Prague, 10-11th of November 2005 Family Policy and Parenting skills

1. Prague, 10-11th of November 2005Family Policy and Parenting skills Bragi Guðbrandsson, Gen.Director, The Government Agency for Child Protection, Iceland

2. Content • Few remarks on family policy • Changes in the family structure: different interpretation • Implications for parenthood and “New visions” of parenting • Parenting programmes: identifying the needs

3. Welfare and “Social Policy” • Policy: systematically defined choises in order to achieve desirable goals • A social policy: defines goals and actions in relation to individuals, groups and society • Examples: support to children, disabled or old people or addressing particular issues like poverty, housing etc. • The “Welfare State”: a combination of systems of Social Security and Social Policy

4. What is a “Family Policy” • The specificity of the family as a subject of policy-making: • The family as a “basic unit” of society • Cuts across all social, economic, political and cultural boundaries in society • Family policy thus not a sub-group of social policy • Family policy as a perspective • The needs of the family as a “basic unit” of society • Vigourious assessment of the needs of families or problems they face is typically absent

5. Public Family Policy • Explicit family policy: objectives deliberatly structured • Interventions: family planning, parent education, day care, family counselling, support to single parent families or families with multible children, maternal/paternal leave etc. • Implicit/latent family policy: objectives directed to other goals, but affect the family • Interventions: taxation policy, prevention strategies for substance abuse, policies for the disabled etc. • Assessing public policies in terms of their Family Consequences

6. The break down of the “Normative Family” • Rise in divorce/separtion rates and cohabitation • Rising number of children born outside of marriage • Increased lone parenthood • Re-partnering, remarriages and more step-families • Declining birthrates, smaller average sizes of families and • Two wage-earner families: the “adult worker model” v.s. the “male breadwinner model” • Single person housholds • Recognition of same-sex partnerships • Disabled parents, ethic minorities etc.

7. Conflicting Interpretations: The “pessimist demoralisation thesis”, based on F. Williams: Rethinking Families • Moral decline with harmful effects, esp. for children • Children damaged, socially, emotionally, by divorce • Lack of father figures • Vulnerability to inadequate parenting and poverty • Family values of duty, fidelity and responsibility replaced by selfish individualism • Flight from commitment • Diversity of sexual livestyles • Induces general social instability • “Parenting deficit” –values of careerism and consumption • Crime, antisocial behavior, mental illness

8. Conflicting interpretation:The “optimists democratisation thesis” • Individualisation not individualism • Individuals shape their own biographies and identities • Way to sustain respect, happiness and mutal satisfaction • Democratisation of both gender relations and the family • The move away from traditional gender divisions to more equal relationships • Unlocks women´s dependency on men • Balancing autonomy with connectedness • “Transformation of intimacy” or the quality of personal relationships • Partners come and go but the parent-child relationship prevails

9. Parenting and Public Family Policy • Both the “Pessimist” and the “Optimist” thesis contain a grain of truth • Diversed family forms and increasingly fluid and negotiated relationships • Loosening of marriage from parenthood • The emphasis of parenting responsibility instead of marriage or the “normative” family • Parenthood and parenting – a less private matter and more an issue of public intervention

10. Implications for parenthood • Jesper Juul, a Danish family theraphist: • “Todays parents are confronting a task that is historically unique. They literally have to reinvent the partnership between man and woman and also the leadership in relation to children and young people, all according to new set of values and goals that are equal dignity and genuineness to avoid violating the integrity of children and young people”.

11. Parenting programmes • “Growing up again” • Recognising the limits of our own uppbringing to modern times • Learning to avoid negative experiences • Learning to meet new challenges • What are our perceptions of the child? • What are the characteristics of our own “Parenting styles” • Toxic environment: Violence, drugs, IT-technology etc.

12. Back to basics: Perceptions of Children • The Conflict Model • The child has instinctual drives which needs to be controlled • Historical roots in the notion that children are originally “evel” and their “sinful” tendencies need to be controlled • The Laissez-faire model (Rosseau) • Basic aspects of personality already laid down having to unfold • Emhasis on permissive environment in which children´s potential can develop • The child as “Tabula rasa” – the clay melting model • The child is unformed at birth and passive like a block of clay that can be molded into any shape • The development of the child is determined by the enviromental imput

13. Back to basics: Parenting Styles • Authoritarian • To shape, control the childs behaviour and attitudes by rules and commands • Obedience a virtue and favours punitive measures • Corporal punishment and spanking accepted • Permissive • Submitts to the child impulsiveness and demands • The child regulates his/her own behaviour • The use of reason and avoids exercising power • Authoritative • Assertive and democratic • Establishes guidlines and corrects mistakes • The use of power with reason • Others: Over-indulgent, Over-protective, Neglecting etc.

14. New perception of children - New visions of Parenting • New perception of the child: bearer of “rights” • Firmly rooted in the UN Convention on the rights of the child • Two sets of rights: the right to protection and to participation • Three basic items of developmental pschycology: • Nurture • Structure • Recognition • The new parenting style: Growing up again in a dialogue with the child

15. Parent programmes:Unnderstanding the role of the family • To provide a shelter for emotional and physical vell-being of it´s members • The upbringing of children: To turn the infant into a competent human being • To adapt to social changes and maintain it´s function

16. What Makes Families Strong – some significant characteristics • The appreciation that members of the family support each other and regard each other positively and warmly • Spending time together • Positive communication patterns: honest, open and receptive • Committment – the understanding that family unity is important to each member • Spiritual orientation, religious or secular: emphasis on “caring for the soul” • The ability to deal with crisis in a constructive way

17. Parent programmes, examples of “Best Practices”:Families at risk • NEWPIN, UK • Mission: To break the circle of destructive family behaviour by: • Addressing parental emotional abuse • Developing parental emotional maturity and self-esteem • Implementation: • Group work and councelling • Play groups • Projects: • Fathers´ project • Young mom´s project • Pregnancy support network • Other examples: HOME START, visiting parents to offer support

18. Parenting programmes, “Best Practices”Child Behavioral Problems, • Pre-schooler: The Webster-Stratton Model, “Incredible years”, Head start, Sure start • School children: PMT – Parent Management Training • Adolescents: MST – Multisystematic Theraphy • All programmes implemented in Norway nationwide

19. Parenting programmes:Concluding remarks • Resarch has shown that parents generally want support and are willing to learn • Parenting programmes available for Familes at Risk are of particular importance, but they need to be: • Non-stigmatising and non-judgemental • “Bottom-up” - reflecting actual needs • Empowering families and avoid dependency • Parenting programmes addressing child conduct disorders: the value of evidence based approach