pite the governments backing of policies and produced reports there have still tragically been other victims. The inquiries of Victoria Climbe and Maria Colwell have identified a number of common themes; as Parton (2004; 82) describes ‘considerable confusion and a failure to communicate key information, so that as a consequence both children fell through the elaborate welfare net’.
“英国已经见证了30年的致命虐待儿童调查或严重案件审查。”“在此期间，根据“合作”指南第8部分，每年共有约40次公众咨询和50至90次本地案例审查。过去调查的这些可怕后果通过政策和实践的变化影响了向儿童和家庭提供的服务，但公共调查也发现了相似之处。该出版物报告发布30多年来一直在调查七岁的玛丽亚·科威尔的死亡，她不幸死于继父虐待。这场悲剧的死亡在社会上引起了震动，人们“下定决心不再发生这样的悲剧”然而，尽管政府支持政策并制作了报告，但仍有其他不幸的受害者。Victoria Climbe和Maria Colwell的调查发现了一些共同的主题；正如Parton所描述的那样，“相当大的困惑和关键信息的沟通失败，结果两个孩子都陷入了精心设计的福利网”。
‘Nevertheless failures of agencies to co-ordinate their efforts continued to be seen as a significant contributing factor in the death of children through abuse.’ Maynard (2004; 182) When yet another tragedy occurred in 2007 the death of ‘Baby Peter’ or ‘Baby P’, who suffered abuse from his mothers boyfriend a very similar case review to Victoria Climbe. ‘Canning et al (2010; 70) states ‘both children’s names will be a constant reminder to professionals of the shortfalls and failings that can occur in relation to the protection of the welfare of children’. Therefore working collaboratively continues to be a child protection theme, both in terms of government guidance and in primary legislation.’ Maynard (2004; 182)
“尽管如此，各机构未能协调其努力，仍然被视为导致虐待儿童死亡的重要因素。”2007年又发生了一起悲剧，“小彼得”或“小P”的死亡，他遭受了母亲男友的虐待，这一案例与维多利亚·克莱姆非常相似Canning等人表示，“这两个孩子的名字将不断提醒专业人士，在保护儿童福利方面可能会出现的不足和失败”。因此，在政府指导和初级立法方面，合作仍然是儿童保护的主题。”
As we have seen the consequences which can occur when mistakes are made in multi-agency collaboration, are often disastrous. Therefore preventative methods needed to be put into place, as part of the ‘government’s strategy for more integrated children’s services in 2003′ the development of the ‘Common Assessment Framework (CAF) and lead professional (LP)’ was established. Brandon et al (2006; 397) The CAF aims to ‘deliver frontline services that are integrated and are focused around the needs of children and young people’. (ECM 2009) The Framework ‘helps practitioners from a variety of agencies (health, education, social services, youth offending ect) to access children’s services earlier and more effectively, develop a common understanding of those needs and agree a process for working together to meet them’. Hall et al (2009; 81) Through developing the use of CAF different agencies can use the same assessment for families and children without overlapping or having multiple assessments for the child. An important role in CAF is the Lead Professional which is an ‘important part of the strategy, the Lead Professional is a single point of contact for children, young people and their families’. Hall et al. (2009; 82) The Common Assessment Framework aims to:
正如我们所看到的，当多机构合作中出现错误时，可能发生的后果往往是灾难性的。因此，需要采取预防措施，作为“政府2003年更加综合儿童服务战略”的一部分，制定了“共同评估框架和领导专业人员”。CAF旨在“提供综合性的、以儿童和年轻人的需求为重点的一线服务”。该框架“帮助来自各种机构（卫生、教育、社会服务、青少年犯罪等）的从业者更早、更有效地获得儿童服务，对这些需求达成共识，并商定一个共同努力满足这些需求的过程”。通过开发CAF的使用，不同机构可以对家庭和儿童使用相同的评估，而不会对儿童进行重叠或多重评估。CAF中的一个重要角色是首席专业人员，这是“战略的重要组成部分，首席专业人员是儿童、年轻人及其家庭的单一联系点”。《共同评估框架》旨在：
‘Reduce the number of assessments for children with additional needs to reduce stress on the chid and family 减少对有额外需求的儿童的评估次数，以减轻孩子和家庭的压力
Ensure that services delivered by multi-agencies to the same child/ family are appropriately coordinate to reduce overlap and gaps in service provision 确保多机构向同一儿童/家庭提供的服务得到适当协调，以减少服务提供的重叠和差距
To ensure professionals are aware other agencies are involved to share information about any concerns about a child’.为了确保专业人员了解其他机构参与分享有关儿童的任何担忧的信息”。
However there are also limitations to using the ‘Common Assessment Framework’, as it is a new form of assessment it will mean more of a workload for professionals and Lead professionals therefore it may hinder collaboration and children may slip through the net as professionals may be too busy filling in paper work,
