Premium
A comparison of multi‐disciplinary groups in the UK and New Jersey
Author(s) -
Bell Lorna,
Feldman Len
Publication year - 1999
Publication title -
child abuse review
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.569
H-Index - 41
eISSN - 1099-0852
pISSN - 0952-9136
DOI - 10.1002/(sici)1099-0852(199909/10)8:5<314::aid-car553>3.0.co;2-v
Subject(s) - greenwich , borough , discipline , criminology , state (computer science) , sociology , political science , public administration , social science , environmental science , algorithm , computer science , soil science
During the past 30 years in both the United Kingdom and the United States there has been an increasing emphasis on the need for the agencies, disciplines and professions who are involved in investigating child abuse allegations and in protecting children from abuse to work together, to cooperate with each other and to coordinate their responses. (See Besharov, 1990; British Paediatric Association, 1966; Kempe and Helfer, 1972; London Borough of Brent, 1985; London Borough of Greenwich, 1987). One way of achieving this has been through the use of multi‐disciplinary groups. This paper will describe the initial findings from a study which aimed to examine and compare the working of two such groups, namely, case conferences in the UK and multi‐disciplinary teams in one state in the United States, New Jersey. The findings from the study show that while there are some similarities between the two types of multi‐disciplinary groups, there are also significant differences in functions, membership, structure of meetings and chairing. However, the major difference that emerges is the more prominent role of representatives from the legal system in New Jersey's multi‐disciplinary teams compared with UK case conferences. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.