Kundalini yoga as mutual recovery: a feasibility study including children in care and their carers
| Published date | 19 December 2016 |
| Pages | 261-282 |
| Date | 19 December 2016 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JCS-11-2015-0034 |
| Author | Elvira Perez Vallejos,Mark John Ball,Poppy Brown,David Crepaz-Keay,Emily Haslam-Jones,Paul Crawford |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Vulnerable groups,Children's services,Sociology,Sociology of the family,Children/youth,Parents,Education,Early childhood education,Home culture,Social/physical development |
Kundalini yoga as mutual recovery:
a feasibility study including children
in care and their carers
Elvira Perez Vallejos, Mark John Ball, Poppy Brown, David Crepaz-Keay, Emily Haslam-Jones
and Paul Crawford
The authors affiliations can be
found at the end of this article.
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to test whether incorporating a 20-week Kundalini yoga programme
into a residential home for children improves well-being outcomes.
Design/methodology/approach –This is a mixed methods feasibility study. Feasibility was assessed
through recruitment and retention rates as well as participants’self-report perceptions on social inclusion,
mental health and well-being and through semi-structured interviews on the benefits of the study. Mutual
recovery entailed that children in care (CIC), youth practitioners and management participated together in the
Kundalini yoga sessions.
Findings –The study initially enrolled 100 per cent of CIC and 97 per cent (29/30) of eligible staff. Attendance
was low with an average rate of four sessions per participant (SD ¼3.7, range 0-13). All the participants
reported that the study was personally meaningful and experienced both individual (e.g. feeling more relaxed)
and social benefits (e.g. feeling more open and positive). Pre- and post-yoga questionnaires did not showany
significant effects. Low attendance was associated with the challenges faced by the children’s workforce
(e.g. high levels of stress, low status, profile and pay) and insufficient consultation and early involvement of
stakeholders on the study implementation process.
Research limitations/implications –Because of the chosen research approach (i.e. feasibility study) and
low attendance rate, the research results may lack generalisability. Therefore, further research with larger
samples including a control or comparison group to pilot similar research questions is mandatory.
Practical implications –This study has generated a number of valuable guiding principles and
recommendations that might underpin the development of any future intervention for CIC and staff working in
children’s homes.
Social implications –The concept of togetherness and mutuality within residential spaces is discussed in
the paper.
Originality/value –The effects of Kundalini yoga have not been reported before in any peer-review
publications. This paper fulfils an identified need (i.e. poor outcomes among CIC and residential staff) and
shows how movement and creative practices can support the concept of mutual recovery.
Keywords Mental health, Social inclusion, Well-being, Mutual recovery, Children in care, Kundalini yoga
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Children are looked after by local authorities for various reasons, including abuse, neglect,
challenging behaviour, brea kdown of family relationships, ho melessness and disability
(Department for Education (DfE), 2012). Corporate care is far from perfect, with cumulative
evidence showing that children in care (CIC) are still among the most vulnerable children in
Received 24 November 2015
Revised 26 February 2016
Accepted 7 June 2016
© Elvira Perez Vallejos. Published
by Emerald Group Publishing
Limited. This article is published
under the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY 3.0) licence.
Anyone may reproduce, distribute,
translate and create derivative
works of this article (for both
commercial & non-commercial
purposes), subject to full attribution
to the original publication and
authors. The full terms of this
licence may be seen at http://
creativecommons.org/licences/by/
3.0/legalcode. This study was
funded by the AHRC under the
large grant ref. AH/K003364/1.
The authors would like to thank all
the young people and staff for their
participation. This study was
funded by the Arts and Humanities
Research Council under a large
grant titled “Creative Practice as
Mutual Recovery: Connecting
Communities for Mental Health
and Well-being”(AHRC Grant
Ref. No. AH/K003364/1).
DOI 10.1108/JCS-11-2015-0034 VOL. 11 NO. 4 2016, pp. 261-282, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1746-6660
j
JOURNAL OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES
j
PAG E 2 6 1
society. Within the UK, outcomes following local authority care have improved in the last ten years
but are still poor and research has shown that CIC still have higher physical and mental health
needs than their not-in-care counterparts (Department for Education (DfE), 2014) and in
comparison with children who are in other forms of care such as family foster care (Lee et al.,
2011). CIC are more likely to have special educational needs (SEN; 66 per cent have a statement
of SEN), poor educational performance, more contact with the criminal justice system, poorer
health and greater vulnerability to homelessness and unemployment (DfE, 2014; National Audit
Office, 2014). Only half of CIC have emotional and behavioural health that is considered “normal”
when using statistical terms (DfE, 2014). Moreover, CIC are substantially overrepresented as both
victims and perpetrators of crime (Department for Education and National Care Advisory
Services, 2013; Department for Education (DfE), 2013; Centre for Social Justice, 2014). It is
difficult to determine, however, the extent to which these outcomes are as a result of experiences
prior to entering care or experiences once in the system (Rodrigues, 2004).
One of the contributory factors to this disadvantage may be workforce skills. A report produced
by the Expert Group (DfE, 2012) on the quality of children’s homes highlighted the main issues
facing the workforce as: insufficient levels of qualification, specialist knowledge and skills;
inadequate career pathways and progression routes; a lack of reward and recognition; and a lack
of identity or shared core professional standards. A recent research report commissioned by the
Department for Education (DfE) (2015) and co-produced with a series of stakeholders, including
CIC and children’s home staff, has explored the qualifications, skills and training required to meet
the needs of CIC. This, together with the latest OFSTED (2014) report, have highlighted a series of
recommendations to improve the quality of care and staff (i.e. youth practitioners) working in
children’s residential care. These recommendations include training on techniques for improving
practice and new methods for working with children and young people as well as procedures for
working in a children’s home.
Another factor affecting outcomes for CIC is the problems children have with forming
relationships. Children’s responses to staff may well be influenced by previously damaging
interactions with adults. This is known to have an impact on both initial attachment and the ability
to form trusting relationships over time (Golding et al., 2006; Hughes, 2004; Thomas and
Johnson, 2008). This may partially explain why some forms of therapy are not as readily accepted
or engaged with, particularly those which rely on relationships of trust to be effective, which
include most psychological interventions. A review of the literature pertinent to looked after
children’s views of mental health services (Davies and Wright, 2008) identified ambivalence
towards professional intervention, noting that children “felt wary of professionals and uncared
for”; and ambivalence towards talking. The review concludes that “research suggests that the
therapy type (e.g. cognitive-behavioural therapy, family systemic therapy) is less important, rather
the experience of being heard and understood could be the foundation for a good match
between a child’s need for action and therapeutic responsiveness”and that “eliciting looked-after
children’s views of their mental health service should be standard practice: both in individual
treatment and in service development discussions”.
This is consistent with policy and practice developments that have put greater emphasis on
services user involvement in mental health services. This remains an important part of
government policy, with the 2010 White Paper, “Equity and excellence: liberating the NHS”
(Department of Health, 2010), making the explicit statement “no decision about me without me”,
which is adapted from a phrase widely used in the disability movement and one used in patient
and public involvement in England for over ten years (Gilbert, 2003). Service user involvement is
widespread across health and social care services in the UK (Simpson and House, 2003) but it is
clear that this is less widespread in service for CIC (Davies and Wright, 2008).
Local authorities usually explore different alternatives (e.g. foster care) before placing children in
residential care, which is often perceived as “last resort”and there has been a steady decline in
the use of children’s homes since the 1970s. In 1978, 32 per cent of CIC were living in a children’s
home, secure unit or hostel (Berridge et al., 2012) compared to 9 per cent in March 2012 (DfE,
2013). In addition, children’s home have, for the most part, become small group settings. This
can be characterised as a move from dependence to independence, and reflects developments
in all areas of social care in the UK. Although the move from dependence to independence has
PAGE262
j
JOURNAL OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES
j
VOL. 11 NO. 4 2016
To continue reading
Request your trial