The Challenges and Opportunities of Collaborative Working Messages from research

1
The Challenges and Opportunities of Collaborative
Working Messages from research

• Professor Ilan Katz
• Social Policy Research Centre
• University of New South Wales
• Sydney Australia
• Stavanger, Norway
• April 24th 2008

2
Will cover

• Why collaborate?
• The complexities of collaboration
• Degrees of collaboration
• Levels of collaboration
• Mechanisms for collaborating
• Barriers to collaboration
• Research evidence for the effectiveness of
  collaboration
• The human face of collaboration
• Conclusions

3
Why collaborate?

• Single agencies cant deal with the complexity of
  child protection
• Family problems dont fit service pigeonholes
• Practitioner and service user feedback -
  frustration
• Child death inquiries safety
• Alternative is fragmentation

4
Degrees of working together
5
Mechanisms for working together

• Structures
• Committees, funding mechanisms, multi agency
  teams, co-location
• Functions
• Planning, policies, aims, objectives, common
  assessment frameworks, data sharing
• Processes
• Joint training, planning meetings, joint work,

6
Levels of working together
7
Barriers to collaboration

• Structural
• Administrative boundaries
• Sectoral divides state, NGO, private
• Conditions of service
• Budget silos
• Professional hierarchies
• Functional
• Agency objectives and priorities
• KPIs and targets
• Procedures
• Professional rewards and incentives
• Professional culture

8
Child protection vs family support
9
What does the research say?

• Very difficult to achieve
• Requires a lot of resources time, money,
  expertise (Moran et al, 2006 Warin 2007 Sloper
  2004)
• Mixed results regarding outcomes
• Fort Bragg experiment (Bickman, 1995)
• National Evaluation of Sure Start (Melhuish et
  al, 2005 2008)
• Katz et al (forthcoming)
• Real questions about cost-effectiveness
• Only cost-effective if it leads to better
  services for children and families

10
(No Transcript)
11
But whats missing?
12

• Focus on structures, functions, processes,
  networks etc leaves out one crucial element
• The human dimension

13
Inter country comparison of child protection
systems

• Aim investigate how different national
  cultures, professional systems and practice
  cultures create different social constructions of
  the task of child protection
• Method case vignette presented to
  practitioners/managers in each country.
  Participants then asked to reflect on each
  others practice.
• Responses then linked to cp system as a whole,
  welfare state type (cf Esping-Andersen) and legal
  system

14
Australian (New South Wales) Child Protection
System

• All referrals directed to a central helpline
• Professionals are mandated to report
• Notifications are graded according to immediate
  risk
• Only highest risk get any investigation all
  others are not dealt with
• Support and most out of home care provided by
  NGOs who are contracted to provide services
• Nearly 300,000 notifications per year, rising
  exponentially (Total NSW population 5m)
• No formal inter-agency working except JIRT

15
Findings (collaboration)

• Every system has professional tensions and
  structural problems (Adult/Children
  Health/Social NGO/Government Policy makers
  practitioners Acute services/Prevention)
• Collaboration depended much more on attitudes and
  context than on structures
• Where practitioners were confident and competent
  they could engage with each other
• Time was the most important resource

16
TrustAuthorityNegotiation

• Principles for effective child protection

17
Trust

• Between
• Families and the State
• Families and professionals
• State and professionals
• Different professional groups
• Based on personal nature of social care
  services

18
Authority

• Professional authority and autonomy
• Confidence and competence
• Individual responsibility and judgement
• Positive use of professional power

19
Negotiation

• Process for building trust
• Dialogue and discussion, even in difficult
  circumstances.
• Creative uncertainty
• Recognition of power relationships
• Accepting compromises

20
Confidentiality and collaboration

• Confidentiality is at the sharp end of
  collaboration
• Children, families need confidentiality to
  disclose abuse or other problems
• But needs very high levels of trust between
  agencies
• Can be used as an excuse not to collaborate
• Can only work if workers are confident and able
  to negotiate

21
Conclusions

• Collaboration in child protection is challenging
  and does not guarantee better wellbeing for
  children
• However fragmented services are damaging to
  children, families and professionals
• Policy makers tend to focus on structures and
  functions, but the key to better collaboration is
  to provide the conditions for good inter-personal
  relationships at all levels
• The principles underpinning these conditions are
  trust, authority and negotiation

22
References

• Bickman, L. (1995). The Fort Bragg Demonstration
  Project A managed continuum of care. The Child,
  Youth, and Family Services Quarterly, 18(3), 2-5.
• Cooper, A., Hetherington, R., Baistow, K., Pitts,
  J., Spriggs, A. ( 1995). Positive Child
  Protection A View from Abroad. Lyme Regis
  Russell House Publishing.
• Cooper, A., Hetherington, R., Katz, I. (2003).
  The risk factor making the child protection
  system work for children. London Demos.
• Cooper, A., Hetherington, R., Katz, I., National
  Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to, C.,
  Brunel University College Social Work, D. (1997).
  A third way?a European perspective on the child
  protection/family support debate NSPCC.
• Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of
  welfare capitalism. Princeton, N.J. Princeton
  University Press.
• Katz, I. (2007 in press). Early Intervention and
  Evidence Based Policy. In G. Robinson, U.
  Eichelkamp, J. Goodnow I. Katz (Eds.), Contexts
  of Child Development. Darwin Darwin University
  Press.
• Katz, I., Hetherington, R. (2006). Co-operating
  and communicating a European perspective on
  integrating services for children (Vol. 15, pp.
  429-439).
• Moran, P., Jacobs, C., Bunn, A., Bifulco, A.
  (2007). Multi-agency working implications for an
  early-intervention social work team
• Child and Family Social Work, 12, 143-151.
• NESS. (2005). Early Impacts of Sure Start Local
  Programmes on Children and Families (No.
  NESS/2005/FR/013). London Institute for the
  Study of Children, Families and Social Issues,
  Birkbeck, University of London.
• NESS. (2008). The Impact of Sure Start Local
  Programmes on Three Year Olds and Their Families
  (No. NESS/2005/FR/013). London Institute for the
  Study of Children, Families and Social Issues,
  Birkbeck, University of London.
• Sloper, P. (2004). Facilitators and barriers for
  co-ordinated multi-agency services Child Care,
  Health Development, 30(6), 571-580.
• valentine, k., Katz, I. (2007 ). Early
  Childhood Services Models for Integration and
  Collaboration. Perth Australian Research
  Alliance for Children and Youth.
• Warin, J. (2007). Joined-Up Services for Young
  Children and Their Families Papering Over the
  Cracks or Re-Constructing the Foundations?
  Children and Society 21(2), 87-97.

23
Social Policy Research Centre

• www.sprc.unsw.edu.au
• ilan.katz_at_unsw.edu.au