The White Paper for Vulnerable Children and the Munro Review of Child Protection in England: a comparative critique

Authors

  • Ian Hyslop University of Auckland

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.11157/anzswj-vol25iss4id58

Keywords:

child protection, social work practice, white paper for vulnerable children, munro review of child protection, neoliberalism, individuated responsibility,

Abstract

The apparent understandings of knowledge for child protection social work practice which inform the New Zealand White Paper for Vulnerable Children are contrasted with the views expressed in the Munro Review of Child Protection in England. It is argued that the rational-technical view of child protection practice knowledge critiqued in the Munro Review is the driving influence in the White Paper. It is further suggested that the White Paper is underpinned by neoliberal conceptions of individuated responsibility which conflict with the socially situated and relational understandings which are native to the theory and practice of social work. Consequently, the socio-technical social work practice knowledge form recognised and promoted in the Munro Review is marginalised in the White Paper. It is also argued that the failings of the child protection system in Aotearoa New Zealand are more appropriately associated with political and managerial misapprehension of knowledge for competent practice than with the shortcomings of social work as a vehicle for effective child protection. It is suggested that it is high time for the social work voice to be rediscovered and reasserted if effective, relationally engaged, practice with high needs children and their families is to be developed and promoted in politically challenging times.

References

Bennett, P. (2012). The white paper for vulnerable children. Retrieved from Ministry of Social Development website: https//www.childrensactionplan.govt.nz/the-white-paper.

Butler, I., & Drakeford, M. (2005). Trusting in social work. British Journal of Social Work Special issue 35(5): 639–653.

Ferguson, H. (2004). Protecting children in time: Child abuse, child protection and the consequences of modernity. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Ferguson, H. (2011). Child protection practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Garrett, P. (2007). Making social work more Bourdieusian: Why the social work professions should critically engage with the work of Pierre Bourdieu. European Journal of Social Work 10(2): 225–243.

Goldstein, H. (1990). The knowledge base of social work practice: Theory, wisdom, analogue, or art? Families in Society 7(1): 32–42.

Gray, M., & McDonald, C. (2006). Pursuing good practice: The limits of evidence-based practice. Journal of Social Work 6(1): 7–20.

Gray, M., & Webb, S. (Eds.) (2013). The new politics of social work. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Houston, S. (2001). Transcending the fissure in risk theory: Critical realism and child welfare. Child & Family Social Work 6(3): 219–218.

Hyslop, I. (2009). Child protection policy and practice: A relationship lost in translation. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand 34 (April): 62–72.

Hyslop, I. (2013). Social work practice knowledge: An enquiry into the nature of the knowledge generated and appllied in the practice of social work. (Unpublished PhD thesis). Massey University, New Zealand.

Munro, E. (2010). Review of child protection in England: Part One: A systems analysis. Retrieved from Department of Education website: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/175407/TheMunroReview-Part_one.pdf.

Munro, E. (2011a). Munro review of child protection: Interim report - The child’s journey. Retrieved from Department of Education website: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/munro-review-of-child-protection- interimreport-the-childs-journey.

Munro, E. (2011b). Review of child protection in England: Finalreport: A child-centred system. Retrieved from http:// www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm80/8062/8062.pdf.

O’Brien, M. (2001). Social work in context: Economics, organization, politics, and ideology. In M. Connolly (Ed.), New Zealand social work: Contexts and practice (pp. 44–54). New York: Oxford University Press.

Parton, N. (2008). Changes in the form of knowledge in social work: From the ‘social’ to the ‘informational’? British Journal of Social Work 38(2): 253–269.

Parton, N. (2012). The Munro review of child protection: An appraisal. Children in society 26(2): 150-162.

Pease, B. (2010). Challenging the dominant paradigm: Social work research, social justice and social change. In I. Shaw, K. Briar-Lawson, J. Orme, & R. Ruckdeschel (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social work research (pp. 98–113). Los Angeles: Sage.

Philp, M. (1979). Notes on the form of knowledge in social work. Sociological Review 27(1): 83–111.

Wastell, D., & White, S. (2012). Blinded by neuroscience: Social policy, the family and the infant brain. Families, Relationships and Societies 1(4): 397-414.

Downloads

Published

2016-05-15

How to Cite

Hyslop, I. (2016). The White Paper for Vulnerable Children and the Munro Review of Child Protection in England: a comparative critique. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 25(4), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.11157/anzswj-vol25iss4id58

Issue

Vol. 25 No. 4 (2013)

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

By completing the online submission process, you confirm you accept this agreement. The following is the entire agreement between you and the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers (ANZASW) and it may be modified only in writing.

You and any co-authors

If you are completing this agreement on behalf of co-authors, you confirm that you are acting on their behalf with their knowledge.

First publication

By submitting the work you are:

  1. granting the ANZASW the right of first publication of this work;
  2. confirming that the work is original; and
  3. confirming that the work has not been published in any other form.

Once published, you are free to use the final, accepted version in any way, as outlined below under Copyright.

Copyright

You assign copyright in the final, accepted version of your article to the ANZASW. You and any co-authors of the article retain the right to be identified as authors of the work.

The ANZASW will publish the final, accepted manuscript under a Creative Commons Attribution licence (CC BY 4.0). This licence allows anyone – including you – to share, copy, distribute, transmit, adapt and make commercial use of the work without needing additional permission, provided appropriate attribution is made to the original author or source.

A human-readable summary of the licence is available from http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0, which includes a link to the full licence text.

Under this licence you can use the final, published version of the article freely – such as depositing a copy in your institutional research repository, uploading a copy to your profile on an academic networking site or including it in a different publication, such as a collection of articles on a topic or in conference proceedings – provided that original publication in Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work is acknowledged.

This agreement has no effect on any pre-publication versions or elements, which remain entirely yours, and to which we claim no right.

Reviewers hold copyright in their own comments and should not be further copied in any way without their permission.

The copyright of others

If your article includes the copyright material of others (e.g. graphs, diagrams etc.), you confirm that your use either:

  1. falls within the limits of fair dealing for the purposes of criticism and review or fair use; OR
  2. that you have gained permission from the rights holder for publication in an open access journal.