Family Support: A Refocusing Of Welfare?

1. Family Support:A Refocusing Of Welfare? Dr John M Davis Head Of Department Educational Studies Dr Mary Smith Integration Manager

2. 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!

3. 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

4. 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

5. New Family Support Service? • Degree Professional • Developing Universal & Targeted Services • Leading Multi-Professional Working • ‘Change Agents’ and ‘Boundroids’ • Non Statutory Holistic Support • Workforce Reform

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. Different Theories

15. 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

16. Conclusion - Smith (2009) • Family Support Next 5-10 Years • Status Quo • Tinkering At Edges • Radical Change

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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)