Interprofessional Collaboration while Supporting the Educational Well-being of Students in Foster Care: Perceptions and Experiences of Child Welfare Professionals, School Professionals, and Caregivers

Abstract

This descriptive study explores perceptions and experiences of interprofessional collaboration between child welfare professionals, school professionals, and caregivers engaged in promoting the educational well-being of students in foster care. Quantitative survey data was collected (N = 136). Participants had previously engaged in a range of collaborative activities. There were no significant differences in their perceptions of collaboration. There were differences in the reported frequency and quality of collaboration by subgroup, suggesting a need for tailored supports.

Headnote

This descriptive study explores perceptions and experiences of interprofessional collaboration between child welfare professionals, school professionals, and caregivers engaged in promoting the educational well-being of students in foster care. Quantitative survey data was collected (N = 136). Participants had previously engaged in a range of collaborative activities. There were no significant differences in their perceptions of collaboration. There were differences in the reported frequency and quality of collaboration by subgroup, suggesting a need for tailored supports.

An educational achievement gap exists for students in foster care (SFC) in K-12 education compared to the general student population (Gypen et al., 2017; O'Higgins et al., 2017). SFC have lower standardized test scores (Berger et al., 2015), a higher likelihood of repeating a grade (Ryan et al., 2018), and a lower rate of graduating from high school (Clemens, 2014) than those who are not in foster care. Various factors are related to these educational outcomes, including the child maltreatment and/or neglect associated with their entry into foster care (Hong et al., 2018). SFC also have high rates of changing placements and schools (O'Higgins et al., 2017; Pears et al., 2015), which has been associated with losing credits, increased absenteeism, and delayed progress toward graduation (Clemens et al., 2016; Zorc et al., 2013). Additionally, SFC have disproportionately high rates of being diagnosed with a disability (Hill, 2012). Special educational needs have been associated with lower test scores and rates of high school graduation for SFC (O'Higgins et al., 2017). SFC also have higher rates of school suspension, expulsion, and placement in disciplinary schools or programs than the general population (Legal Center for Foster Care & Education, 2014).

SFC are involved in multiple systems and engage with various professionals who are responsible for their permanency, safety, and well-being. One of these aspects of well-being is educational wellbeing, which may relate to academic achievement, school stability, and the receipt of services and supports. Child welfare professionals, school professionals, and caregivers often hold the greatest responsibility for promoting the educational well-being of SFC. Child welfare professionals work for a public, private, or Tribal child welfare agency or a service provider agency that is contracted to provide child welfare services. School professionals work for a school or school district (public, private, or charter) within K-12 education. Caregivers serve as a relative foster parent, non-relative foster parent, or residential care/group home professional. These professionals may be involved in various collaborative activities related to the educational well-being of SFC. For example, federal policy requires child welfare agencies and schools to meet and collaboratively decide if it is in the child's best interest to remain in their school or change schools after entering foster care or changing placements (Every Student Succeeds Act,2015). Child welfare professionals, school professionals and caregivers may also be part of evaluating and determining special educational needs and accommodations (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 1990). Involving caregivers and multiple professionals in collaborative activities helps to ensure that diverse perspectives are considered when making decisions related to a SFC's educational well-being.

Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) involves two or more people from different professions working together to improve services for clients (Claiborne & Lawson, 2005). People may or may not work within the same discipline or organization. Effective IPC has been associated with improved outcomes for clients in child welfare (Seekamp et al., 2022) and increased job satisfaction for child welfare professionals (Phillips et al., 2023). However, it can be difficult to engage in collaborative practice which may negatively affect SFC (Zilberstein et al., 2024; Toros et al., 2021). Reports have found that a lack of collaboration and coordination between agencies and professionals is a barrier to addressing the educational needs of SFC (Garstka et al., 2014; Stone et al., 2007) and implementing federal educational protections (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2014; U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2019).

Past experiences of working with others has been associated with more positive perceptions of IPC (Spaulding et al., 2021; WittenbergLyles et al., 2009). Having more positive views of IPC has been associated with more successful and frequent work with other professionals (San Martin-Rodriguez et al., 2005; Orentlicher et al., 2019). This suggests that perceptions and experiences of IPC can influence the frequency and success of collaborative activities on behalf of clients. However, no known study has specifically explored the perceptions and experiences of IPC between child welfare professionals, school professionals, and caregivers. This is a gap as IPC can vary by field and type of professional (Rawlinson et al., 2021). To promote collaborative participation related to the educational well-being of SFC, it is important to understand the similarities and differences in how these subgroups view and experience IPC.

Literature Review

Collaborative Activities

Child welfare professionals, school professionals, and caregivers may engage with one another through various collaborative activities related to the educational well-being of SFC. One of these activities is a best interest determination (BID) meeting, or a meeting held to decide if it is in the child's best interest to stay in their current school or change schools when they enter foster care or change placements (Every Student Succeeds Act, 2015). Professionals and caregivers may also work together to share educational records and enroll a child in a new school (Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act, 2008). Another common collaborative activity are meetings related to special education needs, such as an eligibility meeting or annual Individualized Education Program (IEP) or 504 plan meeting (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 1990). Other school-related meetings that professionals often attend relate to behavioral challenges, academic challenges, or postsecondary planning (North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services & University of North Carolina School of Social Work, 2016). Professionals may participate together in meetings related to a SFC's case plan (e.g., Team Decision Making meeting or Child and Family Team meeting; Ahn et al., 2018).

Perceptions of IPC

Research has suggested that engaging in interprofessional experiences (e.g., team meetings) can have a positive impact on perceptions of collaboration (Spaulding et al., 2021; Wittenberg-Lyles et al., 2009). Positive perceptions of IPC also have been associated with prior experiences working with other professionals. A literature review found that willingness to collaborate was a determinant of successful collaboration for health care professionals (San Martin-Rodriguez et al., 2005). Another review found that having negative perceptions of IPC was a barrier to engagement between nurses and physicians (House & Havens, 2017). Some research has been conducted about the perceptions of IPC for child welfare and school professionals; however, no known research has examined the perceptions of IPC among caregivers. It is unknown how the perceptions of these professionals and caregivers overlap or differ. A study of child welfare and substance abuse professionals found that negative perceptions of collaboration can be a barrier to working together (Drabble, 2010). A study of occupational therapists and other school professionals found that those with more positive views of collaboration engaged more often with other professionals (Orentlicher et al., 2019). These findings highlight that perceptions of IPC may be related to past experiences and willingness to engage with other professionals.

Frequency and Quality of IPC

Limited research has explored the frequency and quality of IPC between child welfare professionals, school professionals, and caregivers and other professionals. A study of school social workers found that they desired more IPC with other school staff, suggesting that a greater frequency of engagement was desired (Carnes, 2023). Zilberstein and colleagues (2024) found that foster/kinship parents, mental health clinicians, legal professionals, and other professionals rated the perceived importance of collaboration to be higher than their actual satisfaction levels when engaging with child welfare workers. A study of child welfare workers found that high-quality IPC with court professionals was associated with lower time pressure and job stress (Gibbs et al., 2024). This suggests that the frequency and quality of IPC may vary by type of professional and that there is a need to explore any differences among these subgroups.

Current Study

Given the limited understanding of the perceptions and experiences of IPC among child welfare professionals, school professionals, and caregivers, this descriptive study explored the following questions:

1. In what collaborative activities related to supporting the educational well-being of SFC do child welfare professionals, school professionals, and caregivers have prior experience engaging?

2. Is there a significant difference in the general perceptions of interprofessional collaboration for child welfare professionals, school professionals, and caregivers?

3. Is there a significant difference in the frequency and quality of interprofessional collaboration with school professionals when supporting the educational well-being of SFC?

4. Is there a significant difference in the frequency and quality of interprofessional collaboration with child welfare professionals when supporting the educational well-being of SFC?

Methods

This paper was derived from a dissertation study (Villagrana, 2023) that utilized a mixed methods explanatory sequential design (quantitative phase followed by a qualitative phase; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). This paper focuses on the quantitative phase (surveys), the purpose of which was to uncover the experiences of IPC from a wide range of individuals involved in supporting the educational well-being of SFC, then to use the results to guide the qualitative phase of the study. The purpose of the qualitative phase (interviews and focus groups) was to further explore the barriers and facilitators of IPC with a subsample of participants from the quantitative phase (Villagrana, 2024; Villagrana, 2025).

The sampling frame included child welfare professionals (employed at a child welfare agency or service provider agency that is contracted to provide child welfare services in specific positions), school professionals (employed at a school or school district within K-12 education in specific positions), and caregivers (caring for school-aged child/children in out-of-home care as a relative foster parent, non-relative foster parent, or residential care/group home professional) in a large urban county in a Southwestern state. Child welfare agencies (public child welfare agencies or private agencies that provide child welfare services) and school/ school districts (K-12 public, private, or charter) were recruited to participate in the study via recruitment emails to establish a convenience sample. Participating agencies provided email addresses for employees who met the study inclusion criteria. Child welfare and school professionals needed to be 18 years old or older, currently employed at an agency participating in the study, and employed in specific positions (e.g., school social worker, administrator). The researcher sent an initial recruitment email and two follow-up emails to eligible participant email addresses. Caregivers were recruited through flyers distributed by foster care agencies via email and flyers posted several times on Facebook groups for caregivers in the county. Caregivers needed to be 18 years of age or older, live or work in the county, and identify as a caregiver currently caring for a school-aged SFC. Online surveys were administered between September 2021 and June 2022.

Measures

Measures collected in the survey included demographics, prior experiences of engagement in collaborative activities, general perceptions of IPC, frequency of engagement in collaborative activities, and frequency and quality of IPC with child welfare and school professionals. Demographic variables related to identity included gender, race/ethnicity, highest education level, and age. Variables related to professional background included current agency and position.

Prior Experiences of Engagement in Collaborative Activities

To assess the prior experiences of engagement in collaborative activities related to the educational well-being of SFC with a child welfare or school professional, a series of items were developed by the author (with feedback from the dissertation committee and a pilot sample of participants) based on activities expected by federal policy or recommended in practice. The scale was measured using a count-based approach. School professionals and caregivers were asked if they had ever participated in a series of collaborative activities common to child welfare professionals (20 items). Child welfare professionals and caregivers were asked if they had ever participated in a series of collaborative activities common to school professionals (21 items). Response options included: 1 = no and 2 = yes. The total score reflected the number of participants who had ever participated in the collaborative activity with the other type of professional. An example item with a child welfare professional was, "participated in an Individualized Education Program (IEP) eligibility meeting." An example item with a school professional was, "Participated in a Best Interests Determination (BID) meeting to determine if a child/ youth in foster care should remain in their school of origin."

General Perceptions of IPC

The Perception of Interprofessional Collaboration Model Questionnaire (PINCOM-Q) motivation, role expectations, personality style, and professional power subscales were used to measure the general perceptions of IPC (Odegard, 2006; Odegard & Strype, 2009). These measures assessed individual perceptions of IPC apart from other group and organizational factors. Examples of items included, "Some professionals dominate the interprofessional meetings with their professional viewpoints," and "I find working in interprofessional groups valuable." Sixteen items were included (four items for each of the four subscales) and measured on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from "1 = strongly disagree" to "7 = strongly agree. "A higher score indicated higher perceptions of IPC. The measure has high reliability (a = .91; Odegard & Strype, 2009) and the reliability for the individual constructs (a = .77 and .793) have been found to be acceptable (Johnson, 2016; Rousseau et al., 2012). This measure was asked to child welfare and school professionals. Caregivers did not complete this scale because it focuses on professional experiences within interprofessional groups, which caregivers may have limited experience with.

Frequency and Quality of IPC with Child Welfare and School Professionals

The Comprehensive Organizational Health Assessment Inter-professional Collaboration subscale (COHA IPC) was used to assess the frequency and quality of collaboration with child welfare and school professionals (National Child Welfare Workforce Institute, n.d.; Potter et al., 2016). The COHA IPC subscale has been found to have acceptable internal consistency (a = .94-.95; Phillips & Jurczak Goldsborough, 2024).

This subscale includes nine items in total. First, respondents were asked, "Which of the following service providers do you interact with most frequently when supporting the educational well-being of children and youth in foster care?" and were provided with a list of professionals. Although the original scale did not ask about child welfare or school professionals, it was adapted by replacing the list of service providers/ court professionals with child welfare (e.g., case manager; supervisor) or school positions (e.g., State Educational Agency point of contact, Local Educational Agency points of contact). Frequency was measured by the item, "How frequently does your job require you to interact with this school professional?" Response options included: 1 = once a year or less, 2 = a few times a year, 3 = monthly, 4 = weekly, and 5 = daily. A higher score indicated more frequent IPC with the identified professional. Seven items assessed the quality of their IPC with the other professional. An example item was, "We understand each other' job responsibilities." Participants indicated their level of agreement from statements on a five-point scale ranging from "1 = strongly disagree" to "5 = strongly agree." A higher score indicated higher quality IPC with the identified professional.

Analysis

Univariate analyses were conducted on each of the variables to report their distributions (i.e., frequency), measures of central tendency (i.e., averages, mean, median, mode), and dispersion (i.e.,range, variance, standard deviation). Bivariate analyses (ANOVA and tests) were conducted on the PINCOM-Q and COHA IPC scales to compare differences between groups. These analyses were conducted using StatalC 17.

Results

Sample Description

Data were collected from a public child welfare agency, two child welfare service provider agencies, two public school districts, and two charter schools. In total, 159 individuals participated in the survey. Responses were removed if they were duplicates, did not complete one or more scales, or indicated they were not caring for school-aged SFC. The final sample size was (N = 136) and included child welfare professionals (7 = 29,21.32%), school professionals (7 = 49; 36.03%), and caregivers (7 = 58; 42.65%). Of the 66 child welfare professionals invited to participate in the survey, 29 respondents completed, yielding a 43.95% response rate. Of the 144 school professionals invited to participate in the survey, 49 respondents completed, yielding a 34.03% response rate. The response rate for caregivers could not be calculated as they were not recruited for a list of potential participants. The median length of time for participants to complete the survey was 15 minutes and 40 seconds.

Most participants identified as woman/female (84.44%) followed by man/male (14.81%). Participants were mostly Caucasian/White (61.03%) followed by Hispanic or Latina/0/x (16.91%). Most had a bachelor's degree (39.85%) followed by a Master's degree (35.34%). The average age of participants was 38.89 years old. Most child welfare professionals worked for a child welfare service provider agency (62.05%) with the remainer working for a public child welfare agency (37.93%). Their positions included direct service workers (62.07%), administrators (20.69%), and supervisors/managers (17.24%). School professionals worked for a public school/district (53.06%) or charter school/district (46.94%). The majority were teachers (53.06%) followed by school administrators (16.33%), administrative assistants/front office personnel (10.21%), special education coordinators (6.12%), school social workers/psychologists (6.12%), school nurses (6.12%), and foster care liasons (2.04%). Most caregivers were non-relative licensed foster parents (82.76%) followed by residential care/group home providers (8.62%), relative licensed foster parents (5.17%) and relative non-licensed foster parents (3.45%).

Prior Experiences of Engagement in Collaborative Activities

Child welfare professionals most frequently introduced themselves and their role (89.66%), participated in a case-related meeting (86.21%), or asked about IEP/504 Plans (79.31%) with school professionals. They least frequently participated in special education evaluation meetings (24.14%), made a referral for a special education evaluation (24.14%), or informed school professionals about who can transport or contact a child (27.59%) with school professionals. Caregivers most frequently introduced themselves and their role (75.86%), enrolled a childin a new school (75.86%) or participated in a meeting about behavioral challenges (67.25%) with school professionals. They least frequently had been part of developing a BID/ Transportation plan (20.69%), participated in a meeting about postsecondary planning (22.41%), or informed a school that a child entered out-of-home care (29.31%) with school professionals. Prior experiences of engagement in collaborative activities with school professionals are reported in Table 1.

School professionals most frequently participated in an annual IEP/504 Plan meeting (57.14%), introduced themselves and their role (48.98%), or participated in a meeting about educational challenges (48.98%) with child welfare professionals. They least frequently enrolled a child in foster care in a new school without the required paperwork (12.24%), were part of developing a BID/ Transportation plan (12.24%) or made a referral for a special education evaluation (16.33%) with child welfare professionals. Caregivers most frequently participated in a caserelated meeting (67.24%), introduced themselves and their roles (53.45%), or participated in a meeting about behavioral challenges (43.10%) with child welfare professionals. They least frequently participated in a meeting about postsecondary planning (12.07%), participated in the development of an IEP transition plan (18.97%), or participated in a determination of IEP services meeting (18.97%) with child welfare professionals. Prior experiences of engagement in collaborative activities with child welfare professionals are reported in Table 2.

General Perceptions of IPC

The mean composite score for the full sample was 5.30 (SD = 0.62), indicating that participants on average reported their general perceptions of IPC to be between "5 = mildly agree" and "6 = moderately agree." A higher score indicated more positive perceptions of IPC. The mean score for child welfare professionals was 5.44 (SD = 0.48) and 5.21 (SD = 0.68) for school professionals, also between "5 = mildly agree" and "6 = moderately agree." A two-sample /-test was conducted to test the difference between the two groups. There was not a significant difference between the two groups (р =.118) in their general perceptions of IPC. The results are reported in Table 3.

Frequency and Quality of IPC with School Professionals

Child welfare professionals most commonly collaborated with Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) State Educational Agency points of contact (28.57%) and ESSA Local Educational Agency points of contact (25.00%). Caregivers most often collaborated with teachers (60.42%). School professionals most often collaborated with teachers (31.03%) and special education coordinator/vocational transition specialists (13.79%) when working to support a child in foster care. The mean score for the frequency of IPC with a school professional for the full sample was 3.53 (SD = 1.23), indicating that they interacted with that type of professional between "3 = monthly" and "4 = weekly." A higher score indicated more frequent IPC with the selected school professional. The mean score for child welfare professionals was 3.00 (SD = 1.17; "monthly"), 4.32 (SD = 0.99; between "weekly" and "daily") for school professionals, and 3.53 (SD = 1.23; between "monthly" and "weekly") for caregivers. A oneway ANOVA was conducted to determine whether subgroups had significantly higher frequency of IPC than others. The ANOVA results showed statistically significant differences in the average frequency of IPC between the three groups F(2,86) = 9.14, р < .001. Further analysis (Post Hoc test) indicated school professionals had a significantly higher mean frequency score (M = 4.32, SD = 0.99) than child welfare professionals (M = 3.00, SD = 1.17)(CD =1.32, р < .001). School professionals did not have a significantly higher mean score than caregivers (М = 3.53, SD = 1.23; CD = 0.34, p = 0.75).

The mean composite score for the quality of IPC with school professionals for the full sample was 3.99 (SD = 0.94), indicating that participants on average reported the quality of their IPC as "4 = agree". A higher score indicated stronger IPC with the selected school professional. The mean score for child welfare professionals was 3.73 (SD =0.79; between "neither agree nor disagree to agree" and "agree"), 4.47 (SD = 0.50; between "agree" and "strongly agree") for school professionals, and 3.85 (SD = 1.10; between "neither agree nor disagree" and "agree") for caregivers. A one-way ANOVA was conducted to determine whether subgroups had significantly higher quality of IPC than others. The ANOVA results showed statistically significant differences in the average quality of IPC between the three groups F(2,91) =5.18, р < .01. Further analysis (Post Hoc test) indicated school professionals had a significantly higher mean frequency score (M = 4.47, SD = 0.50) than child welfare professionals (M = 3.73, SD = 0.79; CD = .734, p < 0.05). School professionals did not have a significantly higher mean score than caregivers (M = 3.85, SD = 1.10; CD = 0.12, p = 1.00). The results of the COHA IPC are reported in Table 4.

Frequency and Quality of IPC with Child Welfare Professionals

From the list of potential types of child welfare professionals, school professionals (34.78%), caregivers (89.36%) and child welfare professionals (80.77%) most often collaborated with case managers. The mean score for the frequency of IPC with a child welfare professional for the full sample was 3.33 (SD = 1.02), indicating that participants on average reported the frequency of their IPC to be between "3 = monthly"and "4 = weekly." À higher score indicated more frequent IPC with the selected child welfare professional. The mean score for child welfare professionals was 4.18 (SD = 1.01; between "weekly" and "daily"), 2.64 (SD = 1.14; between "a few times a year" and "monthly") for school professionals, and 3.26 (SD = 0.58; between "monthly" and "weekly") for caregivers. A one-way ANOVA was conducted to determine whether subgroups had a significantly higher frequency of IPC than others. The ANOVA results showed statistically significant differences in the average frequency of IPC between the three groups F(2,84) =17.98, р < .001. Further analysis (Post Hoc test) indicated child welfare professionals had a significantly higher mean frequency score (M = 4.18, SD = 1.01) than school professionals (M = 2.64, SD = 1.14; CD = -1.55, p < .001) and caregivers (M = 3.26, SD = 0.58; CD = -.93, p < .001).

The mean composite score for the quality of IPC with school professionals for the full sample was 3.63 (SD = 1.04), indicating that participants on average reported the quality of their IPC to be between "neither agree nor disagree"and "agreee." À higher score indicated stronger IPC with the selected child welfare professional. The mean score for child welfare professionals was 4.06 (SD = 0.57; between agree and "strongly agree"), 3.77 (SD = 0.90; between "neither agree nor disagree" and "agree") for school professionals, and 3.31 (SD = 1.21; between "neither agree nor disagree" and "agree") for caregivers. A one-way ANOVA was conducted to determine whether subgroups had significantly higher quality of IPC than others. The ANOVA results showed statistically significant differences in the average quality of IPC between the three groups F(2,91) =4.84, р < .01. Further analysis (Post Hoc test) indicated child welfare professionals had a significantly higher mean frequency score (M = 4.06, SD = 0.57) than caregivers (M = 3.31, SD = 1.21; CD = -.75, р < .01). Child welfare professionals did not have a significantly higher mean score than school professionals (M = 3.77, SD = 0.90; CD = -.29, р = .91). The results of the COHA IPC are reported in Table 3.

Discussion

This study explored the perceptions and experiences of IPC among professionals and caregivers who commonly work to support the K-12 educational well-being of SFC. Of the potential collaborative activities, introducing yourself and your role, attending case-related meetings, attending special education-related meetings, attending behavioral or educational challenge-related meetings, and enrolling a SFC in a new school were commonly reported. This suggests that professionals see value or more easily have opportunities to introduce themselves to other professionals. Building these relationships may also be stepping stones to participating in other activities. The types of meetings most attended imply professionals engage in those required by agencies or federal policies such as Annual IEP meetings or Child and Family Team (CF Ts) meetings over non-required meetings. Shea and colleagues (2010) found education liaisons for SFC in California schools took meeting attendance requirements by a state policy into consideration when deciding if they would attend a meeting. This suggests that agency, state, or federal policies mandating collaborative Villagrana agency, state, or federal policies mandating collaborative engagement may influence participation or prioritization. Many factors could contribute to whether or not a professional engages in activities, such as their professional role and job duties. Engaging in collaborative activities is important for shared knowledge and communication between those who support the SFC's development. For example, a child's transition to a new school could be supported by relevant information (e.g., transcripts, IEP/504 Plan) being shared between professionals in the new school prior to the child's entry. Professionals not engaging in these collaborative activities, could contribute to a lack of shared information, miscommunication, or differing expectations. Engagement in collaborative activities could be promoted by offering a variety of options for participation (e.g., video conferencing, in person, email). Efforts to increase time and capacity could also encourage engagement in collaborative activities (Gibbs et al., 2024). For example, schools could provide staffing coverage for professionals to attend meetings during the school day. Caregivers could be provided with child care for the SFC or any other young children in the home while attending meetings.

General perceptions of IPC were not significantly different for child welfare and school professionals, with scale means for both groups having scores between "mildly agree" and "moderately agree." This suggests both groups of professionals have similar mindsets that are generally positive about IPC in the workplace. Studies have identified valuing collaboration to be a facilitator of successfully working together (Spath et al., 2008; Phillips, 2016). If professionals have similar mindsets about the importance of IPC, they may be more likely to have positive interactions which support SFC. Positive perspectives of IPC could be cultivated through providing more opportunities for relationship building and social support (Conoley & Conoley, 2010). For example, collaborative meetings can build in several minutes for informal conversation prior to the start of the official meeting and small talk at the beginning of the meeting to help build connections (Allen et al.,2014).

Results showed differences by subgroups in the frequency and quality of their IPC with other professionals. Participants rated their frequency and quality of IPC highest with other professionals in the same system (e.g., school professionals with other school professionals). This suggests that IPC is more frequent and stronger among professionals within the same system. IPC is likely strengthened when professionals work in the same setting because they have more opportunities to naturally develop relationships and have structured meetings. These partnerships can continue to be strengthened through intentional opportunities to connect. For example, a systematic review found strong relationship building promoted collaboration among those working in schools (Griffiths et al., 2021). A study of public and private child welfare workers identified having regularly structured meetings helped to promote IPC (Spath et al., 2008).

Findings suggest that when professionals work in different settings (e.g., school and child welfare agency), more support is needed to develop strong IPC. Building positive and trusting relationships has been identified as a facilitator of IPC between child welfare professionals, school professionals and caregivers (Villagrana, 2024). Strategies to cultivate these relationships may include giving introductions at the beginning of meetings and having an agenda focused on the needs and strengths of the SFC. A meeting facilitator could share an overview of relevant policies and acknowledge existing power dynamics. For example, during a BID meeting the facilitator could give an overview of the federal policies and share that all perspectives will be considered, but based on policy the child welfare agency would have final decision-making authority. Another way to enhance IPC among professionals working in different setting is through cross-training, which can promote an understanding of roles and systems (Haas et al., 2011). Training could be developed about the educational protections for SFC and opportunities for child welfare professionals, school professionals, and caregivers to work with one another.

This study has several implications for future research. A similar study could be replicated in another community or with different types of professionals. This would strengthen the generalizability and ability to compare findings across samples. Additionally, limited research has explored how perceptions and experiences of IPC correlate to outcomes. We largely assume these factors influence positive outcomes of children, families, and professionals, but additional correlational research is needed.

Limitations

Several limitations were present in this study. A convenience sample was utilized for feasibility reasons which limits the generalizability. The subsamples were not equal, which may have influenced results. Additionally, professionals and caregivers who chose to participate may have more positive views of IPC or have engaged in more collaborative activities related to the educational well-being of SFC than those who did not participate. In a future study, a probability sample would help to address these limitations. Also, the general perceptions of IPC scale were not asked to caregivers since the scale focused on professional experiences engaging in collaborative experiences and they may have had limited experiences engaging in interprofessional groups. Future research could utilize another scale to measure the general perceptions of IPC of caregivers.

Conclusion

This study explored differences in the perceptions and experiences of IPC between child welfare professionals, school professionals, and caregivers. Prior engagement in collaborative activities included introducing themselves and their role and participating in case-related meetings. No significant differences between the general perceptions of IPC by type of professional were found, suggesting similar perceptions. There was a significant difference in the frequency and quality of collaboration with school professionals by type of professional, as well as with child welfare professionals. IPC was most frequent and strongest among professionals within the same system (e.g., school professionals with school professionals). Findings suggest additional support is needed to promote collaborative practice among those supporting the education of SFC who work in different systems. This is critically important as SFC are involved in multiple systems and with various professionals responsible for their educational well-being.

References

References

Ahn, H., Hartzel, S., & Shaw, T. (2018). Participants' satisfaction with family involvement meetings: Implications for child welfare practice. Research on Social Work Practice, 28(8), 952-963. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731516666328

Allen, J. A., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Landowski, N. (2014). Linking pre-meeting communication to meeting effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(8), 1064-1081. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-09-2012-0265

Berger, L. M., Cancian, M., Han, E., Noyes, J., & Rios-Salas, V. (2015). Children's academic achievement and foster care. Pediatrics, 135(1), e109-e116. https://doi.org/10.1542/ peds.2014-2448

Carnes, S. L. (2023). "Overworked and stretched thin": Burnout and systemic failure in school social work. Children & Schools, 45(3), 151-159. https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/cdad015

Claiborne, N. & Lawson, H. A. (2005). An intervention framework for collaboration. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 86, 93-103. https://doi. org/10.1606/1044-3894.1881

Clemens, E. У. (2014). Dropping out and into sight: Graduation and dropout rates for Colorado students in foster care: 5-year trend analysis (2007-08 to 2011-12). University of Northern Colorado.

Clemens, E.V., Lalonde, T. L., & Sheesley, A. P. (2016). The relationship between school mobility and students in foster care earning a high school credential. Children and Youth Services Review, 68, 193-201, https://doi.org/10.1016/).childyouth.2016.07.016

Conoley, J. C., & Conoley, С. W. (2010). Why does collaboration work? Linking positive psychology and collaboration. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20, 75-82. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474410903554902

Creswell, ]. W., & Plano Clark, М. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.

Drabble, L. (2010). Advancing collaborative practice between substance abuse treatment and child welfare fields: What helps and hinders the process? Administration in Social Work, 35(1), 88-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/03643107.2011.533625

Every Student Succeeds Act. (2015). 20 U.S.C. $ 6301.

Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act. (2008). 42 U.S.C. $ 1305.

Garstka, T.A., Lieberman, A., Biggs, J., Thompson, B., & Levy, М. М. (2014). Barriers to cross-systems collaboration in child welfare, education, and the courts: Supporting educational well-being of youth in care through systems change. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 8, 190-211. https://doi.org/10.1080/15548732.2014.888697

Gibbs, D. J., Phillips, J. D., & Villagrana, К. M. (2024). Stress, satisfaction, and turnover among child welfare workers: Examining associations with quality of interprofessional collaboration. Journal of the Society for Social Work Research, 15(4), https://doi.org/10.1086/724586

Griffiths, A.-J., Alsip, J., Hart, 5. R., Round, В. L., & Brady, J. (2021). Together we can do so much: A systematic review and conceptual framework of collaboration in schools. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 36(1), 59-85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573520915368

Gypen, L., Vanderfaeillie, J., De Maeyer, S., Belenger, L., & Van Holen, F. (2017). Outcomes of children who grew up in foster care: Systematic-review. Children and Youth Services Review, 76, 74-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.02.035

Haas, 5. M., Bauer-Leffler, S., & Turley, Е. (2011). Evaluation of cross-disciplinary training on the co-occurrence of domestic violence and child victimization: Overcoming barriers to collaboration. Journal of Health & Human Services Administration, 34(3), 352-386.

Hill, K. (2012). The prevalence of youth with disabilities among older youth in out-of-home placement: An analysis of state administrative data. Child Welfare, 91(4), 61-84.

Hong, S., Rhee, T. G., & Piescher, K. N. (2018). Longitudinal association of child maltreatment and cognitive functioning: Implications for child development. Child Abuse ES Neglect, 84, 64-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.07.026

House, S., & Havens, D. (2017). Nurses' and physicians' perceptions of nurse-physician collaboration: A systematic review. The Journal of Nursing Administration, 47(3), 165-171. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNA.0000000000000460

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (1990). 20 U.S.C. $ 1400.

Johnson, K. F. (2016). Understanding interprofessional perceptions and experiences: An investigation of professional counselors and allied health professionals. Health and Interprofessional Practice, 3(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.7710/2159-1253.1095

Legal Center for Foster Care & Education. (2014). School discipline & Youth in foster care: New federal guidance from the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice can help. https://www.fostercareandeducation.org/DesktopModules/Bring2mind/DMX/Download.aspx?Entryld=1992&Command=Core_Download&method=inline&Portalld=0&Tabld=124

National Child Welfare Workforce Institute. (n.d.). Overview of the Comprehensive Organizational Health Assessment (COHA). https://ncwwi.org/files/Org_Environment/ Comprehensive Organizational Health Assessment COHA. pdf

North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services & University of North Carolina School of Social Work. (2016). Partnering with school to promote the academic wellbeing of children in foster care. Children's Services Practice Notes, 21(1).

O'Higgins, À, Seeba, J., & Gardner, F. (2017). What are the factors associated with educational achievement for children in kinship or foster care: A systematic review. Children and Youth Services Review, 79(2017), 198-220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.06.004

Odegard, A. (2006). Exploring perceptions of interprofessional collaboration in child mental health care. International Journal of Integrated Care, 6(18), 1-13. https://doi. org/10.5334/1jic.165

Odegard, A. & Strype, J. (2009). Perceptions of interprofessional collaboration within child mental health in Norway. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 23(3), 286-296. https://doi. org/10.1080/13561820902739981

Orentlicher, M., Lashinsky, D., Teixeira, S. B., & Mograby, A. (2019). The experiences and perceptions of collaboration between OTs and other school professionals. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 73(4 Supplement_1), 7311505127. https://doi.org/10.5014/ а)ог.2019.7351-РО4003

Pears, К. C., Kim, Н. K., Buchanan, R., & Fisher, P A. (2015). Adverse consequences of school mobility for children in foster care: A prospective longitudinal study. Child Development, 86(4), 1210-1226. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12374

Phillips, J. D. (2016). A qualitative study of collaboration between guardians ad litem and caseworkers in the child welfare system. Children and Youth Services Review, 60, 61-67, https://doi.org/10.1016/).childyouth.2015.11.019.

Phillips, J. D., Villagrana, К. M., Gibbs, D. J., & Goldsborough, E. J. (2023). A quantitative study of the relationship between interprofessional collaboration and job satisfaction among child welfare caseworkers. Families in Society, 1044), 504-516. https://doi. org/10.1177/10443894231182170

Phillips, J. D., & Jurczak Goldsborough, E. (2024). An exploration of the relationship between social work degree and interprofessional collaboration in the U.S. child welfare system. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 15(4). https://www.journals.uchicago. edu/doi/10.1086/722585

Potter, C.C., Leake, R., Longworth-Reed, L., Altschul, 1. & Rienks, S. (2016). Measuring organizational health in child welfare agencies. Children and Youth Services Review, 61, 31-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.11.002

Rawlinson, C., Carron, T., Cohidon, C., Arditi, C., Hong, О. N., Pluye, P., PeytremannBridevaux, L., & Gilles, I. (2021). An overview of reviews on interprofessional collaboration in primary care: Barriers and facilitators. International Journal of Integrated Care, 21(2), 32. https://doi.org/10.5334/1jic.5589

Rousseau, C., Laurin-Lamothe, A., Nadeau, L., Deshaies, S., & Measham, T. (2012). Measuring the quality of interprofessional collaboration in child mental health collaborative care. International Journal of Integrated Care, 12, 1-8. http://doi.org/10.5334/1jic.676

Ryan, J. P, Jacob, В. A., Gross, M., Perron, B.E., Moore, A., & Ferguson, 5. (2018). Early exposure to child maltreatment and academic outcomes. Child Maltreatment, 23(4), 365-375. https://do1.org/10.1177%2F1077559518786815

San Martin-Rodriguez, L., Beaulieu, M., D'Amour, D., & Ferrada-Videla, М. (2005). The determinants of successful collaboration: A review of theoretical and empirical studies. Journal of Interprofessional Care, Supplement 1, 132-147. https://doi. org/10.1080/13561820500082677

Seekamp, S., Ey, L., Wright, S., Herbert, J., & Tsiros, M. D. (2022). Service delivery goals and underlying interprofessional practices: A scoping review to support interprofessional collaboration in the field of child protection. Children and Youth Services Review, 143, 106680, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2022.106680

Shea, N. M., Zetlin, A.G., & Weinberg, L. A. (2010). Improving school stability: An exploratory study of the work of the AB 490 liaisons in California. Children and Youth Services Review, 32(1),74-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.07.013

Spath, R., Werrbach, G. B., & Pine, B. A. (2008). Sharing the baton, not passing it: Collaboration between public and private child welfare agencies to reunify families. Journal of Community Practice, 16(4), 481-507. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705420802473766

Spaulding, Е. M., Marvel, Е. A., Jacob, E., Rahman, A., Hansen, В. R., Hanyok, L. A., Martin, S.S., Han, H. R. (2019). Interprofessional education and collaboration among healthcare students and professionals: À systematic review and call for action. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 35(4), 612-621. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2019.1697214

Stone, S., D'Andrade, A., & Austin, M. (2007). Educational services for children in foster care: Common and contrasting perspectives of child welfare and education stakeholders. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 1(2), 53-70. https://doi.org/10.1300/J479v01n02_04

Toros, K., Tart, K., & Falch-Eriksen, A. (2021). Collaboration of child protective services and early childhood educators: Enhancing the well-being of children in need. Early Childhood Education Journal, 49(5), 995-1006. doi:10.1007/s10643-020-01149-y

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2014). HHS needs to improve oversight of Fostering Connections Act implementation. https://www.gao.gov/assets/670/663655.pdf

U. S. Government Accountability Office. (2019). Foster care: Education could help states improve educational stability for youth in foster care. https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/701532.pdf

Villagrana, K. M. (2023). Facilitators and barriers of effective interprofessional collaboration between child welfare and school professionals (Publication No. 30424424) [Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

Villagrana, K.M. (2024). "They want to hear my voice": Facilitators of interprofessional collaboration among professionals supporting the education of children and youth in foster care. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/15548732.20 24.2389132

Villagrana, K. M. (2025). Promoting educational equity for children and youth in foster care: Barriers to interprofessional collaboration. Families in Society. https://doi. огр/10.1177/10443894251315960

Wittenberg-Lyles, E., Parker Oliver, D., Demiris, G., & Regehr, К. (2009). Interdisciplinary collaboration in hospice team meetings. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 24(3), 264-273. https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820903163421

Zilberstein, K., Gau, J., Brown, A., Burton, J., & Hatcher, A. J. (2024). Interprofessional collaborations in child welfare: Providers' experiences. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15548732.2024.2349165

Zorc, С. S., O'Reilly, A. L. O., Matone, M., Long, J., Watts, С. L., & Rubin, D. (2013). The relationship of placement experience to school absenteeism and changing schools in young, school-aged children in foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(5), 826-833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.02.006