Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T22:30:26.994Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Introduction: Intensive Family Support Services: Politics, Policy and Practice Across Contexts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2016

Harriet Churchill  and
Robin Sen
Harriet Churchill
Affiliation:
Department of Sociological Studies, University of Sheffield E-mail: [email protected]
Robin Sen
Affiliation:
Department of Sociological Studies, University of Sheffield E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The last twenty years have seen major international developments in welfare state support and services for children, parents and families. Increases in provision occurred within established areas such as welfare benefits, family allowances, child welfare services and maternity leave entitlements; and new ‘forms and modalities of provision’ were introduced (Daly et al., 2015: 10), in particular parental and paternity leave entitlements; welfare-to-work programmes and active labour market policies; conditional cash support schemes; in-work subsidies for low income families; childcare and early education services; earlier intervention and prevention programmes; parenting and family support services; and inter-departmental, inter-professional and inter-agency models of service provision (OECD, 2009, 2011).

Type
Themed Section on Intensive Family Support Services: Politics, Policy and Practice Across Contexts
Information
Social Policy and Society , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , April 2016 , pp. 251 - 261
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Boddy, J., Statham, J., McQuail, S., Petrie, P. and Owen, C. (2009) Working at the ‘Edges’ of Care? – European Models of Support for Young People and Families, London: Department for Children, Schools and Families.Google Scholar
Bonoli, G. (2013) The Origins of Active Social Policy: Labour Market and Childcare Policies in Comparative Perspectives, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bromfield, P. and Holzer, P. (2008) Protection Australian Children, Melbourne: CPRC.Google Scholar
Cameron, G., Coady, N. and Adams, G. R. (eds.) (2007) Moving Towards Positive Systems of Child and Family Welfare: Current Issues and Future Directions, Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.Google Scholar
Churchill, H. (2011) Parental Rights and Responsibilities: Analysing Social Policy and Lived Experiences, Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Dagenais, C., Begin, J., Bouchard, C. and Fortin, D. (2004) ‘Impact of intensive family support programs: a synthesis of evaluation studies’, Children and Youth Services Review, 26, 3, 249–63.Google Scholar
Daly, M., Bray, R., Bruckauf, Z., Byrne, J., Margaria, A., Pecnik, N. and Samms-Vaughan, M. (2015) Family and Parenting Support Services: Global Perspectives, Florence: UNICEF.Google Scholar
Devaney, C., Canavan, J., Landy, F. and Gillen, A. (2013) What Works in Family Support?, Dublin: Child & Family Agency.Google Scholar
Featherstone, B., Broadhurst, K. and Holt, K. (2012) ‘Thinking systemically thinking politically: building strong partnerships with children and families in the context of rising inequality’, British Journal of Social Work, 42, 4, 618–33.Google Scholar
Hellinckx, W., Colton, M. and Williams, M. (eds.) (1997) International Perspectives on Family Support, Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Hemerijck, A. (2012) ‘Two or three waves of welfare state transformation?’, in Morel, N., Palier, B. and Palmer, J. (eds.), Towards a Social Investment State? Ideas, Policies and Challenges, Bristol: The Policy Press, pp. 33–60.Google Scholar
Levitas, R. (2012) There May Be ‘Trouble’ Ahead: What We Know About Those 120,000 ‘Troubled’ Families, Swindon: Economic and Social Research Council.Google Scholar
Littell, J. and Schuerman, R. (2002) ‘What works best for who? A closer look at intensive family preservation services’, Children and Youth Services Review, 24, 9–10, 673–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacMillan, H. L., Wathen, C. N., Barlow, J., Fergusson, D. M., Leventhal, J. M. and Taussig, H. N. (2009) ‘Interventions to prevent child maltreatment and associated impairment’, The Lancet, 373, 250–66.Google Scholar
McKeown, K. (2000) A Guide to What Works in Family Support Services for Vulnerable Families, Dublin: Area Development Management Limited.Google Scholar
Morel, N., Palier, B. and Palme, J. (2012) ‘Beyond the welfare state as we know it?’, in Morel, N., Palier, B. and Palmer, J. (eds.), Towards a Social Investment State? Ideas, Policies and Challenges, Bristol: The Policy Press, pp. 1–32.Google Scholar
Nett, J. and Spratt, T. (2012) Child Protection Systems, www.kinderschutzfonds.ch.Google Scholar
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2009) Doing Better for Children, Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2011) Doing Better for Families, Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Tully, L. (2008) Family Preservation Services: Literature review, Ashfield: New South Wales Department of Community Services.Google Scholar