Why a chronology should be the first thing you do in an assessment

Social workers can see producing a chronology as an administrative 'chore' - but they are a vital foundation for analysis

Photo: Life in View/Science Photo Library

This article highlights tips taken from a new guide on Community Care Inform Children on writing chronologies. The guide is written by Chris Dyke, lecturer in social work at Goldsmiths, University of London and an independent social worker. Inform Children subscribers can read the full guide.

It’s easy for social workers and other professionals to misunderstand the nature and purpose of a chronology, mainly due to the learning and working culture around them that can see producing a chronology as an administrative ‘chore’. Chronologies are actually an essential part of any good assessment, a vital foundation for analysis, and a useful tool to help a social worker develop rapport with service users.

Why you should do a chronology first

I’ve never understood it when a social worker says “I’ve done my assessment, now I have to do a chronology” – how can you write the one without the other? For me, the chronology is the start, and heart, of a good assessment.

How much of a chronology to write at the start, and in what format, depends on the context. In a non-emergency setting, with some discretion about how to spend your time, I’d see a chronology as the first action upon receiving a case. It provides a useful focus for so many other, vital tasks: reading the case files; planning visits; planning interviews; planning who else to contact.

But even in a ‘duty desk’ scenario, with a matter of minutes between receiving the case and having to rush out on an emergency, I’d always make the time to produce some kind of rough chronology (likewise a rough draft genogram/ecomap). This would often be handwritten and might result from only 20 minutes skimming through key case files – this might be all the time you have before having to be at the hospital, for example, if there are concerns about a non-accidental injury.

The frequent argument against this is: ‘who’s got the time?’ A chronology seems like a luxury when faced with an urgent situation, an injured child and a ticking clock – surely you have to set the ‘paperwork’ aside and get on with the ‘real work’? The problem is, when you get to the hospital, you (along with the police and your managers) will have to make a major decision, about what to do next. Making a high-pressure decision ‘against the clock’ is even harder if it’s an uninformed decision.

When you have more time available, it makes sense to start compiling a more formal chronology, typed in the same format that you’ll use when you present it to a wider audience (as ever, imagine this audience includes a judge, and always remember that the document needs to make sense to a service user).

Creating the chronology at the start provides points of reference for your visits and other investigations – the partial chronology from your initial reading highlights gaps in your knowledge, or any apparent contradictions or obvious mistakes (eg dates of birth that don’t add up).

Preparing a chronology at the start of your work with someone isn’t just a re-statement of the importance of reading their files in advance – the act of listing what you know chronologically is valuable precisely because it lays out events in order and helps identify which themes are the most persistent, rather than which themes are the most predominant in reports. Turney et al (2011) found poorer assessments typically lacked this comprehensive filling-in of information gaps.

Doing this work first also helps counter some cognitive biases. We’re all prone to a ‘pictorial superiority effect’ (Nelson et al, 1976) where what we see with our own eyes becomes more prominent in our thinking that what we’ve read about in some dry document. It’s easy to become preoccupied with, for example, the conditions we’ve seen in a family home, when we should be more focussed on events that happened within it but are unlikely to ever see first-hand. Linked to this, we also suffer an ‘availability heuristic’ (Tversky and Kahneman, 1973) where we privilege the information that is immediately available to us, rather than the information gathered by other people. Social workers (and all professionals) can become fixated on relatively insignificant details because they represent first-hand information they obtained themselves.

Observation skills and interviewing skills are vital to good social work practice, but so are the skills of absorbing and analysing what other people have observed and heard.

While we’re all prone to these cognitive biases, we can partly counteract them by processing the ‘dry’, second-hand information first, so that this frames how we plan and approach our visits.

This also helps us to look beyond the referral information and into the underlying and long-term issues within a household.

But creating a chronology at the start is useful for more than analytical purposes – by ‘front-loading’ your exploration of family history, you’re laying the ground for a more useful working relationship. Those initial hours spent developing a chronology are time well spent, given the impact on your first impression with a service user.


Nelson, DL; Reed, US and Walling, JR (1976) ‘Pictorial superiority effect‘, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 2, pp. 523-8

Turney, D. et al (2011) Social work assessment of children in need: what do we know?
Messages from research, Department for Education

Tversky, A and Kahneman, D (1973) ‘Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability‘, Cognitive Psychology, 5(1) pp. 207-233

More from Community Care

5 Responses to Why a chronology should be the first thing you do in an assessment

  1. Anne Edwards August 16, 2018 at 6:19 pm #

    I agee – I have never understood why more social workers do not see the usefulness of a chronology – not just in cases going to court. It does need to be factual and precise as many lengthy chronologies contain comment and analysis. As Chris says, a chronology helps to identify gaps, patterns, frequency of events etc. It forces the writer to check with the family as well as records and other professionals on decisions, outcomes, plans from earlier involvement – often identifying where professionals have reneged on plans (often with no recorded reason) It can be a powerful aid to a working relationship as it is such a factual document and not opinion based. It can also be an emotionally charged document – if someone sees their life as a list of sad events and failures, so great care is needed in sharing it and explaining its purpose as it is being prepared. Sometimes issues simply aren’t noted in the records or are not understood in respect of the impact on the child until the chronology is prepared. For example where a child’s health needs have not been met, listing failed appointments as well as those that have been kept can really inform the assessment as to why this has happened and then how best to support positive steps.

    • Prussik August 17, 2018 at 6:58 pm #

      Surely the first thing is a genogram (a proper one!)

  2. Char August 20, 2018 at 12:01 pm #

    Understanding the families story from their perspectives are often achieved through respectful relationship building. Working with the family to understand what life has been like for them and what led to their difficulties, provides richer information and context. Chronologies are often a list of entries, it is the understanding of the child’s journey, which is important to demonstrate.

  3. Anne Edwards August 20, 2018 at 5:15 pm #

    I would say Char that what you are describing is a working relationship to enable assessment, analysis and understanding. Yes, a chronology is a list of entries, but knowing for example how many times and when a child has moved, how many times and when new adults join and leave the family unit, how many times and when a child has missed appointments does help understanding. Memories can be fickle and in child protection work especially, it may be difficult to get at the true facts. You have only to read a sample of serious case reviews to realise the danger of not having a factual basis for any involvement. It is always great when you pick up a case where someone has done their best to record relevant stuff in a straightforward way and separated fact from opinion. Understanding is essential but social workers move on all the time and stuff has to be recorded. Yes, to genograms and yes to documents that can be easily added to and amended as new information emerges.

  4. Mary Rice August 24, 2018 at 8:15 pm #

    Chronology is really important though what you pick out and what you don’t can also be subjective. Stick to known facts/events. Patterns of injuries I become more evident rather than seen as an odd isolated incident. When do events occur in the week ? Is it at weekends. Is it when there are no supports around? Who and how do carers respond to an incident? It is time consuming but worth doing and going back over a period of time.