• 2020 Children and Young People's Workforce Strategy
• Delivering services
• Working with mothers, fathers, carers and families
• Integrated working
  • Integrated working: Training
  • Integrated working: Exemplars
  • Integrated working for Local Authorities
  • Setting up multi-agency services
    • About multi-agency panels
    • About multi-agency teams
    • About integrated services
    • Multi-agency services: toolkit for managers
      • Multi-agency services: leading and managing change
      • Multi-agency services: getting strategic partners on board
      • Multi-agency services: building the work group
        • Multi-agency services: staffing
        • Multi-agency services: location
        • Multi-agency services: recruitment or secondment
        • Multi-agency services: terms and conditions
        • Multi-agency services: retention and career development
        • Multi-agency services: line management, supervision and performance appraisal
        • Multi-agency services: team building
        • Multi-agency services: training opportunities
      • Multi-agency services: systems and processes
      • Multi-agency services: frequently asked questions (managers)
    • Multi-agency services: toolkit for practitioners
    • Benefits of multi-agency working
    • Success factors in multi-agency working
    • Multi-agency services: working with others
  • Common Assessment Framework
  • Integrated Qualifications Framework (IQF)
  • Common Core of Skills and Knowledge
  • ContactPoint
  • Information sharing
• Participation of children and young people
• Managers and leaders
• Finance and funding
• The third sector
• Improving quality
• Strategy and governance

• RSS web feeds
• About RSS Feeds
• Recent updates feed
• News feed
• Resources & practice feed
• Share
  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
• Print
• Email
• Save
• Feedback

Coming soon...

Related content

• E-enablement of the Common Assessment Framework (CAF): National eCAF
• Implementing Sure Start - An in depth Study Report part1
• Multi-agency services: building the work group
• Multi-agency services: Getting strategic partners on board
• TYS in-depth case studies

Multi-agency services: Location

The right location, and a well-resourced base, can be important in encouraging children, young people and their families to use your multi-agency service.

The location will also have an impact on the practitioners working in the multi-agency service. Those providing preventive and early intervention services will need to work closely with schools. They will need to consider whether they run the service from a school-based setting or a community setting. 

The location will also have an impact on the practitioners working in the multi-agency service. Should the service members will be co-located or work as a virtual team?

Advantages of a base in a school or Early Years setting

• It can enhance close working relationships with the school or Early Years setting.
• Children and staff are more aware of the existence of the team.
• It helps promote the school or setting as a resource for all members of the community to use. This is consistent with the development of extended schools.

Whether or not a team has their administrative base within the school or Early Years setting, they will need private, comfortable therapeutic space for any work they undertake with children and families on the school premises.

Advantages of a community base

• Some parents feel more comfortable using a community resource than a school-based resource.
• If the team serves more than one school, it can prevent it being monopolised by the school on whose premises it is based.
• It can help to re-engage children who are not attending school.

Virtual teams

Not all multi-agency teams have a shared base. Some multi-agency teams are 'virtual teams' in which staff remain based in their home agency, but with a formal commitment to be part of the multi-agency team.

Both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages, though research suggests that teams themselves prefer to share a base. For example, in a review of four 'virtual' behaviour, education and support teams (BESTs), two said that they had subsequently decided to set up shared accommodation, and the other two acknowledged that not sharing a base had a negative impact on team working. Other research has shown the importance of face-to-face contact in building and maintaining teams.

However, on the plus side, virtual teams are quicker to set up and may be more practical in large rural areas, particularly if team members are allocated to a particular locality. For virtual teams, desk-to-desk video-conferencing can be a helpful way of maintaining contact, and it is getting cheaper.

Lessons from research

Co-location was a constant theme in the delivery of Sure Start local partnerships. Implementing Sure Start local programmes (2005) found general support for the concept of a shared base. People welcomed the opportunity that co-location gave them to stay in touch with the wider programme network.

For example, one staff member was responsible for facilitating play activities in the local park. She valued the opportunity she had to keep in touch with other staff members when visiting the base to pick up the keys to the park. She was clear that had they not been sited in the same building, she would hardly have seen them. There were some specific concerns on the part of health professionals about the most economic use of their time, which some felt was undermined by having to return to one base. However, the generally positive picture suggests that co-location provides a supportive base from which to deliver outreach and other services.

Evaluation of behaviour and education support teams (2005) found advantages and disadvantages of different locations, as summarised in the table below.

Location	Pros	Cons
Schools (primary, secondary, including PRU)	Offers continuity for BEST pupils transferring from the feeder primaries (secondary) Independent from school (PRU) Increased access and communication The opportunity to build relationships/trust with schools Developing an understanding of school systems Direct access to pupils	Pupils may be reluctant to access the centre where it is associated with the school Objectivity/independence in relation to schools (including maintaining a separate team identity)
Local authority premises	Independent from schools Access to other services Appropriate workspace/facilities	Schools less aware of the BEST More difficult to build relationships/trust with schools Confusion over the role and remit of the BEST in relation to other services
Community premises	Associated with other support services (by the community) Independent from schools Available workspace/facilities Opportunities for co-working	The BEST may be negatively associated with other services/agencies More difficult to build relationships/trust with schools
Commercial/ business premises	Independent from schools Excellent workspace/facilities	Expensive Difficult to access Schools and parents less aware of the BEST

 

---

Associated documents

---

Download the contents of this page: as a Word Document

Last updated on 30/04/2009