FAMILY-CENTRED COMMUNITIES
The planning process

Literature on a family-centred approach

There is a general dearth of materials available on family-centred communities and family-centred urban development. Web and library searches revealed that there is very little written on this subject. Furthermore, there is little material available on family impact assessment tools or processes.

Web and library searches exposed a great deal of diverse literature on family-centred practice throughout recent social science, education and health literature, including research reports, service descriptions, programme evaluations, conference proceedings, bulletins and commentaries. This literature was focused on social and health service practice. However, there were some useful concepts which could be applied to family-centred community development or planning.

The following section provides a brief summary of the key literature on family-centred communities and draws out the recurring themes in the components of family-centred communities.

Family-centred practice and service delivery

‘Family-centred practice’ is a term frequently associated with child welfare service delivery, but is also a term used in mental health, health care, the developmental disability field and education. It is a perspective applied to services provided by a number of professionals, including social workers, teachers, psychologists, nurses, physicians and occupational therapists.

According to the National Child Welfare Resource Center for Family-Centered Practice (NCWRCFCP), family-centred practice means that problems and solutions are defined within the context of the family and its strengths and resources (National Child Welfare Resource Center for Family-Centered Practice, 2000, 2001, 2002).

Family-centred practice implies a focus on working with families, not exclusively working with individuals (National Child Welfare Resource Center for Family-Centered Practice, 2001, 2002; Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 2001):

• Family-centered programs are planned to strengthen families so they can nurture children. Recognizing strengths in the families, building on family strengths, and working in partnership with families to support children, are critical activities in reforming the way agencies and schools respond to needs of children (Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 2001, p. 2).

In the United States, key pieces of federal legislation promoting the use of family-centred services include the Adoption and Child Welfare Assistance Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-272) and the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-89). According to the Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families, several federal programmes focus on family-centred practice and promote a community-based approach to service delivery. A number of states have produced guidelines on family-centred services.

A number of articles addressed the theoretical underpinnings of family-centred practice and the value base of family-centred practice. Most report that a family-centred approach is based on an ecological model which considers how social environments and relationships influence human development and family functioning.[10]

The National Child Welfare Resource Center for Family-Centered Practice in America described the essential components of family-centred practice in child welfare as follows:

• The family unit is the focus of attention. Family-centred practice works with the family as a collective unit, ensuring the safety and wellbeing of family members.
• Strengthening the capacity of families to function effectively is emphasised. The primary purpose of family-centred practice is to strengthen the family’s potential for carrying out their responsibilities.
• Families are engaged in designing all aspects of the policies, services and programme evaluation. Family-centred practitioners partner with families to use their expert knowledge throughout the decision- and goal-making processes and provide individualised, culturally responsive and relevant services for each family.
• Families are linked with more comprehensive, diverse and community-based networks of support and service. Family-centred interventions help mobilise resources to maximise communication, shared planning and collaboration among the several community or neighbourhood systems that are directly involved in the family (National Child Welfare Resource Center for Family-Centered Practice, 2000, 2001; The National Resource Center for Family-Centered Practice and Permanency Planning, 2006).

The Family Criteria (Ad Hoc) Task Force of the Consortium of Family Organizations (COFO) developed a checklist to assess the intended and unintended consequences of policies and programmes on family stability, family relationships and family responsibilities. The checklist included six basic principles that serve as the criteria of how sensitive to, and supportive of, families policies and programmes are. Each principle is accompanied by a series of family impact questions – see PDF (Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars, 2007). The principles were:

• Policies and programmes should aim to support and supplement family functioning and provide substitute services such as foster care only as a last resort.
• Whenever possible, policies and programmes should encourage and reinforce marital, parental and family commitment and stability, especially when children are involved. Intervention in family membership and living arrangements is usually justified only to protect family members from serious harm or at the request of the family itself.
• Policies and programmes must recognise the interdependence of family relationships, the strength and persistence of family ties and obligations and the wealth of resources that families can mobilise to help their members.
• Policies and programmes must encourage individuals and their close family members to collaborate as partners with programme professionals in delivery of services to an individual. In addition, parent and family representatives are an essential resource in policy and programme development, implementation and evaluation.
• Families come in many forms and configurations, and policies and programmes must take into account their varying effects on different types of families. Policies and programmes must acknowledge and value the diversity of family life and not discriminate against or penalise families solely for reasons of structure, roles, cultural values or life stage.
• Families in greatest economic and social need, as well as those determined to be most vulnerable to breakdown, should be included in government policies and programmes (Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars, 2007).

Wells and Fuller (2000), in their review of the literature, noted a number of best-practice elements in family-centred practice: focus on family empowerment; cultural sensitivity, flexibility and responsiveness; mobilisation of resources and services; and being community-based.

Other commentators emphasised the need for practice to be:

• culturally competent (Connolly, 2006; Meezan, 1999; Wells & Fuller, 2000)
• able to cater for the needs of children and families where a disability or mental disorder is present (Tomison, 2003)
• informed by an awareness of the diversity of family forms (Connolly, 2006; Tomison, 2003).

Marie Connolly, the Chief Social Worker for the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services in New Zealand, suggested that the New Zealand practice framework integrates three perspectives: child-centred; family-led and culturally responsive; and strengths and evidence-based (Connolly, 2006). She argued that supporting the cultural context of the family and working with social networks is central to the practice framework.

Some literature stated that family-centred practice should de-emphasise the family’s responsibility for causing problems and focus on helping families acquire the skills necessary to solve problems, meet needs and attain desired goals. It suggested that the emphasis should be on enhancing and strengthening family functioning by fostering the acquisition of adaptive behaviours and strengthening the families’ support network (Connolly, 2006; Meezan, 1999; Wells & Fuller, 2000).

A number of commentators also argued for ‘integrated services’ across education, health and social services (Lutfiyya, 1993; Paavola, 1995; U.S. Department of Education & Regional Educational Laboratory Network, 1996).

Some proponents of service integration argued that the goal is a one-stop for families who need multiple services. Families would have a single point of entry into social service delivery systems. Similar ideas are found in New Zealand public service literature (for example, Ministry of Social Development, 2005, 2006; State Services Commission, 2007).

The concept of a family-centred approach also appeared in health care and health promotion literature in New Zealand and overseas (American Home Economics Association, 1975; American Hospital Association and the Institute for Family-Centered Care, 2004; Auckland District Health Board, 2007; Novilla, Barnes, De La Cruz, Williams, & Rogers, 2006; The Paediatric Society of New Zealand, 2002; The Paediatric Society of New Zealand and Starship Foundation, 2005; Wilson, Smith, & Beazley, 2005).

The literature stated that a family-centred approach involves partnerships between patients, families and clinicians. The family, including the parents, the patient and any significant other person, are part of the collaborative effort in terms of treatment and the needs of the whole family are considered as factors in treatment decisions and intervention.[11] For instance, social workers are available to help a family find financial aid to help with hospital costs (American Hospital Association and the Institute for Family-Centered Care, 2004; Henneman & Cardin, 2002).

The literature described the differences between a family-focused approach and family-centred approach. Family-focused care is centred on meeting clients’ needs in the context of the family. Professionals often provide care from the position of an ‘expert’ assessing the patient and family, recommending a treatment or intervention and creating a plan for the family to follow. They do things to and for the patient and family, regarding the family as the ‘unit of intervention’ (Titler et al, 1995).

By contrast, family-centred care focuses on meeting the needs of both clients and families. It emphasises relationships (Johnson, Headey, & Jensen, 2005), and recognises and builds on the strengths and interconnectedness of families (Community Research, Planning and Evaluation Team, 2004). Family-centred care is characterised by a collaborative approach in which the family and health care team assess the needs and develop the treatment plan (American Hospital Association and the Institute for Family-Centered Care, 2004; Community Research Planning and Evaluation Team, 2004; Saunders, Abraham, Crosby, Thomas, & Edwards, 2003; The Institute for Family-Centered Care, 2007).

Most of the family-centred social service literature was narrative in nature. Many studies did not include information about subjects’ ethnicity or economic status and, as a result, the literature was limited with respect to applying aspects of family-centred approaches to culturally and economically diverse populations.

The health literature, in contrast, included studies which provide empirical evidence of effects on health outcomes. Although definitions and methods for implementing family-centred care were found in this literature, there were few reports of patients’ or family members’ perceptions regarding the multiple elements of family-centred care (Galvin et al, 2000).

Complementing the literature on a family-centred approach, extensive literature on family strengthening was also found. This literature predominantly described programmes and services that provide support to parents and seek to change family behaviours and environments[12] to encourage healthy child development. It often focused on families with severe and persistent problems, and considered how poor family functioning can affect outcomes for children (Caspe & Lopez, 2006; Connolly, 2006; Roehlkepartain, Mannes, Scales, Lewis, & Bolstrom, 2004).

A literature review on Family Resilience undertaken for the Ministry of Social Development highlighted a number of factors in protecting children from negative outcomes. The factors included families’ cohesion, belief systems and coping strategies (Kalil, 2003). The literature review also suggested that the community and the neighbourhood in which one lives play an important role in one’s ability to overcome challenges and that promoting social support at the community level may help to reduce a range of associated risks that threaten the wellbeing of socially isolated families.

Key themes

The literature on family-centred practice focused on social service and health service planning and delivery.

In New Zealand, social services are predominantly funded or provided by the non-government sector or central government rather than local government. The literature did not discuss the majority of local government services – for example, the development or maintenance of infrastructure such as water, reticulation, road maintenance and sewage disposal.

Despite this, some of the elements of family-centred practice could be applied to urban planning and community building practice in local government. For example, the literature consistently promoted:

• Family participation – families should be involved in determining needs and planning, implementing and evaluating services. Families have a right to be involved in decisions regarding what is in the best interests of the family unit and its members.
• Focus on the family as a whole – the focus should be on the overall health and wellbeing of the family, rather than on specific ‘symptoms’ or solely on the health and wellbeing of individual family members.
• Focus on family functioning – policies and other initiatives should strengthen the capacity of families to function effectively. Initiatives should strengthen family ties and interconnections and provide opportunities for families to be together.
• Strengths versus deficits – families should be seen as resources to their own members, to other families and to the community. A family-centred approach works with families to enhance protective factors or ‘strengths’ and acquire the skills necessary to solve problems and attain desired goals.
• Building social capital – the approach should help families build and draw on support networks within their family and the community. It should build connections between families and with community agencies and institutions.
• Interagency collaboration – single-strategy approaches to solving problems tend to be inefficient and are often ineffective. Multi-agency approaches working on many fronts simultaneously are more effective.
• Addressing inequalities – agencies should identify and support families in the most extreme economic or social need, and target efforts and resources toward preventing family problems before they become crises or chronic situations.
• Culturally appropriate approaches – families are more likely to use culturally appropriate services. Services should be delivered in a manner that affirms and strengthens cultural, racial and linguistic identities.
• Diversity – a family-centred approach should be informed by an awareness of the diversity of family forms. Processes and services should recognise the complexity and responsibilities involved in caring for family members with special needs (such as those who are physically or mentally disabled or chronically ill). Consideration should be given to physically, geographically, economically, culturally and socially disadvantaged families. Consideration should also be given to whether the initiative will improve the accessibility and appropriateness of services to families with particular characteristics and needs, such as people with a disability or people from a non-English-speaking background.

Family-centred communities

This section discusses the literature on family-centred communities. Most discussion regarding the features and drivers of family-centred communities has been in the popular press in America. No academic studies were found on family-centred communities. Some literature on family-centred community building was found and is discussed in the next section.

Literature on the ways in which communities can cater for particular population groups, such as children, young people and older people, was not included in this review. This review was interested in literature on the ways in which communities focus on the family as a whole, rather than individual family members.

Family-friendly communities and the popular press

The literature in the popular press tended to use the term ‘family-friendly’ as opposed to ‘family-centred’. For example, Money Magazine publishes an annual ranking of the Best Places to Live.[13] Cities are ranked on the basis of economic opportunity, taking into account income, job growth and affordability; quality-of-life indicators, including risk of violent crime and property crime, quality of public schools, arts and leisure, park space and incidence of stress-related ailments; and ease of living gauges, such as commute times, divorce rates, population density and weather.

In 2007, Sperling’s BestPlaces (responsible for the Money Magazine studies) undertook a study known as ‘Best Cities for Relocating Families’. The study assessed which cities were best suited to relocating families, and weighed the factors that determine the ease of moving to a city rather than living in a city. It listed a number of measurable features affecting the ease with which a family can move and settle into a new life. Traditional factors, such as tax rates and average home cost and appreciation, were combined with more diverse cost-of-living and quality-of-life variables, such as the ability to qualify for in-state tuition, the service quality of local utilities, auto taxes, per-capita volunteerism and the number of family-friendly events and venues. More subtle indicators were also included in the study, such as fees and occupancy rates for temporary housing, the quality and availability of elder care and assisted living (reflecting a city’s investment in multi-generational families) and commute times.[14]

Similar articles were published in a range of other magazines and newspapers. For example, in 2005 Baby Magazine published an article on components of family-friendly cities for ‘new families’. The article rated cities on the basis of a number of variables:

• Economics, including lowest monthly mortgage, highest household earnings, best parental leave, lowest rate of childhood poverty, lowest unemployment and cheapest city for commuters.
• Childcare and education, including smallest infant-class size, most funding per child for head start, most licensed childcare centres, best kindergartens, best public education, most public school funding, best SAT scores (verbal and maths scores of graduating seniors).
• Quality of life, including most relaxed city (low unemployment, short commute times, modest divorce rates, mountain air and greenery), least road rage, largest population of children, most literate city, lowest crime rate and best park access.
• Healthcare, including most children’s hospitals, most birthing centres, best children’s hospital, most affordable family health insurance, most paediatricians per capita, most breastfeeding support and lowest c-section rate.
• Environment, including warmest temperature, most city green space, most backyard playtime (taking into account such factors as average rainfall), cleanest drinking water and best air quality.
• Entertainment and shopping, including best children’s museum, busiest zoo, most Babies ‘R’ Us locations, most maternity-related stores, most dog-friendly and most free attractions, community centres offering indoor playgroups and dance and art classes for toddlers and outdoor music festivals and shows (Garrard, 2005).

These approaches could help to develop a ‘checklist’ for local government planners and decision-makers, as they each provide a rating against certain features or attributes considered family-friendly. They are also partially based on what families (usually with dependent children) have rated as important to them.

In November 2007, the feature article in the Wall Street Journal was ‘The Rise of Family-Friendly Cities’. The article by Joel Kotkin initiated debate in the media about what made cities attractive to families. Kotkin argued that families with young children (rather than singles or empty nesters, for example) are the backbone of a strong metropolitan economy, and that families with young children want suburban life and not dense, revitalised, downtown urban living. He suggested that metropolitan areas were wrong to focus on attracting the young and single by expanding arts and culture opportunities including the restaurant, night club and coffee bar scene (Kotkin, 2007).

A number of response pieces appeared in papers and magazines throughout America. The Daily Examiner published a response piece arguing that it should not be an either/or continuum of 25-year-olds versus families (Daily Examiner, 2007).

CEOs for Cities also countered some of Kotkin’s arguments. Some argued that family-friendly cities are not terribly different from other cities – that is, the same things that attract families attract many other demographic groups as well:

• Does anyone really believe that one loses one’s taste for latte when one starts pushing a stroller? …We can do a lot more to advance the discussion about the kind of community attributes that we all value – singles and married couples alike – without creating phony and divisive distinctions… Ask business and civic leaders around the nation what’s driving their concern about whether their city appeals to young people, and they will first tell you they are needed for the labor force. But what really worries many of them hits much closer to home. They worry their own kids won’t return after college. Being family-friendly has a lot of surprising dimensions (CEOs for Cities, 2007).

The articles are useful because they indicate a widespread public and city planner interest in families and what would attract them to, and retain them in, certain localities. They provide some indication of the characteristics of communities that people consider are family-orientated. They also generated debate about whether the needs of families differ from the needs of citizens generally.

The articles ignored the fact that families comprise a wide range of living arrangements. They ignored demographic trends that indicate families comprising childless couples and older singles are an increasing presence in American cities and workforces. Articles relied on soft generalisations and glossed over significant aspects of family form and functioning. They lacked any socio-economic analysis and failed to address the increasing diversity of families and ethnic or cultural differences.

Family-friendly communities and local and provincial government literature

Some literature on family-friendly communities was also found within local government literature from overseas. This literature described family friendliness in terms of physical attributes and the services available (such as public schools, childcare facilities, transport, parks and playgrounds). Some also used indicators of health and wellbeing, such as crime rates, health status, literacy rates and income levels.

The Premier’s Council (1992) in Alberta, Canada, developed a Family Friendly Community Checklist. The checklist was designed to be used by town councils, boards, neighbours or any group within the community, to review the family friendliness of all or parts of the community, such as a shopping mall, or any facility providing services to families (Premier’s Council in Support of Alberta Families, 1994).

The checklist provided 12 categories, each of which had a number of specific descriptions:

• neighbourhood
• schools
• playgrounds, parks and public spaces
• security
• health and wellness
• family-serving agencies
• parenting
• children
• teenagers and young adults
• seniors
• workplaces
• public involvement and support.

This appeared to be the most useful checklist identified in this review. The review included facilities and services and described the attributes that made them family-friendly. It also included behavioural and social capital features. It described features needed by various family members (for example, children, youth, older people and parents) rather than assuming that family-friendly equates to child- or parent-friendly.

However, no literature was found determining if, or how, this checklist had been used. No reference to it appears in current Alberta Government documents. A copy of the checklist can be found in this PDF.

In 2005, the Local Government Association and the Family and Parenting Institute in the UK produced a guide entitled Making Your Neighbourhood Family Friendly. The guide, distributed by councils, libraries and shops, described what councils do for families, where people could seek advice and information on services and how parents and young people could make their voices heard by the council. The guide did not provide information to local government or other agencies about how to assess policies and activities for their impact on families. It did not say what constitutes a family-centred community or neighbourhood, apart from including a brief list describing how parents they had polled defined a family-orientated neighbourhood (Local Government Association and the Family and Parenting Institute, 2005, p. 3).

Councils in New Zealand have purported that their cities or districts are family-friendly on the basis of a number of physical attributes or the type of services available. The Mayor of Hutt City Council reported:

• Our vision is to make Hutt City a family friendly city and we are achieving that. We are home to many high quality schools and tertiary institutions and blessed with recreational facilities the envy of most other cities. With crime on the way down, and job opportunities on the rise, we are an attractive place for families wanting a fresh start (Ogden, 2007, p. 1).

North Shore City Council stated:

• The natural advantages of a warm climate with an average of 240 days of sunshine per year and annual rainfall of 1100mm (ARC, Ecological Survey), beautiful beaches, and spectacular scenery contribute to the popularity of one of the most vibrant and fastest growing cities in New Zealand. These assets bestow the culture of a lifestyle city, encompassing a sustainable work force, recreational opportunities and a home/family friendly city (North Shore City Council, 2007, p. 8).

Some local government urban development plans also described communities as ‘family-focused’ on the basis of variables such as high-quality education; transport access (for instance, motorway access or cycle routes); the presence of trees; cultural diversity; and affordable housing.

A few councils had specific policies.[15] For example, Auckland City Council adopted a Child and Family policy in 2005 (Auckland City Council, 2005). It develops and reports on an action plan annually. The 2006/07 action plan included promoting and encouraging family-friendly initiatives within the council and working with the Families Commission to advocate for the services that children and families need (Auckland City Council, 2007).

However, there appeared to be no accepted sector-wide criteria for determining if a community was family-centred. No council appeared to routinely assess or report on the impact of decisions about family wellbeing.

Key themes

The literature describing family-centred communities was limited. However, some themes emerged from the available literature.

The literature tended to assess whether a community or city was family-friendly on the basis of several factors including:

• physical attributes (built and natural)
• availability of services
• sense of community or social capital.

Outcomes indicators, such as life expectancy, child mortality, childhood poverty and educational attainment, were also used. However, these were largely based on measures of individual wellbeing rather than family wellbeing or family functioning.

The most useful document for developing a checklist for local government is probably the Canadian Family Friendly Community Checklist developed over a decade ago. This checklist captured most of the components of family-centred communities mentioned in the other literature. A New Zealand checklist would need to include questions for assessing the impact of policy on the development of Māori whānau and the capacity of whānau to further Māori cultural identity.

It is worth noting that the local government literature tended to include family participation in decision-making as a core attribute of family-friendly communities. The Local Government Association (UK) publication’s emphasis was on families participating in decision-making. This possibly reflects the emphasis on community engagement in the United Kingdom local government sector (ODPM, 2000, 2002). New Zealand has followed the pattern of local government reform in the United Kingdom. The Alberta Provincial Government’s checklist also included family participation and involvement as one of its 12 characteristics of a family-friendly community.

In contrast, the articles in the popular press did not mention family participation or involvement in decision-making as important components.

Family-centred community building

This section discusses the literature on family-centred community building. With particular population groups the focus was on the process of family-centred community development or planning rather than community-building processes.

Over the past decade the concept of family-centred community development has gained growing acceptance, and practitioners have started to integrate it into their practice.[16]

Despite this growing acceptance, limited literature was available and there were few explanations of how it differed from traditional community development practice.

The Family Strengthening Policy Center of the National Human Services Assembly (USA)[17] has published the most comprehensive literature on family-centred community development practice.[18]

The Center described the outcomes of family-centred community building as:

• parents having the means, confidence, and competence to provide for their families economically, physically, and emotionally
• residents having people to talk to and places to go for help, support, and camaraderie
• families feeling safe in their homes and in their neighbourhoods
• children being healthy, succeeding in school, and going on to college or a job after high school
• communities offering the resources families need to pass on a legacy of literacy and opportunity to their children (Center for the Study of Social Policy, 2000, p. 5).

The Center also published reports on the priorities of communities using the family-centred community building model. White Center[19], in Seattle, listed the following priorities:

• increasing resident access to employment, training, and social services
• strengthening co-ordination and integration among service providers
• improving communication between regional service providers and community-based organisations
• connecting new immigrants and refugees to established networks of service providers and other resources
• building better linkages between informal and formal service providers
• pursuing service integration opportunities presented by a number of new and planned neighbourhood facilities (such as community schools, youth clubs, and employment centres)
• encouraging a diverse group of residents, business leaders, politicians, government officials, and community-based organisations to take an active role in community building processes (Center for the Study of Social Policy, 2003).

The Family Center stated that family-centred community building includes both structural improvements and social capital development (Family Strengthening Policy Center, 2005; Kingsley, McNeely, & Gibson, 1997). Examples of structural improvements and social capital development in the Center’s literature included:
Other literature also said that community-building initiatives must work on many fronts simultaneously. Commentators argued that single-strategy approaches to solving problems are inefficient and often ineffective; therefore, family-centred community-building initiatives must co-ordinate across sectors, foster collaboration within sectors and build bridges between organisations and families (Meezan, 1999).

The literature noted that approaches to collaborations ranged from informal relations (characterised by little commitment, minimum planning and minimum impact) through co-ordination (some commitment to formal linkages with some joint community planning) to partnerships (with more formal contracts, and additional programmes and resources developed and linked to larger community systems) and collaboration (major formal commitment involving comprehensive planning between services, ongoing inter-professional education, allocation of funds, space or time, development of new programmes and resources); to integration (marked by significant formal commitment at both national and local level, comprehensive planning, interdisciplinary teamwork across all levels of the system, redefinition and redistribution of resources and shared initiatives, additional funding and total reform of both structure and process to produce second-order change (Colvin & Smith, 1996).

Commentators argued that poor communities face a host of problems that threaten the health and wellbeing of children and families – that is, families who experience one problem are also likely to experience other problems. For example, they reported that across a wide range of measures, children and youth from lower-income families do not fare as well as their peers in higher-income groups. They argued that the risks associated with lower incomes are due to resource disparities, not character weakness. They observed that poor neighbourhoods convey multiple structural disadvantages that hinder families’ efforts to be self-sufficient and successfully raise children, including physical obstacles (such as facilities and playgrounds in disrepair), economic barriers (such as shortages of employment opportunities and affordable housing) and social decline (resulting in crime and a lack of trust among neighbours) (Edwards, 2007; Family Strengthening Policy Center, 2007; Wise, 2001; Woolley & Grogan-Kaylor, 2006).

Some suggested that the typically fragmented and scattered delivery of services to families compounds the problem. They reinforced the argument for collaboration across agencies and with families (Brown, Amwake, Speth, & Scott-Little, 2002; Kingsley et al, 1997; Liontos, 1990; Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 2001).

Research indicated that social networks often determine the success or failure of family-centred community-building initiatives. There was considerable literature documenting positive outcomes for families, and particularly children, if they lived in communities with strong social networks. It suggested that strategies that help families develop meaningful connections to economic opportunities, social network opportunities and quality services and supports are at the core of a family-centred approach (Bailey, 2006; Jordan, 2006; National League of Cities, 2005; Rogers, 2000).

Some commentators argued that establishing the types and dynamics of social networks that might exist in a community and networks that are nonexistent or need strengthening is imperative before beginning any comprehensive neighbourhood building effort (for example, Jordon, 2006; Rogers, 2000).

The literature noted that family-centred community building takes many shapes and forms as no two communities are alike – each community’s population, history, troubles, resources, goals and expectations are unique. Accordingly, strategies should be tailored to the individual community or neighbourhood involved (R. Chaskin, 1992; R. J. Chaskin, Joseph, & Chipenda-Dansokho, 1997; Kingsley et al, 1997; Landau, 2007; Meezan, 1999; Rogers, 2000).

All the literature on a family-centred approach suggested that families should be engaged in planning and decision-making processes. For example, Rogers (2000) argued that families need to participate in setting the agenda from the very beginning rather than being brought in later to react to a preconceived agenda:

• If families are not allowed to define their own goals, set their own agendas, or decide upon the changes needed in their neighborhood, the work of outsiders may well be irrelevant. In the past, too many community initiatives have presumed that a particular neighborhood needed a specific service (more affordable child care or an after-school program, for example), without involving residents in the decisions, only to discover later that something else (like greater participation in designing the new neighborhood school) would have been more helpful. We don’t want to repeat the same mistakes (p. 15).

Similarly, the National League of Cities (2005) in America published a report entitled A City Platform for Strengthening Families which outlined an agenda for municipal action and leadership on behalf of families.[20] A key component of the platform is a series of engagement processes alongside specific services and outcomes, including the establishment of an intersectoral taskforce and other forms of family engagement.

Commentators argued that a family-centred approach viewed the families as experts on their challenges and desires. Fraenkel (2007) argued that this approach is particularly useful in developing initiatives for families who have experienced social oppression and who have been reluctant to participate in activities created for them by professionals without consultation. He noted that professionals may be required to change original plans to fully engage in partnership with families (Fraenkel, 2007). Landau (2007) argued that the approach assumes that families and communities are inherently competent.

Some research suggested that organisations, including community non-profits, were not ‘on the same page’ as those they service, particularly regarding views of problems and services needed in neighbourhoods (Kissane & Gingerich, 2004). Kissane and Gingerich highlighted the difference of perspectives between non-profits’ staff and the families and residents they serve, including the needs that local authorities could meet. This confirmed the need to engage directly with families in the community and not simply the agencies that serve them.

In contrast, other literature promoted the use of intermediate organisations to facilitate family and community involvement. It argued the intermediaries can serve as neutral conveners and act as catalysts to initiate family-centred community building. It suggested that intermediaries can help collect and analyse data, resolve conflict, facilitate the process, offer communications expertise for outreach, foster co-operation among diverse stakeholders, negotiate and provide technical guidance and training (Family Strengthening Policy Center, 2005; Kingsley et al, 1997). Some literature promoted engaging respected community leaders to act as ‘community links’ between outside professionals and families (Landau, 2007).

The Family Strengthening Policy Center (2005) suggested that it can take months, even years, to involve the various stakeholders, build relationships, get buy-in from key institutions and influential community leaders and develop partnerships. However, it argued that stakeholder buy-in offers a substantial pay-off and short-cutting these steps often resulted in delays and frustrations when implementation was held up to bring a new partner up to speed and adjust plans to obtain their commitment.

The need for professionals and agencies to be culturally competent also emerged in the literature on family-centred communities (Fraenkel, 2007; Kingsley et al, 1997). Fraenkel suggested that professionals should obtain ongoing cultural consultation and mentoring.

While most of the literature focused on families with children, particularly those living in poor neighbourhoods, some noted that the fundamentals also apply to families caring for ageing relatives, families of persons with disabilities and individuals living alone (Family Strengthening Policy Center, 2007, p. 2).

Only two articles were found on family-centred development in rural communities (James & Gimson, 2007; Lutfiyya, 1993). James and Gimson (2007) surveyed parents with children under 16 years on how they felt about their neighbourhoods, how involved they were in them and potential improvements to them. They reported that parents who lived in rural areas were more likely to see traffic as blighting their neighbourhoods and improved public transport as a priority. They also reported that rural parents were less likely to be concerned about crime and anti-social behaviour.

A number of reports and strategies, such as the UK Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions’ report Our Countryside: The future. A fair deal for rural England, described components that were important for families (Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions, 2000). These included strategies to improve access to information and technology; childcare; healthcare (such as family doctor facilities); housing (so people could stay close to their families); transport (including education-related transport for low-income families); support for disadvantaged families; and family violence services.

Some reports also highlighted issues facing some rural families. Some argued that a rural family experiencing domestic violence would feel extremely isolated with no-one nearby. Those experiencing social exclusion in rural areas are often dispersed and disguised amongst apparent affluence, rather than living in concentrated areas as is more the norm in urban areas. Members of rural ethnic minorities lack support compared with those in urban areas and can feel, and be, more threatened. This area is significantly under-researched in New Zealand and overseas (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2000; Shucksmith & Arkleton, 2000; Wilson et al, 2005).

District council reports and surveys in New Zealand also highlighted some important features for families living in rural communities. Residents’ surveys indicated that many residents named family lifestyle as the thing they valued about living in rural communities (Selwyn District Council, 2006; Taylor, 2004). Some community profiles have identified services required to support strong families in rural districts (Family and Community Services, 2008).

No articles on family-centred planning were found in urban planning, architectural or civic design literature. However, some urban design literature included similar concepts to those discussed in the family-centred literature. For example, literature on new urbanism, liveable communities, new community design and universal design discussed how communities could be more people-friendly and promote residents’ health and wellbeing (Appleyard & Lintell, 1972; Foster, Giles-Corti, & Knuiman, 2006; Macintyre, Ellaway, & Cummins, 2002; New South Wales Government, 2007; The Centre for Sustainable Transportation, 2004).

Some literature examined the impact of urban design on population groups, particularly children. However, the focus of this review was specifically on families and family functioning.

Key themes

A number of key themes emerged from the literature on family-centred community building. It should be noted that because most of the literature examined focused on the process of building family-centred communities, the themes were associated with process issues rather than features of the family-centred community.

Most of these themes were consistent with the themes in the literature on family-centred service delivery. The common themes included the need for the process to focus on:

• family involvement in decision-making
• building social capital
• multi-agency approaches
• collaboration across agencies
• reducing inequalities
• responding to diversity.

However, additional themes also emerged. The literature consistently noted that family-centred community building involved structural improvements and the development of social capital; and a strong evidence, including data-gathering and monitoring.

Footnotes

[10]

Connard & Novick (1996) summarised the basic tenets of the ecological model as:

• Human development is viewed from a person-in-environment perspective.
• The different environments individuals and families experience shape the course of development.
• Every environment contains risk and protective factors that help and hinder development.
[Return to reference]

[11]

‘Family’ tends to be used in an inclusive way to include kin and significant others; that is, family can be anyone a client views as important because of a strong enduring connection with that person (Community Research Planning and Evaluation Team, 2004). [Return to reference]

[12]

‘Family environment’ refers to characteristics of the home that influence children, including the physical setting, parents’ health and wellbeing and the presence of routines and structure. [Return to reference]

[13]

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bplive/2007/ [Return to reference]

[14]

Other ranking exercises were published by bodies such as real estate magazines. For example, the Neighborhood Scout Real Estate and Relocation Information and Resources Center ranked the top locations for families with children on the basis of location of public schools, safety from crime, owner-occupied single-family homes, other families with children in the neighbourhood and many adults with college degrees or advanced degrees, in the price range, setting and location of choice. [Return to reference]

[15]

Some councils (for example, Christchurch City Council, Waitakere City Council and Manukau City Council) also have policies regarding population groups within families, such as for children, young people and older people. [Return to reference]

[16]

For example, Community Organizing and Family Issues (COFI) offers leadership training in which COFI staff work in partnership with a local community organisation to help bring parents into decision-making roles in their community (Rogers, 2000). Lawrence Community Works (Lawrence, Massachusetts) has implemented a family-centred approach (Bailey, 2006). The Center for Social Development (CSD) focuses on asset building for families (Center for the Study of Social Policy, 2000). [Return to reference]

[17]

The National Human Services Assembly in the United States is an association of national non-profit organisations in the fields of health, human and community development and human services. The Assembly’s Family Strengthening Policy Center has been funded since 2003 by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. [Return to reference]

[18]

The Center has produced a series of papers on Family-Centred Community Building (FCCB). In a recent paper the Center defined families as “a supportive group of people who are committed to each other and which may include, though is not limited to, nuclear, extended, foster care, adoptive, and step or blended families” (Family Strengthening Policy Center, 2007, p. 3). [Return to reference]

[19]

White Center is located in part of the unincorporated area of King County adjacent to Seattle, Washington. Known for its rich and diverse cultural heritage, the growing neighbourhood of 22,000 is home to a significant number of recent immigrants and refugees who now account for 25 percent of residents. [Return to reference]

[20]

Eighty-three cities across 34 states have adopted the platform. Some have reported using the platform as a checklist or scorecard to see where progress has been made and where further progress is needed (National League of Cities, 2007). The first part of the platform highlights an essential ‘infrastructure’: key functions and processes that play a crucial role in effective or sustained investments in children and families. The second part called upon municipal leaders to take a series of specific action steps in each of seven issue areas: early childhood development; youth development; education and afterschool care; health and safety; youth in transition; family economic success; and neighbourhoods and community (National League of Cities, 2005). [Return to reference]