A review of international evidence on interagency working, to inform the development of children’s services committees in Ireland.
A review of international evidence on interagency working, to inform the development of children’s services committees in Ireland.
复制标题
对跨机构工作的国际证据进行审查，为爱尔兰儿童服务委员会的发展提供信息。
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2011
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Statham
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Statham
这项快速文献综述是由有效服务中心 (CES) 代表办公室委托进行的。
儿童和青少年事务部长（OMCYA，现为儿童和青少年事务部），作为
努力支持爱尔兰的“为儿童共同努力”倡议。
儿童服务委员会 (CSC) 旨在将致力于儿童及其儿童的当地机构聚集在一起
家庭协作规划服务并制定改善儿童和青少年成果的方法
在爱尔兰。这反映了许多司法管辖区的共同趋势，即加强机构间合作并致力于
以结果为中心的服务提供方法。
学习目的
本次审查的主要目的是为爱尔兰发展 CSC 提供证据基础。因此它
重点关注现有 CSC 已经采用或正在采用的机构间工作的具体方面
DCYA 正在考虑，并在其中考虑特别感兴趣的模型，而不是试图提供
对一般机构间工作的全面概述。具体目标是：
1. 高度概括机构间工作对儿童和青少年成果的影响
人们;
2. 对一些具体办法的国际证据进行更深入的分析
机构间工作的或方面。经与政府协商后选择了以下四个领域：
研究专员：
II 联合规划结构；
II 联合需求评估的方法和工具；
II 儿童福利的差别/替代应对方法；
支持机构间信息共享的 II 系统。
3. 确定成功开展机构间工作的主要障碍和促进因素，并实施每一项
以上方法。
方法
选择采购相关文章和报告的策略是为了最大限度地提高识别材料的可能性
这对于通过儿童服务委员会发展机构间工作非常有用
爱尔兰。使用两种主要方法来实现研究目标。第一个目标需要一个简洁的总结
关于机构间工作是否可以改善儿童成果的证据，这里的方法是提取
来自 8 个高质量现有概述和研究证据综合的总体信息，并进行了补充
必要时通过关键研究的结果。
进行了更详细的搜索，以确定相关材料来解决第二项和第三项研究
目标。这包括对主要书目数据库的检索（仅限于 2000 年或 2000 年以英文出版的材料）
之后）;使用互联网搜索引擎；浏览政府、机构和机构的相关国际网站
研究中心；并与该领域的专家联系，以确定相关的信息来源并阐明如何
特定的程序起作用了。 （后者是必要的，因为从已发表的材料中得出的图片是
有时会感到困惑和矛盾。）
从最初搜索中确定的大量项目中，选择了 121 项纳入审查，
其中大多数是研究或研究证据的评论/综合。大多数证据都与
英国（所有四个国家）或美国，因为这是所考虑的模型和方法的所在地
评价。但研究也包括来自爱尔兰和新西兰以及其他许多国家的研究
通过两次国际审查（CfBT Education Trust，2010 和 Leveille 和 Chamberland，2010）。
This rapid literature review was commissioned by the Centre for Effective Services (CES) on behalf of the Office of
the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs (OMCYA, now the Department of Children and Youth Affairs) as part of
work to support the Working Together for Children initiative in Ireland.
Children’s Services Committees (CSCs) aim to bring together local agencies working with children and their
families to plan services collaboratively and to develop ways of improving outcomes for children and young people
in Ireland. This reflects a common trend in many jurisdictions towards increased interagency working and towards
an outcomes-focused approach to service delivery.
Aims of study
The primary aim of this review is to contribute to the evidence base for developing CSCs in Ireland. It therefore
focuses on specific aspects of interagency working that have already been adopted by existing CSCs or are
being considered by the DCYA, and within that on models of particular interest, rather than attempting to provide
a comprehensive overview of interagency working in general. Specific aims are:
1. to provide a high-level summary of the impact of interagency working on outcomes for children and young
people;
2. to undertake a more in-depth analysis of the international evidence for a number of specific approaches
to or aspects of interagency working. The following four areas were selected in consultation with the
commissioner of the study:
II joint planning structures;
II methods and tools for joint needs assessment;
II the differential/alternative response approach to child welfare;
II systems to support information sharing between agencies.
3. to identify key barriers and facilitators to successful interagency working and to implementing each of the
above approaches.
Methods
The strategy for sourcing relevant articles and reports was chosen to maximise the likelihood of identifying material
that would be useful in the context of developing interagency working through Children’s Services Committees in
Ireland. Two main methods were used to address the research aims. The first aim required a concise summary of
evidence on whether interagency working improves outcomes for children, and the approach here was to draw out
overarching messages from 8 good quality existing overviews and syntheses of research evidence, supplemented
where necessary by findings from key studies.
More detailed searching was carried out to identify relevant material to address the second and third research
aims. This included searches of key bibliographic databases (restricted to material published in English in 2000 or
later); use of Internet search engines; browsing of relevant international websites for Governments, agencies and
research centres; and contact with experts in the field to identify relevant sources of information and to clarify how
particular programmes worked. (The latter was necessary since the picture emerging from published material was
sometimes confused and contradictory.)
From a large number of items identified in the initial searches, 121 were selected for inclusion in the review, the
majority of them research studies or reviews/syntheses of research evidence. Most of the evidence relates to the
UK (all four countries) or the USA since this is where the models and approaches under consideration have been
evaluated. But studies are also included from Ireland and New Zealand, and from a wide range of other countries
through two international reviews (CfBT Education Trust, 2010 and Leveille and Chamberland, 2010).