It is also important to reiterate that the sample used in the research, although small, is enough to draw some significant conclusions. These will now be discussed.

The analysis of the evidence led to some conflicting implications concerning the benefits of the current panel structure. On the one hand, factors such as the clear differences in the conduct of panels, the frequent sense of meeting for meeting’s sake, the ‘niceness’ of some of the discussions and the possible lack of rigorous challenge raise serious questions about their structure and legitimacy. On the other hand, the narratives of the panel members, together with their professional and personal experience, highlight the importance of having different people involved in making recommendations concerning stakeholders’ lives.

There is certainly no evidence from the study that suggests that panel members are passive participants in the process. However, it is also clear that existing panel members need to be more aware of the unconscious processes that inform their recommendations, and agencies recruiting new members need to develop systems that facilitate the recruitment of individuals who are able to do this from the outset.

A more specific finding of the study, with implications for agencies, concerns recruitment, as it was found that many panel members are conscripted rather than appointed by a process of formal application. This can lead to panel membership being drawn from a rather narrow group of people already known to the agency (Lord and Cullen, 2016). While this can work well, there is a strong case for agencies to develop more robust recruitment and selection processes for both internal and external potential panel members.

Another significant finding concerns support and guidance. As noted earlier, most panel members were either unaware or not in control of their unconscious personality characteristics and how these led to the projection of their views or attitudes onto social workers and applicants. On the other hand, an analysis of panel member profiles showed (see the consciousness/constructiveness axis, above) that most of them have high consciousness and low constructiveness. This implies that supervision and training could prove a valuable tool in helping them to mitigate or eliminate the effects of biography and unconscious bias on their decision-making. Currently, however, there is no process in place to offer support and guidance on a regular and structured basis, other than informal discussions and annual reviews. Therefore, there seems to be a strong argument in favour of increasing formal support, guidance and training structures. For example, member training could be increased to twice a year with one of these sessions comprising an annual update on the role and function of panels, looking at conformational bias, groupwork and anti-discriminatory practice. Furthermore, all the individuals involved, whether social workers, team managers, panel members or ADMs, should be trained in EPPJ, as discussed above. While the relatively small sample informing this study might enervate general conclusions, it has been shown elsewhere that in a general childcare context ‘… the more supervision is used to monitor managerial concerns, the less practitioners will be helped to reflect on their thinking and to be critical’ (Munro, 2008: 25).