1. Multi-disciplinary professional work: the example of work with children and young people
Nick Frost,
Professor of Social Work (childhood, children and families)
Leeds Beckett University

2. Sources for the presentation
Research in Practice (2005) – ‘Professionalism, partnership and joined-up thinking’,
‘Social workers in multi-disciplinary teams’ – CFSW 2005, vol10, pp
‘Joining-up children’s services’ – CAR, vol16, 2007, pp
Anning et al ‘Developing multi-disciplinary teamwork for integrated children’s services’, Open University Press, 2010
With Nigel Parton ‘Understanding Children’s Social Care’, Sage, 2009
‘A future of interdisciplinary professional work: mainstream to oppositional?’ In Brock and Rankin (eds) ‘Professionalism in the interdisciplinary early years team: supporting young children and their families’, Continuum

3. Changing children’s services: Foley and Rixon (eds) 2014

4. Communities of practice
E. Wenger see:
Mutual engagement
Joint enterprise
Shared repertoire

5. Why inter-professional working?
the persistence of complex social problems and inequalities which some thought ‘the welfare state’ and increasing wealth generation might address:
the development of information technology that has made ‘networking’ more possible;
and the realisation that ‘silo’ professions cannot be effective in isolation

6. Key themes from research(1)
(1) Complexity and ambiguity (Wenger, Anning et al.) (2) Professional identity (Wenger, Frost) (3) Power, status and difference (Robinson et al., Anning et al.) (4) Leadership (Anning et al, Children’s Plan)

7. Key themes from research (2)
(5) Information sharing and communication (Atkinson et al.) (6) Outcomes: the ultimate challenge (Audit Commission, Glisson and Hemelgarn) (7) Structural and organisational issues (Anning et al., Glisson and Hemelgarn) (8) The Team Around the Child (Siraj-Blathford)

8. The ‘onion’ model: A New Labour paradigm

9. Moving forward – structural issues
Core and peripheral staff
Line management / supervision
Co-location
Workload / deployment
Joint planning
Y&HConference.ppt

10. Moving forward – ideas and values
Dominant models
Professional cultures
Celebrating diversity – ‘soup’ or ‘salad’?
New forms of knowledge

11. Moving forward – policies and procedures
Common policies and procedures
Confronting disagreements
Coping with change

12. Moving forward – inter-professional issues
Skills and expertise
Identity and status
Pay, conditions, and career progression
Personal challenge – the ‘smell of practice’

13. Stage Three How will you share learning and develop your team?
Discuss plans for team meetings, case discussion, sharing research and so on.
How will you measure and evaluate the impact of your work?

14. Outcomes evidence?
There appears to be a dearth of evidence to support the notion that multi-agency working in practice brings about benefits to children and families (Abbott et al, 2005, p.229)

15. What sort of outcomes? Outcomes for service users
Process for service users
Process for professionals
Efficiency

16. English evidence
Eleven of the twelve LARC 4 local authorities carried out their own qualitative case study research projects within an overall agreed framework developed by the LAs [local authorities] and NFER [National Foundation for Educational Research]. Each case study involved interviews with LA practitioners, parents and (where appropriate) children and young people. In all, the LAs conducted around 80 interviews across 39 case studies between spring and autumn Each case study looked at whether the common assessment process is a cost effective way to support improved outcomes and avoid costly, negative outcomes for families later on. (LARC 4, Summary)

17. English evidence
Outcomes for children, young people and their families experiencing problems can be improved – and in some cases very dramatically - by appropriate interventions planned and managed by services working effectively together
The Common Assessment Framework (CAF) process encourages, and provides a good basis for, such integrated planning and intervention
There are five key success factors for early intervention, all of which should be present

18. Evidence (cont)
engaging children, young people and families as equal partners in the process
ensuring consistency of the lead professional support, which helped families and professionals work together better
integrating all of the elements of the CAF process, from holistic assessment, TAC (Team Around the Child) model and meetings, lead professional role, action planning and reviews
ensuring multi-agency working and information sharing, which improved understanding of need and service provision
developing a better understanding of children and young people’s needs at the earliest possible stage.

19. Financial benefits
The researchers estimate that the ‘potential future outcome costs’ of the cases they explored were between £400 and £420,000. The cost of undertaking the ‘CAF and the intervention costs’ were between £1,500 and £27,000. It is argued that ‘potential savings’ range from £6,800 and £415,000. This evidence suggests that this form of early intervention is cost effective.

20. Summary: policy
Inter-agency working is a growing phenomena and is attracting increasing research attention
There is emerging evidence that inter-agency working can have a positive impact on outcomes for children and young people
There is some evidence that service users seem to appreciate that inter-agency working improves service user experiences of professional services
There is strong evidence that professionals find the process of inter-agency working effective and that they can devise innovative methods of addressing the dilemmas that arise
There is some evidence of efficiency and effectiveness arising from inter-agency working.

21. Summary: practice
Reflecting on developing multi-professional practice in a complex situation
Focus on frontline – supporting, developing and giving space for reflection
Key role for qualifying and post-qualifying professional education
A focus on the child and young person– ‘the team around the child’
From mainstream to oppositional?