Children and Youth Services Review 32 (2010) 929–944
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Children and Youth Services Review
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / c h i l d y o u t h
Toward a general model for child welfare and protection services: A meta-evaluation
of international experiences regarding the adoption of the Framework for the
Assessment of Children in Need and Their Families (FACNF)
Sophie Léveillé ⁎, Claire Chamberland
School of Social Work, University of Montreal, Canada
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 10 November 2009
Received in revised form 3 March 2010
Accepted 7 March 2010
Available online 15 March 2010
Keywords:
Assessment
Case management
Children and families in need
Framework for the Assessment of Children in
Need and Their Family
Meta-evaluation
Professional practice model
a b s t r a c t
The United Kingdom has been at the forefront of an international movement to reform child welfare and
protection systems both in terms of responding to children in difficulty and developing methods for
organising such responses. More specifically, England and Wales have initiated a model of professional
practice for vulnerable children and their families: the Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need
and Their Families. This analytical and intervention framework has since been adopted in fifteen countries.
This article reveals the results of a meta-evaluation of research that examines the implementation
experiences and results of the framework in order to identify common and specific empirical elements
related to its effectiveness. A content analysis of 50 documents reveals, in particular, the desirability of
having organisational arrangements that, at the local level, foster leadership, inter-organisational
collaboration, professional training, implementation planning, ownership of the target model, allowance
of time for implementation and ownership of the target model, the use of information technology and
communication, and reflexion. Promoting these elements reduces their observed counterparts such as
confusion, cognitive biases, and faulty and uneven knowledge among the local partners. The results also
indicate that professionals who use the framework ultimately make better assessments of the complex
situations they face, have a more holistic and child-centered point of view, and consequently plan better
interventions. The model increases inter-professional and inter-organisational collaboration. It also increases
the participation of children and parents in the provision of services intended for them, yet slightly below
expectations. The meta-evaluation also reveals that few evaluative studies address the impact of the model
on the welfare of children. Finally, this article underscores the urgent need for incorporating measurements
of child development into practice and evaluative research.
© 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
During the last decade, an international movement for the reform
of child welfare and protection systems has emerged. The movement
falls within the current context of globalisation, in which trade
liberalisation, increased networking, and rapid communications
contribute, notably, to the establishment of international agreements.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), adopted in 1989 by
the United Nations, is an example of such universal treaties (United
Nations, 1989). In fact, through its 41 standards, the CRC is the first
internationally legally binding instrument for preserving the dignity
and harmonious development of every child. This agreement marks
the beginning of a global initiative in which 192 countries have
⁎ Corresponding author. University of Montréal, School of Social Work, P.O. Box 6128,
Downtown Station, Montréal, Québec, Canada, H3C 3J7. Tel.: +1 514 343 2227; fax: +1
514 343 2493.
E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Léveillé).
0190-7409/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.03.009
pledged to develop and implement measures and policies reflecting
the best interests of the child. Thirteen years later, the signatory states
have reaffirmed their commitment to the welfare of all children by
providing a platform that aims to build a “world fit for children”
(UNICEF, 2002). The programme consists of an action plan that
includes 21 specific objectives to be achieved by 2015. Offering a
better future for every child has therefore required fundamental
changes in the vision and practices related to child welfare and
protection services.
At the same time, globalisation has led to another transformation in
these services; it is called “new public management” (Barzelay, 2002). It
consists of a paradigm for promoting a performance-based culture
within a public sector that is less centralised than the traditional
bureaucratic governance (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development, 1995). Key features of this modernisation of government
institutions and public services were set out at the Inaugural Conference
of the Commonwealth Association for Public Administration and
Management in 1995 (Borins, 1995). Commonwealth countries are
henceforth to be founded on principles that aim to form a “government
930
S. Léveillé, C. Chamberland / Children and Youth Services Review 32 (2010) 929–944
that works better and costs less” (Gore, 1993). Such guiding principles
are disseminated and operated through the coexistence of paradoxes;
on the one hand, centralisation imposed by accountability versus
decentralisation through citizen participation; on the other hand,
rationality of choice versus the importance of judgement in decision
making (Talbot, 2003). Taking care of vulnerable children now means
taking account of the new rules of public administration.
The United Kingdom has been at the forefront of these global changes,
both in terms of responding to children in difficulty and developing
methods for organising such responses. In particular, England and Wales
have initiated a service programme for vulnerable children, the
underlying model of which has inspired several other countries. This
article presents the model; identifies the countries that have adopted it;
provides a picture of its extent of implementation in each country; and
reveals the results of a meta-evaluation of studies that have examined its
effects and the experiences related to its implementation. The article
aims to shed light on the empirical value of the model and to determine
the conditions that best ensure the welfare of children most in need.
2. Basis of British services for children in difficulty
The redesign of services for children in difficulty in the United
Kingdom that began 20 years ago is based upon a series of laws,
policies, and government programmes that continue to grow. The
central UK government is responsible for administering all sectors of
activity in England. It also transferred, in 1999, certain powers to the
other countries of the UK, namely Wales, Scotland, and Northern
Ireland. Each country is also responsible for children, family, and
social services.
This section discusses the history of the legal and social contexts,
and the nature of the development of child welfare and protection
services in England and Wales.
2.1. Legal context
Just days before the signing of the CRC, the British government
passed the Children Act 1989, whose philosophy lies in the importance
of placing children's welfare at the centre of services intended for them
and of replacing the notion of parental right with that of parental
responsibility. Several of the Act's principles are consistent with the
spirit of the CRC, that is, the best place to care for vulnerable children
remains within their own families; children should be removed from
their homes only if absolutely necessary for their protection and
welfare; parents and children (of age) must be involved in the entire
process of provision of services for them; and social service departments are encouraged to seek the help of other authorities working
with children.
Through this Act, the responsibility for protecting and promoting
the welfare of children “in need” now rests on local authorities. This
new concept has become the cornerstone of children's services in the
UK. A child is defined as “in need” if:
a) he is unlikely to achieve or maintain, or to have the opportunity of
achieving or maintaining, a reasonable standard of health or
development without the provision for him of services;
b) his health or development is likely to be significantly impaired, or
further impaired, without the provision for him of such services; or
c) he is disabled (17 (10)).
“Development” means physical, intellectual, emotional, social or
behavioural development; and “health” means physical or mental
health (17 [11]).
The Act also gives social services departments the responsibility
for examining situations of suspected child abuse or injury (s 47). The
Act presents the notion and definition of looked-after children that
includes all children under the care of local authorities. Finally, it
enjoins local social services to provide appropriate support for the
needs of these children and their families. These new rules break with
tradition regarding child protection. It is no longer simply about
protecting children from abusive environments, but also about
ensuring their welfare through assessing their developmental needs.
Thirteen years after the implementation of the Children Act 1989,
another important act for the welfare of children was adopted. The
Children Act 2004 establishes, in particular, the position of Children's
Commissioner, whose role is to promote awareness of the interests
and points of view of children. The incumbent works toward ensuring
that the rights of children are respected.
2.2. Socio-political context
2.2.1. The urgency of looking after children in substitute care
Coupled with the adoption of these legal measures, the sociopolitical environment prevailing at the time led to a system that is now
internationally recognised: Looking After Children (LAC). Indeed, the
British government and the scientific community are particularly
concerned about the high number of children in foster care or foster
homes; the poor developmental status of many of these children; the
quality of care provided by their foster parents; and the degree of
responsibility assumed by social services toward these children. LAC is a
case management system developed in response to these realities. The
LAC model proposes four basic principles regarding the provision of
services for children in care (Jackson, Kilroe, & Department of Health,
1995; Parker et al., 1991). The first is to focus on results in order to
determine the quality and effectiveness of social services. The second is
to focus interventions on the healthy development of children. The third
is to focus on the importance of parental practices promoting such
development. Finally, the fourth principle is to follow up all assessed
problems. Specifically, the LAC programme establishes seven categories
of basic needs to be addressed by social services in their attempt to
obtain satisfactory results in terms of the positive development of
children in care (Ward, 1995). These include health, education, identity,
family and social relations, self-presentation, emotional and behavioural
development, and autonomy. The programme (United Kingdom,
Department of Health, 1995a) consists of a series of six assessment
and action records adapted to the child's age (under 12 months, 1–
2 years, 3–4 years, 5–9 years, 10–14 years, 15 years and older), which
measure the child's development and identify actions to be undertaken
for each of the developmental areas mentioned above. The records are
created in such a way as to encourage communication between all
persons providing care for the child and are intended to assess the
child's progress in terms of the services he or she receives and to
improve intervention plans. When completed at regular intervals, the
records serve as indicators of the quality and effectiveness of the
services provided. This evaluatory process leads to the development of a
care plan, a placement plan, and a general review of services obtained
using another derived tool of the LAC approach, the Planning and
Review Form. Results of evaluative studies on the impact of this system
show an increase in the stability of placements (Skuse, Macdonald, &
Ward et al., 2001), improved indices of physical health, self-esteem, and
academic achievement, and the reduction of problem behaviours in the
children (Wise, 1999). Since the implementation of the LAC system,
legislation and policies have been put into place to improve the services
provided for children in substitute care.
2.2.2. Redirecting children in need to appropriate services
While the LAC programme was expanding in England and Wales,
the results of an extensive research programme on protection services
(United Kingdom, Department of Health, 1995b), as well as those
from inspections of social services (Goldsmith, 1999; United Kingdom, Department of Health, Social Services Inspectorate, 1997, 1998),
S. Léveillé, C. Chamberland / Children and Youth Services Review 32 (2010) 929–944
were published. The main message emerging from this work was that
families living in situations in which protection is an issue are as much
in need of support services as they are of child protection programmes
(Rose, 1994 in Parton, 1997). A careful and systematic assessment of
the needs levels of children and their families referred to social
services is at the heart of this initiative for refocusing children's
services. The government's response to these findings was to “ensure
that referral and assessment processes discriminate effectively
between different types and levels of need and produce a timely
service response” (United Kingdom. Department of Health, 1999, p.
20). The Framework for the Assessment for Children in Need and their
Families (FACNF; United Kingdom. Department of Health, Department
for Education and Employment, Home Office, 2000) was created in
response to this demand. It consists of a framework that aims to
understand the complex situations in which children in need of
services evolve within their own families. It combines the developmental needs of children, as defined by the LAC approach, the parental
skills required to meet these needs, and the family and environmental
conditions in which children and their families live. Children referred
to social services are assessed using measurement tools derived from
this framework, including the Referral and Initial Information (RII)
record, the Initial Assessment (IA) record, and the five Core
Assessment (CA) records (pre-birth to 12 months, 1–2 years, 3–
4 years, 5–10 years, 11–15 years, 16 years and over) (United Kingdom. Department of Health, 2000a). Government guidelines stipulate
that local authorities have 1 working day to respond to a demand for
services. The applicant, the biological, and the child, depending on the
case, must be informed of the decision and its reasons. A maximum of
7 working days is allowed to complete an IA and 35 working days to
complete a CA.
2.3. Inter-organisational collaboration
In the reorganisation of services provided for vulnerable children,
the partnership between the social service departments and the other
stakeholders (individuals or organisations) is called upon at all times.
On the one hand, parents and children are increasingly solicited to
participate throughout the entire process of social service provision,
and on the other hand, the collaboration of organisations from other
sectors of intervention is sought in the delivery of these services. The
legal framework for such inter-organisational partnership has evolved
from the possibility of the local social service departments to request
assistance from other persons or authorities (in the field of education,
housing, or health) in applying specific measures of the Children Act
1989, to the obligation of these various instances to cooperate with
one another in the Children Act 2004. In other words, coordinated
delivery of services has evolved into integrated delivery of services.
A succession of policies and programmes has marked and
supported the implementation of collaborative work over the last
20 years, the major components of which are outlined in Table 1.
Among these, the Integrated Children System (ICS) was created in
2000 to combine the FACNF and the LAC system. The ICS sets out what
information is to be collected when working with children in need,
including those looked after away from home, children for whom the
plan is adoption, and care leavers. The practitioners are able to enter
this information directly into a computerised system with software
and visual displays designed to assist them in the organisation of the
material. This approach to work with children and their families
reflects: 1) a coherent process, 2) use of the dimensions in the FACNF
throughout the process, 3) a common language for all professionals
working with children and families irrespective of their service area,
and 4) development of a single data entry system. The ICS is
formalised in the white paper, “Every Child Matters” (Her Majesty's
Government, 2004), another component of Table 1.
The Every Child Matters (Her Majesty's Government, 2004)
programme, in addition to implementing the ICS, concretises the
931
Children Act 2004. It establishes a wide range of strategies that
ensure that all sectors involved in working with children assess the
needs of all children, that they develop and implement appropriate
interventions together, and that they cooperate in conducting
necessary reviews. Child welfare services that are both universal
and integrated represent the two main components of this
programme, ensuring that children receive the care of all professionals. These components are supported respectively by two
innovations. First, the Common Assessment Framework (CAF;
United Kingdom. Department for Education and Skills, 2006), is
design to identify, at the earliest opportunity, a child's or young
person's additional needs that are not being met by the universal
services they are receiving, and to provide timely and coordinated
support to meet those needs. It is modelled on the FACNF and is used
by professionals in education, health, justice, police, and social
services to determine the level of the additional needs of children
who receive universal services. The second innovation consists of a
model that enhances cooperation between professionals on four
levels: integrated front-line services, integrated processes, integrated strategies, and inter-organisational governance.
2.4. Comprehension and intervention model for children referred to
social services
Use of the FACNF and the CAF requires collaboration between
professionals from various agencies and even from different sectors of
intervention. Working together, these professional are able to share
their analyses of the realities in which children in difficulty and their
families live; plan and implement interventions; and monitor the
status of these children. To do so, professionals must consider three
dimensions of a child's welfare simultaneously: 1) the child's
developmental needs; 2) the parenting capacity to meet them; and
3) the family and environmental factors likely to influence how these
needs are met (Fig. 1). Each dimension includes specific categories.
The FACNF and its underlying principles are based upon evidence
from several areas of research (United Kingdom, Department of
Health, 2000c, United Kingdom. Department of Health, 2001). Studies
have revealed not only the contribution of parental behaviour toward
children's welfare, but also the importance of family and environmental factors in children's lives. As well, an in-depth study of the
categories and principles of the FACNF has indicated that, in addition
to reflecting the 41 articles of Part I of the CRC, the framework gives
greater attention to the contribution of family and environmental
conditions toward the welfare of children (Léveillé et al., 2009). An
implementation study of 24 regions of England has also revealed
interesting results (Cleaver, Walker, & Meadows, 2004).
The following sections deal specifically with this model.
3. International dissemination of the FACNF
Over 15 countries have adopted the FACNF model. Table 2 presents
these countries, the name used for the model in each country, and the
extent of the model's implementation for each country. In some
countries, although the model has not yet been implemented, legal or
strategic measures have already been put into place. We can see from
the table that most of the countries having adopted the model are
from the European Union. The Daphne Programme (2000–2007)
(European Commission, 2000) a four-year multiannual program of
community action on preventive measures to fight violence against
children, young people, and women, grew out of the Daphne
Initiative, which ran from 1997 to 1999 on an annual basis. The
Initiative arose as part of the European Commission's response to
growing concern about violence aimed against children, young
people, and women in Europe.
932
S. Léveillé, C. Chamberland / Children and Youth Services Review 32 (2010) 929–944
Table 1
Major policies and programmes regarding child services.
Name
Description
Quality Protects Programme (1998)
The Quality Protects Programme (United Kingdom, Department of Health, 1998) is a government programme launched in 1998
to modernise the management and delivery of children's social services. It was a key part of the government's wider strategy to
tackle social exclusion and focused on working with some of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable children: children looked
after by local authorities, children in the child protection system, and disabled children. The Quality Protects Programme
established eight main objectives, each with a number of sub-objectives, which all social services departments were required to
demonstrate that they were achieving. It needs the active commitment of all parts of local government that have an impact on
children. This includes services, which in areas with two tier structures are the responsibility of district councils such as housing,
leisure, culture, and sport. There needs to be effective joint working between the councils to address the needs of these
vulnerable children and young people who are at risk of social exclusion.
Working Together to Safeguard Children This document (United Kingdom, Department of Health, Home Office, Department for Education and Employment, 1999) sets
(1999)
out how all agencies and professionals should work together to promote children's welfare and protect them from abuse and
neglect. It is addressed to those who work in the health and education services, the police, social services, the probation service,
and others whose work brings them into contact with children and families. It sets out the role and responsibilities of different
agencies and practitioners and outlines the way in which joint working arrangements should be agreed, implemented and
reviewed through the mechanism of Area Child Protection Committees.
The government's objectives for children's This paper (United Kingdom, Department of Health, 1999) brings together the national objectives that were first announced in
social services (1999)
the Quality Protects Programme and were included and expanded in the Modernising Social Services White Paper of 1998, with
the addition of some sub-objectives. It aims to increase effectiveness in children's social services, and states that these should be
monitored by performance indicators.
Integrated Children's System (ICS; 2000)
In 2000, the British government announced that the situation of all looked after children would be assessed using the Core
Assessment (CA) record to establish the most appropriate care and placement plans. The FACNF and its derived tools are
henceforth integrated into the measuring instruments of the Looking After Children (LAC) system to form the Integrated
Children's System (ICS). It is based on the FACNF model from the moment children in need (of services or protection) enter care
until they leave. It supports professionals in their tasks of evaluating, planning interventions, implementing measures, and
revising. The FACNF has become the underlying model for the system serving all children “in need.” (United Kingdom,
Department of Health, 2000b)
Every Child Matters (2004)
Improving the welfare of children is driven by an analysis of local priorities, and is secured through a more integrated system of
frontline delivery, processes, strategy, and governance. The sharing of information about children who receive other than
universal care constitutes the main infrastructure of this programme. This is reflected by the computerisation of all existing
child support and protection systems. Thus, professionals can assess the needs of children they are concerned about using the
Common Assessment Framework (CAF). Should the situation of the child be brought to the attention of the local social services
departments, and should the latter wish to pursue the case, an FACNF assessment must be performed. Today, child support and
protection services are now integrated within a common interpretive and action model outlined by the FACNF. The ICS is also
now functional within this programme. (Her Majesty's Government, 2004)
4. Adaptation of the model by each country
Each country has adapted the model according to its own sociopolitical context. In general terms, the triangle is a graphical
representation of the model. Areas and categories may change from
one country to another but refer to the same concepts. Differences are
mainly due to the creation of new categories corresponding to areas of
child welfare already included in the original model. For example, in
Scotland, in regard to family and environmental factors, “school” is a
separate category from “local resources,” while the addition of the
categories “domestic violence,” “health/disability,” “drug addiction,”
and “legal issues” is specific to Australia.
5. Meta-evaluation
The implementation experiences and effects of the British
framework was evaluated given that the model corresponds to
CRC standards, its implementation in England and Wales has yielded
Fig. 1. Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and Their Families.
S. Léveillé, C. Chamberland / Children and Youth Services Review 32 (2010) 929–944
interesting initial results, and that it has international reach. An
“evaluation of evaluation studies” regarding the model's implementation and impact on professional practices, parenting practices,
and the living conditions, experiences, and ultimately, the development of children, was thus carried out in order to identify common
and specific empirical elements related to the model's effectiveness.
5.1. Method
A literature search was conducted in August 2008 in the electronic
databases of ERIC, Social Work Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts,
and PsycINFO. Fifty-six scholarly articles on the FACNF model were
found. In order to be selected for analysis, all documents were
required to meet the following two criteria: 1) relate to the British
frame of reference, and 2) include an empirical evaluation of its
implementation or effects. Based on these criteria, only 8 articles were
selected. Since this number is surprisingly small given the large
number of countries that have adopted the model, an Internet search
was undertaken to identify the “grey literature.” In conjunction with
the above selection criteria, this resulted in 46 documents that were
retained for analysis. These are in addition to the 8 articles found in
the previous step, giving a total of 54 source documents to be
reviewed.
A preliminary reading of the material revealed that these
documents actually covered 36 separate evaluation studies. For
example, the same study could be described by a conference paper,
report on research, scholarly article, and book. Of the 54 documents, 4
were removed because they were duplicates. In the end, 50
documents were retained for the meta-evaluation. An asterisk in the
References section of this article identifies these.
Almost two-thirds (64%) of these documents are from the
grey literature, that is, they were created outside commercial
publishing and distribution channels and therefore bypass bibliographic control devices (De Carvalho, 2001). In our case, this
specifically refers to any source not identified with an ISBN code
(International Standard Book Number). Table 3 presents a summary
of the documents used for the meta-evaluation. From this summary,
we can derive that conference papers, abstracts, reports on research,
and conference proceedings make up the grey literature of the
sample. However, 3 of the 9 reports on research were found using
bibliographic indexes. These were subsequently added to the 13
scholarly articles and 2 books found by traditional means to make up
the formal literature. Conference papers, scholarly articles, and
research abstracts represent the largest proportions of the collected
source documents.
Table 3 also shows that the 36 studies examine the implementation experiences of six countries, involving four nation states: United
Kingdom (England, Wales, and Scotland, the latter having joined the
two initiating countries of the framework), Ireland, Sweden, and
Australia. The table shows, as well, that over 60% (61.1%) of the
studies evaluate the model's implementation or impact in the two
initiating UK countries.
Table 4, for its part, shows that 40% of the documents selected
for analysis evaluate the framework as implemented in the ICS.
This indicates that the documents deal with samples of children
referred to social service departments, that is, Children in Need (of
support, protection, and care). It also indicates that data related to the
integration of services for children in difficulty is computerised.
Furthermore, the application of the framework in over a third (34.0%)
of the documents involves samples of children and families living in a
variety of situations. Finally, in over a quarter of the studies (26.0%;
22.0% + 4.0%), the framework is applied by professionals in other
sectors of intervention and social services.
In addition, the quality of the studies was estimated. The metaevaluation was limited to the categories of documents most likely to
provide the requisite information. This applied to scholarly articles,
933
research reports, books, and conference proceedings, which comprise half of the material collected. Quality and scientific rigour of the
25 source documents were judged by two evaluators using the
following instruments: the Quality and Rigour in Qualitative Research
Form (QR2; Saini, 2006) for qualitative studies; the Quantitative
Research Assessment Tool (QRAT; Child Care and Early Education
Research Connections, 2004) for quantitative studies. Table 4 also
shows the distribution of source documents according to the country
of origin.
The 2006 version of the QR2 is a 25-point quality appraisal
tool to evaluate rigour, credibility, dependability, confirmability,
transferability, and relevance of qualitative studies. Its questions
measure nine dimensions: theoretical framework, study setting,
study design, sampling procedures, data collection, ethical issues,
reflexivity of the researcher, data analysis, and reporting of the
findings. The instrument provides for an additional 4-point scale to
appraise authenticity, fairness, and promotion of justice when the
central purpose is to empower participants through participant
action research. The scoring of QR2-2006 consists of appraising
each quality point based on whether this quality category was
sufficiently addressed according to the criteria outlined in the user
guide. Scores in each category are “yes,” “no,” or “uncertain.”
Percentage scores were obtained by counting the total number of
“yes” and dividing this value by the total number of categories (25
or 29 as the case may be) and then multiplying by 100. A newer,
modified version of the QR2 was the subject of a pilot study that
indicated satisfactory inter-judge fidelity for most dimensions (Saini,
2007).
As for the QRAT, an assessment tool that helps the users to evaluate
the merit of the quantitative research studies. It is based on 11 items
that assess 3 common dimensions of the scientific papers: population
and sample, measurement, and analysis. The assessment tool provides
guidelines regarding two issues: 1) information that should be
included in the study reports, and 2) standards for good research.
Possible scores for each series of questions are 1, 0, −1, and NA. The
method of scoring is as follows:
• Predominantly 1: the study is of good quality;
• Mostly 0: the study is of average quality; and
• Predominantly −1: the study is of poor quality.
All documents were then imported into the Nvivo 8 software
for qualitative data analysis. This step preceded content analysis,
which was carried out according to a systematic procedure developed
by L'Écuyer (1985, 1987, 1990): 1) preliminary reading and compilation of a list of statements; 2) selection and definition of units
of classification; 3) process of categorisation and classification;
4) quantification and statistical treatment; 5) scientific description
including quantitative and qualitative analyses; and 6) interpretation of results. The last three steps involve data analysis as such,
while the first three steps deal with the necessary operations
leading to the data analysis. The documents were therefore read
twice in order to obtain an overview of the content. Coding grids
were then produced using a mixed model, that is, some of the
categories were predetermined, while others were deduced from
the material. The predetermined categories were based on the
results of an implementation and impact assessment of the AIDES
initiative (Intersectoral Action for Child Development and Welfare;
Chamberland et al., 2008). Sixty themes were thus obtained. Coding
was carried out by the first author of this article. Both authors carried
out validation.
5.2. Results
Before presenting the results of the meta-evaluation, the next
section provides a macro-systemic view of the six countries for which
the implementation and impact of the target model were subjects of
934
Table 2
Nomenclature of countries having adopted the target model and the extent of the model's implementation for each countrya.
Country/region
Name and description
Trial
Extent of implementation
4b
United Kingdom
England
Wales
Scotland
Northern Ireland
Australia
Victoria
New South Wales
Sweden
Ireland
Ukraine
Canada
Prince Edward Island
Alberta
Québec
New Zealand
France
Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families
(United Kingdom, Department of Health, 2000a), Integrated
Children's System (ICS), CAF
Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families
(National Assembly for Wales and Home Office, 2001), ICS, CAF
Integrated Assessment, Planning and Recording Framework (IAF;
Scotland. Scottish Executive, 2005)
Understanding the Needs of Children in Northern Ireland (UNOCINI)
Assessment Framework (Northern Ireland, Department of Health,
Social Services and Public Safety, 2007), Integrated Children Services
Australia. Department of Families, Housing, Community Services
and Indigenous Affairs (2009)
Children in Need Assessment Framework (Wise, 2001)
FIRST (Child and Family Information, Referral, and Support Teams)
(Victoria Department of Human Services, 2006)
Supporting Children And Responding to Families
(SCARF; Fernandez, 2002; (http://www.scarf.org.au/index.html)
Barns behov i centrum (BBIC) (Children's Needs in Focus, 1999)
(Bergman, 2007) is an adaptation of the ICS.
Framework for the Assessment of Vulnerable Children and Their
Families (Buckley, Horwath, & Whelan, 2006)
Integrated Social Services for Exposed Families and Children
(2005; Every Child Ukraine, 2006)
Child Protection Act 2003: Assessing children's needs according
to the FACNF is mandatory by law.
Children's Services in the Family Enhancement and Protective
Services (Canada, Government of Alberta, Calgary and Area Child and
Family Services Authority, 2005a,b)
Case Practice Model (Canada, Government of Alberta, Department of
Children's Services, 2006)
AIDES Initiative (Action intersectorielle pour le développement des
enfants et leur sécurité) (Chamberland, Lessard, & Lacharité, 2008)
is an adaptation of the FACNF.
Te Ara Tukutuku Nga Whanaungatanga o Nga Tamariki: Weaving
Pathways To Wellbeing — An Integrated Framework For Children And
Their Families (New Zealand, Office of the Commissioner, 2006)
Act of March 5 2007, Child Protection
La cellule départementale de recueil, de traitement et d'évaluation
(France, Ministère de la Santé et des Solidarités, 2008)
Implemented
3c
2d
1e
4
3
2
1999–2000
1999
2004
2001
2006
2000
2000
2004
2001
2006
–
2002
2003
2005–2008
2006–
2009
–
2006–2010
–
2009–2020
–
2000–2001
2002
–
2000–2003
2003–2008
2008
2001–2006
2006
–
2001–2004
–
–
2005–2007
2007
–
2003–2004
–
2005
2006
2007–2011
–
–
–
1
2008–2010
–
–
–
2007–2009
–
–
2008
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
2007–2011
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
2008–2011
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
2007
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
S. Léveillé, C. Chamberland / Children and Youth Services Review 32 (2010) 929–944
Projected
Table 2
Haute-Savoie
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hungary
Romania
Czech Republic
Russia
a
b
c
d
e
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
2007
–
2001
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
2007
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
2008
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Although the LAC model is the predecessor of the FACNF and is implemented in several countries, Table 3 reflects only those countries that use the FACNF (three dimensions of child welfare) among looked after children.
Looked After Children.
Children in Need of Protection.
Children in Need of Support.
Children with no identified additional needs.
S. Léveillé, C. Chamberland / Children and Youth Services Review 32 (2010) 929–944
Norway
Poland
Reliances programme (France, Observatoire de l'enfance en
danger — ONED, 2008; L'Houssni, 2008)
Digitalisering — Udsatte Børn og Unge (Digitization —
Vulnerable Children and Young) (DUBU) system
(Denmark Department of Interior
and Social Affairs, 2007) is an adaptation of the ICS.
Child Welfare Act 417 2007. Assessing children's needs according to
the FACNF is mandatory by law.
The new child welfare in Finland (Sinko, 2008)
De-institutionalising and Transforming Children's Service: A Guide to
Good Practice (European Commission
Daphne Programme,
Directorate-General Justice and Home Affairs, 2007). This report recommends an eventual adaptation
of the FACNF for
children placed in orphanages.
De-institutionalising and
Transforming Children's Services: A Guide to Good Practice (European Commission Daphne Programme,
Directorate-General Justice and Home Affairs, 2007). This report recommends an eventual adaptation
of the FACNF for children
placed in orphanages.
Looking After Children, version of Integrated Children's System (2007; Herzog, 2009)
De-institutionalising and Transforming Children's Services: A Guide to Good Practice (European Commission
Daphne Programme,
Directorate-General Justice and Home Affairs, 2007). This report recommends an eventual adaptation of
the FACNF for
children placed in orphanages.
De-institutionalising and Transforming Children's Services: A Guide to Good Practice (European Commission
Daphne Programme, Directorate-General Justice and Home Affairs, 2007). This report recommends an
eventual adaptation of the FACNF for children placed in orphanages.
De-institutionalising and Transforming Children's Services: A Guide to Good Practice (European Commission
Daphne Programme, Directorate-General Justice and Home Affairs, 2007). This report recommends an
eventual adaptation of the FACNF for children placed in orphanages.
Ternovskaya (2008a, 2008b)
935
936
S. Léveillé, C. Chamberland / Children and Youth Services Review 32 (2010) 929–944
Table 3
Description of source documents.
UK
Number of sources
Conference papers
Scholarly articles
Abstracts
Reports
Books
Conference proceedings
Number of sources based on qualitative evaluations
Qualitative evaluations
Quantitative evaluations
Number of studies covered
ENG
WAL
ENG and WAL
SCT
Total
21
5
7
5
3
1
–
11
11
1
17
1
–
1
–
–
–
–
1
1
1
1
9
4
2
2
–
1
–
3
3
2
4
5
–
–
–
5
–
–
5
5
–
5
36
9
10
7
8
2
–
20
20
4
27
the evaluation studies. In Table 5, it is clear that the LAC system is
established in all the six countries. This is not surprising, since the LAC
approach is the basis of the framework. The likelihood of subscribing
to the target model is perhaps higher when its underlying principles
are already embedded in the practice setting. In addition, Table 5
shows that the implementation of the model requires legislative,
political, and administrative support. With the exception of Australia,
where child protection intervention is undertaken by the State
Department while family support and early intervention services
are delivered by non government agencies, the other countries
provide all services for children in need through local government
authorities.
5.2.1. Meta-method
All sources assessed for scientific quality (N = 25) presented
qualitative analyses. The mean score for the scientific rigour of all
the studies was 51.5% (SD = 17,37), which corresponds to the average
quality. Nearly a third of the studies (N = 8) also presented
quantitative analyses. Of these, one study presented a semiexperimental analysis and two others presented pre- and postimplementation analyses without control groups. These three documents were considered to be of good quality by the two judges, while
two other quantitative analyses were considered average, and three
others to be of low quality. Finally, seven qualitative studies presented
their results using frequencies and rates of occurrence of the themes
revealed.
5.2.2. Meta-results
Results of the evaluation studies analysed were grouped into two
broad thematic categories: 1) implementation results of the target
model; and 2) impact results of the model. The first group refers to
factors that facilitated the model's implementation, to factors that
were barriers to its implementation, and to the effects of the
IE
SE
AU
Total
5
3
2
–
–
–
–
2
2
2
2
5
1
–
3
–
–
1
2
2
2
3
4
2
1
–
1
–
–
1
1
–
4
50
15
13
10
9
2
1
25
25
8
36
implementation on the services provided for children and their
families. The second group refers to the effects of applying the model
on children and their parents.
The themes in this section are presented twofold. First, brief
overviews of the themes are given according to the countries that
have adopted the framework. Second, the number of studies that deal
with these themes are given and arranged in the descending order of
number.
5.2.2.1. Implementation results. Nearly all the studies reviewed (94.4%)
included implementation results for the British framework. Implementation results are divided into three parts: 1) facilitators and
barriers to target model implementation; 2) positive effects of target
model implementation on services; and 3) negative effects of target
model implementation on services.
5.2.2.1.1. Facilitators and barriers to target model implementation.
Table 6 reveals that a larger number of studies dealt with barriers to
implementation (72.2%) than with the facilitators (58.9%). Among the
facilitating factors, leadership and the presence of prior or concurrent
inter-organisational arrangements were especially significant for the
successful implementation. Indeed, these two factors were involved in
the experiences of all countries that adopted the model. Leadership
was cited in 81.0% (17/21) of the studies dealing with facilitating
factors. This involved the management of the implementation
activities by inter-professional persons or entities. The multi-systemic
nature of the groups overseeing the implementation seemed to be an
asset. In other words, the commitment of organisational, local,
regional, and national representatives was a catalyst for the model's
implementation. Also conducive to the implementation were a
lengthy history of inter-organisational collaboration, preparation,
and signing of license agreements between organisations, and
production and availability of a directory of services for children
and their families in the local communities.
Table 4
Subjects and populations studied in the source documents.
Object of study
Population studied
Number of sources (%)
(N = 50)
ICS or its adaptation
FACNF or its adaptation
CAF
FACNF and CAF
Children
Children
Children
Children
Children
Children
Children
Children
Children
Children
in Need
in Need
exposed to domestic violence or parental substance misuse
with parental learning disability
with complex needs
in need of protection
physically abused
referred to Social Services
with complex needs
with complex needs
20
12
1
1
1
1
1
7
3
2
20 (40.0)
17 (34.0)
11 (22.0)
2 (4.0)
S. Léveillé, C. Chamberland / Children and Youth Services Review 32 (2010) 929–944
In addition to these factors, three other conditions seemed
essential for the successful implementation of the model: professional
training, clarity of the process, and the establishment of other
administrative arrangements. These conditions were observed in
five of the six countries studied. In 71.4% (15/21) of the studies in
which the importance of professional training was mentioned with
regard to the introduction of the British model, the emphasis was
placed on the flexibility and diversity of the training methods. Clarity
of the implementation process was a factor for 52.3% (11/21) of the
studies. This meant providing stakeholders with clearly written
descriptions and explanations of what was expected of them. Other
administrative arrangements contributing notably to the model's
smooth implementation were organisations that freed up their
professional staff for the preparation of meetings, harmonised their
work structure to accommodate the change, and did not completely
abandon their traditional ways of working but consolidated their
knowledge with that corresponding to or complementing the new
model. Finally, four other elements contributing positively to the
implementation process were, in descending order: a sense of
ownership of the model, sufficient time for the model's implementation, adequate technical support (especially for the ICS), and the
opportunity to reflect on the implementation process.
While clarity of planning for the model's implementation was
highly desirable, the opposite was also true. Indeed, confusion,
especially, about the roles of the various actors, impeded the model's
smooth implementation. It emerges from the experiences of all the
countries having adopted the framework that nearly 60.0% (57.7%; 15/
26) of the studies dealt with barriers. A variety of administrative
factors such as staff turnover, restructuring, and the mandate
constraints of certain organisations were also recognised as a type of
barrier frequently cited by the six countries and the studies reviewed
(57.7%; 15/26). Although cognitive biases of stakeholders represented
the most frequently reported negative factors (73.1%, 19/26), these
were distributed among five of the six trial countries. Cognitive biases
include resistance to change, concerns about confidentiality and
obtaining informed consent from families, and misperceptions about
social work. Another issue related to the inadequate introduction of
the target model was insufficient knowledge—for example, lack of
training or competence with regard to the model, or the inherent
technical difficulties of the ICS or its equivalent.
5.2.2.1.2. Positive effects of target model implementation on services.
To begin with, the positive effects of the framework's introduction on
services was noted in the vast majority of the studies examined
(88.9%), and for all countries. As shown in Table 7, improvements
were seen primarily in terms of specific practices related to child
welfare (88.0%; 28/32), but also with regard to case management
(53.5%, 15/28). All six countries and 18 studies reported that after the
model was introduced into the practice setting, there was greater
collaboration, not only between professionals and organisations, but
also with families. It was also noted that the adoption of the model led
to more child-centred practices. A number of studies (15), citing
variously the experiences of the six target countries, referred to
nonspecific positive implementation results. Adopting the British
framework leads to a more holistic view of situations encountered in
the practice setting, allowing stakeholders to reflect on their own
practices and to formulate interventions that are based on evidence
rather than intuition, and built around the strengths and weaknesses
of users.
Among the most often cited positive effects related to case
management, two-thirds of the studies mentioned clarity (66.6%,
10/15) and structure (53.3%, 8/15) of the model in terms of
professional practices. These themes are present for all six countries.
It is furthermore recognised that the framework allows professionals
to compile information of high quality, to standardise practices in
various settings, and to evaluate the performance of the relevant
authorities.
937
5.2.2.1.3. Negative effects of target model implementation on
services. Negative effects of target model implementation on services
were also empirically observed. As shown in Table 8, this was
demonstrated by two thirds of the studies reviewed (66.7%).
However, contrary to the model's positive effects on services, its
negative effects had more to do with poor case management than
with poor practice that was specifically related to the model (21
studies compared to 14). Specifically, the increased workload caused
by the target model's implementation was cited as the most
undesirable effect. Close examination of this theme shows that it
was the use of tools derived from the framework (IA and CA), rather
than the model itself, that increased the workload of professionals.
Moreover, the deadlines recommended by the various countries for
completing the forms were rarely observed. Furthermore, while
collaboration was a major positive effect observed empirically
(Table 8), it was also one of the main negative effects (78.6%; 11/
14). Analysis of this theme reveals that unsatisfactory participation of
users, and not poor inter-organisational collaboration, was especially
an issue here. The level of user participation was observed, in fact, as
being below expectations; it was not a question of it having
deteriorated. The same is true for the two other negative effects
observed (practices that are little evidence-based or little childcentred), resulting in interventions whose impact either fell below
expectations or remained unchanged.
5.2.2.1.4. Other effects of target model implementation on services.
Other implementation results that were identified concern the effects
of the model's adoption on the various stages of children's and their
families' trajectories in the provision of services. Recall that the
framework is designed to improve: 1) situation assessment, 2)
intervention planning, 3) intervention application, and 4) situation
review. Analysis reveals that in 63.9% of the studies examined
(Table 9), one or another stage of service was specified. Of these,
the most frequently studied stage was the practice of situation
assessment (87.0%; 20/23). The majority of the studies focused on the
tools derived from the framework, including the RII record, the IA
record, and the CA record, which are used for assessing the situations
of children and their families. Intervention planning was treated in
60.9% (14/23) of the studies that addressed the stages of service.
Intervention application and situation review were seldom treated
(N = 5 and 4, respectively). Table 9 shows that among the studies
focusing on implementation results with regard to the phases of
service most pertain primarily to England and Wales, no doubt due to
the model's earlier introduction in these countries. In the case of
Sweden, analyses of family situations were not especially reported,
because studies regarding the model's implementation in that country
focussed primarily on children in care.
Further analysis of results concerning the situation assessment
stage indicates an overall decrease in the number of social service
referrals. Moreover, these referrals are primarily made by health
professionals, and more than two-thirds are followed up by measures
other than those related to protection. This data suggests that
professionals carry out better situation assessments of children and
their families and that the latter receive services that are better suited
to their needs than before. However, the data shows that cases referred
for reasons of protection or whose needs are considered complex are,
for the most part, not followed up by specialised services. As well, it
seems that in some localities, situation assessments were more
descriptive than interpretative, thus limiting the scope and planning
of interventions. In other jurisdictions, however, use of the model led
to a better relation between assessment and planning, thereby
ensuring that the objectives were well defined and that interventions
with children and their families were better targeted.
The studies were concerned about the manner in which cases, or
more precisely, the tools derived from the British framework, were
completed throughout the various stages of service. The studies listed
what information was present or absent in the forms for each category
938
S. Léveillé, C. Chamberland / Children and Youth Services Review 32 (2010) 929–944
Table 5
Legislative and social contexts of target model implementation in countries for which evaluation studies of the model were examined.
United Kingdom
Year of first test
implementation
of the framework
Name of the model
or system
of child support
and protection
Year of adoption of
the LAC system at
the national level
Acts dealing with child
welfare and protection
Sweden
Australia
2005
2006
2001
2000
Integrated
Assessment, Planning
and Recording
Framework (IAF)
1999
Framework for the
Assessment of
Vulnerable Children
and Their Families
2001
Barns behov i
centrum (BBIC)
(Children's
Needs in Focus)
1997
Supporting
Children And
Responding to
Families (SCARF)
1996
• Child Care
Ammendment
Bill (2008)
• Children Act (2001)
• Social
Services Act
(2001, 1982)
• The Care of
Young Persons
Act (1990)
• Children, Youth
and Families
(Victoria) Act 2005
(implemented
on 23 April 2007)
Wales
Scotland
1999
2001
Framework for the
Assessment of
Children in Need
and their Families
1995
Framework for the
Assessment of Children
in Need and their Families
1995
• Children Act 1989
• Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000
• Adoption and Children Act 2002
• Children Act 2004
• Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006
• Health and Social
Care Act 2008
• Adoption and
Children (Scotland)
Act 2007
• Protection of
Vulnerable Groups
(Scotland) Act 2007
• Children's Services
Bill 2007 (Collected
Proposed Amendments
to Children Act 1995)
• Joint Inspection of
Children's Services
and Inspection of
Social Work Services
(Scotland) Act 2006
• Protection of Children
and Prevention of
Sexual Offences
(Scotland) Act 2005
• Children and
Young Persons
Act 2008
• Children and
Adoption Act 2006
Government policies
and strategies for
the welfare and
protection of children
Ireland
England
• Quality Protects
Programme (1998)
• Working together
to safeguard
children (1999)
• Integrated
Children's
System
(ICS; 2000)
• Every Child
Matters (2004)
• Towards a Stable Life
and a Brighter Future'
in June 2007
• Childcare Strategy
for Wales (2005)
• Strategic Framework:
“Choice and Stability” —
Developing a range of
quality placements for
looked after children
and young people
in Wales
• Children and Young
People : A Framework
for Partnership (2002)
• Integrated Children's
System (ICS; 2002–2009)
• Wales: A Better
Country (2003)
• National Domestic
Abuse Delivery Plan
for Children and
Young People (2008)
• Getting it right for
every child in foster
care and kinship
care — a National
Strategy (2007)
• Getting it Right for
Every Child (GIRFEC,
2004)
• It is everyone's job
to make sure I am
alright (2002)
• For Scotland's
children: Better
integrated children's
services (2001)
• Children First:
National Guidelines
for the Protection and
Welfare of
Children (1999)
• Our Duty to Care :
the principles of
good practice
for the protection of
children and young
people (2002)
• The agenda for
children services :
A policy
handbook (2007)
• National Standards
for children 's
residential Care
• Youth
Homelessness
strategy (2001)
• Foster care: A childcentred partnership
• National Standards
for foster Care
• Sweden's
strategy
report for
social
inclusion
2006–2008
(2006)
• Protecting
Children
is Everyone's
Business:
National
Framework for
Protecting
Australia's
Children 2009–
2020 (2009)
• Every Child,
Every Chance: A
good childhood
is in everyone's
best interests
(2006) (VICTORIA)
Department of Health
and Community Care
Local Authorities Social
Departments: county
councils
Department of
Health and
Children, Child
Welfare and
Protection Policy
Unit
HSE Local
Health Office
Ministry of
Health and
Social Affairs
Local
authorities:
municipalities
National
Board of
Health and
Welfare
Department of
Families, Housing,
Community
Services and
Indigenous Affairs
Protection services
are provided by
community
organisations
• Children and Young
People: Rights to Action
(2004)
Service Structure
Organisation of
services
Department for
Children,
Schools and Families
Local Authorities
Social
Departments:
county councils
Local safeguarding
children boards
• Working together to
Safeguard Children (2000)
• Child First (2000)
Department for Health
and Social Services
Local Authorities Social
Departments: county
councils
Child Protection
Committees
• Adoption Act 2006
S. Léveillé, C. Chamberland / Children and Youth Services Review 32 (2010) 929–944
939
Table 6
Facilitators and barriers to target model implementation.
of the framework's three dimensions and according to the collaboration of the parents and children in the delivery of services. Overall,
the results show that information pertaining to the cases was poorly
compiled and that a meaningful analysis of situations was difficult
(some aspects were documented at the expense of others, interventions were poorly interpreted, and the views of children and parents
were seldom included). On the other hand, much detail was given to
intervention planning, which indicates that professionals had identified clear objectives to better target their interventions with children
and their families. However, results for the only quasi-experimental
study to evaluate the target model show a decrease in the number of
missing data with regard to the basic background referral information
and an increase in the amount of information related to the health and
education needs of children after, than prior to, the CAF implementation. The study also reveals a greater increase in the amount of data
collected in connection with the family and environmental factors and
the ability of parents to meet their children's needs.
5.2.2.2. Impact results. Three categories of impact results were coded in
this study: 1) proximal results (e.g., participation experiences of
children and parents); 2) intermediate results, such as those related to
two of the three dimensions of the framework (parenting practices
Table 7
Positive effects of target model implementation on services.
and, family and environmental conditions) or to the developmental
experiences of children; and 3) the final results, that is, any changes in
the children's developmental needs, functioning, or welfare
(Table 10). In total, 38.9% (N = 14) of the 36 studies reviewed included
an impact assessment of the British framework. All these studies
focused on proximal results, in other words, on the experiences of
children and parents involved in the provision of services intended for
them. The participation experiences of both children and parents were
mixed. Parents expressed their satisfaction with participating actively
in intervention assessment and planning. Parents expressed dissatisfaction when the IA or CA records were used as questionnaires rather
than clinical tools. Many parents appreciated the transparency of the
process and the openness and trust they developed with the
professionals. Others mentioned, however, that their power was
limited and that, even though they felt listened to and consulted by the
professionals, the intervention plan did not reflect their points of view.
On the other hand, parents felt included in the decision-making
process and even declared having considerable influence. Parents with
disabilities were more satisfied with participating in the intervention
assessment and planning than were the other parents.
Eight of the studies (57.1%) addressed the experiences of children,
while reporting the testimonials of the adolescents more than those of
940
S. Léveillé, C. Chamberland / Children and Youth Services Review 32 (2010) 929–944
Table 8
Negative effects of target model implementation on services.
the younger children. Available data focused on the point of view of
children in care. Some users felt well prepared for the review
conference, while others had concerns. Many users said they felt
listened to and consulted; others even reported having approved the
revised plan. However, most young people had doubts about the
plan's execution. Some felt uncomfortable about talking to several
people at once or about discussing their private lives.
Finally, intermediate and final results were assessed by a single
study dealing with the children of parents with learning disabilities. Follow-up results for children and their families during
situation reviews indicate that the difficulties identified at intake
with regard to parenting abilities and environmental factors
persisted after intervention in most cases. The same pattern was
observed for the final impact results. In other words, the
developmental needs of the children, evaluated at the baseline
remain unchanged at re-evaluation.
6. Discussion and conclusion
The purpose of this article was to complete a meta-evaluation of
experiences related to the British model of services for children in
need in 15 countries, in order to identify avenues for improving the
services for vulnerable families and to make recommendations
accordingly.
The model under study was developed in 1999 (United Kingdom.
Department of Health, Home Office, Department for Education and
Employment, 1999) to overcome the limitations of traditional
practices of child protection, which are primarily focused on child
safety and risk management in a siloed manner (Cameron, Freymond,
& Roy, 2003; Léveillé & Bouchard, 2007a; Trocmé & Chamberland,
2003). The model's leitmotif is to improve the society's ability to
ensure the healthy development of children, for whom security is only
Table 9
Other effects of target model implementation on services.
one aspect. The framework, which is in line with the latest
international treaties regarding the rights of the child and the new
management of public services, lays the groundwork for collaboration
between professionals, organisations, and users around a common
and global vision of child welfare. It describes and provides an
accurate and detailed portrait of the developmental needs of all
children, the abilities of parents (or substitutes) to meet these needs,
and the family and environmental factors that influence responses to
these needs. It therefore refers to three systems (the child, the parent,
the family and the social environment), each consisting of several
dimensions and whose interdependence allows us to have a better
understanding of the situations of children; to draw a more precise
picture of the risk and protection factors in their lives; and in the end,
to identify the most appropriate services for their welfare and safety.
In ten years, this framework of analysis and intervention has been
implemented or is planned to be implemented in fifteen countries or
regions, in order to better serve, in particular, children with special
needs and children in care. For the majority of these countries, the
framework has been introduced only recently.
This perhaps explains, as indicated by the results of our metaevaluation, that little literature is available which deals with an
evaluation of this innovative framework, and that most of the
literature is “gray” and thus difficult to access. Conversely, the six
countries and regions for which literature concerning the evaluation
of the model is the most abundant are those that have adopted the
model for the longest period. England, Wales, and Scotland in the
United Kingdom, Australia (Victoria and New South Wales), Sweden,
and Ireland, represent such experimental settings. It is therefore
hardly surprising that most studies collected were those pertaining to
the experiences of England and Wales, since these were the initiating
countries of the FCANF. In addition, five of the six countries are
members of the European Union, which in 1996 established a
S. Léveillé, C. Chamberland / Children and Youth Services Review 32 (2010) 929–944
941
Table 10
Impact results of the target model on children and their families.
common perspective for safeguarding the interests of children
through the European Convention on the Exercise of Children's Rights
(Council of Europe, 1996). This treaty contains a number of procedural
steps for asserting the rights of European children and provides for a
Standing Committee to address issues raised by the Convention. The
treaty is also conceived to facilitate the implementation of the CRC, of
which the above countries and states are also signatories.
Moreover, the limited number of documents used for the metaevaluation, and the average quality of their scientific rigour, restricts the
interpretive scope of the results. Nevertheless, they provide benchmarks
for pursuing the reform movement with regard to protection and welfare
services for children in need. It is our hope that more evaluation research
will be published in scholarly journals, and that the quality of research
designs will improve in such a way as to produce systematic reviews that
adhere as closely as possible to the criteria of the Campbell Collaboration.
Evaluation of the AIDES initiative (Chamberland, Lessard, & Lacharité,
2008) currently underway in four sites in Québec has a strong analytical
framework from a scientific point of view. A quasi-experimental design
that incorporates measures of implementation and measures of proximal,
intermediate, and final results will help to assess its implementation and
effectiveness. It may be pertinent to systemize evaluations of the target
model by referring to the protocol of this research.
As well, in almost all the studies reviewed, the service model was
assayed using its originally derived tools. We must mention that, with
the exception of Ireland and Scotland that have greatly adapted and
simplified these instruments, both the model and its derived tools
were subjects of evaluation. Such clarification is needed in interpreting the results.
This article highlights the importance of developing and introducing structural and procedural mechanisms that support the implementation of the FACNF, and at all eco-systemic levels. At the macrosystemic level, analysis reveals that a whole series of laws, policies,
strategies, and government programs, at both the national and
regional level, as the case may be, contribute to the operationalisation
of the model. These instruments are integrated into existing
international platforms for children and family services. Likewise,
the meta-evaluation confirms the desirability of having organisational
arrangements that, at the local level, foster leadership, interorganisational collaboration, professional training, implementation
planning, ownership of the target model, allowance of time for
implementation and ownership of the target model, the use of
information technology and communication, and reflexion.
Promoting these elements would reduce the effects of their counterparts, such as confusion, cognitive biases, and faulty and uneven
knowledge among the local partners. Our findings about factors
facilitating or hindering local implementation of the FACNF are consistent
with other studies on collaboration in the area of child protection (Hamel,
Cousineau, Vézina, & Léveillé, 2006; Léveillé & Bouchard, 2007a; Léveillé
& Bouchard, 2007b; Léveillé, Chamberland, Trocmé, & Brown, submitted
for publication; Saini & Léveillé, submitted for publication). These
conditions are now included in a starter kit for social milieus wishing
to adopt the model. The chances of success of these milieus are increased
if support is received at the highest systemic levels.
Furthermore, the meta-evaluation reveals the benefits of the
model in terms of practice. Indeed, professionals who use the
framework ultimately make better assessments of the complex
situations they face, have a more holistic and child-centered point
of view, and consequently plan better interventions. The model
increases inter-professional and inter-organisational collaboration. It
also increases the participation of children and parents in the
provision for them of services, but to degrees below our expectations.
The FACNF also structures and clarifies the work of professionals, and
is most likely to contribute a better analysis of the situations even
before they are brought to their attention. On the other hand,
professionals do not consider all categories of the framework equally
and do not compile a sufficient amount of information for their case
files. The increased workload caused by the lengthiness of the CA
record and the latter's detailed nature are perhaps at the origin of
these shortcomings. The target model would certainly gain from a
condensed and improved version of the CA record.
Our research also reveals that few evaluative studies address the
model's impact on the welfare of children. For studies that do, the
experiences that children and especially parents have of this new
approach are mixed. Although most experiences were reported as
positive, some faltered, which may be more attributable to the
personal qualities of the professionals involved than to the model
itself. To this end, we must ensure that professionals are able to work
in organisations and localities that provide the fruitful conditions
mentioned above.
The meta-evaluation exposes the urgent need for incorporating
measurements of child development into evaluative research and
practice. It is now essential to know whether improvements in
professional practices noted in this meta-evaluation positively
influence the status of children. It is in this regard that accountability,
which characterizes the New Public Management of which the FACNF
is born, derives all its significance: What is being done for children and
their families and with what effect? The importance of results, of
using standardized tools, and of monitoring lies more in the quality
control of services than with that of the social work profession as
conceived, for example, by Garrett (2003). Everything depends on
how these resources are used and applied. The FACNF, the CA, and the
other tools that make them up must provide support for clinical
analysis, planning, intervention, and monitoring in order to promote
areas of user participation and inter-professional and organizational
collaboration. The establishment of such areas may help to reduce the
social inequalities that restrict vulnerable families. This approach and
these tools must above all strengthen the dialogue between parents
and professionals around the developmental needs of children.
This is the greatest challenge of transposing the FACNF internationally: join children, parents, professionals, managers, and policymakers
around a philosophy, values, and principles that transcend ideological
and organizational differences. The challenge consists in adapting the
942
S. Léveillé, C. Chamberland / Children and Youth Services Review 32 (2010) 929–944
FACNF to the legislative, political, administrative, and social mechanisms of each jurisdiction and country in order to mobilize stakeholders
around changes that aim at 1) a holistic analysis of children's welfare;
2) a common understanding of the human development of children
and adolescents; and 3) parental involvement oriented towards the
needs of their children and not according to the logic of reporting.
In summary, the FACNF is a tool for organising and delivering
services for young children in need. It requires the coordination of
multi-systemic conditions that presuppose, like other conclusive
programmes, that the quality of its effects is relative to the quality of
its implementation.
Role of the funding source
This study was conducted as part of the activities of the Centre of
Excellence for Child Welfare (CECW), which is one of the four Centers
of Excellence for Children's Well-Being funded by the Public Health
Agency of Canada.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Jeffrey Freedman for translating the
original French version of this article into English.
Appendix A. Studies included in the meta-evaluation
⁎Allen & McDonald, 2006
⁎Baynes, 2007
⁎Bergman, 2008
⁎Boddy et al., 2006a
⁎Boddy et al., 2006b
⁎Brandom et al., 2006a
⁎Brandon et al., 2006b
⁎Broadhurst et al., 2009
⁎Buckley, 2008a
⁎Buckley, 2008b
⁎Buckley, 2008c
⁎Cheers, 2007
⁎Cleaver, 2007
⁎Cleaver & Nicholson, 2007
⁎Cleaver & Rose, 2008, July
⁎Cleaver & Walker, 2004a
⁎Cleaver & Walker, 2004b
⁎Cleaver et al., 2006
⁎Cleaver et al., 2008a
⁎Cleaver et al., 2008b
⁎Cowieson et al., 2008
⁎Edebalk, 2006
⁎Fernandez & Romeo, 2003
⁎Fox, 2007
⁎Gray & Jones, 2006
⁎Horwath, 2007
⁎Lee & Fee, 2005
⁎Millar & Corby, 2006
⁎Mitchell & Sloper, 2008
⁎Mitchell & Sloper, 2008b, July
⁎Morgan et al., 2008
⁎O'Brien et al., 2006
⁎Pithouse, 2006
⁎Platt, 2006
⁎Scott & Walker, 2008, July
⁎Sweden, National Board of Health and Welfare, 2004a
⁎Sweden, National Board of Health and Welfare, 2004b
⁎Sweden, National Board of Health and Welfare, 2007
⁎Thorpe et al., 2007
⁎Tregeagle, 2008
⁎United Kingdom. Department of Health, 2003
⁎University of York, 2006
⁎Wise, 2003
⁎Young et al., 2006
References
Act of March 5 2007, Child Protection (Loi n°2007-293 du 5 mars 2007 réformant la
protection de l'enfance). Retrieved from the Government of France Legifrance website:
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do;jsessionid=65A3F0E704BAF045F0FE969E4665140F.tpdjo07v_1?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000823100&categorieLien=id.
*Allen, S. and McDonald, A. (2006, February–March). Implementing the Integrated
Children's System in Lancashire [PowerPoint slides]. Paper presented at the
Integrated Children's System (ICS) regional seminars, London, England. Retrieved
from http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/everychildmatters/_download/?id=2957.
Australia. Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.
(2009). Protecting children is everyone's business. National framework for protecting
Australia's children 2009–2020. Retrieved form http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/families/
pubs/framework_protecting_children/Documents/child_protection_framework.pdf.
Australia. Government of Victoria. Department of Human Services. (2006). Child FIRST and
child protection. Retrieved from http://www.cyf.vic.gov.au/family-services/child-first.
Barzelay, M. (2002). Origins of the new public management: An international view
from public administration/political science. In K. McLaughlin, S. P. Osborne, & E.
Ferlie (Eds.), The new public management: Current trends and future prospects
(pp. 15−33). London, England: Routledge.
*Baynes, P. (2007). Adapting the framework for assessment for uses in cases of
physical harm. Practice, 19(4), 271−284, doi:10.1080/09503150701728194.
Bergman, K. (2007). Child welfare in a state of change. Summary of the final report from the
BBIC project. Stockholm. National Board of Health and Welfare: Stockholm, Sweden.
*Bergman, K. (2008). PowerPoint slides. Paper presented at the Care matters:
Transforming lives — Improving outcomes conference, incorporating the 8th
international Looking After Children conference, Oxford, England, Retrieved from
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/ccfr/Transforminglivesconference/Papers/4.8_Kjerstin%20Bergman.ppt.
*Boddy, J., Potts, P., & Statham, J. (2006a). Models of good practice in joined-up assessment:
Working for children with ‘significant and complex needs’. (Research Report No. RW79)
Retrieved from the United Kingdom Department for Children, Schools and Families
website: http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RW79.pd.
*Boddy, J., Potts, P., & Statham, J. (2006b). Models of good practice in joined-up
Assessment: Working for children with ‘significant and complex needs’. (Research
Brief No. RBX04-06) Retrieved from the United Kingdom Department for Children,
Schools and Families website: http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/programmeofresearch/projectinformation.cfm?projectid=14994&resultspage=1.
Borins, S. (1995). Summary: Government in transition — A new paradigm in public
administration in Commonwealth Secretariat. Government in transition: The
inaugural conference of the commonwealth association for public administration
and management (pp. 3−23). Toronto, Canada: Commonwealth Secretariat.
*Brandon, M., Howe, A., Dagley, V., Salter, C., Warren, C., & Black, J. (2006a). Evaluating the
common assessment framework and lead professional guidance and implementation in
2005–06 (Research Report No. RR740). Retrieved from the United Kingdom Department
for Children, Schools and Families website: http://publications.dcsf.gov.uk/default.aspx?
PageFunction=productdetails&PageMode=publications&ProductId=RR740&.
*Brandon, M., Howe, A., Dagley, V., Salter, C., Warren, C., & Black, J. (2006b). Evaluating the
common assessment framework and lead professional guidance and implementation in
2005–06 (Research Brief No. RB740). Retrieved from the United Kingdom Department
for Children, Schools and Families website: http://publications.dcsf.gov.uk/default.
aspx?PageFunction=productdetails&PageMode=publications&ProductId=RB740&.
*Broadhurst, K., Wastell, D., White, S., Hall, C., Peckover, S., Thompson, K., Pithouse, A., &
Davey, D. (2009). Performing ‘Initial Assessment’: Identifying the latent conditions
for error at the front-door of local authority children's services. British Journal of
Social Work, doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcn162.
Buckley, H., Horwath, J., & Whelan, S. (2006). Framework for the assessment of vulnerable
children and their families. Assessment tool and practice guidance. Dublin, Ireland:
Children's Research Centre, Trinity College Dublin.
*Buckley, H. (2008a, January). Framework for the assessment of vulnerable children and
their families [PowerPoint slides]. Paper presented at the Association of Childrens
Welfare Agencies (ACWA) research forum, Haymarket, Australia. Retrieved from http://
www.acwa.asn.au/downloads/Helen_Buckley_080131_ResForum.ppt.
*Buckley, H. (2008b, February). Engagement, analysis and reflectiveness: Developing a
Framework for the Assessment of Vulnerable Children and Their Families
[PowerPoint slides]. Paper presented at the Australian Institute of Family Studies
(AIFS) seminar, Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.aifs.gov.au/
institute/seminars/seminars2008.html.
*Buckley, H. (2008c, February). Developing a framework for the assessment of vulnerable
children and their families [PowerPoint slides]. Paper presented at the Australian Centre
for Child Protection summer symposium, Adelaide, Australia. Retrieved from http://
www.unisa.edu.au/childprotection/documents/Feb2008Seminar.pdf.
Cameron, G., Freymond, N., & Roy, C. (2003). Avenues for positive innovations in Canadian
child welfare: Lessons from the Partnerships for Children and Families Project and
international jurisdictions. In N. Trocmé, D. Knoke, & C. Roy (Eds.), Community
collaboration and differential response: Canadian and international research and
emerging models of practice (pp. 17−36). Ottawa, Canada: Child Welfare League of
Canada.
S. Léveillé, C. Chamberland / Children and Youth Services Review 32 (2010) 929–944
Canada. Government of Alberta. Calgary and Area Child and Family Services Authority.
(2005a). Assessment Framework field test underway. News Release, February.
Retrieved from http://www.calgaryandareacfsa.gov.ab.ca/home/index.cfm.
Canada. Government of Alberta. Calgary and Area Child and Family Services Authority.
(2005b). Business plan 2005–2008. Retrieved from www.calgaryandareacfsa.gov.
ab.ca/.../Business_Plan_2005–08.pdf.
Canada. Government of Alberta. Department of Children's Services. (2006). A new casework
practice model. Retrieved from http://www.child.alberta.ca/home/538.cfm.
Chamberland, C., Lessard, D., & Lacharité, C. (2008, Julyy). Issues, challenges, and
operationalization of the use of the assessment framework in the Quebec context:
The example of the AIDES initiative [PowerPoint slides]. Paper presented at the Care
matters: Transforming lives — Improving outcomes conference, incorporating the 8th
international Looking After Children conference, Oxford, England Retrieved from http:
//www.lboro.ac.uk/research/ccfr/Transforminglivesconference/Papers/Claire%
20Chamberland%20and%20Danielle%20Lessard.ppt.
*Cheers, D. (2007). PowerPoint slides. Paper presented at the Integrated Children's
Services (ICS) national conference, London, England Retrieved from http://www.dcsf.
gov.uk/everychildmatters/_download/?id=2986.
Child Care and Early Education Research Connections. (2004). Quantitative
Research Assessment Tool Retrieved from http://www.researchconnections.
org/discover/datamethods/downloads/quantitativeresearch.pdf.
Child Protection Act 2003. Retrieved from the Canada Government of Prince Edward
Island Department of Social Services and Seniors website: http://www.gov.pe.ca/
law/statutes/pdf/c-05_1.pdf
Child Welfare Act 417 2007. Retrieved from the Ombudsman for Children in Finland
website: http://www.lapsiasia.fi/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=97173&name=DLFE-8503.pdf.
Children Act 1989. Retrieved from the United Kingdom government Office of Public
Sector Information website: https://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1989/
ukpga_19890041_en_1.
Children Act 2004. Retrieved from Retrieved from the United Kingdom government
Office of Public Sector Information website: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/
acts2004/ukpga_20040031_en_1.
*Cleaver, H. (2007). PowerPoint slides. Paper presented at the Integrated Children's
Services (ICS) national conference, London, England. Retrieved from http://www.
dcsf.gov.uk/everychildmatters/_download/?id=2989.
*Cleaver, H., & Nicholson, D. (2007). Parental learning disability and children's needs:
Family experiences and effective practice (Research Brief No. DCSF-RBX-01-07).
Retrieved from the United Kingdom Department for Children, Schools and Families
website: http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/DCSF-RBX-01-07.pdf.
*Cleaver, H., & Rose, W. (2008, Julyy). PowerPoint slides. Paper presented at the Care
matters: Transforming lives — Improving outcomes conference, incorporating the 8th
international Looking After Children conference, Oxford, England. Retrieved from http:
//www.lboro.ac.uk/research/ccfr/Transforminglivesconference/Papers/3.5_Hedy%
20Cleaver%20and%20Wendy%20Rose.ppt.
*Cleaver, H., & Walker, S. (2004a). From policy to practice: The implementation of a
new framework for social work assessments of children and families. Child and
Family Social Work, 9, 81−90, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2206.2004.00314.x.
*Cleaver, H., & Walker, S. (2004b). Assessing children's needs and circumstances.
London, England: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
*Cleaver, H., Nicholson, D., Tarr, S., & Cleaver, D. (2006). The response of child protection
practices and procedures to children exposed to domestic violence or parental
substance misuse. Executive summary (Research Brief No. RW89-r). Retrieved from
the United Kingdom Department for Children, Schools and Families website: http:
//www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RW89%20r1.pdf.
Cleaver, H., Walker, S., & Meadows, P. (2004). Assessing children's needs and circumstances:
The impact of the Assessment framework. London, England: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
*Cleaver, H., Walker, S., Scott, J., Cleaver, D., Rose, W., Ward, H., & Pithouse, A. (2008a).
The Integrated Children's System: enhancing social work and inter-agency practice.
Retrieved from the United Kingdom Department for Children, Schools and Families
website: http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/programmeofresearch/projectinformation.cfm?projectid=15378&resultspage=1.
*Cleaver, H., Walker, S., Scott, J., Cleaver, D., Rose, W., Ward, H., & Pithouse, A. (2008b).
The Integrated Children's System: Enhancing social work and inter-agency
practice. London, England: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Council of Europe. (1996). European convention on the exercise of children's rights
CETS No. 160. Retrieved from http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?NT=160&CL=ENG.
*Cowieson, A., Gair, D., Thompson, R., James, A., & Wilson, A. (2008). Evaluation of
implementation of IAF across Ayrshire report Retrieved from South Ayrshire Council
website: http://ww4.southayrshire.gov.uk/portal/page?_pageid=34,2706969&_dad=
portal30&_schema=PORTAL30.
De Carvalho, E. M. R. (2001). Making a difference in the knowledge age. Council and
General Conference: 67th Conference Programme and Proceedings, Boston, MA, United
States of America.
Denmark. Department of Interior and Social Affairs. (2007). Digitalisering — Udsatte
Børn og Unge (Digitization — Vulnerable children and young) (DUBU) system.
Retrieved from http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fdubu.social.dk%2F&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&sl=da&tl=en.
*Edebalk, G. (2006). Children looked after and their right to participation in accordance
with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, article 12[PowerPoint slides].
Paper presented at Childhoods 2005 Oslo conference, Children and youth in emerging
and transforming societies, Oslo, Norway. Retrieved from http://www.childcentre.
info/projects/institutions/dbaFile12712.html.
European Commission Daphne Programme, Directorate-General Justice and Home Affairs.
(2007) De-institutionalising and transforming children's services: A guide to good
943
practice. Retrieved from the Child Right Information Network (CRIN) website: http://
www.crin.org/docs/Deinstitutionaliation_Manual_-_Daphne_Prog_et_al.pdf.
European Commission. (2000). Decision no 293/2000/ec of the european parliament
and of the council of 24 January 2000 adopting a programme of Community action
(the Daphne programme) (2000 to 2003) on preventive measures to fight violence
against children, young persons and women. Official Journal of the European
Communities, L 34 of the 09.02.2000. http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/
human_rights/fundamental_rights_within_european_union/l33062_en.htm.
EveryChild Ukraine. (2006). Changes for children. Newsletter of the project
“Development of integrated social services for exposed families and children”,
June. Kyiv, Ukraine: EveryChild. Retrieved on Month Date, Year from http://www.
everychild.org.ua/index.php?hl=en&idd=activities&activities=finished-projects&finished-projects=3bede946237dc1e97582b78c97f134ad.
Fernandez, E. (2002). Protecting children through family support services. In T.
Vecchiato, A. N. Maluccio, & C. Canali (Eds.), Evaluation in child and family services:
Comparative client and program perspectives. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter pp.
*Fernandez, E., & Romeo, R. (2003). Implementation of the Framework for the
Assessment of Children in Need and Their Families: The experience of Barnardos
Australia. Sydney, Australia: University of New South Wales, School of Social Work.
*Fox, J. (2007). PowerPoint slides. Paper presented at the Integrated Children's Services
(ICS) national conference, London, England Retrieved from the United Kingdom
Department for Children, Schools and Families website: http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/
everychildmatters/_download/?id=2984.
France. Ministère de la Santé et des Solidarités. (2008). La cellule départementale de
recueil, de traitement et d'évaluation. Retrieved from http://www.reformeenfance.fr/guides.html.
Garrett, M. (2003). Swimming with Dolphins: The assessment framework, New Labour,
and new tools for social work with children and families. British Journal of Social
Work, 33(4), 441−463. Retrieved from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/
reprintframed/33/4/441.
Goldsmith, L. (1999). Recording with care: Inspection of case recording in social
services departments. London, England: Department of Health.
Gore, A. (1993). From red tape to results: Creating a government that works better and
costs less. Report of the national performance review. Washington DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
*Gray, J., & Jones, H. (2006). PowerPoint slides. Paper presented at the Integrated
Children's System (ICS) regional seminars, London, England Retrieved from http://
www.dcsf.gov.uk/everychildmatters/_download/?id=2981.
Hamel, S., Cousineau, M.M., Vézina, M., & Léveillé, S. (2006). Guide d'action intersectorielle
pour une prévention du phénomène des gangs. Report to the National Crime
Prevention Centre of Canada. Montreal, Canada: Institut de recherche pour le
développement social des jeunes and Centre international de criminologie comparée
Her Majesty's Government (2004). Every child matters: Change for children. London,
England: Department for Education and Skills.
Herzog, M. (2009). Personal communication. June 1st.
*Horwath, J. (2007). The missing assessment domain: Personal, professional and
organizational factors influencing professional judgements when identifying and
referring child neglect. British Journal of Social Work, 37, 1285−1303, doi:10.1093/
bjsw/bcl029.
Jackson, S., Kilroe, S.Department of Health, Jackson, S., & Kilroe, S.Department of Health.
(1995). Looking after children: Good parenting, good outcomes; training guide.
London, England: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
L'Écuyer, R. (1985). L'analyse de contenu: notions et étapes. In J. -P. Deslauriers (Ed.), La
recherche qualitative: résurgence et convergences (pp. 65−88). Chicoutimi, Canada:
University of Quebec in Chicoutimi.
L'Houssni, m. (2008). RÉTIS (Association Recherche, Éducation, Territoire, Institutions
et Sociabilités): une expérience de partenariat autour des jeunes en difficulté.
Paper presented at the Séminaire thématique hosted by le Groupe de recherche en
développement de l'enfant et de la famille (GREDEF) et Réseau sur l'enfant et
l'éducation : Entre familles et institutions (REEFI), Les partenariats recherche/
pratique dans le domaine de l'enfance et de la famille, Trois-Rivières, Canada
*Lee, P., & Fee, J. (2005). Integrated Assessment Framework (IAF) for children in
Glasgow: An evaluation. Childhood and families (CAF) research and development
centre. Glasgow, Scotland: University of Strathclyde.
Léveillé, S., & Bouchard, V. (2007a). Des univers parallèles? In C. Chamberland, S.
Léveillé, & N. Trocmé (Eds.), Enfants à protéger, parents à aider: des univers à
rapprocher (pp. 7−29). Québec, Canada: Presses de l'Université du Québec.
Léveillé, S., & Bouchard, V. (2007b). Prendre le risque d'intervenir, ensemble: forum sur les
politiques sociales, Enfants à protéger, parents à aider: des univers à rapprocher
(pp. 346−360). Québec, Canada: Presses de l'Université du Québec.
Léveillé, S., Chamberland, C., Trocmé, N., & Brown, I. (submitted for publication). An
Evaluation of canadian research-community partnerships in child welfare. In S.
Léveillé, C. Chamberland, N. Trocmé, and I. Brown (Eds.), Research-community
partnerships in child welfare. Montréal, Canada: McGill-Queen's University Press
Léveillé, S., Lessard, D., Chamberland, C., & Poirier, A. -M. (2009, Februaryy). Working
together for the promotion and protection of the developmental needs of the child:
Two examples from Québec sharing the same vision and consistent with the
International Convention on the Rights of the Child. Paper presented to the Multidisciplinary Conference of the Faculty of Law of the University of Toronto, The Best
Interests of the Child: Meaning and Application in Canada, Toronto, Canada.
*McDowall, B., Dunlop, J., James, L., Membride, H., Murphy, N., Kelly, A., & Riach, E. (2008). IAF
evaluation report. Retrieved from Scotland South Ayrshire Council website: http://ww4.
south-ayrshire.gov.uk/pls/portal30/url/ITEM/69A400DC0B245F35E0440003BA36093E.
*Millar, M., & Corby, B. (2006). The Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need
and their Families—A basis for a ‘therapeutic’ encounter. British Journal of Social
Work, 36, 887−899, doi:10.1093/bjsw/bch321.
944
S. Léveillé, C. Chamberland / Children and Youth Services Review 32 (2010) 929–944
*Mitchell, W., & Sloper, P. (2008). The Integrated Children's System and disabled children.
Child and Family Social Work, 13, 274−285, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2206.2008.00547 x.
Mitchell, W., & Sloper, P. (2008, Julyy). PowerPoint slides. Paper presented at the Care
matters: Transforming lives — Improving outcomes conference, incorporating the 8th
international Looking After Children conference, Oxford, England. Retrieved from http:
//www.lboro.ac.uk/research/ccfr/Transforminglivesconference/Papers/3.6_Wendy
%20Mitchell.ppt.
*Morgan, T., Lambert, C., Morgan, T., & Lambert, C. (2008). Report of the Aberdeenshire
Integrated Assessment Framework: Evaluation of road test and north Aberdeenshire roll out. Phase one. Retrieved from Health Improvement Network (HI-NET)
Grampian website: http://www.hi-netgrampian.org/hinet/file/4408/ReportofRTandNorthEvaluationNov08.doc.
*O'Brien, M., Bachmann, M., Husbands, C., Shreeve, A., Jones, N., Watson, J., & Shemilt, I.
(2006). Integrating children's services to promote children's welfare: Early findings
from the implementation of Children's Trusts in England. Child Abuse Review, 15,
377−395, doi:10.1002/car.963.
Organisation for economic co-operation and development. (1995). Governance in
transition: Public management reforms in OECD Countries. Paris: Organisation for
economic co-operation and development.
Parker, R. A., Ward, H., Jackson, S., Aldgate, J., & Wedge, P. (Eds.). (1991). Looking after
children: Assessing outcomes in child care. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
Parton, N. (1997). Child protection and family support: Current debates and futures
prospects. In N. Parton (Ed.), Child protection and family support: Tensions,
contradictions and possibilities (pp. 1−24). New York, NY: Routledge.
*Pithouse, A. (2006). A common assessment for children in need? Mixed messages from a pilot
study in Wales. Child Care in Practice, 12, 199−217, doi:10.1080/13575270600761685.
*Platt, D. (2006). Investigation or initial assessment of Child Concerns? The impact of
the refocusing initiative on social work practice. British Journal of Social Work, 36,
267−281, doi:10.1093/bjsw/bch255.
Saini, M. (2006). Quality and rigor in qualitative research form. Unpublished manuscript.
Saini, M. (2007). A pilot study of the quality and rigour in qualitative research. 7th
Annual International Campbell Collaboration Colloquium, London, England.
Saini, M. and Léveillé, S. (submitted). Research-community partnerships: A systematic
synthesis of qualitative research. n S. Léveillé, C. Chamberland, N. Trocmé, and I.
Brown (Eds.), Research-community partnerships in child welfare. Montréal,
Canada: McGill-Queen's University Press.
Scotland. Scottish Executive. (2005). Getting it right for every child: Proposal for action.
Edinburgh, SCT: Scottish Executive.
Scott, J., & Walker, S. (2008, Julyy). PowerPoint slides. Paper presented at the Care
matters: Transforming lives — Improving outcomes conference, incorporating the 8th
international looking after children conference, Oxford, England. Retrieved from http:
//www.lboro.ac.uk/research/ccfr/Transforminglivesconference/Papers/3.7_Steve%
20Walker%20and%20Jane%20Scott.ppt.
Sinko, P. (2008). The new Child Welfare Act in Finland. Children Webmag, July 1st.
Retrieved from http://www.childrenwebmag.com/articles/child-care-articles/thenew-child-welfare-act-in-finland.
Skuse, T., Macdonald, I., & Ward, H. (2001). Outcomes for looked after children. Third interim
report to the Department of Health on looking after children: Transforming data into
management information. Loughborough, England: Centre for Child and Family Research.
*Sweden, National Board of Health and Welfare. (2004a). The implementation of the
Children's Needs in Focus project within Swedish social services organisations: A
study of the local organisation of the project Children's Needs in Focus. Summary.
http://www.socialstyrelsen.se/Publicerat/2004/8548/Summary+2004-123-32.
htm Retrieved from.
*Sweden, National Board of Health and Welfare. (2004b). Children's Needs in Focus
review meetings: A study of children's participation and joint decision-making.
Retrieved from http://www.socialstyrelsen.se/Publicerat/2004/8567/Summary.
htm Retrieved from.
*Sweden, National Board of Health and Welfare. (2007). Child welfare in a state of change —
Final report from the BBIC project.Retrieved from http://www.socialstyrelsen.se/
Publicerat/2008/9901/Summary2007-110-18.htm Retrieved from.
Talbot, C. (2003). La réforme de la gestion publique et ses paradoxes : l'expérience
Britannique. Revue française d'administration publique, 105–106(1–2), 11−24.
Ternovskaya, M. (2008a). Better outcomes for children — Is that an unquestioning goal? Some
news from the Russian family placements battlefield. Digest of papers. Care matters:
Transforming lives — Improving outcomes conference, incorporating the 8th international
looking after children conference (pp. 76−77). Retrieved from Loughborough University
Centre for Child and Family Research wbsite: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/ccfr/
Transforminglivesconference/images/digest%20cover.jpg.
Ternovskaya, M. (2008, Julyb). PowerPoint slides. Paper presented at the care matters:
Transforming lives — Improving outcomes conference, incorporating the 8th
international looking after children conference, Oxford, England Retrieved from
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/ccfr/Transforminglivesconference/Papers/Maria
%20Ternovskaya.ppt.
*Thorpe, D., Regan, S., Mason, C., & May-Chahal, C. (2007). Making a case for common
assessment framework responses to concerns about children.Social Work and Social
Services Review, 12, 40−56 Retreived from http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/
wab/swssr.
*Tregeagle, S. (2008). PowerPoint slides. Paper presented at the care matters: Transforming
lives — Improving outcomes conference, incorporating the 8th international looking after
children conference, Oxford, England. Retrieved from http://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/
ccfr/Transforminglivesconference/Papers/3.5_Susan%20Tregeagle.ppt.
Trocmé, N., & Chamberland, C. (2003). Re-involving the community: The need for a
differentional response to rising child welfare caseloads in Canada. In N. Trocmé, D.
Knoke, & C. Roy (Eds.), Community collaboration and differential response: Canadian
and international research and emerging models of practice (pp. 32−48). Ottawa,
Canada: Child Welfare League of Canada.
UNICEF (2002). A world fit for children. Retrieved from http://www.unicef.org/
specialsession/docs_new/documents/A-RES-S27-2E.pdf.
United Kingdom. Department of Health. Social Services Inspectorate (1997). Responding to families in need: Inspection of assessment, planning and decision-making in
family support services. London, England: Department of Health.
United Kingdom. Department of Health. Social services Inspectorate (1998). Social
services facing the future: The seventh annual report of the Chief Inspector, Social
Services Inspectorate, 1997/98. London, England: The Stationery Office.
United Kingdom. Department for Education and Skills. (2006). The Common
assessment framework for children and young people: Supporting tools. Integrated
working to improve outcomes for children and young people. Retrieved from the
Department for Children, Schools and Families website: http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/
everychildmatters/_download/?id=931.
United Kingdom. Department of Health, Department for Education and Employment,
Home Office. (2000). Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and Their
Families. Retrieved from the Department of Health website: http://www.dh.gov.uk/
prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/
dh_4014430.pdf.
United Kingdom. Department of Health, Home Office, Department for Education and
Employment (1999). Working together to safeguard children: A guide to inter-agency
working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. London, England: Her
Majesty's Stationery Office.
United Kingdom. Department of Health (1995a). Looking after children: Assessment and
action records, essential information records, care plans, placement plans and review
forms. London, England: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
United Kingdom. Department of Health (1995b). Child protection and child abuse:
Messages from research. Studies in child protection. London, England: Her Majesty's
Stationery Office.
United Kingdom. Department of Health (1999). The government's objectives for
children's social services. London, England: Department of Health.
United Kingdom. Department of Health (2000a). Framework for the Assessment of
Children in Need and Their Families. Guidance notes and glossary for: Referral and
initial information record, initial assessment record and core assessment record.
London, England: The Stationery Office.
United Kingdom. Department of Health. (2000b). Learning the lessons. The government's response to lost in care: The report of the tribunal of inquiry into the abuse of
children in care in the former county Councilareas of Gwynedd and Clwyd since 1974.
London, England: The Stationery Office.
United Kingdom. Department of Health (2000c). Assessing children in need and their
families: Practice guidance. London, England: The Stationery Office.
*United Kingdom. Department of Health. (2003). Assessing children's needs and
circumstances: the impact of the assessment framework. Summary and recommendations (Publication No. 31350). Retrieved from http://www.dh.gov.uk/
prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/
dh_4068613.pdf.
University of York. (2006). The Integrated Children's System: the social services evaluation. Progress to date and early findings [PowerPoint slides]. Paper presented at the
Integrated Children's System (ICS) regional seminars, London, England Retrieved from the
United Kingdom Department for Children, Schools and Families website: http://www.
dcsf.gov.uk/everychildmatters/safeguardingandsocialcare/integratedchildrenssystem/
integratedchildrenssystempresentations/presentations/.
*Wise, S. (2003). The child in family services: Expanding child abuse prevention.
Australian Social Work, 56, 183−196, doi:10.1046/j.0312-407x.2003.00081.x.
*Young, P., Skelhorn, E., & Lambert, P. (2006). PowerPoint slides. Paper presented at the
Integrated Children's System (ICS) regional seminars, London, England Retrieved from
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/everychildmatters/safeguardingandsocialcare/integratedchildrenssystem/integratedchildrenssystempresentations/presentations/.
United Kingdom. Department of Health (2001). Studies informing the Framework
for the Assessment of Children in Need and Their Families. London, England:
Department of Health.
United Kingdom. National Assembly for Wales and Home Office (2001). Framework for
the Assessment of Children in Need and Their Families. London, England: The
Stationery Office.
United Kingdom. Northern Ireland government. Department of Health, Social
Services and Public Safety. (2007). Understanding the needs of children in
Northern Ireland (UNOCINI). Guidance. Retrieved from http://www.dhsspsni.
gov.uk/index/ssi/oss-childrens-services.htm.
United Nations. (1989). Convention of the rights of the child. Retrieved from Office of
the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights website: http://www2.
ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm.
Looking after children: Research into practice. Ward, H. (Ed.). (1995). The second report
to the Department of Health on assessing outcomes in child care. London, England:
Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
Wise, S. (1999). The UK looking after children approach in Australia. Research report
no. 2. Melbourne, AU: Australian Institute of Family Studies.