References

• Aas, K. F. (2004). From narrative to database: Technological change and penal culture. Punishment & Society, 6(4), 379–393. doi: 10.1177/1462474504046119
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aronson, J., & Smith, K. (2010). Managing restructured social services: Expanding the social? British Journal of Social Work, 40(2), 530–547. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcp002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baines, D. (2010). Neoliberal restructuring, activism/participation, and social unionism in the nonprofit social services. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(1), 10–28. doi: 10.1177/0899764008326681
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banks, S. (2013). Negotiating personal engagement and professional accountability: Professional wisdom and ethics work. European Journal of Social Work, 16(5), 587–604. doi: 10.1080/13691457.2012.732931
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bovens, M., & Zouridis, S. (2002). From street-level to system-level bureaucracies: How information and communication technology is transforming administrative discretion and constitutional control. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 174–184. doi: 10.1111/0033-3352.00168
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broadhurst, K., Grover, C., & Jamieson, J. (2009). Critical perspectives on safeguarding children. West-Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Broadhurst, K., Hall, C., Wastell, D., White, S., & Pithouse, A. (2010). Risk, instrumentalism and the humane project in social work: Identifying the informal logics of risk management in children’s statutory services. British Journal of Social Work, 40(4), 1046–1064. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcq011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brodkin, E. Z. (2008). Accountability in street-level organizations. International Journal of Public Administration, 31(3), 317–336. doi: 10.1080/01900690701590587
   Google Scholar
• Burton, J., & van den Broek, D. (2009). Accountable and countable: Information management systems and the bureaucratization of social work. British Journal of Social Work, 39(7), 1326–1342. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcn027
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carrilio, T. E. (2008). Accountability, evidence, and the use of information systems in social service programs. Journal of Social Work, 8(2), 135–148. doi: 10.1177/1468017307088495
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke, J., & Newman, J. (1997). The managerial state. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Devlieghere, J. (2017). The logic of the database: In search of responsive social work. Ghent University. Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Ghent, Belgium.
   Google Scholar
• Dicicco-Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B. F. (2006). The qualitative research interview. Medical Education, 40(4), 314–321. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02418.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, T. (2010). Professional discretion in welfare services. Aldershot: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, T. (2011). Professionals, managers and discretion: Critiquing street-level bureaucracy. British Journal of Social Work, 41(2), 368–386. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcq074
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, T. (2013). Organisational rules and discretion in adult social work. British Journal of Social Work, 43(4), 739–758. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcs008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, T. (2016). Street-level bureaucracy, management and the corrupted world of service. European Journal of Social Work, 19(5), 602–615. doi: 10.1080/13691457.2015.1084274
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, T., & Harris, J. (2004). Street-level bureaucracy, social work and the (exaggerated) death of discretion. British Journal of Social Work, 34(6), 871–895. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bch106
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Floersch, J., Longhofer, J. L., Kranke, D., & Townsend, L. (2010). Integrating thematic, grounded theory and narrative analysis: A case study of adolescent psychotropic treatment. Qualitative Social Work: Research and Practice, 9(3), 407–425. doi: 10.1177/1473325010362330
   Google Scholar
• Garrett, P. M. (2005). Social work’s ‘electronic turn’: Notes on the deployment of information and communication technologies in social work with children and families. Critical Social Policy, 25(4), 529–553. doi: 10.1177/0261018305057044
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gillingham, P. (2009). The use of assessment tools in child protection: An ethnomethodological study. The University of Melbourne, Melbourne.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, C., Parton, N., Peckover, S., & White, S. (2010). Child-centric information and communication technology (ICT) and the fragmentation of child welfare practice in England. Journal of Social Policy, 39(3), 393–413. doi: 10.1017/S0047279410000012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harlow, E. (2003). New managerialism, social services departments and social work practice today. Practice: Social Work in Action, 15(2), 29–44. doi: 10.1080/09503150308416917
   Google Scholar
• Hudson, J. (2003). E-galitarianism? The information society and new labour’s repositioning of welfare. Critical Social Policy, 23(2), 268–290. doi: 10.1177/0261018303023002008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hupe, P., & Hill, M. (2007). Street-level bureaucracy and public accountability. Public Administration, 85(2), 279–299. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00650.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, C. (2001). Voices from the front line: State social workers and new labour. British Journal of Social Work, 31(4), 547–562. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/31.4.547
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirkpatrick, I., Ackroyd, S., & Walker, R. (2005). The new managerialism and public service professions: Change in health, social services, and housing. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillian.
   Google Scholar
• Lecluijze, I. (2015). The wrong tool for the job. The introduction of the child Index in Dutch child welfare. Maastricht: Universitaire Pers Maastricht.
   Google Scholar
• Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russel Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Mortelmans, D. (2007). Handboek kwalitatieve onderzoeksmethoden. Leuven: Acco.
   Google Scholar
• Mulgan, R. (2000). ‘Accountability’: An ever-expanding concept? Public Administration, 78(3), 555–573. doi: 10.1111/1467-9299.00218
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munro, E. (2004). The impact of audit on social work practice. British Journal of Social Work, 34(8), 1075–1095. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bch130
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munro, E. (2011). The Munro review of child protection: Final report. A child-centred system. London: Department for Education.
   Google Scholar
• Pallot, J. (1999). Service delivery: The audit dimension. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 58(3), 43–49. doi: 10.1111/1467-8500.00104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parton, N. (2006). Changes in the form of knowledge in social work: From the ‘social’ to the ‘informational’? British Journal of Social Work, 38(2), 253–269. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcl337
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parton, N. (2009). Challenges to practice and knowledge in child welfare social work: From the ‘social’ to the ‘informational’? Children and Youth Services Review, 31(7), 715–721. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.01.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peckover, S., Hall, C., & White, S. (2009). From policy to practice: The implementation and negotiation of technologies in everyday child welfare. Children & Society, 23(2), 136–148. doi: 10.1111/j.1099-0860.2008.00143.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollack, D. (2009). Legal risk, accountability and transparency in social work. International Social Work, 52(6), 837–842. doi: 10.1177/0020872809342663
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ponnert, L., & Svensson, K. (2016). Standardisation—The end of professional discretion? European Journal of Social Work, 19(3-4), 586–599. doi: 10.1080/13691457.2015.1074551
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruch, G. (2012). Where have all the feelings gone? Developing reflective and relationship-based management in child-care social work. British Journal of Social Work, 42(7), 1315–1332. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcr134
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schoech, R. (1999). Human services technology: Understanding, designing, and implementing computer and internet applications in the social services. New York: The Haworth Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shanks, E., Lundström, T., & Wiklund, S. (2015). Middle managers in social work: Professional identity and management in a marketised welfare state: Table 1. British Journal of Social Work, 45(6), 1871–1887. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcu061
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tregeagle, S., & Darcy, M. (2007). Child welfare and information and communication technology: Today’s challenge. British Journal of Social Work, 38(8), 1481–1498. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcm048
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsui, M. S., & Cheung, F. C. H. (2004). Gone with the wind: The impacts of managerialism on human services. British Journal of Social Work, 34(3), 437–442. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bch046
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van der Tier, M., Hermans, K., & Potting, M. (2016). Theorizing social interventions using a program theory approach: A case study of five Dutch buddy programmes. Journal of Social Intervention: Theory and Practice, 25(4), 41–62.
   Google Scholar
• Van Hove, G., & Claes, L. (2011). Qualitative research and educational sciences: A reader about useful strategies and tools. Ghent: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Van Nijnatten, C. (2004). Opvoeding, taal en continuïteit. Een pleidooi voor dialogisch maatschappelijk werk. Amsterdam: Boom.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, P. (2002). Understanding accountability: Theoretical models and their implications for social service organizations. Social Policy & Administration, 36(1), 62–75. doi: 10.1111/1467-9515.00270
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, S., Hall, C., & Peckover, S. (2009). The descriptive tyranny of the common assessment framework: Technologies of categorization and professional practice in child welfare. British Journal of Social Work, 39(7), 1197–1217. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcn053
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar