The name is absent

Jones et al. (2006)
Addressing antisocial
behaviour: an
independent evaluation of
Shelter Inclusion Project

England

Shelter Inclusion Project

• Family support workers

• AAanagement/
administrator
(project manager,
administrator, office
assistant, child and
youth worker team
leader)

• Other (young persons
workers)

• AdviceZfeedback

• Counselling (non
specific)

• Support with service
and resource access
(including benefits)

• Parent training

• Skill development
financial skill
development

• Personal∕social∕family
support

• Assessment

"...Overall, inter-agency relationships were good and had improved over the course of
the pilot.

"...The project showed significant success in ending antisocial behaviour and promoting
tenancy sustainment among the households with whom it had worked.

"...Among the 45 households which had completed their time with the project, 60 per
cent were reported as no longer exhibiting any antisocial behaviour. A further 11 per
cent of these 'closed cases’ were reported as showing improvements in respect of
their antisocial behaviour. Overall, 71 per cent of closed cases had either ceased their
antisocial behaviour or shown improvement. Tracking service users’ behaviour before,
during and after the project, however, showed that it sometimes took a long time to
address more severe antisocial behaviour and that it was not always possible to do so.

"... small number of adults experienced an improvement in their economic status while
with the project.

"...Thirty-four children and young people received direct support from the project with
their education. In 91 per cent of these cases, improvements in school attendance were
recorded by the project workers.

"...Agency representatives reported that the project had been successful in helping
service users address problems in their lives...The project was felt to have played a part,
alongside other initiatives, in addressing wider social exclusion at a local level.” (p 5-7)

52 Interventions for HCHHHU: technical report

Nelson et al. (2000)
Applying a family-
ecosystemic model to
reunite a family separated
due to child abuse: a case
study

USA

SET (Structural
Ecosystems Therapy)

• Criminal justice system
staff (probation officer,
court welfare officer,
prison staff etc.)

• CounsellorZtherapist

• Social worker

• Health care worker

• Advocacy

• AdviceZfeedback

• Criminal justice (prison,
community sentence,
probation, ASBO, youth
justice)

• Counselling (non-
specific)

• Support with service
and resource access
(including benefits)

• Parent training

• Psychological therapy

• PersonaizsocialZfamily
support

• Assessment

The SET therapist and the mother were able to work together to create an effective plan
of action.

The intervention was successful in mediating and building alliances between the family
and other agencies where relationships had been difficult, particularly child welfare
services.

Collaborations were built among the agencies involved in overseeing the child’s welfare.

The SET therapist was successful in improving family functioning and relationships
through parent training, family support and through involving other agencies in family
support (e.g. social housing providers, advocates).

Successful reintegration of an adolescent into her family after a five-year separation
(following a court-order) too place.