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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TABLE 3-22: MEASURES THAT SHOW SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES AS A FUNCTION OF SSLP LEAD AGENCIESNote: Values are differences between groups (95% confidence interval) unless otherwise stated.Source: Belsky et al (2006).It was concluded by the NESS research team that health-led SSLPs were probably found tobe more effective relative to other SSLPs due to better access to birth records and betterintegration of health visitors as part of a ready-made system of home-visitation (Belsky et al2006). However, the quasi-experimental, cross-sectional nature of the study and the factthat evaluation of the program occurred after only three years led to the conclusion thatresults should be treated with caution.Rutter (2006) stated, in relation to the finding of adverse effects for some relatively moredisadvantaged families, that this may have been due to individuals with greater personalresources being able to better take advantage of interventions. It has also been suggestedthat disadvantaged families may have found the increased attention created by someinitiatives as intrusive (NESS, 2005).A follow-up evaluation was recently conducted, with the aim of determining how recentchanges in Sure Start services had led to improvements in outcome for families in SSLPs. Inparticular, the Sure Start initiative was transformed with the provision of Children’s Centresafter 2005. This study focused on the 9,000 three-year olds and their families in the 150SSLP s which were initially studied in earlier phases (when children were nine months ofage). These children were then compared with children in comparison communities withoutSSLPs, who had also participated in the earlier studies.The key findings from this recent analysis were (NESS 2008): Parents of three year old children displayed less negative parenting while providingchildren with a better home learning environment. Three year olds in SSLP areas had improved social development, with higher levels ofpositive social behaviour and independence/self regulation, as compared to children insimilar areas without a SSLP. SSLP effects for positive social behaviour appeared to be a consequence of SSLPbenefits on parenting. Three year olds in SSLP areas had higher rates of immunisation and less accidentalinjuries than those in similar areas without a SSLP. It was stated that this could havebeen due to differences in when measurements were taken of children living in SSLPs,and those living elsewhere.92
The effects associated with SSLPs appeared to apply to the whole population, ratherthan positive and negative effects on different subgroups (as the earlier 2005 studysuggested).Families in SSLP areas reported using more services designed to support the child andfamily development than those in not in SSLP areas.More consistent benefits associated with SSLPs were found in this recent study,compared with the earlier study. It was stated that this could be a reflection of greaterexposure of children and families to better organised and more effective serviceprovision, due to the maturing of SSLPs.The overall conclusion from this study (NESS 2008) was that after consideration of thedifferences in research design and findings of the earlier evaluation, the modest positiveeffects detected from the later study could have stemmed from: improvements in service effectiveness in SSLPs occurring in recent years; and/or longer exposure to SSLP services of three year olds and their families in the laterphase.3.12 PARENTS UNDER PRESSURE (PUP)Program services and target groupsAccording to Catalano et al (1999) 24, high risk families require intensive interventionstargeting multiple areas of functioning. The Parents Under Pressure (PUP) program wasdeveloped in response to literature indicating that in addition to parenting skills, high-riskparents have numerous areas of vulnerability that, if left unaddressed, can impede theirability to protect and care for their child (Dawe et al, 2000) 25 . Additionally, literatureindicating the efficacy of behavioural family interventions (Sanders et al, 2000 and Websteret al, 2003) 26 was also influential in the development of PUP. Behavioural familyinterventions such as PUP are based on the premise that parent-child interactions, especiallycoercive family processes, perpetuate child behaviour problems. Such interventions thusaim at addressing dysfunctional behaviour through training of parents with an emphasis onpositive interactions, and techniques for non-punitive discipline (Dawe et al, 2004).The PUP program is described as:‘An intervention specifically designed for use with multi-problem, high-riskfamilies. Such problems may include depression and anxiety, substance useproblems, family conflict and severe financial stress. Often parents with thesepressures have limited emotional resources that mean the relationship withchildren may be problematic. In turn children may have significant behaviouralproblems. The overarching aim of the PUP program is to help parents facingadversity develop positive and secure relationships with their children in order toreduce problem child behaviours (where they exist), and promote a settled,nurturing and safe family environment.’ 2724 Cited by Dawe et al (2004).25 Ibid.26 Ibid.27 http://www.pupprogram.net.au/93
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 and 10:
A simple definition of PFF could no
Page 11 and 12:
ehaviour during youth and later in
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: Mothers of 36 month olds were repor
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?