Helsebiblioteket's Research Archive (HeRA) > Other health and research institutions > Norwegian Institute for Alcohol and Drug Research - SIRUS > Reports and other publications >
Evaluering av prosjektet "Barn i rusfamilier - tidlig intervensjon"
- Hdl Handle:
- Evaluering av prosjektet "Barn i rusfamilier - tidlig intervensjon"
- SIRUS-rapport 1/2009
- Additional Links:
Full metadata record
|dc.description.abstract||NORSK SAMMENDRAG: Bergljot Baklien og Tonje Wejden har evaluert prosjektet Barn i rusfamilier – tidlig intervensjon som Borgestadklinikkene gjennomførte i 2006 og 2007. Målet var å øke handlingskompetansen for ansatte i skoler, barnehager, sosialtjenesten og barnevernet, slik at de så tidlig som mulig kan oppdage barn som vokser opp i familier med rusmiddelproblemer og gi dem riktig hjelp. Ca. 160 ansatte i fire kommuner i Telemark og Vestfold ble kurset i prosjektet, som søkte å skape endring både på individnivå og kollektivt nivå. Økt handlingsevne og -vilje Evalueringen viser at prosjektet har vært vellykket på individnivå. Det har ikke bare økt lærerne og de barnehageansattes kompetanse, men også endret deres måte å handle på. Andelen som sier de er blitt bedre til å lese tegn på at et barn lider på grunn av belastende rusmiddelbruk i familien har økt betraktelig. De har fått en forsterket trygghet og vilje til å ta tak i problemer de oppdager, og dette har overføringsverdi til andre typer problemer enn rus også. De diskuterer oftere en bekymring med kolleger, leder eller barnevernet. Mange forteller at de i løpet av det siste året har tatt kontakt med barnevernet på grunn av rusmiddelbruk hos foresatte. Krevende samarbeid Samarbeidet mellom barnehage og skole på den siden og barnevernet på den andre er ofte krevende. Barnevernet er både et hjelpe- og kontrollorgan, og dette kan gjøre samarbeidet med skoler og barnehage vanskelig. Prosjektets mål om å skape nye modeller for samarbeid og forsterkede rutiner på arbeidsplassene ble ikke nådd. En viktig grunn til dette ser ut til å være at det var uklart hvem som skulle ta initiativ til samarbeid. Innsatsen i prosjektet var primært rettet inn mot endringer på individnivå. Overføringsverdi I rapporten diskuterer forfatterne om prosjektet bør prøves ut andre steder. De konkluderer med at det ut fra de gode erfaringene på individnivå er gode grunner for å anbefale andre kommuner å prøve ut prosjektet. Men det forutsetter at man får gode rammebetingelser og kan trekke på den kompetansen som gjorde Borgestadklinikkens prosjekt vellykket.||en|
|dc.description.abstract||ENGLISH SUMMARY: The project “Children in families with drug or alcohol problems - early intervention” was developed and implemented by the Borgestad Clinic’s competence centre during 2006 and 2007. The goal was to increase the action competence of staff at schools, day care facilities, social services and child welfare services. The intention was to enable those involved to identify as early as possible children in families with alcohol and drug problems, and provide adequate follow-up and help as early as possible. The project organized a special training program attended by 160 teachers, day care staff and others from four municipalities in Telemark and Vestfold to bring about change both at an individual and a collective level. This evaluation attempts to track those processes of change within professions working with children from families at risk, in relations between persons and agencies, and in matters of a more structural nature in the municipalities. The main data source consisted of extensive qualitative interviews with 62 course participants and other key persons. The evaluation is also based on a questionnaire survey and document analysis. The findings from the survey are compared with those of a pre-project study done by the Borgestad Clinic. It shows a sharp pre- and post-program rise in attendees’ confidence in their ability to identify children with substance abuse in the home environment. A program which inspired commitment The qualitative interviews allow us to examine this wider picture in greater detail and penetration. Respondents are unanimously positive to the program, which, they say, was excellent. They had expected something that appealed to the intellect, but got something which hit them at least as hard in the guts. The program inspired commitment, and wakened a sense of moral obligation to help children in need. Not all expectations were met, however. Some missed certain topics, mainly to do with cross-agency collaboration and information about the care services. They also missed a stronger focus on ways of developing a cross-disciplinary model. They would also have appreciated it if responsibility for post-program work and collaboration had been clearly allocated. When participants were asked to pinpoint the most relevant aspect of the program, three elements stand out. The first is the item on confidentiality, the second stories about children and domestic substance abuse, and the third was a role-playing item where participants practiced talking with parents and children about the problem. Participants highlight several lessons as they talk about feeling increasingly confident to manage a useful, productive conversation with parents about a matter of concern. They write up their observations more frequently, noting episodes that cause them worry. By starting with an account of actual events, it is easier to decide where to focus and what to aim for in the conversation. They also stressed the importance of making a plan and making sure both you and the parents are agreed about the next steps in the process. A final element is concern for the child. It makes the necessary conversation easier because parents are less likely to reject concerns for the child. Program participants grew more confident and more observant. There are still many who are reluctant to conduct the necessary conversation with the parents, but all agree it is easier to discuss concerns with parents now than before. In addition, participants take their gut feelings about a child more seriously and act on them. We can hope, in other words, that at least some children will be helped sooner and more capably as a result of the project. Difficult collaboration To do something about the situation of a child in need often requires input from several people, professions and agencies working together. Relations between school and day care on the one hand, and child welfare service on the other depend on their mutual perceptions. According to respondents in the child welfare service, potential collaborators often have unrealistic expecta-tions. For instance, they expect the service to solve the problem for the school and day care establishment, which in practice is rarely possible. In the opinion of the teachers and day care staff, it is important to establish a trusting relationship with parents. Parents often perceive the child welfare service as a system of control, one in which they have little faith. This in turn makes day care staff and teachers reluctant to alert the child welfare authorities because it could undermine their relations with the parents and their willing¬ness to cooperate. It is less threatening to work with a familiar community nurse. Teachers and day care staff also feel that collaboration would be easier if they were informed as soon as possible about developments in a case. They wonder whether the child welfare authorities under¬estimate the type of information a teacher, for instance, might find useful. Many do not believe the child welfare service can do much to help even if they do report a concern. Nevertheless, participants’ opinions of the child welfare service are quite mixed. Mutual knowledge is anyway an important precondition of cooperation, and lowers the contact threshold. The project aspired to change structures and relations, with a view to developing a template for coordinating action for children exposed to domestic substance abuse. This goal was not reached. While participants spoke enthusiastically about what the program had meant to them personally, they were clearly disappointed with efforts to set up a cooperation forum. Several day care employees and teachers had high expectations following the group work during the program’s final assembly, at which they spoke about establishing a new cooperation model and cross-disciplinary forum. There was wide agreement, shared also by the child welfare authorities, of the need for a forum, but little of practical value had actually been done. Models facilitating better cooperation do not appear out of thin air, however. One important reason for the lack of success here appears to be the lack of clarity on where responsibility for initiating the work lay. The project may also have failed to anticipate the difficulties involved in developing cooperation models of a regulatory and economic nature. The focus remained on engineering change at the level of the individual. The Borgestad Clinic and their project team were skilled and knowledgeable in the area of children living in substance abuse families, they were good educators and communicators. Perhaps they knew less about how municipalities worked and what cooperation needs to flourish. And the project’s resources, both economic and personnel related, were consumed by the program and competence building measures. Post-program work did not have access to such resources. Diffusion and replication The role of the regulatory and economic environment will require careful consideration if the question of piloting the project elsewhere arises. There are good reasons to recommend it to other municipalities so that they can profit from what has been learned on this occasion. But it will be a regulatory and economic challenge. It is not just about getting the best lecturers and letting participants attend free of charge. As some of the respondents pointed out, without money to cover the cost of substitutes, their own attendance would have been impossible. And because of the involvement of the Borgestad Clinic, leading experts were on hand. There is no guarantee that other competence centers would do as well in terms of expertise. Despite the positive effects of the project, and the valuable processes it initiated at the level of the individual, as the evaluation can confirm, it may not necessarily be transferable to other municipalities and other regional competence centers.||-|
|dc.subject.mesh||Child of Impaired Parents||en|
|dc.title||Evaluering av prosjektet "Barn i rusfamilier - tidlig intervensjon"||no|
All Items in HeRA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.