Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:18:19.760Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Models and Approaches in Family-Focused Policy and Practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 September 2010

Nathan Hughes
Nathan Hughes*
Affiliation:
Institute of Applied Social Studies, School of Social Policy, University of Birmingham E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A review of models and approaches to family-based policy and service provision for those at risk of social exclusion suggests three distinct categories. In the first category, approaches seek to strengthen the ability of family members to offer support to a primary service user within that family. In the second category, family members are recognised as having their own specific and independent needs arising out of their relationship with the primary service user. The third category includes ‘whole family approaches’ focused on shared needs and strengths that could not be dealt with through a focus on family members as individuals.

Type
Themed Section on Family Minded Policy and Whole Family Practice
Information
Social Policy and Society , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , October 2010 , pp. 545 - 555
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

Aldridge, J. and Becker, S. (2003), Children Caring for Parents with Mental Illness: Perspectives of Young Carers, Parents and Professionals, Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Beardslee, W., Gladstone, T., Wright, E. and Cooper, A. (2003), ‘A family-based approach to the prevention of depressive symptoms of children at risk’, Pediatrics, 112, 2, 119–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, L. (2003), ‘Mainstream or margin? The current use of family group conferences in child welfare practice in the UK’, Child & Family Social Work 8, 4, 331–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burney, E. and Gelsthorpe, L. (2008), ‘Do we need a naughty step? Rethinking the parenting order after ten years’, The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 47, 5, 470–485.Google Scholar
Copello, A., Williamson, E., Orford, J. and Day, E. (2006) ‘Implementing and evaluating social behaviour and network therapy in drug treatment practice in the UK: a feasibility study’, Addictive Behaviors, 31, 5, 802–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Department for Communities and Local Government (2006), Anti-Social Behaviour Intensive Family Support Projects: An Evaluation of Six Pioneering Projects, London: DCLG.Google Scholar
Farrington, D. P. and Welsh, B. C. (2003), ‘Family-based prevention of offending: a meta-analysis’, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 36, 2, 127–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, J. and McLarnon, J. (2007), Key Principles of Practice for Young Carers, Parents and Their Families, London: The Children's Society.Google Scholar
Ghate, D., Hauari, H., Hollingworth, K. and Lindfield, S. (2007), Key Elements of Effective Practice in Parenting Support within the Youth Justice Context, London: YJB.Google Scholar
Goldson, B. and Jamieson, J. (2002), ‘Youth crime, the ‘parenting deficit’ and state intervention: a contextual critique’, Youth Justice, 2, 2, 82–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, R. and McGuire, C. (1998), Evaluating Parenting Programmes: A Study of Stakeholders’ Views, London: NCB in association with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
Herbert, M. (2000), ‘Parenting skills interventions’, in Reder, P., McClure, M. and Jolley, A. (eds.), Family Matters: Interfaces Between Child and Adult Mental Health, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Home Office (2003), Respect and Responsibility – Taking a Stand Against Anti-Social Behaviour, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Marsh, P. and Crow, G. (1998), Family Group Conferences in Child Welfare, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
McFarlane, W., Lukens, R., Link, B., Dushay, R., Deakins, S., Newmark, M., Dunne, E., Horen, B. and Toran, J. (1995), ‘Multiple family groups and psychoeducation in the treatment of schizophrenia’, Archives of General Psychiatry, 52, 679–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Merkel-Holguin, L. (2004), Sharing power with the people: family group conferencing as a democratic experiment’, Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 31, 1, 155–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, K., Hughes, N., Clarke, H., Tew, J., Mason, P., Galvani, S., Lewis, A. and Loveless, L. with Becker, S. and Burford, G. (2008), Think Family: A Literature Review of Whole Family Approaches, London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
Prior, D. and Paris, A. (2005), Preventing Children's Involvement in Crime and AntiSocial Behaviour: A Literature Review, London: DfES.Google Scholar
Respect Taskforce (2006), Respect Family Intervention Projects, www.respect.gov.uk/uploadedFiles/Members_site/Documents_and_images/Supportive_interventions/FIP_Respect_Projects_0026.pdf, accessed 18 February 2010.Google Scholar
Social Exclusion Task Force (2007), Reaching Out: Think Family, Analysis and themes from the Families at Risk Review, London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
Stephen, D. and Squires, P. (2004), They're still children and entitled to be children’, Journal of Youth Studies, 7, 3, 351–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster-Stratton, C. and Hancock, L. (1998), ‘Parent training: content, method and processes’, in Schaefer, E. (ed.), Handbook of Parent Training, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Youth Justice Board (2002), Positive Parenting, London: YJB.Google Scholar
Youth Justice Board (2009), National Standards for Youth Justice Services, www.yjb.gov.uk/engb/practitioners/MonitoringPerformance/NationalStandards/, accessed 18 February 2010.Google Scholar