Relevance of social inclusion priniciples to the family support sector

The concept of social inclusion (see Box 1) is highly relevant to the family support sector, particularly due to the links between issues faced by parents and their impact on child development and wellbeing. For example, family structure and functioning co-occur and combine with community-level disadvantage to result in social exclusion (Hayes & Gray, 2008). There is also strong evidence of the impact of social exclusion on the parent-child relationship, parenting and family functioning (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997; Evans, 2004).

Family support services can play a vital role in fostering social inclusion and in promoting conditions that allow children experiencing difficult family circumstances to participate in and benefit from mainstream life (Healy & Darlington, 1999). The overall ability of services to attract and engage the most disadvantaged families, however, remains unclear. For example, data from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children suggests that families with a low socioeconomic status are less likely to access health and community services for their children, but are more likely to seek material help and use crisis support services (Blakemore, Shipley, Waters, & Zubrick, 2009).

Any discussion about the ability of family support services to attract and engage disadvantaged families should be prefaced by an exploration of the extent to which this is, or should be, the primary focus of service provision in any one setting. Should services be specifically and exclusively engaged in ameliorating conditions for disadvantaged families, to help facilitate their social inclusion? Or is it their role to keep all families connected and engaged with services and other avenues of support during periods of vulnerability? If both, what emphasis is given to each focus of service delivery? It can be argued on the one hand that helping to maintain social inclusion is important at various stages of life-cycle vulnerability, for example, at the point of family breakdown where financial insecurity may be an issue. Early intervention and prevention strategies that are provided during these periods of vulnerability play an important role in promoting social inclusion (Australian Government, 2009). On the other hand, families who are most in need may be considered as a service priority, and services could be located to their benefit. It makes sense that both approaches are needed, however, individual service aims and resources will dictate the extent to which a service can address both categories of need.

Considering social inclusion: Ideas for service providers and practitioners

From a service perspective, social inclusion frameworks can be used to think about:

• how existing services and programs can be conceptualised (or reconceptualised) using a social inclusion framework; and/or
• how future services and programs can be developed to reflect a social inclusion perspective.

The remainder of this paper considers the first issue, although the ideas can also be used to inform the development of new programs. The suggestions below are adapted from a number of frameworks and practice guides developed in other sectors and from relevant literature. Service providers and managers can use the points below as examples of ways to reflect on the extent to which the organisation currently embodies social inclusion principles.

How well does current service and program delivery reflect social inclusion principles?

At a service level

• Compare locational demographic data¹ and service data to consider the ways in which indicators of social inclusion impact on local families (e.g., housing availability, income and employment security, family structure and social connections) and how well current programs and services meet their needs.
• Consider the extent to which there is involvement and input of community members in corporate governance; employment and training opportunities; and evaluation and monitoring of services and programs.
• Review and reflect upon the physical accessibility of the service (e.g., access to public transport, disability access, opening hours, safety of the local area, provision of childcare, provision of outreach services, waiting lists, affordability of fees, service threshold criteria) and ways in which the service has addressed these issues.
• Review and reflect upon the ways in which help-seeking behaviours may enable or inhibit families or individuals from accessing the service, and ways in which the service has addressed these issues (e.g., a communications strategy that includes provision of information in a range of formats and languages) (see Robinson & Parker, 2008; Sawriker & Katz, 2008).
• Review the extent to which service provision ideally occurs from non-stigmatising universal settings, such as schools or neighbourhood houses, and the effectiveness of co-locating services.
• Review the extent to which service protocols are in place to offer post-program follow-up and support, to check that families and individuals continue to access relevant support.

At a practitioner level

• Consider the balance of service provision between the more immediate needs of clients (e.g., food, housing, health services, crisis services) and other support. High needs families tend to avoid programs that focus on one thing (e.g., parent education) and do not assist with other more pressing needs (McArthur, Thomson, Winkworth, & Butler, 2010). Maslow's hierarchy, applied to family services, can be useful in considering what material and practical needs may be a priority for families before they are able to engage in other interventions (see Figure 1).
• Reflect upon the extent to which staff members are able to engage in activities that give a voice to broader, societal level issues that impact on clients, such as policies related to welfare provision or public housing. Counselling and therapy are limited in the extent to which they can address broader impacts on clients' lives that may have contributed to the presenting problems (Waldegrave, 2005).
• Consider the extent to which staff members are aware of and encourage clients to access formal complaint processes, such as ombudsman processes, equal opportunity and human rights bodies.
• Reflect upon the level of emphasis placed by staff members helping clients to strengthen their informal support networks and to promote family and community participation.

Figure 1. Adaption of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs*

* For a full description of the original Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, see McAdams (2006).

How well do staff characteristics and professional relationships with current clients reflect social inclusion principles?

At a service level

• Review the ways in which staff recruitment and induction, professional development, supervision and other human resource processes reflect social inclusion principles, such as those proposed by the Australian Social Inclusion Board (see Box 2).
• Review staff retention strategies - the ongoing engagement of professionals provides greater continuity for clients (see Cortis, Chan, & Hilferty, 2009).
• Reflect on the ways in which the service operates in a culturally appropriate and culturally safe manner for different ethnic groups (see Box 3 for an example). Cultural respect is important, otherwise strategies to be inclusive may be perceived as promoting assimilation (Hunter, 2009).
• Reflect upon the strategies that are in place to keep families engaged with the service.
• Reflect upon the extent to which collaboration with other services allows for joint management of complex cases - to avoid multiple, uncoordinated interventions for clients.

At a practitioner level

• Consider the extent to which respectful and non-judgmental relationships with clients are provided (a "relationship-based" service). This includes reflection on attitudes, beliefs and values that may impact negatively on work with clients (e.g., stereotypes, low expectations of particular groups) and the extent to which a strengths-based approach to working with disadvantaged families is undertaken.

Barriers and challenges

There are potential barriers and challenges in considering how the concept of social inclusion is reflected in the provision of family support services.

For some practitioners in the sector, "socially inclusive practice" may be viewed as another (more fashionable) way of describing what they already do, and have always done. The sector is undoubtedly already engaging in practices that promote social inclusion. Yet, we suggest that specifically examining service provision using a social inclusion lens provides:

• an opportunity to express the ways in which services and programs are actively contributing to a social inclusion agenda, above and beyond their day-to-day business;
• a more comprehensive picture of the barriers and challenges to the access and use of services by families who are disadvantaged; and
• a new perspective on ways in which sectors can collaborate to meet the potentially multiple needs of families who are disadvantaged.

Additional resources are likely to be needed to address any perceived shortfalls in the way in which an organisation addresses social inclusion. Strategies to better engage and sustain effective work with marginalised families potentially require a greater investment in staff time, training and resources.² Initiatives that impose additional demands on staff who are already working to capacity are unlikely to succeed.

Viewing family support work through the lens of a social inclusion framework may also present challenges to service providers and practitioners with a more traditional approach to service delivery.³ Practice that is informed by the principles of social inclusion (referred to as "just therapy" by Waldegrave, 2005) requires a potential change in professionals' attitudes and responsibilities, to include a greater acknowledgement of the impact of clients' socioeconomic, cultural and gender contexts. Service providers are required to work collaboratively, acknowledging their role in the community as a wider "service portal" in accordance with the "no wrong door" philosophy (Australian Government, 2009). It requires an inversion of the approach that characterises particular groups as "hard to reach", by focusing on strategies that will make the service less hard to reach for some families (Brackertz & Meredyth, 2008; Moore, 2009).

Perhaps as a first step, the ideas in the previous section could be used as a reflective practice tool, or to undertake an organisational training needs analysis (National Social Inclusion Program [NSIP], 2007). However, in the long term, the development of an overarching social inclusion framework for the family support sector may help to make gaps in service provision, as well as aspects of service delivery currently not reflected in service statistics, more visible.

Conclusion

Social inclusion is dependent on creating environments that increase the social, economic and civic participation of individuals in communities (McArthur et al., 2010). The achievement of this goal is "everyone's job" (ASIB, 2009) and as such, family support services are well placed to contribute to the creation of more inclusive environments/communities by providing services that are increasingly evidence based and values driven (NSIP, 2007).

The reframing of service delivery, in order to consider how existing service provision matches the goals of social inclusion, lends weight to broader, societal-level goals to reduce disadvantage and achieve equality for all citizens. In this way, family support services can continue to operate not only on a day-to-day level to address family and relationship problems, but also to cement their place in helping to resolve issues of macro-level disadvantage in Australia.

References

• Australian Government. (2009). The Australian public service social inclusion policy design and delivery toolkit. Canberra: Social Inclusion Unit, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
• Australian Social Inclusion Board. (2009). A compendium of social inclusion indicators: How's Australia faring? Retrieved from <www.socialinclusion.gov.au/Partnerships/Board/Documents/Compendium.pdf>
• Australian Social Inclusion Board. (2010). Social inclusion principles for Australia. Retrieved from <www.socialinclusion.gov.au/SIAgenda/Principles/Documents/SIPrincilpes.pdf>
• Blakemore, T., Shipley, M. Waters, S., & Zubrick, S. (2009, December). Measuring family disadvantage in the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children. Paper presented at the Growing Up in Australia: The Longitudinal Study of Australian Children 2nd research conference, Melbourne.
• Brackertz, N., & Meredyth, D. (2008). Social inclusion of the hard to reach: Community consultation and the hard to reach. Local government, social profiling and civic infrastructure: Final report. Melbourne: Swinburne University of Technology.
• Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. The future of children, 7(2), 55-71.
• Carbone, S., Fraser, A., Ramburuth, R., & Nelms, L. (2004). Breaking Cycles, Building Futures. Promoting inclusion of vulnerable families in antenatal and universal early childhood services: A report on the first three stages of the project. Melbourne, Victoria: Victorian Department of Human Services.
• Cortis, N., Chan, S., & Hilferty, F. (2009). Workforce issues, models and responses across the family relationship services sector. (AFRC Issues No. 5). Melbourne: Australian Family Relationships Clearinghouse, Australian Institute of Family Studies.
• Evans, G. (2004). The environment of child poverty. American Psychologist, 59(2), 77-92.
• Hayes, A., & Gray, M. (2008). Social inclusion: A policy platform for those who live particularly challenged lives. Family Matters, 78, 4-7.
• Healy, K., & Darlington, Y. (1999). Family support and social inclusion: Practice and policy issues in Australia. Just Policy, 16, 3-10.
• Hope, R. (2004). The ten essential shared capabilities: A framework for the whole of the mental health workforce. London: Department of Health.
• Hulse, K., Jacobs, K., Arthurson, K., & Spinney, A. (2010). Housing, public policy and social inclusion (Positioning Paper No. 135). Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.
• Hunter, B. (2009). Indigenous social exclusion: Insights and challenges for the concept of social inclusion. Family Matters, 82, 52-61.
• McAdams, D. (2006). The person. A new introduction to personality psychology (4th ed.). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
• McArthur, M., Thomson, L., Winkworth, G., & Butler, K. (2010). Families' experiences of services (Occasional Paper No. 30). Canberra: Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.
• McDonald, M. (in press). What role can child and family services play in enhancing opportunities for parents and children (CAFCA Practice Sheet). Melbourne: Communities and Families Clearinghouse Australia, Australian Institute of Family Studies
• Moore, T. (2009). The inclusion agenda in early childhood services: Evidence, policy and practice. Universal access to early childhood education. Department of Education and Early Childhood Development Shared Learning Forum, 22 June 2010, Melbourne.
• National Social Inclusion Program. (2007). Capabilities for inclusive practices. Retrieved from <http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_078095>
• Robinson, E., & Parker, R. (2008). Prevention and early intervention in strengthening families and relationships (AFRC Issues No. 2). Melbourne: Australian Family Relationships Clearinghouse, Australian Institute of Family Studies. <www.aifs.gov.au/afrc/pubs/issues/issues2.html>
• Saunders, P., Naidoo, Y., & Griffiths, M. (2007). Towards new indicators of disadvantage: Deprivation and social exclusion in Australia. Sydney: Social Policy Research Centre.
• Sawriker, P., & Katz, I. (2008). Enhancing family and relationship service accessibility and delivery to culturally and linguistically diverse families in Australia (AFRC Issues No. 3). Melbourne: Australian Family Relationships Clearinghouse, Australian Institute of Family Studies.
• Waldegrave, C. (2005). "Just therapy" with families on low income. Child Welfare, 84(2), 265-276.