Direitos humanos, sistema de proteção social e políticas familiares

Abrigos e Unidades de acolhimento no Brasil 

Relevant Points for The 2020 Draft Report On Family And Relational Poverty​

Family International Monitor (FIM)Family International Monitor (FIM), 2020The Family International Monitor (FIM) has chosen to dedicate the first three years of its activity (2019-2021) to the reading of the relationship between family and poverty (other issues can be analysed, such as family and environment, family and education, family and work, family and  ​values/spirituality/faith...). In particular:
- Family is (SEEN) as a fundamental resource for every person and society.
- Poverty is DEFINED here in its multidimensional dimension (according to the anthropological personalistic-relational model of the SDC and also in line with the most updated international literature).

Gottfredson, D. et al.Prevention Science, 2005The Strengthening Washington DC Families (SWFP) Project examined implementation fidelity and effectiveness when a selective, evidence-based prevention program was implemented with a sample of 715 predominantly African American families across multiple settingsin an urban area. Using a true experimental design, thisstudy reports on the differential effectiveness of four conditions (child skills training only, parent skills training only, parent and child skills training plus family skills training, and minimal treatment controls) in reducing child antisocial behavior and its precursors. Major challenges with recruitment and retention of participants and uneven program coverage were documented. No statistically significant positive effects for any of the program conditions were observed, and a statistically significant negative effect on child reports of Negative Peer Associations was observed for children offamilies assigned to the family skillstraining condition.Twomarginally significant findings were observed:Child’s positive adjustmentfavored families assigned to family skills training condition relative to minimal treatment and child training only, and family supervision and bonding was lower for children in family skills training than in the other three conditions. Hypotheses about potential explanations for the weaker than expected effects of this program are offered, as are thoughts about the infrastructure necessary to successfully implement family strengthening programs and the future of prevention science.

Kumpfer, K. L.  Drug Abuse Prevention Through Family Interventions. NIDA Research Monograph #177 (pp. 160-207). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug, 1999his chapter discusses research-based interventions for selective (targeted) interventions to prevent the onset of substance abuse in high-risk children. The overview explores the merits of selective prevention programs to reduce the risk of substance abuse in subgroups of high-risk youth or adults. The remainder of this chapter explores the program description, principal components, original National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) research results, and later Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) multicultural replications of the Strengthening Families Program (SFP).

Evaluation of a strengthening families (Familias Fuertes) intervention for parents and adolescents in Honduras
Autor(es): Vasquez, M. et al.
Publicação: Southern Online Journal of Nursing Research, 10(3), 1-25, 2010
Apresentação:  Family strengthening interventions are particularly important in low-resource countries in Latin America where the effects of poverty increase the likelihood that adolescents will engage in risky behaviors. The purpose of this quasi-experimental study was to pilot a family strengthening program, Familias Fuertes, in a low-income neighborhood in Tegucigalpa, Honduras. The initial sample included 41 parents and their 10 to 14 year-old adolescents who were randomly assigned to the intervention or control group. Parents and adolescents in both groups completed study instruments prior to the beginning of the program, immediately on completing the 7-week program, as well as 4 and 12 months after completing the program. Findings suggest benefits of the intervention on adolescent-reported family closeness and parent reports of positive parenting practices and improved self esteem. There were no other differences between the two groups in adolescent reports of parenting or family relationship variables or in their reports of their use of drugs, alcohol, or tobacco, although qualitative interview data indicated that parents and adolescents perceived the program positively. Further research is needed with larger samples and with instruments that may be more sensitive to detect effects of the intervention.