Journal of Children s Services

June Thoburn; Mark E. Courtney

2011 Journal of Children s Services

doi: 10.1108/17466661111190910

Purpose – Out‐of‐home care has been a subject for policy debate since child welfare policies were first developed. Too often the debate is marked by ill‐informed sound‐bites linking “care” with negative descriptors such as “drift” or “languish”. The purpose of this paper is to urge a more nuanced understanding informed by the large volume of research from across jurisdictional boundaries. Design/methodology/approach – The historical, cultural and political contexts in which studies on children's out‐of‐home care have been conducted are reviewed, since these impact on the characteristics of the children, the aims of the care service in any particular jurisdiction, and the outcomes for those entering care. The paper also scopes the large volume of English language descriptive and process research (and the smaller number of outcome studies) on the different placement options. Findings – The outcomes of out‐of‐home care are different for different groups of children, and care needs to be taken not to over‐simplify the evidence about processes and outcomes. The generally negative view of the potential of out‐of‐home care is not based on evidence. Originality/value – The authors, from their North American and UK/European perspectives, provide an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses, both of the available research and of the care services themselves.

Sarah Stewart‐Brown; Rebecca Anthony; Lynsey Wilson; Sarah Winstanley; Nigel Stallard; Helen Snooks; Douglas Simkiss

2011 Journal of Children s Services

doi: 10.1108/17466661111190929

Purpose – Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been offered a privileged position in terms of the evidence base for preventive interventions for children, but practical and theoretical issues challenge this research methodology. This paper aims to address this issue. Design/methodology/approach – This paper analyses practical and methodological issues of using RCTs within children's preventive services and presents the results of a qualitative study using data collected from parents who were asked to take part in an RCT of a preventive intervention. Findings – Well recognised issues include the impossibility of blinding participants, the problem of identifying a pre‐eminent outcome measure for complex interventions, and problems with limiting access to equivalent interventions in real world settings. A further theoretical problem is the exclusion from RCTs of families who are most ready to change, resulting in a reduced level of intervention effectiveness. Qualitative evidence from one recent RCT suggests that this problem could be operating in some prevention trials. Increasing sample sizes can overcome some of these problems, but the cost of the necessarily huge trials becomes disproportionate to the intervention? Originality/value – Given the limitations on RCTs in preventive settings, the paper argues their privileged position in terms of research evidence maybe undeserved.

Emily Buss; Mavis Maclean

2011 Journal of Children s Services

doi: 10.1108/17466661111190938

Purpose – This paper seeks to consider the inter‐connections between law and child development, particularly in the areas of child custody and child protection, in both the USA and the UK. Design/methodology/approach – The paper is based on analysis of US and UK legal systems and child developmental research. Findings – Although the two legal systems have much in common in their approach to safeguarding children's welfare, there are also notable differences between them in terminology and in concept. Whereas the USA places a greater emphasis on the rights, particularly autonomy rights, of both parents and children, the UK justifies its laws affecting children largely in terms of parental responsibility and child need. Originality/value – The paper argues that each of these legal regimes has something to learn from the other and a reader interested in thinking about the relationship between child welfare and law will profit from considering the distinctions, as well as the commonalities, between the two regimes.

Peer van der Helm; Iris Boekee; Geert Jan Stams; Peter van der Laan

2011 Journal of Children s Services

doi: 10.1108/17466661111190947

Purpose – This study seeks to examine the education, safety, and professional attitudes of group workers in a Dutch youth prison and to analyse their perceptions of the organisational culture and leadership by line management. To achieve therapeutic goals, group workers must maintain a balance between flexibility and control. Design/methodology/approach – A total of 59 group workers (40 per cent male and 60 per cent female) randomly chosen from eight living groups (141 group workers) were interviewed and completed questionnaires. Findings – It was found that some interactions between group workers and prisoners created fear, suspicion, and violence, and that staff varied in their behavioural responses to perceived safety risks and disorder. “Transformational” leadership by management was associated with less fear, more flexibility, and less control; factors necessary to create a rehabilitative group climate. Originality/value – The findings of this study inform the treatment of young offenders in secure correctional facilities.

Charlotte Reedtz; Monica Martinussen; Fredrik Wang Jørgensen; Bjørn Helge Handegård; Willy‐Tore Mørch

2011 Journal of Children s Services

doi: 10.1108/17466661111190956

Purpose – The main aim of this study is to explore characteristics of parents who signed up for parenting classes offered to the universal population and their reasons for participation. Design/methodology/approach – Data were obtained from parents in a study on parent training for children aged two to eight years ( n =189), and a follow up survey on these parents ( n =118). Findings – Parents had high education, were married, and employed in full time jobs. The mean age of the children was under four years, and their Intensity and Problem scores on ECBI were higher than the Norwegian mean scores for their age group. Parent stress, parental concern, and parenting practices predicted the ECBI Intensity scores to a rather large extent. Practical implications – Parents with high SES risk factors may not come forward to participate in face‐to‐face mental health promotion interventions even if the parenting intervention is offered in a non‐stigmatising way. Originality/value – By offering a universal health promoting and preventive parent training service in the community, a large proportion of children with behaviour problems were identified and referred to treatment. This demonstrates how parent training services, offered to the universal population, may contribute to increase the reach for the youngest children in need of treatment.