The role of professional judgement in social work assessment: a comparison between Norway and England

ABSTRACT

Good quality assessment has a significant role to play in contributing to better outcomes for children in need of protection, so it is important to understand what supports best practice. This paper focuses on the role of professional judgement in assessment, and compares two very different national approaches. In England, governmental responses to perceived failings in the child protection system have led to a highly proceduralised and bureaucratised system and a corresponding down playing of the role of professional judgement. In Norway, professional discretion and judgement have been seen as key to the assessment process, and governmental response to criticism of child protection practice has been to support their use through provision of increased resources. However, too much emphasis on professional judgement and too little procedure may be as problematic as the reverse [Report of Auditor General of Norway. (2012). Document 3:15. Norway: Fagbokforlaget]. So this paper explores the different ways in which professional judgement is understood and addressed in each system and asks what we can learn from them in terms of best assessment practice. Acknowledging child protection as a ‘wicked problem’, we propose a model of Grounded Professional Judgement based on notions of epistemic responsibility and accountability to support the exercise of professional judgement in situations of uncertainty.

SAMMENDRAG

Gode undersøkelser er sentrale for å bidra til godt barnevernsarbeid, og derfor er det viktig å fokusere på hva som støtter opp under gode undersøkelsespraksiser. Denne artikkelen fokuserer på profesjonelt skjønn sin rolle i undersøkelsene, og sammenligner to svært forskjellig nasjonale tilnærminger. I England har barnevernstragedier ført til et tungt byråkratisk system med mange prosedyrer og en nedtoning av det profesjonelle skjønnet. I Norge er derimot profesjonelt skjønn en nøkkelkomponent i undersøkelsesarbeidet, og når barnevernet har vært under kritikk så har myndighetene fokusert på støtte til skjønnsvurderingene gjennom økte ressurser. Men, for mye tiltro til skjønnet kan være like problematisk som for mye tiltro til prosedyrer (Riksrevisjonens rapport, 2012). Denne artikkelen utforsker derfor de ulike måtene profesjonelt skjønn er håndtert på og forstått i de to ulike systemene og spør hva vi kan lære av hverandre når det gjelder gode praksiser. Basert på en anerkjennelse av barnevernsproblemer som ‘wicked problems’ (komplekse problemer), så foreslår vi en modell av strukturert/forankret profesjonelt skjønn som baserer seg på kunnskapsbasert ansvar og etterrettelighet, for å støtte skjønnsutøvelse i situasjoner preget av usikkerhet.

KEYWORDS:

• Assessment
• child protection
• Grounded Professional Judgement
• England–Norway comparison
• epistemic responsibility

NØKKELORD:

• ‘Accountability’
• barnevern
• familieperspektiv
• komparativ studie Norge-England
• profesjonelt skjønn
• sosial arbeider perspektiv
• undersøkelsesmodell

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Vibeke Samsonsen is a social worker with 15 years’ practice experience in child protection work at municipality level in Norway. She has a particular interest in assessment and decision-making in child protection and has undertaken doctoral research in this area as a Ph.D. student in the social work programme at the University of Stavanger. Vibeke recently completed her doctoral thesis on ‘Assessment in child protection: A comparative study of Norway and England’. She has now returned to child protection practice as a senior manager in the governmental child protection system.

Danielle Turney is a Senior Lecturer in Social Work in the School for Policy Studies at the University of Bristol. She is particularly interested in post-qualifying education and continuing professional development and teaches mainly on the MSc in Advanced Social Work with Children and Families at Bristol. Her research interests include assessment and decision-making; child welfare and protection, with particular reference to child neglect; and relationship-based practice.