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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

and ATP datasets. Since parallels and linkages between measures in these studiesare limited, long term associations between FF in childhood could not be measured outinto adulthood without some caution over the results, which would need to beaddressed through sensitivity analysis. In order to achieve these measurements, apartnership with ATP/AIFS would need to be formed.Costs would be estimated for each outcome using: AIHW data on health systemexpenditures for the attributed health conditions; largely ABS data for productivity costsfor the individual and for carers; largely SCRGSP data for criminal justice system andother government program costs such as educational assistance or child protectionservices responding to abuse notifications; macroeconomic data for estimating taxationrevenue forgone and deadweight losses; Centrelink data for estimating welfaretransfers; SDAC data for estimating aids and home modifications; other data for otherminor financial costs; and AIHW data for estimating the burden of disease together withDepartment of Finance and Deregulation estimates of the VSLY.CBA and CEA techniques could evaluate interventions to enhance FF and increase thegoods and services available in the Australian economy, using information on a shortlist of the interventions reviewed in this scoping paper, along with their cost andefficacy. A first step in the CBA/CEA would be mapping in greater detail eachintervention in this short list to the outcomes and costs as per the costing exercise.Markov modelling or Monte Carlo simulation could then assess selected interventionsrelative to comparators (generally the base case could be expected to be continuationof the status quo). CUA and CBA metrics could then be compared to benchmarks suchas WHO $/DALY guidelines for cost effectiveness of the breakeven point in CBA – netbenefit, BCR>1 or return on investment >0.Access Economics estimates that such an exercise would take some 6-9 months to completewith a ballpark cost of $150,000-$190,000 (plus data costs and GST, and allowing for theevaluation of up to three interventions). Risks to timeframes and data lie primarily in accessto data. Data from LSAC can be purchased but costs could only be determined once aspecific data request was submitted and quoted for. Collaboration with AIFS would berequired for access to the ATP database, which would involve additional inputs, expertise,opinions and analysis from AIFS researchers. Estimates of timeframe or costs involved inthis type of analysis could not be obtained from the researchers at AIFS at this preliminarystage, as a precise quote would depend on the scope and depth of analysis required. It islikely however that these costs would be substantial ($10,000-$20,000 as a guesstimate). Amore precise quotation could be provided depending on consideration of the findings of thismethodological scoping study.Access EconomicsJune 2009ix
1. MEANING AND MEASUREMENTWorking definitions and metrics undergird quantitative estimation of goods and servicesaffected by positive family functioning (PFF) and negative family functioning (NFF).Definitions from the literature relating to family functioning (FF) in general only measure oneparticular element of FF. Thus definitions and measurements can vary quite significantly andare discussed further in Section 1.1 and Section 1.2.The counterfactual of PFF (namely NFF) is used in the quantification and costing process.This is because the benefits of PFF are the same as avoiding the costs of NFF. In additionto this, the process of evaluating consequences of NFF has a simpler methodology. Whilethe key outcomes discussed in this scoping study may seem to be a simplification of the realconsequences of NFF, they are aspects that can be quantitatively measured. Although otheraspects cannot (as of yet) be accurately quantified, they could be discussed in a qualitativemanner.1.1 DEFINITIONSThe initial step of determining a definition for FF is to establish what is meant by the term‘family’ for the purposes of this scoping study. Edgar (1992) noted that the term ‘family’ itselfcarries degrees of ‘emotional baggage’ based on personal experiences as well as ideology.It is also important to note that families are dynamic in nature and can follow an unstructuredlife cycle. In general, families begin with the union of two people (not necessarily throughmarriage) and may move to a subsequent stage where infants or children are introduced.The relationships formed between parents and children in the family can have origins thatare either genetic or social (for example, in the case of adoption in contrast to biologicalparents). The structures of these families are subject to change through separation, divorce,repartnering, remarrying and death. Further, relationships within the family change aschildren age, leave the family home and commence families of their own. Generallyaccepted definitions of family are broad, for example the Australian Bureau of Statistics(ABS) states that a family comprises (ABS, 2008); couples with or without co-resident children of any age; lone parents with co-resident children of any age; orother families of related adults, such as brothers or sisters living together, where nocouple or parent-child relationship exists.The bulk of literature indicates that the major impacts of FF are borne by the children withinthe family unit. Further to this, research has indicated that positive experiences in the earlystages of the life cycle (where the role of family is greatest) increase the probability ofpositive future experiences and external social influences become dominant later in life(Sanson et al, 2002). With this in mind, a greater emphasis is given to young families (wherechildren have not reached adulthood) in this scoping study, with a particular focus on thelong term outcomes for children as a result of their family environment.Children are unable to explicitly control their family environment and are often considered tobe the main victims of NFF. The implicit focus on outcomes associated with children as aresult of NFF excludes some families from the evaluation. In particular there is no focus oncouple-only families, couple families that are expecting children (in-utero) orcouples/individuals caring for older relatives.1
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: ooCommunities for childrenInvest an
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?