to visit the family and child. (Fitzgerald 2007; 63) Other limitations include agencies not working together, as Brandon (2006; 405) states ‘some areas identified problems in getting particular agencies and sectors to sign up for these multi-agency processes.’ Another restriction is implementing it into the workforce, and getting all agencies involved in using CAF as soon as possible. Every Child Matters (2009; Online) states ‘AllLocal Authorityareaswere expected to implement the CAF, along with the lead professional role and information sharing, between April 2006 and March 2008.’ However when in placement setting in 2009 with a local Health Visitor they were still in the process of putting CAF into practice, (see Appendix) therefore we cannot yet prove that it is going to be successful, to help agencies work jointly together. However as a result of the CAF not being implemented throughout agencies there were gaps, and children still slipped through the net as a result, Gasper (2010; 126) states, ‘All agencies responded in unison following Lord Laming’s report into the death of Victoria Climbe and there was a surge in the momentum to work more closely together across agencies and professions. The common assessment framework has been the outcome, but even that has not prevented continuing tragedies such as the case of ‘Baby P’ in 2007′.
然而，使用“共同评估框架”也存在局限性，因为这是一种新的评估形式，这将意味着专业人员和首席专业人员的工作量更大，因此可能会阻碍合作，儿童可能会漏网，因为专业人员可能忙于填写书面工作，无法访问家人和儿童。其他限制包括机构不合作，正如Brandon所言，“某些领域发现了让特定机构和部门签署这些多机构流程的问题。”另一个限制是将其应用到劳动力中，并尽快让所有机构参与使用CAF。《每一个儿童问题》指出，“所有地方当局都有望在2006年4月至2008年3月期间实施CAF，以及主要的专业角色和信息共享。”然而，在2009年与一名当地健康访客一起安置时，他们仍在实施CAF的过程中，因此，我们还不能证明，帮助各机构共同合作是成功的。然而，Gasper指出，由于CAF没有在各机构中实施，因此存在差距，儿童仍然漏网之鱼。共同的评估框架是结果，但即使如此，也无法阻止悲剧的继续发生，比如2007年的“小P”。
To help meet the government’s strategy of multi-agency collaboration, alongside the Every Child Matter agenda, the Common Core of Skills and Knowledge was introduced. (HM Government 2006) As part of the skills there are six areas of expertise that all practitioners including volunteers across disciplinary background will be expected to put in to practice when working with children and families:
为了帮助实现政府的多机构合作战略，在“每一个儿童问题”议程的同时，引入了“技能和知识的共同核心”。作为技能的一部分，所有从业人员（包括具有学科背景的志愿者）在与儿童和家庭合作时，都需要运用六个专业领域：
‘Effective communication and engagement 有效的沟通和参与
Child and young person development 儿童和青少年发展
Safeguarding and promoting the welfare of the child 保护和促进儿童福利
Supporting transitions 支持过渡
Multi-agency working 多机构工作
Sharing information’共享信息
Fitzgerald (2007; 125)
‘Inter-agency and multi-agency work is an essential feature of all training in safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children’. Working together to safeguard children (DfES 2006; 94) As part of the Multi-agency strategy Local Safeguarding Children’s Boards (LSCBs) have been established to replace Area Child Protection Committees. ‘LSCBs were established through the children Act 2004 there main remit is to develop policies and procedures for ‘Safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children in the area of the authority’. Fitzgerald (2007; 62) LSCBs ‘put in place legislative arrangements for implementing the proposals in the 2003 Green Paper ‘Every Child Matters’ placing working together on a statutory footing for both the statutory and voluntary agencies and the community’. Robotham et al. (2005; 177) Through producing strategies like CAF and LSCBs the government are working towards closer integration between services, where all agencies understand and work from the same documents then this should help agencies as they both share the same understanding.
“机构间和多机构工作是保护和促进儿童福利的所有培训的基本特征”。共同努力保护儿童作为多机构战略的一部分，已经建立了地方保护儿童委员会，以取代地区儿童保护委员会地方儿童保护委员会是通过2004年《儿童法》设立的，其主要职责是制定“保护和促进主管领域儿童福利”的政策和程序。地方儿童保护委员会“为实施2003年绿皮书《每一个孩子都很重要》中的建议制定了立法安排，将法定机构、志愿机构和社区置于法定基础上共同合作”。通过制定CAF和LSCB等战略，政府正在努力实现服务之间的更紧密整合，在所有机构都理解相同文件并根据相同文件开展工作的情况下，这将有助于机构，因为它们都有相同的理解。
Agencies working collaboratively together from private, independent voluntary sectors shall now be discussed, in relation to multi-ag
