Looking back, looking forward

Citation

Axford, N. and Little, M. (2015), "Looking back, looking forward", Journal of Children's Services, Vol. 10 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCS-10-2015-0030

Looking back, looking forward

Article Type: Editorial From: Journal of Children's Services, Volume 10, Issue 4.

This is the 40th edition of the Journal of Children's Services, signalling the end of its first ten years. It pays to reflect briefly on some of the developments in the field over that period, many of which have been reflected in these pages, and to consider some interesting future directions:

1. We have seen the rise of evidence-based programmes (EBPs) and, following disappointing results in Europe from some trials of some imported programmes, scepticism about their value. They have also met resistance from academics (on ideological and scientific grounds) and practitioners (fear of diminished professional autonomy) (Axford and Morpeth, 2013). Programmes will no doubt continue to develop (e.g. increasing use of IT, such as Apps) and there will be increased interest in alternative approaches (e.g. "kernels" (Embry and Biglan, 2008)), all of which merit scrutiny for their effectiveness.

2. "Standards" have become prominent. In 2005 the Society for Prevention Research published its first standards of evidence (Flay et al., 2005). A recently updated version pays greater attention to the measurement of factors associated with fidelity and scale (Gottfredson et al., 2015). More "progressive" standards plot how home-grown innovations can be nurtured (e.g. http://guidebook.eif.org.uk/the-eif-standards-of-evidence), a useful reminder of the value of non-outcome and non-experimental evaluations, including routine monitoring and rapid cycle feedback.

3. There is growing acknowledgement of the limitations of single system interventions (e.g. classroom-based curricula) and the need to intervene simultaneously in other systems (e.g. working with families and communities) (e.g. Shonkoff, 2010; Langford et al., 2014). There is some evidence of the impact of multi-faceted approaches, but more evaluations of such efforts are needed.

4. Public sector austerity has stimulated greater interest in what is spent on children, how much interventions cost, and their cost-benefit over a child's lifetime (e.g. Lee et al., 2012). The challenge now is to map expenditure routinely, work out how to realise the money saved from cost-beneficial interventions, and explore the potential of civil society to meet needs that formal services cannot meet.

5. We have seen the rise of new problems, such as obesity in young children, and numerous evaluations of associated efforts to change children's diets and increase their physical activity (e.g. Summerbell et al., 2014). New issues, such as large movements of people, including children, across Europe owing to war and poverty, will demand increased research attention.

6. We have witnessed growth in philanthropic activity to improve the well-being of disadvantaged children. In these pages we have published articles on the Atlantic Philanthropies investment of €200 m in the island of Ireland (e.g. Little and Abunimah, 2007). We expect to see more research on the merits and drawbacks of "philanthrocapitalism" in children's services and how to do it well.

7. We still know relatively little about children's needs at a local level or how this overlaps with service provision. If resources are to be used optimally this needs to change, and the challenge of how best to engage so-called "hard to reach" families remains (Axford et al., 2012).

8. More thought is given today to the theories of change underlying interventions. But we know little about whether the hypothesised mechanisms operate in practice, and although there is more awareness of the potential to do harm, the so-called "dark logic" of interventions (how this happens) needs greater exploration (Bonell et al., 2015).

9. There is a greater emphasis on place – for example, pooled budgets, "place-based reform" and shared local accountability for outcomes between systems and communities (e.g. Munro, 2015). With greater devolution anticipated, at least in the UK, we expect to see the wider use of methods that enable leaders to work together locally to co-commission services. The process and impact of such initiatives deserves careful scrutiny.

10. The need for system reform is increasingly apparent – for example, need outstrips service provision, and services often miss families in the greatest need. Greater investment in prevention and early intervention will require decommissioning ineffective services and diverting money away from heavy-end provision. How can this best be achieved? We need research to tell us.

This is my (Nick's) last edition as a Co-Editor, so I would like to thank the publishers (especially Jo Sharrocks) for all their support, and wish my successor, Georgina Warner, all the best as she takes up the reins.

Nick Axford and Michael Little

References

Axford, N. and Morpeth, L. (2013), "Evidence-based programs in children's services: a critical appraisal", Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 268-77

Axford, N., Lehtonen, M., Tobin, K., Kaoukji, D. and Berry, V. (2012), "Engaging parents in parenting programs: lessons from research and practice", Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 34 No. 10, pp. 2061-71

Bonell, C., Jamal, F., Melendez-Torres, G.J. and Cummins, S. (2015), "Dark logic: theorising the harmful consequences of public health interventions", Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 95-8

Embry, D.D. and Biglan, A. (2008), "Evidence-based kernels: fundamental units of behavioral influence", Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 75-113

Flay, B.R., Biglan, A., Boruch, R.F., Gonzalez Castro, F., Gottfredson, D., Kellam, S., Moscicki, E.K., Schinke, S., Valentine, J.C. and Ji, P. (2005), "Standards of evidence: criteria for efficacy, effectiveness and dissemination", Prevention Science, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 151-75

Gottfredson, D.C., Cook, T.D., Gardner, F.E.M., Gorman-Smith, D., Howe, G.W., Sandler, I.W. and Zafft, K.M. (2015), "Standards of evidence for efficacy, effectiveness, and scale-up research in prevention science: next generation", Prevention Science, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 893-926

Munro, F. (2015), IRISS on Place-based Working, Institute for Research and Innovation in Social Services (IRISS), Glasgow, available at: www.iriss.org.uk/sites/default/files/iriss-on-placebasedworking-08-2015.pdf (accessed 12 November 2015)

Langford, R., Bonell, C.P., Jones, H.E., Pouliou, T., Murphy, S.M., Waters, E., Komro, K.A., Gibbs, L.F., Magnus, D. and Campbell, R. (2014), "The WHO Health Promoting School framework for improving the health and well-being of students and their academic achievement", Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, No. 4

Lee, S., Drake, E., Pennucci, A., Bjornstad, G. and Edovald, T. (2012), "Economic evaluation of early childhood education in a policy context", Journal of Children's Services, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 53-63

Little, M. and Abunimah, A. (2007), "Improving outcomes for children in the island of Ireland: the role of philanthropic investment", Journal of Children's Services, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 60-7

Shonkoff, J.P. (2010), "Building new biodevelopmental framework to guide the future of early childhood policy", Child Development, Vol. 81 No. 1, pp. 357-67

Summerbell, C., Moore, H. and O'Malley, C. (2014), "Consequences and determinants of poor nutrition in children aged 0-3 years, and public health interventions that may improve dietary intake: a general review", Journal of Children's Services, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 128-42