190 likes | 398 Views
Family Support: A Refocusing Of Welfare?. Dr John M Davis Head Of Department Educational Studies Dr Mary Smith Integration Manager. Introduction. Policy Background Policy in Practice Case Study of Family Support Service Negative Views Of New Service Positive Views Of New Service
E N D
Family Support:A Refocusing Of Welfare? Dr John M Davis Head Of Department Educational Studies Dr Mary Smith Integration Manager
Introduction • Policy Background • Policy in Practice • Case Study of Family Support Service • Negative Views Of New Service • Positive Views Of New Service • Family Support At A Crossroads • Different Theories • Conclusion: No Easy Answers!
Policy Background • 1998 New Community Schools Funding • 2001 For Scotland’s Children Report • 2002 Children’s Change Fund • 2003 Integrated Children’s Services within The Local Authority • 2005 Getting it Right for Every Child in Scotland • 2005 A Curriculum for Excellence
Policy Change Into Practice • Setting up of Integration Teams • Setting up of Locality Forums • Different ‘Professions’ within Children’s Services working more closely together • Development of Role of Family Support Work
New Family Support Service? • Degree Professional • Developing Universal & Targeted Services • Leading Multi-Professional Working • ‘Change Agents’ and ‘Boundroids’ • Non Statutory Holistic Support • Workforce Reform
Findings Family SupportNegative View • Viewed as Para-Professional low-cost, low-skill, ‘support assistant’ • Tension - Preventative v Statutory • Influenced by vested interest/politics • No clarity on what role is or does • Lacked a clear philosophy
Findings Family SupportPositive View • Highly qualified staff • Families/children saw an improved if imperfect service • Local forums enabled joint working • More appropriate assessment • More rapid and appropriate responses • Local capacity building
Family Support At A Crossroads • Polarised debate about preventative v acute intervention • Lack of Clear and Shared Theory To Underpin Practice • More opportunities required for discussion of different starting points to assessment and provision
Ways Forward:Building A Theory • Dolan (2006) Types, Qualities and Principles • Gilligan (2000) Forms of Support • Gilligan (2000) Parents Complex Identities • Hill (2005) & Gilligan (1999) Child Agents • Davis (2006, 2007) Complex/Fluid • Smith (2009) Small Change v Radical Leap
Dolan (2006) Social Support • 4 Types: concrete, emotional, advice and esteem • 3 Qualities of social support: Closeness, reciprocity and durability (e.g. a reliable person you have know for a long time). • Range of ‘principles’ concerning: partnership; minimum intervention; clarity of focus; strength-based perspectives; informal networks; accessible/flexible services; self referral; inclusion; diversity; and best practice
Gilligan (2000) More Than A Child Protection Service • Mobilising support for where children live their lives -Family, peer, school, sport team, church etc • Child-focused supporting - social, psychological & educational development • Prevent child leaving family by: reducing stress, promoting competence, connecting child & family to support and resources
Gilligan (2000) Parents Have Complex Identities • Multiplicity of roles and identities • Isolated young mother , can also become some one with good child care who is integrated into community as a student worker, team mate, football supporter • Key principle of family support is to enhance the number of identities available • This may take time and require sensitivity • The role of schools and education is very important
Hill (2005) & Gilligan (1999) Children Are Complex • Children can gain support from wide range of adults and children • Relates to mobility and autonomy • Notions of boundary of family not fixed - e.g. reconstituted families • Children create their own identities • Childhood is more regulated
Conclusion - Davis (2006 & 2007) • Professional roles to be examined as much as parent’s/child’s • Labelling/deficit models - give professionals/parents an excuse • No Single Theory Works in Its Totality - individual, developmental, structural, ecological, post-structural etc • MUD, SID, RED, SSD, SDD - challenges victims discourse and realises that professionals can be as much a part of the problem as the solution • Practitioners need to be reflexive and discuss the pros and cons of different personal and professional positions • This needs to include an understanding of power, politics and vested interests
Conclusion - Smith (2009) • Family Support Next 5-10 Years • Status Quo • Tinkering At Edges • Radical Change
References • Davis, JM (2006) Children’s Boundaries in McKie L & Cunningham-Burley S. (eds) (2005) Families in Society: Boundaries and Relationships. Bristol: The Policy Press* • Davis JM (2007) ‘Analysing Participation and Social Exclusion With Children and Young People. Lessons From Practice’ International Journal of Children’s Rights 15(1):121-146.
References • Hill, M (2005) Children’s Boundaries in McKie L & Cunningham-Burley S. (eds) (2005) Families in Society: Boundaries and Relationships. Bristol: The Policy Press* • Gilligan R.(2000). Family support: issues and prospects. In Canavan J , Dolan P , Pinkerton J (eds) Family Support: Directions from Diversity. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
References • Gilligan, R. (1999) ‘Working with Social Networks Key Resources in Helping Children at Risk’ In Hill, M. (ed) Effective Ways of Working with Children and their Families. London: Jessica Kingsley • Smith, M (2009)