full-time specialist child care course to be
provided in order to achieve the levels of skill, knowledge and
expertise required.
The need for much greater cooperation and coordination
between professions in carrying out work with children
and families cannot be overstressed. There are still major
differences in culture and outlook between social workers,
health workers, teachers and police which can act as barriers
to developing effective interprofessional working. Overcom-
ing these problems needs to commence early on in professional
training. At the more specialist level, advocated above, train-
ing courses should have a very strong interprofessional
content and be taught by and for a range of professionals.
Finally, further consideration needs to be given to develop-
ing effective interprofessional practice arrangements such as
‘Still major

differences in
culture and
outlook’
‘These strengths
need emphasizing
and building on
in the new
organizations’
Vol. 15: 159–177 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/car
interdisciplinary teams and interagency outposting and
secondments.
Given the right sorts of developments in these areas, there
is every possibility that child care social work can both make
and, just as importantly, be perceived to make a key contribu-
tion to meeting the social and emotional needs of disadvan-
taged families in future and to ensuring the safety of their
children where necessary.
A third concern surrounds the complexity of the new
arrangements for developing child care services. Many of the
Climbié recommendations relate to pooling of information,
careful recording and closer managerial oversight of assess-
ments and interventions. No-one could sensibly question the
risk-reducing intentions of such arrangements. However, there
is an issue about how practical and, therefore, effective they
are likely to prove. There is a danger that such measures could

become so complex, so systematized and so reliant on man-
agement control that they prove unworkable. Commenting on
the proposed development of the new Children’s Trusts, Tina
Lyon, a leading children and family lawyer, asserts :
‘the major problem that needs to be addressed in all of this is
not the
creation of new tiers of managers . . . but recruitment of the
people en-
gaging in the actual work of the provision of services and the
protection
of children, namely social workers. The view of many social
workers on
the ground is that there has already been too great an increase in
the
number of management bureaucrats placing impossible demands
on an
ever-diminishing number of workers on the ground as a result of
ever
increasing demands to meet central government performance
indicators
and management targets.’ ( Lyon, 2003, p. 172)
Clearly, there is an issue of balance here. Few people would
dispute the view that in child protection work there is need
for supervisory oversight as well as professional autonomy.
Nevertheless, Professor Lyon’s point is an important one and
highlights the dangers of over-reliance on systems in situations
where the need for human judgements is compelling.
References
Aldridge M. 1994. Making Social Work News. Routledge:
London.
Beck U. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Sage:
London.

Behlmer G. 1982. Child Abuse and Moral Reform in England
1870–1908.
Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA.
Bowlby J. 1953. Child Care and the Growth of Love. Pelican:
London.
Braye S, Preston-Shoot M. 1997. Practising Social Work Law.
Palgrave
Macmillan: London.
Bridge Child Care Consultancy. 1997. Report into the Death of
Ricky
Neave. The Bridge: London.
‘Impossible
demands on an
ever-diminishing
number of workers
on the ground’
‘Such measures
could become
so complex, so
systematized and
so reliant on
management
control that they
prove unworkable’
176 Corby
Vol. 15: 159–177 (2006)

DOI: 10.1002/car
Butler-Sloss Lord Justice E. 1988. Report of the Inquiry into
Child Abuse
in Cleveland 1987. DHSS Cmnd 412. HMSO: London.
Chief Inspector of Social Services. 2003. Modern Social
Services: A
Commitment to the Future. The 12th. Annual Report of the
Chief
Inspector of Social Services. Department of Health: London.
Clyde The Lord. 1992. Report of the Inquiry into the Removal
of Children
from Orkney in February 1991. HoC 195. HMSO: London.
Corby B. 1987. Working with Child Abuse. Open University
Press: Milton
Keynes.
Corby B, Doig A, Roberts V. 2001. Public Inquiries into the
Abuse of
Children in Residential Care. Jessica Kingsley: London.
Curtis Dame M. 1946. Report of the Care of Children
Committee. Cmnd.
6922. HMSO: London.
Department for Education & Skills. 2003. Every Child Matters.
DfES:
London.
Department for Education and Skills. 2006. Chapter 3—Local
Safe-
guarding Boards.
www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/strategy/guidance.

Department of Health. 1995. Child Protection: Messages from
Research.
HMSO: London.
Department of Health. 1998. The Quality Protects Programme:
Trans-
forming Children’s Services. LAC (98) 26. Department of
Health:
London.
Department of Health. 1999. Working Together to Safeguard
Children—
A Guide to Inter-Agency Working to Safeguard and Promote the
Wel-
fare of Children. Department of Health: London.
Department of Health. 2000. Framework for the Assessment of
Children
in Need and their Families. Department of Health: London.
Department of Health & Social Security. 1974. Report of the
Committee
of Inquiry into the Care and Supervision Provided in Relation to
Maria
Colwell. HMSO: London.
Dingwall R, Eekelaar J, Murray T. 1984. Childhood as a social
problem: a
survey of the history of legal regulation. Journal of Law and
Society 11:
207–232.
Doward J. 2004. Ministers told child harm theory was flawed.
The
Observer, January 25.

Ferguson H. 2004. Protecting Children in Time: Child Abuse,
Child Pro-
tection and the Consequences of Modernity. Palgrave:
Basingstoke.
Frost N, Robinson M, Anning A. 2005. Social workers in multi-
disciplinary
teams: issues and dilemmas for professional practice. Child and
Family Social Work 10: 187–196.
Guardian. 2001. Social workers’ image falls to an all-time low.
March 15.
Holman R. 1998. From Children’s Departments to Family
Departments.
Child & Family Social Work 3: 205–211.
Housden L. 1955. The Prevention of Cruelty to Children.
NSPCC:
London.
Howe D. 1992. Child abuse and the bureaucratization of social
work.
Sociological Review 40: 491–508.
Howe D, Brandon M, Hinings D, Schofield G. 1999. Attachment
Theory,
Child Maltreatment and Family Support: A Practice and
Assessment
Model. Macmillan: Basingstoke.
Jones C. 2001. Voices from the front line: state social workers
and New
Labour. British Journal of Social Work 31: 547–562.

Lafontaine J. 1994. The Extent and Nature of Organized and
Ritual
Abuse: Research Findings. HMSO: London .
Lord Laming. 2003. The Victoria Climbié Inquiry. Cmd 5730.
The Station-
ery Office: London.
Vol. 15: 159–177 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/car
London Borough of Brent. 1985. A Child in Trust. The Report
of the Panel
of Inquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding the Death of
Jasmine
Beckford. London Borough of Brent.
London Borough of Greenwich. 1987. A Child in Mind: The
Protection of
Children in a Responsible Society. The Report of the
Commission of
Inquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding the Death of
Kimberley
Carlile. London Borough of Greenwich.
London Borough of Lambeth. 1987. Whose Child? The Report
of the
Public Inquiry into the Death of Tyra Henry. London Borough
of
Lambeth.

Lyon C. 2003. Child Abuse. 3rd edn. Jordan: Bristol.
Millar M, Corby B. 2006. The Framework for Assessing the
Needs of
Children and their Families—a basis for a ‘therapeutic’
encounter?
British Journal of Social Work.
Munro E. 2002. Effective Child Protection. Sage: London.
Myers J. 1994. The Backlash: Child Protection Under Fire.
Sage:
Beverley Hills, CA.
Parton N. 1985. The Politics of Child Abuse. Macmillan:
London.
Parton N. 2005. Safeguarding Childhood: Early Intervention and
Surveil-
lance in Late Modern Society. Macmillan: Basingstoke.
Searing H. 2003. The continuing relevance of casework ideas to
long-
term child protection work. Child & Family Social Work 8:
311–320.
Spratt T. 2001. The influence of child protection orientation on
child
welfare practice. British Journal of Social Work 31: 933 – 954.
Stanley N, Penhale B, Riordan D, Barbour R, Holden S. 2003.
Child
Protection and Mental Health Services: Interprofessional
Responses
to the Needs of Mothers. Policy Press: Bristol.
Stevenson O. 1998. A reflection on 50 years of child welfare

practice.
Child & Family Social Work 3: 153–161.
Wagner G. 1979. Barnardo. Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London.
Waterhouse Sir R. 2000. Lost in Care: The Report of the
Tribunal of
Inquiry into the Abuse of Children in Care in the Former
County
Council Areas of Gwynedd and Clwyd since 1974. HC 201. The
Stationery Office: London.
Webster R. 1999. The Great Children’s Home Panic. Orwell
Press:
London.
White S, Featherstone B. 2005. Communicating
misunderstandings:
multi-agency work as social practice. Child and Family Social
Work 10:
207–216.
Wilson K, Sinclair I, Gibbs I. 2000. The trouble with foster
care: the
impact of ‘stressful events’ on foster carers. British Journal of
Social Work 30: 193–209.

The Role of Child Care Social Work 159Copyright © 2006 Joh.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to The Role of Child Care Social Work 159Copyright © 2006 Joh.docx

Similar to The Role of Child Care Social Work 159Copyright © 2006 Joh.docx (6)

More from ssusera34210

More from ssusera34210 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The Role of Child Care Social Work 159Copyright © 2006 Joh.docx