University of Dublin
Trinity College
School of Social Work and Social Policy
Title:
What works is what matters, for whom is the question?
A small exploratory study which examines impacts of the
TUSLA National Service Delivery Framework in its formative stages on
community based supports to children, young people and families
from the perspective of senior practitioners working in community based projects.
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the
M.Sc. in Child Protection and Welfare
Author: Julie Somers
Supervisor: Professor Robbie Gilligan
Date Submitted: 26th May 2016
Word Count: 20,216
Abstract
The focus of this small pilot study is to explore impacts of the TUSLA National Service
Delivery Framework (NSDF) in its formative stages on the delivery of supports to children
young people and families in a community based setting.
The NSDF aims to deliver
coordinated, efficient and effective supports to children, young people and families.
The
NSDF is part of the child protection and welfare response since 2013 and is implemented on
a national basis and is part of national policy.
This pilot study identifies impacts as
experienced by practitioners working in the statutory and community and voluntary sectors
supporting families.
Findings from this small study indicate that community based projects, both statutory and
community and voluntary sectors, have been impacted by the development and
implementation of the NSDF. A larger number of children, young people and families are
receiving supports. Referrals from local social work departments have increased and self
referrals by individuals themselves have reduced. The manner in which community based
services engage with families and delivers supports has changed with an increase in one to
one work and family focused work and the loss of group work and community work.
Inconsistencies were identified in how change was managed locally with projects. The
community base of projects within identifiable local communities is being eroded due to the
requirement to provide services in larger geographical areas. There has been some flexibility
and adaptation in implementation and practitioners are hopeful further adjustment is possible
in the future.
In this small study the findings suggest that projects have moved from
providing locally accessible supports based in identifiable communities to a more general
service providing short term family support with a larger cohort of families predominantly
referred through their local social work department. The findings from this study are not
generalisable due to its small scale and local focus.
i Acknowledgements
I would like to express my appreciation and sincere thanks to a number of people who
enabled this research project to happen.

Thanks to the five practitioners who gave of their time to meet and contribute to this
study.

A particular thanks to my supervisor Professor Robbie Gilligan.

To Dr Catherine Conlon and the staff of the M.Sc. in Child Protection and Welfare
course.

To my colleagues in class and my colleagues in work.

A special thanks to my family who are a constant support and source of
encouragement.
ii Table of Contents
Page No.
Chapter One:
Introduction
1
Chapter Two:
Literature Review
7
Chapter Three:
Methodology
19
Chapter Four:
Findings and Discussion
25
Chapter Five:
Conclusion and Recommendations
45
Personal Reflection
49
Bibliography
50
Appendix I – VI
56
iii Chapter 1 Introduction
Introduction
This is a small exploratory study of the implementation of the TUSLA National Service
Delivery Framework in its formative stages from the perspective of senior practitioners
engaged in the delivery of community based family support. This chapter begins by setting
the context in which Ireland finds itself in terms of its financial viability since 2008 and what
impact this has had on services supporting children, young people and families. It goes on to
identify key reforms in the area of family support. This focuses on reforms in terms of the
delivery of services and key policy developments. I outline developments in policy since
2013 in the area of child protection and welfare and in the area of family support.
I also
provide the rationale and objectives for the study.
Socio Economic Context
Ireland has experienced crisis in terms of its financial viability since 2008.
The euro zone
crisis and the US banking crisis have had serious implications for us and not simply in terms
of fiscal implications in managing the budget deficit. Consecutive severe national budgets
reduced social welfare payments and salaries, increased taxes and cut public spending in
order to meet the requirements of the European Union Monetary Fund or what’s commonly
known as the Troika bailout (Carney et. al., 2014). Since 2008 this has sets the scene and
been the context in which families and communities have lived through and those supporting
them have worked in. These measures according to Allen (2012) have disproportionally
impacted people already vulnerable and reduced living standards for those at work. In June
2015 the UN advised that austerity policies should be a temporary measure and that Ireland
should restore pre crisis levels of social protection (Irish Human Rights and Equality
Commission 2015).
The National Youth Council of Ireland in its analysis of budget 2015 welcomed the fact that the
level of public expenditure on a number of key areas affecting the lives of children and young people
had been maintained (NYCI 2015). This is in the context of seven successive years of cuts
amounting to a 31% cut to youth services since 2008.
At the end of 2013 within the
community and voluntary sectors overall the impact has been a contraction in the order of 35%, with a reduction in staffing of over 11,000 people (Harvey 2013). The decision to
1 repeatedly cut the sector is according to Harvey difficult to explain or interpret as it shows
that the area of social policy and the voluntary and community sectors in particular bore a
disproportionate burden during the financial re-adjustment (ibid). He goes on to compare this
to other European countries particularly Slovakia, the prime minister of the country argued
that voluntary and community organisations should be the ‘driving force’ of national social
policy. In Ireland he suggests the influence of the community and voluntary sector has begun
to shrink to the inconsequential. It is also fair to point out that statutory services also suffered
severe cuts to their services and so impacted the delivery of supports to families.
It is within
this difficult financial and societal context that this study is being carried out.
Key Reforms in the Delivery of Family Support
Since the early 1990’s there has been interest in the provision of family support and
preventative and early intervention work as an approach to supporting families. The formal
child protection systems according to Connolly 2004, Buckley 2011 and Munro 2002 is
focused on risk management and often struggles to address the needs of children from a
holistic perspective. The Child Care Act, 1991 makes provision for the delivery of family
support as a means of addressing children’s additional needs. However, up until recently,
and with some exceptions the main focus for delivery has been within the child protection
area. A move towards a family support approach was particularly influenced by the lack of
action to protect children in the 1990’s and the revelations of the abuse scandals which began
with the publication of the Kilkenny Incest Investigation (McGuiness 1993). The extension of
community based family support projects was specifically recommended in the McGuiness
report and again targeted family support services recommended in the Roscommon Child
Care Case Report in 2010 (Gibbons 2010). The Agenda for Children’s Services (2007) and
the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (2009) commonly referred to as the Ryan
Report, also significantly reference family support as an approach and methodology for
supporting children, young people and families.
The Fine Gael/Labour programme for government is entitled Towards Recovery: Programme
for a National Government 2011–2016 (Government of Ireland, 2011).
The Programme
committed to a number of reforms in the area of children and family services. One of the key
objectives of this reform agenda was the establishment of the Child and Family Agency, now
known as TUSLA. TUSLA was established in January 2014 and is an independent legal
entity. It is the State agency with responsibility for child welfare and protection, alternative
2 care, family related services including domestic violence and preschool services. The Agency
subsumed the Health Service Executive Child and Family Services, the National Education
Welfare Board (NEWB) and the Family Support Agency within its structures. This brings
together what were separate services in an attempt to respond holistically to the needs of
children and families within an integrated approach. The aim is for health, education and
protection and welfare services to work together in a holistic, coordinated, multidisciplinary
manner.
National Service Delivery Framework
In terms of child protection and welfare and family support provision and delivery, a key
operational development since 2013 is the National Service Delivery Framework1 (NSDF)
(HSE 2013a). The development of a single, transparent, consistent and accountable NSDF is
key goal for TUSLA. The purpose of the NSDF is to improve outcomes for children and
families through the delivery of services within a coordinated, multi-disciplinary and
multiagency framework. Family support is a key concept and practice approach in the NSDF.
A number of strategies and processes make up the NSDF and have had a significant impact
on the focus and service orientation within family support and the wider field of child
protection and welfare since 2013.
A core element of the framework is an area based approach to the delivery of supports called
‘Prevention, Partnership and Family Support’ (HSE 2013a)2. This sets out the requirement to
align services to the needs of children in communities and geographical areas and services
being closely integrated or linked with social work departments. The key functions of PPFS
are to improve access to services, the creation of networks of providers known as Child and
Family Support Networks3 (CFSN), to inform the commissioning process, to implement
Meitheal and to provide a framework for actions and decisions coming from the Meitheal
model (HSE 2013). Meitheal – A National Practice Model4 for the identification of strengths
and needs and the coordination of supports for families is one key element of the framework
1
See Guidance for the Implementation of an Area Based Approach to Prevention, Partnership and Family Support’ (HSE 2013) which provides the rationale and principles governing the development of the NSDF. 2
See Appendix I for a flow chart showing the PPFS (previously known as Local Area Pathways) process. 3
A CFSN is a network of agencies and groups who can provide supports to people aged 0 – 24 and who meet regularly to share information and assist in co‐ordinating services in their area. 4
Meitheal is a national practice model for supporting children and young people who have additional unmet needs. The Meitheal process can be used by families and practitioners and the process is family led with the assistance of the PPFS Coordinator. 3 (HSE 2013b). ‘What Works in Family Support?’ (HSE 2013c), a parenting support strategy
made up of ‘Investing in Families’ (HSE 2013d) and ‘50 Key Message’s’ (HSE 2013e) and a
‘Commissioning Strategy’ (HSE 2013f) also form part of the suite of documents published in
2013 to support the development and implementation of the NSDF.
The development and implementation of the NSDF is also aligned with wider developments
in children’s services and local government reform. Of significance, although not new in a
policy context, is a renewed emphasis on interagency working, this time through the
formation of Children and Young People’s Services Committees (CYPSC) in every county.
CYPSC’s bring together a diverse group of agencies in local county areas to engage in joint
working with prominence given to the delivery of coordinated services to children, young
people and families. CYPSC plans are to be integrated into each local authority’s area plans
for local community and economic planning purposes. A number of policy frameworks and
strategies also inform the delivery of services including Better Outcomes Brighter Futures,
The National Policy Framework for Children and Young People5, 2014 – 2020 (DCYA
2014), the National Youth Strategy (DCYA 2015a), National Strategy for Children and
Young People’s Participation in Decision-making (DCYA 2015b) and the proposed Early
Years Strategy.
Canavan and Dolan (2003) assert that a positive economic environment in the late 1990’s and
2000’s enabled a more favourable long-term preventative view of family support provision to
be fostered. Canavan (2010) contends that family support has moved from a specific child
welfare focus to a broader education, physical and mental health focus. It appears a family
support approach is coming centre stage within policy and service delivery. Frost et. al.,
(2015) comment that Better Outcomes Brighter Futures (DCYA 2014) demonstrates the Irish
government’s commitment to using a family support approach as a central approach in
working with families. What this actually means in practice for those with additional needs
and requiring supports particularly in the age of austerity is something that requires further
exploration.
5
Better Outcomes, Brighter Futures: The National Policy Framework for children and young people, 2014‐2020 was launched in April 2014. Better Outcomes, Brighter Futures provides the overarching framework for the development and implementation of policy and services for children and young people from birth to early adulthood (0 – 24 years). 4 Rationale for the study
As a researcher I have a particular interest in the area of community based supports for children,
young people and parents. I have worked in the area of youth work, youth justice and family support
in a community based setting for many years. One of the more recent changes has been the
introduction of the NSDF and so I feel this is a timely study looking to explore the impacts in its
formative stages and what can be learned during this time of change. The aim of this pilot study is to
identify front line practitioners’ views on the impact of the implementation locally of the NSDF and
in particular elements of PPFS on the delivery of community based supports.
The original objectives of the study are outlined below, however, as the study progressed the intention
to use case studies was adapted to respond to the needs of the study participants. More will be said
about this in the methodology chapter.
Objectives:

To generate an understanding of the impact of elements of PPFS on the delivery of supports
to children, young people and families.

Explore workers understanding of these impacts on participants through the use of composite
case studies looking at models of work and service delivery before the implementation and
after implementation.

To document learning’s and concerns about the impact of PPFS on the delivery of supports to
participants within communities.
Conclusion
This chapter set the socio-economic context in which community based supports for families
have been working in over recent years. Reforms have been ongoing in the area of child
protection and welfare and family support as an approach to working with children, young
people and families appears to be embedded in national policy. Components of the NSDF
have been outlined. The NSDF is made up of a number of interrelated processes and
systems, Prevention, Partnership and Family Support, Child and Family Support Networks,
Meitheal and is linked to Children and Young Peoples Services Committees and supported by
a suite of policy and practice documents. The rationale and aims and objectives of the study
have been identified. I will continue with Chapter 2 the literature review which looks at key
themes in the work with children, young people and families. I identify the potential for this
study to contribute to a wider evaluation of the NSDF or related area if that were to be
5 undertaken in the future. Chapter 3 outlines the methodological approach used, a qualitative
approach with an evaluation focus using semi structured interviews. Chapter 4 presents the
findings of the research and discusses this in light of the literature from Chapter 2. Chapter 5
draws out conclusions and recommendations from this pilot study.
6 Chapter 2
Literature Review
Introduction
This small exploratory pilot study examines the impacts of the National Service Delivery
Framework in its formative stages on community based supports to children, young people
and families from the perspective of senior practitioners working in community based
projects. The literature review begins by briefly outline the key characteristics of community
based work with families.
I introduce 2013 as a key turning point in national policy in
relation to the delivery of supports. I go on to look at significant areas in relation to family
support practice and theory, namely, early intervention and prevention, the importance of
community based and needs led work, the relationship based focus of work with families and
the role of neoliberalism and managerialsim in this context. I conclude by exploring how a
change process can best be managed to include all stakeholders and the potential this study
may have in contributing to any larger evaluation which may happen in relation to the NSDF
or related area.
Characteristics of community based work
Community based supports can be delivered by charitable organisations, statutory
organisations and community and voluntary sector organisations. They can adopt particular
models of work such as Springboard Projects6, Family Resource Centres7, Special Projects
for Young People8 and Family Welfare Conferencing Projects9.
Over many years a
community based approach is used within such project and often distinguishes such projects
from other services. This can mean that projects are easy for people to become involved
with, people can self refer
for support, they often have open ended time frames for
involvement, can involve participants in all levels of the project or organisation and can
provide intergenerational responses when responding to the family and individual needs
(Dolan et al., 2006). A definition and the ten practice principles (Pinkerton et. al., 2004),
6
Springboard Projects are based in disadvantaged communities and provided targeted supports for vulnerable families. 7
Family Resource Centres work directly with communities using family support and community development principles. 8
SPY Projects or Special Projects for young people (aged 13 – 24) support young people who are vulnerable or have additional needs 9
Family Welfare Conferencing Projects engage with families and professionals in addressing areas in relation to child welfare concerns, it is a child and family centred process. 7 (see Appendix II) have been adopted as part of national policy in the area of family support.
They advocate a strengths based approach, a person centred approach, being needs led,
multiple access pathways, a partnership approach, a clear focus on the wishes feelings and
wellbeing of children, support of informal support networks and services are accessible and
flexible.
At a conference in 2013 Gordon Jeyes, CEO designate of TUSLA, spoke of a new vision for
services for children and families in Ireland. He spoke of the
‘fundamental reform on how all of us in this room work together in an integrated
way, clear in our roles and responsibilities in the NSDF’
He also spoke about the role of professionals and organisations in achieving such reforms,
‘...we need organisations which are inclusive and outward looking, we need
professionals willing to set aside traditional ways of working to embrace new
pathways to service, to focus on outcomes, what works is what matters...’ (CFSA
2013).
He acknowledged the challenge involved given current resources and suggests
multidisciplinary working as an approach to such reforms.
Since 2013 and the introduction of the NSDF a number of pathways are available to children,
young people and families who require support. This can be facilitated through the model of
work and process called Prevention, Partnership and Family Support (PPFS) previously
called Local Area Pathways. Supports can be accessed directly from family support services
in communities or by accessing supports from the Child and Family Support Networks
(CFSN) or through the Meitheal process or through referral to the social work department
under Children First10.
In the case of a referral being made to a social work department for a child welfare or
protection concern a number of options are open to the social work department. Families
referred to TUSLA for child protection or welfare concerns are identified within the social
work department as requiring a child protection service from the department itself or a child
welfare service. Child welfare services are available through TUSLA itself or through funded
10
Children First (2011) provides national guidelines for the reporting of child protection and welfare concerns. 8 services in the community and voluntary sectors11. If the social work department working in
conjunction with the PPFS co-ordinator determines a child welfare response best meets the
needs of the person referred the PPFS co-ordinator receives the referral. The co-ordinator
then makes a referral to the relevant community based organisation or agency. In 2014
TUSLA issues updated information to social work departments providing clarification around
thresholds for assessment of need and level of interventions required. This is intended to
provide clarity around what level of support is required ranging from universal supports to
intensive and long term supports for children at immediate risk of harm (TUSLA 2014).
There are a number of key principles and theories underpinning family support practice
which are detailed in the suite of documents supporting the NSDF. These include the role of
early intervention and prevention, supporting people in their communities in a holistic
manner and the importance of building trust and positive relationships with families and
individuals. Supporting families in need in a timely manner and before issues become
ingrained has been noted by various academics (Featherstone, Morris & White 2014, Frost,
Abbott & Race 2015).
Early Intervention & Prevention
The document ‘What works in Family Support?’ (HSE 2013c) states that a key goal of
family support is to intervene early with families. Early intervention will prevent difficulties
escalating and will provide supports to enable families to improve their capacity to care for
their children. This is supported in the literature as a means of responding early in the
emergence of a difficulty and also early in the life of a child where necessary and is part of
current policy and practice provision (Allen 2011, Munro 2011, Rochford et al., 2014, HSE
2013c, Featherstone et al. 2014 and Frost et al. 2015).
A more sceptical note is struck by
White et. al., (2014) who consider early intervention to be a state mechanism to ensure that
reduced costs or no costs are incurred by the economy later in a child’s life. White et. al.,
(ibid) suggest it has grown out of an economic imperative. Addressing issues early in life or
at the beginning of a concern can reduces the likelihood of more considerable spending on
intensive services as issues become more serious (Moran 2010). Accordingly, Featherstone
et. al., (2014) suggest that there has been little scrutiny of the concept of early intervention as
a ‘common sense’ approach has been adopted in relation to it. Munro (2011) also counters
11
Springboard, SPY Projects, Family Welfare Conferencing, Family Resource Centres, Rape & Sexual Abuse Support Services, Traveller Health Care Projects, etc. 9 this paradigm with an emphasis on early help as opposed to early intervention. Munro (2011)
promotes a systems approach to working with families which considers the elements in our
lives that relate and interrelate and which have an impact on our ability to function. Early
help takes into account a more holistic family focused approach which situates the child or
young person within the family setting. This according to Munro (ibid) places the child in
relationship to his or her family unlike the language of child protection, intervention or child
centred, which situates the child as an individual and in isolation separate from their
connections, families and networks. The link to family and community is an important link,
components of the NSDF aim to address child welfare needs within the community, early in
the development of a difficulty and using a family support approach.
Community base and a needs led approach?
The NSDF supports a community response in the delivery of services to families. Being
community based can be characterised in terms of the principles underpinning the work.
Other additional characteristics can be identified, services being geographically located
within an identifiable community and using local knowledge to design services that are
responsive to local needs. Secondly, the use of outreach as a means of engaging with
families who may require support and thirdly, using resources within the community to link
families in and or linking with the broader systems in operation in the area (Katz and
Pinkerton 2003, Gardner 2003, Layzer et al. 2001, Chaskin 2006). The importance of
looking at family support from an ecological perspective in community based provision is
stressed by Hoolan Putti and Brady (2011). This perspective is evident in national policy
documents, ‘there is an interdependent relationship between the individual and the
environment.... which must be considered when supporting children and their families’ (HSE
2013c p.21). Bronfrenbrenner (1994) identified five types of nested systems which influence
the development of the child. The microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem and
the chronosystem. Ecological theory states that if the relationships in the microsystem breaks
down the child will not have the tools to explore other parts of their environment
(Bronfrenbrenner and Morris 2006).
TUSLA policy documents also assert that the ecological perspective is linked to the concept
of social capital.
Accordingly, Gilligan (2008) emphasises the inter-relatedness of the
different domains in young people’s lives and the developmental contexts which these
provide. They need to consider the person within the wider community and environmental
10 contexts and not simply in single issues in isolation which arise in people’s lives. In a small
study undertaken by Somers (2015) with community based projects this issue of working
with one identified difficulty within the family dynamic was identified as a feature in current
practice in some projects since local area pathways or prevention, partnership and family
support processes were introduced. It was identified as working against a needs led approach
and the use of a holistic approach to supporting people.
In looking at needs, Metselaar et al., (2015) make a distinction between responding to
concerns and responding to needs when working with children and families. They suggest
three defining characteristics of needs-led care, a focus on clients’ needs, participation by
clients and the needs led attitude and skills of practitioners.
Four classes of family
intervention programmes are proposed by Dunst et al., (1991) which progressively focus on
the family’s needs and desires in all aspects of service delivery and resource allocation.
Firstly, professional centred programmes in this model mean that the work is professionally
led. Secondly, family allied focused programmes, professionals view families as lacking
strengths and struggling to make positive change. Thirdly, family focused programmes,
families collaborate on defining what needs to happen to promote better outcomes and lastly,
family centred models which promote the involvement of families in defining all aspects of
service delivery and resource allocation. Accordingly, Chaskin (2006) contends that family
support practice principles operate at three different levels, values, service provision and
practice. Practice focuses on building trusting relationships, being needs-led and flexible,
service provision strengthens informal supports and values focus on a strengths based
inclusive perspective (ibid.). Literature across the social care area highlights the importance
of relationship based work in enabling engagement and providing opportunities for positive
change to be made and sustained. This is identified as particularly important in the area of
working with complex need, however, in any context an enabling, supportive, strengths based
relationship aids engagement and possibilities for better outcomes.
Relationship Based Work
A relationship based model of work is a characteristic of better engagement and outcomes for
children and is acknowledged by many within the child protection field (Berelowitz et al.
2013, Lonne et al., 2009, Connolly 2010, Ghaffar, Manby & Race, 2011). A study by
Ghaffar et al. (2012) in relation to parental experiences in the child protection process found
that approximately 40 percent of parents felt they were not consulted in the process and some
11 found that social workers were judgemental and lacked empathy. However, a large
percentage of parents identified one professional whom they found supportive and this was
acknowledged as being of assistance in them engaging more effectively with the child
protection process. Featherstone et al., (2014) have identify that social work has become
strongly linked with child protection, with screening and assessments being paramount at
the expense of practical help and sustained relational support.
Effective work with children, young people and parents is based on the worker establishing a
professional approachable, emphatic relationship. As Gilligan has observed, family support
involves a ‘low key, local, non-clinical, unfussy, user friendly approach’ (Gilligan 1995
p.71). Family support used in this way allows for the development of trust and openness
which in time enables people to talk about their life and be listened to in a supportive
contained manner which enables change to happen. This approach is also recognised within
youth work and in child development practice.
A key aspect of youth work is the
development of the relationship between worker and young person. According to Blacker
(2010), Tracey (2009) and Sapin (2009) the building of the relationship between youth
worker and young person is a core determinant in the success of the youth work process.
Gilligan (2006) also argues the importance of significant relationships in young people’s lives
and the role it plays in building and sustaining resilience. Children and young people
involved in community based services build relationships with workers which can enable
them to, as Gilligan (2008) highlights, do better than was expected or build resilience. This
type of work takes time and skill.
In terms of the effectiveness of building relationships in a social work context, McLeod
(2010) found that for many young people it took months or even years and this was not easily
achievable within systems that valued brief interventions and where ‘workflow is king’
(White et al., 2014 p.76). In terms of child development, secure attachments with significant
adults provide children and young people with a base from which to explore the wider world
and make sense of it (Howe 1995).
The relationship has to be built up over time and
sustained often in difficult circumstances for the child, young person or parent and for the
professional (Howe 1998). Similarly, Schofield (2008) asserts the relevance of attachment
theory in working with children and young people and Clifton (2014) highlights the
importance of the presence of a trusted adult and long lasting relationships and the centrality
of a relationship-based practice in child centred work. Recent research by Berelowitz et al.
12 (2013) strongly acknowledges the value a caring professional building a trusting and
consistent relationship with vulnerable children and young people, someone who will ‘stick
with them’ in the long term (p.12).
There are ongoing demands being made by government
departments in relation to access to services, numbers, waiting lists, lack of provision and
serious child protection issues not being addressed.
Organisations can become fearful of
funding cuts and this can drive decision making and internal structures. This may lead to
professional practice that meets the requirements of funders possibly at the expense of needs
focused relationship based work.
Trevithick (2015) regards the describing human
vulnerabilities in terms of targets, outputs or product as denying the personal and unique
situation that people find themselves in. Practitioners require time, the building of trust and
opportunities to respond responsively and with empathy to assist people in moving forward
and addressing their difficulties. Meeting targets and outcomes cannot stand alone from
building relationships that need to be developed in order to achieve them (Ord 2004).
Neo-liberalism, Managerialism and Relationships
The rise of neo-liberalism from the 1980’s onwards with its ideology based on the belief in
individual freedom and the pursuit of individual entrepreneurial skills through the use of free
markets has had significant implications for work with families (Harvey 2005). A move
against state intervention particularly in the area of welfare and a move from a perceived
dependency culture according to Rogowske (2012) served to increase the focus on self-help,
individual responsibility and the commodification of services.
Garrett (2009) notes the
injection of competition into all spheres of society by neo-liberalism which previously would
have been viewed as outside the reach of commodification and competition. He goes on to
argue that within this paradigm the state is not in retreat as it continues to play an active role
including the introduction of discourses and practices in relation to children and families such
as prevention and social inclusion (ibid.).
The administration of public services within a neo liberal ideology means a move from
administration to management much like within the private sector (Harris and White 2009).
Public services needed to be managed like business and a modernising and transformative
agenda has been pursued (Garrett 2009). The transition is described by Kikauer (2015) as
moving from management to managerialism and joining a family of ‘isms’, predicated on an
unspecified doctrine, system and practice. It is based on a belief system that is held up to be
true, a management ideology. This ideology, he suggests, is used to bring about compliance
13 and complacency and is presented as an unquestionable truth. He argues that neo-liberalism
has a definite political programme whereas managerialism is not necessarily concerned with
politics but the management of capital and society. It is about a ‘managerial-engineering
approach to societal problems that have been converted into technicalities’ Kilkauer (2015
p.1107).
The dominant discourse of managerialism with its overlaying of concepts,
discourses and approaches has had an increasing impact on the delivery of services within
communities. There is a breath and diversity to the organisations delivering services and they
can be distinguished by their primary purpose or function, by their access to resources and
their beneficiaries or those who participate in the service (Buchroth 2012). In general a
common feature of community based services is the manner in which they carry out their
work and this relates to their governance structures, values and principles (Courtney 2002).
The requirements of funding bodies significantly impacts services where they are ‘applying
lessons from “new managerialism” that had developed both in the private and public sector’
(ibid. p.30). Administrative demands, frameworks, templates, recording of inputs, outputs
and outcomes and a focus on procedures takes time away from direct face to face contact. In
terms of work with young people Banks suggests the professional judgement of staff can be
diminished and needs led practice undermined as funders ‘control and standardise activities
previously within the sphere of professional judgement’ (2004, p.40). Munro (2010) concurs
when she asserts that trust in the professional judgement of social workers was replaced by
top down ‘imposed managerial targets and regulations’ (2011a, p.8). This together with other
managerial techniques and approaches has resulted in ‘an over-standardised system that
cannot respond adequately to the varied range of children’s needs’ (Munro 2010 p.5).
When an environment exists that supports feedback, learning, communication and the
expression of emotions for staff and participants, it can usefully address a compliance based
culture and lead to a caring and supportive approach to the work (Trevithick 2015). The
concept of single and double loop learning (Argyris and Schon 1978) has been used by
Munro (2010) and Buchroth (2012) as a means of addressing organisational approaches to
questioning underling goals and strategies.
Trevithick (2011) asserts that defensive
mechanism adopted through fear and anxiety created by a managerialist approach can be
challenged and a new way found to encompass relationship based, needs focused work which
will bring about meaningful change for children and families. The question then arises for
organisation is how they can respond to a changing policy and funding environment which
has a clear framework and identified processes for responding to the needs of families. Is it
14 possible to maintain practices, values and approaches characteristic of needs led, community
based services and practices in keeping with the ten practice principles as set out in national
policy?
Change
Change can be accepted as something that impacts all organisations. Due to its importance
Senior (2002) has identified that it is a highly desirable managerial skill. Horwath and
Morrison (2007) adapting the work of Smale (1996) suggest five steps which should inform
interagency working and change.

Establishing the strengths and weaknesses of the current arrangements and agreeing
the rationale for change

Anticipating potential winners and losers and likely gains and losses from the change

Identify how evolutionary or radical the proposed change is. This is particularly
important where there is a major change of attitude, culture or financial expenditure.

Creating a critical mass for change through leadership, commitment and a shared
vision

Plan, have clear timeframes, indicators of progress and flexibility to adapt and be
responsive
A change in focus in how services are delivered and reforms achieved can be traced back to
200712. Sylda Langford, the then Director General of the Office of the Minister for Children
outlined the role of philanthropic investment in undertaking reforms. There has been a ten
year programme of work focusing on improving outcomes for children and young people
which was funded by Atlantic Philanthropy and has come to an end in 2016. This involved
developing strategies, designing individual services, preparing manuals to ensure fidelity to
manualised programmes, a focus on improving outcomes and putting in place plans for
evaluation. This replaced what was viewed as an ad hoc system for planning, development
and implementation (Little & Abunimah 2007). It was also combined with investment in
universities and research organisations so that work on the ground would receive support
through up to date research and academic input.
12
What Works in Family Support? (HSE 2013c) reflects the learning’s gleaned over a number of years from the Dept. Of Children and Youth Affairs Prevention and Early Intervention Programme (PEIP) and other interventions funded by Atlantic Philanthropies. Learning’s from PEIP and a parallel process supported by the Centre for Effective Services which also focused on effectiveness and improving outcomes for children have been disseminated by the Promoting and Learning Advisory Group. (HSE 2013 a) 15 The Centre for Effective Services (CES) is a not-for-profit company which was and is
supported by Atlantic Philanthropy and the Department of Children and Youth Affairs. The
purpose of the CES is to connect policy, practice and research, helping to ensure
implementation of effective services with the aim of improving people’s lives (CES 2016).
They have had a defining role in supporting and influencing thinking in relation to the
promotion of effective services and a particular role in the development of children and
young people’s services committees in each county in Ireland. They have had a role in
funding the development of Meitheal with the National University of Ireland Galway and the
Dept. of Children and Youth Affairs. They also support other significant initiative aimed at
improving outcome and monitoring and measuring work with children and families amongst
other social issues in Ireland.
In terms of the implementation of policy CES define it in the following terms, ‘at its simplest,
implementation can be described as the carrying out of a plan for doing something. It focuses
on operationalising the plan – it is about the ‘How’, rather than the ‘What’ (CES 2012 p.2).
The CES has published a guide (CES 2012) which highlights that research in the area of
implementation science shows that implementation is a process that takes time and
commonly it is agreed that there are four stages of implementation. Exploratory and planning
stages are followed by the innovation being implemented and finally the innovation being
embedded in the system and evaluated.
The literature suggests that these four stages
typically take 2 – 4 years (ibid). Implementation also requires enablers, fidelity to the
programme or innovation, implementation drivers, capacity, co-creation with stakeholders
and organisational change (CES 2012).
Hamblin et. al. (2001) in research on failed organisational change has identified that
neglecting people issues such as anxieties, poor communication, inadequate analysis or
responses and tensions, and so forth, is one of the principle causes of failure. Research by
Davies (2010) looking at changes in the management of and delivery of youth work practice
in England suggests that both managers and staff felt that organisational change had made
youth work in some setting less responsive, less democratic and more concerned with the
technicalities of delivering work to young people. Similarly, Sercombe (2012) in an analysis
of the impact of managerialism on delivery of youth work identifies partnership working,
commissioning and a competitive environment as significant features and suggests that
community and voluntary sector agencies are now effectively agents of government with
16 some opportunities for autonomy within limits. This study is limited in terms of size and
resources and a national evaluation of the development and implementation of the NSDF
would identify impacts in these early years of its ongoing development and implementation.
Potential for the use of a qualitative evaluation approach
It is clear in written documents relating to the NSDF that clear practice principles for family
support are evident and are to underpin how services and supports to families will be
delivered. At a national level an evaluation of complex national policy and frameworks, such
as the NSDF, would need to consider interim impacts and indicators of long term goals and
high-level goals being achieved.
Considering the context in which developments are
happening such as economic, political, social, and organisational contexts would also be
required. Any change or development also brings with it unintended outcomes and it is
important to factor in the learning from such outcomes. High level goals can be difficult to
measure, attribution, that is cause and effect, is a complex matter and systems operate in
dynamic environments with multiple relationships and this too can impact outcomes
(Vanclay (2012). Issues such as measurement cause and effect and attribution are not easily
partitioned into discrete entities. The processes in operation are characterised as dynamic and
not static.
Maxwell (1996) argues that qualitative inquiry involves understanding
phenomenon from the view point of the participants within their particular social and
institutional setting, he suggests this can be largely lost with the use of quantified data. In
terms of the outcomes of evaluation, Patton (2001) suggests that qualitative evaluation
findings can increase the usefulness and credibility of evaluations for decision makers as it
connects more closely with participants’ perspectives, otherwise known as utilization-focused
evaluation. Patton (1996, 1993) asserts that evaluation can make a significant contribution, in
so far as, evaluation can also contribute developmentally and to the generation of knowledge
in any given profession or field of inquiry. Whilst also using a formative or improvement
orientated approach and summative or judgement-orientated evaluation approach.
Knowledge Generation
Patton (1996) also argues that while formative and summative evaluations are instrumental in
use, conceptual use can generates knowledge by influencing thinking on issues.
The
conceptual use of findings from this research relating to impacts may contribute to increasing
the knowledge base in relation to current practice. Patton also suggests this knowledge is not
limited to a particular programme being evaluated but is generally useful as guidance for
17 future programme development and implementation. It is an accumulated body of knowledge
on particular aspects that can be adapted for future use (ibid).
Patton writes:
“Such generalizable evaluation findings about principles of effective programming
have become the knowledge basis of our profession. Being knowledgeable about
patterns of program effectiveness allows evaluators to provide guidance about
development of new initiatives, policies, and strategies for implementation. Such
contributions constitute the conceptual use of evaluation research findings – a use
beyond formative and summative evaluation for specific programmes” (1996 p. 134).
The NSDF is in its formative stage of development, this piece of research provides an
opportunity to identify preliminary impacts which may contribute to an increased
understanding of the implementation of aspects of the NSDF.
This is a small scale
exploratory study limited by resources and restricted to a particular time in the development
of the NSDF. However, of no less value as it represents the important perspective of those
working on the ground both in the statutory and community and voluntary sectors.
Conclusion
In this chapter I have provided a brief description of key characteristics which identify
community based work as a distinctive way of working. 2013 was introduced as significant
in the development of policy in the area of family support. I have identified the basis for
early intervention and preventative work and the importance of community based work in
enabling families to make positive changes in their lives. The importance of the development
of trust and the building of relationships with people to meet their identified needs has been
identified as core to work with families. The area of managerialism was explored and the role
relationship based work can play in countering a managerialist approach. The context dating
back to 2007 was provided when significant philanthropic funding become available to the
Irish Government, the academic community and other organisations. A brief look at what
enables change and factors to be considered in a changing environment are considered. I
have outlined the potential use of qualitative evaluation as a means of capturing learning’s
from the ongoing development of the NSDF. The next chapter will describe in detail data
gathered from semi structured interviews with practitioners who have been impacted by these
changes and discusses this experience in light of the literature review.
18 Chapter 3
Methodology
Introduction
This chapter outlines the research design, approach, methods and process I used to undertake
this research and why I selected these methods. It identifies the paradigm underpinning my
study. The chapter provides the rationale for the sampling methods used and discusses why I
chose semi-structured interview.
Ethical issues relating to voluntary participation,
confidentiality, access and reporting are discussed. I conclude by noting the strengths and
weaknesses of this piece of research.
Paradigms and Epistemological Stance
Paradigms are a way of thinking about or viewing the world and it describes basic sets of
viewpoints that are agreed on at a particular time and can develop over time (Kuhn 1962).
According to Guba (1990) a paradigm
‘is a set of basic beliefs…. It represents a world view that defines for its holder, the
nature of the ‘world’, the individuals place in it, and the range of possible
relationships to that world.’ (pp 17-30)
The world view or paradigm of the researcher can be reflected in the way a piece of research
is designed, how data is collected and how it is documented. Theoretical issues surrounding
the piece of work, consideration of the various techniques used for data collection and
consideration of what kind of knowledge one hopes to produce are identified by Harvey and
McDonald (1993).
Epistemological statements are about what we accept as knowledge and how knowledge can
be demonstrated (Harvey and McDonald 1993, Bryman 2001, Mason 2001). Easterby-Smith
et al. (2002) suggest the importance of an epistemological perspective for clarity in relation to
research design, its structure including what data is being gathered, where it is sought and
how it will be interpreted.
A more recent development in qualitative research according to Lub (2015) is the increasing
use of qualitative methods for evaluation purposes.
He asserts this relates to an
understanding of the limitations of quantative research in connecting with people’s
experiences, emotions and culture, and a balancing of the evidence based medical and science
based approach (ibid 2014). Lub (2015) goes on to describe three different functions of
19 qualitative information in evaluation, instrumental effectiveness, a focus on the meaning of
the policy or programme and thirdly, qualitative evaluation can follow an emancipatory
approach which could use either of the former perspectives and also aims to empower or
educate those involved in the programme during the research period. He then links these
different purposes with differing paradigms and perspectives.
Instrumental effectiveness can be linked to postpositivism, where the policy or programme
can be viewed as a separate entity and the independent effect can be evaluated accordingly
within a single reality. The second purpose relates to the meaning of the intervention for
those involved and the multiple realities of the functioning of the programme or policy and its
impact and this corresponds to constructivism. Thirdly the emancipator function can be
aligned to the critical paradigm which is linked to the advancement and empowerment of
participant of the research and collaboration between researcher and participant (ibid 2015).
Allied to this is the idea of validity or credibility of qualitative research. For Lincoln and
Guba (1985) each paradigm requires criteria to determine its veracity, criteria such as
credibility, transferability and dependability. This is important as Creswell and Miller (2000)
observe in relation to the discussion on validity. That different paradigms as described above
require different criteria and this is governed by the researchers paradigm assumptions and
the lens used by the researcher to validate the research.
These lenses relate to the
researchers own perspective, that of the participants or that of the external readers. These
then relate to nine validity procedures which could be used depending on the paradigm
assumptions and perspectives to be included. Triangulation, member checking, audit trail,
thick description, disconfirming evidence, prolonged engagement, collaboration peer
debriefing and researcher reflexivity can be used as validity procedures. Crestwell and Miller
(2000) believe some of these procedures are partly interchangeable and some can be used in
all three paradigms.
The notion of objectivity in the research process is rejected by Blaxter et al. (1996). Mark
(1996) concurs when he acknowledges the value laden process involved in researching
human interactions. The researcher is required to acknowledge that they will have inherent
biases regarding the research subject and in doing this make every effort to maintain as
neutral a position as possible. Grey (2014) notes that the very fact that a subject is chosen by
20 the researcher suggests that there is a judgement made and this in turn implies the choice is
made in terms of values and concepts associated with the subject and researcher.
This piece of research assumes a constructivist paradigm which relies on thick description to
look at the impact and realities of the formative stages of a new national framework for
supporting children, young people and families. A constructivist approach to research has the
intention of understanding the world of human experience (Cohen and Manion 1994). It
relies on the study participants views of the situation being studied and recognised the impact
on the research of the researchers own background and experiences (Crestwell 2003).
Within the constructivist paradigm prolonged engagement in the field engaging directly with
participants who are the focus of programme and policy change is desirable. However, in the
limited time available for this piece of research I have chosen to involve senior front line
practitioners who can give detailed and in-depth descriptions of impacts, and can assist in
providing meaning about such impacts. An extended period of time would have benefited the
generation of thinking about the impacts of the NSDF and enabled an enhanced contribution
to the conceptual use of the research findings. This piece of research does not claim to be an
evaluation of the NSDF, however, findings from the data gathered may contribute to the
identification of similarities or differences in implementation which may in time contribute
to a wider evaluation if that were to be undertaken.
Data Gathering
Social researchers are faced with a variety of options and are required to choose methods
most suitable to their situation. Consideration needs to be given to the qualitative or
quantitative methodologies most appropriate to the research in question. I decided a
qualitative approach offers the possibilities of capturing the voice of participants. It offers
me the possibilities of conveying the realities as experienced by participants in a holistic
manner, and the inductive and naturalistic characteristics most suited the collection of
feelings, perceptions and attitudes of participants in this study. According to Denzin and
Lincoln,
“qualitative research is multi-method in focus, involving an interpretive, naturalistic
approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitative researchers study things in
their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret phenomena in terms of
the meanings people bring to them” (2000, p.3)
21 The inductive approach involves plans for data collection followed by the data analysis to
identify patterns or relationships between data collected.
An attempt is made to establish
patterns and meanings and similarities or differences. The type of data required is descriptive
and provides a narrative of the changes experienced by participants accessing services in the
community from the perspective of senior practitioners.
The use of semi structured
interviews allows for the generation of rich, nuanced data which reveals a subjective view of
the current lived experience of those accessing community based family supports. They also
allowed for both the respondent and myself to explore the meanings of both questions and
key issues in the answers. Darlington & Scott (2002) suggests this exploration is a central
task or value of the research process. The aim is to seek an in-depth understanding of the
perspective of practitioners working with children, young people and families. Capturing this
‘voice’ both of participants and researcher according to Padgett (2009) is a key task as over
reliance on quotes may not adequately represent what was actually said.
Criteria for selection of participants to interview for this study included knowledge and
experience of working with families in a community based setting. I was able to include
people employed in the statutory sector and those employed in the community and voluntary
sector. I used network, chain or snowball sampling, to make contact with respondents
(Patton 1990, McGivern 2013). I used my network of contacts or gatekeepers and asked
them to refer me to individual people involved in community based youth or family work that
had been impacted by the NSDF. I chose to contact a small sample of practitioners, 5 in
total, 4 are currently involved in frontline work within communities and one practitioner has
retired following an extensive career in the area. All those interviewed have firsthand
knowledge of impacts and changes to their service.
Those interviewed were asked to prepare two composite case studies which combine issues,
trends, experiences and possible outcomes from their work with a child, young person or
parent. However, practitioners did not use case studies in the main to enable their discussion
and provided anonymised general stories or narratives to explore the impact of changes in
their work on participants. Through analysis of the data collected from each interview it was
apparent that the services experienced change either in terms of approach to their service
delivery model or governance or both and a before and after picture became clear.
22 The intention is to gain a broad overview of the issues and to look with depth at the workers
perception of the experience of families now and in the past of accessing support in a
community based setting. Practitioners also spoke of impacts on staff and administrative and
governance impacts. This piece of research involved a combination of exploratory and
descriptive research. I reviewed secondary sources of information around family support
practice and principles such as, journal articles, books and studies.
I drew up a series of questions based on the literature reviewed in the course of the secondary
research and questions were non-directive I provided study participants with an information
letter and consent forms. (See Appendix III). I did a practice interview and following this I
made changes to the questions. The test also allowed for me to do a time check and allowed
me to become more familiar with the mode of interviewer.
I combed and summarised key themes in the data. As part of the analysis I used coding as a
means of generating themes and concepts in the data.
Miles and Huberman (1994) contend
that coding allows the researcher to make meaning out of the data and allow for interpreting
and drawing conclusions. In terms of moving from coding to interpreting the data Dey
(1993) suggest that the researcher should be looking for patterns, themes, and similarities as
well as contrasts, paradoxes and irregularities. I undertook content analysis by colour coding
sections of each transcript and collating each theme or concept into a separate document.
This allowed for a clear visual display of the material and ease of access to each concept, I
then identified links and similarities and differences and patterns between participants’ views
and experiences.
Ethical Considerations and limitations
I gave an information sheet and consent form to each participant (see Appendix IV – VI). I
assured all participants of confidentiality within constraints. I recorded each interview with
the consent of the respondent and I was able to transcribe within twenty four hours of each
interview. Although, the interviews were recorded it was easier to relate to the data after a
short time frame had elapsed. Bryman (2012) highlights the importance of explaining one’s
role and why the research is being carried out which I did. Darlington and Scott (2002)
contend that there is an onus on the researcher to ensure that the research will not cause harm
and that adequate safeguards are in place to realise this objective.
For most participants it
appeared to be one of the few occasions when they had taken time to reflect on the impacts of
23 the changes that had occurred in the previous years as thoughts appeared to become clearer
for them as they proceeded in the interview. I checked in at the end of each interview to see
if they were ok and happy for me to use the recorded data.
I made contact with each
participant following the interview to thank them for participation and offering a follow up
phone call or email if they wanted to clarify any aspect of the interview or research.
Mark (1996) suggests that although research often claims to be value free, researchers can
fail to recognise that they impose their own values by simply selecting particular question
over others.
He suggests that the critical element in conducting a valid study is the
incorporation of the views of those participating. I was conscious of the above in transcribing
accurately and I have made every effort to represent the views and voice of the respondents
as clearly and honestly as possible.
The small sample size may limit the study findings. However, qualitative in depth interviews
have yielded descriptive data specific to participants’ experiences which in my view provide
meaningful and insightful learning.
The interviews provided an opportunity for study
participants to reflect on their work and as Patton (1996) suggests add to the thinking and
knowledge available on the impacts of the NSDF in its formative stages on supports available
to individuals and families.
Conclusion
This chapter included the research design, approach, methods and process I used in this
study. It identifies the paradigm underpinning my study.
It provides a framework for the
potential use of evaluation in qualitative research and provides a rationale for the sampling
methods used the use of semi-structured interviews. Ethical issues relating to the context in
which the research is being undertaken and confidentiality have been addressed. Chapter
four presents the findings from the five semi structured interview and discussed them in
relation to the literature.
24 Chapter 4
Findings and Discussion
Introduction
This is a small exploratory study of the formative stages of the implementation of the TUSLA
National Service Delivery Framework from the perspective of senior practitioners engaged in
the delivery of community based family support. The findings and discussion presented in
this chapter are drawn from semi structured interviews with senior experienced practitioners.
Study participants are working or having worked in community based projects either in the
statutory or community and voluntary sectors.
It is important to bear in mind that the small
numbers involved in the study and locally specific nature of the participants’ experiences
does not allow for broad generalisations.
However, this exploratory study provides an
indication of the actual impact on specific sites which may provide learning and identify
similarities and differences. I have written up the findings using quotes to illustrate themes
generated from the data where appropriate.
I begin by providing the context for the study
followed by a brief profile of the participants. Themes are discussed in light of the literature
reviewed in chapter two and under the following headings; what family support means to
practitioners, how changes were introduced, practitioners’ perceptions of how TUSLA
regarded their work, impacts on practice and finally governance implications for projects and
organisations.
Context and Profile of Participants
Five practitioners were interviewed in total. Four were interviewed in person and one
practitioner was interviewed over the phone. All had over ten years’ experience in their
current role and very extensive careers prior to their current roles in community based family
support work. Two of the participants worked within the statutory child protection area
before working in the community based family support area. Two people are or were
employed directly by a statutory agency, two people are employed by a community and
voluntary sector organisation and one person is employed by an independent community
based organisation. All projects are funding by TUSLA and have service level agreements
with the agency or agreed work plans. All the practitioners have worked with vulnerable
children, young people and families in various settings including residential care, statutory
social work services and predominantly with children, young people and parents living in
disadvantaged communities and who require additional supports.
25 What does family support meant to participants in this study?
Family support was identified as a style of work, in that it is needs based, it works through
building relationships with people and has a role in supporting families during the parenting
years. It was clearly seen as having a role to play in providing long term support, not just
with parents but also with children and young people. Each of the participants spoke about
family support in the context of what work their project undertakes with children, young
people and parents.
Therefore, there were some shared understandings of what family
support means and other more individual opinions based on the focus of their work or that of
their organisations focus or orientation.
It was acknowledged that family support is a complex term and it was spoken about in terms
of delivery of supports at concrete, developmental and individual support levels. It was
defined as targeted interventions using a psychosocial educational input with families where
child welfare and child neglect issues had been identified that would prevent the child from
reaching their full potential. People being able to get support using a number of different
means, through parents groups, childcare support, individual support, education programmes
and so forth, were named as being a feature of the work.
The value of being part of the
community and easy access to supports locally aided supporting families early and in a
preventative manner. One participant summed it up when she talked about individual, group
and social supports being features of the type of work undertaken with families in a
community based setting.
‘needs based, healing, resilience, education about parenting, communication,
therapeutic, a combination of concrete and educational supports and therapeutic and
community based, we put a lot of emphasis on social networks….’ (P2)
The importance of it being a style of the work is apparent when speaking with practitioners
and something that they want to hold onto and maintain. Two study participants particularly
named this as taking effort and something that had to be worked at to maintain throughout the
past number of years.
‘The atmosphere, the openness, the welcome, the warmth, the sense of being with
people, walking alongside people, very much community development, empowerment
perspective, we’ve managed to hold onto that to the credit of each individual staff
member, the team collectively.’ (P4)
What practitioners spoke about in relation to their work is in keeping with the definition of
family support as put forward by Pinkerton et al. (2004) and used in current policy
26 documents relating to family support. This definition identifies family support as a style of
work and a set of interventions which build social supports, prioritises early intervention and
is normally delivered within the person’s community or home. This is also in keeping with
what practitioners clearly articulated in a previous small study I undertook into principles and
practices underpinning community based supports within the community and voluntary
sectors. (Somers 2015).
However, it was also evident that a different narrative emerged
when practitioners spoke about how they now deliver family support.
Change
One study participant identified that change began to happen approximately eight years ago
due to local management changes and the publication of the Roscommon report. Four
participants identified 2013 as a significant year for the beginning of changes to the family
support work they were doing with children, young people and families and this change has
been ongoing since then. Four practitioners spoke of sensing ripples, hearing that changes
were coming, of sudden change and of anxieties and concerns. Information then started to
become available and this came through meetings and phone calls. Interestingly no one
spoke of reading policy documents13 which became widely available in 2013 and provided
detail on theory, policy, practice principles and service delivery in the field of family support.
The experience for one practitioner was very negative,
‘We knew the changes were coming, we had a few visits from TUSLA, the area
manager, my experience was quite negative of that…it was very much dictated and
you won’t be able to sit around having cups of coffee and tea and chatting, and that
was said. So I think there was a total undervaluing and underestimation of the work
that was being done’ (P1)
Another participant spoke about having had anxiety and concern about the future of the work
and subsequently having a more positive experience of the introduction of the changes due to
the respectful manner in which the change was managed by local TUSLA management.
13
In 2013 a number of policy documents were published by the HSE Child and Family Agency (now TUSLA) outlining how services for children, young people and families were going to be delivered and the role of the community and voluntary sectors and the statutory sector in family support, see Chapter 1 Introduction for additional information. 27 The change was identified as being sudden in the end by one participant,
‘it was very much a sudden thing we knew local area pathways14 was being looked at
and had been to a few meetings with a team from Limerick, the Limerick assessment
of need, and someone from Sligo came down to talk, so it had been on the cards for
about a year. There was a formality to it in the end, yes in the second year 2014 it was
in the service level agreement and there were lots of meetings with the child and
family agency and other local agencies that were providing services’ (P3)
It was a similar experience for another project. Change was in the air since 2012. In 2013
their project experienced significant reconfiguring of its services. They operated family
welfare conferencing on a county basis and this was no longer required by TUSLA.
‘It just happened because we were funded by TUSLA, TUSLA said what we [TUSLA]
need is family support, I had heard there was changes coming down the line, all of
that was happening in 2012 and it just happened in ’13, let’s have a consultation
process and this is what’s going to happen in the end anyway !’ (P4))
One practitioner was able to name a number of factors resulting in his project changing its
work practices. Firstly, in 2008 a new area manager had a focus on early intervention with
families and the practitioner himself began questioning the evidence of change with some
families they had worked with for years. He continued by identifying the publication of the
Roscommon Child Care Abuse Report (Gibbons 2010) and learning’s from its
recommendations.
Change continued in 2013 with the implementation of prevention,
partnership and family support.
‘Prior to 2008/9 we would have stayed with some families for years the big turning
point in our evaluation and that was the Roscommon abuse case rather than the
social work pressures…. It was the Roscommon case that was the key turning point
for us.’ (P5)
This practitioner also stated that they were kept informed of developments as they were
happening as they had positive working relationships with the principal social worker and
they were kept up to date on the same basis as TUSLA staff. This idea of working with
families over a long period of time is an area which is contested, short brief focused
interventions are favoured by some practitioners and longer term support is promoted by
others, this is a theme which will be discussed later in this chapter.
14
An Area Based Approach to Prevention, Partnership and Family Support was previously known as Local Area Pathways, see Appendix I 28 Finally the participant who is now retired felt he could now talk more openly and with a
wider view of the issues impacting the work and communities as he is no longer employed
and is still in contact with other practitioners in the field.
‘people are so worried, I couldn’t say what I was saying to you if I was still employed
probably, people are worried about that [loss of services in communities] and so their
needs to be an expansion of thought around the level of disadvantage in communities
because I think the level of poverty and disadvantage and the intergenerational issues
are just never thought about... the whole area of social policy is so important, a wider
view of issues at society at large.’ (P1)
Regard for the work
All participants thought that TUSLA and the social work departments in their area, that is
principal social workers and social workers on the ground, held their work in high regard.
How the process of change was managed, however, has led some projects to question this
understanding.
‘I still had a lot of contacts and people would have known who I was and appreciated
the work of the project… to be honest I have to say all the good links I talked about,
we probably didn’t have good links with social workers…they had a culture that they
didn’t refer and the principal did everything she could to get them to refer but they
didn’t. (P1)
Two projects operated family welfare conferencing as a significant part of their work and
both of these projects experienced significant reconfiguring of their services.
‘for us as a project it was a lot of change at the same time and in that year family
welfare conferencing was also cut back that year [2013], the child and family agency
[TUSLA] wanted us to divert those posts in to the parenting capacity assessments so
we lost a post because of that. The post was transferred, we do a small amount of
family welfare conferencing, we don’t take self-referrals, we don’t take referrals from
other professionals, we only take social work referrals and secure orders 15have to
take priority and then if we have space and the referrals are there, we do about 6 a
year’. (P3)
Similarly family welfare conferencing in the other project was not supported to continue as a
significant element of their work,
‘I would have a sense that, I think is that the project, the family welfare conferencing
was respected in that social workers did respect it and we did get lots of referrals and
it was well used and could be improved upon and then it just come down to this is
what TUSLA wants this is the budget and its going into family support and we see
15
There are a number of procedures TUSLA can use when dealing with children who are at risk or who are in need of care. TUSLA may apply to the courts for a number of different orders and in general the orders involve the child being received into the care of TUSLA. 29 prevention as family support and we want you to reduce our waiting lists and I think
it didn’t really matter what they thought of the previous programme you know I don’t
think they did it out of we didn’t like it I think they did it out of this is what it costs and
its going and this is our model of what we want and there is no point arguing’ (P5)
One study participant had a quite strategic approach in the projects relationship with the local
social work department and aligned the work of the project to the needs of the social work
department prior to 2013.
‘my understanding is that we would have been seen as a service of quality as they say
tick the boxes for value for money both in terms of frontline social workers through to
social work management. There is recognition of quality service provision for what
we do and how we do it. I strategically work on maintaining open and as far as
possible positive relationships with principal social workers, I suppose from the
perspective that, to be blunt, knowing that the decision makers when it comes to
funding and maintaining funding if there looking for input on what’s happening on
the ground it’s the principal social worker there talking to…there’s an argument that
we weren’t cut as savagely as other areas were cut.’ (P4)
One practitioner spoke about how his project prepared a report on how they could change and
adapt to work in a much wider catchment area with additional numbers of referrals, but it was
not taken into account during meetings about the future direction of their work.
‘None of the work we did in that report was regarded, there was no discussion,
consultation in my experience, there was no recognition of what was already in
place.’ (P1)
There is great complexity for projects working in family support, consideration need to be
given as to how to be responsive and adaptive to the needs in their communities. It appears
from this data that experienced practitioners felt in reality they had very little control over
requirements of funders. In reality when TUSLA required a change of focus and direction
there was little room for an alternative response and although one practitioner was strategic
over a period of time in his relationship with funders the project did change the way it
supports families in order to met social work needs.
As this is a small sample of projects
caution needs to be used in making general statements regarding the manner in which the
NSDF was introduced and implemented in 2013.
As illustrated in the literature
implementation requires a number of stages and a number of years to become bedded down
and understood (CES 2012). In this small sample, the majority of study participants felt
uninformed about what the future would hold. It does appear that in these instances there
was no coherent plan by TUSLA to engage with services before decisions were made, no
communication strategy, no consultation and no real opportunity to influence the
30 reconfiguring of their services. This lack of communication seems to have led to huge
anxiety and worry in the lead up to 2013 and during that year when most change seems to
have taken place, with the exception of one project which had implemented change over a
number of years prior to 2013. The speed at which it appears to have taken place together
with the lack of acknowledgement, communication, support and consultation, can suggest
that it did not provide a positive basis for a change process to be implemented (Hamblin et al.
2010, Horwath & Morrison 2007). To put this in context it is important to move on to look
at what the actual impacts have been on the delivery of services and for the governance of the
work.
Impacts on practice
One of the most striking findings in this study has been the development of larger numbers of
social work referrals into community based projects. All of the projects spoke of the high
levels of referrals received for families identified by social work as requiring a child welfare
response.
‘The referral rates have flipped so about a third are coming from parents and two
thirds from social work, in the first seven months of 2015 we received forty five
referrals from social work for that service [family support] and now in any given year
we’d normally see about forty families in that service. So in the first seven months
they were looking for more capacity than we had in the whole year and that was an
increase on the social work referral rates on the previous year of almost doubling’
(P5)
Across the five projects a similar picture is reported. All projects have experienced large
increases in social work referrals and some had the expectation that they would be mandated
not to take self referrals.
‘We’ve managed to hold on, initially we were advised there would be no self referrals,
right and yet many of our families have self referred even though they have previously
been open to social work, we see that as a good thing... and also we would have spent
years building the profile of the service in the area.’ (P2)
Two practitioner’s spoke about people potentially waiting six months from the time their
family are referred for support and them being worked with and this had not been the case
previously. It was also recognised by practitioners that even at six months in comparison to
other service that this is still relatively quick but in terms of how the work was delivered
before the delay is of concern to them.
31 ‘Waiting lists, waiting lists, pressure to see people quicker, pressure to turn cases
over quicker, and concern for what happens when something goes wrong and social
work say well we’ve referred them onto you, it’s not our fault.’ (P4)
In an attempt to address this issue, one project now speaks to the family when the referral is
received, signposts other services and asks them to check back in with them if anything
significant changes. Another project now implements an admittance and discharge policy to
prevent families who have self referred remaining on the waiting list and being overtaken by
a social work referral. They may be overtaken due to the pressure on projects to respond to
additional social work referrals. The adoption of this admittance and discharge policy is to
try to ensure that the service is delivered taking into account the needs of those referred for
support and not simply prioritising social work referrals.
Building a community base around the projects in a particular geographical area is something
all participants talked about. They reported that it took years to develop trust and long term
relationships in their areas which, in turn, built up self referral by local families and young
people. Looking at family support work then from an ecological systems perspective is
important (Hoolan Putti and Brady 2011). This perspective goes beyond looking at the
immediate environment of the child and places them within the context of interdependent
systems. Again this perspective is evident in national policy documents which state that
‘there is an interdependent relationship between the individual and the environment....which
must be considered when supporting children and their families’ (HSE 2013c p.21). Adopting
an ecological approach to supporting families assists in providing a holistic and inclusive
approach in family support work.
This takes into account the immediate and wider
environment and the processes and interactions impacting on the individual or family
(Chaskin 2006, Bonfrenbrenner & Morris 2006). It is of concern that projects are more
restricted in responding to families who self refer. The development of trust and ownership
in communities enables self referral which may be diminished as additional demands are
made on projects.
Projects have found ways of working with TUSLA to enable self referral, although, not in its
purest form.
All projects prioritise TUSLA referrals and all projects have found a way to
maintain some open access in their projects in a roundabout way or through their own
established relationship with participants in their immediate community.
32 ‘I can think about one person he has been able to continue but if he didn’t have a
long term relationship with the individual [project worker] he has he wouldn’t have a
service now, he wouldn’t get a service from CAMHS or school completion, where else
does he get a service’ ( P1)
Relationship and community based practice
Projects are and historically have been based in particular disadvantaged communities,
however, the concept of community can be broad. Four projects were required to extend
their catchment area to include areas not previously covered by their project or organisation.
One project had been extending their area since 2008 to respond to needs in the wider
community and to respond to the needs of the local social work department. This has
implications for how a service can be delivered to a larger population, for the management of
the work, for travel and expenses and logistics about where staff are based and the best use
of their time.
Working in a larger geographical area may have implications for relationship based and
community based work practices. This may lead to a ‘disconnect’ between values and
principles underpinning community based supports and the actual manner in which the work
is undertaken.
For one study participant this has happened over a long period of time and
for the others as a direct result of the changes since 2013. The assertion by Featherstone et.
al., (2014) in relation to social work practice moving away from practical help and sustained
support may be mirrored in the new style of delivery of supports through PPFS in some
community contexts.
Concern was expressed about the impact of the erosion of the
community aspect and what it may lead to in the future.
‘The community aspect was totally eroded and the thing that makes me so mad and so
sad actually is not only was it eroded in our project but it was eroded in the
community development project and the other local projects as well... there are huge
problems being stored up for the future in terms of no community based services’ (P1)
He continues by suggesting that families and young people were worked with over a long
period of time and in their local community and cautioned about the provision of support
being separated from a community base.
‘It’s like having a hole in the bucket unless there’s ongoing work in the community as
well. Once you came on (into the project) you stayed on, that’s very different to
nowadays, the whole point was we were offering a long term support because they
came from very disadvantaged families, some were never going to be able to change,
very few had good parenting themselves..., we wanted to offer something ancillary to
33 what young people got at home, it was scaffolding them throughout their childhood’
(P1)
The link between families self referring and knowledge of and confidence in a project based
in their community was identified as significant in engaging hard to reach families over many
years.
‘Particularly the older families we would be well known to them, we’d see them
around and we’re going into the second generation with some families, but not all of
them some of them are doing really well and a lot of our referrals are word of mouth,
friends or family who know us in the past would say would you go down to them and
talk to them and see, it would have been an open door’ (P3)
This participant went on to say ‘we really need to claw back what we can with the
community’ P3. She went on to gave the example of attempting to engage a mother in the
work of the project over an eighteen month period through low level informal contact and
who did very meaningful work when she did engage. However, she concluded by saying,
‘we don’t have the capacity to go chasing after families like we used to but we still
give them every opportunity, we still try different approaches...we wouldn’t be able to
do it to that level now, we really wouldn’t and that’s a pity because I think we are
missing out’ (P3)
This project now stops making contact at three months if a family or individual do not
engage. Dolan et.al., (2006) proposed a definition of family support and a set of ten practice
principles which have been adopted in the suite of documents supporting the NSDF and its
component parts (HSE 2013c).
These HSE documents, the family support definition and
practice principles advocate a strengths based approach, the promotion of informal social
networks, a person centred approach, the promotion of social inclusion, flexibility in delivery
and access to services, needs led and a partnership approach between families, professionals
and communities. ‘Clawing back’ (P3) what has been lost with the community could relate
to the style of family support work which encouraged people to develop a sense of ownership
over and belonging to the project in their area. It may relate to what one practitioner (P4)
named in an earlier quote as the welcome, the walking alongside people and a community
development and empowerment approach being part of how the work is delivered.
The need to support families early and in a preventative manner was a recurring theme and
reported as a key goal of family support in preventing issues from escalating (HSE 2013c).
34 It’s been difficult to hold onto what we think is important as well, the families who
come forward themselves and the early intervention work’ (P3)
All participants in this study worked with families who were referred for support by the
social work department and also in smaller numbers with families who self refer. The link
with social work is identified as causing a particular difficulty. It was noted that in order for
many families to get help and support they needed to be referred to the social work
department and then the family or individual may be referred to a community based project.
Family support as described by Gilligan (1995) as low key, local, non clinical and having a
user friendly approach does not appear to sit comfortably with a the more formal referral
based approach being used in the projects in this study.
‘I think family support is a very good thing and in some cases it is prevention but the
fact that it has to go [be referred] through social work is not great for a lot of families
because they don’t want to be involved with social work, I think the whole link with
social work puts them in a certain predicament’ (P5)
She reiterated this loss when she spoke about the project she works in and their lack of ability
to provide support easily and informally when parents seek support. Access to supports is
now predominantly linked to a referral through the social work department.
‘so there we are stuck in the middle of the town, people can come in to us for
information and advice and they have done and we’ve worked with the Roma
community and all the rest of that and its good but you know they can ask about a
parenting course but we can’t give direct help until we go through social work, the
impact on families is that the community side is gone.’ (P5)
She went on to say how they are able to use the current structures and the relationship they
have built with the TUSLA PPFS coordinator to enable some self referrals to enter the
system and then be referred back to them.
‘We’re lucky with the relationship we have, if a family come in or we got to know a
family, a lot of the time its known to social work anyway, but we can ring [named
person] and say we’ve had this inquiry and he will say sure get so and so to ring me
and we’ll send it in as a referral, it doesn’t happen very often but it means you can
promote yourself in the community’ (P5).
One practitioner in this study was very vocal in his critique of their current situation, having
regard to increased thresholds, less resources and increased expectations in relation to
throughput of families and individuals.
‘The direct impact in terms of development, the biggest impact for us has been the
change in criteria at what point social work engage with families, so with their
national framework that allows them to say well actually we’re not engaging with this
35 family because that actually should be under the local area pathway, that’s meant
that families that hitherto would have gotten a service from social work that was
needed and warranted now is expected to be dealt with in family support and there
hasn’t been any increase in resources to meet the increase in demand. (P4)
‘so as the local area pathways were being developed and as the thresholds for social
work intervention have been increased, I’ve been consistently saying I have no
difficulty with the model there proposing but where is the resourcing, where is the
staff to step into this middle ground as the social workers step back into more high
end protection pieces, those staff haven’t materialised and as predicted the pressure
both on statutory family support and ourselves as the non statutory has increased
significantly in the past 18 months’ (P4)
The demands on projects to work within a space vacated by social work due to higher
thresholds for access to a service have left projects in a vulnerable position. They are now
working with issues that are increasingly complex (Trevithick 2015). They have to manage
additional numbers of referrals and become involved in additional fora and interagency
arrangements led by Children and Young Peoples Services Committees and other structures.
All of this raises a number of questions in terms of a joint understanding of the principles and
values underpinning family support and how it has been implemented locally within
communities and structurally within services. This practitioner was commenting on social
work being seen to have the main role in relation to child protection issues and services being
configured around this need.
‘wait ten years or so, just having social work in an agency is crazy, social work is
going to be damned for ever more and just the notion that you could support families
separate to their communities and without putting in community supports as well is
just never going to work..., the expectations of society are so big that everything can
be fixed, but I think social work need to be supported in their work and I think they
need to be exposed to other professions, really good that people learn from each other
and that other professions have something to offer and it’s not just social work’ (P1)
Short term interventions, early intervention & prevention
Ord (2004) suggests that meeting targets and achieving outcomes cannot be outside of a
relationship with people. Practitioners spoke about the impacts on their work in different
ways.
They described the loss of the community base, the importance of relationship
building, the open door, the need to work quickly, and the level of need in families
increasing.
Families who do not meet the social work thresholds may be referred to
community based services. Projects are now working with high level two and level three
36 families and joint working with level four families on the Hardiker16 model as illustrated by
this quote from a practitioner.
‘Prevention implies working with people at level two so they don’t get to level three
or level four... we can’t get near level two stuff as the social workers are
predominating the delivery...With respect to the crisis driven stuff you know they
[social work] want to throw everything at it to cure it, the reality is sometimes no
matter how much you throw at it it’s not going to fix it so you have to measure what
you offer so you make the best utilisation of resources and you shouldn’t let the fire
in...’ (P4)
Another study participant has seen some shift in thinking and feels that there is more scope
for staying with families somewhat longer than when the changes began to be introduced.
‘so I think it is prevention but in some cases some of the pressure that’s put on us to
do the work very quickly, do it be concise, that’s good in certain situations, in others
it’s not, and some families need longer term work and this has been teased out over
the last while and they’re a little bit more accepting of that but when it came in first it
was get them in get them out, do it, now they’re relaxed more about it.’ (P5)
There was general acceptance among the practitioners that very short term interventions with
children, young people and families were not viewed as helpful or productive. This relates to
four or five weeks of work or the use of programmes with no support afterwards or little
opportunities for participation in group work to enable participants to talk and process the
learning’s they may be gaining from the work.
‘we mainly do one to one, group work we’d love to do more, it has to be cases have to
be prioritised so it’s what’s left to do afterwards and we try to let every member of
staff try to do something so that it isn’t only case work’ (P3)
Particularly in relation to how to work with young people one practitioner in the study
focused on the importance of group work and the process and learning gained through
skilfully delivered group work as opposed to programme work.
‘I am very critical of the kinds of programmes that they want to bring into school
around mental health, they are just taught. What young people need is groups with
each other and discussing with each other and process... oh for God’s sake this is
boring what they really want is to talk to each other about these things, a process
rather than taught programmes’ (P1)
16
The Hardiker Model provides a framework in which to understand different levels of need within a population of children. This model has been widely used as a planning framework by The Irish Government (Centre for Effective Services, 2010)) 37 The use of manualised programmes which was identified as a way of working promoted in
the United States was a cause of concern.
‘People demand to be cured in eight sessions or whatever, but I do think there is a
dummying down of the expertise and professionalism of the services by virtue of using
very scientific, in inverted commas, manualised deliveries, I think that that means that
the relationship is occluded’ (P1)
This is echoed in the literature (Berelowitz et. al., 2013, Clifton 2014), which sees consistent
relationships, empathy, responsive, attuned, helpful and supportive professional relationships
as conducive to promoting positive outcomes for children, young people and families. White
et. al., (2014) also suggests that relationship based work can counter balance an environment
that values brief interventions. However, the work is changing and organisations and projects
are required to work with more people identified as requiring supports. One organisation has
implemented their own manualised parenting programme which has been identified as very
helpful in terms of moving the work along more quickly.
[Named organisation] ‘ helped to streamline the service a lot more and you know the
work is there already, the workbooks are there already so there isn’t so much time
taken up with planning it’s much more focused with the families, they have their work
book and can take it away with them’ (P3)
It is recognised that in the current political, economic and policy climate that organisations
have to become more efficient and review the way they work to enable more families to
receive support but there is a concern that,
‘the baby may be thrown out with the bath water... Yes we need to put resources into
front line service provision and yes we need to make sure that every child who is in
care of the state is properly cared for and has a social worker etc. But we need to put
effort into the preventative side of the, if we get prevention right we will reduce the
numbers requiring higher level interventions later in life, I have been told that its
intended for 20% of the TUSLA budget is to be spent on prevention my understanding
in the area I operate in it that the budget is about 8% and that’s in an underfunded
area already’ (P4)
However, it is also clear that more recent changes to services have made some practitioners
more aware of the benefits in some cases of time limited engagement. It was identified that
a more time limited engagement with parents, young people and children brings focus to
what is trying to be achieved and does not enable a dependency relationship to develop. The
five practitioners in the study individually named a number of features now in the work they
undertake, they look for evidence of change when working with people, the work is more
concise and timely and the changes have helped to streamline the work.
38 Innovation & change
One particular aspect of the NSDF came in for mention by participants, namely, the Meitheal
process. The impact on family welfare conferencing was also disused. A number of issues
and concerns and some potential benefits were identified in relation to Meitheal.
All those interviewed has experience of the Meitheal process although at different levels.
One participant was able to speak very knowledgably about the process as she identified that
they had come to the process very quickly and have been lead agency in all the Meitheals
they were involved in, approximately 15 in one year. She also named the fact that training is
only being received in early 2016 although their staff facilitated Meitheals taking place with
families in 2015. She went on to say there is a large volume of work required in the Meitheal
process including meeting with parents, professionals and extensive form filling.
‘It happened very quickly, all of a sudden it was Meitheal and we went into that very
quickly, it’s strange I know that a lot of areas were slow to come on board, we didn’t
have training or anything, I’ve only got the training now. (P3)
There was general agreement amongst all those interviewed that the level of form filling was
a burden on staff and families. They were described as very formalised and cumbersome,
that there was duplication, they operated in a way that was counter intuitive to how people
work and an imposition on families. The exclusive focus on the child in the Meitheal forms
to the neglect of a focus on the health and well being of the parent or carer was raised as an
issue.
‘The second difficulty I have on the Meitheal forms is their exclusive focus on the
child. We know from research that the welfare of the child is hugely reliant on the
mental health status of the parent or primary carer and prior to the arrival of
Meitheal we were doing an in house evaluation on the needs of the parent and the
needs of the child...the Meitheal process doesn’t embrace the needs of the parent as
comprehensively as I deem necessary’ (P4)
This concurs with Munro’s (2011) contention that the language of child protection,
intervention and child centeredness situates the child outside of his or her family and the
child’s connections to community.
A practitioner in the study queried the level of
information being gathered on families in the Meitheal process. They questioned the skills
base of those gathering this information and whether there is an awareness of the impact of
raising and naming issues with families.
One project initially found that parents had not
been informed that they had been referred for a Meitheal process and this had to be teased out
with TUSLA. The practitioner felt they were heard and there has been opportunity for
39 learning for both TUSLA and themselves. There is some hope that with time and adaptation
that it may improve outcomes for children particularly if mental health services, public health
nursing and psychology services become engaged in the process as this not the case in some
areas the projects work in.
There is more discussion on the Meitheal process in the next
section.
Family welfare conferencing appears to have been particularly impacted for two of the
projects in this study and according to these practitioners at a national level also. It appears
that TUSLA did not see that family welfare conferencing had a major role to play in the new
framework. Projects were reconfigured to undertake family support and or parenting capacity
assessments. Family welfare conferencing appears to have moved to the periphery of the
menu of supports available to families. Family welfare conferencing for two projects is now
predominantly available if a child is subject to a care order (Child Care Act 2001). It may
then be offered as an option for the family to consider and participate in. There were strong
feelings that it is a huge loss for families in general and particularly its provision to a family
at an early stage in the difficulty being experienced by a child as it can act at a preventative
level.
‘I suppose the family welfare conferencing change is something we don’t accept was
a good change, you know, I know that’s not where the child and family agency
(TUSLA) see the need but I do think a lot of families are missing out on FWC, that
could have been a good support and could be a preventative measure, and you’re not
going to be able to measure that really, you won’t know what it could have prevented
and that’s a big loss and will always be a loss’ (P3)
She was able to identify that previously lots of families supported through family welfare
conferencing would not have had any involvement with social work and now the majority of
families are involved with social work and, therefore, family welfare conferencing is seen to
have lost it preventative role. There was also an acknowledgement that family welfare
conferencing on its own had its challenges and that a combination of family support with
family welfare conferencing would be the ideal structure. Finally, one project was asked to
undertake parenting capacity assessments in 2013 and this is something that required
adjustment,
‘that was a big shift for us as we had gone from you know offering support and
preventing breakdown and working with families to purely assessing and not really
being able to give support and advice during that..., part of the process would be to
give some coaching not to the same level we would give in family support, so we
found that quite challenging as a team. (P3)
40 The organisation did not have a role in such assessments previously and provided training for
staff. The study participant recognises the role such assessments can play in enabling
decisions to be made sooner for the well being of the child and at this stage the team are more
comfortable with it. In terms of this particular project its profile with the social work
department has been raised and more referrals are coming from social work. It was identified
by the study participant that it may be as a result of the social work department having more
confidence in the work that the project does as a result of their knowledge of the parenting
capacity assessment work. A negative consequence to this is that there may be a stigma
associated with the project due to the project doing assessments and the loss of group work
with children and teenagers.
‘We just recently introduced our ready readers, and that was getting the children to
come in locally, reading after school and take away some of the stigma we feel is
more so there since we have been doing the parent capacity assessments, that wasn’t
there before so it’s an attempt to get young people in and reengage with them a lot
more.’ (P3)
Governance, Managerialism and Neoliberalism
Kilkauers (2015) notion that difficulties experienced in the lives of people and society have
been converted into technicalities rings true in participants’ experience of managerialist
requirements and approaches adopted. The notion that issues can be addressed through, logic
modelling, counting, reporting, recording and short term programmes was challenged by
practitioners. They queried the purpose of this whole approach. Additional components of
the NSDF which aim to include participation by parents and young people are also beginning
to come on stream adding additional pressure. There are briefings on parental participation,
children and young people’s participation and parenting support champions17 are being
sought from within current staff numbers. Attendance and participation in working groups
coming out of the Children and Young Peoples Services Committees is also a feature of
ongoing work. There is an expectation that projects and agencies will engage in these
structures and processes. This is both an internal and an external pressure, projects do not
want to exclude themselves and TUSLA needs organisations and projects to engage in order
for new structures to operate successfully. Projects now need to make decisions about what
pieces to get involved in and there is an awareness that they were very busy before these new
17
Parent Support Champions are to be recruited in each TUSLA services area to help in the implementation of the TUSLA Parenting Support Strategy (HSE 2013g). The champions will be existing practitioners working with children and families employed by TUSLA and its partner agencies. 41 structures and processes. The following quote illustrates the questioning of what addition it
brings to a child or family within a service.
‘it has made more work definitely made more work for me, more meetings to attend,
more admin, not sure what the value of more meetings is, not really clear about what
it’s all about, and that’s not good, and there has been a move from making decisions
locally and communities vary so much so that’s been difficult, some of the vibrancy
has gone, lost some of the creativity, flexibility and the autonomy we had, and what
did we get, the burden of more reporting, more admin, management. (P2)
A tightening more controlling relationship with funders is very evident for practitioners and
this is reshaping the approach of community projects and organisational independence
(Bunyan and Ord 2012) and potentially reducing their ability to provide critique and
alternatives to dominant thinking.
‘If the money requests us to stand on our head and put our left leg out for twelve
hours a day that’s what we’ll do, we used to be an independent organisation, now we
are another leg of TUSLA, and that’s what we are, there no point shying away from
it..., but at the end of the day the majority of our funding comes from TUSLA and are
we going to shoot them in the foot, are we ever.’ (P5)
This statement was tempered by the same person acknowledging that good work is happening
and there is value from ‘blowing the chaff away from the grain’ (P5). However, she went on
to express concern about how the work is conceptualised and the requirement for extensive
paperwork and time spent with families not being prioritised.
‘we’ve become a sticking plaster response for society and a way to not have people
think about that is to give them loads of stuff to write about, this is the box that the
family fit into and this is the intervention that I did and this is how long it took and I
am going to spend 60% of my time writing about it and 40% doing it and I’m going to
get them in and out the door..., instead what they’re saying you do is four and five
week interventions and get out, families don’t work like that, I’m very cynical about
that.’ (P5)
Two participants in this study expressed some reservations regarding the role of Atlantic
Philanthropy in contributing to policy in Ireland and wondered about the provenance of the
Meitheal process. One also suggested there may have been a lack of restraint and eagerness
to embrace thinking and funding particularly in relation to the Meitheal process.
‘first of all the Meitheal paperwork was designed from a researchers perspective and
not from a clients perspective... so coming out to them with an eight page form to fill
in is counter intuitive to how we work with people who struggle in life and the initial
Meitheal forms are definitely not client centred in their outlook... I think their rush to
embrace funding from Atlantic Philanthropy and the role of National University of
Ireland Galway, I think maybe it should have got more critique on the ground first.’
(P4)
42 This was also alluded to by another practitioner (P1) in his critique of manualised
programmes being adopted from the States as mentioned earlier. He also queried the use of
forms and manualised programmes which he suggests determine what answers are required
by asking particular questions and not others and a focus on predetermined outcomes which
indicate success or progress.
‘the technology is the ideology, when your given one of those forms to fill up that its
already framing the answer so if you don’t query the form and query why you have to
answer some of the questions you are already joined the system as to what the answer
might be.’ (P1)
Again this study participant went on to say that it may lead to those most excluded being
doubly excluded as they won’t fit in neatly with a programme.
‘most young people are excluded from those programmes because their behaviour is
too difficult or too disturbed or they know from the beginning the outcomes are going
to be poor, so a lot of these programmes coming from the States, that’s what’s
happening, that actually I have heard people say they sure why would you work with
that because they have no hope and why would you work with that person because if
you include them the outcome will be skewed because they are not going to make any
progress. (P1)
The role of professional judgement and needs led practice according to Banks (2004) can be
eroded and diminished as funders seek to control and standardise practice. It may be that
there are two ends to the continuum, the rigid use of manualised programmes and the use of
manualised programmes as a guide together with the use of practice principles. Trevithick
(2011) suggests that an environment promoting a relationship based approach, part of
accepted practice principles in family support, can act to challenge a compliance based
culture in organisations which may be created by anxiety around change and a managerialist
approach to delivery of services.
There is a need for increased capacity within community based services to meet child welfare
referrals from TUSLA. Projects and services in this study have reconfigured their service to
provide brief interventions in a larger geographical area and within limited time frames using
current resources.
One project in this study has introduced a new manualised parenting
programme to assist with time management of the work. One project has introduced an
admittance and discharge policy to assist with the management of referrals. It is identifiable
within this very limited small scale research that what were once open access projects based
in local communities with trust and long term relationships built up with children, young
43 people and families are now predominantly a service delivery mechanism for identified
referrals based on child welfare concerns. There is hope that there can be movement in regard
to what was lost over the past number of years and there is recognition that more focused
work with children, young people and parents is to be welcomed. One participant was
optimistic about the ongoing development of current processes and the opportunities for
regaining some of what was lost,
‘I do think it’s about biding your time and shifting a bit here and shifting a bit here
and we’ll kinda get more of it in time’ (P5)
Conclusion
This small pilot study explores the impact of the TUSLA National Service Delivery
Framework on community based family supports to children, young people and families. In
this chapter I have briefly outlined the type of organisations and models used in community
based supports. I have suggested they can be recognised by characteristics and principles
underpinning how they support people and are in keeping with the definition of family
support in national policy. I gave an account of participants’ experiences and roles in
supporting families. Themes were discussed in light of the literature reviewed in chapter two
and using headings generated from themes emerging in the data. Themes explored were,
what family support means to practitioners, how changes were introduced, regard for the
work of projects, implications for practice, relationship based and community based work and
finally governance, managerialism and neoloberalism. It is clear that there has been huge
change for those working with children, young people and families over the past number of
years. Chapter five will draw conclusions and recommendations from this study and propose
the need for a more extensive piece of research or a number of studies into all aspects of the
NSDF.
44 Chapter 5
Conclusions and Recommendations
Introduction
This study sought to explore the experience of senior practitioners’ understanding of the
impact of the NSDF, in its formative stage, on the delivery of community based supports to
children, young people and families. This chapter will set out a summary of the study,
identify patterns and trends emerging and present recommendations.
Summary
An introduction to the research area and the rationale for the study were set out in Chapter
One. This piece of research set out to explore, from the perspective of practitioners involved
in community based supports for families, the impacts of the NSDF on such supports. Five
semi structured interviews were conducted with senior experienced practitioners using the
methodology set out in Chapter Three. The practitioners were involved in the delivery of
supports to families both in the statutory and community and voluntary sectors. It was hoped
to use case studies to explore the impact on participants in projects. Although detailed
descriptions emerged of how projects operate in terms of their practice with people they did
not use case studies to illustrate this.
Findings and discussion of data from the five
interviews are presented in Chapter Four drawing on existing literature relating to work with
children, young people and families presented in Chapter Two.
Patterns and Trends Emerging
A number of impacts have emerged from the study. It is clear that projects and organisations
have undergone considerable change in the past number of years.
The perspective of
practitioners involved in this study in both statutory and community and voluntary sector
organisation is that their services have been impacted by local implementation of the NSDF.
The findings suggest;

In general there was a lot of anxiety about the introduction of a new way of working
as there appears to have been a lack of communication about what such changes were
to bring. There appears to have been a lack of any clear consultation process with
projects on the ground working directly in communities.
45 
Three of the five people who participated in this study felt that there work prior to
2013 had been disregarded and devalued. One participant had changed the focus of
the work they were doing prior to 2013 to align it with the needs of the local social
work department. One study participant although worried stated that the way the
change was managed was respectful of what had gone on previously.

This impact on all projects participating in this study has been that referrals have
increased and additional families are receiving supports from their service.

The additional referrals are coming from local social work departments for child
welfare concerns. These referrals are coming from a larger catchment than projects
would worked in prior to 2013

The impact of this has been a drop off of self referrals and a diminishing of the local,
low level community based work they were previously involved in. The link between
accessing supports predominantly through referral from the local social work
department is identified as a particular concern as lots of families do not want to be
linked to social work.

Practitioners identified that they are more focused now in their work with families,
work is undertaken in a timelier manner.

The longer term work which some individuals and families require has been
diminished and this is identified as a loss. Projects do not have time to develop long
term trusting relationships which would assist some people to engage or make change
in their lives.

Although not a particular focus of the study it was also noted that the use of the
Meitheal process may with considerable adaptation be helpful in the long term.
Meitheal forms came in for particular criticism.

There is an additional burden in relation to interagency working and increased
administrative requirements.
46 
Again, although not a particular focus of the study, Family Welfare Conferencing is
identified by two participants as a significant loss in the menu of services available to
professionals and families as it is now only available in particular circumstances.

All those who participated in the study are hopeful that as the NSDF continues to be
implemented there will be opportunities to adapt and respond to issues as they arise.
They are conscious that it is early days with the NSDF and they have identified that in
discussions with local TUSLA personnel that there is some ability to shift and
respond flexibly to local needs on a limited basis and in time this may grow.

There also appears to be a need for some discussion about whether the work being
undertaken is early intervention and at a preventative level as participants identified
they were working with high levels of need and were not able to do preventative
work.

The types of supports now available through community based projects appear to be
based predominantly on one to one or family work and the wider menu of services
previously available such as group work has diminished.

The findings suggest that the role of community based projects and organisations,
both voluntary and statutory is in flux and will continue to change and develop in the
coming years with the continued implementation of the National Service Delivery
Framework.
Dunst et al., (1991) suggest four classes of family intervention
programmes that progressively focus on the family’s needs and desires. A family
centred model which promotes the involvement of families in defining all aspects of
service delivery and resource allocation would be difficult to achieve in the current
model of work being undertaken by community projects.
Recommendations
This piece of research is limited by the small number of practitioners interviewed. Therefore,
findings cannot be generalised as to how elements of the NSDF has been implemented
nationally. The findings do however give an indication of the actual impact at present on a
small number of projects. There is a need for dialogue, clarity and reflection on what impacts
47 have been experienced at a local level in other project to get an overall sense of the direction
community based family support work is going.

Consultation and the use of feedback to inform the ongoing development of the NSDF
should be built into regular quality assurance or management meetings between local
TUSLA management and projects and organisations and fed back at national level.

An evaluation of all aspects of the NSDF is required at a national level to identify
patterns and impacts of its delivery locally. A qualitative evaluation methodology
may provide the platform for all stakeholders to contribute. The views and opinions
expressed by children, young people and families needs to be given equal weight to
funders and other stakeholders.

Any potential evaluation could also include stakeholders who would normally refer
into community projects such as, home school community liaison teachers and public
health nurses to identify how new referral pathways have impacted them accessing
supports for parents and children.

There needs to be a discussion on the value of community based work and a focus on
what this means to different stakeholders in the NSDF.

Development of a communication strategy to be put in place by TUSLA relation to
national policy in light of the finding that national policy documents was not referred
by practitioners during this study.
48 Personal Reflection
As I stated in the Chapter 1, I have been of working in community based work with children,
young people and families over a long number of years.
It appears the requirement to support increasing numbers of children, young people and
families has led to the implementation of a process using in the case of this study existing
resources. These resources were not designed to take on such large numbers of referrals and
had a particular mandate and brief which to the best of my knowledge was not identified as
faulty. That’s not to say that services do not need review and evaluation, they do, and those
working on the ground could contribute hugely to such an evaluation and in turn contribute to
the ongoing development of supports. There needs to be considerable linkage between those
making policy and those working on the ground.
Within the five projects who participated in this study it appears that there are highly skilled
professional managers and project workers who are well supported, this may or may not be
the case in all areas. Information, training and ongoing support are prerequisites to good
quality strengths focused work with vulnerable families.
Although not raised as an issues in this study it did strike me when reflecting on the findings
that there is potential that those living in disadvantage areas who may have had a community
based project in their area may now not be able to access such a project and, therefore, have
lost a service that was potentially available to them. Are people now being doubly excluded
or disadvantaged as larger numbers of families, who are entitled to a service, can now access
services which had a specific remit to work in disadvantaged and marginalised areas?
With larger geographical areas to cover and increased numbers of referrals the likelihood is
that there will be a less group work, less drop-ins, less contact with preschools and schools,
less summer programmes, etc. The loss community based work, close to where people live,
informal in a structured way and easy to access would be of huge concern if it were to be
replicated nationally.
It is obviously very positive that additional families can access supports which have the
potential to meet their needs at a level they require. With additional funding for preventative
work a combination of both short term, brief, relevant supports and longer term, holistic and
community based services would be welcomed.
49 Bibliography
Allen, G. (2011) Early Intervention: The Next Steps. London: The Stationary Office
Berelowitz, S., Clifton, J., Firmin, C., Gulyurtlu, S. And Edwards, G., (2013) ‘If only
someone had listened’. Final report of the inquiry into sexual abuse in gangs and groups,
London, Office of the Children’s Commissioner. Accessed on 23.12.2013
www.childrnescommissioner.gov.uk
Blaxter, L. Hughes, C. and Tigh, M. (1996), How to Research, Open University Press,
Buckingham
Bonfenbrenner, U., (1994) Ecological Models of Human Development, In International
Encyclopaedia of Education (3) 2nd. Ed. Oxford: Elsevier
Bronfenbrenner, U., and Morris, P. (2006), ‘The Bioecological Model of Human
Development’, In Lerner, R.M.V., Damon, W., & Lerner, RMS., (eds.), Handbook of Child
Psychology, Vol. 1: Theoretical Models of Human Development, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
Blacker, H. (2010) Relationships, friendship and youth work. In: Jeffs, T. and Smith M.
(Eds.), Youth Work Practice (pp. 15 – 30). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillian
Buchroth, I., (2012) Managing in the voluntary sector, In: Ord, J. (2012) Critical Issues in
Youth Work Management (eds.) London, Routledge
Buckley. H., Carr, N. and Whelan, S., (2011) ‘Like walking on eggshells’: service user views
and expectations of the child protection system, Child & Family Social Work 16
Canavan, J. (2010) ‘Family Support: Policy, Practice and Research into the Future’,
Administration, 58 (2)
Canavan, J. (2006) ‘Reflection for Action: the Future of Family Support’ In: Dolan, Pl,
Canavan, J. and Pinkerton J. (2006) (eds.) Family support as reflective Practice. London:
Jessica Kingsley
Canavan, J., and Dolan, P., (2003) ‘Policy Roots and Practice Growth’ In: Katz, I., and
Pinkerton, J., (eds.) Evaluating Family Support: Thinking Internationally, Thinking
Critically. Chichester: Wyley
Carney, G. M., Scharf, T., Timonen, V. and Conlon, C., (2014) ‘Blessed are the young, for
they shall inherit the national debt’: Solidarity between generations in the Irish crisis, Critical
Social Policy (34) (30) (pp. 312-332)
CES (2016) www.effectiveservices.org Centre for Effective Services, About page, [accessed
28th April 2016]
CES (2012) An Introductory Guide to Implementation, CES. Dublin
50 Chaskin R. J., (2006) ‘Family Support as Community Based Practice: Considering a
Community Capacity Framework for Family Support Provision’, In: Dolan, P. Canavan, J.,
Pinkerton, J. (2006) (eds.) Family Support as Reflective Practice. London: Jessica Kingsley
CFSA - Child & Family Support Agency Symposium (27 Feb 2013), Gordon Jeyes, HSE
National Director, Child and Family & CEO Designate of TUSLA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCxU4YVI-XM
Clifton, J., (2014) Children should be seen and heard: understanding the child’s experience
In: Blyth, Maggie (2014) (eds.) Moving on from Munro, Improving Children’s services,
Bristol, Policy Press
Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1994) Research methods in education. (4th ed.) London: Routledge
Connolly, M. (2010) Engaging Family Members in Decision Making in Child Welfare
Contexts, In: Arney, F. and Scott, D. eds. Working with Vulnerable Families: A Partnership
Approach, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
Connolly, M., (2004) Child and Family Welfare: Statutory Responses to Children at Risk.
Christchurch: Te Awatea Press
Creswell, J.W. (2003) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks: Sage
Davies, B. (2010) ‘Straws in the wind: The state of youth work practice in a challenging
policy environment’, Youth and Policy, Winter, (105) (pp.9-36) In: Ord. J. (2012) (ed.)
Critical Issues In Youth work Management. London: Routledge
Department of Health and Children (1998) Commission on the Family, Dublin, Government
Publications. (p.16)
Department of Children and Youth Affairs (2014) Better Outcomes, Brighter Futures: The
National Policy Framework for Children and Young People 2014 – 2020, Dublin:
Government Publications. Available at www.dcya.gov.ie, [accessed 23rd December 2015].
Department of Children and Youth Affairs (2015a) National Youth Strategy 2015–2020,
Dublin: Government Publications. Available at: www.dcya.ie
Department of Children and Youth Affairs (2015b) National Strategy on Children and Young
People’s Participation in Decision-making, 2015 – 2020. Dublin: Government Publications.
Available at: www.dcya.ie
Dolan, P., Pinkerton, J. and Canavan, J. (eds.) (2006), Family Support as Reflective Practice,
London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Dunst, C.J., Johanson, C., Trivette, C.M., and Hamby, D.W. (1991), Family-orientated
program models and professional help giving practices. Family Relations, 51(3), p.221-229,
In: Metselaar, J., van Yperen, T.A., van den Bergh, P.M., Knorth, E.J., (2015) Needs-led
child and youth care: Main characteristics and evidence on outcomes. Children and Youth
Service Review (58) (pp.60 – 70)
51 Featherstone, B., Morris, K. And White, S. (2014) ‘A marriage made in hell: child protection
meets early intervention’, British Journal of Social Work, 44 (7) (pp.1735-1749)
Featherstone, B., White, S. And Morris, K. (2014) Re-inventing Child Protection. Bristol:
Policy Press
Frost, N., Abbott, S. And Race, Tracey, (2015) Family Support, Cambridge: Polity Press
Gardner, R. (2003) Supporting Families: Child Protection in the Community. Chichester,
John Wiley & Sons, In: Dolan, P. Canavan, J., Pinkerton, J. (2006) (eds.) Family Support as
Reflective Practice. London: Jessica Kingsley
Garreth, P. M., (2009) ‘Transforming’ Children’s Services? Social Work, Neoliberalism and
the ‘Modern’ World, Open University Press
Ghaffar, W., Manby, M., and Race, T., (2011). Exploring the Experiences of Parents and
Carers whose Children have been Subject to Child Protection Plans, In: British Journal of
Social Work (2012) (42) (pp. 887 – 905)
Gibbons, N. (2010) Roscommon child care Case, Report of the Inquiry Team to the Health
Service Executive. Dublin: HSE. [accessed 19th December 2015]
Available at:
http://www.hse.ie/eng/services/Publications/Children/RoscommonChildCareCase.pdf
Gilligan, R. (2008) Promoting Resilience in Young People in Long-Term Care – The
relevance of roles and relationships in the Domains of recreation and work, Journal of Social
Work Practice 22 (1)
Gilligan, R. (2006) Promoting Resilience and Permanence in Child Welfare In: Barber J.,
Dudding, P. and Flynn, R. (Eds.) Promoting Resilient Development in Children Receiving
Care, Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press
Gilligan, R., (2000) ‘Family support: Issues and Prospects’ In: Canavan, J., Dolan, P., and
Pinkerton, J., (eds.) Family Support: Diversion from Diversity, London. Jessica Kingsley.
Gilligan, R., (1995) ‘Family Support and Child Welfare: Realising the Promise of the Child
Care Act 1991’ (p.71) In: McKeown, K., (2000) Supporting Families: A Guide to What
Works in Family Support Services for Vulnerable Families, Dublin: Stationary Office
Government of Ireland (1991) Child Care Act. Dublin: Government Publications.
Government of Ireland, The Programme for Government 2011 - 2016, (2011) Dublin:
Government Publications www.taoiseach.gov.ie , [accessed 19th December 2015]
Grey, D. E., (2014) Doing Research in the Real World (3rd edition), SAGE
Guba, E.G. (1990) The Paradigm Dialog, Newbury Park, CA: Sage (pp. 17 – 30), In Mark,
R., (1996), Research Made Simple: A Handbook for Social Workers, London: Sage
Publications
52 Hamblin, B., Keep, J., and Ask, K. (Eds.( (2001) Organisational change and development
Harlow financial times. Prentice Hall In: Horwath, J. and Morrison, T., (2007) Collaboration,
integration and change in children’s services: Critical issues and key ingredients. Child Abuse
& Neglect (31) (pp55-69)
Hoolan Putti, M., and Brady, B., (2011) From Tea and Sympathy to Optimal Matching of
Need: Developing a Shared Vision for a Community-based Family Support Service, Child
Care in Practice, (17), (3) Routledge
Horwath, J. and Morrison, T., (2007) Collaboration, integration and change in children’s
services: Critical issues and key ingredients. Child Abuse & Neglect (31) (pp55-69)
Howe, D. (1998) Relationship Based Thinking and Practice in Social Work, Journal of Social
Work Practice (12) (1)
Howe, D. (1995) Attachment Theory for Social Work Practice, London: Macmillan Press
Ltd.
HSE Child and Family Agency (2013a) Guidance for the Implementation of an Area Based
Approach to Prevention, Partnership and Family Support, Dublin: HSE
HSE Child and Family Agency (2013b) Meitheal – A National Practice Model for All
Agencies working with Children, Young People and Families, Dublin: HSE
HSE Child and Family Agency (2013c) What Works in Family Support? Dublin: HSE
HSE Child and Family Agency (2013d) Investing in Families, Dublin: HSE
HSE Child and Family Agency (2013e) 50 Key Messages, Dublin: HSE
HSE Child and Family Agency (2013f) Commissioning Strategy, Dublin: HSE
HSE Child and Family Agency (2013g) Investing in Families: Parenting Support Strategy
Supporting Parents to Improve Outcomes for Children, Dublin: HSE
Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (2015) IHREC endorses UN Committee
recommendations to protect and promote economic, social and cultural rights in Ireland,
Media Release, Issued : 22 June 2015 [accessed 20th February 2016]
http://www.ihrec.ie/news/2015/06/22/ihrec-endorses-un-committee-recommendations-topro/
Katz, I. And Pinkerton, J. (eds.) (2003) Evaluating Family Support: Thinking Internationally,
Thinking Critically. London, John Wiley & Sons, In: Dolan, P. Canavan, J., Pinkerton, J.
(2006) (eds.) Family Support as Reflective Practice. London: Jessica Kingsley
Kuhn, T., S. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago, IL, University of
Chicago Press
53 Layzer, J.I., Goodson, B.D., Bernstein, L. And Price, C. (2001) National Evaluation of
Family Support Programs, Volume A: The Meta-Analysis, Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates,
In: Dolan, P. Canavan, J., Pinkerton, J. (2006) (eds.) Family Support as Reflective Practice.
London: Jessica Kingsley
Lincon , Y. S. and Guba, E. G., (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Little, M., and Abunimah, A., (2007) Improving outcomes for children in the island of
Ireland: the role of philanthropic investment, Journal of Children’s Services (2) (2) (pp. 6774)
Loone, B., Parton, N., Thomson, J. and Harries, M. (2009) Reforming Child Protection.
London: Palgrave.
McGuinness, C. (1993) Kilkenny Incest Investigation. Report presented to Mr. Brendan
Howlin, by South Eastern Health Board. Dublin: the Stationary Office. Available at:
http://lenus.ie/hse/handle/10147/46278
McKeown, K., (2000) Supporting Families: A Guide to What Works in Family Support
Services for Vulnerable Families, Dublin: Stationary Office
McLeod, A. (2010) ‘A friend and an equal’: do young people in care seek the impossible
from their social workers? British Journal of Social Work (40)
Metselaar, J., van Yperen, T.A., van den Bergh, P.M., Knorth, E.J., (2015) Needs-led child
and youth care: Main characteristics and evidence on outcomes. Children and Youth Service
Review (58) (p.60 – 70)
Moran, P. (2010) Neglect: Research Evidence to Inform Practice. London: Action for
Children.
Munro, E., (2002) Effective Child Protection, London, Sage Publications
Munro, E. (2010a) ‘Learning to Reduce Risk in child Protection’, British Journal of Social
Work, (40) (4) (pp. 1135 – 51)
Munro, E., (2011b) the Munro Review of Child Protection: A Child Centred System.
London: Department for Education
Murphy, M., (1996) ‘From Prevention to ‘Family Support’ and Beyond: Promoting the
Welfare of Irish Children’, Administration, (44) (2)
National Youth Council of Ireland (2015) Budget 2015: “Small steps towards healing the
wounds of Austerity”, Post-Budget Analysis
Office of the Minister for Children (2007) An Agenda for Children’s Services: A Policy
Handbook, Dublin, Government Publications.
54 Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs (2009b) Report of the Commission to
Inquire into Child Abuse, Implementation Plan, Office of the Minister for Children & Youth
Affairs, Department of Health and Children. Dublin: Government Publications.
Pratschke, McKeown and Hasse (2011) ‘What Influences the Well-Being of Parents and
Children and What are the Implications: Analysis of Data on Irish Families’, In: Strategic
Framework for Family Support (2011), Dublin: Family Support Agency
Pinkerton, J., Dolan, P & Canavan, J. (2004) Family Support in Ireland: Definition and
Strategic Intent, A paper for the Department of Health & Children. Dublin: Stationery Office.
(p. 22)
Rochford, S., Doherty, N. and Owens, S. (2014) Prevention and Early Intervention in
Children and Young People’s Services: Ten years of Learning. Dublin: Centre for Effective
Services.
Rogowski, S., (2012) Social work with children and Families: Challenges and possibilities in
the Neo-Liberal World, British Journal of Social Work, (42) (5) (pp. 921 – 940)
Sapin, K. (2009). Essential Skills for Youth work Practice. London: Sage Publications.
Schofield, G. (2008) Providing a secure base: an attachment perspective, In Luckock, B. and
Lefevre, M., (eds.) Direct work; social work with children and young people in care,
London: BAAF
Senior, B. (2002) Organisational Change, (2nd ed.), London: Prentice Hall
Smale, G. (1996) Mapping change and innovation. London: HMSO
Somers, J., (2015) Values and Principles in Community Based Family Support Work,
unpublished project for partial fulfilment of the Post Grad Diploma in Child Protection and
Welfare, TCD
Tracey, D. (2009) Irish Youth work: Exploring the potential for social change, In: Forde, C.,
E. Kiely & R. Made (Eds.), Youth and Community Work in Ireland: Critical Perspectives, p.
177-198. Dublin: Blackhall Publishing
TUSLA, (2014) Thresholds for Referral to TUSLA Social Work Services
White, S., Morris, K., Featherstone, B., Brandon, M., and Thoburn, J. (2014) Re-imagining
early help: looking forward, looking back (p.76), In: Blyth, Maggie (2014) (eds.) Moving on
from Munro, Improving Children’s Services, Bristol, Policy Press
55 Appendix I
Taken from a PowerPoint presentation given by Marie Faughey, Department of
Children and Youth Affairs to TCD Post Grad class in October 2014
Implementation of an Area Based Approach to Prevention, Partnership and Family Support
through the development of Local Area Pathways as part of the National Service Delivery
Framework of the Child and Family Agency
56 Appendix II
Definition of family support as cited in the National Service Delivery Framework document
‘What Works in Family Support’ (HSE 2013c).
Family support is defined as:
‘both a style of work and a set of activities which reinforce positive informal social
networks through integrated programmes. These programmes combine statutory,
voluntary and community and private services and are generally provided to families
in their own homes and communities. The primary focus is on early intervention
aiming to promote and protect the health, well-being and rights of all children, young
people and their families, paying particular attention to those who are vulnerable or at
risk.’ (Pinkerton et al., 2004, p.22)
Ten Practice Principles
1. ‘Working in partnership is an integral part of family support.
2. Family support interventions are needs led and strive for the minimum intervention
required.
3. Family support requires a clear focus on the wishes, feelings, safety and well being of
children.
4. Family support services reflect a strengths’ based perspective which is mindful of
resilience as a characteristic of many children and families lives
5. Family support promotes the view that effective interventions are those that
strengthen informal support networks.
6. Family support is accessible and flexible in respect of location, timing, setting and
changing needs and can incorporate both child protection and out of home care.
7. Families are encouraged to self-refer and multi-access referral paths will be facilitated
8. Involvement of service users and providers in the planning, delivery and evaluation of
family support services is promoted on an ongoing basis.
9. Services aim to promote social inclusion, addressing issues around ethnicity,
disability and rural/urban communities
10. Measures of success are routinely built into provision so as to facilitate evaluation
based on attention to the outcomes for service users and thereby facilitate ongoing
support for quality services based on best practice.’ Pinkerton et al., (2004, p.17)
57 Appendix III
Interview questions /probes for frontline practitioners:
1. Can you tell me about your role and your experience of working with children, young
people and families within a community based setting?
2. How long has the project / organisation been involved with NSDF / PPFS? How did
this come about?
3. What has been the impact on the delivery of supports?
4. Can you take me through your composite case studies now? Is there anything you
want check or clarify before you begin?
Questions asked at this stage will be responsive to what the respondent is saying in
relation to the work undertaken with the case example and focusing on the experience
of individuals receiving support before and after any changes they have identified.
For example, Can you say more about that? I’d like to hear how that was for the
‘person’? What was taken into account when deciding that or a particular course of
action? Did you do this before / Did you do this after? What was the ‘persons’
response to that? etc
5. Can you identify learning’s and or concerns about the impact of PPFS on the service
participants now receive from your service?
6. Is there something I haven’t thought to ask you that you think is relevant to our
discussion?
Is there anything you would like to ask me?
February 2016
58 Appendix IV
Information Sheet
Dear
,
Many thanks for agreeing to participate in the research project I spoke with you about
recently. I am completing this as part of the M.Sc. in Child Welfare & Protection which I
am undertaking at Trinity College Dublin.
The Course Coordinator and my supervisor is Prof Robbie Gilligan, School of Social Work
and Social Policy, 01/8961331.
The study aims to explore the impact of the TUSLA National Service Delivery Framework
on the delivery of community based supports to children, young people and families. This
could relate to how people access the service, the work undertaken, if there are targets or
outcomes to be achieved, the general impact positively and negatively of any changes that
have been experienced in the management and delivery of the work.
I will be carrying out semi structured interviews with an expected time of 30 - 40 minutes per
interview.
Your participation is greatly appreciated and is voluntary and open to you to withdraw at any
time.
All information provided by you will be kept confidential. The only time confidentiality
cannot be maintained is if information arises which suggests someone is at risk of harm. If
this arises I will discuss this with you.
The interviews will be recorded with your consent and then written up. No identifying
information will be retained in transcripts or revealed in the research paper. The transcripts
will be held until the completion of the research piece and then destroyed. In the event that
the research is made available in the public arena, e.g., the TCD website or in the form of a
published paper, all information will be anonymised and no individual, project or
organisation identifiable.
I will be in contact with you shortly to arrange for a suitable time to do the interview. In the
mean time please contact me if you have any queries.
Kind Regards,
Julie Somers
59 Appendix V
Consent form for Interviewee
Working Title: Case Studies of community based services for children, young people and families – an evaluation of the impact of the NSDF. I have had the research being undertaken by Julie Somers explained to me.
In keeping with the TCD School of Social Work and Social Policy data retention, storage and
destruction policy all transcripts must be retained until after the exam board confirms my
results and retained for a further two years from the date of the exam board. I will be the
only person with access to the securely stored anonymised transcripts during this time.
I understand that no identifying information will be revealed in the paper to be submitted.
I understand that confidentiality will be maintained unless information arises which suggests
a person may be at risk.
I understand the interview will be recorded if I give my consent for this.
I agree to participate as an interviewee in this research.
I, ______________________________________ have read and understand the information
provided in this research. I give my consent to participate in this study in the manner set out
above.
Signed:
Date:
Signed:
Date
Contact Details: Julie Somers, 051 397348 & 087 3143733. Email: [email protected] Contact Details: Prof Robbie Gilligan (Supervisor) 01 8961331. Email: [email protected] 60 Appendix VI
Consent form for Agency
Working Title: Case Studies of community based services for children, young people
and families – an evaluation of the impact of the NSDF.
I have had the research being undertaken by Julie Somers explained to me. I understand that
no identifying information will be retained following grading by TCD and no identifying
information revealed in the paper to be submitted.
I understand that confidentiality will be maintained unless information arises which suggests
a person may be at risk.
I understand the interview will be recorded if the staff person participating gives their consent
for this.
___________________ agrees to allow participation by our staff as an interviewee in this
research.
I, ______________________________________ have read and understand the information
provided in this research. I give my consent for staff to be made aware of the research and to
participate in this study if they freely consent and in the manner set out above.
Signed:
Role within organisation:
Date:
61