Context and its significance in identifying 'what works' in child protection

Child Abuse Review

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 177-194

  Barton, Adrian ^a   Welbourne, Penelope ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PLYMOUTH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

'what works'; Application; Child protection; Dissemination; Multiagency working

Indexed keywords

EID: 20744446633     PISSN: 09529136     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/car.892     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Barton A. 2002. Evaluation research as passive and apolitical? Some reflections from the field. International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice 5: 371-378.
2. Department of Health. 2004. Social Services Star Ratings 2004 and Performance Assessment 2004. www.dh.gov.uk/asset
3. Department of Health and Social Security. 1974. A Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Care and Supervision Provided in Relation to Maria Colwell. HMSO: London.
4. George M. 2004. Local Safeguarding Children Boards. Care and Health Magazine, February 4-18: 38-39.
5. Gomm R. 2000. 'Would it work here?'. In Using Evidence in Health and Social Care, Gomm R and Davies C (eds). Sage: London.
6. Hardy B, Hudson B, Waddington E. 2000. What Makes a Good Partnership? A Partnership Assessment Tool. Nuffield Institute/NHS Executive: London.
7. Home Office. 1945. Report by Sir Walter Monckton on the Circumstances which Led to the Boarding-Out of Dennis and Terence O'Neill at Bank Farm, Minsterley and the Steps Taken to Supervise their Welfare. Cmnd 6636. HMSO: London.
8. Hudson B. 1987. Collaboration in social welfare: a framework for analysis. Policy and Politics 15: 175-182.
9. Lord Laming H. 2003. The Victoria Climbié Inquiry: Report of an Inquiry by Lord Laming, The Stationery Office: London.
10. Macdonald G, Winkley A. 1999. What Works in Child Protection? Barnado's: Barkingside.
11. Newham Area Child Protection Committee. 2002. Ainlee. Part 8 Review. ACPC: Newham.
12. Nocon A. 1989. Forms of ignorance and their role in the joint planning process. Social Policy and Administration 23: 31-47.
13. Patton M. 1982. Practical Evaluation. Sage: Beverly Hills.
14. Pawson R. 1993. Quality and quantity, agency and structure, mechanism and context, dons and cons. Paper given to the Seminar on Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis in Sociology, Nuffield College, November 17th 1993.
15. Rawnsley A. 2001. Servant of the People: The Inside Story of New Labour. Penguin: Harmondsworth.
16. Reder P, Duncan S, Gray M. 1993. Beyond Blame: Child Abuse Tragedies Revisited. Routledge: London.
17. Richards S. 2001. Four types of government and the problem of accountability. Appendix 1. In Joining Up to Improve Public Services. National Audit Office: London.
18. Social Services Inspectorate, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, Commission for Health Improvement. 2004. The Victoria Climbié Report: Key Findings from the Self Audits of NHS Organisations, Social Services Departments and Police Forces. Stationery Office: London.
19. Tilley N. 2000. Realistic evaluation: an overview. Paper presented to the Founding Conference of the Danish Evaluation Society, September 2000.
20. Tilley N, Pawson R. 1997. Realistic Evaluation. Sage: London.
21. Walsh D. 1998. Doing ethnography. In Researching Society and Culture, Seale C (ed.). Sage: London.
22. Welbourne P. 2002. Child abuse, culture and social work intervention. Child Abuse Review 11: 245-358.