Working with Parents of Young People

Research, Policy and Practice

Debi Roker, John Coleman

• Publisher: Jessica Kingsley Publishers
• Year: 2006
• Print ISBN: 9781843104209
• eBook ISBN: 9781846425615
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Developmental Psychology
• Index: Psychology

This book provides practical guidance for a wide range of professionals working with parents and families, answering common questions such as 'How can parents facilitate their child's transition to secondary school?' and 'How can families best communicate about alcohol?'.

Drawing on the findings from years of applied research projects carried out by the Trust for the Study of Adolescence, each chapter focuses on a particular area of parenting young people - from monitoring and supervision to support for foster families - and each highlights the implications of research results for policy and practice. This book presents a range of approaches to working with parents and families, and discusses the effectiveness of techniques such as parent mentoring and involving young people in parenting programmes.

Working with Parents of Young People provides a strong set of evidence-based guidelines for best practice and will be a key resource for all those working to support the parents of teenagers.

Part 1

Introduction

1Working with parents of young people: setting the scene

John Coleman and Debi Roker

The parenting of young people is today one of the most controversial features of family life. For anyone interested or involved in work relating to parenting, it is apparent that since the early 1990s there have been the most remarkable changes. From being a topic that attracted little public interest, it has become a topic of concern and importance to everyone from the Prime Minister downwards. There is now a range of television programmes tackling questions about how best to parent young people, and in the public sphere there has been a variety of policy initiatives aimed at parenting of children and young people of all ages.

It is not entirely clear why this should be so. Is it because parenting in general has become a topic of greater interest? Is it that parenting young people poses a greater challenge to society today? Is it that, within the family, there is more concern about how to ‘manage’ or ‘control’ young people? Are young people seen as being at greater risk today? It is certainly true that much publicity has been given to the fact that British youth appear to drink more, to smoke more, and to have sex earlier than their counterparts in other parts of the European Union. There has also been a lot of discussion about the possible deterioration in the mental health of adolescents, and there seems little doubt that in the public mind there are serious questions about young people and how to deal with them.

Let us first consider what changes have taken place since the early 1990s. This may help us to understand some of the reasons for the increased attention being paid to the parenting of adolescents. First we explore changes that we think have been useful and beneficial. We then turn our attention to developments that we feel are less positive.

Changes since the early 1990s which have been beneficial

There has been a clear change in recent years in the level of awareness of the importance of parenting. Whilst there is still a long way to go, it is undoubtedly the case that more people are aware that parents of young people have an important role to play, than was the case in the early 1990s. When the Home Office issued the consultation paper Supporting Families in 1998 it seemed a daring thing to say that parents of young people mattered. The message then was that to ask for support or information should not be seen as a mark of failure, but of effective parenting. Today that message would hardly raise an eyebrow.

A greater understanding of the role of parents has been promoted by a variety of research reports and policy documents. One of the most influential was the report by Desforges and Abouchar (2003) showing the link between school attainment and parental involvement in homework and school activities. Another key document was the review, commissioned by the Home Office, entitled What Works in Parenting Support? (Moran, Ghate and Van der Merwe 2004; Moran and Ghate 2005). This publication represented an important landmark as it pulled together evidence on parenting support, and highlighted the lessons to be learnt from current research findings.

It is not easy to quantify the increased public awareness of the importance of parenting young people, and regrettably we have no research to substantiate the change in attitudes. Yet the very fact that governmental bodies have shown a willingness to review research and publish key findings speaks volumes, and of course the publication of key documents is not the only mark of heightened awareness. Another factor in the overall picture is the growth in voluntary sector organisations dedicated to supporting parents, and the interest many of these organisations have shown in the needs of parents of older children. The establishment of the National Family and Parenting Institute (NFPI), the work of Parenting UK, formerly Parenting Education and Support Forum (PESF), in relation to quality assurance and accreditation for parenting support workers, and the role of Parentline Plus in offering telephone support to thousands of parents, have all contributed to a growing awareness of parenting matters. This work has been matched by an extraordinary growth in the number of small charities dedicated to parenting support.

Turning now to government policy, two key policy initiatives should be mentioned here. In the first place the Children Act 2004 requires local authorities to publish a children and young people’s plan. This has to be updated on an annual basis, and must include an element dedicated to parenting support. It remains to be seen how much of this focus is directed to parents of adolescents. The second example may be taken from the 2005 Green Paper on young people, Youth Matters, in which there is much about working with parents. Here we find statements such as: ‘We want to ensure that parents of young people have better access to the information and advice they need…’ (HM Government 2005, p.53), and ‘Building on the experience of the youth justice system, we would like to see parenting support programmes become more widely available…’ (p.53), and ‘We would like to see opportunities for more parents to be involved in helping their children to make decisions about their learning and career choices…’ (p.54). Clearly, as far as the government is concerned, parents of young people are central, and this is something that is very much to be welcomed.

It is not only the government that has been active in the arena of policy development. As will be well known to readers, since 1998 the government has invested hugely in services for families of the under-fives, services that have come under the rubric of Sure Start. In 2004 the policy think tank, the Institute of Public Policy Research, published a document in which it called for an initiative similar to Sure Start, but for parents of young people. The Institute proposed a new service, entitled Sure Progress, to offer a range of joined-up services for young people and their parents which would involve ‘consistent support, intervention and activities’. As the authors wrote:

There is a growing focus on providing support and advice for young children and their families, but there is also growing evidence that if you don’t sustain that support, progress will be lost. Yet at the moment teenagers tend to get services more when they are in trouble with the police. (Edwards 2004, p.1)

A number of politicians and organisations came out in support of such an idea, again illustrating that the need for greater levels of support for families with older children is being more widely recognised than has been the case in the past.

To conclude this summary of positive changes that have occurred in recent years, it should be noted that applied and practice-oriented research has also played its part in raising awareness of the needs of parents of young people. It is certainly the case that some key funders, such as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, and the Lloyds TSB Foundation have all been proactive in supporting parenting research. The journal Children and Society dedicated an issue entirely to parenting and parenting support in 2005, and of the papers published, 50 per cent were concerned with the parenting of young people. Last, but certainly not least, the Trust for the Study of Adolescence (TSA) has been more active than most in carrying out research on parenting support for parents of teenagers. The results of some of these research projects are the subject of this book.

Changes since the early 1990s that have not been entirely beneficial

We now turn our attention to developments that we consider have been less helpful, in terms of supporting the parents of young people.

One of the most striking features of the public rhetoric concerning parents of young people has been the development of what can only be called a culture of blame. Countless newspaper articles and policy pronouncements place the responsibility for the behaviour of young people squarely on the shoulders of the parents. This message was exemplified by the introduction of the Parenting Order, a feature of the criminal justice system offering magistrates and judges the option of requiring parents to attend courses or counselling as a result, not of their behaviour, but of the behaviour of their sons or daughters. Parenting Orders were introduced first in the Crime and Disorder Act of 1998, and their use was extended in 2003 to include truancy and other educational misdemeanours. As many commentators have noted, there is something paradoxical about ‘punishing’ parents for a criminal act that is outside their control. The most extreme example of this was seen in the case of a mother who was sent to prison because of persistent truanting on the part of her daughter.

This legislation raises questions of central concern, in particular the nature of parent–child relationships (see Jones and Bell 2000). What do we mean by control? What is parental authority? How far can we expect parents to impose their will on an unruly or disobedient young person? What do we do with parents who are themselves overwhelmed by their health or personal circumstances? This dilemma is not easily resolved. There are undoubtedly cases where the requirement by a court for a parent to take greater responsibility for their teenager’s welfare is beneficial. However, there are a much greater number of situations where it is apparent that a parent cannot reasonably be expected to have control over a young person, particularly where the young person does not respond to the imposition of normal limits and boundaries. Nothing is to be gained from the creation of a culture where blame is believed to be inappropriate, especially when that blame is laid at the door of those who care for our children.

The placing of responsibility with the parent has another difficulty associated with it. Such a concept is based on the presumption that the parent is the main socialising influence on the child. Thus the direction of influence is seen as being one way – from adult to child. This was the common assumption during much of the twentieth century, but in recent years there has been a greater recognition that things do not work quite like that. Socialisation is a two-way process, with the child being as influential as the adult. Thus the child’s personality, communication skills and closeness to the parent will all play some part in determining how influential the parent can be (see for example, Stace and Roker 2004). We can see, therefore, that a culture which blames parents for their children’s misdemeanours is using a faulty, dated view of how parent–child relationships operate. Once we acknowledge that the child or young person is a key player, not a passive recipient of their parents’ values, we can begin to see that the concept of blame is flawed for scientific as well as for ethical reasons (James, Jencks and Prout 1998).

The conundrum of parental responsibility is linked to another contradiction in public policy, that concerning the rights of parents of young people. As has been noted above, where criminal behaviour of those under the age of 18 is concerned, parents can be held responsible by the courts. However, it may be argued that, at the same time as parental responsibilities have increased, their rights have been eroded. First, the Gillick case in 1986 established that young people under the age of 16 have the right to medical treatment (in this case contraceptive advice) without the knowledge and consent of their parents. This state of affairs has recently (January 2006) been tested again through a judicial review sought by a mother, Mrs Sue Axon, who was concerned that her daughter might be able to have an abortion without a parent being informed. The result of the judicial review was clear cut, the judge upholding the principles established by the House of Lords in the Gillick case some 20 years earlier. The judge stated that, so long as the young person is competent to make a decision about their health, and so long as the medical practitioner has tried to persuade the patient to inform their parents, then a young person has the right to confidential medical treatment. This includes having an abortion or any other type of treatment.

There is something very strange about a situation where a young woman can have an abortion without the parents being informed, and yet if that young woman throws a brick through a shop window an hour later the parents may be held responsible in court. How can we reconcile these positions? And what is the effect of such a contradictory situation? At present there is little we can do to bring the two positions together. We have two strands of thought, that of health and criminal justice, both appearing to be going in opposite directions as far as the rights and responsibilities of parents are concerned. In terms of the effect of the contradiction, it seems probable that it is another factor contributing to the general uncertainty and lack of confidence experienced by parents. Not only are they blamed for their children’s bad behaviour, but their rights are being taken away at the same time.

It is perhaps appropriate here to make one or two further points about the situation of parents of young people. As we have seen, whilst some beneficial changes have occurred since the early 1990s, there have also been some shifts in policy and in public awareness that are less helpful. One example here relates to the role of fathers. Most people believe that there has been a major change in the way fathers are involved in child care today. However, closer examination shows that, with a few exceptions, almost all the focus in relation to fathering is on the early years. Very little attention has been directed towards the role of fathers of teenagers, and we have a very long way to go before there is any genuine debate and discussion about what fathering means in the context of adolescence.

Another factor that hinders the provision of support for parents of older children, is the difference in attitudes and ethos between primary and secondary school. Whilst there is much debate about how schools can support parents, and work more closely with them, again the great majority of such work occurs in the primary sector. With so much emphasis today on the concept of extended schools, there may be a real opportunity for parents of young people to have better relationships with secondary schools. Yet the evidence is not encouraging. For many parents of young people, schools are bewildering institutions, unlikely to offer the support and advice that is so badly needed.

In considering the changes since the early 1990s, a final comment must be devoted to the extraordinary paradox, that in Britain today most of the resources available for the support of parents of young people are coming through the criminal justice system. Of course such support is very welcome, even though it may come far too late for some families. However, it is a bizarre state of affairs when a parent can only get help once the young person becomes known to the police or the youth offending team. Not only is this an expensive way to deliver support, since clearly there is less possibility of change once this situation has been reached, but there is something contradictory to the principles of any welfare state that parental support and offending become linked in this way.

Support for the parents of young people

During the last few years there has been a greatly increased focus on the nature of support. What do parents want? How is it best to conceptualise this support? Perhaps most important, ‘what works’ in parenting support? It remains the case that much of the research that is available concerns itself with parents of younger children, and we still lack a substantive body of evidence concerning parents of adolescents. Nonetheless, there are some important lessons to be learnt from the research that has been carried out in recent years, and some brief mention of this is appropriate here.

In the first place there has been intense debate surrounding the different notions of support. One helpful analysis of the variety of models available can be found in Miller and Sambell (2003). These a...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• of related interest
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• The Contributors
• Part 1: Introduction
• Part 2: New Research and Implications for Practice
• Part 3: New Ways of Working with Parents
• Part 4: Conclusions
• Subject index
• Author index