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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Positive Family Functioning – Scoping ReportEXECUTIVE SUMMARYAccess Economics was commissioned by the Australian Government Department ofFamilies, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) to conduct ascoping study estimating the feasibility of, and the methodology for, undertaking a researchproject that quantifies, in economic terms, the value of ‘goods and services’ provided bypositive family functioning (PFF).As the initial Statement of Requirement acknowledged, there are a number of definitional andconfounding issues associated with the task, not least issues of aggregation of the impacts ofmany factors occurring together, time lags between positive or negative family functioning(NFF) and their impacts, and data challenges attributing effects from different types of familyfunctioning (FF).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.In addition to proposing a methodology for quantifying the economic value of PFF, a secondgoal of this scoping project was to assess methods for conducting cost benefit analysis(CBA) and/or cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) to establish the returns to government andsociety for investments made in supporting FF. A final task was to scope the likely costs,timeframes and outputs from a full study applying these methods to estimate the value ofPFF and returns on investments. To achieve these goals, a four-step process wasemployed.Step 1: Establishing an expert reference group (ERG) in conjunction with FaHCSIA, todetermine a definition of PFF as well as to advise on particular data sources, technicalaspects and to provide their professional opinion.Step 2: Literature and data investigations.Step 3: Methodological review and discussion for estimating the value of PFF.Step 4: Review of CBA and CEA for various FF interventions.In Step 1, the ERG was established with members participating on a voluntary basis. Twostructured meetings were held for members to provide their inputs and comments. Thesewere a project inception meeting (PIM) – where a definitional framework was developed –and a second meeting to provide further input focusing on the impacts of PFF and oninterventions.i
A simple definition of PFF could not be established based on a review of the literature.Instead, consistent themes (or ‘domains’ of FF) that recurred through the literature wereidentified, developed and agreed, in consultation with the ERG and FaHCSIA. Thesedomains provide an overarching definition of the FF environment, as depicted in the nexttable. A summary is provided below.Family functioning – positive and negative – is defined through a variety ofemotional attributes, family governance frameworks, cognitive engagement anddevelopment characteristics, physical health habits, intra-familial relationshipsand social connectedness. PFF is characterised by emotional closeness,warmth, support and security; well-communicated and consistently applied ageappropriateexpectations; stimulating and educational interactions; the cultivationand modelling of physical health promotion strategies; high quality relationshipsbetween all family memb ers; and involvement of family members in communityactivities.CHARACTERISTICS OF FF DOMAINSDomainCharacteristics / ProxiesEmotionalCloseness of parent-child relationships, warmth, responsiveness,sensitivity, perceived parental and family support as well as healthyopen communication, and security/safety.GovernanceEstablishment of age-appropriate rules, expectations andconsistencyEngagement and cognitive Reading and verbal engagement, quality time fostering thedevelopmentdevelopment of educational, language and interaction skills.Physical healthHealthy/unhealthy physical activities or environments as well asaccess – including in-utero – to specific products (e.g. fruit andvegetables, cigarettes and alcohol).Intra-familial relationships Quality of relationships between all members of the family. For(dyadic family relationships)example sibling rivalries, parent-child relationships as well as thehealth of the parents’ relationship.Social connectivityInvolvement of parents and children in activities outside of thefamily unit (e.g. school, community service, volunteer work). Alsoincludes relationships with extended family and work/life balance.Source: Access Economics in consultation with the ERG and FaHCSIA.These domains of FF should not be interpreted as being independent of each other. Rather,they are characteristics that interact, complement and co-exist. Historically there are anumber of theoretical models that have been used to describe FF. These include (see Table1-2 for further details): Beaver System Model – describes FF in a two dimensional domain of competenceand style; McMaster Model of Family Functioning – asserts that the primary function of familyis the development and maintenance of family members on social, psychological andbiological levels; Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Functioning – describes FF in terms ofcohesion and flexibility;ii
Page 1 and 2: June 2009Positive Family Functionin
Page 3 and 4: 3.8 Reconnect......................
Page 5 and 6: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSAccess Economics wo
Page 7: NESSNFFNPVPFFPIMTriple-PPUPRCTREACh
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 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?