Interdisciplinary Approaches in Supporting Children at Risk
Keywords:
children at risk; interdisciplinary approach; child protection; inter-institutional collaboration; early intervention; integrated servicesAbstract
Children at risk represent one of the most vulnerable social categories, requiring complex and coordinated interventions from multiple professional fields. This article explores how collaboration between social workers, psychologists, teachers, doctors, and legal specialists can contribute to the early identification of risk situations and the implementation of effective protection and recovery strategies. Through the analysis of specialized literature and international practices, the concrete benefits of the interdisciplinary approach are highlighted, such as improving communication between services, reducing overlaps of interventions, and increasing the efficiency of support programs. The study emphasizes the importance of continuous training of professionals in a collaborative spirit, the development of common work protocols, and the active involvement of families in the recovery process. The results indicate that only by integrating multiple perspectives and coordinating institutional efforts can real and sustainable protection be ensured for vulnerable children, giving them equal opportunities for harmonious development.
References
Atkinson, M., Jones, M., Lamont, E. (2007). Multi-agency working and its implications for practice: A review of the literature. Reading: CfBT Education Trust.
Barr, H. (2002). Interprofessional education: Today, yesterday, and tomorrow. Learning and Teaching Support Network for Health Sciences and Practice, 1-48.
Burford, G., Hudson, J. (2000). Family group conferencing: New directions in community-centered child and family practice. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Cross, T. P., Jones, L. M., Walsh, W. A., Simone, M., Kolko, D. (2007). Child forensic interviewing in Children's Advocacy Centers: Empirical data on a practice model. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31(10), 1031-1052.
Freeman, M. (2007). Article 3: The best interests of the child. In S. Alen, J. Vande Lanotte, E. Verhellen, F. Ang, E. Berghmans, & M. Verheyde (Eds.), A commentary on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (pp. 1-73). Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Gillingham, P. (2011). Decision-making tools and the development of expertise in child protection practitioners: Are we 'just breeding workers who are good at ticking boxes'? Child & Family Social Work, 16(4), 412-421.
Horwath, J., Morrison, T. (2007). Collaboration, integration and change in children's services: Critical issues and key ingredients. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31(1), 55-69.
Hutchison, E. D. (2013). Essentials of human behavior: Integrating person, environment, and the life course. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Jenny, C. (2011). Child abuse and neglect: Diagnosis, treatment, and evidence. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier.
Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56(3), 227-238.
Pipe, M. E., Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Cederborg, A. C. (2007). Child sexual abuse: Disclosure, delay, and denial. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Turnell, A., Edwards, S. (1999). Signs of safety: A solution and safety-oriented approach to child protection casework. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Van Der Kolk, B. A. (2014). The body keeps the score: Brain, mind, and body in the healing of trauma. New York: Viking.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Didactica Danubiensis
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
