parenting education and support policies and their consequences in selected oecd countries
TRANSCRIPT
Children and Youth Services Review 31 (2009) 526–532
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Children and Youth Services Review
j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r.com/ locate /ch i ldyouth
Parenting education and support policies and their consequences inselected OECD countries
Boaz Shulruf ⁎, Claire O'Loughlin, Hilary TolleyUniversity of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
⁎ Corresponding author. Faculty of Education, Unive92019, Auckland, New Zealand. Tel.: +64 9 373 7599x8
E-mail addresses: [email protected], b.shulru
0190-7409/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Ltd. Aldoi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2008.10.010
a b s t r a c t
a r t i c l e i n f oArticle history:
Given the raised profile tha Received 17 August 2008Received in revised form 13 October 2008Accepted 16 October 2008Available online 26 October 2008Keywords:ParentsChildrenParenting support and educationEarly childhood services
t parenting support and education is currently receiving on government familypolicy agendas in many nations, this paper reviews the ways in which parenting support and educationpolicies are embedded within eight OECD countries. Drawing out the similarities and differences of policyand practice, and comparing the financial support each country affords to parenting support, it assesses theeffectiveness of parenting support programmes in relation to national expenditure and links parenting policyto child outcomes. The paper concludes with some recommendations for policy makers and programmedevelopers.The countries reviewed are: The UK, Netherlands, Canada, Ireland, the US, Finland, Australia and NewZealand.
© 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In recent years the topic of parenting has gained an increasinglyprominent place on family policy agendas internationally. Acrossmany countries an increased focus on, and investment in, parentingeducation and support has led to a raft of government initiativesaimed at providing effective assistance to parents, in the hope thatoutcomes for childrenwill be substantially improved. Commenting onthe current social policy landscape in the UK for example, Moran,Ghate, and van der Merwe (2004) suggest that “…you could beforgiven for thinking that therewere few headlining social problems—from anti-social behaviour on our streets to childhood obesity andfalling standards in schools—for which ‘better parenting’ was not thesolution” (p. 329).
Partly in response to the increased attention given to parenting bypolicymakers and service planners, a growing body of research hasemerged that examines the effectiveness of parenting support as aform of social intervention (e.g. Desforges & Abouchaar, 2003; Moranet al., 2004; Shulruf, 2005). In a recent comprehensive review of theinternational evaluation evidence of parenting support programmes,Moran et al. (2004) conclude that parenting support can demonstratemeasurable benefits to families; however, they also note that muchwork remains to be done both at the (programme) micro level and atthe (policy) macro level to ensure that strategies which realizebenefits for children and parents are embedded within policy
rsity of Auckland, Private Bag9463; fax: +64 9 [email protected] (B. Shulruf).
l rights reserved.
frameworks that are responsive to the wider ecological context ofparenting. The authors explain:
The challenge for policymakers.…is not only to establish whatworks at the level of individual parenting programmes andinterventions, but to provide an overarching policy context whichis consistent with parenting support across the entire ‘ecology’ ofparenting. That is, a policy approach that addresses in a consistentway the multiple risks that adversely influence parenting, and atthe same time enhances the opportunities that promote resilience(Moran et al., 2004, p. 131).
In line with this challenge, this article contributes to the debate byreviewing parent education and support policies, and key govern-ment-funded initiatives across a range of OECD countries. Thefollowing questions are addressed by the review: (i) What do thevarious policies relevant to parenting look like in each of the countriesexamined, and what major initiatives exist within each country tosupport parents in their role? (ii) How do these policy configurationsvary cross-nationally? Are there notable similarities and/or differ-ences? (iii) Is it possible to identify potential associations between thevarying policy packages and child outcomes that might provide someindication of the types of policy context that are most conducive tosupporting effective parenting?
Following a brief overview of the types of financial support andfamily support packages available to families across a number of OECDcountries, the review explores in detail the service-oriented policiesrelevant to parent education and support in eight countries: the UK,Ireland, the Netherlands, Finland, the US, Canada, Australia and NewZealand. In doing so we highlight the key government-sponsored
Table 1Family policy packages for selected OECD countries.
Country Cash transfers and tax benefits Leave conditions
Canada FA(IT)—reaches 85% children FB—1 yr and 55% of wagesChild tax benefits
Denmark FA(U) ML/PL/FL (JP) 18 mths(childbirth/adoption)
CS&M(G) SCLFinland FA(U) ML/PL and FB—44 wks and 60%
wages (2% father uptake)CS&M(G) PL—3 wks (60% father uptake)MG—cash/in kind Part—time right to return to work
until child is 8 yrsHA(IT) CCL & HCA—max 3 yrs, modest
flat rate, taxable, incomesupplement—not replacement
France FA—only families with2+ children
ML & FB (JP)—16 wks and 100% wages
CS&M(G)PLG(IT)—for 2nd or morechildren, if 1+ children b3 yrsFG(IT)—to young families in 4thmonth of pregnancy; paid untilyoungest is 3 yrsHA(IT)CA(IT)—to parents aged25+ with dependent childSPG(IT)—paid for 1 yr or untilyoungest child is 3 yrs
Germany FA(U)—at least equal to taxbenefit for children
ML & FB (JP) 14 wks. Tax-freegovt flat rate topped up by mostemployers to 100%. (6 wks priorand 8 wks after birth)
CS&M(IT)—for young childrenHA(IT) PL (JP) —2 wksUEI—universal cash benefit of7% more than childlessunemployed
SCL (JP) — 10 days; max 25days/yr Childrearing leave — 3yrs max. Modest, flatrate, tax-free, for 2yrs (approx halfliving wage)
Italy FA(IT)—including employmentconditions
ML (JP)—5 mths and 100% wages(2 mths prior; 3 mths after birth)+6 mths half pay. Flexible workingprovision
Netherlands None ML (JP)—16 wks and 100% wagesFL (JP)—6 months unpaid (per parent)and 18 months unpaid
Sweden FA(U) FL (JP)—18 mths max. 12 mths at80% wages; 12–15 mths flat rate; 15–18mths unpaid. Can be pro-rata until8 years. (70% of fathers take a portion)
FG—for families with 3 ormore childrenCS&M(G) PL—10 days after birth and 80%
wagesHA(IT) SCL—80% wages up to 12 yrs.Disable child allowance Paid leave for school visits
UnitedKingdom
FA(U)—tax free ML (JP) 18 wks paidFL—(JP)—paid—13 wks
UnitedStates
CA(IT)—for poor childrenand families
FL (JP)—12 wks unpaid. Can also beused for family or individual illness.Special worker conditions
Food stamps (IT) foodsubsidy for low incomefamilies/individuals
Note. Informationpresented inTable1 is sourced fromKamermanet al. (2003, pp. 56–59) andKamerman (2000). They provide illustrations of family policy packages in selected OECDcountries. Comparable data for Ireland, Australia and New Zealand were not included inKamerman et al. analyses. CA=Cash Assistance; CS&M=Minimum child support andmaintenance grant; FA=Family allowance or child benefit (cash); FB=Family benefit;FG=Family grant; FL=Family leave; HA=Housing allowance; MG=Maternity grant;ML=Maternal leave; PL=Paternal leave; PLG=Parental leave grant; SCL=Sick child leave;SPG=Single parent grant; UEI=Unemployment insurance; (G)=Guaranteed; (IT)=Income/Means tested; (JP)=Job protected; (U)=Universally applied;
527B. Shulruf et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 31 (2009) 526–532
parenting programmes delivered in each country and, by comparingcountry policy profiles, we identify salient similarities and differencesin the way various governments provide support to parents. We thenconsider evidence for the effectiveness of various parenting educationand support approaches, in an attempt to highlight potential linkagesbetween different policy frameworks and child educational outcomes.One of the challenges associated with such an undertaking concernsthe comparability of policy data of non-financial sources of parentingsupport across different countries; the unevenness of availableinformation makes cross-national comparisons difficult. Bearing thisin mind, we conclude with some broad recommendations forparenting policy and practice arising from our review.
2. Financial support for parenting
While a wide variety of government policies and initiatives can beincluded under the heading of ‘parental support’, broadly speakingthey can be categorised in terms of whether they provide financial,educational or social support services to families. Within the sphere offinancial support, a range of tools are available to governments to assistfamilies with child rearing. These include: tax benefits, cash transfers,maternity and parental leave schemes, subsidies for early childhoodeducation, and health care. A commonly used indicator that enablescross-country comparisons of the resources allocated to families ispublic expenditure directed to family policy as a share of GDP. In arecent analysis of public spending on family support within the OECDcountries—disaggregated into cash transfers, spending on services(such as childcare), and fiscal support as a percentage of GDP—Ademaand Ladaique (2005) show that, on average in 2001, public spendingonfamily support was just over 2% of GDP. Spending exceeded 3% of GDPin Denmark, Sweden, France and Norway. While the Nordic countriesreviewed in this paper lead the table with the greatest proportion ofservices in their family policy expenditure, fiscal support for families islargest in France, Germany and the US. Noteworthy that among thecountries in which expenditure on family policies is above the OECDaverage, New Zealand allocates the greatest proportion of its spendingto cash transfer.
Table 1 presents further details of the financial support packagesfor families across OECD countries and shows the distribution ofsupport in terms of tax benefits, cash transfers, maternity, paternityand parental leave (paid or unpaid), early childhood services andhealth care (Kamerman, 1998; Kamerman, Neuman, Waldfogel, &Brooks-Gunn, 2003). Notable features include the comprehensivepackages of child allowances, paid leave arrangements and childcareprovisions available in Nordic countries. The US stands out as anexceptional case with no national paid maternity leave and the lowestlevel of parental leave offered by any of the countries profiled. A recentanalysis of social expenditure, and the politics of redistribution,suggests that over the past decade countries within the OECD grouptend to address social issues through financial means despite therebeing no evidence for any social benefit for these policies (Castles &Obinger, 2007).
3. Policies relating to parent education and support
With regard to strategies for child protection, the World HealthOrganization (WHO) recommends: “[t]he most effective way ofaddressing child protection needs is through programmes of preven-tion, particularly at primary level. These should take the form of familyand community support programmes, including parenting education,comprehensive antenatal and postnatal care, the promotion of earlyattachment and child health promotion measures” (Asvall, 1999). Aspart of this study, we reviewed the national policies and keyprogrammes in eight OECD countries that aim to provide such arange of education and support opportunities to parents, andultimately influence outcomes for children. For each country reviewed
we identified the government agencies responsible for policy relevantto parenting education and support, and examined the nature of therelationship between state and parents in supporting the upbringing
528 B. Shulruf et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 31 (2009) 526–532
of children. In addition, we reviewed a selection of major initiativesdelivered in each country; in so doing we draw attention to keyfeatures of these programmes that serve to further establishrespective governments' aims and objectives in relation to parentingeducation and support. It is noted that the major challenge of thisstudy was clearly identifying parent education and support policies ingeneral, and in the reviewed countries in particular. The mainchallenge was the difficulty in distinguishing between policies thatsolely address parents, and policies that have broader coverage.Moreover, very little research has been published on this issue, and nolongitudinal study measuring the effect of parent education andsupport policies on child outcome was found. Hence, we included inour study all available documents (research reports or governmentpublications) that provided information on government policiesspecifically addressing parents from 1996 onwards. For inclusion inthis review policies must address parent education and supportactivities as defined by Shulruf (2005). These types of activitiesinclude: concrete support (e.g. transport or financial support);parenting skills training; stress and anger management; knowledgeof child development and needs; social network (including referrals);psychological support (for parents); health screening and basic healthservices; and childcare services that aim to help parents (i.e. thoseenabling parents to return to the workforce, rather than focusing onthe educational benefit for the children). It is noteworthy that thisstudy focuses on parent education and support policies and thepossible effects of these policies on children's outcome, rather thanmere comparison of policy features across countries. The researchliterature is predominantly used to provide data on social andeducational outcomes.
3.1. Supporting parents: How do countries compare?
Our review of service-oriented policies relevant to parent educa-tion and support among eight OECD countries reveals an assortmentof responses. In particular, parent education and support policies arenot typically standalone policies and different countries align themwithin different policy portfolios. The UK, for example, increasinglyfocuses on parent education and support and places its policies largelywithin the remit of the Department for Education and Skills, which isresponsible for umbrella policies covering a variety of activitiesrelating to education and training, and the development of a skilledworkforce (Clarke, 2002; Quinton, 2004; The Education and SkillsCommittee, 2005). Conversely, at federal level in Canada, parenteducation and support is primarily the responsibility of HealthCanada, which provides funding for programmes such as: the CanadaPrenatal Nutrition Program (CPNP) with a focus on mothers of youngchildren and their capacity to provide a healthy environment for theirchildren (CPNP, 2004); the Aboriginal Head Start Initiative, anotherlarge-scale programme offering individualized social support forfamilies through home visits (Budgell, 2000); and the CommunityAction Program for Children (CAPC) which provides long termfunding for the health and development of ‘at risk’ children throughcommunity coalitions (CPNP, 2004). At the provincial level in Canada,however, most family-related programmes are administered by eitherthe Ministry of Social and Community Services or the Ministry ofHealth and Social Services (see Ray, 2001).
Alternately, Finland's policies relevant to parent education andsupport are situated within the Minister of Social Affairs and Health'sportfolio (Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, 1999). The Finnishperception is that parents need to be supported in their role as theproviders of a safe environment for their children, rather than childrenbeing support via their parents. In Finland and the UK programmes areprovided and operated by local agencies, but sponsored and monitoredby the central Government (Ministry of Social Affairs and Health,1999).
In Ireland parent education and support policies and associatedinitiatives sit primarily within the remit of the Department of Social
and Family Affairs and the Department of Health and Children. TheIrish government emphasizes that a primary goal of its policies andservices is to promote continuity and stability in family life and toprevent family breakdown; it views family strength a fundamentalfactor underpinning the health andwell-being of children and parents(Government of Ireland, 1999; Walsh & Fields, 2003). Contrary to thisapproach, the Netherlands has no specific family policy, although theconcept of parenting support has been common in Dutch policy andpractice since the early 1990s (Phipps, 1999). Instead, relevantprogrammes and initiatives are located within the framework ofpreventative youth policy with the majority of the budget beingprovided by the Ministry of Social Welfare (Abrar, Tricia, Neuman,Kosiander, Bennett, & Vasconcelos, 1999).
In New Zealand parent education and support initiatives areincluded within the framework of family and early childhoodeducation policies, largely driven by ethnic inequality concerns(Hendricks & Balakrishnan, 2005; Ministry of Education, 2005;Treasury New Zealand, 2001). Similarly, the Australian Government'spolicies do not relate to parents specifically but to families as a whole,although parent education and support programmes are includedwithin the broader family policy framework (Commonwealth ofAustralia, 2002; Newman, 1999). Finally, in the US, parent educationand support initiatives are included under the “Educate America Act”(1994). Unlike other jurisdictions reviewed, the American belief isthat the government provides the opportunity for programmes tooperate and makes the funds available, but it does not takeresponsibility for implementing the policy (see Bush, 2004; Kamer-man & Kahn, 1999; Pong, Dronkers, & Hampden-Thompson, 2003).
3.2. Similarities and differences across jurisdictions
In an international review of parenting support, Clavero (2001)argues that the heterogeneity seen across different countries'parenting polices is due, in part, because these policies have notemerged in a vacuum. Instead, they have evolvedwithin the context ofparticular policy traditions and existing service architectures. Withrespect to the current review, some similarities in parent educationand support related policies can be identified across the sample ofjurisdictions. The most salient of these is that none of the countriesreviewed has a specific policy targeting parents and their support, andtheir educational entitlements. Rather, policies and initiatives relevantto parenting education and support sit under the administrativeauspices of other national policies relating to health, education,welfare, and family and youth affairs. As a result, it can be difficult forany particular country to reconcile the disparate strands of policyrelevant to parenting education and support, and in many cases,parenting rights and responsibilities are not explicitly defined(Henricson, 2003).
A further similarity across the majority of countries reviewed is aprimary focus by governments on the needs of disadvantaged, ‘at risk’or vulnerable families. There are two exceptions to this profile oftargeted provision: (i) Finland, where support is viewed as a basicright of parents and is available to all families as part of acomprehensive social protection policy (Ministry of Social Affairsand Health, 1999); and (ii) the Netherlands, where the implementa-tion of parent education and support policies and programmes isbased on client demand (NIZW International Centre, 2004; Prinsen,2000; van Beek, 2007).
A third similarity is the implementation of parenting educationand support through local bodies. Typically, governments provide theframework and the budget for support, but the responsibility forimplementation rests with local governments or municipal autho-rities. The one exception to this is the American model that puts theresponsibility for implementation of parent education and supportpolicies directly onto the service providers (The United States'Government, 1994).
529B. Shulruf et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 31 (2009) 526–532
Interestingly, the policies of Ireland, the UK, Finland, Australia, NewZealand and Canada focus primarily onparents of young children, frombirth to around school entry. However, in the US, parent support andeducation policies address parents of preschoolers or schoolchildren;and in the Netherlands, these policies address parents of children andyoung people from birth through to 18 years of age. The similaritybetween approaches in the US and the Netherlands results from thefact that the services are driven by demand in these countries—i.e.clients in the Netherlands, and service providers in the US. However,these two policy frameworks are also very different: TheUS policy onlyaddresses parents of children in school (if they are over five) becausethe providers are the schools; while in the Netherlands policies are notrestricted to school enrollment. The Dutch approach does not,therefore, prevent services from reaching those populations likely tobe most in need, such as children over 5 years who are not enrolled inschool.
4. Evaluating the effectiveness of parenting support
Adding to the weight of qualitative evidence which suggests anincreased focus on parenting education and support across manycountries, a cross-national analysis of trends in family policy spendingin 14 European countries was carried out by Gornick and Meyers(2001). This analysis revealed a general pattern of expendituregrowth. More specifically, their examination of spending on familypolicies, such as family allowances and leave schemes, found a “52%average increase in family policy spending per child between 1980and themiddle 1990s” (Gornick &Meyers, 2001, p. 43). In terms of therelationship between spending levels in 1980 and change over time,there was a negative correlation between the annual expenditure onfamily policies in 1980 and the change in expenditure over thefollowing 15 years, namely to the mid 1990s. The striking finding fromthis analysis was that although general social policy expenditurefollowed a similar trend, the growth in family policy spending perchild was more than 100% in some nations. For example, during this
Fig. 1. Parenting in poor environments: Use of semi-formal support. S
period Finland, Ireland and Norway more than doubled their familypolicy expenditure (by 253%, 211% and 198% respectively); however,this did not place them at the top of the table as their initialexpenditures in this area were among the lowest in 1980.
Given such indications of a growing investment in policies relevantto parenting, an important issue concerns the effectiveness ofdifferent approaches to parent education and support, and inparticular the types of policy context that are most conducive tosupporting parents in their role. In the following sectionwe attempt toaddress this issue by briefly reviewing findings from a large-scalestudy that provide some insight into parents' views about theirsupport needs, before turning to consider evidence for potentiallinkages between different policy frameworks and child outcomes.
4.1. Parents' views
A comprehensive study of parenting in poor environments wascarried out by Ghate and Hazel (2004) and provides some insight intoparents' views as users of parenting education and support services. Inorder to learn about the lives of parents of low socioeconomic strata,and the support services provided to them from different sources, theresearchers conducted a large survey among parents living in poorneighbourhoods across the UK. The research consisted of a nationallyrepresentative face-to-face survey of 1754 parents of children under17 years, sampled from 10,500 households in 135 areas of the country.Qualitative follow-up interviews took placewith 40 parents who facedparticularly stressful and difficult circumstances. The results of thisstudy indicate significant levels of unmet need. In particular, nearlyhalf the sample (47%) felt ‘unsupported’ to some degree (i.e.,‘currently, often or sometimes wished they had additional help orsupport in being a parent’), and one in ten parents indicated they‘often’wished for help. Only a third of parents (35%) reported that theyhad never wished for more support with bringing up their childrensince becoming a parent. In terms of ability to cope with parenting,46% of parents reported they generally cope well as parents, with 52%
ource: Ghate & Hazel (2004, p. 14). Reproduced with permission.
530 B. Shulruf et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 31 (2009) 526–532
sometimes coping and sometimes not, and 2% hardly ever, or never,coping.
Data on the types of support received by parents indicated that,with respect to informal support (e.g., from personal social networks,family and friends), only 3% of parents said that theyhad nobody to callon for help. However, when parents were asked about awareness anduse of semi-formal and formal sources of support, the picture raisedsome concerns. In terms of semi-formal support (e.g., from organisedcommunity networks, voluntary sector agencies) it appeared that,with the exception of playgroups, parents were surprisingly unawareof the common types of services available in their local area (Fig. 1).Parents' use of services was also relatively low, with parents usingmore services addressing their children's needs than their own (seealso Johnson, Akister, McKeigue, & Wheater, 2005).
A similar patternwas found in parents' reports concerning usage offormal support from statutory and professional services, althoughawareness and up-take of formal support services was somewhathigher than that reported for semi-formal services (Fig. 2). Aninteresting finding to emerge from the study was that 29% of thoseparenting in poor environments felt that professionals interfered, ortried to take over, when they were asked for advice on parentingissues. Further reasons given for a reluctance to engage formal supportincluded experiences of being patronised by busy professionals whofailed to respect parents' expertise in their own lives, and made themfeel disparaged (Ghate & Hazel, 2004). Ghate and Hazel concludedthat in order for support to be improved there is a need for: greaterdiversity in the services available to parents; a proactive approach tobe taken to raising parents' awareness of available services; a need forservice providers to address multiple problems with multiplesolutions; and an endorsement of a broad approach that builds onstrengths as well as tackling weaknesses. Such a framework shouldsensitively address the issues of ‘negative support’ and allow parentsto ‘feel in control’ rather than undermining their sense of autonomy(Ghate & Hazel, 2004).
Fig. 2. Parenting in poor environments: Use of formal support. Sou
4.2. Linking parenting policies and child outcomes
While Ghate and Hazel's (2004) study provides us with aframework for a user-definition of effective parenting support, afurther avenue for investigating the utility of parenting education andsupport concerns the relationship between varying policy frameworksand child outcomes. At a general level, one dimension in whichvarious country policy profiles differ is the extent to which a country'ssocial policies support families. For example, in their review of policiesrelevant to child well-being, family types and child outcomes across arange of OECD countries, Kamerman et al. (2003) highlight the Nordiccountries and the Netherlands, with their extensive programmes forfamilies with children, as examples of countries consistently produ-cing good outcomes on all indicators of child well-being. Morespecifically, they identify a cluster of social policies that research hasshown to have an impact on child outcomes. These include: cashincome transfers and tax benefits; policies that facilitate maternalemployment; parental leave policies and early childhood education;and care policies that promote universal access to quality services(Kamerman et al., 2003).
Relating parenting education and support policies to children'seducational outcomes in the countries considered in this review mayprovide some further indications of the effectiveness of varying policyenvironments. In particular, the availability of data from coordinatedmulti-country surveys of children's educational achievement, such asthe Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) and theProgress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), offersresearchers a range of cross-nationally comparable indicators thatfacilitate international comparisons. For example, an examination ofchildren's school achievement in single- versus two-parent families in11 countries using data from TIMSS (Pong, Dronkers, & Hampden-Thompson, 2001; Pong et al., 2003), indicated that the existence of anachievement gap between single and two-parent families. Of thecountries reviewed for the current report, the largest achievement gap
rce: Ghate & Hazel (2004, p. 16). Reproduced with permission.
Fig. 4. Educational inequality by family background effects, national level
531B. Shulruf et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 31 (2009) 526–532
between single and two-parent families was found to be in the UnitedStates and New Zealand, whereas the negative impact of singleparenthood on academic achievement was found to be least in theNetherlands and Ireland. While the authors acknowledge thatthe single and two-parent achievement gap is greater in countrieswhere single parenthood is more prevalent, they relate the impact ofsingle parenthood on educational achievement to family policies thatstrive to equalize economic resources between single- and two-parentfamilies. It is noteworthy that it was impossible to distinguishfinancial assistance from other kinds of support received by families.However, Phipps' international comparison (Phipps, 1999) may throwsome light on this issue. He highlights that the very generous socialassistance payments offered in the Netherlands have the explicitintention of supporting lone mothers to remain at home to care fortheir children. Phipps argues that this policy reflects social values inthe Netherlands that tend to favour at-home mothers. In all the othernations' policies reviewed by Phipps (Canada, USA, UK and Norway),the focus was on encouraging/enabling mothers to participate in thepaid labour force. Phipps also found that there was no differencebetween Norway and the Netherlands in terms of child welfare;however, Pong et al. (2001) indicated that the Maths and Sciencescores of Norwegian students indicated that they were morenegatively affected by being children of a sole parent than theircounterparts in the Netherlands. It appears possible, therefore, thatalthough the Netherlands and Norway are quite similar in terms ofsocial support, equity, and children's welfare, the differences betweenthese two countries with respect to children's educational outcomes(specifically among children of single parent families) might beexplained, in part, by social policies that promote on-demandprovision of support. That is, policy that enable mothers to receivethe support they need to allow them to care for their children at home.
While it is impossible to make any direct links between parentsupport and educationpolicies and children's educational outcomes,wecan build on these finding to identify some possible associations. Inparticular, one of the most important measures affecting students'educational outcomes is family inequality. Fig. 3 shows a scatter plot ofPIRLS results against a measure of family resources, for six countries(data from: Johansone & Foy, 2004; Martin, Mullis, & Gonzalez, 2004;Mullis,Martin, Gonzalez, & Chrostowski, 2004;Mullis,Martin, Gonzalez,& Kennedy, 2003; Schütz, Ursprung, & Woessmann, 2005). This scatterplot indicates that inequality in family resources is greatest in theUK, theUS and New Zealand, and lowest in Canada. However, children'sachievements as measured by PIRLS are the best in the Netherlands.
Further investigation looked to compare inequities in familyresources with inequities in educational outcomes (using the standard
Fig. 3. Educational achievements by family background effects, national level.
deviation in PIRLS). The scatter plot shown in Fig. 4 indicates that forthe countries considered, educational inequity is lowest in theNetherlands (the smallest standard deviation); the impact of familyresources on achievement is also low in the Netherlands, with onlyCanada demonstrating smaller effects. It is important to note,however, that in this type of a study (i.e. ‘ecological analysis’, see:Abramson, 1995), causal effect can only be suggested, not proven.Hence, when family conditions are associated with later childoutcomes it is reasonable to suggest causal effects, particularly whensuch relationships have already been suggested in the literature (forexample see, Guo, 1998; Melhuish, 2004).
5. Conclusions and recommendations
Taken together, the evidence reviewed in this paper suggests thatover the last decade there has been an increasing focus by govern-ments on parenting and parenting support. Despite this general trend,none of the countries reviewed was found to have a specific policytargeting parents and their support and education entitlements, and inmanycases parenting rights and responsibilitieswerenotwell defined.One notable exception is Finland, where parents' responsibilities inrelation to their child's upbringing, together with a corresponding setof rights to enable parents to fulfil these responsibilities, are set out inthe Child Custody and Right of Access Act 1984.
Given both the complexity of parenting as a policy field and ourfindings that policy directives and initiatives relevant to parenting aretypically dispersed across a range of government agencies, the develop-ment of an overarching statement clarifying expectations of parenthoodand the relationship between state and parents in supporting theupbringingof childrenwould seemworthyof further consideration. Sucha statement could support the delivery of a consistent message onparenting across the policy spectrum, as well as clarifying governmentexpectations surrounding theparental role for parents and the educationand support service providers that work with them. See, for example,Henricson's (2003) comprehensive review of the case for a “parents'code” in the UK policy context, which includes a discussion of a possibleformulation that considers issues of legal status and content.
The second recommendation concerns the effectiveness of differentapproaches to supporting parents in their role. Commentators onparenting education and support have highlighted the need to recognizethewider ecology of parenting when approaching the question of ‘whatworks’ inparenting support. For example,Moranet al. (2004) argue thatthe difficulties associated with improving outcomes for ‘at risk’ familiesindicate parenting support initiatives are likely to demonstrate limited
532 B. Shulruf et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 31 (2009) 526–532
impact if broader social inequalities affecting families are not addressed.The provision of financial assistance to protect the financial viability offamilies, however, is not sufficient to ensure that parents are wellsupported in their role. Aligned with a growing recognition bygovernments of the need to provide parents with assistance indeveloping parenting skills, research that has examined parents' ownviews about their support requirements (e.g. Ghate & Hazel, 2004) andrevealed significant levels of unmet need for advice and support withparenting. In addition, looking across the range of OECD countriesreviewed in this paper indicates that those with comprehensive andflexible packages of parent education and support services are also thecountries that are doing well with respect to children's educationaloutcomes. Taken together, such findings suggest a focus for parentingpolicy beyond the mechanism of cash transfer, to include a range ofservices that are sufficiently flexible and tailored to parents' needs toenable them to enhance their parenting skills, knowledge andfamiliarity with available services.
The final recommendation relates to ongoing work to develop arobust evidence base for policy making in the field of parent educationand support. In the preparation of this review, the major difficultiesexperienced were extracting the relevant information, thereby echoingHenricson (2003),whose reviewof the case for a parents' code in theUKpolicy context led her to question “…whether it is appropriate for asignificant aspect of social policy to be so difficult to piece together”(p. 68). One reason is that policies relevant to parent education andsupport are typically not a distinct topic in governments' portfolios butrather consist of multiple, often disparate strands that lack the cohesionof anoverarching strategy for promoting effective parenting. In addition,while a growing body of research looks to evaluate the effectiveness ofparenting support at the level of programmes to determine theconditions under which benefits to children and parents are realized(Shulruf, 2005), less is known regarding the effects of different policyframeworks on child outcomes. The need for analyses that attempt tolink parenting education and support policies to child outcomes isunquestionable; particularly given government expenditure on socialpolicies including parent education and support is growing cross-nationally. It is therefore suggested that policy makers, researchers andservice providers work collectively to progressively build a more robustevidence base for the development of policy that provides effectivesupport for parents and in turn ensures improved outcomes for childrenand families.
References
Abramson, H. J. (1995). Survey methods in community medicine. New York: ChurchillLivingstone.
Abrar, H., Tricia, D., Neuman, M., Kosiander, P., Bennett, J., & Vasconcelos, T. (1999).OECD country note, early childhood education and care policy in the Netherlands.Paris: OECD.
Adema, W., & Ladaique, M. (2005). Net social expenditure, 2005 edition. Morecomprehensive measures of social support, OECD Social Employment and MigrationWorking Papers (No. 29) Paris: OECD.
Asvall, J. E. (1999). First meeting on strategies for child protection. Padua, Italy: WHORegional Director for Europe.
Budgell, R. (2000). Children making a community whole: A review of aboriginal head startin urban and northern Communities. Ottawa: Childhood and Youth Division, HealthCanada.
Bush, G. (2004). Good start, grow smart: The Bush administration's early childhoodinitiative. Retrieved 10 June 2004, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/earlychildhood/sect1.html
Castles, F. G., & Obinger, H. (2007). Social expenditure and the politics of redistribution.Journal of European Social Policy, 17(3), 206−222.
Clarke, C. (2002). Education and skills: Delivering results a atrategy to 2006. Suffolk:Department of Education and Skills.
Clavero, S. (2001). Parenting support an international overview (report). Belfast: Schoolof Sociology and Social Policy, the Queen's University of Belfast.
Commonwealth of Australia. (2002). OECD Review of Family Friendly Policies: TheReconciliation of Work and Family Life Australia's Background Report: AustralianDepartment of Family and Community Services and Department of Employmentand Workplace Relations.
CPNP (2004). Canada prenatal nutrition program. Retrieved 26/04/2004, 2004, fromhttp://www.ssjs.hc-sc.gc.ca/cpnp/details.htm
Desforges, C., & Abouchaar, A. (2003). The impact of parental involvement, parentalsupport and family education on pupil achievement and adjustment: A literatureReview. Nottingham: Produced by the Department for Education and Skills.
Ghate, D., & Hazel, N. (2004). Parenting in poor environments stress, support and coping.London: Policy Research Bureau.
Gornick, J. C., & Meyers, M. (2001). Lesson-drawing in family policy: Media reports andempirical evidence about European developments. Journal of Comparative PolicyAnalysis: Research and Practice, 3(1), 31−57.
Government of Ireland (1999). National development plan 2000–2006 Ireland. Retrieved22 August 2004, 2004, from http://www.logos-net.net/ilo/150_base/en/init/irl_2.htm
Guo, G. (1998). The timing of the influences of cumulative poverty on children'scognitive ability and achievement. Social Forces, 77(1), 257−287.
Hendricks, A., & Balakrishnan, B. (2005). Review of parenting programmes. Wellington:The Families Commission.
Henricson, C. (2003). Government and parenting: Is there a case for a policy review and aparents' code? York: National Family and Parenting Institute.
Johansone, I., & Foy, P. (2004). PIRLS 2001 results in the context of the European unionexpansion. IEA Data Processing Center, Hamburg, Germany.
Johnson, K., Akister, J., McKeigue, B., & Wheater, J. (2005). What does ‘supportingparents’ mean?—Parents' views. Practice, 17, 3−14.
Kamerman, S. B. (1998). Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC): An overview ofdevelopments in the OECD countries: Institute for Child and Family Policy, ColumbiaUniversity.
Kamerman, S. B. (2000). Parental leave policies: An essential ingredient in earlychildhood education and care policies. Social Policy Report, 14(2), 3−16.
Kamerman, S. B., & Kahn, A. (1999). Family change and family policies in Great Britain,Canada, New Zealand, and the United States. London: Oxford University Press.
Kamerman, S. B., Neuman, M., Waldfogel, J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003). Social policies,family types and child outcomes in selected OECD countries. Paris: Organisation forEconomic Co-operation and Development.
Martin, M., Mullis, I. V. S., & Gonzalez, E. (2004). Home environments fostering children'sreading literacy: Results from the Pirls 2001 study of reading literacy achievement inprimary schools in 35 countries. Boston: Boston College, USA.
Melhuish, E. C. (2004). A literature review of the impact of early provision on youngchildren, with emphasis given to children from disadvantaged backgrounds. London:Institute for the Study of Children, Families & Social Issues Birkbeck, University ofLondon.
Ministry of Education (2005). Ethnically targeted review: Parent support and developmentprogrammes (education management policy). Wellington: Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Social Affairs and Health (1999). Finnish family policy. Retrieved 20 April2007, from http://pre20031103.stm.fi/english/pao/publicat/familypol/fampo1.htm#policy
Moran, P., Ghate,D., & vanderMerwe,A. (2004).Whatworks in parenting support? A reviewof the international evidence. Nottingham: Department for Education and Skills.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M., Gonzalez, E. J., & Chrostowski, S. J. (2004). TIMSS 2003InternationalMathematics Reportfindings from IEA's Trends in InternationalMathematicsand Science Study at the fourth and eighth grades. Boston: TIMSS & PIRLS InternationalStudy Center Lynch School of Education, Boston College.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M., Gonzalez, E. J., & Kennedy, A. M. (2003). PIRLS 2001 InternationalReport: IEA's study of reading literacy achievement in primary schools. Boston: BostonCollege.
Newman, J. (1999). The commonwealth government approach to families. Family Matters(54), 36−41.
NIZW International Centre (2004).Parenting support.Retrieved10April 2007, fromhttp://www.nizw.nl/Docs/Internationaal/Jeugd/Factsheets/Factsheet%20Community%20schools%202004.pdf
Phipps, S. (1999). An international comparison of policies and outcomes for youngchildren. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Network Inc.
Pong, S., Dronkers, J., & Hampden-Thompson, G. (2001). An international comparison ofthe effects of single-parent family on math and science achievement. Pennsylvania:The Pennsylvania State University.
Pong, S., Dronkers, J., & Hampden-Thompson, G. (2003). Family policies and children'sschool achievement in single- versus two-parent families. Journal of Marriage andFamily, 65(3), 681−699.
Prinsen, B. (2000). Crossing the Border Between Individual and Community—Community Based Parental Support in The Netherlands. Paper presented at theMaking Braking Borders NYRIS 7th Nordic Youth Research Symposium 2000, 7–10June,, Helsinki Finland.
Quinton, D. (2004). Supporting parents: Messages from research. London: Jessica Kingsley.Ray, P. D. (2001). Overview of lessons learned. Ontario: Better Beginnings, Better Futures
Research Coordination Unit, Queen's University.Schütz, G., Ursprung, H. W., & Woessmann, L. (2005). Education policy and equality of
opportunity: Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).Shulruf, B. (2005). Parent support and education programmes: A systematic review.
New Zealand Research in Early Childhood Education, 8, 81−102.The Education and Skills Committee (2005). Every child matters, Ninth Report of Session
2004–05, Vol. 1. (pp. )London: House of Commons.The United States' Government (1994). Goals 2000: Educate America Act. Retrieved.
from http://www.ed.gov/legislation/GOALS2000/TheAct/index.htmlTreasury New Zealand (2001). Reducing Maori and Pacific inequalities (No. Work-
ignpaper01/30). Wellington: New Zealand Treasury.van Beek, M. (2007). Research and evaluation in parent education. Retrieved 26 July
2007, from http://www.europarent.org/evaluation.aspWalsh, E., & Fields, C. (2003). Minister Coughlan stresses support for families. from
http://www.welfare.ie/press/pr03/pr180603.pdf