The recent government policy initiative Every Child Matters (DfES, 2004) and the Laming Inquiry (HMSO, 2003) which informed it, served to challenge the effectiveness of existing child welfare services, especially in relation to the most vulnerable. Old, protectionist models of child welfare provision, in place since 1945, were no longer considered acceptable and needed to be replaced (Simon, 2008). Every Child Matters and recent guidance documents such as Working Together to Safeguard Children (DfES, 2006), take a positive, proactive approach to safeguarding children and promoting their welfare, in an attempt to reduce the need for intervention by state agencies. Promoting welfare thus widens the responsibility for tackling social exclusion beyond the traditional remit of universal services such as health and education. This includes numerous agencies across the private, public and voluntary sectors which together form the Children’s Workforce responsible for the delivery of Children’s Services. Therefore what has emerged is a social policy which is predicated on a belief that the whole workforce based around children, young people and families, should be operating together to provide joined up, multi-agency responses to the complex issues of safeguarding children. To this end English Local Authorities (LAs) have been restructured to combine Social Services and Education departments into a common Directorate of Children’s Services. This paper will examine the challenges faced by individuals and professional bodies in developing new ways of practice. Every Child Matters (DfES, 2004) and the restructure of Local Authorities around Children’s Services and the subsequent Children’s Plan (DCSF, 2007) clearly establishes the aims, objectives and intended outcomes for multi-agency working, but without providing models for this type of working. This and the fact that there is no clear knowledge base for new practices has led to a climate of uncertainty for both practitioners and strategic planners alike. The Integrated Qualifications Framework (IQF) (CWDC,2006) indicates that there are core skills endemic within multi or inter-agency working, however, this does not take into account any understanding of notions of ‘professional’ pedagogy or standards of practice within the various disciplines such as Health, Education or Social Work . The paper will present the interim findings of research carried out into the devising, supporting and dissemination of new models of multi-agency practice through interaction with Higher Education and Continuing Professional Development (CPD) programmes.

The aim of this research is to establish how CPD addressed the needs of professionals and constructs a pedagogical rationale for courses aimed at professionals across the disciplines involved in Children’s Services. This empirical enquiry is based on current work with Local Authorities and Primary Care Trusts to identify: • The model(s) of multi/interdisciplinary working and in what context. • A CPD needs analysis • A review of extant CPD programmes and links to the proposed ‘IQF’ • Understandings of ‘professional’ pedagogy within the disciplines represented Research methods include an analysis of the Integrated Qualifications Framework proposals and documentation relating to professional standards and training within the key agencies. Interviews with key personnel and stakeholders within the Local Authority and Primary Care Trusts provide understandings of needs analysis and pedegogy in relation to training and qualifications for effective multi agency practice.

It is evident that there are serious ontological issues with the philosophy of multi-agency working that need to be addressed, not only in terms of professional practice, but in relation to the training necessary for practitioners within and across the multi-agency environment of the Children’s Workforce. Such discussion is pertinent not only within the United Kingdom but also across the European Union where the concept of ‘transnational welfare’ is emerging (Martinsen, 2004) suggesting both internal and external pressures to reconfigure (children’s) welfare services and the training requirements of professionals and practitioners generated by new systems in a climate of uncertainty and change.