pdf [5.3MB] - Department of Families, Housing, Community Services

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Process Model of Family Functioning – discusses the goal of the family as thesuccessful achievement of basic development in critical tasks;Family Environment Scale – looks at three factors of social climate (interpersonalrelationships, personal growth and family structure) that underscore FF;Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales – comprises a collection of scales that areunderlined by social interactional, behavioural and social contextual theories; andThe System for Coding Interactions and Family Functioning – is based on anumber of theories, including systemic family theory, structural family theory and sociallearning theory; functioning is assessed in a number of ways, including the family as awhole, each parent-child dyad as well as for each individual family member.The theoretical models that best align with the family characteristics outlined above are theMcMaster Model of Family Functioning (MMFF), Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales(IFIRS) and The System for Coding Interactions and Family Functioning. Of these, theMcMaster Model has most frequently been used in the Australian setting.There is a focus on outcomes associated with children in the literature and analysis of theimpacts of FF. This is the result of the child’s inability to explicitly control their familyenvironment and children are often viewed as the main victims of NFF. The definition offamily is as per the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), but due to the emphasis of thisstudy on child outcomes, there is no focus on couple-only families, couple families that areexpecting children (in-utero) or couples/individuals caring for older relatives.Literature and data investigationImpacts from FF occur with lags. Health, economic and social/relational outcomes do notnecessarily occur straight away but can take many years of exposure before they manifest inlater years, and then can extend for varying periods – sometimes for life. The literaturereview process revealed three broad areas of outcomes. Health outcomes were mostly observed through the occurrence of mental illnessessuch as anxiety and depression later in life, but also included eating disorders, healthbehaviours (e.g. unsafe sex, physical inactivity, overweight and obesity) and substanceabuse (e.g. smoking, alcohol and drug abuse), with the consequent physical impacts ofthese risk factors on morbidity and mortality outcomes. Health outcomes were most dependent on issues such as family attachment,joint family time and role modelling. Productivity outcomes were reflected in rates of labour force participation,employment and hourly wage rates, with a number of intermediate measures reportedin the literature, such as reduced levels of literacy and numeracy and other measuresof educational achievement. Productivity outcomes were most frequently associated with socioeconomicstatus of the family (parental income and asset base) in turn linked to parentalinvolvement at school and parents engaging with their children more. Social outcomes were measured primarily through their negative manifestations –involvement in antisocial behaviour such as delinquency, and the probability of criminaliii
ehaviour during youth and later in life. In contrast it was harder to quantitativelyassociate PFF with positive manifestations such as the quality of inter-personalrelationships and future community contributions. Social/criminality outcomes were linked most to the quality of the parents’relationship, bonding between parents and children, length of time the biologicalfather remained in the family home, number of changes of parents, parentalconflict, and poor social behaviours by parents (criminality, substance abuse).The literature review provided a valuable insight into the outcomes associated with FF, whilealso highlighting a number of methodological problems in potentially valuing PFF.First, many studies reported correlation between FF aspects and outcomes, but it wassometimes difficult to ascribe this to causation, particularly for cross-sectional analyses.Second, some outcomes cannot be easily converted into economic costs, especiallywhen outcomes are interim (e.g. child literacy and numeracy standards) rather thancompletion of Year 12 or adult employment, labour force participation or earnings.Finally, different and inconsistent measures of FF and of outcomes have been appliedin past studies, presenting a challenge for quantitative interpretation.A number of current Australian longitudinal studies provide a potentially valuable source ofinformation to determine the causal effects of FF in Australia. Four potential longitudinalstudies identified are summarised below. Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC): funded by the Australiangovernment, managed by FaHCSIA and initiated in 2003, the study recruited 5,000children aged less than 12 months as well as 5,000 children aged 4-5 years. Data arebeing collected on the child (health, temperament, literacy experiences), parents(socioeconomic status, parenting style, health) as well as the broader family, child care,school and community environments. Longitudinal Survey of Australian Youth (LSAY): jointly managed by the AustralianCouncil for Educational Research and the Australian Government Department ofEducation, Employment and Workplace Relations, the study examines the transitionsof young Australians through school, education after secondary school and/or work.Ages of participants vary from those born in 1961 to those that were in Year 9 of schoolin 1998. Specific issues examined are achievement and completion of school,participation in vocational and university education as well as employment, although FFwas not a measure recorded in this survey. Australian Temperament Project (ATP): initiated in 1983 with a representativesample of more than 2,000 infants and families from urban and rural Victoria, theproject examines psychosocial adjustments through childhood and adolescence as wellas influences of personal, family and environmental factors. Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA): initiated in 2001,commissioned as well as funded through FaHCSIA, and managed through theMelbourne Institute at the University of Melbourne. The study contains arepresentative sample of Australia’s population with approximately 14,000 respondentsin Wave 1 of the study. Information is collected annually with four key areasiv
Page 1 and 2: June 2009Positive Family Functionin
Page 3 and 4: 3.8 Reconnect......................
Page 5 and 6: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSAccess Economics wo
Page 7 and 8: NESSNFFNPVPFFPIMTriple-PPUPRCTREACh
Page 9: A simple definition of PFF could no
Page 13 and 14: Alternatives to such a partnership
Page 15 and 16: ooCommunities for childrenInvest an
Page 17 and 18: 1. MEANING AND MEASUREMENTWorking d
Page 19 and 20: Fletcher (2007) presented the New Z
Page 21 and 22: DomainEmotionalGovernanceEngagement
Page 23 and 24: ModelTABLE 1-2: THEORETICAL MODELS
Page 25 and 26: In times of crisis we can turn to e
Page 27 and 28: 2. MEASURING OUTCOMESImpacts from F
Page 29 and 30: TABLE 2-1: MATERNAL AND PATERNAL IN
Page 31 and 32: Parental limit setting, family conf
Page 33 and 34: studied in the literature and separ
Page 35 and 36: TABLE 2-7: FAMILY RISK FACTORS ASSO
Page 37 and 38: FIGURE 2-4: PARENTAL INPUTS (AGE TH
Page 39 and 40: exacerbated by the formation of aff
Page 41 and 42: Productivity outcomes appear to be
Page 43 and 44: Danish National Longitudinal Study
Page 45 and 46: Key research question 14: how the i
Page 47 and 48: ut could not (until further Waves o
Page 49 and 50: FIGURE 2-6: LONGITUDINAL PATHWAYS T
Page 51 and 52: only be useful in providing informa
Page 53 and 54: FIGURE 2-9: CONCEPTUAL MAP FOR VALU
Page 55 and 56: Productivity losses would best be m
Page 57 and 58: Short term productivity costsThe fr
Page 59 and 60: The expected retirement age by the
Page 61 and 62:
(discussed previously in Section 2.
Page 63 and 64:
Aids and home modificationsAlthough
Page 65 and 66:
The extensive literature in this fi
Page 67 and 68:
In discounting healthy life and oth
Page 69 and 70:
proximal risk factors are those tha
Page 71 and 72:
ages of 18-24 months and between 4
Page 73 and 74:
TABLE 3-4: MATERNITY IMMUNISATION A
Page 75 and 76:
Family Relationship Centres are a f
Page 77 and 78:
Increased contentment in children w
Page 79 and 80:
TABLE 3-7: FAMILY DISPUTE RESOLUTIO
Page 81 and 82:
3.3.1 COMMUNITIES FOR CHILDRENProgr
Page 83 and 84:
Quantitative and qualitative data w
Page 85 and 86:
This initiative developed out of a
Page 87 and 88:
FIGURE 3-2: DIAGRAM OF TRIPLE P SYS
Page 89 and 90:
TABLE 3-11: RESULTS OF META-ANALYSE
Page 91 and 92:
This section on early childhood int
Page 93 and 94:
Table 3-14 displays a summary of th
Page 95 and 96:
TABLE 3-15: BCR OF ECE PROGRAMSSour
Page 97 and 98:
3.6 PEEL CHILD HEALTH SURVEYThe Pee
Page 99 and 100:
Research on efficacy - Evaluation o
Page 101 and 102:
Education participation levels rema
Page 103 and 104:
For FLW, outcomes assessment was re
Page 105 and 106:
whether children, families and comm
Page 107 and 108:
Mothers of 36 month olds were repor
Page 109 and 110:
The effects associated with SSLPs a
Page 111 and 112:
social context of the family.Self-r
Page 113 and 114:
social and emotional development of
Page 115 and 116:
analyses can be broken down further
Page 117 and 118:
4. CONCLUSIONThe method proposed fo
Page 119 and 120:
Australian Institute of Family Stud
Page 121 and 122:
Duncan J, Bowden C, Smith AB (2005)
Page 123 and 124:
Mathers C, Vos T, Stevenson C (1999
Page 125 and 126:
Sanders MR (2003) ‘Triple P - Pos
show all

pdf [5.3MB] - Department of Families, Housing, Community Services

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?