Outcomes in Children’s Social Care
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JCS-08-2017-0036 |
| Date | 18 September 2017 |
| Pages | 144-157 |
| Published date | 18 September 2017 |
| Author | Donald Forrester |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Vulnerable groups,Children's services,Sociology,Sociology of the family,Children/youth,Parents,Education,Early childhood education,Home culture,Social/physical development |
Viewpoint
Outcomes in Children’s Social Care
Donald Forrester
Abstract
Purpose –There are often calls for more focus on outcomes in Children’s Social Care yet there is little
consensus on what these outcomes should be. Key challenges include who should decide what outcomes
should be measured and the sheer range of issues that social workers deal with. The purpose of this paper is
to provide a reflective account of approaches to measuring outcomes that the author has used in recent
studies in order to illustrate the complexity involved in understanding what the purpose of Children’s Social
Care is and therefore how outcomes might be measured.
Design/methodology/approach –A review of and reflection on lessons from recent research studies
carried out by the author and colleagues.
Findings –The results are used to illustrate andsupport an argument that Children’s Social Care performs multiple
functions and that this has implications for thinking aboutoutcomes. Helping children and parents is one element of
the work, but assessing risk across large numbers of referrals and identifying those that require involvement is
equally important. Furthermore, the socialwork role requires complex considerations around liberty and the rights of
parents and children. One consequence of this is that the quality ofthe service provided is important in its own right.
Research limitations/implications –It is suggested that the evaluation of Children’s Social Care involves
four types of outcomes: measures of the quality of the service provided; assessment of whether the “right”
families are being worked with; client-defined measures of change; and the development of appropriate
standardised instruments. Examples of approaches in each area are discussed.
Practical implications –The theoretical considerations suggest that we need to have a multi-dimensional
approach to evaluating, inspecting and leading Children’s Social Care services. In particular, the importance
of the quality of delivery and appropriate targeting of the service are emphasised, as well as considering
various approaches to measuring outcomes.
Originality/value –The paper proposes a combination of qualitative and quantitative measures of process,
assessment and outcomes for evaluating outcomes in Children’s Social Care.
Keywords Evaluation, Outcomes, Inspection, Children’s Social Care, Goal Attainment Scaling,
Quality of practice
Paper type Viewpoint
Introduction
This paper considers how to understand and measure outcomes in Children’s Social Care.
Even a cursory acquaintance with the work of Children’s Social Care is sufficient to highlight
the fact that while talk o f “outcomes”and how to improve them is ubiquitous, deciding on
appropriateoutcomes is fraught with challenge(La Valle et al., 2016). The first sectionof the paper
considers twokey challenges for deciding on outcomes,namely, the sheer variety of the work and
the question of who decides which outcomes should be measured. The middle section briefly
outlines an approachto measuring outcomes, andthe quality of social work practice thatwe used
in recent studies.It then considers lessons from thesestudies. The concluding sectionargues that
a simplistic approach to outcomes is unhelpful, and that a more nuanced approach needs to
include greaterclarity about the purpose and natureof Children’s Social Care in the UK (and other
countries) and as a result a wider range of outcome measures.
Received 31 August 2017
Accepted 1 September 2017
Donald Forrester is a Professor
at the CASCADE Centre,
Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
PAGE144
j
JOURNAL OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES
j
VOL. 12 NO. 2/3 2017, pp. 144-157, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1746-6660 DOI 10.1108/JCS-08-2017-0036
To continue reading
Request your trial