Search

This chapter describes the transition from an institution-based to a community-based approach to child welfare in Italy. Like many countries, Italy has seen a significant decline in residential placements from the early 1960s to the present. The legal and administrative developments that stimulated this shift are explored, as are some of the consequences, such as a far greater range of agencies involved, requiring strong interprofessional work. National guidelines for residential care are seen as a positive step, but implementation has been slow. Additional needs are for clearer definitions of the varieties of residential care offered and more research focused on needs and outcomes. The chapter concludes with the matrix used throughout the book, which provides information about the current policy context, key trends and initiatives, characteristics of children and youth served, preparation of residential care personnel, promising programmatic innovations, and present strengths and challenges.

There has been a general increase in poverty over the last decade in Italy, which has mainly affected the younger generations, with children and youth experiencing the worst economic conditions. This is primarily not due to a lack of available economic resources but to the way in which these resources are allocated: mainly in the form of cash transfers rather than services. The provision of adequate services based on professional work needs to be implemented by overcoming two main obstacles which are highlighted by the results of two studies presented here. The first study concerns the quality of professional care and the systematic use of outcome evaluation, the second concerns the vision of professionals and their ability to integrate the provision of services with economic support aimed at improving children’s growth and parenting skills. The two studies were carried out as part of an international debate on how to effectively fight poverty and social exclusion of children which was promoted by the International Association for Outcome-based Evaluation and Research on Family and Children’s Services (iaOBERfcs).

[EN] This paper first briefly scopes what is known about social workers who make a long-term commitment to working within child and family services. It then reports on the re-sponse of 32 long-serving social workers from 9 countries to an open-questions survey about the messages they would want to pass on to beginning social workers. The thematic analysis seeks to tease out the motivations, rewards and strategies that are associated with those who, in different country contexts, remain committed to and find satisfaction in child and family social work. Whilst identifying similar themes to those reported in earlier publications, mostly focusing on why some social workers leave and others stay, it adds to the still comparatively limited literature reporting on career-long child and family social workers. [ES] Este artículo examina brevemente, en primer lugar, el conocimirnto existente sobre los profesionales del ámbito social que están comprometidos al trabajo con infancia y familias a largo plazo. A continuación, informa acerca de las respuestas a un cuestionario de preguntas abiertas sobre los mensajes que transmitirían a quienes inician la profesión. El cuestionarió se ha pasado a 32 trabajadores sociales y educadores, de 9 países distintos, con una larga experiencia acreditada. El objetivo del análisis de este tema es conocer las motivaciones, recompensas y estrategias que se asocian a quienes, en diferentes países y contextos, se mantienen comprometidos con la profesión y encuentran satisfacción en el tra-bajo social con niños y familias. Si bien el artículo identifica temas similares a los tratados en publicaciones anteriores, que abordan las razones de la permanencia o del cambio en este ámbito profesional, en nuestro caso se agregan, además y considerando las limitaciones de las comparativas existentes, informes precisos sobre la trayectoria de los profesionales que desarrollan su labor, a lo largo de mucho tiempo, en estos ámbitos de trabajo.

Between 2007 and 2010, poverty among children and young people increased in many OECD countries. In Italy, poverty increased significantly among children (by 2.2 percentage points). In comparison with other countries in Europe, children and their families in Italy are clearly at significant risk of exposure to poverty. And the risk of poverty or social exclusion increases with the number of children in a family, according to Eurostat data. In responding to families in need, the Italian welfare system has traditionally depended more on cash transfers rather than the provision of professional intervention and support. Fondazione Zancan is developing a different approach called “generative welfare” based on the idea “I cannot help you without you” which raises the issue of the strengths the welfare recipients have to support their families and communities. This approach guided a study conducted by the Fondazione Zancan and the Fondazione L'Albero della Vita, which involved interviewing families in poverty to gain their perspectives. Researchers conducted 277 interviews with parents in 7 Italian cities. The aim was to investigate the needs of and supports provided to families experiencing poverty. It also focused upon the strengths of the families and what they might contribute to their families as well as communities. In this paper the study is described and the results presented. Finally, the researchers comment on the effectiveness of current social provisions for families experiencing poverty in Italy and the potential contribution of families themselves to finding a more effective approach.

In many developed countries around the world residential care interventions for children and adolescents have come under increasing scrutiny. Against this background an international summit was organised in England (spring 2016) with experts from 13 countries to reflect on therapeutic residential care (TRC). The following working definition of TRC was leading: "Therapeutic residential care involves the planful use of a purposefully constructed, multi-dimensional living environment designed to enhance or provide treatment, education, socialization, support, and protection to children and youth with identified mental health or behavioural needs in partnership with their families and in collaboration with a full spectrum of community based formal and informal helping resources". The meeting was characterised by exchange of information and evidence, and by preparing an international research agenda. In addition, the outlines of a consensus statement on TRC were discussed. This statement, originally published in English and now reproduced in a Dutch translation, comprises inter alia five basic principles of care that according to the Work Group on Therapeutic Residential Care should be guiding for residential youth care provided at any time.

none 32 si The International Work Group for Therapeutic Residential Care convened an International Summit on ‘Pathways to Evidence-Based Practice’ at Loughborough University (GBR), Centre for Child and Family Research on 27-29 April, 2016 with generous support from the Sir Halley Stewart Trust and in partnership with The European Scientific Association on Residential and Family Care for Children and Adolescents (NLD) (EUSARF), the International Association for Outcome-Based Evaluation and Research on Family and Children’s Services (ITA) (IAOBER) and the Association of Children’s Residential Centers (USA) and with the additional support of Action for Children (GBR) and the National Implementation Service (NIS) (GBR). Membership includes: Lisa Holmes (Chair), Director, Centre for Child and Family Research, Loughborough University (GBR); James K. Whittaker (Co-Chair), Charles O. Cressey Endowed Professor Emeritus, University of Washington, School of Social Work, Seattle (USA); Jorge Fernandez del Valle, Professor of Psychology and Director, Child and Family Research Group, University of Oviedo (ESP); Frank Ainsworth, Senior Principal Research Fellow (Adjunct), James Cook University, School of Social Work and Human Services, Townsville, Queensland (AUS); Tore Andreassen, Psychologist, The Norwegian Directorate for Children, Youth and Family Affairs (NOR); James P. Anglin, Professor, Faculty of the School of Child and Youth Care, University of Victoria (CAN); Christopher Bellonci, Board-Certified Child/Adolescent and Adult Psychiatrist; Associate Professor, Psychiatry Department, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA (USA); David Berridge, Professor of Child and Family Welfare, School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol (GBR); Amaia Bravo, Lecturer, Department of Psychology, University of Oviedo (ESP); Cinzia Canali, Senior Researcher, Fondazione Emanuela Zancan, Padova (ITA) and President, International Association of Outcome-Based Evaluation and Research in Family and Children’s Services (IAOBER); Mark Courtney, Professor, School of Social Service Administration, University of Chicago (USA); Laurah Currey, Chief Operating Officer, Pressley Ridge, Pittsburgh, PA (USA) and President, Association for Children’s Residential Centers, (USA); Daniel. L. Daly, Executive Vice President and Director of Youth Care, Father Flanagan’s Boys’ Home, Boys Town, NE (USA); Robbie Gilligan, Professor of Social Work and Social Policy, Trinity College Dublin IRE), Hans Grietens, Professor, Centre for Special Needs Education & Youth Care, University of Groningen (NLD) and President, European Scientific Association on Residential and Family Care for Children and Adolescents (EUSARF); Annemiek T. Harder, Assistant professor, Department of Special Needs Education and Youth Care, University of Groningen (NLD); Martha J. Holden, Senior Extension Associate with the Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research and the Principal Investigator and Director of the Residential Child Care Project at Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (USA); Sigrid James, Professor, Department of Social Work & Social Ecology, School of Behavioral Health, Loma Linda University, CA (USA); Andrew Kendrick, Professor of Residential Child Care, School of Social Work and Social Policy at the University of Strathclyde (GBR) and Consultant at the Centre of Excellence for Looked After Children in Scotland (CELCIS) and the Centre for Youth and Criminal Justice (CYCJ) (UK); Erik J. Knorth, Professor, Department of Special Needs Education and Youth Care, University of Groningen (NLD); Mette Lausten, Senior Researcher at SFI - The Danish National Centre for Social Research, Copenhagen (DNK), John S. Lyons, Senior Policy Fellow at Chapin Hall, University of Chicago, IL (USA); Eduardo Martin, Lecturer at the Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology, University of La Laguna, Tenerife (ESP); Samantha McDermid, Research Fellow, Centre for Child and Family Research, Loughborough University (GBR); Patricia McNamara, Senior Fellow (Honorary), Department of Social Work, University of Melbourne (AUS); Laura Palareti, Assistant Professor in Social Psychology, Department of Education Studies, University of Bologna (ITA); Susan Ramsey, Parent and Former Children’s Mental Health Advocate, The Walker School, Needham, MA (USA); Kari M. Sisson, Executive Director, Association of Children’s Residential Centers (USA); Richard W. Small, Walker Executive Director Emeritus, The Walker School, Needham, MA (USA); June Thoburn, Emeritus Professor of Social Work, University of East Anglia (GBR); Ronald Thompson, Senior Director, Boys Town National Research Institute for Child and Family Studies, Boys Town, NE (USA); Anat Zeira, Professor, School of Social Work and Social Welfare, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Head of Research and Evaluation at the Haruv Institute (ISR). Our work group wishes to thank CFRC staffer Laura Dale at Loughborough for extraordinary efforts in producing this statement in record time and for her care and assistance with all phases of our Summit activity. Whittaker, James K; Holmes, Lisa; del Valle, Jorge F.; Ainsworth, Frank; Andreassen, Tore; Anglin, James; Bellonci, Christopher; Berridge, David; Bravo, Amaia; Canali, Cinzia; Courtney, Mark; Currey, Laurah; Daly, Daniel; Gilligan, Robbie; Grietens, Hans; Harder, Annemiek; Holden, Martha; James, Sigrid; Kendrick, Andrew; Knorth, Erik; Lausten, Mette; Lyons, John; Martin, Eduardo; Mcdermid, Samantha; Mcnamara, Patricia; Palareti, Laura; Ramsey, Susan; Sisson, Kari; Small, Richard; Thoburn, June; Thompson, Ronald; Zeira, Anat Whittaker, James K; Holmes, Lisa; del Valle, Jorge F.; Ainsworth, Frank; Andreassen, Tore; Anglin, James; Bellonci, Christopher; Berridge, David; Bravo, Amaia; Canali, Cinzia; Courtney, Mark; Currey, Laurah; Daly, Daniel; Gilligan, Robbie; Grietens, Hans; Harder, Annemiek; Holden, Martha; James, Sigrid; Kendrick, Andrew; Knorth, Erik; Lausten, Mette; Lyons, John; Martin, Eduardo; Mcdermid, Samantha; Mcnamara, Patricia; Palareti, Laura; Ramsey, Susan; Sisson, Kari; Small, Richard; Thoburn, June; Thompson, Ronald; Zeira, Anat

A major challenge in child welfare is whether a program (or service) developed and successfully implemented in one jurisdiction, especially another country, will attain the same outcomes for children and families in another jurisdiction? This paper presents the “DCE Classification System” (Defining, Classifying, and Evaluating), a classification system that facilitates cross-jurisdiction comparisons of child and family services. The paper reviews the cross-national research literature in child and family services as well as literature on classification schemes and typologies. As an example of the issues that arise when importing a promising program, we briefly highlight the exporting and importing of family group conferencing. After tracing the history and development of the DCE Classification System, the paper describes the proposed classification scheme, and provides a brief example of how researchers and practitioners can use the classification system for cross-national comparisons of client outcomes and program costs. Finally, we discuss the strengths and weaknesses of this approach, as well as possible benefits for child and family practices.

In this special issue of Children and Youth Services Review, we present a sampling of research and scholarship performed by members of the International Association for Outcome-Based Evaluation and Research on Family and Children's Services ( ia OBER fcs ). The ia OBER fcs is a small group of scholars in this arena, who have been invited to come together to work collaboratively on descriptive and comparative evaluations and research. The Association has been able to meet annually, in the various countries of its members, since 2001. We have organised these offerings to represent different theoretical perspectives and/or practical examples of outcome evaluation, embedded within the cultural and national perspectives of Association members from a variety of countries. Not all countries included in the International Association can be represented here, but we hope that this selection will provide a tasting of the fruits of our collaborations. In a recent seminar we proposed an image for depicting the International Association: we used the image of a tree. We will use that image for describing the history of the International Association for Outcome-Based Evaluation and Research on Family and Children's Services ( ia OBER fcs ).

This paper summarizes, from a cross-national perspective, some commonly used models of evidence-based practice and relates them to social work practice with children and families. We first identify concepts and dimensions central to an analysis of the outcomes of social work practice. We then present and discuss key components of social work practice that any evidence-based model must take into account. Finally, we provide some examples of strategies that may be useful to practitioners and policy makers across nations and cultures in order to build a solid knowledge-base for effective social work practice.

This selective review of outcome research on family foster care services in various Western countries highlights the complexities of service delivery in this practice arena. It also suggests directions for further study, to improve the life chances for young people coming to the attention of the child welfare system. Especially needed is comparative cross-national research on the effectiveness of services for vulnerable groups in the child welfare population. Such research could contribute to the process of enhancing policies and practices in each country.

Poverty has been a growing phenomenon in Italy over the last year. In particular, the percentage of children up to 6 years at risk of poverty or social exclusion (31.9 % in 2012) is significantly higher than both the corresponding average rate in the EU and the rate among the overall Italian population. The share of social protection expenditure for children and families in Italy (4.6 % in 2010) is however lower than the average across European countries (8 %). As a percentage of GDP, the expenditure for children and families was 1.3 % (0.7 % in cash and 0.6 % in kind) in Italy, compared to 2.3 % (1.5 % in cash and 0.8 % in kind) on average in Europe. Yet adequate investments in early childhood education and child care services, distinct from cash benefits, would exhibit a great potential for reducing child poverty, as it is shown across OECD countries. This chapter aims to compare Italy with other (notably European) countries in relation to the extent of poverty and the level of expenditure on social protection, particularly regarding children and families. It also presents a transnational experience highlighting “practices” aimed at the alleviation of child poverty and social exclusion.

This chapter summarizes the main themes of this volume. The contributors, pioneering scholars in their respective countries, have provided illustrations of innovative approaches to the conceptualisation and measurement of the dynamic complexity of poverty. Most of the chapters reflect the notion of relative poverty, beyond economic dimensions and discuss a range of contextual factors that lead to child poverty. The theoretical position contemplated structural inequalities that underpin poverty. A central theme in this volume addresses the causal connections built into views of poverty and provides insight into the political agenda setting process for policy development. Policies guided by social causation are explored in several chapters. Another theme discusses poverty through the lens of children and families subjective experiences. Because children served by child protection systems are the most marginalised and disadvantaged children in society, several chapters allude to the poverty, inequality and structural disadvantage that underline disproportionate representation in child welfare systems. Finally, the growth in child and family poverty highlight the need to respond more effectively. A few chapters demonstrate the potential value of government social policy in reducing family poverty as well as social protection approaches that, by varying degrees have been effective in alleviating poverty in country specific contexts.

The analysis of the historical development of child protection in Spain and Italy shows remarkable common aspects. There has been a strong tradition of using residential care by means of large institutions, mostly run by catholic religious organizations, in both countries, and both have had to face the challenge of changing the tendency of this institutional care to a family based care. On the other hand, both countries share a Mediterranean culture where the family has been the main provider of personal and social wellbeing, although the welfare state has achieved a high level of development with large health, education, and social services coverage in the last decades. The current financial crisis of these countries is jeopardizing these recently attained advances and again the importance of family support is becoming crucial. The article reviews the historical development of out-of-home care in both countries and compares foster family and residential care, as well as the main research contributions to these topics in both countries.

In veel ontwikkelde landen wordt in toenemende mate kritiek geleverd op residentiële interventies bij kinderen en jongeren. Tegen de achtergrond hiervan vond in het voorjaar 2016 in Engeland een internationale conferentie plaats van experts uit 13 landen op het gebied van therapeutische residentiële zorg (TRZ). De volgende werkdefinitie van TRZ was leidend: "Therapeutische residentiële zorg omvat het geplande gebruik van een speciaal hiervoor ontwikkelde, multidimensionale leefomgeving, die tot doel heeft behandeling, onderwijs, socialisatie, ondersteuning en bescherming te bieden of te versterken voor kinderen en jongeren met welomschreven psychische en/of gedragsmatige problematiek; dit in samenwerking met hun gezin/familie en een breed scala aan formele en informele hulpbronnen in de samenleving". De bijeenkomst stond in het teken van kennisuitwisseling en het ontwikkelen van een internationale onderzoeksagenda. Tevens werden de contouren van een consensusverklaring over TRZ besproken. Deze verklaring, die hier integraal wordt weergegeven, omvat onder meer vijf basisprincipes van zorg, die in de visie van de Werkgroep TRZ altijd richtinggevend dienen te zijn voor goede residentiële jeugdhulp.