|
Pritchard (2001) A family-
teacher-social work
alliance to reduce truancy
and delinquency - the
Dorset Healthy Alliance
project |
14-16 year olds and their
families
Intervention group
(young people:
N=272 Year 1;
N=356 Year 3)
control group
(young people:
N=365 Year 1;
N=503 Year 3)
Ethnicity not stated/
unclear |
• Unemployment
• Anti-social behaviour
• ExclusionZnon-
attendance at school
• Criminal convictions
• Child abuseZneglect
• Poor health outcomes
• Substance misuse
• Mental health problems
• Family breakdown
(looked after
children, temporary
accommodation)
• Socio-economic
deprivation
• Other (young women
had high age-related
pregnancy rates) |
"In the first year, Lords Park families had a much higher contact with statutory services
than the other schools (12%)...
The nature of the Lords’ families’ contact with Social Services was illustrated by a
detailed analysis of 36 current or recent case-records. Two-fifths of the presenting
problems were child protection cases, with over 10 per cent involving child sexual abuse.
More than one in 10 of parents had predominantly mental health problems, one in five
had medical and chronic health disorders, while seven per cent had a physical disability.
Their difficulties were compounded by the fact that the majority of fathers involved with
statutory services were unemployed (75 per cent plus); more than a quarter had a long-
standing mental health problem; and a third had spent some time in temporary housing,
reflecting their chronic housing difficulties.
...Overall (and especially in Lords Park) children in all four schools were more
disadvantaged than their age peers elsewhere in the county, with a significant minority
having inter-generation difficulties.” (p 17)
Children’s problematic behaviours included truancy, bullying, smoking, drinking alcohol,
fighting, vandalism, and theft. |
|
Sen and Goldbart (2005)
Partnership in action |
21 families containing 22
children with disabilities
(and other children)
Implicit: 67% spoke
Bengali and 33% Hindi;
67% were Muslim and 33%
Hindu |
• Poor health outcomes
• Socio-economic
deprivation
• Poor quality of physical
environment (families
lived in slum housing)
• Other (literacy levels
were low) |
Families lived in slum housing, with most homes (76%) consisting of only one room.
"Of the 21 families identified, 15 fathers (71%) and 13 mothers (62%) had no formal
education. The majority of fathers (71%) worked as labourers...the monthly income in 15
families (71%) was very low.”
22 children with disabilities (11 boys and 11 girls) were identified, with ages ranging
from 2 to 21 years. "Eleven of the children had multiple disabilities with a primary
diagnosis of cerebral palsy; seven children had an intellectual disability and four had a
motor impairment resulting from a range of conditions (post-polio paralysis, congenital
deformity of the leg, osteogenesis imperfecta). Five children also experienced epilepsy.”
(p 285-7) |
|
Tischler et al. (2004) A
family support service
for homeless children
and parents: users’
perspectives and
characteristics |
49 families
Ethnic status of the
main carer:
• 71% white BritishZIrish
• 14% Asian
• 8% Black American
• 2% Middle Eastern |
• ExclusionZnon-
attendance at school
• Poor health outcomes
• Mental health problems
• Family breakdown
(looked after
children, temporary
accommodation)
• Socio-economic
deprivation
• Poor quality of physical
environment |
"Half of the families (N=24, 49%) had been homeless in the past. Their reasons for
becoming homeless were: domestic violence (N=6, 12%); relationship breakdown (N=15,
31%) - on further questioning most of these mothers were also found to be victims of
domestic violence; neighbour harassment (N=13, 27%); eviction (N=7, 14%); refugee
status (N=3, 6%); overcrowding (N=3, 6%); natural disaster (N=1, 2%); and release from
prison (N=1, 2%).”
The children’s ages ranged from 2 to 17 years. The most frequently reported difficulties
were "aggressive and disruptive behaviour (N=8, 21%); overactivity and attention deficit
(N=9, 24%); scholastic or language skills problems (N=9, 24%); emotional problems (N=8,
21%); peer relationships (N=9, 24%); school non-attendance (N=5, 13%); family life problems
(N=7, 19%); and lack of information about appropriate services (N=6, 17%)...” (p 330-1) |