Multidisciplinary Working in Child Protection - Case Study Example

A Critical Analysis of the arrangements for multi agency and/or multidisciplinary working in child protection I. Introduction Child protection is a job that requires a comprehensive approach. Since there are many agencies and multidisciplinary working in this area, it is a must that these entities and organizations work together. However, there are many things that could affect the smooth flow of operations when there are many people involves especially where these people comes form different agencies with different cultures, values and frameworks. This paper therefore will strive to take a critical look on how these arrangements are implemented in the field today as well as discuss the facilitating or hindering factors in the implementation thereof. Because of the complexity of the people, agencies and organizations involved in the area of child protection, it is normal to encounter several barriers in the implementation of activities and in the performance of duty. Since we are dealing with a complex situation where voluntary and statutory agencies must work together in the area of child protection, barriers may exist at different levels. Barriers may exist along the following aspects: first, we must consider the individuals involved in the situation, second, we must consider the nature, culture and values of the agencies involved and third, we must consider the laws and the mandates given to certain agencies and authorities. To get a better picture of the complexities of multi-agency and multidisciplinary working in child protection, let us tackle these barriers one by one. II. Human factor It cannot be denied that individuals involved come from different cultures and backgrounds. Each of these individuals has their own set of professional values, culture, beliefs and even some preconceived notions and prejudices. If you bring different types of people together to work for a common goal, there is a big possibility that conflicts will arise. Note that since these people come from different types of profession, it cannot be avoided that people will place different values of status that may cause tension in the group. According to Robinson and Cottrell (2005) cited in Appendices 3 pp. 15 -16), each profession have sense own hierarchy that when you put different people of different profession are put together, there may be a confusion when it comes to status and hierarchy. Furthermore, since there are different standards of pay employed by different agencies, there is a big possibility that people who feel that they are receiving lesser pay than the others in the group would not be inclined to put in equal efforts with the rest of the group. Tension in the group would often amplify when the goal set is unrealistic and roles of the people involved in not well defined. More often than not, where the goal set is unrealistic and roles are not well defined, confusion among the members of the team will result leading to the professional protectionism phenomenon, which could best be observed in the case of Victoria Climbie. In the Climbie case, the people involved failed to share the information that they have resulting to the death of Climbie. Such tragedy could have been clearly avoided had there been clarity of purpose and roles of the people involved (Onyett 1992) cited in Appendix 5 p. 28) Furthermore, there is a need to put some value on the expertise of the different professionals involved in the situation (Hallett and Birchall’s (1992) cited in Appendix 5 p 27). Where professionals respect and value the expertise of one another, there were be lesser interference on the job of the field experts. Another aspect that usually affects the outcome of collaboration is the availability of the people involved. Section 47 of the Child Act 1989 tells us that where a “child is at risk of continuing harm”, (Appendix 5 p. 28) a preliminary conference of the multi-agency team will be conducted and then sub-sequent conferences will be conducted will be held to share information. In actual practice, attending meetings could be very difficult on the part of the professionals because of time constraints. More often than not, professionals already have heavy caseloads that conflict of schedules would arise. Furthermore, the venue of the meetings could also affect the attendance of the certain professionals. Note that since these professionals come from different offices, they will need to travel from their present post to the venue of the meeting. The travel time of the professionals would already eat up a lot of time and could hinder their efficiency in the delivery of services. Moreover, since the professionals are located in different offices and field assignments, there may be some difficulty when it comes to contacting them. Gathering these people in one venue for a briefing and sharing of information could already be a big challenge especially if the person who is assigned to convene all these people together lack the necessary organizational skills or is just plainly too swamped with his or her own case assignments. Aside from time constraints, the issues of skills and adequate training have always been one of the primary reasons why confusion would arise in a multi-professional and multi-agency collaborate. Note that agencies have different mandates and there are many things that other agencies would consider as important but may not be thought of as important by other agencies (Hallett and Birchall (1992) cited in Appendix 5 p. 27). Thus, when you bring people together which may have different levels of skills and training, confusions are likely to arise. The lack of proper training understanding of the legal processes involved in Child Protection is usually a cause for great confusion. Since these people have different training and orientation, they may be using different types of work related jargons that could serve as a language barrier in the implementation of child protection activities. Language barriers could lead to confusions especially when you are already dealing with the child and his or her family. The verbal type of communication if not properly delivered with leads to further confusion. It is therefore highly recommended that if a multi-professional group has to work together efficiently, they should agree on certain terms that can be well understood by all individuals concerned. III. Institutional Factor It cannot be denied that different agencies have their own guidelines and models in handling cases. Moreover, different agencies have their set of agenda when it comes to delivery of services. Agencies have different goals therefore it is natural they the desired outcomes of the different agencies may be in conflict with the others. For instance, it we take the social model of intervention versus the medical model of intervention, we will be looking at different desired outcomes. Although it is highly probable that these agencies can work well together, there is a need to smooth out their difference when it comes to setting goals. Note that where the social services are mandated to execute child protection programs, the mandates of the other agencies may be geared towards a more complex and general goals. According to a study conducted in Scotland1, since the social services is the one which is focused on the issues of Child Protection, the other agencies are often too happy to leave the bulk of the work to social services. Since the other agencies are usually not directly involved in the operations when it comes to Child protection, there is but little sense of ownership and responsibility among the other agencies when it comes to the issues of Child Protection (Appendix 3 p. 19). Again, this boils down to the fact that most professionals from the other agencies do not really understand their roles. Another structural barrier that often confronts the implementation of multi-agency and multi-professional child protection activities is that there agencies often times have their own set of standards when it comes to assessing a situation. Although there is already a Framework for Assessment of Children in Need (DoH 2000), a study in Scotland showed that there are only at least five authorities that are using this framework as of the present. (www.scotland.gov.uk). Where different agencies are using different standards of assessment, what is considered as urgent and should be acted upon in another agency may be considered as minor or not urgent in another agency. Since the there may be conflict in the result of the assessment, there is a big possibility that the other agency may be reluctant to field experts to assist the other agency on a case which it considers are not urgent. Furthermore, since the case is not a priority for the other agency, the professional assigned to the case may not really concentrate on that case since he or she may have other caseloads which his or her agency considers as more important and should be given top priority. Aside from the structural barrier in terms of assessment of cases, the language and the present organizational, financial and legal structures between agencies (Hallet and Birchall, 1992) cited in Appendix 3 pp. 17-19) would greatly affect the efficiency of the collaboration. It cannot be denied that agencies differ when it comes to structures and this could clearly affect the collaboration with other agencies. For instance, since we are now in the computer age, most agencies already have IT structures and these IT structures may not be compatible with each other. Incompatibility in the IT structure could lead to difficulties in sharing information. Furthermore, although there are already good number of laws and guidelines that mandate the sharing of information, the case, of Victoria Climbie would tell us that there is still a lot of things that need to be done when it comes of information sharing. For some agencies, the IT incompatibility is not really much of an issue but rather more on professional protectionalism which could lead to withholding of information on the part of the people involved. IV. Laws The Children Act 2004 mandates agencies to cooperate with each other to promote the welfare of the children. In the same vein, the Every Child Matters (2003) cited in Appendix 4 pp. 23-25) green paper set out guidelines on how the five outcomes are to be achieved (Horner and Krawczyk, 2006). However, even though there are many laws and guidelines mandating for cooperation and collaboration of agencies in the areas of child protection, the Scottish Executive Social research Study (2006) found that there are many representatives from different agencies involved in Child protection that still do not understand their roles and duties (www. scotland.gov.uk). The lack of understanding of roles has always been pointed out as one of the main reasons why barriers to communications still exist. Since cooperation is essential to the efficient delivery of services in the areas of Child Protection, it is essential that all agencies should adhere to the provisions of the Children Act 2004 and establish the office of the Director of Children’s Services and Education as outlined in the Children Act 2004 (S. 18, 19) cited in Appendix 5 p. 27). The role of the director is essential because this office will ensure that the agency will be able to cooperate fully with other agencies. This key role will ensure partnership working to integrate and transform services. Furthermore, this office will now take on the task of implementing the use of the Common assessment Framework in order to be able to work well with the other agencies. V. Conclusion Multi-agency and multi-professional child protection is a very challenging task. The people involved in this situation needs to deal with several aspects of the situation all at once. In other words, the professionals not only deal with the child and his or her family but also need to adjust to various situations that may arise from the multi-agency cooperation and collaboration. Yet, since there is a need to deliver different types of services to the child and his or her family, the multi-agency and multi-disciplinary approach to child protection is very necessary. Teamwork is therefore very important among those individuals and agencies involved. The idea of teamwork is that persons involved in the situation should work towards a common goal. To be able to reach that common goal, the team should establish a system of communication where everyone in the team will be able to access all information needed as well as be able to share whatever information he or she has. Everyone in the team should be accountable for the outcome of the collaboration. Establishing a team would take some time and a lot of effort. According to Payne (2000) cited in Appendix 6 p. 29), teamwork will depend on the nature of the team and the situational factors present. Furthermore, the behavior of the members of the team would depend large on how the members of the team relate to each other. If the members of the team cannot get along well, there is a big possibility that the team will not be able to achieve maximum efficiency in carrying on its given task. The social services structure in Britain is a “large, bureaucratic, hierarchal institution with different operating levels and sections’ Murphy (2004). The challenge therefore is how the team can operate in and around these bureaucratic structures and be able to achieve good results. To facilitate collaboration within the team, trust and confidence building is very important. It is also important to note that since the teams are usually organized around a certain case, the other members of the team will invariable belong yet with another will different concerns. The complexities of these organizational structures could be confusing enough to the professionals involved. To help the professionals would together more efficiently, goals must be defined well at the beginning of the engagement and the roles of each team members should be clearly defined. It is essential that expertise of each member should be respected and limitations should be set as to the amount of interventions that each member of the team can do. A team leader should also be elected among the members so that there will be someone who will oversee the activities and see to it that everyone in the team are taking his or her share of work and accountability. However, to avoid the stifling scenario of hierarchy where the other members will not be empowered, the role of the team leader should be limited to coordinating the activities and unless there is a clear violation of the rules by a team member, the team leader shall not have the power to intervene in the work of the individual experts. Furthermore, a system of documentation and sharing of information must be established so that even if a member of the team will not be able to attend meetings, he or she will still be able to share his or her information as well as learn about the information has. References: 1. ‘Children’s Digital Rights’. [Online] http://www.openrightsgroup.org/orgwiki/index/php/Children’s_Digital_Rights Accessed 28 January 2007 2. ‘Good Practice for Working with Children and Families’. [Online] www.scotland.gov.uk/publications/2006/01/24120649/5 Accessed 28 January 2007 3. ‘Victoria Climbie Inquiry Phase Two’. [online] http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ERO/records/vc/1/1finreport/5seminars-service accessed 28 January 2007 4. ‘Victoria Climbie Inquiry Recommendations’. [Online] http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ERO/records/vc/1/1/finreport/6recommend.htm Accessed 28 January 2007 5. Brechin A. Brown H. and Eby M. (eds) (2000) Critical practice in Health and Social Care. London, Open University 6. Charity Commission (2000) ‘Human Rights Act 1998’. [online] http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/supportingcharities/ogs/g071c002.asp#3a Accessed 28 January 2007 7. Department of Health. (2000) ‘Data Protection Act 1998’. [Online] www.dh.gov.uk/PolicyandGuidance/OrganisationPolicy/RecordsManagement/DataProtectionActArticle/fs/en?/CONTENT_ID=4000489&chk=VrXoGe Accessed 28 January 2007 8. Every Child Matters: Change for Children. Children Act – Guidance. [Online] http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/strategy/guidance/ Accessed 28 January 2007 9. Francis J., McGhee J. & Mordaunt E. (2006) ‘Protecting Children in Scotland: An Investigation of Risk Assessment and Interagency Collaboration in the Use of Child Protection Orders’. [Online] http://www.scotland.gov.uk/publications/2006/05/SprPrCis/Q/pno/2 Accessed 28 January 2007 10. Furnis T. (1991) The Professional Handbook of Child Sexual Abuse. London: Routledge. 11. Hallet C. and Birchall E. (1992) Coordination and Child Protection. London: HMSO 12. Horner N. and Krawczyk S. (2006) Social Work in Education and Children’s Services. Learning Matters Ltd: Exeter. 13. Murphy M. (2004) Developing Collaborative Relationships in Interagency Child Protection Work. Lyme Regis: Russell House Publishing 14. O’Conner I., Hughes M. Turney M. Wislon J and Setterlund D. (2006) Social Work and Social Care practice. Sage: London 15. Ovretveit, J. Mathias, P. and Thompson, T. (eds) (1997) Interprofessional Working for Health and Social Care, Hampshire, Palgrave. 16. Parton, N. (1985) The Politics of Child Abuse, Basingstroke : Palgrave MacMillan 17. Payne M. (2000) Teamwork in Multiprofessional Care. Palgrave, Hampshire. 18. Robinson M. and Cottrell D. (2005) Health Professionals in a Multidisciplinary and Multi-agency Team: Changing Professional Practice. Journal of Interprofessional Care. Vol. 19(6):547-560 19. The Victoria Climbie Inquiry [online] http://society.guardian.co.uk/climbie/story/0,637569,00.html Accessed 28 January 2007 Read More