Learning in and for interagency working: Multiagency work in Northern Ireland

Paper presented at the 6th Annual Conference of the Teaching and Learning Research Programme, Warwick, 28-30 November 2005

'The Setting up of Learning in and for Interagency Working in Northern Ireland'

Professor Tony Gallagher

Dr Rosemary Kilpatrick

Mrs Karen Carlisle

Queen’s University, Belfast

'The Setting up of Learning in and for Interagency Working in Northern Ireland'

Introduction

Social exclusion usually happens when people or areas suffer from a combination of factors that link together. In these situations there is not simply one problem to solve but a number of problems that all have effects on one another. These situations normally require a number of different agencies to work together since different agencies have expertise in dealing with different problems. However the history of this type of ‘joined up’ practice is not good with experience suggesting that this is rarely done as effectively as possible. A possible reason for this is that effective co-operation between agencies is not simply a matter of people meeting together –they need new ways of working that deal with the fact that while they have expertise over some of the issues, no-one has expertise over the entire situation.

The University of Bath/Birmingham TLRP project ‘Learning in and for Interagency Working’ (Daniels, Edwards, Creese, Leadbetter and Martin) addresses this issue by arguing that interagency work involves more than simply networking and that new forms of professional practice need to be developed . The project uses Activity Theory to develop conceptual tools to understand dialogue, multiple perspectives and networks of interacting activity systems. The project aims to study the learning that takes place in professional trajectories of participation in activity which aims to support young people at risk. The focus is on professional learning across organisations involved in supporting the education and care plans of secondary school pupils who are disaffected, at risk of exclusion and/or have special educational needs. This current research project aims to extend the work in Birmingham and Bath to Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland Context

The main reason for the extension to Northern Ireland is that the issue of social exclusion of at risk young people is at least important in Northern Ireland as in other parts of the United Kingdom, as are problems associated with multi agency working. Furthermore in some significant areas the education and health bodies in Northern Ireland do not appear to have the same degree of formal coordination as is the case in England. In addition the context provided by Northern Ireland differs from other parts of the United Kingdom in at least three different respects:

  • There is a wider pattern of management of schools in Northern Ireland thereby increasing the number of potential actors involved in dealing with at risk young people and schools in Northern Ireland tend to have a higher degree of autonomy from local authorities in comparison to Britain
  • Second there is a more extensive and developed community and voluntary sector in Northern Ireland and this has made a significant contribution to dealing with the needs of at risk young people.
  • Third the Education and Library Boards (LEAs) in Northern Ireland have a more administrative than policy role in comparison to Britain, thereby altering the nature of the relationship between the ELBs and schools and other agencies.

Considering these differences, the extension of the work to Northern Ireland will provide the research team with two significant advantages:

  • First it will address an issue that is of significance to local user communities, will add to the capacity of the education and welfare system as a whole to address the needs and interests of at risk young people by contributing to the knowledge and understanding of multi-agency practice and connecting Northern Ireland actors with equivalent actors in Britain. Gains will also arise from linking Northern Ireland experience and data with the wider body of evidence and analysis generated by the Bath/Birmingham project.
  • Second the different context provided by Northern Ireland will add to the variability in circumstances of interagency practice and thereby enhance the analytic potential of the wider TLRP project.

Activity Theory and Expansive Learning

The theoretical framework of our project is provided by Activity theory (Daniels, 2001, Engestrom, 1987). Essentially this framework suggests that multiagency work requires a qualitative move forward in terms of conceptualisation of problems and solutions. This is achieved through expansive learning which involves the capacity to interpret and expand the definition of the object of the activity and respond in increasingly enriched ways (Leont’ev, 1978; Engestrom, 1987). Expansive learning produces culturally new patterns of activity by expanding understanding and changing practice. In the context of this study such learning is evidenced in enhanced analyses of the potential of the education plans developed as agreements with clients and of their own capacities for professional action. It is also evidenced in their dispositions to recognise and engage with distributed expertise in complex workplaces. In clients it is seem in the development of their interpretations of and action in their worlds as they work with and on opportunities and pathways they are offered.

Based on this application of activity theory in multi agency working, the model of activity theory can be represented by figure 1 below:

Figure 1: Diagrammatic representation of Activity Theory discussed by Dr Jane Leadbetter 4th October 2005

The project will also draw on developments in learning and the transformation of work emanating from the HarvardBusinessSchool (Victor and Boyton, 1998). This suggests that progress occurs through learning and the leveraging of the knowledge produced into new and more effective types of work. Co-configuration is identified by Victor and Boyton as the form of work which is currently emerging in complex multi professional settings. Co-configuration typically also includes interdependency between multiple producers in a strategic alliance or other pattern of partnership which collaboratively creates and maintains a complex package which integrates products and services and has a long life cycle.

Co-configuration presents a two-fold learning challenge to work organisations. First, co-configuration itself needs to be learned (learning for co-configuration). In divided multi activity fields (e.g. health, education, social services, youth offending teams), expansive learning takes shape as renegotiation and reorganisation of collaborative relations and practices and as creation and implementation of corresponding concepts, tools, rules and entire infrastructures. Secondly, organisations and their members need to learn constantly from interactions from with the user or client (learning in co-configuration). These two aspects-learning for and learning in-merge in practice. The learning that is taking place is therefore both personal and organisational.

Research Methodology

The Bath/Birmingham project is organised into five stages with the Northern Ireland extension project joining for the last two stages. The Bath/Birmingham project has just completed stage 3 activities in which they refined a model for interagency practice through work with a number of Local Authority settings. In stage 4 the refined model will be tested through extended fieldwork interventions in three Local Authorities, alongside a fourth comparative context. The Northern Ireland project will test the same model in two additional local authority contexts as the settings differ significantly from the situation in England.

Prior to this direct intervention, the planned initial phase in Northern Ireland aimed at the collection of pre-intervention baseline data through interviews with 20 professionals in local authority, schools and relevant community organisations. We also planned to establish an advisory group for the project involving key stakeholders in this field and to carry out preparatory work towards identifying appropriate sites in Northern Ireland for stage four implementation. It is planned to carry out up to 20 interviews with clients and their families to gain their perspective on the effectiveness of the support systems they have received through interagency working. From the start the Northern Ireland project directly engaged with the ongoing work programme in the Bath/Birmingham project.

Project activity

The project was slightly late in starting as a consequence of minor bureaucratic delays, and by the time these issues were resolved we had come into the summer period when significant action is difficult. Nevertheless, the project was formally initiated and the following key tasks have begun:

  • Recruitment of a research assistant – Karen Carlisle was appointed in September 2005 and has been working closely with the project directors and project team in Bath/Birmingham during this early stage in order to develop contacts which will be very useful over the course of the work. Karen has also been working with the team to complete ethical approval forms which are mandatory when working with professionals within the health trusts in Northern Ireland.
  • Identification and invitation for members of an Advisory group – discussed in the next section.
  • Building formal collaborative links with the Bath/Birmingham project –. We have attended a number of meetings in Birmingham to discuss general project activities and because we are an extension project we are keen to develop close links with our colleagues.
  • Identification of key stakeholders for pre-intervention baseline interviewing- A number of interviews with professionals working in the voluntary sector (NGOs) have already been completed. It is anticipated that the interview baseline data will be collected by the end of November 2005.

Advisory Group

The project team had a number of meetings to plan and discuss the setting up of the Advisory Group. Individuals were identified that not only had expertise working in the area of young people at risk but who could also provide guidance on different phases of the research and suggest young people and their families to participate in the next phase. Therefore it was important that the individuals approached reflected the broad range of organisations working with young people at risk. A letter requesting participation in the advisory group was sent to a number of professionals, providing background information to the research and details of the first meeting.

The advisory group has now been set up and the first meeting will be held on Thursday 26th October. Professionals within relevant organisations in Northern Ireland are represented as follows:

  • Peter Bryson-Save the Children Foundation
  • Koulla Yiasouma –Include Youth
  • Anne-Marie McKee-Opportunity Youth
  • Caroline Karayiannis-RTU
  • John Hunter-Education and Training Inspectorate
  • Ann Godfrey-Children’s Services Planning
  • Arlene Kee-South Eastern Education and Library Board
  • Alex Barr-Southern Education and Library Board

Emerging Themes from baseline interviews

As indicated above, the starting point for the project involved the collection of pre-intervention baseline data through interviews with 20 professionals in local authority, schools and relevant community organisations. At the present date a number of these interviews have been completed and it is possible to point to emergent themes, even at this early stage.

The sampling for our interviews was determined by identifying the key stakeholder groups in terms of meeting the needs of young people at risk in Northern Ireland. The key stakeholders were categorised into four general areas and interviews are now underway with people across all four areas. These areas are:

  • Key governmental departments- DE(NI), ETI, SSI
  • Non-governmental agencies (NGOs)- EXTERN, Barnardos, Youth Action
  • Practitioner statutory agencies-Education Welfare Officers (ELBs), Psychologists, Social Workers, Probation Officers
  • Other key stakeholders –CCMS, Health Action Zone, Youth Justice Agency

The general areas of discussion within the interviews included:

  • Background information on organisation/project
  • Their role within broader issue of young people at risk
  • What the organisation/project does to meet the needs of young people at risk
  • How they work with other organisations
  • Discuss any issues relating to interagency working

Our interviews with professionals working within the voluntary sector (NGOs) have highlighted a number of common issues with regards to how they work with other agencies and issues relating to interagency working. In general we are hearing a positive attitude towards the idea of multi-agency working, but a pragmatic acceptance that this is not currently working to the extent to it, or possibly should.

Our respondents from voluntary sector groups were generally very positive towards collaboration with other agencies and felt, in fact, that it was necessary in order to provide the best possible provision for the young people: ‘If we don’t have the skills them we will bring them in from somewhere else’. This was described as being particularly valuable when the voluntary groups were attempting to deal with areas of specialist knowledge that might lie outside their normal remit, for example, careers education, drugs education and health education.

For these agencies one of the key first points of contact was with schools: normally young people who come to them are referred from schools and our respondents typically reported that they had fairly positive relations with schools. Beyond the point of referral, our respondents from the voluntary groups said that they sent the schools monthly reports on the young people’s progress, including details of attendance, issues, activities and priorities. In addition, the schools are encouraged to maintain regular contact with the young people, to visit them and keep them involved in anything relevant that is going on in the school. There is a legal imperative associated with this as the young people are still registered in the school while they are within the age range for compulsory attendance at school and so the school still has ultimate responsibility for the young people.

The second key relationship for the voluntary sector organisations, according to our respondents, lies in their relationship with local communities. They placed high priority in their visibility within their local community and said that they worked hard to ensure that the young people were recognised as part of their community.

The third key relationship lies in their links with the pupil support (statutory) services. Almost all of the young people who are referred to the voluntary sector organisations will have already passed through the hands of one or more statutory agency, apart from the schools themselves. However, as our respondents said, one of their key roles was to identify which of these agencies had been involved with the young people and to seek access to any information those agencies held about the young people, we gained the clear impression that route shared or information, through a functioning system of joined-up practice, does not appear to exist at present. This theme is an issue we will wish to pursue further.

Furthermore there appeared to be an uneasy tension between the voluntary groups and the statutory agencies they were working with, this is mainly due to the current situation where there is a level of duplication between what is the statutory provision and what the voluntary sector can provide. One professional went as far as to say that there was a sense of professional jealously in terms of the amount of good work that was coming out of the voluntary sector with limited resources as opposed to the statutory sector which is legitimately funded by the Education and Library Boards.

Another issue which stemmed from the relationship with statutory organisations was the issue of recognition. The provision of alternative education appears to still be on the fringe of what is considered mainstream, therefore when such organisations approach the education and library boards for resources or training they are unable because are not recognised as an educational organisation. Those professionals expressed frustration at the lack of willingness to accommodate them particularly in light of the work they were engaged in with the schools in the relevant board areas. There was an acknowledgement that this situation was slowly changing and a hope that there could be a move towards formal recognition of alternative education within the department of education.

The links the voluntary sector organisations hold with government bodies and NDPBs such as the Department of Education, the Education and Library Boards, CCEA and the Northern Ireland Office usually focus on issues related to resources and funding.

The fourth key relationship for voluntary sector organisations relates to a sense of collegiality between those organisations themselves. In some instances it was suggested that this goes as far as a formal process through which voluntary providers in a local area meet over common issues such as trying to lobby for recognition of alternative education, more funding and sharing of good practice. The countervailing pressure they face, however, is that there is competition within the voluntary sector for funding. Furthermore, there seems to be a tacit acceptance that there are a large number of voluntary organisations providing a similar service. Not surprisingly, therefore, among the organisations there is some support for some mechanism for coordinating action and access to resources. This is another theme which we will explore further.

The interviews to date have raised some interesting points regarding the position of the voluntary sector in terms of multiagency working to address the needs of young people at risk. The next round of interviews will include those professionals working in the statutory bodies and governmental departments. This we hope will provide a more rounded picture of how multiagency working is perceived, how it should work and how it is working in Northern Ireland .