Abstract
When children in the UK are referred to child welfare services, social workers are faced with the task of assessing risks and needs and establishing how the case should be managed. Typically there are several categories of disposal (Parton et al. 1997). First, in the majority of cases no concerns are identified and the case is closed. Second the child is identified as having particular needs which should be addressed, identified as a ‘child in need’, and services are provided without formal action. Third, where serious risks to children are identified, it becomes a case of ‘child protection’ and a formal surveillance process is instituted. In the most extreme circumstances, the child is removed from the family and ‘looked after’ (i.e. placed in care) on a temporary or permanent basis.1 These different constructions of cases are not only used by social workers and managers as part of their everyday explanations; the labels which are applied also set up different trajectories for institutional intervention, (re)assessment and review.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Department for Children, Schools and Families (2003) Initial CP Conference Report Version 1 www.dcsf.gov.uk/everychildmatters/safeguardingandsocialcare/integratedchildrenssystem/icspracticeresources/icsexemplarsdocuments/docs.
Department for Children, Schools and Families (2008) Referrals, Assessments and Children and Young People who are the subject of a Child Protection Plan, England, year ending 31 March 2008 www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000811/sfr24_2008.pdf.
Dingwall, R. & Murray, T. (1983) Categorization in accident departments: ‘good’ patients, ‘bad’ patients and ‘children’. Sociology of Health and Illness, 5(2:) 128–48.
Dominelli, L., Strega, S., Callahan, M. & Rutman, D. (2005) Endangered children: experiencing and surviving the state as failed parent and grandparent. British Journal of Social Work, 35(8): 1123–44.
Dowling, M. (1999) Social exclusion, inequality and social work. Social Policy and Administration, 33 (3): 245–61.
Etzioni, A. (1993) The Parenting Deficit. London: Demos.
Fox Harding, L. (1996) Family, State and Social Policy, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Griffiths, L. (2001) Categorising to exclude: the discursive construction of cases in a community mental health team. Sociology of Health and Illness, 23(5): 678–700.
Hall, C. (1997) Social Work as Narrative: Storytelling and Persuasion in Professional Texts. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Hall C., Sarangi, S. & Slembrouck, S. (1997) Moral construction in social work discourse. In B. Gunnarsson, P. Linell & B. Nordberg (eds.) The Social Construction of Professional Discourse. London: Longman, pp. 265–91.
Hall, C., Slembrouck, S. & Sarangi, S. (2006) Language Practices in Social Work: Categorisation and Accountability in Child Welfare. London: Routledge.
Hoghughi, M. & Speight, A. (1998) Good enough parenting for all children — a strategy for a healthier society. Archives ofDisease in Childhood, 78: 293–300.
Howe, D. (1996) Surface and depth in social work. In N. Parton (ed.) Social Theory, Social Change and Social Work. London: Routledge.
Hyden, L. (1999) Talk about money: studying the interaction between social worker and client. International Journal of Social Welfare, 8(2): 143–54.
Jenkins, R. (2000) Categorization: identities, social process and epistemology. Current Sociology, 48: 7–25.
Mäkitalo Å. (2003) Accounting practices as situated knowing: dilemmas and dynamics in institutional categorization. Discourse Studies, 5(4): 495–516.
May, T. & Buck, M. (1999) Social work, professionalism and the rationality of organisational change. In T. Malin (ed.) Professionalism, Boundaries and the Workplace. London: Routledge.
Merrick, D. (2006) Social Work and Child Abuse, London: Routledge.
Munro, E. & Calder, M. (2005) Where has child protection gone?’ Political Quarterly, 76(3): 439–45.
Palmer, F. (1986) Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Parton, N., Thorpe, D. & Wattam, C. (1997) Child Protection: Risk and the Moral Order, Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Parton, N. (2006) Safeguarding Childhood: Early Intervention and Surveillance in a Late Modern Society. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pomerantz, A. (1986) Extreme case formulations: a new way of legitimating claims. Human Studies, 9: 291–30.
Rosen, A. (1994) Knowledge use in direct practice. Social Services Review, 68(4): 561–77.
Scott, M. & Lyman, S. (1968) Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33: 46–62
Shuman, A. (1993) Get outa my face: entitlement and authoritative discourse. In J. Hill & J. Irvine (eds.) Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Woodcock, J. (2003) The social work assessment of parenting: an exploration. British Journal of Social Work, 33: 87–106.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2011 Christopher Hall & Stef Slembrouck
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hall, C., Slembrouck, S. (2011). Categorisations of Child ‘in Need’ and Child ‘in Need of Protection’ and Implications for the Formulation of ‘Deficit’ Parenting. In: Candlin, C.N., Crichton, J. (eds) Discourses of Deficit. Palgrave Studies in Professional and Organizational Discourse. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230299023_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230299023_4
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-32089-9
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-29902-3
eBook Packages: Palgrave Language & Linguistics CollectionEducation (R0)