Enfoque del desarrollo para la economía solidaria

findings in the three case study sites, the project evaluations, and consultations with key stakeholders confirmed that there are promising signs of shared responsibility for child protection and early intervention. in some cases, collaboration and integrated working was already part of the way that organisations worked, and the Kts changes built on existing practices by expanding the opportunities for networking both at the system and at the case level.

8.3.1 Collaboration

at the system level, the introduction of Kts led to the organisation of regional and local forums in which nGO, government agencies, and Kts Regional project managers had an opportunity to meet and discuss the roll out of Kts. at the service delivery and individual level, interviewees reported more involvement of agencies in planning meetings on client cases and, as a result, an improvement of their collective understanding of how each other’s agencies work. a whole range of interagency innovations have emerged across the state, including local panels for discussing individual children and families involved with multiple agencies and also more strategic forums for discussion of interagency collaboration and the development of referral protocols and mOus between agencies. however, these are dependent on local leadership and often the initiative of one or two committed individuals. unlike the situation for reports, interagency collaboration does not operate within a strategic framework, and this leaves the local initiatives very vulnerable.

in those areas where there has been a Kts Regional program manager (Rpm) in place continuously, service providers welcomed the sector development and interagency work undertaken by the Rpm. they emphasised that better connections between schools and service delivery organisations has been a key achievement. however, some of the participants from government agencies mentioned they were not clear about the value or the role of the Kts Rpm, and were concerned that this lack of clarity may result in an under-utilisation of their services. there was also a view expressed by some stakeholders that the Rpms were not pitched at the right level; they did not have the authority to push through changes in practice and local interagency arrangements. Where they were effective this was due to their personal knowledge of the area and their commitment, rather than being due to their position as Kts regional coordinators. On the other hand, facilitation and support for collaboration may, in the longer term, be more effective than attempts to push through change against reluctant agencies. informal collaboration was much more developed among services providing support for vulnerable families. there are promising signs of developing collaborative practice for children at ROsh but our findings in this sector are mixed. Within community services, practice first and the care and protection practice framework aim at improving collaboration, nGOs are now invited to Workload allocation meetings, and the intensive family support pilot projects described in chapter 6 embed partnerships between nGOs and community services in the service model.

however, there was a strong perspective from many agencies that assessment and intervention for children at ROsh and their families was largely carried out by community services, and other agencies

intervention. in the uK for example, children who are assessed as being at risk of significant harm are subject to a multi-agency child protection conference that leads to a multi-agency child protection plan. agencies such as health services and schools are also involved in the equivalent of the saRa assessment, not just to provide information but also to assess needs and risk and to support children and families. in contrast to the general pattern, health practitioners and police are key members of the Joint investigative Response team (JiRt) and the Kts funded JRu, which investigate cases where there may be a criminal element. the JiRts are a longstanding and valued feature of the nsW child protection system and provide an example of good interagency collaboration.

Despite this, there has been an improvement in interagency collaboration for children in out-of-home care. the evaluations of the home school liaison Officers and aboriginal student liaison Officers funded positions, as well as the health checks for children in out-of-home care, indicate that these initiatives appear to be improving practice and helping to address the significant health and education needs of children in out-of-home care, although there were still some issues identified in this respect.

8.3.2 Information exchange

perhaps the most significant change to the system and the culture which was brought about by Kts has been the changes to chapter 16a of the Children and Young Person (Care and Protection)

Act 1998 (NSW). this change is widely seen as enabling information sharing between agencies. the

mandatory reporter workforce survey confirms that there is a high level of awareness of the need to exchange information, and much of the workforce is involved in high levels of information exchange. stakeholders confirmed that this has been a real ‘game changer’ and that the formal legislative change was less significant than the message that exchanging information to support or protect children was to be encouraged. chapter 6 of this report sets out some of the continuing practical difficulties around information exchange, and the mandatory reporter workforce survey confirms that there are continuing challenges for some agencies.

a particular issue for many referrers, to the helpline, cWu and fRs is the lack of feedback to referrers regarding the outcomes of their referrals. this is not only frustrating for the referrer but is also potentially a cause of concern because it creates a risk that families will not receive a service and will ‘fall through the cracks’. this is also an issue for data systems, discussed below. current data systems do not allow any analysis of outcomes, particularly for children not at ROsh. this point is made in both the cWu and fRs evaluations. in both cases there was good information about children being referred and the referrer, and similarly where children were referred to. however, data were not available on whether the referral resulted in a service nor on the outcome of that service.