Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:40:26.409Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Learning and Soft Outcomes: Evidence from Intensive Intervention Projects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 June 2013

Elaine Batty
Elaine Batty*
Affiliation:
Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research, Sheffield Halllam University E-mail: E.Batty@shu.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Over the last decade there has been a clear focus on tackling disadvantage and transforming lives. A plethora of programmes such as Family Intervention Projects, Think Families Pathfinders and Intensive Intervention Projects have focussed on families meeting centrally determined quantifiable outcomes and have used this as a factor to judge the success or otherwise of intervention programmes. However, little attention, or indeed value, has been given to the learning that young people experience throughout the intervention period. The article argues that learning is a crucial component of intervention projects. Qualitative evidence from a longitudinal study is used to explore young people's engagement with an Intensive Intervention Programme. Using individual experiences, evidence suggests that continuous learning during engagement with Intensive Intervention Projects can lead to soft outcomes which enable future positive change in the lives of individuals.

Keywords

Familiesyoung peopleintensive interventionsoft outcomeskey workers
Type
Articles
Information
Social Policy and Society , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , July 2014 , pp. 357 - 369
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barnes, J., Ball, M., Meadows, P., McLeish, J. and Belsky, J.et al. (2008) Nurse- Family Partnership Programme: First Year Pilot Sites Implementation in England – Pregnancy and the Post-partum Period, London: Department for Education/Department of Health.Google Scholar
Barnes, J., Ball, M., Meadows, P., Belsky, J.et al. (2009) Nurse–Family Partnership Programme: Second Year Pilot Sites Implementation in England – The Infancy Period, London: Department for Education/Department of Health.Google Scholar
Batty, E. and Flint, J. (2012) ‘Conceptualising the contexts, mechanisms and outcomes of intensive family intervention projects’, Social Policy and Society, 11, 3, 345–58.Google Scholar
Cabinet Office (2007) Reaching Out: Think Family, London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
Cabinet Office (2010) The Foundation Years: Preventing Poor Children Becoming Poor Adults, London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
Cabinet Office (2011) Early Intervention: The Next Steps, London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
Department for Children, Schools and Families (2007) The Children's Plan: Building Brighter Futures, London: Department for Children, Schools and Families.Google Scholar
Department for Children, Schools and Families (2008) Youth Task Force Action Plan: Give Respect, Get Respect – Youth Matters, London: Department for Children, Schools and Families.Google Scholar
Department for Children, Schools and Families (2009a) Tender Specification for Evaluation of Intensive Intervention Projects, London: Department for Children, Schools and Families.Google Scholar
Department for Children, Schools and Families (2009b) Think Family Toolkit: Guidance Note 4, Family Intervention Projects, London: Department for Children, Schools and Families.Google Scholar
Department for Children, Schools and Families (2010a) Working Together to Safeguard Children, London: Department for Children, Schools and Families.Google Scholar
Department for Children, Schools and Families (2010b) Think Family Pathfinders: Research Update, London: Department for Children, Schools and Families.Google Scholar
Department for Children, Schools and Families (2010c) Early Intervention: Securing Good Outcomes for all Children and Young People, London: Department for Children, Schools and Families.Google Scholar
Department for Communities and Local Government (2012) Working with Troubled Families: A Guide to the Evidence and Good Practice, London: Department for Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
Department for Education (2011) The Munro Review of Chid Protection: Final Report. A Child-Centred System, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Department for Work and Pensions and Department for Education (2011) A New Approach to Child Poverty: Tackling the Causes of Disadvantage and Transforming Families’ Lives, Cm 6081, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Dillane, J., Hill, M., Bannister, J. and Scott, S. (2001) Evaluation of the Dundee Families Project, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive/Dundee City Council/NCH Action for Children.Google Scholar
Dixon, J., Schneider, V., Lloyd, C., Reeves, A., White, C., Tomaszewski, W., Green, R. and Ireland, E. (2010) Monitoring and Evaluation of Family Interventions (Information on Families Supported to March 2010), London: Department for Education.Google Scholar
Duffy, S. (2010) ‘Personalisation and adult social care: future options for the reform of public services’, Policy and Politics, 38, 4, 493–508.Google Scholar
Duffy, S., Waters, J. and Glasby, J. (2010) Personalisation and the Social Care ‘Revolution’: Future Options for the Reform of Public Services, Birmingham: University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
Flint, J., Batty, E., Parr, S., Platts-Fowler, D., Nixon, J. and Sanderson, D. (2011) Evaluation of Intensive Intervention Projects, Research Report DFE-RR113, London: Department for Education.Google Scholar
Garrett, P. M. (2007) ‘“Sinbin” solutions: the “pioneer” projects for “problem families” and the forgetfulness of social policy research’, Critical Social Policy, 27, 2, 203–30.Google Scholar
Gregg, D. (2010) Family Intervention Projects: A Classic Case of Policy-Based Evidence, London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies.Google Scholar
HM Government (2004) Every Child Matters: Change for Children, London: HM Government.Google Scholar
HM Government (2009) Healthy Children, Safer Communities, London: HM Government.Google Scholar
HM Government (2010) Drug Strategy 2010: Reducing Demand, Restricting Supply, Building Recovery: Supporting People to Live a Drug Free Life, London: HM Government.Google Scholar
Home Office (2011) More Effective Responses to Anti-social Behaviour, London: Home Office.Google Scholar
Hughes, N. (2010) ‘Review article: models and approaches in family-focused policy and practice’, Social Policy and Society, 9, 4, 545–55.Google Scholar
Jeffs, T. and Smith, M. K. (2005) Informal Education – Conversation, Democracy and Learning, Nottingham: Educational Heretics Press.Google Scholar
Jones, A., Pleace, N. and Quilgars, D. (2006) ‘Evaluating the Shelter Inclusion Project: a floating service for households accused of anti-social behaviour’, in Flint, J. (ed.), Housing, Urban Governance and Anti-social Behaviour: Perspectives, Policy and Practice, Bristol: The Policy Press, pp. 179–97.Google Scholar
Kendall, S., Rodger, J. and Palmer, H. (2010) Redesigning Provision for Families with Multiple Problems: An Assessment of the Early Impact of Different Local Approaches, London: Department for Education.Google Scholar
Local Government Leadership and City of Westminster (2010) Repairing Broken Families and Rescuing Fractured Communities: Lessons from the Front Line, London: Local Government Leadership and City of Westminster.Google Scholar
Loveless, L. and Hickling, K. (2010) ‘Some useful sources’, Social Policy and Society, 9, 4, 591–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Justice (2010) Breaking the Cycle: Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders, London: Ministry of Justice.Google Scholar
Ministry of Justice (2011) Family Justice Review, London: Ministry of Justice.Google Scholar
National Centre for Social Research (2009) Antisocial Behaviour Family Intervention Projects: Monitoring and Evaluation: Research Brief, London: Department for Children, Schools and Families.Google Scholar
Nixon, J., Parr, S., Hunter, C., Myers, S., Sanderson, D. and Whittle, S. (2006) Anti-Social Behaviour Intensive Family Support Projects: An Evaluation of Six Pioneering Projects, London: Department for Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
Nixon, J., Parr, S., Hunter, C., Myers, S., Sanderson, D. and Whittle, S. (2008) The Longer Term Outcomes for Families Who Had Worked with Intensive Family Support Projects, London: Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
Palmer, H. and Kendall, S. (2009) Targeted Youth Support Pathfinders Evaluation, London: Department for Children, Schools and Families.Google Scholar
Pawson, H., Davidson, E., Sosenko, F., Flint, J., Nixon, J., Casey, R. and Sanderson, D. (2009) Evaluation of Intensive Family Support Projects in Scotland, Edinburgh: Scottish Government.Google Scholar
Renshaw, J. and Wellings, S. (2010) Catch22 Intensive Intervention Projects Interim Report, London: Catch22.Google Scholar
Respect Task Force (2006) Respect Action Plan, London: Respect Task Force.Google Scholar
Scott, S. (2006) ‘Tackling anti-social behaviour: an evaluation of the Dundee Families Project’, in Flint, J. (ed.), Housing, Urban Governance and Anti-social Behaviour: Perspectives, Policy and Practice, Bristol: The Policy Press, pp. 199–217.Google Scholar
Simpson, B. and Murray-Neil, R. (2010) Carers and Personalisation: Improving Outcomes, London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
White, C., Warrender, M., Reeves, A. and La Valle, I. (2008) Family Intervention Projects: An Evaluation of Their Design, Setup and Early Outcome, London: Department for Children, Schools and Families/Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
Wright, S., Gray, P., Watts, E., McAteer, L., Hazel, N., Liddle, M. and Haines, K. (2010) Evaluation of Early Intervention Pilot Projects, Swansea: University of Swansea.Google Scholar