working with families to provide home based respite services through the Intensive Family Support (IFS) had more direct contact with families than their colleagues in the centre-based service, but also encountered more difficulties around the use of behaviour support plans. All IFS staff except for the coordinators reported it was difficult to engage casual staff in the project. Many were students who were most comfortable in engaging with the children in activities that gave families a break and were enjoyed by the children. Coordinators reported that staff were not sufficiently board’ with the project and did not feel sufficiently skilled or ethically ‘on mandated to initiate major changes in practices in the family’s home, when they were in the home for relatively short periods. Their observation was that practices ‘worked’ for families that were often experiencing very high levels of stress related to the care of children whose disabilities were profound. They questioned whether they should challenge these practices given that their contact with the child was limited and families were the primary caregivers. In some cases, in both on site and IFS respite, family users were reported to have firm ideas about what was best for their child and family, and refused to consider change, even though staff encouraged them to try other, less restrictive options. The model has a capacity to engage with families and includes material directed specifically to families. However, the pilot project itself was neither designed nor resourced to provide the family, as natural mediators (or teachers as professional mediators) with the information, support and resources to motivate them to fully engage so that a new Positive Behaviour Support plan could be consistently followed. To achieve the necessary level of engagement and involvement with families and schools would have required a level of training and support to families in their homes and the child’s teachers at school that was outside of the pilot project’s scope. Notwithstanding the difficulties of implementing the model, staff interviewed at the conclusion of the project consistently reported that the project had given them a different way to think about their roles and practices. Although not systemically successful, the project was reported to have resulted in new/improved relationships with a small number of families and has helped them to move forward. Staff noted the value of having access to LLC’s specialist psychologist (the project team leader) to support the development of their skills and knowledge about Positive Behaviour Support access to specialists was identified as a success factor across – all three service types.
working with families to provide home based respite services through the Intensive Family Support (IFS) had more direct contact with families than their colleagues in the centre-based service, but also encountered more difficulties around the use of behaviour support plans. All IFS staff except for the coordinators reported it was difficult to engage casual staff in the project. Many were students who were most comfortable in engaging with the children in activities that gave families a break and were enjoyed by the children. Coordinators reported that staff were not sufficiently ‘on board’ with the project and did not feel sufficiently skilled or ethically mandated to initiate major changes in practices in the family’s home, when they were in the home for relatively short periods. Their observation was that practices ‘worked’ for families that were often experiencing very high levels of stress related to the care of children whose disabilities were profound. They questioned whether they should challenge these practices given that their contact with the child was limited and families were the primary caregivers. In some cases, in both on site and IFS respite, family users were reported to have firm ideas about what was best for their child and family, and refused to consider change, even though staff encouraged them to try other, less restrictive options. The model has a capacity to engage with families and includes material directed specifically to families. However, the pilot project itself was neither designed nor resourced to provide the family, as natural mediators (or teachers as professional mediators) with the information, support and resources to motivate them to fully engage so that a new Positive Behaviour Support plan could be consistently followed. To achieve the necessary level of engagement and involvement with families and schools would have required a level of training and support to families in their homes and the child’s teachers at school that was outside of the pilot project’s scope. Notwithstanding the difficulties of implementing the model, staff interviewed at the conclusion of the project consistently reported that the project had given them a different way to think about their roles and practices. Although not systemically successful, the project was reported to have resulted in new/improved relationships with a small number of families and has helped them to move forward. Staff noted the value of having access to LLC’s specialist psychologist (the project team leader) to support the development of their skills and knowledge about Positive Behaviour Support – access to specialists was identified as a success factor across all three service types.
Sector-and-Workforce-Development-Report-July-2013.docx