Our thanks to the 384 people from all corners of the child protection system who responded to the Coordination and Collaboration Survey June 2017.
Respondents were asked to record their perceptions of a range of important relationships as they experienced them in June 2017 and the extent of change they had noticed since December 2016. Nearly 150 respondents also left comments.
The unfiltered results can be downloaded from the link at the foot of this page.
We look here at six of the main areas identified by the Nyland Report in which close and frequent coordination and collaboration should be engaged in frequently or always. Results are in percentages of those who felt able to comment.
Respondents reported that coordination and collaboration occurred…
1. Between heads of relevant government departments
2. In information sharing on child protection matters
3. Between government, NGOs and training organisations on workforce planning
4. Between organisations supporting children after sexual abuse
5. Between DCP management and field staff
6. Between foster carers and DCP workers
Filtering the results by respondent produces additional insight into the way different parties have experienced the frequency of coordination and collaboration as in the relationship between foster carers and DCP workers .
As indicated in the example above, there is more insight into the relationships we surveyed waiting to be revealed by filtering the responses by by respondent. Watch out over the next few weeks as we progressively do that and start analysing the content of the 147 comments, many of them quite detailed.
Download the Coordination and Collaboration Survey June 2017 – unfiltered results
 The survey was open from 13 June to 27 June, 2017 and received 384 responses and 147 comments. It is part of an ongoing series in which the Guardian’s Office observes and comments on progress in areas identified in Commissioner Nyland’s report. It should be borne in mind that the survey sample was relatively small and respondents self-selected. The results are broadly indicative and should not be relied on for more fine-grained analysis.