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 1998New Community Schools Funding 2001For Scotland’s Children Report 2002Children’s Change Fund 2003Integrated Children’s Services within The Local Authority 2005Getting it Right for Every Child in Scotland 2005A 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 Support Negative 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 Support Positive 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

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 Family Support At A Crossroads

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

Different Theories Psychology Medical Childhood Studies FamilyCouns’lingPolitical Studies Dev’ment Attach Socialise Materialist Parenting classes Individual Pathology MUD RED Peer Scaffold Peer Culture Pathways Group CBT Family SSD Soc Mod EcologyStructure v Agent Networks FGC Person C. Team SID PM Pluralism PM Politics & Power Complex Politics & Power Feminist Systemic SDD

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):

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)