Question
summarize the text below
Family support practice
The introduction to this Briefing made a distinction between family support provision and practice. In reality, family support provision and practice are highly intertwined for children, parents and families. However, an important element of the framework developed here is to recognise the distinctive realm of decision-making, interactions, relationships and activities that constitutefrontlinepracticeanddelivery in family support. Thetermfrontlinepracticeis employed here and in family support literature, to denote the importance of the interactions between practitioners (or administrative mechanisms utilised for accessing family support) and children, parents and families as service users and clients. These practices, relationships and interactions fundamentally shape and influence access to, experiences of and outcomes in family support for children, parents and families (Canavan et al, 2016; Devaney et al, 2021).
The following practice principles and approaches are often cited as promoting effective, responsive, enabling and empowering family support practice:
Relationship-based Practice: The importance of valuing human relationships is a central premise in Family support (Mason, 2012; Ruch, 2009) as these relationships are the foundation of providing effective and responsive support for children, parents and families. The quality of this relationship, and approach of the practitioner, are crucial in determining the experience of the family engaging with services and supports. Positive relationships promote effective engagement with practitioners and services which in turn can result in better outcomes (Abela, 2009, Broadhurst & Holt, 2009). This is due to the generation of a partnership approach and sharedunderstandingof theneedsoffamilieswhich in turn skilledpractitioners utilisetochildren, parents and families effectively (Spratt and Callan, 2004).
A framework for child and family support in Europe | 24
Partnership/Co-production: This involves working collaboratively with family members and networks to whatever extent possible. This is based on the understanding that children, parents and families can be viewed as the partner for change rather than the subject of the intervention (Devaney, 2008), and that the involvement of family members in decisions about their interests is a more ethical and effective way of proceeding reducing barriers to engagement (Katz, La Placa, & Hunter, 2007).
A Strengths-based Perspective: A strengths-based approach refers to a philosophy of practice that builds on family members’ competencies and strengths, supports families to make decisions for themselves, as opposed to approaches centred on fixing deficits. Services delivered in a manner consistent with this philosophy are thought to be more effective and empowering to families, leading to better long-term outcomes (Herrera, Frost & Devaney, 2020).
Holistic Practice: Holistic practice is particularly important for practitioner roles that entail direct work and casework with children, parents and families. It entails appreciated the inter-connected support needs of children and parents as well as the inter-connected range of support needs individuals and families such as practical, financial, advisory or therapeutic needs. The cost-effectiveness of parenting and family support roles and services can be enhanced by understanding and responding to children’s, parental and family support needs in holistic and integrated ways. Given the specific nature of these roles and services (for example, they may have early childhood, parental support, health and well-being, educational support or family welfare foci), there are strong associations between holistic practice, relationship-based practice and collaborative practice.
Reflective Practice: It is generally accepted that working with children and families is complex, with each set of circumstances and family unique. Reflective practice is increasingly viewedas acentral component of a Family supportapproach andseenas essential for delivering high-quality practice and services. Reflective Practice emphasises the need for practitioners to consider, to challenge, and to explore alternatives in an effort to avoid standardised responses to the needs of children, parents and families. Reflective practice has been described as a complex and deliberate process of thinking about and interpreting experience in order to learn from it and part of the process of developing best practice in Family support. Reflective practice involves practitioners being able to relate theory to the real world of practice, ensuring that practitioners are able to consider all aspects of family’s circumstances, their role and their agencies responsibility in a effort to provide responsive, supportive and effective help.
The importance of participation
A framework for child and family support in Europe | 25
Promoting participation among children and young people, parents and families, and communities, have particularly been key developments in family support in the European context in recent years. In contrast to top-down policies that frame child and family support as a social investment, several discussions in literature emphasise the value of listening to parents’ and children’s voices to identify relevant aspects of service provision that will strengthen the potential benefits of family support (Connolly and Devaney, 2017). Seeking service users input into decision-making is a valuable tool for ensuring that supports offered are appropriate to their needs (Champine et al., 2018; Moriarty et al., 2007; Mossberg, 2020; Muench et al., 2017) improving engagement with services, and so delivering better outcomes (Connolly & Devaney, 2016). Participation of service users also supports the positive development of youth (Gallagher et al., 2012; Forde & Martin, 2016; Hedberg et al., 2017; Ramey et al., 2017; Schoenfeld et al., 2019), while empowering, and enhancing the skills of adults (Muurinen, 2019; Slettebø, 2013). It may also support access to social justice by raising awareness of lived experiences (Bunting et al., 2017; Carr, 2004; Ginwright & James, 2007; Lansdown, 2020). Goossen and Austin (2017:37) further maintain that service user involvement has an important role to play in the realm of knowledge creation for health and social care through the engagement of “experts in their own experience”.
However, supporting service user participation can be difficult to implement, due to a lack of trust in service providers (Hedberg et al., 2017; Moriarty et al., 2007; Gal,2017; Gazit & Perry Hazan, 2020; Schoenfeld et al., 2019), the need for capacity development to participate in decision making at all levels of provisions relevant to their decision-making (Schoenfeld et al., 2019; Connolly & Devaney 2017) or organisational barriers such as a lack of professional skills (Cahill & Dadvand, 2018; Hill et al.,2004; Hinton, 2008) , or the provision of inappropriate formal processes (Carr, 2004; Moriarty et al., 2007; Horgan, 2017). If participatory opportunities are to be successful attention must be given to the development of trusting relationships (Carr, 2004; Gal, 2017; Gallagher et al., 2012; Hedberg et al., 2017), accessible formats (Moriarty et al., 2007), capacity building activities (Schoenfeld et al., 2019; Gazit & Perry Hazan, 2020; Connolly & Devaney 2017), and responsive decision-making structures (Larkins et al., 2014; Ramey et al., 2017). For those working in contexts of diversity, cultural competence is another key skill for practice (Carr, 2004; Goosen & Austin, 2017; Connolly & Devaney, 2017).
Some European countries have developed a substantive approach to participation. In Norway, service user participation is embedded practice and is part of the culture of service provision, while Sweden promotes public participation in local government. In the UK, the Children’s Commissioners and key NGOs promote children’s participation and rights in policy processes. In other countries efforts are made to support both expert, and service user stakeholders in legislative processes (Germany, Romania, Ireland), and service development (Germany, Ireland, UK), or policy development (Bulgaria, Spain, Malta, Romania, Albania,
A framework for child and family support in Europe | 26
Ireland). However, this form of partnership is not universally evident across sampled national contexts. The engagement of professionals and experts is the sole form of stakeholder engagement is some countries (Austria, Italy, Portugal, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Latvia, Lithuania, North Macedonia, Bosnia Herzegovina) (Abela et al. 2021).
KEY POINTS:
It is of utmost importance to signpost the fact that children have a right to participation in matters that affect them under Article 12 of the UNCRC and this includes policy and service planning. Examples include:
• In Germany children and young people have the right to contact youth welfare on all matters of education and development and the right to be involved in all public youth welfare decisions that affect them).
• In Sweden, it is mentioned in the Government Report on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and Swedish law.
• In Czechia, the strategy on the protection of children’s rights, aims to increase awareness of children’s rights and their participation.
• In Ireland children participate in policy and planning processes within the national Child and Family agency (Abela et al., 2021).
Parents also have a right to participate in decisions in matters relating to their children under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Examples include:
• Bulgaria and Malta seek the greater participation of parents in educational contexts
• Latvia seeks to empower parents as key agents in problem solving in the family
• The UK and Norway supports Family Participation in service planning and welfare contexts
• Malta and Ireland support citizens to participate in the development of legislation (Abela et al., 2021).
Family support practice
The introduction to this Briefing made a distinction between family support provision and practice. In reality, family support provision and practice are highly intertwined for children, parents and families. However, an important element of the framework developed here is to recognise the distinctive realm of decision-making, interactions, relationships and activities that constitutefrontlinepracticeanddelivery in family support. Thetermfrontlinepracticeis employed here and in family support literature, to denote the importance of the interactions between practitioners (or administrative mechanisms utilised for accessing family support) and children, parents and families as service users and clients. These practices, relationships and interactions fundamentally shape and influence access to, experiences of and outcomes in family support for children, parents and families (Canavan et al, 2016; Devaney et al, 2021).
The following practice principles and approaches are often cited as promoting effective, responsive, enabling and empowering family support practice:
Relationship-based Practice: The importance of valuing human relationships is a central premise in Family support (Mason, 2012; Ruch, 2009) as these relationships are the foundation of providing effective and responsive support for children, parents and families. The quality of this relationship, and approach of the practitioner, are crucial in determining the experience of the family engaging with services and supports. Positive relationships promote effective engagement with practitioners and services which in turn can result in better outcomes (Abela, 2009, Broadhurst & Holt, 2009). This is due to the generation of a partnership approach and sharedunderstandingof theneedsoffamilieswhich in turn skilledpractitioners utilisetochildren, parents and families effectively (Spratt and Callan, 2004).
A framework for child and family support in Europe | 24
Partnership/Co-production: This involves working collaboratively with family members and networks to whatever extent possible. This is based on the understanding that children, parents and families can be viewed as the partner for change rather than the subject of the intervention (Devaney, 2008), and that the involvement of family members in decisions about their interests is a more ethical and effective way of proceeding reducing barriers to engagement (Katz, La Placa, & Hunter, 2007).
A Strengths-based Perspective: A strengths-based approach refers to a philosophy of practice that builds on family members’ competencies and strengths, supports families to make decisions for themselves, as opposed to approaches centred on fixing deficits. Services delivered in a manner consistent with this philosophy are thought to be more effective and empowering to families, leading to better long-term outcomes (Herrera, Frost & Devaney, 2020).
Holistic Practice: Holistic practice is particularly important for practitioner roles that entail direct work and casework with children, parents and families. It entails appreciated the inter-connected support needs of children and parents as well as the inter-connected range of support needs individuals and families such as practical, financial, advisory or therapeutic needs. The cost-effectiveness of parenting and family support roles and services can be enhanced by understanding and responding to children’s, parental and family support needs in holistic and integrated ways. Given the specific nature of these roles and services (for example, they may have early childhood, parental support, health and well-being, educational support or family welfare foci), there are strong associations between holistic practice, relationship-based practice and collaborative practice.
Reflective Practice: It is generally accepted that working with children and families is complex, with each set of circumstances and family unique. Reflective practice is increasingly viewedas acentral component of a Family supportapproach andseenas essential for delivering high-quality practice and services. Reflective Practice emphasises the need for practitioners to consider, to challenge, and to explore alternatives in an effort to avoid standardised responses to the needs of children, parents and families. Reflective practice has been described as a complex and deliberate process of thinking about and interpreting experience in order to learn from it and part of the process of developing best practice in Family support. Reflective practice involves practitioners being able to relate theory to the real world of practice, ensuring that practitioners are able to consider all aspects of family’s circumstances, their role and their agencies responsibility in a effort to provide responsive, supportive and effective help.
The importance of participation
A framework for child and family support in Europe | 25
Promoting participation among children and young people, parents and families, and communities, have particularly been key developments in family support in the European context in recent years. In contrast to top-down policies that frame child and family support as a social investment, several discussions in literature emphasise the value of listening to parents’ and children’s voices to identify relevant aspects of service provision that will strengthen the potential benefits of family support (Connolly and Devaney, 2017). Seeking service users input into decision-making is a valuable tool for ensuring that supports offered are appropriate to their needs (Champine et al., 2018; Moriarty et al., 2007; Mossberg, 2020; Muench et al., 2017) improving engagement with services, and so delivering better outcomes (Connolly & Devaney, 2016). Participation of service users also supports the positive development of youth (Gallagher et al., 2012; Forde & Martin, 2016; Hedberg et al., 2017; Ramey et al., 2017; Schoenfeld et al., 2019), while empowering, and enhancing the skills of adults (Muurinen, 2019; Slettebø, 2013). It may also support access to social justice by raising awareness of lived experiences (Bunting et al., 2017; Carr, 2004; Ginwright & James, 2007; Lansdown, 2020). Goossen and Austin (2017:37) further maintain that service user involvement has an important role to play in the realm of knowledge creation for health and social care through the engagement of “experts in their own experience”.
However, supporting service user participation can be difficult to implement, due to a lack of trust in service providers (Hedberg et al., 2017; Moriarty et al., 2007; Gal,2017; Gazit & Perry Hazan, 2020; Schoenfeld et al., 2019), the need for capacity development to participate in decision making at all levels of provisions relevant to their decision-making (Schoenfeld et al., 2019; Connolly & Devaney 2017) or organisational barriers such as a lack of professional skills (Cahill & Dadvand, 2018; Hill et al.,2004; Hinton, 2008) , or the provision of inappropriate formal processes (Carr, 2004; Moriarty et al., 2007; Horgan, 2017). If participatory opportunities are to be successful attention must be given to the development of trusting relationships (Carr, 2004; Gal, 2017; Gallagher et al., 2012; Hedberg et al., 2017), accessible formats (Moriarty et al., 2007), capacity building activities (Schoenfeld et al., 2019; Gazit & Perry Hazan, 2020; Connolly & Devaney 2017), and responsive decision-making structures (Larkins et al., 2014; Ramey et al., 2017). For those working in contexts of diversity, cultural competence is another key skill for practice (Carr, 2004; Goosen & Austin, 2017; Connolly & Devaney, 2017).
Some European countries have developed a substantive approach to participation. In Norway, service user participation is embedded practice and is part of the culture of service provision, while Sweden promotes public participation in local government. In the UK, the Children’s Commissioners and key NGOs promote children’s participation and rights in policy processes. In other countries efforts are made to support both expert, and service user stakeholders in legislative processes (Germany, Romania, Ireland), and service development (Germany, Ireland, UK), or policy development (Bulgaria, Spain, Malta, Romania, Albania,
A framework for child and family support in Europe | 26
Ireland). However, this form of partnership is not universally evident across sampled national contexts. The engagement of professionals and experts is the sole form of stakeholder engagement is some countries (Austria, Italy, Portugal, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Latvia, Lithuania, North Macedonia, Bosnia Herzegovina) (Abela et al. 2021).
KEY POINTS:
It is of utmost importance to signpost the fact that children have a right to participation in matters that affect them under Article 12 of the UNCRC and this includes policy and service planning. Examples include:
• In Germany children and young people have the right to contact youth welfare on all matters of education and development and the right to be involved in all public youth welfare decisions that affect them).
• In Sweden, it is mentioned in the Government Report on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and Swedish law.
• In Czechia, the strategy on the protection of children’s rights, aims to increase awareness of children’s rights and their participation.
• In Ireland children participate in policy and planning processes within the national Child and Family agency (Abela et al., 2021).
Parents also have a right to participate in decisions in matters relating to their children under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Examples include:
• Bulgaria and Malta seek the greater participation of parents in educational contexts
• Latvia seeks to empower parents as key agents in problem solving in the family
• The UK and Norway supports Family Participation in service planning and welfare contexts
• Malta and Ireland support citizens to participate in the development of legislation (Abela et al., 2021).
Answers
Answered by
GPT-4o mini
The text discusses family support practice, emphasizing the intersection of provision and practice for families. It defines "frontline practice" as the crucial interactions between practitioners and families, which significantly influence access and outcomes in family support. Key principles for effective family support are highlighted, including:
1. **Relationship-based Practice**: Valuing human relationships to foster effective engagement and better outcomes for families.
2. **Partnership/Co-production**: Collaborating with families as partners in decision-making, viewing them as active participants rather than subjects of interventions.
3. **Strengths-based Perspective**: Focusing on family strengths rather than deficits to empower families to make their own choices.
4. **Holistic Practice**: Addressing interconnected support needs of families to enhance the effectiveness of services.
5. **Reflective Practice**: Encouraging practitioners to thoughtfully consider their experiences and adapt their approaches to ensure high-quality service delivery.
The text also emphasizes the importance of participation from children, young people, and parents in shaping services, which is seen as a means of empowering them and improving outcomes. It notes that fostering participation can be challenging due to issues such as trust deficits, organizational barriers, and the need for capacity development. Examples from various European countries illustrate efforts to embed participation in service provision, with varying degrees of success across different contexts.
Additionally, the text underscores the rights of children and parents to participate in matters affecting them, as articulated by international conventions. It highlights specific examples from several countries demonstrating policies and practices that promote this right.
1. **Relationship-based Practice**: Valuing human relationships to foster effective engagement and better outcomes for families.
2. **Partnership/Co-production**: Collaborating with families as partners in decision-making, viewing them as active participants rather than subjects of interventions.
3. **Strengths-based Perspective**: Focusing on family strengths rather than deficits to empower families to make their own choices.
4. **Holistic Practice**: Addressing interconnected support needs of families to enhance the effectiveness of services.
5. **Reflective Practice**: Encouraging practitioners to thoughtfully consider their experiences and adapt their approaches to ensure high-quality service delivery.
The text also emphasizes the importance of participation from children, young people, and parents in shaping services, which is seen as a means of empowering them and improving outcomes. It notes that fostering participation can be challenging due to issues such as trust deficits, organizational barriers, and the need for capacity development. Examples from various European countries illustrate efforts to embed participation in service provision, with varying degrees of success across different contexts.
Additionally, the text underscores the rights of children and parents to participate in matters affecting them, as articulated by international conventions. It highlights specific examples from several countries demonstrating policies and practices that promote this right.