Under the criminal justice system, the child abuse is a key issue, which needs constant attention. Child abuse is a problem of the community, and a single agency does not have the resources, legal mandate, manpower or the training to intervene in the cases of child abuse in an effective manner. The sole responsibility of handling the abused children is not present with a single institute. The abuse of children is a complex issue which not only impacts the life of the child, but also the ones around them (McCabe and Murphy, 2016) Child abuse can take different forms of sexual, psychological or physical mistreatment, or the child being neglected, especially by the parent of the child or by the caregiver, i.e., a person whom the child trusts. It can result in actual harm or a possible harm to the child, which takes place at the school, home, and the community or the organization which interacts with the child. Child abuse can have emotional, physical or psychological effects on the child which often results in an adverse childhood experience for the child (Payne and Gainey, 2014).
The working of the multi-agency is central to the existing policy and practice approach with regards to the children being safeguarded from abuse (Harne and Radford, 2008). The rationale behind it lies in the understanding the needs of both the children and the families, which are interlinked and multi-dimensional. For the multi-agency working, there is a range of different contexts in the matters of abuse for safeguarding of the children and each of these has differentiated purposes and configurations. The examples of operational multi-agency work includes the Child in Need, the child protection case conferences, the Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC), the Team Around the Child (TAC) and the joint visiting or the information sharing amidst the professionals who work with the same client or the family (Bruce, 2009).
There are a range of benefits for the multi-agency working in this regard. However, owing to the differences in the ideologies, priorities and working practices, challenges are faced in the workings of the multi-agency working (Rose, 2011). Some of the authors have identified the domestic abuse work, which not only includes the victims, but also the perpetrators of such abuse, along with the identification of the child contract work and the child protection work, which is often considered as being taking place on different planets due to the fundamental differences in the manner of abuse being addressed and understood. For instance, the responsibility under the work of child protection is on the mother to safeguard the child and yet, domestically violent men are placed in the overall parenting discourse; while the criminal law shapes the working with the perpetrators, on the basis of their risk of offending or the offensive behavior. Owing to the differentiated constructions, challenges are created for the working of the multi-agencies in an effective manner (Hester, 2011).
In the following parts, a discussion has been carried on to evaluate the response of the criminal justice system in prevention of the child abuse, and the focus of this discussion is on the role of the multi-agency working. The challenges and the factors which have an impact over the working of the multi-agency have also been discussed, in addition to the discussion on the different models of multi agency.
The work of the multiagency can help in making unique contributions towards the prevention, as well as, early interventional services, as it is an effective manner of addressing the risk factors which result in the issues of child abuse. At the local levels, a lot of progress has been made with regards to the projects and initiatives of the multi-agency being developed (Gasper, 2010). Due to the vast number of such crimes having different factual backgrounds, there is not a single way for the multi-agency working. Though, the practice depicts that the multi-agency working can be broadly classified into three different models. This division of multi agency working into models helps the local areas in thinking about the different issues and structures; though, there are not hard and fast rules for the setting up of multiagency services (Wokingham Borough Council, 2005).
This model of multiagency has a variety of titles; though, the key features of it is that the practitioners continue to be employed by the home agencies and they agree to meet on regular intervals as a panel, in order to discuss the matters related to children and even the young people, who require benefit from the input of multiagency (Lancashire County Council, 2017).
Some of the salient features of this model have been summarized below.
Under this model of multiagency, the practitioners are recruited in the team or are seconded into it, due to which, this model becomes more formal, in comparison to the multiagency panel. A sense of team identity is shared amongst the practitioners and the team leader, usually line manages it; even though the links with the home agencies is maintained through training and supervision (Lancashire County Council, 2017).
Some of the salient features of this model have been summarized below.
This model acts as the community’s service hub as a range of services are brought together, which are usually under a single roof and the practitioners work in a manner so as to deliver the integrated support to both the children and to the families. The service can be with regards to the access to high quality and continued education, personal development or care for the child; outreach services for supporting the families; providing specialist advice and guidance to children on matters of health and social welfare; family support programme for engaging the carer and parents of the children; framework of training strategies for the practitioners; and the framework of training for the adults where a range of accredited and informal courses are provided (Lancashire County Council, 2017).
Some of the salient features of this model have been summarized below.
Agency comprises of different types of organizations, professional groups and services, who are responsible for providing the services to both the children and the families. And the multidisciplinary working contains the different disciplines who work together as is appropriate. So the multi-agencies are the ones who work with young people, children and the families and also take the reasonable steps in making certain that the risk towards the harm to the welfare of the children is minimized. When there is an issue or concern about the welfare of the children, the agencies take the required actions for addressing these concerns, where they work on the agreed policies and procedures, which is in full partnership with the local agencies (NPTC, 2017).
The working of multiagency is within and across the teams and sectors and is crucial for making certain that the children are protected in a proper manner. One of the researches has indicated that when the agencies and the stakeholders of work in an effective manner together, the work is done in a more effective manner (HM Government, 2015). The reason for this is that it becomes impossible for a sole agency to respond in an adequate manner to any of the allegations, along with the complex nature of the child abuse. For making certain that the best interest of the child is kept supreme, the multiagency collaboration is crucial and this approach is considered widely for bringing a better outcome in order to promote wellbeing and safeguard children (ChildHub, 2016).
The high profile cases have shown the tragic consequences which occur in such cases where the information specifying the risk is held by one agency and is not appropriately shares with the other agencies. The case of Daniel Pelka is a chief example of this. Daniel was a four year old kid who was starved and also beaten, before he took his last breath in 2012. Only after an official investigation was conducted, was the harrowing tale of torture, starvation and physical abuse uncovered (Dimmer, 2015). Daniel died due to the inhumane treatment on part of his protectors, i.e., his parents. The serious case review of this case showed that the highly critical different agencies failed to work together. One of the many recommendations in this serious case review was that of a MASH, i.e., Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub, which would require the social workers, police and the others to work together on the cases related to child protection (BBC, 2014).
Due to these reasons, a majority of areas have instituted MASHs for mitigating the risk of anyone who slips through the safeguarding net and these, along with others have requested guidance on the best practices. When a review was conducted, it was established that the MASHs support professional would join the dots for understanding the threats, in order to take the required actions to prevent the happening of such. This review was a government review, concerning the procedures for the identification of the vulnerable adults and children who were at the risk of abuse (UK Government, 2014).
This government report provides that the multi agency working was the key to the effective and the early identification of the risks and which had the power of coordinating the actions, making joint decisions and improving upon the information sharing. This can further be explained by taking examples of the manner in which the unified working of the agencies can stop the abuses before the same takes place. Though, this would also show that the multiagency approaches cannot supersede the duty of identifying, protecting and supporting the vulnerable person or child, by a single agency (UK Government, 2014).
Norman Baker, the Crime Prevention Minister, was responsible for unveiling this report, when the stakeholder summit took place at the Home Office. He believed that the coalition government would be able tackle the child abuse in any and all forms which have been taken and the MASHs have a very clear role to play in this aspect (Shires, 2014). Through this report, the evidence has been set out from a broad range of approaches, which is spread across different local authority areas. Due to this, the local agencies are in a batter position as compared to the early times, in making informed decisions on the matter of ensuring the best interest of both vulnerable adults and children and in protecting them from exploitation and deplorable abuse. It was also stated that when it comes to making a choice between protection of data and protection of child, the latter would always hold supremacy (Kerrison, 2014).
Between the October of 2011 and March of 2013, different arrangements were made for the multiagency child protection (HMIC, 2017). A consultation exercise was held in July 2012 by HMI Prisons, HMI Probation, HMIC, Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission on the joint inspection of the multiagency arrangements for the safeguarding and protection of children (Ofsted, 2012). For this purpose, a pilot inspection programme was also carried out and these inspections were conducted in a separate manner, in coordination of each agency; though, the findings of the agencies did not affect each other (HMIC, 2017). As per Staffordshire Police, the force was a good practice example in the child protection area (HMIC, 2013a). The Greater Manchester Police was satisfied that the children and the young people were being properly helped in their area (HMIC, 2013b).
The work of multiagency with the families who experience abuse is very challenging and very complex (Carter, Cummings and Cooper, 2007). This is because different individuals, activities and organizations are involved in it and it takes place in a busy environment across the world, competing with the organizational and professional priorities (Hester, 2011). More importantly, it is being shaped by limited resources. The case mapping often provides an opportunity for the managers and the professional for reflecting upon the management of cases relating to child abuse by multiagency, and this has raised certain key issues. It presents an opportunity to analyze how things could have been done in a different manner. Case mapping also shows the differences which are present amongst the professionals in their understanding of cases which involve child abuse (Peckover and Golding, 2015).
One of the key issues is the lack of uniformity in the approach taken towards dealing with such cases. Also, the manner in which the case is understood with the different cases poses another problem. Furthermore, the lack of taking the matter seriously, till a serious incident takes place also contributes to the various difficulties and issues. This is a major issue when it comes to the issue of protecting the children, as the lack of focus or the failure of recognizing such case compromise the safety and welfare of the children (Humphreys and Absler, 2011).
There is also a difference in the manner in which the risk is assessed and understood. Some of the cases which are included in this are such where the risk is not at all assessed or considered, along with the absence of required skill or confidence amongst the professional for undertaking the appropriate risk assessment in a timely manner. Examples have also been given about the risk assessment being different in the interagency environment. In one of the case study involving a child, who was living with a family, was placed at the highest level by the case study conducting person, owing to the needs of the child and the response framework. As per the conducting person, this was a level 5 as the child had a major risk of being harmed. Even then, the perpetrator with the probation service stated that on their risk assessment, the child was at a very low risk (Peckover and Golding, 2015).
In order to safeguard the children and to reduce the abuse cases, it is crucial that the risk is understood and assessed properly, even when the example given above highlights the differences (Ashley et al., 2011; Stanley and Humphreys, 2014). Even the pilot work undertaken in this regard highlighted a number of cases in which the risk assessment which is undertaken by the probation workers had its focus on reoffending in cases like burglary or shoplifting, instead of being focused upon abuse cases. Even though this shows the involvement of the probation services with their clients, the failure in considering the domestic abuse risk was a major problematic issue. This shows the different priorities of the different agencies in shaping the work (Peckover and Golding, 2015).
The number and the range of agencies which are involved in the child abuse cases also leads to the creation of certain difficulties. Further, the different perceptions in cases of child abuse, understanding of roles and accountability of the agencies working the family are also some factors of difficulties. In order for this issue to be resolved, there is a need for the agencies to carefully coordinate with each other and joint up their efforts so that the needs of the child can be met, and the risks can be properly identified and dealt with. Particularly the coordination is needed where the perpetrator is manipulative towards the professionals or the staff members. The marginalization and fragmentation of the abuse cases is also due to the lack of agency accountability with regards to the management or leading of the work related to domestic abuse. Even though it is the responsibility of everyone, yet no one owns it, which leads to the agencies not necessarily functioning at all or not functioning together in all the cases (Peckover and Golding, 2015).
Another challenge which is often faced by the multiagency relates to the gaps in services. A major issue in this regard is also the budget cuts which have major impact over the multiagency service provision. With the disappearance of the service provision, the professionals are left with limited support alternatives/ choices and they are often left in a position where they work in such an organization which is challenged gravely by the constraints of resources (Peckover and Golding, 2015).
At some of the places, the pilot undertaken development work was entirely focused on MARAC, along with the contribution for safeguarding the children. MARAC is a multiagency forum and its role relates to the considering of the high risk domestic abuse matters (Steel, Blakeborough and Nicholas, 2011). Even though MARAC has its basic orientation upon the adults, it still gives major consideration towards the implication of abuse on children and the young people and also on the need to safeguard them. One of the key markets of MARAC includes the engagement and involvement of the social care of the children with the processes of MARAC; though, this remains variable. There are also differences in the engagement levels and the degree of involvement of the agency with the processes of MARAC. There is a need for greater awareness of the MARAC in the multiagency response towards the safeguarding of children (Peckover and Golding, 2015).
Multiagency Panels
37 local areas were visited by the National Policing Project Manager for evaluating information sharing models. A wide range of information was collected when these areas were analyzed. This not only covered the problems or the barriers being presently faced in these local areas related to the multiagency working, but also presented the problems or the challenges which pose a threat for the proper working of the multiagency with regards to child abuse (Home Office, 2013).
Seventeen of the local areas were taken as a sample to attain feedback on the role of the multiagency working, along with certain other aspects resolving around multiagency working. When these local areas were analyzed, not only the key features were highlighted, but also the challenges still present were evaluated, which highlight a number of factors which play a major role in the information sharing approaches and the multiagency working. For the prevention work and early identification, a good link and the joint working with the troubled families agenda proves to be very helpful. Through good leadership and strategic leadership team within the MASHs, the coordination can be improved and responsibilities can be fixed. The governance and proper oversight through the LSCB, i.e., the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board can help in strong accountability of the multiagency (Home Office, 2013).
A range of barriers were identified in the local areas, which proves to be off assistance in the information sharing approach and the working of the multiagency. There are major issues which revolve around the information sharing with regards to the barriers for the establishment of the effective multiagency models, along with the key themes, for instance, confidentiality of information and IT Systems. It had been established that the multiple systems of IT could result in the attempts of the joining the agencies together, for the sharing of information in the matter of risk assessments could be hampered. Even though many of these local areas were making use of the secure email system, but the lack of some of the organizations having access to it, proved to be another barrier. Often, there is a misunderstanding amongst the professionals in the matter of which information of the client can or cannot be shared and a prime reason of this is the confidentiality in the particular matter of the health professionals. This, not only results in lower confidence, but also shows the uncertainty in the sharing of information. The outcomes of the operations were also affected due to corporate memory loss and high staff turnover, specifically at the management level. There was a lack of engagement at several areas from housing. There was also a lack in understanding about the safeguarding which resulted in a reliance being placed on the social services, for taking the lead (Home Office, 2013).
When these areas were analyzed, different challenges were identified for the future working. The first and foremost challenge in this regard was the funding constraints. Even though multiagency model had streamlined a range of different processes, the demand for services’ impact was a cause of concern. Due to the high end needs, the preventative work in many services could not take the needed flight. These preventive works can help in the reduction of escalations of need, which in turn help in attaining greater capacity. In order to deal with the funding issues, the partnerships have proved to be an effective mode. This means that for the future, there is a need to focus on the community and voluntary sector priorities. Another issue in this regard is the geographical boundaries where a range of organizations feed in safeguarding and each of these have their own performance indicators and their own priorities. An additional challenge is working across the regional boundaries (Home Office, 2013).
In the safeguarding practices adopted by the multiagency framework, the child sexual exploitation has been a priority. Owing to the success of the multiagency, a better focus has been placed upon the coordination of the intelligence for the cases related to child sexual exploitation, which is a form of child abuse. The success of multiagency can be evidenced from the joint work of the social services, police and the community and voluntary sector, in particular, the agency like Barnardo’s. This is in addition to the recent police operations undertaken in the cases of Rochdale and Derby, which necessitate the learning of lesson from these incidents (Carrie, 2011).
In the Rochdale case, 9 men of Asian origin were held to be guilty of offences which included conspiracy and rape for engaging in a sexual activity with children. The victims in this case were as young as 13 and they were being passed around the convicts for sex. 47 girls were identified as being the victim of child sexual exploitation in this case (Grierson, 2017). In 2015, the report by the Greater Manchester police highlighted that in between 2008 to 2010, the conduct of 13 officers was being looked into and out of these 13, 7 got a notice of misconduct (Bunyan, 2015). Even the police statement made in this regard confirmed that mistakes were made. Owing to the allegations that the sexual abuse and rape were not being properly recorded by the police, Margaret Oliver decided to quit (Perraudin, 2017). Derby was also such a case where a mere pulling of the three men revealed a major case of sexual abuse, where 9 men were found guilty on different issues, which range from intimidation of witnesses to raping (Symonds, 2010).
Conclusion
Child abuse is a menace which permanently plagues the child with horrified memories. This can take place in different forms of physical and psychological abuse, which can also impact the growth of the child in a negative manner. Moreover, in grave cases, the child can die, as was prominent from the case of Daniel Pelka, who was killed due to starvation and physical abuse by his parents. If they are not dead, their mental condition is affected due to the trauma they have to bear owing to the abuse. The sexual exploitation of children are another major problem issue in the matters of child abuse and the cases of Rochdale and Derby have further thrown light at the need to address these issues at the earliest, through the collaboration of the different agencies, as a single agency cannot solve this menace. And this is why the role of the multiagency becomes more prominent.
Multiagency work brings a collaboration of different experts, which effectively helps in dealing with the risk factors in the matters of child abuse. The multiagency work is concentrated upon taking the actions, adopting policies and procedures, partnership with other agencies, so as to identify and mitigate the risk which can have a negated impact over the welfare of the children. It works in teams and these teams identify the different stakeholders in child abuse cases. They analyze the situation and make attempts at different levels, i.e., at the child home, the school and the other places where the child interacts, to try and minimize any threat of child abuse. However, the multiagency work does face a lot of challenges owing to different reasons. This is often due to the differentiated perceptions of the individuals in the matters of child abuse, especially of the agencies responsible for dealing with these issues. The budget is another issue and the manner of addressing and understanding a risk.
There are three broad models of multiagency, i.e., multiagency panel, multiagency teams and integrated services, and each of these have unique features. The multiagency models, present different challenges, while dealing with child abuse cases. The analysis of the local areas by the National Policing Project Manager also revealed the issues and the characteristics of the multiagency working. Moreover, this report also shows the challenges for the multiagency working in the future. In short, even though the multiagency working is effective in dealing with the child abuse cases, it does face a lot of challenges, which continue to pose a challenge for the effective working of the multiagency and for eradicating the menace of child abuse.
References
Ashley, C. et al. (2011) Working with Risky Fathers: Research Findings on Working with Domestically Abusive Fathers and their Involvement with Children’s Social Care Services. Fathers Matter. London: Family Rights Group.
Aubrey, C. (2011) Leading and Managing in the Early Years. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
BBC. (2014) Daniel Pelka case: Coventry child protection hub opens. [Online] BBC. Available from: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-29422981 [Accessed on: 18/07/17]
Beckley, P. (2011) Learning in Early Childhood: A Whole Child Approach from birth to 8. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Bruce, T. (2009) Early Childhood: A Guide for Students. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Bunyan, N. (2015) No officers to be charged over Rochdale child abuse failure, say police. [Online] The Guardian. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/13/no-officers-charged-over-rochdale-child-abuse-failure-greater-manchester-police [Accessed on: 21/07/17]
Carrie, A.M. (2011) Sexual exploitation of children: Derby and Rochdale are tip of an iceberg. [Online] The Guardian. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/global/2011/jan/17/sexual-exploitation-children-full-horror [Accessed on: 21/07/17]
Carter, B., Cummings, J., and Cooper, L. (2007) An exploration of best practice in multi-agency working and the experiences of families of children with complex health needs. What works well and what needs to be done to improve practice for the future?. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 16(3), pp. 527–539.
Cheminais, R. (2009) Effective Multi-Agency Partnerships: Putting Every Child Matters into Practice. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
ChildHub. (2016) Multi-Agency Working In Child Protection. [Online] ChildHub. Available from: https://childhub.org/en/system/tdf/library/attachments/multi-agency_working_in_child_protection_2016_08_09.pdf?file=1&type=node&id=20987 [Accessed on: 18/07/17]
Dimmer, S. (2015) Daniel Pelka: What have we learned in the three years since his death?. [Online] Coventry Telegraph. Available from: https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/daniel-pelka-what-learned-three-8754280 [Accessed on: 18/07/17]
Dogra, L., and Leighton, S. (2009) Nursing In Child And Adolescent Mental Health. Berkshire: Open University Press.
Gasper, M. (2010) Multi-agency Working in the Early Years: Challenges and Opportunities. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Grierson, J. (2017) Child sexual exploitation offences increase fivefold in Manchester. [Online] The Guardian. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/30/child-sexual-exploitation-offences-quadruple-report-greater-manchester [Accessed on: 21/07/17]
Harne L., and Radford J. (2008) Tackling Domestic Violence: Theories, Policies and Practice. Open University Press: Berkshire.
Hester, M. (2011) The Three Planet Model: Towards an Understanding of Contradictions in Approaches to Women and Children’s Safety in Contexts of Domestic Violence. British Journal of Social Work, 41(5), pp. 837–853. DOI:10.1093/bjsw/bcr095.
HM Government. (2015) Working together to safeguard children: A guide to inter-agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. [Online] HM Government. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/592101/Working_Together_to_Safeguard_Children_20170213.pdf [Accessed on: 18/07/17]
HMIC. (2013a) Joint inspection of multiagency child protection arrangements: Pilot inspection: Staffordshire Police. [Online] HMIC. Available from: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic/media/staffordshire-joint-inspection-of-multi-agency-child-protection-arrangements-20130212.pdf [Accessed on: 21/07/17]
HMIC. (2013b) Joint inspection of multiagency child protection arrangements: Pilot inspection: Greater Manchester Police. [Online] HMIC. Available from: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic/media/greater-manchester-joint-inspection-of-multi-agency-child-protection-arrangements-20130220.pdf [Accessed on: 21/07/17]
HMIC. (2017) Multi-agency child protection arrangements between October 2011 and March 2013. [Online] HMIC. Available from: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic/our-work/child-abuse-and-child-protection-issues/multi-agency-child-protection/ [Accessed on: 21/07/17]
Home Office. (2013) Multi-Agency Working and Information Sharing Project Early Findings. [Online] Home Office. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/225012/MASH_Product.pdf [Accessed on: 21/07/17]
Humphreys, C., and Absler, D. (2011) History repeating: child protection responses to domestic violence. Child and Family Social Work, 16(4), pp. 464–473. DOI: 0.1111/j.1365-2206.2011.00761.x.
Johnston, J., and Nahmad-Williams, L. (2014) Early Childhood Studies. Oxon: Routledge.
Kerrison, S. (2014) Multi-agency working key to identifying risk of abuse to vulnerable children, says Home Office review. [Online] Simply Child Safe. Available from: https://simplychildsafe.com/child-protection/multi-agency-working-key-identifying-risk-abuse-vulnerable-children-says-home-office-review/ [Accessed on: 18/07/17]
Lancashire County Council. (2017) Multi-Agency Working. [Online] Lancashire County Council. Available from: www3.lancashire.gov.uk/corporate/calendar/views/entries/showAtt.asp?id=17422 [Accessed on: 18/07/17]
McCabe, K.A., and Murphy, D.G. (2016) Child Abuse: Today’s Issues. Florida: CRC Press.
McCray, J. (2009) Nursing and Multi-Professional Practice. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
NPTC. (2017) Safeguarding children: the importance of multi professional and multi-agency working. [Online] NPTC. Available from: moodle.nptcgroup.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=120550&redirect=1 [Accessed on: 18/07/17]
Ofsted. (2012) Proposals for the joint inspection of multi-agency arrangements for the protection of children. [Online] Ofsted. Available from: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20141107025729/https://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/proposals-for-joint-inspection-of-multi-agency-arrangements-for-protection-of-children [Accessed on: 21/07/17]
Payne, B.P., and Gainey, R.R. (2014) Family Violence and Criminal Justice: A Life-Course Approach. 3rd ed. Oxon: Routledge.
Peckover, S., and Golding, B. (2015) Domestic Abuse and Safeguarding Children: Critical Issues for Multiagency Work. Child Abuse Review, 26(1), pp. 40-50. DOI: 10.1002/car.2392.
Perraudin, F. (2017) Offenders in Rochdale child sexual abuse scandal ‘remain at large’. [Online] The Guardian. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/16/offenders-in-rochdale-child-sexual-abuse-scandal-remain-at-large [Accessed on: 21/07/17]
Rose J. (2011). Dilemmas of Inter-Professional Collaboration: Can they be Resolved? Children and Society, 25(2), pp. 151– 163.
Shires, I. (2014) Working Together To Safeguard Children: Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hubs. [Online] Ian Shires. Available from: https://ianshires.mycouncillor.org.uk/2014/07/30/working-together-to-safeguard-children-multi-agency-safeguarding-hubs/ [Accessed on: 18/07/17]
Stanley, N., and Humphreys, C. (2014) Multi-agency risk assessment and management for children and families experiencing domestic violence. Children and Youth Services Review, 47, pp. 78–85. DOI:10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.06.003.
Steel, N., Blakeborough, L., and Nicholas, S. (2011) Supporting high-risk victims of domestic violence: a review of Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conferences (MARACs). Research Report 55. London: Home Office.
Symonds, T. (2010) Derby rape gang ‘targeted children’. [Online] BBC. Available from: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-11819732 [Accessed on: 21/07/17]
UK Government. (2014) Working together to safeguard children: Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hubs. [Online] UK Government. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/working-together-to-safeguard-children-multi-agency-safeguarding-hubs [Accessed on: 18/07/17]
Walker, G. (2009) Working Together for Children: A Critical Introduction to Multi-Agency Working. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Wokingham Borough Council. (2005) Multi-agency working. [Online] Wokingham Borough Council. Available from: www.wokingham.gov.uk/_resources/assets/attachment/full/0/75433.pdf [Accessed on: 18/07/17]
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Contact Essay is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Essay Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, in case there is anything you find not to be clear, you may always call us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download