(iPoster) Ending ‘Accountability without Accountability’ in Public Sector Child Protection

• In Event: Poster Session: Judicial Politics & Public Administration
  In Poster Session: Poster Session: Public Administration

Abstract

The quality and effectiveness of accountability are perennial topics in public administration. Some studies look at metrics change, deficits in measuring state performance, or on how accountability attribution depends on interpretation. A neglected perspective is how one can put in place accountability measures to appear accountable without having to face accountability for what matters. With this model of accountability, some have suggested that you can have unanticipated consequences, such as improved compliance with worse outcomes. In light of this concern, the questions we need to ask are: who is accountable for what to whom, and why this accountability?

The present research explores how a novel information technology can act as a vehicle for a certain form of accountability, in this case, social worker compliance with administrative standards or risk scores set by administrators. When one group selects and technologically implements a form of accountability that may not align with the understandings and expectations of a different group, power differentials between groups could come to the fore and undermine the ability of those accountability measures to achieve stated objectives. This speaks to the challenges of implementing accountability measures in complex multi-layered contexts with stakeholders from different occupational, professional, organizational, or institutional positions.

Data for this paper is drawn from a larger project where research was conducted using an abductive multi-sited comparative case study approach, looking at technological change in Canada and the UK, specifically at a new enterprise case management system in Ontario’s child protection sector and predictive analytics for risk assessment in English children’s social care. Methods included interview, observation, and document analysis. The findings are based on the analysis of 101 formal and informal interviews, more than 90 audio recorded or unrecorded observational sessions, and over 500 documents. Thematic analysis was conducted using an interpretive modified hermeneutic circle approach. Accountability was one of the key themes identified and specifically the idea that perceptions of legitimate accountability measures depended on context and perspective

Results suggest that the technologies were seen by social workers to shift focus from clinical and client outcomes towards a greater focus on compliance with administrative standards and the scoring of clients in terms of risk. Information about whether activities had been completed on time or the level of risk of a client were easier to access than information about how services were progressing or how clients were doing. This emphasis seemed to privilege the perspectives of administrators and system developers about what would be measured and how, while leaving professional social workers, their local administrators, and clients to awkwardly fit their practices and needs into an alien information system. This illustrates power differentials in relation to who is able to set the types of accountability that are prioritized and those that are not.

Establishing accountability measures without ensuring that they are aligned with desired outcomes risks providing the appearance of accountability without actual accountability. More attention is needed to the multi-level understandings of accountability in public administration to ensure that measures are seen as meaningful for all involved stakeholders and that they can be measured in relation to desired ends.

Author

• Thomas Vogl, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford