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 Support
Negative View
• Viewed as Para-Professional low-cost, lowskill, ‘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
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; strengthbased 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
Dev’ment
Attach
Peer
Scaffold
Ecology
Childhood Family
Studies
Couns’ling Political
Studies
Socialise
Materialist
Peer
Culture
Structure
v Agent
Individual
Pathology
PM
Pluralism
PM
Politics &
Parenting
classes
Pathways
Group
Networks
FGC
Complex
Politics &
CBT
Family
Person C.
Team
Feminist
Systemic
MUD
RED
SSD
Soc Mod
SID
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):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)