Within the model situation used in the focus groups, participants repeatedly expressed positive attitudes toward the idea of mutual cooperation and declared their willingness to seek joint solutions. During the discussions, several factors supporting cooperation emerged, as well as obstacles that complicate it in real practice.
Despite the high level of motivation and the expressed interest in collaboration, a truly cooperative approach did not manifest in the model tasks. Participants tended to search for solutions individually, maintaining their sector-specific perspectives and responsibility “for their own area of work.”
This discrepancy between the declared willingness to cooperate and the actual behaviour in the model situation is a key insight. It highlights the need for deeper development of skills in interprofessional cooperation and for creating an environment in which collaboration becomes a natural solution rather than an exception.
It is important to develop awareness and the ability to share responsibility, to create joint solutions and joint decisions (rather than decisions made individually within a single institution). Professionals need to understand the system and their own competencies, as well as the overlaps between institutional roles. Strengthening mutual understanding between sectors is therefore essential—creating space to exchange information about roles, competencies, and procedures in specific situations; practicing cooperation through model scenarios; cultivating a culture of trust and openness; and building a common language (identifying terms used differently across sectors, aligning and connecting them).
The goal is not to appear as a “professional who has everything under control” at the cost of unhappy families. The goal is to ensure a high-quality and dignified life for children, young people, and their families—even if it means giving up one’s own power and trusting an unfamiliar professional from another institution.
Throughout the project, various forms of cooperation were tested, where the organisation providing low-threshold youth work and family counselling took on different roles depending on the collaborating institutions. For example, schools typically have more diverse needs because they often lack specialised staff; in some cases, they require psychological support for pupils, in others family work or preventive activities. This depends on whether they do or do not have a school support team or other specialised professionals on site.
Cooperation with counselling and prevention centres was also tested, where the low-threshold organisation could act as a facilitator of conflict between a child and a parent within a situational intervention. Collaboration with municipal social departments, children and family centres, or child protection authorities was usually limited to providing a safe environment and an equal, trusting relationship for their clients.