A grounded theory study of coordination within child abuse prevention services

Abstract

The societal problem of child abuse, and its cost to the children involved, is well recognised. Despite this recognition however, efforts to prevent child maltreatment continue to have mixed success. One commonly cited reason for the often intermittent effectiveness of child abuse prevention (CAP) services is a lack of coordination between the professionals involved. The current study sought to establish a model of coordination by interviewing professionals working within CAP services about their experience of working with others. Seventeen participants from a range of secondary and tertiary CAP services were interviewed individually. A grounded theory analysis of the resulting participant interview transcripts was completed with the aim of establishing a single model of coordination which was grounded in participants' experiences of working collaboratively. The current study established a grounded theory of coordination within CAP services which included a single core category, four-sub-categories and 11 axial categories. Collaborative practice within CAP services was underpinned by the concept of benefit to clients. Coordination did not occur unless professionals perceived this practice to be beneficial to their clients. Where coordination did occur, professionals' choice of who to work with and what information to share was shaped by the perceived benefit of working collaboratively. Effective coordination amongst professionals was thought to provide a range of direct benefits to clients involved with CAP services. The act of coordination was described as an exchange of client- or professionalfocused information which aimed to increase the effectiveness of therapeutic services being delivered. Professionals' decision to work collaboratively and the effectiveness of these practices was subject to a number of interconnected influences, suggesting that coordination was subject to mediating factors that went beyond client need alone. Influences on coordination could be distinguished into individual factors, those based on experiences outside the workplace, and group factors, those based on experiences inside the workplace. In contrast with the dominance of group influences described in the literature, participants' description of coordination placed greater emphasis on influences outside the workplace. The current study established that there was no 'magic bullet' which guaranteed the initiation or success of collaborative practice. While individual influences commonly carried greater weight, exposure to events both inside and outside the workplace was found to play an important role in the coordination process. By understanding these events and their relationship to collaborative practice, barriers to coordination may be better addressed at the individual as well as the group level.