Background to the Research

• Part 1 of the NI Family Support research study (Higgins et al 1997) focused on the situation prior to the implementation of the Children (NI) Order 1995 in November 1996. It considered historical development, legislative intent and social policy choices and constraints posed in relation to family support. It also reviewed the English and Welsh experience of prevention and family support, and relevant needs and services within NI.
• The aim of the second stage of the NI Family Support research study was to explore the realities of family support at the level of practice through undertaking process evaluations of a number of settings. To achieve this, settings were selected which related to each of the Levels of Prevention (see appendix 1) and described individually according to how they were organised, the need presented to them and the services they provided. This was done in a way that allowed for comparison across settings whilst recognising their distinctiveness.
• The resulting range of materials produced helps to unpack what family support actually looks like in practice. These perspectives from practice provide a deepened understanding of the possibilities and restrictions for developing family support. This overview draws together those perspectives.
  

Research Approach

• Identification of appropriate settings was made difficult by the absence of sufficiently detailed information on types and numbers of existing family support services, a difficulty which was compounded by the lack of any agreed definition of what exactly is meant by family support. Without a sampling frame which would allow representative settings to be identified, selection of the settings was made on the basis of theory based sampling. In essence, settings were selected because they appeared to represent the range of family support possibilities as theoretically constructed in the previous stage of the study based on the four Levels of Prevention. Further criteria were added:
  • all settings to have adequate information systems;
  • collectively the settings cover a broad range;
  • collectively the settings cover both urban and rural areas;
  • inclusion of some settings which provide services to children with a disability;
  • representation from each of the four Health and Social Services Boards' areas.
    

Main Findings

• It was possible to consolidate aspects of legal, empirical research and theoretical perspectives into twenty-three criteria against which to evaluate family support. The criteria covered five main areas - expressed purpose, need, organisation, services and developing outcomes. The five main areas are then used to present the major findings from the reports on the five main settings.
• Area 1: Expressed Purpose - Key Messages
  • All settings had clear statements of purpose which generally reflected the ethos of the Children (NI) Order and the Regional Strategy.
  • Settings were not consciously using the language of the Children (NI) Order.
  • Settings did not have a shared conceptual framework (such as the Levels of Prevention) with which to locate/reference themselves in relation to one another.
  • Public policy positions were not being explicitly expressed through articulating basic welfare assumptions.
  • All of the settings had statements about the services they aimed to deliver and, for all of them, these included at least one of the services set out in Schedule 2 of the Children (NI) Order.
• Area 2: Organisation - Key Messages
  • Only one setting had direct user involvement in management.
  • For all but one setting, co-operation with the local neighbourhood featured.
  • Inter disciplinary co-operation was strong in three settings but was patterned differently across them.
  • Attending to staff needs strengthened all the settings.
• Area 3: Need - Key Messages
  • The areas in which the settings operated showed a wide experience of socio-economic deprivation.
  • Some individual families experienced levels of deprivation out of keeping with the area they lived in.
  • Health and well being was an issue of considerable concern.
  • The full range of the Child Care Research Inter Departmental Group/Social Information Systems (IDG/SIS) indicators for children 'in need' applied across all the settings, with some particularly relevant to individual settings.
• Area 4: Services - Key Findings
  • All the settings delivered the services through a clearly planned and managed process that reflected the particular purpose and distinctive feature of the setting.
  • None of the settings had developed means of working that were very different from what has existed within social care to date.
  • Multi disciplinary and, to a lesser extent, inter agency working was a strength shared by all the settings.
  • There was a mixed picture in relation to the extent to which settings were able to draw on informal family and neighbourhood networks.
  • All the settings were committed to partnership, and attempted to be responsive to service users, both children and adults.
  • All the settings included child protection as an aspect of their work.
  • All the settings were committed to culturally sensitive and anti-discriminatory practice but found it difficult to proactively develop this aspect of their work.
  • Despite all the settings having experience of work with children who had disabilities, only one had developed its services specifically to meet the needs of this group.
• Area 5: Developing Outcomes - Key Messages
  • There is much already in place to be built on.
  • Strategic direction needs to be sustained through clear central policy.
  • There is a need for a vocabulary of family support based on an explicit conceptual framework.
  • Organisational structure and support for staff should reflect family support principles.
  • More should be done to effectively reach out and engage potential service users.
  • New means of working should be developed, applied and rigorously evaluated.
  • Research should continue to clarify and analyse what constitutes effective family support.
• Appendix 1: Levels of Prevention
  • Level One - Universally available services that can be expected to strengthen family functioning.
  • Level Two - Support services targeted on families in early difficulties where the risk of breakdown is low.
  • Level Three - Work with families who are suffering severe and established difficulties.
  • Level Four - Work with children in the care system to minimise the ill effects resulting from their separation from home and/or their involvement in the care system.