A guest post by Irene de Haan, lecturer in social work in the Faculty of Education and Social Work at the University of Auckland and a registered social worker. Irene’s previous roles include Senior Advisor at the Office of the Chief Social Worker and Principal Community Engagement Advisor at the Families Commission. Currently Irene is involved in reviews undertaken for the Family Violence Death Review Committee. Her research focuses on the promotion of child and family well-being and the prevention of maltreatment and family violence.
Category: Uncategorized
Categories
Why the PRM will not work
This guest blog is by Philip Gillingham. Dr. Gillingham is a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Queensland. He is a qualified social worker who has spent 27 years working in and conducting research about child protection services. Recent publications can be viewed at http://researchers.uq.edu.au/researcher/2576.
Serious ethical concerns have been raised about the development of the Predictive Risk Model (PRM) to identify children at the highest risk of maltreatment as they enter the public welfare benefit system. However, there are also serious practical problems with how it was developed which mean that it is seriously flawed. What follows is a brief and jargon-free explainer as to why it will not work, based on an analysis of the documents released about its development.
The measured business model language of the recently released Productivity Commission Report on “More Effective Social Services” conceals a deeply disturbing set of ideological blinkers. The underlying dogma is that marketization will produce better public services. The narrow lens of supply and demand produces a predictable focus: greater consumer choice, better products, efficiency incentives and measures. However there is also a more deeply disguised, insidious and sinister narrative bias – particularly in relation to the development of social services.
This guest blog is by Dr Philip Gillingham. Philip’s blog post is particularly pertinent for us here in Aotearoa New Zealand, where the legitimacy of Social Work as the primary profession delivering child protection services is increasingly questioned. Philip draws links between poorly qualified workers, technical approaches to risk management, and a ‘child rescue’ mentality that can undermine quality practice. He is a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Queensland, and a qualified social worker with 27 years experience working in, and conducting research about, child protection services. Recent publications can be viewed at http://researchers.uq.edu.au/researcher/2576
Official reports, like other documents, have effects: they have agency, they enter the world and are used by a range of actors to achieve their goals and projects. Prior argues (2003) that documents can only be understood in terms of the ‘networks of action’ (p.2) within which they are situated and mobilised. They are entities ‘that influence and structure human agents’ (Prior, 2003, p.3). Harnessed for particular ends, official reports can be enlisted, manipulated or suppressed. This perspective draws our attention to the fact that official reports are not just repositories of content, but active agents that have effects on the world (Prior, 2008). Put simply, documents do not just contain things (statements, points of view, recommendations), they do things. Or rather, they can be enlisted by other actors to do things, sometimes in ways unintended by their authors.