Self-reported care activities in a home-based intervention programme for families with multiple problems

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to describe the development and application of the KIPP-list of care activities. The acronym KIPP stands for Knowledge and Insight into Primary Processes. The instrument is intended as a tool for family coaches to systematically report care activities conducted in the Dutch family support programme Ten for the Future (in Dutch: Tien voor Toekomst). Design/methodology/approach – The design of the instrument was based on the components of the programme and a literature search for similar instruments used in the Netherlands, complemented by a staff survey. A series of three studies was carried out to test the instrument’s validity and user-friendliness, and to assess its potential for programme evaluation. Findings – The majority of care activities were performed in cooperation with one or both parents alone, and less frequently with children or external professionals. Although the main focus of the work of the family coaches fell into the categories of “collecting information” and “working towards (behavioural) change” with families, the relatively high frequency of all the types of care contacts emphasises the intensity of this family support programme with a complex target group. Originality/value – Data gathered with the instrument provided meaningful information by descriptive analysis. KIPP thereby proved its general feasibility in increasing insight into service provision. The instrument can be useful in several stages and on several levels of quality assurance and service optimisation, including reflective practice, supervision, team management and research.

Child and Youth Coaching in families experiencing complex and multiple problems: A longitudinal evaluation study

“…Therefore, the findings in this study only reflect the change of the TF and CYC programmes combined. In an earlier study, Tausendfreund et al (2015) found no consistent pattern of change in emotional and behavioural problems of children that only received TF services. However, it is unclear to what extent TF services have contributed to the outcomes in this study.…”

“…Although whole‐family approaches show promising results (Bolt & Van der Zijden, 2021; Majoribanks & Davies, 2016; Thoburn et al, 2013), professionals often experience considerable difficulties in involving all family members in these services. Several studies have suggested care professionals experience considerable challenges in building multiple alliances with family members (Busschers & Boendermaker, 2015; Tausendfreund et al, 2015). Furthermore, professionals are often led to prioritize aspects other than child well‐being (Munro, 2011).…”

“…Furthermore, professionals are often led to prioritize aspects other than child well‐being (Munro, 2011). Although most home‐visiting programmes aim to adopt a systems‐focused approach that involves all members of the family, several studies have suggested there is a lack of child‐centred practice in services for FECMP (Alberth & Bühler‐Niederberger, 2015; Ferguson, 2017; Dutch Inspectorate for Youth Care, 2016; Munro, 2011 Tausendfreund et al, 2015; Visscher et al, 2020). For example, Tausendfreund et al (2015) showed that only a small part of care activities were directed at children.…”

Exploring What Works in Art Therapy With Children With Autism: Tacit Knowledge of Art Therapists

“…A second could be directed at observing and measuring art therapists' behavior during sessions. A methodology that maps behavior as assessed by self-reports or external observations, based on a fixed checklist of therapeutic activities, could be used (Tausendfreund et al, 2015). Third, children's, parents', and referrers' perspectives about COAT concepts can add useful information to compare to the therapists' responses from our study (Iachini, Hock, Thomas, & Clone, 2015); this would consider the multiple perspectives on the quality of art therapy (Raban, Ure, & Waniganayake, 2003).…”

Struggling for open awareness – Trajectories of violence against children from a sociological perspective

“…What is meant by this is that little attention is paid to the child when there is a suspicion that the child's welfare is at risk, that there are cases where the child is not even spoken to or looked at. Such a lack of focus on children has been noted in the everyday practices of child protection workers (Tausendfreund et al, 2015;Alberth & Bühler-Niederberger, 2015;Ferguson, 2017;Chapeau, 2021) and especially where cases have had a fatal outcome (Fegert et al, 2010;Lundberg, 2013;Bastian, 2019). So, while the phenomenon of the invisible child is well known, there is no consensus in the literature about how often this inattention to children occurs.…”