Agreed

• One of the Core Features of AMBIT is Managing Risk - doing things properly, robustly (with proper "Governance"), so that there is new learning from experience (Respect for Evidence requires a focus on Outcomes measures), but also so that known risks can be minimised by deploying evidence-based practices.If someone was not fulfilling their statutory responsibilities there would be a likely increase in risk for the young person and their family.

• However, it is also the case that AMBIT promotes the idea of supporting existing relationships that the young person has with practitioners and where possible it may be beneficial to REDUCE the number of professionals involved and to support a more keyworker approach. This may be particularly challenging for workers with statutory responsibilities such as YOS workers, social workers and housing officers who are required to have face to face meetings with their clients.

• We believe that these difficulties have to be addressed at a local service level and that it would be highly inappropriate to suggest that there is a formula about this dilemma that would work across all types of service. This emphasises the need for local manualising of practice. In our view, manualising relating to statutory responsibilities (and the degree to which it may be possible to delegate these to staff working in a key worker role) would require the manualising process to include managers from a number of key agencies. In this way, the manualising would be a network process and not just involving team members.

• We would be very interested to hear about teams who had been able to progress this issue and for them to share the practice and protocol issues that would need to be addressed.

• The AMBIT project prefers to speak of AMBIT-influenced teams, rather than "AMBIT teams" as AMBIT is purposefully not a one-size-fits-all model of practice; it is rather there to support existing teams to develop and share their own local expertise.