A Mixed-Methods Study of Interprofessional Collaboration between Child Welfare and School Professionals: Barriers and Facilitators

Background: An educational achievement gap exists in K-12 education between children and youth in foster care (CYFC) and their peers. Federal policies mandate that school and child welfare professionals uphold educational protections for CYFC and engage in collaborative decision-making. Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is the process of professionals from different professions working together to address needs, provide services, and/or improve outcomes for clients. Previous research has identified common facilitators and barriers of IPC between other types of professionals, but no study has specifically examined the factors between child welfare and school professionals. Guided by ecological systems theory and critical theory, this study aimed to explore the elements that child welfare and school professionals perceive as necessary to foster effective IPC. The research question guiding this study was: What are the perceived facilitators and barriers to effective interprofessional collaboration when working to advance K-12 educational well-being for CYFC?

Methods: This mixed methods study collected primary data from child welfare professionals, school professionals, and caregivers in Maricopa County, Arizona. An explanatory sequential design was used to collect data in two phases: quantitative (surveys) followed by qualitative (focus groups and interviews). Survey data (N = 136) was analyzed using univariate and bivariate analyses. Using purposive sampling, a subsample of survey participants were selected to participate in the qualitative phase. The total sample for phase two (N = 22) included those who identified as child welfare professionals (n = 6), school professionals (n = 9), and caregivers (n = 7). Data were collected from interviews with child welfare professionals, school professionals, and caregivers (n = 17) and two focus groups with caregivers (n = 5). Most of the participants identified as woman/female (86.36%), Caucasian/White (63.60%), straight/heterosexual (77.30%), and had a Master’s degree (50%). Qualitative data were analyzed using grounded theory.

Results: The six themes (facilitators) include: centering the best interests of the child, opportunities and capacity to meaningfully engage, effective communication, being knowledgeable about the child, policies, roles, and systems, positive and trusting relationships, and empathy towards other professionals. For each of these facilitators, there were also barriers that pushed against being able to engage with them in practice. These subthemes (barriers) include: competing priorities or agendas, unmanageable workloads and limited time, little to no timely communication, limited knowledge about the about the child, policies, roles, and systems, weak ties and mistrust, and biases towards professional caregivers and other professionals.

Conclusions and Implications: The results of this study suggest that facilitators of IPC can help to mitigate the existing barriers and provide implications for how to improve interprofessional practice to promote positive outcomes for CYFC. Implications include; a) acknowledging and addressing power dynamics between professionals in collaborative engagements; b) providing agency-level supports to increase the capacity of professionals; c) increasing interprofessional education; and d) developing more specific guidance for the implementation of federal child welfare and education policies that mandate collaboration. More research is warranted on the facilitators and barriers of IPC between these professionals in a rural setting or other urban county.