Adolescent substance use in the context of the family: a qualitative study of young people’s views on parent-child attachments, parenting style and parental substance use

Background: Adolescent substance use can place youth at risk of a range of poor outcomes. Few studies have attempted to explore in-depth young people’s perceptions of how familial processes and dynamics influence adolescent substance use.
Objectives: This paper aimed to explore risk and protective factors for youth substance use within the context of the family with a view to informing family based interventions.
Methods: Nine focus groups supplemented with participatory techniques were facilitated with a purposive sample of sixty-two young people (age 13-17 years) from post-primary schools across Northern Ireland. The data were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis.
Results: Three themes emerged from the data: 1) parent-child attachments, 2) parenting style and 3) parental and sibling substance misuse. Parent-child attachment was identified as an important factor in protecting adolescents from substance use in addition to effective parenting particularly an authoritative style supplemented with parental monitoring and strong parent-child communication to encourage child disclosure. Family substance use was considered to impact on children’s substance use if exposed at an early age and the harms associated with parental substance misuse were discussed in detail. Both parent and child gender differences were cross-cutting themes.
Conclusion: Parenting programmes (tailored to mothers and fathers) may benefit young people via components on authoritative styles, parental monitoring, communication, nurturing attachments and parent-child conflict. Youth living with more complex issues, e.g. parental substance misuse, may benefit from programmes delivered beyond the family environment e.g. school based settings.

Building public policy on shifting sands: the case of the National Asset Management Agency

Over the last thirty years, there has been an increased demand for better management of public sector organisations (PSOs). This requires that they are answerable for the inputs that they are given but also for what they achieve with these inputs (Hood 1991; Hood 1995). It is suggested that this will improve the management of the organisation through better planning and control, and the achievement of greater accountability (Smith 1995). However, such a rational approach with clear goals and the means to measure achievement can cause difficulties for many PSOs. These difficulties include the distinctive nature of the public sector due to the political environment within which the public sector manager operates (Stewart and Walsh 1992) and the fact that PSOs will have many stakeholders, each of whom will have their own specific objectives based on their own perspective (Boyle 1995). This can
result in goal ambiguity which means that there is leeway in interpreting the results of the PSO. The National Asset Management Agency (NAMA) was set up to bring stability to the financial system by buying loans from the banks (which were in most cases, non-performing loans). The intention was to cleanse the banks of these loans so that they could return to their normal business of taking deposits and making loans. However, the legislation, also gave NAMA a wide range of other responsibilities including responsibility for facilitating credit in the economy and protecting the interests of taxpayers. In more recent times, NAMA has been given responsibility for building social housing. This wide-range of activities is a clear example of a PSO being given multiple goals which may conflict and is therefore likely to lead to goal ambiguity. This makes it very difficult to evaluate NAMA’s performance as they are attempting to meet numerous goals at the same time and also highlights the complexity of policy making in the public sector. The purpose of this paper is to examine how NAMA dealt with goal ambiguity. This will be done through a thematic analysis of its annual reports over the last five years. The paper’s will contribute to the ongoing debate about the evaluation of PSOs and the complex environment within which they operate which makes evaluation difficult as they are
answerable to multiple stakeholders who have different objectives and different criteria for measuring success.