Evaluation of Family Help Trust - New Zealand Family Violence ...

suggests that such generic services are not focussed on changing parentalrisk behaviours; for example, substance abuse, criminal offending, andabusive parenting. Many existing services use a strengths-based interventionthat fails to prioritise care and protection issues within this model (Centre forChild and Family Policy Research; 2005; Duggan, Fuddy, Burrel, Higman,McFarlane, Windham & Sia., 2004; Gomby, Culross, & Behrman; 1999)Criticism has also centred on the use of inexperienced staff, who were notwell trained or supported by their programmes (Centre for Child and FamilyPolicy Research, 2005) 3 ; (Duggan et al., 2004); (Olds & Kitzman, 1993).Many services report not being able to cope with high-risk families withmultiple problems (Centre for Child and Family Policy Research, 2005);(Duggan et al., 2004). A review of recent research concluded that “…it seemslikely that extremely well-trained visitors are needed to serve families that facemultiple complex issues…” (Gomby et al., 1999; page 18).In a controversial commentary on the home visitation field, Chaffin (2005)states, in terms of home visiting services calling themselves child abuseprevention services:“Programs such as Healthy Families have self-identified and marketedthemselves to policy makers, legislators, communities, andprofessionals primarily as child maltreatment prevention programs,even if they have not presented themselves that way to consumers. Ihave advocated for years that this is a mistake and that the programsare more accurately characterized as maternal and child healthenhancement programs, and should market and fund themselvesaccordingly” (page 244).3 In New Zealand, a common reason given by external agencies for not working more closelywith Family Start when assisting clients was a perceived lack of training among Family Startworkers (Centre for Child and Family Policy Research, 2005).19