Selections from Sinet – The Social Indicators Network News

Social Indicators Research -     

The proof of the pudding: What difference does multi‐agency working make to families with disabled children with complex health care needs?

More than 20 years of research with disabled children, young people and their families has highlighted the need for the different professionals and services that support them to work more closely together. The British policy and legal framework for ‘joined up working’ has never been stronger. However, there has been an assumption that multi‐ or inter‐agency working will inevitably be a ‘good thing’ for families. This paper discusses findings from a 3‐year research project which looked at both the process and impact of multi‐agency working on families with a disabled child with complex health care needs. Interviews with 25 parents and 18 children and young people who used six developed, multi‐agency services were carried out. Findings suggested that the services had made a big difference to the health care needs of disabled children but were less able to meet the wider needs of the child and the family – particularly in relation to social and emotional needs. Multi‐agency working appeared to make some positive, but not significant, differences to the lives of families.     

Partnership Working and Eligibility Criteria: What Can We Learn from the Implementation of Guidance on Continuing Health Care?

Current government policy places great importance both on clinical governance and on partnership working between health and social services. Separately and together, these policy emphases require greater clarity in and between organizations about who should provide what care where than has often been achieved in the past. A study of the implementation of continuing health care policies suggests that clarity about appropriate long–term health and social care provision was difficult to achieve in the 1990s quasi–markets, because there were too few financial and structural incentives for agencies to cooperate in developing and implementing precise and comprehensive eligibility criteria. This problematic interplay between financial and structural factors is being addressed by a number of government initiatives designed to stimulate joint working, although the difficulty of drawing a clear boundary between health care (free at the point of delivery) and social care (which can be means–tested) remains.     

TELESIS: The Uses of Indicators to Set Goals and Develop Programs to Change Conditions

TELESIS – the application ofintelligence to attain desired goals – employssocial indicators to set goals and monitorprogress toward achieving goals. The modellinks culture values to desirable goals whichare identified by a change in social indicatorsstatistic. Understanding appropriate steps totake, based upon experience and experimentalknowledge, is vital in developing programs. Human and fiscal resources also are critical.Healthy People, a U.S. program to extendlife, is presented as an example of theprocess, with the program to stop cigarettesmoking reviewed in detail. Another example isthe U.S. Goals for Education programwith its 50 objectives to improve learning. The Kids Count, a program supported by aprivate foundation, is designed to improve thewell-being of children and youth. It is anexample of the telic process that engages localinitiatives. From these examples, a summary oflessons learned provides suggestions for theapplication of the telic process.     

Social Structure and Child Poverty

Child poverty, as a critical indicator of the QOL, is intricately related to the social structure of the community. This hypothesis is explored for the 159 counties of Georgia for the year 2000. The influence of demographic, economic, family and health factors upon child poverty are explored through models of total, black and white child poverty. Factor analyses of factors uncovered by the models identify the social-structural features of counties in relation to child poverty. Counties considered “Deprived/rural” harbor child poverty, while counties described as “Business/money” and “Progressive/urban” bear a negative relationship to child poverty. Positively associated with child poverty are residential stability, unemployment, low educational achievement, youth and age dependency, single-parent female household heads with children, grandparent child care, and health disability of child, elders and of working-age persons. Structural factors militating against child poverty are persons with greater education, higher population density, out migration, larger married population, higher retail sales, larger middle class families, higher weekly wages, and other structural features of the county.     

Contents of Volume 55

Volume Contents

Contents of Volume 55