Evaluation of the National Parenting Development … National...of the National Parenting Development Project ... CASE STUDY THREE: ... of the National Parenting Development

REPORTNo.02/2008EvaluationoftheNationalParentingDevelopmentProject

EvaluationoftheNationalParentingDevelopment

Project

CherylBurgessMargaretMallochUniversityOfStirling

March2008


www.sccjr.ac.uk 2

This evaluation was conducted for the AberlourChildCareTrust.

COPYRIGHTNOTICEThispublicationiscopyrightSCCJR.Permissionisgrantedtoreproduceanypartorallof thisreport forpersonalandeducationaluseonly.Commercialcopying,hiringorlendingisprohibited.Anymaterialusedmustbefullyacknowledged,andthetitleofthepublication,authorsanddateofpublicationspecified.Copyright©SCCJR2008


www.sccjr.ac.uk 3

CONTENTS

COPYRIGHT NOTICE...............................................................................................................................2 CONTENTS ...................................................................................................................................................3 1. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................5

THE POLICY CONTEXT................................................................................................................................5 THE REMIT OF THE NATIONAL PARENTING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT......................................................6 EVALUATION...............................................................................................................................................8 PROJECT REMIT.........................................................................................................................................12 PROGRESS OF WORK.................................................................................................................................12

Parenting programmes .......................................................................................................................12 Strategic consultation .........................................................................................................................13 Training and dissemination of information .......................................................................................14 Research...............................................................................................................................................15

2. CASE STUDY ONE: STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT OF PARENTING WORK WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES...........................................................................................................................16

INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................................16 FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................................................17

The progress of the strategic work.....................................................................................................17 Operation of the Steering Group........................................................................................................18 Training ...............................................................................................................................................19 Role of the PDW..................................................................................................................................20 Links with the community ...................................................................................................................22 Development of direct parenting work ..............................................................................................24 Impact and success..............................................................................................................................25

KEY POINTS...............................................................................................................................................26 3. CASE STUDY TWO: DIRECT PARENTING WORK .............................................................27

INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................................27 EVOLUTION ...............................................................................................................................................28

First stage (October – December 2005):...........................................................................................28 Second stage (January – June 2006): ................................................................................................28 Third stage (July 2006 – December 2007):.......................................................................................28

THE EVOLUTION OF THE WORK ...............................................................................................................29 Factors influencing the evolution of the parenting work..................................................................29

THE RANGE OF THE WORK ..............................................................................................................30 Delivery of parenting programmes ....................................................................................................30 Consultancy and coordination of training.........................................................................................31 Information and resource development .............................................................................................32 Strategic development and planning..................................................................................................32

FINDINGS................................................................................................................................................33 The delivery of parenting programmes..............................................................................................33 Partnership agencies feedback on the wider aspects of the parenting work ..................................41 ‘Rolling out’ the programme delivery................................................................................................42 Strategic development of parenting work ..........................................................................................43

KEY ISSUES FROM THE PARENTING WORK..............................................................................................43 Inter-agency work ...............................................................................................................................43 Sustaining and ‘rolling-out’ the work................................................................................................44 Good practice and engagement..........................................................................................................45


www.sccjr.ac.uk 4

Use of measurement tools...................................................................................................................46 Strategic development .........................................................................................................................46 Performance Indicators ......................................................................................................................47

CONCLUDING POINTS ...............................................................................................................................47 LONGER TERM IMPACT OF THE PARENTING PROGRAMME WORK..........................................................48

4. CASE STUDY THREE: PILOT PARENTING PROGRAMME WITHIN H.M.P AND Y.O.I. CORNTON VALE ..........................................................................................................................51

BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................................................................51 METHODS ..................................................................................................................................................52 ESTABLISHING THE PROGRAMME WORK.................................................................................................53 CIRCUMSTANCES OF PARTICIPANTS.........................................................................................................54 REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO THE PROGRAMME ......................................................................................55 REFERRAL PROCESS..................................................................................................................................55 ASSESSMENT .............................................................................................................................................57 ATTENDANCE ............................................................................................................................................58 PROGRAMME CONTENT ............................................................................................................................58 IMPACT OF THE PROGRAMME ...................................................................................................................61 GENERAL VIEWS .......................................................................................................................................64 PARTNERSHIP WORKING ...........................................................................................................................65 ENGAGEMENT ...........................................................................................................................................66 CONCLUDING POINTS ...............................................................................................................................67

5. CONCLUDING POINTS.................................................................................................................68 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STRATEGIC AND DIRECT WORK .............................................................68 INTER-AGENCY WORK...............................................................................................................................69 ENGAGEMENT AND APPROACH ................................................................................................................70 IMPACT OF THE PROJECT’S WORK ...........................................................................................................72 SUSTAINABILITY .......................................................................................................................................73

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................75 APPENDIX ONE ........................................................................................................................................76 APPENDIX TWO .......................................................................................................................................78


www.sccjr.ac.uk 5

1. INTRODUCTION

ThePolicyContext1.1 The work of the National Parenting Development Project (NPDP) can beplacedwithinthecontextoflegislativeandsocialpolicydevelopmentsoverthelastfifteenyearsinbothScotlandandtheUK.Alargenumberofinitiatives,involvingallkeyagencies,havebeenputinplacetoaddressdisadvantage,increaseeducationalopportunityandsupportyoungpeopleintofurthereducationandemployment.Thecrucialinfluenceofparentsonyoungpeople’squalityoflifeandbehaviourhasbeenincreasingly recognised, and initiatives been introduced to support and influenceparentsaswellasyoungpeople.ThevisionthegovernmentoutlinedforchildreninScotlandwithGettingitRightforEveryChild(ScottishExecutive,2005)includedtheaimthat“childrenandyoungpeopleshould livewithinasupportivefamilysetting,with additional assistance if required”. This policy highlighted the need forimprovementsinthedeliveryofchildren’sserviceswithafocusonstrengtheningthecapacityofparentsthroughintegratedagencysupports.Otherlegislationandpolicydevelopments which have been introduced have also focused on the rights andresponsibilities of parents, for example parental involvement in schools (ScottishSchools (Parental Involvement) Act, 2006), support for parents within the ChildProtection Reform Programme (Scottish Executive, 2004) and the promotion ofparentingeducationwithinthepublichealthservicecontext(DepartmentofHealth,2004).1.2 Parallel to these social inclusion initiatives, there has also been increasingpublicandgovernmentalconcernaboutyouthcrime.It iswidelyarguedthattherehas been a shift towards holding young people and their parents responsible fortheir behaviour, rather than viewing it as resulting from disadvantage (Goldson,2002). The introduction of Antisocial Behaviour and ParentingOrders is consistentwiththistrend.1.3 Legislation and policies have increasingly identified the role of localauthorities in supporting and developing parental capacity. Local authorities areexpectedtosupportparentsinawiderangeofcircumstancesandtorespondtoverydifferent levelsof need.Current policy statements, suchasForScotland’sChildren(ScottishExecutive,2001)haveemphasisedtheimportanceofcollaborativeplanningand service provision across local authority agencies, health departments andvoluntary and independent service provision. The services they provide, includingeducation, social work and health might be offered on a universal basis or betargetedatfamilieswherechildrenareviewedasinneedoratrisk.Onanindividual


www.sccjr.ac.uk 6

family level, Getting it Right for Every Child outlined a number of proposals tostrengthenco‐operationbetweenagenciesinofferingfamiliessupportincludingtheuse of a integrated assessment framework, with all agencies contributing to acommon assessment report, thus aiding the process of joint service planning andprovision.1.4 Strategicplanningofserviceswasrequiredtoprogressthesepolicyobjectiveswhereworkwithparentswasakey feature.However, jointplanning in relation toparents is complicated by the fact that each service: education, health and socialwork, haswell–establishedways of workingwith parentswhich accordwith theirown role, remit and professional values. Each alsoworkswithin separate lines ofaccountability and funding streams. Co‐ordinating such a wide range of servicespresents a major challenge and the process of combining them to provide acoherent, unified service requires skilled management. However, it has beensuggested that parenting support is an area of social care in which the need formulti‐agencyworkingisparticularlyimportant(Moranetal,2004)

TheRemitoftheNationalParentingDevelopmentProject1.5 The National Parenting Development Project was set up in 2002 by theAberlour Child Care Trust,with fundsmade available by the Scottish Executive, aspartoftheExecutive’saimtoprogressthetenpointactionplansetoutinthepolicydocumentScotland’sActionProgrammetoReduceYouthCrime(ScottishExecutive,2002). This included the development of services to aid the implementation ofParentingOrders, aimed at providing parenting education and support for parentswhomaynothaveengagedonavoluntarybasis.ItwasanticipatedthatNPDPcouldsupportthisdevelopment.1.6 ThebroadaimsofNPDPweretodeveloptherangeandqualityofparentingsupportservicesacrossScotland.ThekeyrolewastoworktowardstheobjectivesoftheYouthCrimePreventionFundwhichfocussedonearlyinterventionwithfamiliesto prevent offending and anti‐social behaviour; and with the parents of youngpeoplewhohadalreadycome to theattention of youth justice services.Thus, theproject set out to contribute to the development of service provision aimed atpreventionandearly intervention,andtosupportparents’ ‘management’ofyoungpeoplewhowereatriskof,orinvolvedin,offendingbehaviour.1.7 While the project’s work was always set within the context of earlyinterventionand preventativeworkwith families, therewasanexpectation that itcouldpotentiallymakeanimpactinreducingyouthcrime.However,itbecameclear


www.sccjr.ac.uk 7

duringthefirstfouryearsoftheproject’sworkthatpartofitsroleatleastcouldberefocusedtosupportlocalauthoritiesacrossScotlandtodevelopparentingservicesonalocalbasisinordertosupportthislegislation.Localauthoritieswererequiredtoshowthatparentingsupportand interventionswereonoffertofamilieswhowereexperiencingdifficultiesprior to the imposition ofaParentingOrder.Theproject’sworkwithlocalauthoritiesrevealedthatstructureswererarelyinplacetoprogressthis service development and that services themselves were patchy, not easilyidentifiable,with confusionoverwhowasdoingwhat in relation toparenting.Theproject was able to identify patterns in the way that parenting services haddevelopedacrosslocalauthoritiesinScotland.NPDPlocalauditshighlightedalackof clear strategicplanning, limited informationaboutexisting servicesand in someareasduplicationof servicesor commongaps inprovision, forexample in servicesforparentsofteenagers.Strategicplanningwasclearlyrequiredinordertomeettheobjectives of themany policy statementswhich included parentingwork as a keyelement.1.8 PhaseOneofNPDP’sdevelopment tookplace between2002‐2006andhasbeencaptured inanearlierreport (BurgessandWalker,2006). Duringthesecondphase of the project’s work (2006‐2008) there continued to be a focus on directprogramme delivery to groups of parents who required support with particulardifficulties (forexample theparentingprogrammeworkwithmothers inHMPandYOICorntonValeandwithparentswhoseyoungpeoplehadbeenreferredtoYouthJustice teams). An additional focus on strategic parenting service developmentworkwith localauthoritiesandthemulti‐agencyco‐ordinationthisentailed,meantthat it was necessary to consider parenting services in a broader context. NPDPaimedtoassist localauthoritiesdevelopsharedgoals insupportingparentsandtointegrate key objectives from various policies which addressed parenting issues.WheretheprojectwasinvolvedintheformationoflocalparentingservicesSteeringandStrategyGroups,membership includedworkers fromagencieswhose interestslaywith the preventative or universal end of provision aswell as thosewhowereconcernedwithtargetedinterventionswithfamilieswithmorecomplexdifficulties.NPDP attempted to support different agencies develop a unified (or at leastcollaborative)approachtoparentingwithin localareas. Inthoseareaswhichwenton to employ NPDP‐supervised Parenting Development Workers (PDWs) to helpprogresstheirparentingstrategy,itwasnecessaryfortheseworkerstomanagethetensions between the original youth crime focus and the requirement to developservices which addressed local need and were organised within existing localstructures.1.9 Within the local areas where they operate, PDWs have aimed to balanceyouth crime‐related direct programme delivery and consultancy work with widerlocalstrategicobjectiveswhichencompassaspectrumofapproachestoparenting.Theclearmessagethathascomeoutofthisdualapproachisthatparentingwork


www.sccjr.ac.uk 8

andparentingservicesasawholemustbedeveloped inabroadwaythat includesinterventionsthatareearly,preventativeandaimtoreducerisks;aswellastargetedservices for familieswhosedifficultiesaremoreadvanced.Thedevelopmentoftheproject’s work, with its focus across the micro and macro aspects of parentingservices, reflects the need for these services to be placed within an ecologicalframeworkwhichacknowledgesthewebofinteractingfactorswhichinfluencehowparentingtakesplace.

Evaluation1.10 The importance of identifying longer‐term results and developments hasbeenidentifiedascrucialtotheongoingeffectivenessandefficiencyoftheworkoftheNPDP.Throughouttheinitialevaluationperiod,emergingfindingswerefedbackto project staff in order to inform the development of the service and it wasrecognisedthatdataonoutcomesrequiredlonger‐termfollow‐up.1.11 TheevaluationofPhaseOneofNPDPfocusedonthreemainelementsoftheproject’swork:

Supportinglocalauthorities’strategicplanningand developmentofparentingservices Training Supportingdirectworkwithparents.

1.12 The initial evaluation focused to a considerable extent on describing theprocesses throughwhich these three aspects of the service had been set up anddeveloped.Thesecondphaseoftheevaluationassessedtheimpactoftheproject’swork,bothintheshortandlonger‐term.1.13 Thekeyobjectivesofthesecondphaseoftheevaluationwereto:

monitortheextenttowhichlocalauthorityinter‐agencystructuresandplanshadbeenimplementedandsustainedoverthelongerterm;

assess how effective these structures were in fostering joint working andfacilitatingacomprehensiverangeofparentingservices;

follow‐upsomeof theparentswho tookpart in the initial evaluation,whilealsoassessingtheshort‐termimpactonanadditionalnumberofparents

identifythekeyelementsofpracticewhichhelpedengageparentsinwayswhichweremostlikelytohelpthemenhanceparentingcapacity;

developunderstandingof themost effective approacheswith groups of parentswithspecificissues,particularlydrug‐usingparents,parentsinprison;

exploretherelevanceandefficiencyofmeasurementtoolsthatcouldbeusedbypractitionerstomeasureoutcomesinparentingwork.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 9

1.14 Thereareclear limitations inthemeasurementofsocialwork interventionsfor effectiveness, not least as the impact of particular interventions may be veryspecific to the individual. A structured programme may impact in different waysdepending on individual circumstances or indeed, may not work at all for someclients(PawsonandTilley,1997).Similardifficultiesaroseinevaluatingthe impactof NPDP both strategically and in terms of direct work. There are widelyacknowledged difficulties in reliably assessing the impact of this kind of service inisolationfromotherexternal influences.Therelationshipbetweeninterventionandoutcome is complex and doubts have been raised about the extent towhich it ispossibletomeasureoutcomesorattributethemtoaspecificservice(Trinder,2000).However,it ispossibletoofferindicationsofthelikelyimpactofparticularserviceswherethewidercontextisacknowledgedanditisrecognisedthatotherfactorsmayhaveinfluencedmeasuresofeffectiveness.1.15 Evaluatingtheimpactofaninterventionsuchasaparentingprogrammehassignificantlimitations,widelyacknowledgedinresearchinthisarea.Whileattemptscanbemadetojudgetheeffectivenessofaninterventionbyassessingtheextenttowhichundesirableoutcomeshavebeenreducedandpositiveonesenhanced,thereare a number of challenges in doing so. Firstly, parenting programmework takesplaceoverashorttimeperiod,withpositiveoutcomeslikelytodevelopslowlyandincrementally.Secondly,anumberof influencesandmediatingfactorsmayhaveabearingonhowparentsundertaketheirrole,makingitextremelydifficulttoassessthe intervention’s effectiveness in isolation. It has been suggested that theeffectivenessofaprogrammeisbestachievedbycombiningananalysisofprocessissuesinadditiontomeasuresofoutcome(Moranetal,2004).1.16 Inasimilarway,therearedifficultiesassociatedwithmeasuringtheextenttowhich NPDP has been effective in assisting local authorities in developing theirparentingservicesstrategy.Itmayonlybeoveranextendedtimeperiodthatthefulleffect of building the foundations of strategic work can be measured. NPDP’scontribution may be difficult to assess, given the impossibility of evidencing howdifferentlocalprovisionwouldhavebeeninareaswheretheprojecthashadinput.1.17 ThisevaluationprovidesanoverviewoftheworkofNPDPandadoptsacasestudy approach to examine how the evaluation objectives were addressed inpractice. The three case studies highlight a combination of approaches aimed atdevelopingandsupportingeffectiveparentingwork:

Case study one highlights NPDP’s strategic work with one local authority in developingparentingservicesinthearea;

CasestudytwoevaluatesNPDP’sdirectparentingprogrammedeliveryworkincollaborationwitharangeofstatutoryandvoluntarysectorstafffromwithinasecondlocalauthorityarea;

CasestudythreeprovidesevidencefromNPDP’sdirectparentingprogrammedeliveryworkwithinHMP&YOICorntonVale.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 10

1.18 Case studies one and two provide opportunities to follow up workestablishedinPhaseOne,whilecasestudythreeprovidesanexampleofextendinglearning from Phase One (service provision for parents with substance abuseproblems)andapplyingthisinadistinctenvironment(theprison).

REPORT

www.sccjr.ac.uk 11

Diagram1DIAGRAMOFSERVICESTRUCTURE

NationalParentingDevelopmentProject

AllstaffbasedeitheratEdinburghOfficeorinappropriatelocalauthorityarea

ProjectDirectorMainroles:Generalprojectdevelopment,supervisionofstaff,overseeingtrainingsectionandconsultancywithlocalauthoritiesonstrategicdevelopmentProjectManager

Mainroles:Generalprojectdevelopment,supervisionofstaffandconsultancywithlocalauthoritiesonstrategicdevelopment

1.75Administrators(General&Training)

Trainers(1.5)ProjectWorker(1)ParentingDevelopmentplussessionalstaffWorkers(4)Development&deliveryoftrainingmodulesrelatingtoparentingworktoarangeofagenciesandindividuals

ProgrammedeliveryinHMP&YOICorntonValejointlywithProgrammesUnitprisonstaff

Locatedinfourlocalauthorityareas:involvedinstrategicdevelopmentand,intwoareas,directprogrammedelivery


www.sccjr.ac.uk 12

ProjectRemit1.19 Diagram1illustratestheoperationalstructureofNPDP.Theremitoftheserviceistoprovidethefollowing:

1. ParentingprogrammesDeliveryofparentingprogrammes,usuallyincollaborationwithstafffromother agencies; advising staff on the delivery of parenting programmeworktogroupsandindividualfamilies.

2. Strategicconsultation

Providing consultation to local authorities on the strategic developmentandplanningofparentingservices

3. Traininganddisseminationofinformation• delivery and co‐ordination of training to agencies and individuals in

parentingrelatedwork;• provision of a resource library of parenting materials, tools and

information4. Research

TheevaluationoftheprojectbyresearchersfromtheUniversityofStirlingaimed to assess the effectiveness of direct practice and the process ofpartnershipworking.ThisalsolinkedintoongoingservicemonitoringbyindividualPDW’sandNPDPmanagers.

ProgressofWork1.20 Duringthesecondphaseoftheproject’swork,from2006‐2008,NPDPhasdevelopedacrossScotlandbyprovidingservicesinthesefourareas.

Parentingprogrammes1.21 Direct delivery of parenting programmes has taken place, inmost casesco‐ledwithstafffrompartnershipagencies,onbothagroupworkbasisandwithindividualfamilies.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 13

1.22 Onagroupbasis:

Fourgroups,usingtheESCAPEprogramme,intwolocalauthorityareasplusoneparallelgroupforyoungpeoplerunningalongsideagroupforparents/carers.

Three groups, using a NPDP/Scottish Prison Service designedprogramme,inHMPandYOICorntonVale;thisprogrammewaswrittenfollowingapilotgroup inOctober2006andhasbeenacceptedby theSPSprogrammeapprovalpanel.

1.23 Onanindividualbasis:

Ten families took part in parenting programmes using the ESCAPEmodel.

1.24 In addition, the PDW role has had awider remit within the delivery ofparenting services, for example by providing consultancy on the delivery ofstructuredparentingworkormoregeneralparentingrelatedissues.

Strategicconsultation1.25 Since May 2006 the project has had a significant role in assisting withstrategicplanninganddevelopmentofparentingserviceswith12 localauthorityareasandamorelimiteddegreeof involvementwithafurthersix.Theproject’sexperience inassisting localauthoritieswith thisworkhasenabled it tobuildabankofknowledgeontheprocessesandconsiderationsinvolvedindevelopingaparentingstrategy.1.26 Theprojecthasdevelopedtoolstohelpauthoritiesplanthedevelopmentofservicesinawaythatencouragesintegratedworkingbetweenagencies.Thesetools include a staged intervention framework for use in the audit of existingservices to map the strengths and gaps in provision and a Framework for theStrategicDevelopmentofParentingServices.Thissetsthedeliveryofservicesinabroad context which reflects national policy objectives and offers a structurewithin which to develop services in order to meet these objectives. TheseframeworkscanbefoundatAppendixOne.1.27 Inaddition, theScottishExecutivedocumentAFramework forParentingOrders in Scotland (2007) to which the project manager made a majorcontribution,setsoutaco‐ordinatedapproachtoparentingsupportwhich localauthorities can adopt in order to underpin the implementation of ParentingOrders.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 14

Four local authorities have adopted the Framework for the StrategicDevelopment of Parenting Services and PDW posts have beenestablishedaspartofthis;PDWsareinvolvedwitharangeofaspectsofparenting work delivery and development, and a central role inprogressingtheparentingstrategy.

The project had a lead role in themapping and auditing of parentingservices in three local authority areas and was commissioned toundertake supplementarywork or provide consultation in two others.In two of these areas the project assisted with writing the parentingstrategy and identifying staff training needs and in one additionallyoffered consultation on the development of strategic planning forparentingservices.ToaidthisprocessNPDPdeliveredadayseminaronparentingformanagersinoneoftheseareas.

Inthreefurtherareastheprojectprovidedeitherconsultationinwritingtheparentingstrategy,consultationandaseminaronhowtoprogressastrategyoron‐goingconsultationonthedevelopmentofdirectdeliverywork.

Traininganddisseminationofinformation1.28 Since2006,therehasbeenamoveawayfromthedeliveryoftrainingforindividualworkers,towardsthecommissioningoftrainingbylocalauthoritiesandotherorganisations toprovidepartof theirworkforcedevelopmentplansoraspartoftheirparentingservicesstrategy.

The training section has delivered commissioned training to 17 local

authorities, in addition to a range of voluntary agencies and otherorganisations, includingaHealthBoardandmembersof theChildren’sHearingpanels. Insomecasesthistraininghasbeenanelementoftheparenting strategieswhich local authorities have developed andwhichprojectPDWs,wheretheyareinplace,havebeentaskedtoprogress.

In addition to the Core Skills modules, the training section havedeveloped a number of new modules related to parenting workincluding ‘WorkingPositivelywithProblematicParental SubstanceUse’and‘WorkingintheEarlyYears’,drawingontheexperiencetheprojecthasgainedfromitsworkwithspecificgroupsofparents.Thereareplansunderway for further courses such as ‘Work with Young Parents’ and‘WorkingwithParentsAffectedbyDomesticViolence’.

The project co‐ordinates training in Scotland for other agencies whoofferparentingassessmentorprogrammeworkincludingtrainingintheuse of the Trust for the Study of Adolescence ESCAPE parenting


www.sccjr.ac.uk 15

programmeandtheChildandFamilyTrainingServicesassessmenttool,‘InmyShoes’.

The project has a particular interest in promoting training related toattachmentissuesandco‐facilitatestrainingbyDanHughes’in‘DyadicDevelopmentPsychotherapy’andbyTonyMorrison inattachmentand‘emotionalintelligence’.

1.29 Statisticscompiledbytheprojectrevealthatapproximately1,250peoplehaveattendedtrainingeventsineverysixmonthperiod.Thedemandfortraininginput from NPDP continues to grow and staff resources for this section haveincreasedthreefold.Whilegeneratingincome,thetrainingsectionisdependantonthewiderprojectinfrastructuretoenableitsservicestocontinue.Additionally,the benefits it derives from its direct links with the programme delivery andstrategic development arms of the project were highlighted in the first phaseevaluationreportandcontinuetobesignificant.

The project resource library of materials, research and information

aboutparentingworkcontinuestobeusedbyanumberofagenciesandindividuals.

The project has run two seminars on the subject of ‘Developing aParentingStrategy’and‘Parentingworkwithwomeninprison’togetherwiththeScottishExecutiveandtheScottishPrisonServicerespectively.It has also contributed presentations to a number of conferences andhasbeeninvolvedwiththelaunchesoflocalparentingstrategiesintheareaswherePDWsareoperational.

The project co‐ordinates a practitioners group for the 12 PDWs/ Co‐ordinators who are in post across Scotland; this group includes thoseemployed by a range of agencies, some with no direct links with theNPDP.Thegroupprovidesaforumtodiscusstheprogressofparentingwork across authorities in relation to strategic development and bestpractice.

Research1.30 The evaluation reports produced by the researchers at theUniversity ofStirlingaredisseminatedwidelytoprofessionalstaffandagencieswithwhomtheprojecthascontact.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 16

2. CASESTUDYONE:STRATEGICDEVELOPMENTOFPARENTINGWORKWITHLOCALAUTHORITIES

Introduction2.1 This case study focuses on thework ofNPDPwithin one local authorityarea and specifically on the ways in which the project contributed to thedevelopmentoftheparentingservicestrategyacrosskeyagenciesinthatarea.Itdemonstrates how NPDP assisted the process of multi‐agency planning todevelop parenting services in an integrated and collaborativeway, in linewithpolicy objectives. The case study highlights how, by adopting the project’sFrameworkforstrategicplanningofparentingservices,thefoundationscouldbelaid to address other key policy objectives; these included the provision ofservices thatwere locallybasedandaccessible to familiesandoffered supportswhichstrengthenedparents’capacitytonurturetheirchildren.2.2 NPDPwere commissioned to conduct an audit of parentingwork in thislocal authority area and completed this in 2004 (see Appendix One).Subsequently, a Parenting Steering Group was established to ensure parentingissueswerehighlightedamongagencies,andalsotoprovideanopportunity foragencies to work together to develop a strategic approach to parenting. AParentingDevelopmentWorker(PDW)wasemployedbyNPDPandfundedbythelocalCouncil.2.3 TheaimsoftheevaluationofNPDPinthislocalareawereto:

Monitortheextenttowhichinter‐agencystructuresandplanshadbeenimplemented and sustained and to measure progress in facilitating acomprehensiverangeofparentingservices;

AssessthecontributionoftheprojectandthePDWinthedevelopmentofparentingworkintheCouncilarea.

2.4 Thishasbeenundertakeninthefollowingways:

Two in‐depthand one sixmonth follow‐up interviewswereconductedwiththePDW

Minutes of all SteeringGroupminutes (from January‐November 2007)werescrutinised

Interviews with seven representatives from the multi‐agency SteeringGroup(onerespondentwasinterviewedontwooccasions)

InterviewswiththreeLocalCommunityNetwork(LCN)Officers


www.sccjr.ac.uk 17

Findings

Theprogressofthestrategicwork2.5 FollowingtheauditofparentingservicesundertakenbyNPDPin2004,anoutline Parenting Strategywas agreed by the Council and a Parenting SteeringGroup was established to develop the details of the Strategy. The workundertakenduring2006bytheParentingSteeringGroup,ofwhichthePDWisamember,waspartiallyfocussedondrawingtogetherthecontentoftheStrategydocumenttoreflecttheconcernsandinterestsofalltheagenciesinvolved.

‘It lookstosetparentingworkinanintegratedandinteragencycontextthat can encompass Parenting Order provision and seeks to: (i)encourage parents to access parenting support on a voluntary basiswheneverpossible;(ii)providesupportthatwillmeetthediverseneedsand circumstances of parents and their children’ (Parenting SteeringGroup,2006:1).Thestrategydocumentwasfinalisedandpresentedtothe Council Lead Officers Committee in December 2006, whereagreementwasgivenforittobeimplemented.

2.6 ThestrategicobjectivesoftheParentingStrategyarelistedas:

To obtain a clear mandate from the Children and Young People’sPartnershipfortheimplementationofaParentingStrategy.

For each LCN to produce annually a Local Parenting Action Planreflecting both local assessed need and prioritised areas of parentingworkidentifiedthroughtheParentingSteeringGroup.

Forparenting support tobedelivered in thecontextof family learningandasfaraspossiblenormalisethesupportofparents.

TodevelopservicesinsuchawaythattheservicedeliverycommitmentsassociatedwithParentingOrderscanbemetbyparticipatingagencies.

To increasethecapacityofall involved inparentingworktoundertakeparenting work through the establishment and implementation of aninteragencyParentingTrainingPlanagreedbytheSteeringGroup.

For each participating agency to involve parents and children in theplanningandevaluatingof services. Themonitoringandevaluationofservices will reflect desired outcomes for both children and theirparents.

2.7 By December 2007, respondents indicated that they felt the SteeringGroupwas‘ontrack’withstrategicprogress.AlauncheventfortheStrategywasviewed as successful although it was acknowledged that getting parents toparticipatewould be an ongoing challenge. Itwas also indicated that ensuring


www.sccjr.ac.uk 18

therepresentationofallrelevantagencieswasdifficult.WhiletheinitialworkoftheSteeringGrouphadlargelyfocusedonthedevelopmentandpromotionofthestrategy, there was now a sense of moving into the next phase ofimplementation.

OperationoftheSteeringGroup2.8 InterviewsandminutesfromtheSteeringGroupillustratethatitprovidedaforumforagencyrepresentativestobeinformedoflocalandnationalparentingwork. The group identified and organised events including the launch of theParentingStrategyandotherforumsaimedathelpingprofessionalsconsidertheirpotentialcontributiontotheimplementationoftheStrategy.Attentionwasalsogiven to the availability and content of training of relevance to parentingwork(sharingnewskillsandmonitoringeffectivenessofexistingtraining).2.9 While this forum for bringing agencies together was viewed positively,progress and communication around parentingwas described as ‘slow’. WhilesomerespondentscommentedonthelengthydiscussionsontheSteeringGroupit was acknowledged that this was often due to different perspectives. Onerespondentcommentedthat:

‘with parenting, all organisations involved have different angles, so it ismorecomplexanditisboundtobeslower’.

2.10 Itwasagreedhoweverthatprogresswasbeingmadeandthegroupwasgenerally ‘on target’ to meet its aims and objectives. There was generalagreement that the Steering Group had done a significant amount of work insettingup the strategyandwasconsidered tobeon track tomeet its strategicSMARTobjectives.2.11 AgencyrepresentativeswhodidattendtheSteeringGroupwerepositiveabout the issues addressed, however it was noted that not all agencies wererepresented. The absence of a representative from Health Services wasconsideredtobeanimportantomissionbutattemptswereunderwaytoaddressthis. Someagencieswouldget involvedaroundparticular key issuesor specificevents but did not regularly attend SteeringGroupmeetings. One respondentindicatedthattheywould link inwiththeSteeringGroupasnecessarybuttheiragency had very specific legislation to follow in relation to parenting and theyweremorefocusedaccordingly.Changesinpersonnelalsohadsomeimpactonattendance,asdid the fact that formanyagencies involved,parenting/parentalinvolvementformedasmallpartoftheiroverall remitandaccordinglytimeandresourceshadtobespreadout.ThisreinforcedthesignificanceofthePDWwho


www.sccjr.ac.uk 19

was in a position to retain the focus on parenting issues and bring agenciestogetherinadditiontosupportingtheintegrationofservices.2.12 While theSteeringGroupdidnotappear toencounteranydifficulties inagreeing and setting priorities, the major barriers reported were those ofworkloadandcommunication(betweenagenciesandwithparents).Itwasnotedthat this was perhaps due to time constraints in establishing effectivecollaborativework,butmemberswererequiredtotakeownershipoftheworkofthe group. In contrast, one respondent commented that involvement in theSteeringGroupenabledthemtoestablishnetworksthattheymaynothavedoneotherwiseand“togetouragendaontothetable”.

Training2.13 The audit of parenting provision in this local authority highlighted theneed for an inter‐agency training plan for parenting work (in line with theOccupational Standards forWork with Parents, 2005). The Parenting Strategyacknowledged the need for this plan indicating that it would: “foster sharedunderstanding,encourageinteragencyworkingandaiddevelopmentofqualityofwork inmeetingthestandards” (p5). Itnotedthatthe inter‐agencyplanwouldincludethefollowing:

Coretrainingonbasicskillsincluding:- workwithfathers

- assessmentofparentingandtools

- monitoringandevaluation

Identificationandtrainingonspecialistprogrammes

- Workingwithparentsofteenagers

Developingtrainedfacilitatorsto‘teach’andsupportothersinparenting

work.

Developmentofapractitionerforumtoshareskills;tools;followuptrainingandpeersupervision.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 20

2.14 Ongoing training in this localauthorityhasbeenprovidedbybothNPDPandParentingNetworkScotland,whichisnowjoinedwiththeScottishEnterpriseAcademy. There had been some confusion around an event aimed atestablishing the feasibility of providing Training for Trainers in relation toparenting,withagenciessendingdifferentpeopletotheeventbasedondifferentexpectations of what the event was about i.e. to train others or to improveindividuals skills. Itwould appear that the dissemination of informationwithinagencies has not always been clear and respondents referred tomore generaldifficultiesinpassinginformation‘horizontally’withinorganisations.2.15 TheSteeringGrouphasretainedafocusontrainingprovision,andindeeda sub‐groupwas established to enablemembers tomeet separately to discusstraining specifically. While it was generally acknowledged to be an importantissue,therewasaviewthatarrangementsaroundtraininghadtakenupa lotoftimeasopposedto‘workontheground’.Foronerespondent,thisindicatedthattheSteeringGroupwasnotparticularlyefficient:

‘It could be that people don’t have a clear understanding of what it isaboutandthereistoomuchemphasisontraining’.

2.16 However it was seen as generally important by respondents that highquality trainingwas available for practitionerswith ongoing consistent support.Thisunderpinnedthedevelopmentofparentingpractitionersgroupswithinlocalareasaimedatsupportingpractitionersandinfluencingdirectworkwithparents.However the up‐take of these groups was low, due to time constraints onpractitionersanddifferingviewsontheimportanceof‘parenting’asanissueinitsown right. Nevertheless, itwas noted that the groups hadmade a difference,with some people being initially sceptical but leaving the group feeling “reallymotivatedandinterestedandconnectedwithotherpeople”.

RoleofthePDW2.17 The post of the PDW was established following the identified need toprovide improvedwaysof co‐ordinating information,developmentanddeliveryoflocalparentingservices.Thekeyfunctionsofthispostare:

ToassistinthedevelopmentoftheParentingStrategyandparticularlyin

the implementation of SMART Action Plans associated with itsobjectives.

Work with LCNs in rolling‐out the strategy locally through thedevelopmentandimplementationofannualParentingActionPlans.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 21

Provide training, research and staff development support associatedwiththeStrategy.

To build the capacity of agencies to deliver services prioritised by theParentingSteeringGroupthroughdirectparticipation inthedeliveryofthoseservicesfortime‐limitedperiods.

AssistinthepreparationfortheimplementationofParentingOrdersintheareaandsupportthemanagementandimplementationofindividualorders.

ProvideprofessionaladviceandsupporttotheSteeringGroup.2.18 Thispost is fundedby the localCouncil through theSteeringGroupandmanaged by NPDP. One of the tasks of the Steering Group is to ‘oversee andguide’theactivitiesofthePDW.2.19 IntervieweeswereaskedtodeterminehowsignificanttheroleofthePDWhad been in progressing the overall parenting strategy and the work of theParentingSteeringGroupinparticular.Ingeneral,theroleofthePDWisgreatlyvaluedandisseenascentralinplanning, implementationandkeepingthefocusonparentingwork.2.20 The role of the PDW within the Steering Group had clearly been animportantone,andhad involved:settingtheagendaformeetings;updatingtheGroupondevelopmentsintheparentingwork;andprogressingsuggestionsmadeby the group for the next stages of the work. The PDW did not have theresponsibilityofchairingtheGroup.However,shefeltthatshedidhavearoleininspiring others in terms of the parentingwork and this was acknowledged byother respondents. There did appear to be some lack of clarity on the part ofgroupmembersas towhatextent thePDWshould be steeredby thegrouporwhether thegroup itself requiredmotivating to forward the implementationofthe strategy and thework on the ground. One respondent commented that itmay have been more effective to use the PDW to work between agencies at‘groundlevel’withafocusonhowbesttotargetthework.2.21 There was also some ambiguity about the PDW role from respondentswhodidnotattendtheSteeringGroup.WhilethePDWwasvaluedforherroleinthe community and for reporting on developmentswith the parenting strategyandParentingPractitionersforum,itwasnotedthatitwasnotclearwhatherrolewas.Howeverthisisperhapsduetochangesinpersonnelintheseotheragenciesrather than due to lack of communication from the PDW, who had madeconsiderable effort to engage with a wide range of services. It is likely thisuncertaintycouldbeclarifiedbyrestatingthePDWroleandremit.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 22

2.22 RespondentswereoftheopinionthatitwasbeneficialforthePDWtobeemployed by a non‐statutory agency so that her role was not too closelyidentifiedwithanyparticularstatutoryservice,andthatshewasindependentofany one agency’s agenda. Overall however, the independence from statutoryserviceswasconsideredimportantinensuringtheroledidnotgetentrenchedinlocal pressures and politics which, it was suggested, may be evident in localauthorities.Intermsoffuturedevelopments,therewasseentobeacontinuedneedforaco‐ordinatingorleadofficertopromoteintegratedworking.2.23 ThecontributionofthewiderNPDPwasalsoacknowledged;itwasvaluedfor the projectmanager’s knowledge of legal issues and practice experience inrelationtoparentingwork.ThePDWwasamemberoftheParentingOrderPolicyGroup and had contributed to the drafting of the protocol for theirimplementation.

Linkswiththecommunity2.24 TheSteeringGroup’s remit included thedevelopmentofparentingworkwithin the Local Community Network (LCN) structure as a way of embeddingparenting services within the wider community. The Parenting Strategy wasrolled‐out through the four LCN areas with each area expected to establish adedicated parenting sub‐group or one which included parenting, to takeparentingworkforwardaspartofthelocalActionPlan.2.25 Respondents indicated that slowbut steadyprogresswasbeingmade indeveloping multi‐agency cohesion which would lead to long‐term collaborativeservices. The process ofworking together across agencies had clearly not beenwhollystraightforwardandithadtakentimeforsomeagenciestorecognisetheimportance of their contribution to the development process, for example, byattendingmeetingsandseeinghowtheiragency’sworkfittedwithinthebroaderpicture of parenting services. Differences between LCNs in implementinginitiativeswerenotedand itwas suggested thatparticipationdifferedbetweenlocalareas.2.26 Severalrespondentsalsohighlightedtheissueofdefinitions:

‘wearetryingtomapwhatisgoingonwithparentingintheareabutit’svery, very difficult to do …and of course you’ve got the lack ofconsistency and understanding of what is parenting and what’s not”.Another respondent noted: It should be in the family learningcontext…someparentsareputoffbythetermparenting’.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 23

2.27 This lack of clarity, itwas suggested, could lead toproblems in termsofbothservicedeliveryandprioritisation.

2.28 Other community‐based objectives included the establishment of aParentsWeekwhichfocusedonencouragingparents’participationandParentingMonthwhere eventswere arranged to involve both professionals and parents.There were mixed views as to the success of these events with respondentssuggestingthatnotallagencieswererepresented.Eventswhich linkedagenciestogetherunderaseparateParental InvolvementStrategyGroupwereviewedasvery positive (coming under the auspices of Education) and although notoriginating from the Steering Group, the PDW was involved. Generally, theseeventswere seenaspositiveopportunities to findoutabout the rolesof otheragencies(andworkerswithinthem)andpromotionofinter‐agencywork.2.29 Some respondents questioned the emphasis given to ‘parenting’indicatingthatawiderapproachwasrequiredforfamilieswhodidn’tengagewithservices,inordertoinvolvepeopleindifferentactivitiestoestablishcontact;withparentingfollowingthatengagement.Asonerespondentnoted:

‘If a family is in chaos, there needs to be initialwork before they canlookatparenting’.

2.30 HoweverthispointdidappeartobecentraltoSteeringGroupmembers’views – perhaps indicating a difficulty in communication rather than sharedpriorities.2.31 The distinction between universal and targeted services was alsoacknowledged.TheStrategy(p3)notes:

‘The targeted use of scarce parenting resources will be significantlyinfluencedbytheimpactofuniversalservicesintheirdaytodaycontactwith parents (both actual and prospective’. As one Steering Groupmember noted:Wewant to get rid of the stigma andmake theworkrelevanttoallparents’.

2.32 The Council had provided funding (2006‐2008) to support theimplementation of the Parenting Strategy and increased capacity required todeliver parenting services (including the post of PDW and associated costs).However,thetime‐limitsonthisfundingclearlyhavebroaderimplicationswhichhave led to future uncertainty. Lack of clarity about funding sources moregenerallyandfortheLCNsinparticularhadcausedproblems.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 24

2.33 Itwasnotedthattheremovalofring‐fencedfundingcouldbeproblematicforagencies–intermsofpotentialconflictandcompetitionforlimitedresources.The post of PDW has secured an additional year’s funding to support thedevelopmentof theactionplanandparenting sub‐groups inplace ineachLCN.Thiswasconsideredimportantinensuringthatparentingissuesdidnotgoontothe‘backburner’again.

Developmentofdirectparentingwork2.34 The reports provided by the PDW for Steering Groupmeetings and theminutes of these meetings indicated that progress had been made towardsprovisionofservicesontheground.

TheLCNbasedparentingsubgroupshadformulatedActionPlanswhichwerereviewedeverythreemonthsusingSMARTobjectives;fundsweremadeavailabletoprogresstheworkwhichLCNswereusingindifferentways, for example four areas had commissioned Parenting NetworkScotland to run group‐based courses for parents entitled ‘ParentingMatters’ and Getting on with Your Teenager, two other areas wererunninghalfdaycoachingcourses‘HelpingourChildren’,twoareaswererunning practical courses as a way of engaging parents around thethemes of cooking and outdoor skills (in partnershipwith the Forestrycommission)andinoneareatheCommunityLearningandDevelopmentteamwasundertakingpre‐parentingcourses.

A pilot parenting programme, using the ESCAPE model, had beenundertakenwithagroupofparentswhoseyoungpeoplewereknowntotheYouthJusticeteam;thiswasledjointlybythePDWandamemberofstafffromtheYouthJusticeteam;

Links had been made with Transition events and Parents’ Nights atschools, and Parent Information Points had been established in threeareas;Parent Informationevents,not linked to schools,hadalso beenheld in threeareas; therewas considered somepotential tohelp staffinvolved in Home School Link work and Solution Orientated work inordertodeveloptheparentingworkelementoftheirrole;

Family fun and learning days had taken place in two areas; theseincludedinformationstandsandactivitiesaimedatparentsandchildren

Meetings had been heldwith representatives from voluntary agenciessuchasHomeStartandYouthActiontoidentifyspecificprovisionneeds.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 25

Impactandsuccess2.35 SteeringGroupmembersacknowledgedthatmuchoftheprogressmadeinrelationtoparentingwouldbeunlikelytoshowbenefitsintheshort‐termanddevelopments often needed to becomeembeddedbefore any impact could beidentified. However, theFramework forparentingworkprovidedan importantcontext for ensuring that developments took place within a broader context.Measuring any impact of the strategic developments on professionals, parentsandyoungpeoplewouldrequirealonger‐termoverview.Otherexternalchangesanddevelopmentswerealsolikelytohaveanimpactmakingitdifficulttoidentifywherethekernelofchangehadoriginated.2.36 NPDP had indicated to the Steering Group that they would identify ameasurement/tool which could be used to evaluate the strategy. This toolprovidesa framework fora rapidassessmentexercise,developedby theFamilyand Parenting Institute specifically for the monitoring of progress of localparentingsupportstrategies.Thisexercise,involvingSteeringGroupmembers,isduetotakeplaceonMay1st2008andaimstomonitorprogress inareaswhichinclude partnerships and resources, policy and strategy. One respondentacknowledgedthatprogressshouldbeviewedasa‘journey’withaneedtokeepworking towards objectives. Achieving a better outlook for young people andfamilies,itwassuggested,couldbereachedbyafocusonhigh‐levelaims,ratherthanallowingagenciestoremain intheirown‘silo’s’. ThiswaswherethePDWrole was seen as beneficial – in encouraging agencies to work together andsupportingdevelopments.2.37 For one respondent, success could be viewed by the following

achievements:

‘We’veseenthestrategy launchedandthereareparentingsub‐groupsinalltheLCNareas.There’sapractitionersgroupandthetrainingplanshave been well received. We are bringing the strands together andcohesivenessiscoming.Thereisabaselineforpracticebutthenext12monthswillbekey’.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 26

KeyPoints TheParentingStrategywasconsideredtobeontrack;theinitialworkofthe

SteeringGrouphad largely focusedonthedevelopmentandpromotionofthe strategyand therewasnowa senseofmoving into thenextphaseofdelivery.

The Parenting Steering Group was able to set priorities for the work but

therewerebarriersinrelationtorepresentationfromsomeagenciesandinsome aspects of communication; in addition, progress was at timesconsidered to be hampered by lengthy discussions reflecting differentperspectivesofthework;

Indications were that slow but steady progress was being made in

developing multi‐agency cohesion which would lead to long‐termcollaborativeservices;

Therewereindicationsthatparentingworkwithfamilieswasdevelopingin

alllocalareas,accordingtotheneedsidentifiedbyagenciesinvolved; TrainingprovisionwasonefocusfortheSteeringGroupanditwasseenas

important that high quality training was available for practitioners withongoingconsistentsupport;thisunderpinnedthedevelopmentofparentingpractitioners groups within local areas aimed at supporting practitionersandinfluencingdirectworkwithparents;

Ingeneral,theroleofthePDWwasgreatlyvaluedandwasseenascentral

in planning, implementation and keeping the focus on parenting work;however,therewassomelackofclarityaboutthePDW’srole,bothwithinthe Steering Group and in relation to its community‐wide aspects, whichcouldbeaddressedbyrestatingorredefiningtheroleandremit;

Intermsoffuturedevelopments,therewasseentobeacontinuedneedfor

a co‐ordinatingor leadofficer topromote integratedworkingand supportdevelopments.

Theproject’sroleinhelpingtoestablishandthenfacilitatingtheworkofthe

steeringgroupenabledthepolicyrequirementforintegratedandcollaborativemulti‐agencyworkingtobeprogressed.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 27

3. CASESTUDYTWO:DIRECTPARENTINGWORK

Introduction3.1 This case study focuses on the direct parenting delivery work of NPDPwithin one local authority area. It highlights the project’s role in progressingnational policy requirements for improvements in the delivery of children’sservicesandfurtheringthegovernment’svisionforchildreninScotland.Thisroleincluded the facilitation of cross agency collaboration in a range of aspects ofparentingwork,theprovisionofstructuredprogrammeworktosupportandbuildthe capacity of parents of teenagers, for whom there had been a dearth ofservices,andthedevelopmentofinformationresourcesgivingparentsenhancedaccesstoadviceandavenuesforassistance.3.2 A Parenting Development Worker (PDW), employed by the NPDP andfundedbymoniesfromthelocalauthority,hadbeenbasedwithinthesocialworkdepartment in this area sinceMay 2005. The postwas created following initialwork in the area by NPDPwhich involvedmapping existing parenting services,assistingtheauthorityandpartneragencieswithstrategicplanningofparentingservices, co‐ordination of training and the direct delivery of parentingprogrammestogetherwithlocalauthoritystaff1.3.3 TheworkundertakenbythecurrentPDWcanbedescribedbroadlywithinthefollowingareas:

Deliveryofparentingprogrammeswithstafffromarangeofagencies; Consultancy and coordination of staff development in aspects of

workingwithparents; Developmentofinformationandresourcesaboutparenting; Contributing to the strategic development and planning of parenting

services. 3.4 Thiscasestudy isprimarilyconcernedwithevaluatingthedirectdeliveryofparentingwork;howeverthiswillbetakeninawidercontextandwillinclude

1AfulldescriptionoftheinitialstagesoftheworkcanbefoundintheFinalEvaluationReportofthefirstphaseoftheproject(2006).


www.sccjr.ac.uk 28

theotheraspectsofthePDWrole,suchasdirectworkwithprofessionalstaffinthepromotionanddevelopmentofparenting‐relatedworkandtheprovisionofinformationandresourcestobothstaffandparentsthemselves.ThePDW’srolewithin the strategic planning of parenting services will be briefly outlined asrelevantbutnotcentraltothispartoftheevaluation.

Evolution

Firststage(October–December2005):3.5 Prior to the current PDW taking up her post in October 2005, the firstpostholdercollatedtheauditsofexistingparentingservicesbeingundertakenbyotheragenciestoidentifygapsinprovision.ThefirstthreemonthsofthePDWspostwasprimarilyconcernedwith:preparingforthedeliveryofprogrammestoindividuals and groups of parents and networking with partner agencies toascertainhowparentingworkcouldbeusefullydevelopedwithinthebroadaimsand objectives of the Parenting Strategy being devised by the multi‐agencyParentingSteeringGroup.

Secondstage(January–June2006):3.6 Themainfocusofthisstagewasthedeliveryofthefirstparentinggroupwith a colleague from the Youth Justice team and parenting programme workwithindividualfamilies,insomecasesco‐workingwithstafffromotheragencies.Consultationtookplacewithanumberofpractitionersaboutparentingworkwithspecific families, staff development workshops were arranged and a parentingresourcelibraryestablished.

Thirdstage(July2006–December2007):3.7 During this period there has been consolidation and rolling out of thedeliveryworkofparentingprogrammeswithmore individual familiesand threeadditionalgroupsofparents.Oneofthesegroupswasledbystafffrompartneragencies and did not include the PDW directly and one involved parallel workwith young people whose parents were attending a group programme. Inaddition,anumberofdevelopmentswereprogressedasaresultofcontactwithstaff from a range of agencies through the direct delivery work and throughinvolvementwiththeParentingSteeringGroup.Thesearedescribed inthenextsection.ThestrategicplanningworkprogressedwithadraftstrategyandactionplanbeingputinplacebytheSteeringGroup;thisoccurredataslowerpacethanhadbeenfirsthoped.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 29

TheEvolutionoftheWorkStage1:Preparationandnetworkinginordertoprogress://\\DirectdeliveryTraining&InformationStrategic(groupwork&individual)Consultancy&resourcesplanning//\\Stage2:initialgroupandtrainingworkshopresourcemaintainindividualworkonengagementlibrarymomentum//\\Stage3:jointworkingWorkwithschoolsParentInfoDraftStrategy

&rolloutEarlyYearsandPointsinschools&ActionPlanCommunityKinshipcareLearning&InformationpacksDevelopment‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Factorsinfluencingtheevolutionoftheparentingwork3.8 The parentingwork in this area evolved as a result of a combination offactors:

The work was developed in a way which fitted within the broaddefinitionoftheaimsandobjectivesoftheparentingstrategy;

specificlocalneedwasaddressed,throughdiscussionwithpractitionersandSteeringGroupmembers;

thePDWprogressedtheworkusingherexperienceandideasabouthowworkwithinspecificareasmightbedeveloped;

workwas‘rolledout’inasustainableway,thatinvolvedpassingontheskillsrequiredfordirectprogrammedeliverytobeundertakenbystaffacrossarangeofagencies.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 30

THERANGEOFTHEWORK

Deliveryofparentingprogrammes3.9 Thekeyfeatureofthedeliveryofprogrammesworkwithparentswasthatitshouldfollowasustainabilitymodel,whereexpertiseinfacilitatingprogrammeswouldcascadefromthePDWtostaffacrossagenciesthroughcollaborativework.Threeparentingprogrammes(ESCAPE)offeringstructuredsupportforparentsofteenagersweredeliveredplusaparallelgroupwhichworkedwithyoungpeoplewhose parents were attending a parenting programme. Three of these groupswere co‐led by the PDW; the otherwas led by amember of the Youth JusticeTeam,whohadpreviously ledagroupwith thePDW,and ran iton the secondoccasion with an Integration Team staff member, thus furthering the aim of‘rolling‐out’ the work. Parenting programme work also took place with tenfamiliesonanindividualbasis.3.10 Theparentingprogrammedeliveryworkentailed:

Promotionoftheprogrammewithreferralsbeingacceptedfromarangeof agencies including the Youth Justice team, Integration team, FamilyPlacementTeam,andChildrenandFamiliessocialworkteam.

Aminimumoftwoassessmentsessionswitheachfamily,plus, inmostcases, the use of pre and post programme measurement tools andindividualgoalsfortheworksetandreviewed.

Planning and delivery of eight to ten programme sessions, with theproductionofreportsfromeachsession.

Afollow‐upvisit,inmostcases,tocompletemeasurementtoolresults. Obtaining feedback fromparticipantsandcollationofmaterial suchas

measurementtoolresultstoinformprogrammeevaluation.3.11 The PDW has written guidelines outlining the processes involved inprogrammedeliveryfortheuseoffacilitators.3.12 Keyfeaturesofthedirectprogrammedeliverywork:

Both groupwork and individual programme deliverywere undertakenjointly with staff from partner agencies including Youth Justice,IntegrationTeamstaffandCommunityLearningandDevelopment.

The work was person‐centred and was conducted individually withfamilieswheregroupworkwasnotappropriate.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 31

Theworkfocussedonfamilieswithyoungpeoplewhowereconsideredtobeparticularlyvulnerableintermsofoffending,substancemisuseorwherefamilybreakdownwasasignificantpossibility.

Theprogrammeaimedtohelpparentsunderstandtheiryoungpeople’sbehaviour, improve communication with them, enhance theirconfidenceinparentingandsetrealistictargetsforchange,forexampleinrelationtoboundary‐settingandgivingconsistentmessages.

Theprogrammecontentwasinteractiveandinclusive;itfeaturedgroupdiscussion and exercises and focused on encouraging participants’strengthsandmutualsupport.

Consultancyandcoordinationoftraining3.13 The PDW provided consultancy on approximately 327 occasions to staffmembersacross25agencies,both localandnational; this included staff fromatotalof40teamsorareasofworkwithintheseagencieswhichrangedfromsocialworkandhealthtocommunitydevelopment.Insomecasesthisinvolvedgeneralinformation sharing, in others it involved case consultancywith staffwhowereworkingwith individualfamiliesusingstructuredparentingworkand inothersitincludedsomedegreeofjointworking,forexampleinundertakingassessmentorofferingadviceandsupportastheworkprogressed.3.14 Areascoveredincludedthefollowing:

Involvementwith the Early Years service involved the PDW running aSleep Workshop with staff and parents; she has been asked to runanothersessioninanotherareaasthefirstwaswellreceived.

ThePDWwasconsultedbystaffataprimaryschoolwhereagroupofP4pupilswerebeingdisruptivewithaviewtoprovidingadviceastohowtoengage and provide group work support for the children and theirparents.

Community Learning and Development approached the PDW on aconsultationbasisforhelpwithengagingfamilieswithteenagersaboutparentingissues.

Training workshops undertaken included one run jointly with HealthPromotion staff as part of their continuing professional developmentprogrammeonWorkingandEngagingwithParents.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 32

Informationandresourcedevelopment3.15 ThePDWinitiatedtheinclusionofParentInformationPoints,involvingthesetting up of a multi‐agency parenting marketplace offering information andsupport to parents at a Transition Evening at a local High School. Therewas apositive response from parents and from the school, with 47 parentalquestionnaires received as a result. Thiswill continue to be a feature of futureTransition Evenings and a proposal has been submitted to the Head Teachers’Groupforittoberolledouttoschoolsacrossallclusters.3.16 ThePDW isamemberof theKinshipCareWorkingGroupandhasbeeninvolved indevelopmentstosupportkinshipcarers. This includedtakinga leadroleinarrangingaKinshipCareInformationeventandsubsequentlycontributingtoanewsletter forthisgroup.ThePDWcontinuestodevelopher linkswiththeFamily Placement Team and the staff member who has a role in supportingkinshipcarers.3.17 AsaresultofregularrequestsbyChildrenandFamiliessocialworkstafftoprovide advice about parenting teenagers, the PDW produced an informationpackwhichsheiscontinuingtodevelopwiththelocalauthorityPublicityOfficer.ThePDWhasalsohelpedtodevelop,andcontributedto,theParentingsectionofthe local authority websitewhich includes advice for parents of teenagers anduseful links forparentstoaccess informationfromarangeofparentingsupportorganisations. Inaddition,a libraryof resources relating toparentingworkhasbeen established by the PDW; this is available to staff across all agencieswithwhichshehascontact.

Strategicdevelopmentandplanning3.18 The PDW has a key role on themulti‐agency Parenting Steering Group.Her remit includes the promotion of parenting work and contributions to theprogressoftheparentingstrategy.ThePDWisalsoamemberoftheSupportingVulnerable Parents Project Strategy Group and the Family Group ConferencingDevelopmentGroup.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 33

FINDINGS

ThedeliveryofparentingprogrammesFamilycharacteristics3.19 Twenty seven families participated in structured parenting programmework from early 2006 until February 2008 as shown in Chart 1. Seventeenfamiliestookpartingroupbasedworkand10undertookindividualworkinwhichthePDWwasdirectlyinvolved.Atotalof36parents/carerstookpart,thegenderdivisionbetweenparents/carerwasapproximately2:1with25beingfemaleand11male.Chart1:Characteristicsofparticipants

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

couples lone

parents

other

relatives

male

female

3.20 Thetotalnumberofchildrenfromthesefamilieswas58,with32ofthesebeing teenagers who had been specifically referred. Fourteen of these youngpeople took part in parallel work on an individual or group basis, with eightcompleting the sessions.With theexceptionof fouryoungpeople,allof the32referred were living at home, this includes two young people who were livingwith kinship carers; of those who were not living at home, three were atresidential schooland onehad lefthomeandwas living independently. All theyoungpeoplelivingathomewhowereofschool‐agewereinmainstreamschoolswhiletwowerepost‐schoolage,oneofwhomwasattendingcollege.3.21 A detailed form including referral information, attendance records and,where available, information about outcomes obtained from referringworkers,programmefacilitatorsandparentsthemselveswascompletedforeachfamily.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 34

Referralinformation3.22 Referralsweremade primarily by local authority staffmemberswith 11referralscomingfromtheYouthJusticeTeamandninefromtheIntegrationTeamwhoarepartofEducationservices.TwofurtherreferralscamefromChildrenandFamiliessocialworkteams,onefromtheCommunityAdolescentMentalHealthTeamandtwofromvoluntaryagencies;therewasnoinformationaboutreferralsource for two families who attended the groupwithwhich the PDWwas notdirectlyinvolved.3.23 The service requested for these families for the most part includedassessment;eightreferralsdidnotincludethisbutitwasofferedandundertaken.In 17 cases groupworkwas requested and provided and in 10 cases individualworkwas undertaken. In the case of two families, it became clear that groupworkwasnotthebestoptionforthefamilyandworkcontinuedonanindividualbasis.3.24 Reasons for referral for this work were defined in relation to parentsneedsandtherisksidentifiedforyoungpeople.Thepresentingissues,takenfromalistofoptions,mostfrequentlycitedbyprogrammeleaderswhocompletedtheformforeachfamilywere:

familyrelationshipissues(20families); lowselfconfidenceinabilitytoparent(23families); healthissues(7families); problematicsubstanceusebyparent(4families);

3.25 AsTable1illustrates,13youngpeoplewereidentifiedashavingthreeormoreriskanddifficultyfactors(fromalistof14);afurther17youngpeoplewereseenashavingoneortwoareasofdifficultyandno risk factorswerenotedforthreeoftheyoungpeople.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 35

Table1:Risksidentifiedforyoungpeople

Young person risk factor 1



Young people: total risks

alcohol misuse

19 1 20

drug misuse 5 5 10

self harm 1 1

learning difficulties 1 1

physical disability 1 1

Offending 7 12 3 22

loss/bereavement 5 5 10

emotional abuse 2 3 5

Neglect 2 2

Current or past Child Protection registration

4 4

Table2:Schooldifficulties

Young people school difficulties

None 4 Exclusions 4 Truancy 3 Truancy & exclusions 17 n/a (over school age) 2

3.26 Inaddition,itwasidentifiedthat:

28 of the 32 young people for whom informationwas availableweredescribedasdisplayingangryand/oraggressivebehaviour,nineofthese28youngpeoplehadalsodisplayedviolentbehaviour.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 36

3.27 Young people’s strengths or protective factors, taken from a resilienceframework,werealsoidentifiedandindicatedthat:

Mostoftheyoungpeoplewereabletocountonthesupportofanadultand peer familymember, plus a professional worker and had at leastonefriend;

Half theyoungpeoplehada secure livingbaseandwerepopularwiththeirpeers.

3.28 However, few young people were reported as having goodcommunicationandproblem‐solvingskillsandveryfewshowedevidenceofself‐esteemorinvolvementinhobbies.Parentingprogrammeattendance3.29 Parental attendance and participation at both one to one assessmentsessionsandat theprogrammesessions,whetherundertaken individuallyoraspartofagroup,wererecordedandcollated.Ratesofattendanceweregenerallyfairlyhighandwereasfollows:

Assessment sessions: 19 parents/carers (or couples) attended allsessions as planned, three attended almost all the sessions, threeattendedlessthanplannedandonedidnotparticipateatall;

Programme sessions: four parents/carers (or couples) attended all thesessions, 15 attended nearly all sessions missing only two or threesessionsoftheeightorinsomecasestheninescheduled,fiveattendedlessthanhalfthesessionsandtwofailedtoattendanysessions.

3.30 Therewas no information reported about attendance in relation to onefamily.3.31 The reasons cited for non‐attendance included illness, unexpectedworkcommitments,andtransportdifficulties,onefamilyceasedattendingbecauseoffamily breakdown and four others ceased to attend for reasons that were notascertained. In one case, workwas continued with the family on an individualbasis. Non‐attendance and reasons for this were always followed up by groupleadersasfaraspossible.Impactoftheworkonindividualfamilies3.32 The impact of the parenting work was measured using the followingmethods:


www.sccjr.ac.uk 37

goalstobeachievedbyundertakingtheworkweresetandreviewed; accredited toolsnamelyTheFamilyGrid,and in twocases, Strength&

DifficultiesQuestionnaireswereusedtomeasureimpact; referringorkeyworkersprovidedsummaryprogressreports; telephone interviews with referring workers as to the impact of the

workwereconductedbyresearchers.

3.33 The six families for whom there was no information available allparticipated in the group which was not led by the PDW. This highlights thedifficultiesofevaluatingworkwhichisnotdirectlyunderthecontrolofthePDW.3.34 Some degree of improvement or progress towards stated goals wasrecordedfor15ofthe21familiesforwhominformationwasavailable.Inthecaseofsixfamilies,itwasconsideredthatidentifiedgoalshadbeenfullymetwhileforninefamilies,thegoalswererecordedashavingbeenpartiallymet;inthecaseofthelatter,someimprovementwasconsideredtohavetakenplaceacrossallthegoals.3.35 Thegoalswhichthefamiliesandtheirkeyworkersidentifiedasimportantandtowardswhichmanymadesignificantorsomeprogressweretypicallyinthefollowingareas:

improvedcommunicationbetweenparentsandyoungpeople enhancedabilitytosetbehaviourboundaries acalmerapproachtodealingwithfamilyconflict morerespectshowntofamilymembers improvedconfidenceinparenting sharedfamilyrules

3.36 In some cases, the stated goals directly identifiedways inwhich youngpeople’sbehaviourorparticulardifficultiesmightbeaddressedasaresultoftheinfluenceoftheworkonparentalapproaches.Thosewhichfeaturedincluded:

improvedschoolattendance/reductioninexclusionfromschool youngpersontakingmoreresponsibilityfortheiractions youngpersonandtheirparentundertakingsharedactivities.

Interviewswithreferringworkers3.37 The interviews with referring workers and reports from key workers(relating to 15 of the 21 families), offeredmore detailed information as to theimpact of the work. It was considered that offending and referrals to theChildren’sHearinghadceasedorbeenreducedinatleastfivecases,thatschool


www.sccjr.ac.uk 38

exclusionshasceasedtobeanissueintwocases,thattherehadbeensignificantimprovementsinparent/youngpersoncommunicationinsixcases.Parentswereconsideredtobemoreconfidentinsettingboundariesinatleastfourcases.Onereferringworkerexpressed theview that theworkhadaffected ‘amove in therightdirection,whichwassignificantgiventhefamily’sentrencheddifficulties’.3.38 Two referring workers stated that improvements in the ways that thefamilies were managing were solely attributable to the parenting programmework and that it had engaged the parents inways that had not been achievedbefore.

‘I was addressing offending behaviour with two of the girls from thisfamily butwithout the intensive familywork by the PDWtherewouldnothavebeensuchasuccessfuloutcomeasboththegirlsarenowoffsupervisionandthefamilyarenowabletomanagetheirownsituationwithoutintervention’(Referringworker).

3.39 Four respondents believed that the programme work had played animportantpart,butthat itwasdifficulttoseparatetheeffectsoftheworkfromthat of the other supports and interventions in place. Three of the reportsdescribed theways inwhichparentshadbeenencouraged toparticipate in theworkbuthadfailedtoengageinthis,usuallybynotmakingthemselvesavailable.Inoneofthesecases,theyoungpersonhadstartedtoattendschoolagainanditwas thought that might be the reason for the parent not continuing with thework.3.40 TheFamilyGridmeasurementtool,whichmeasureschangespreandpostintervention in parents’ self‐esteem and positive or negative attitude towardstheir partner and young people, was completed for 11 families; the results forseven of these families reflected increased self‐esteem and a more positiveattitude towards their young people. Three families obtained mixed results, intwoofthesecasesreflectinganincreaseinself‐esteembutalesspositiveattitudetowardstheyoungpeopleandinonecaseadecreaseinself‐esteembutamorepositiveattitudetowardstheiryoungperson.Thefacilitators felt thattherewassomeconfusionamongstparentsabouthowtocompletethemeasurementformaccuratelyandthattheresultsmightnottrulyreflecttheprogressmade.3.41 Pre and post intervention results of the Strengths and DifficultiesQuestionnairewereavailablefor fivefamilies,withpositiveresults indicatedfortwo families and mixed results for three families ‐ that is that there wereimprovementsinsomeareasandnotothers.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 39

3.42 Theprogrammefacilitatorsobservedthattheimpactonmostparticipantshadbeento:

increaseparents’confidenceintheirabilitiesandinpersistingwithnewstrategiestocopewithdifficulties;

helpthemprioritisetheimportantissuesandnotgetcaughtupinminordisagreementswiththeiryoungpeople;

make them feel less negative about their young people andcommunicatewiththeminamorepositiveway.

3.43 However,itwasfeltthatforsomefamilies,theparentingworkwouldbemoreeffectiveif ittookplacebeforedifficultiesbecameentrenched.Inaddition,itwas considered important thatparents recognised that therewasaproblem;oneparentwasdescribedasunabletoworkonherdifficultiesbecauseshehadnotacknowledgedthem.Feedbackfromparentsandyoungpeople3.44 A total of eight parents/ carers who had participated in parentingprogramme work were interviewed; one had undertaken the work on anindividualbasisandtheotherswereaselectionfromacrossthethreegroups.Inaddition, evaluation sheets completed by participants at the end of theprogrammeweremadeavailabletotheresearchers.3.45 Most of the parents/carers who were interviewed were positive aboutundertaking a parenting programme and most expressed a willingness to tryanything thatwould help resolve difficultieswith their young people; only twoexpressed some apprehension and one stated that she felt shocked at beingreferredforaparentingprogramme,butsubsequentlyrevisedheropinion.Mostoftheintervieweescouldidentifyspecificissuesthattheyhopedtheworkwouldaddress, for example, setting reasonable boundaries, understanding teenager’sviewpoints and behaviour, finding ways of improving communication with andbecomingclosertotheiryoungpeople.3.46 Theparents/carerswereallabletorecallatleastsomeofthesessionsonthecourse,eventhoughtheyhadundertakenitseveralmonthsbefore.Sessionsthat interviewees mentioned included discussions about their own upbringing,peer group pressure, young people’s perspectives, handling conflict and beingmorepositivewithyoungpeople.Mostoftheparentswereabletogiveexamplesofwaysinwhichtheyputsomeoftheideasandstrategiesfromthecourseintopractice, for example, praising young people, talking issues over calmly andexpectingyoungpeopletotakeresponsibilityforthemselves.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 40

‘I was putting things into practice – being consistent, sticking todiscipline and carrying things out as I said. Itwas good to get supporteachweekthatIwasdoingtherightthing,thatmyrulesandgroundingmysonwereacceptable’(Programmeparticipant).

3.47 In terms of the impact of the course, parents/carers generally felt thattherehadbeenalastingimpactinrelationto:

Improvedcommunicationwithyoungpeople; Consistencyinstickingtorulesandsanctions Increasedconfidenceinparenting; Approachingproblemswithacalmerattitudeandmanner; Improvementsinyoungpeople’sattitudesandbehaviour.

‘Itdefinitelyhadaverypositiveeffect;wedon’targuesomuch,wearemorerelaxedwitheachotherandwetalkalotmoreandinbetterways.ItwasoneofthebestthingsIdid’(Programmeparticipant).

3.48 Twoof the interviewees stated that someof the strategieshadgonebythe board once the work had finished and some difficulties were still beingexperienced in relation to young people, however they noted that they hadretainedsomeofthe learningfromtheworkandthishadmadeadifferencetofamilylife.3.49 All the participants expressed the view that the supportive and non‐judgmentalapproachoftheprogrammefacilitatorshadmadethemfeelpositiveaboutattendingandthosewhoundertooktheworkaspartofagroupallfoundthemutualsupportofgroupmembersverybeneficial.

‘Ittookawaythefeelingofdespair.Ihadfeltterribleattimes.Wecouldencourageeachotherandsaytoeachotherthatthingswillgetbetter.Itwasachancetotalkaboutthedifficultiesandmulloverthegoodandbadthingsthathadhappened’(Programmeparticipant).

3.50 In addition to this, other factors which helped parents engage wereopportunities tomeet group leaders and get to know them over two to threesessionsbefore thegroup started;and the informaland relaxedatmosphere inwhichthegroupwasdelivered.Oneparentstatedthatallgroupmembersweremade to feel important and the small numbers were important for discussingmattersofa personalnature. Twoparticipants commented that itwould havebeen useful to have the inputwhen the young peoplewere younger as it was


www.sccjr.ac.uk 41

harder to change when inconsistency has been a feature of parenting for anumberofyears.3.51 The feedback forms completed by participants reflected their positiveviews of the course content and approach and gave examples of the ways inwhichtheirchildren’sbehaviourandtheirrelationshipwiththemhadimproved.3.52 Feedback fromprogramme leadersandyoungpeoplewhoattended theParallelLinesgroupwhichranalongsideoneofthegroupsforparentswasmadeavailabletotheresearchers.Attendanceatthegroupwasirregularbutitwasfeltthat overall five of the 10 young people who were accepted onto the groupengagedwellandtheProgrammeSatisfactionQuestionnairescompletedbythreeyoung people were positive. The learning from the experience of leading thisgroupwasoutlinedinareportwrittenbythePDW,availablethroughtheNPDP.

‘Ifoundthegroupveryhelpfulandithasmadeadifferencetothingsathome – things have improved’ (Young person attending Parallel Linesprogramme).

PartnershipagenciesfeedbackonthewideraspectsoftheparentingworkJointwork,consultancyandprovisionofinformation/resources3.53 The observations of six staff members, including two managers, fromacross three statutory agencies, on the contribution of the PDW to the broadaspectoftheworkwerecollatedandthefollowingbenefitsidentified:

advice, knowledge and support in parenting work was immediatelyaccessibleandgreatlyenhancedtheexpertiseofstaff;

the PDW offered support to develop a more consistent but flexibleapproachtodeliveringindividualparentinginput;

the PDWwas able to advise in the assessmentof individual parentingskillsanddeficits;

the PDW’s lead role in facilitating or offering advice in planning anddeliveringprogrammeworkwasinvaluable;

resources and information for staff in ways to support parents werereadilyavailable;

access to and reinforcement of training in parenting work was animportantelementofthePDWrole;

thePDWhad responded to thegaps identified in theauditof servicesandrespondedtolocalneeds.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 42

‘The support of the PDW is a very valuable asset to the team and isgreatlyneededduetotherangeofneedspresentedbythefamilieswework with. Having a dedicated parenting worker has given us theknowledgeandsupportinprovidingacomprehensiveservicetofamilies,which isdesigned tomeet their individualneeds.Without this supportwewouldbelessabletoprovidesuchahighstandardoftargetedfamilywork’(StaffmemberwhoundertookjointworkwithPDW).

3.54 TheroleofthePDWincombiningadvice,knowledgeandsupportwiththeavailability to undertake joint direct delivery work was considered particularlybeneficial. It was seen as crucial to have access to a staffmemberwhose solefocuswasonparentingwork. Itwas considered that thePDWhadworked inawaywhichbalanceddevelopmentworkwithserviceprovision,therebyhelpingtomeettheaimsofthelocalparentingstrategy.

‘Rollingout’theprogrammedelivery3.55 A central aim of the parenting work in this area was to ‘roll out’ thelearning and experience of undertaking programme work to enable it to besustainedinfutureandnotlimittheexpertisewithintheremitofoneindividualstaff member, that is the PDW. One of the staff members who facilitated the‘rolledout’programmewasinterviewedandthefollowingpointsemerged:

thetimerequiredforrunningthegroup,includinghomevisitstoparentsbefore and after the group and for completion of paperwork, wasunderestimated and ismore apparentwhen the PDW,who hasmorededicatedtime,isnotdirectlyinvolvedinrunningthegroup;

the accessible and on‐going support and advice of the PDWwas veryuseful;

the ESCAPE programme assessment form was used, rather than themoredetailedonedevisedbyNPDP;theFamilyGridmeasurementtoolwas not considered to be user‐friendly and in some cases was notcompletedbyfamilies,whowereaskedtodosowithoutsupport fromworkers,whoreportedthatthiswasduemainlytotimeconstraints;

itwasrecognisedthatreferringworkerscouldbemoreinvolvedwiththeprocess andways found to facilitate feedback between group leadersandreferringworkersastothe impactonparentsduringandafterthegroup.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 43

Strategicdevelopmentofparentingwork3.56 ThePDW’scontributiontothedevelopmentoftheparentingstrategyandherroleasamemberofthemulti‐agencyParentingSteeringGroupwasdescribedbytwosteeringgroupmembers.TherangeandthemainelementsofthePDW’srole appeared to be clearly understood. The feedbackwhichwas offeredwasthat:

the PDWhad fullymet the expectations of all aspects of her role andremit;

thePDWhadandwouldcontinuetohaveacentral role inprogressingallaspectsoftheparentingstrategy;

thePDW’sdedicatedfocushadcontributedexpertisetothegroupand,intheopinionofonemember, itwouldbehardtoseehowthegroupwouldhavemanagedwithoutthis;

theSteeringGrouphadnotoperatedaseffectivelyashadbeenhoped,althoughithadrecentlybecomemorecohesive,butthePDWhadhadamajorroleintryingtodeveloptheworkofthegroup.

‘ThePDWhashadadrivingrolewithparentingissuesandassistedwiththeirstrategicdevelopment.TheSteeringGrouphasseniorpeopleinitbutthePDWhasherown ideasanduseful informationtoofferusandworks within the Steering Group, bringing ideas for debate andagreement’(SteeringGroupmemberandServiceTeamLeader).

3.57 Adraftparentingstrategyandactionplan isnowinplace.However, thework the PDW had undertaken, across the spectrum of universal andpreventative services to more vulnerable families, meant that work within thebroadelementsofthestrategywerealreadywellunderway.

KeyIssuesfromtheParentingWork

Inter‐agencywork3.58 Allaspectsoftheparentingworkinthisareainvolvedclosecollaborationwith staff fromother agencies, ranging from thosewith statutory responsibilityforyoungpeopletothoseworking intheareasofcommunitydevelopmentandhealtheducation.ThePDWwasrequiredtoliaise,andinsomecasesundertakejoint work, with staff from these agencies and good, co‐operative workingrelationshipshaddeveloped.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 44

Keypoints HavinganofficebasewithintheYouthJusticeteamandincloseproximitytosocial

workteamsgavethePDWahighprofileandassistedthedevelopmentofthework,easedthereferralprocessandtheon‐goingliaisonaboutindividualcasework;

ThePDWwasabletomeettheneedsofpractitionersthroughinvolvement intheparenting aspects of work with individual families, either directly or as aconsultant,aswellasdeveloping thework inabroaderwayas envisagedby theparentingstrategy;

ThePDWpresentedherwork inawaythataimed tocomplimenttheworkbeingundertaken by the existing case worker, acknowledging their perspective andapproach,whilesuggestingwaysinwhichtheworkmightbedeveloped;

In developing the work, it was important to take account of the constraints onmany collaborating staff members in terms of competing work priorities; whileparentingworkwasconsideredimportant,staffwereoftennotallocatedsufficienttime to undertake it nor was always viewed uniformly in relation to strategicdevelopmentandplanning.

The collaborative nature of thework demonstrated a ‘good practice’ example ofintegratedworkingonthegroundandtherebyfurtheredtheaimofnationalpolicyobjectivesformulti‐agencyworkwithfamilies.

Sustainingand‘rolling‐out’thework3.59 AkeyaimoftheparentingworkundertakenbythePDWwastoenhancetheskillsandexpertiseofstaffacrossagenciesinordertoenabletheworktobesustainedandprogressed.Thiswassuccessfullyachieved,withstafffromseveralagencies undertaking group and individual parenting programme work withfamiliesandmanymoreparticipatingintraining.

Keypoints The accessibility of the PDW tooffer support and advice toworkers undertaking

programmeswithfamilies,especiallyintheinitialstages,wasseenasimportant; Individualand groupwork inwhich the PDWwasnotdirectly involvedwasoften

undertaken differently, due in part to time constraints but also to a lack ofrecognition of the need to evaluate andmeasure impact; for example, the timegiventoassessmentwassometimesshorter, insomecasestherewas lessfollow‐up and there was less information available as to impact on participants due togoals not being recorded and reviewed and measurement tools not beingcompleted;

The guidelines for running groupprogrammesbeingwrittenby the PDWaims topartly address the above issues; however, as the work is ‘rolled‐out’ the PDW’sabilitytoinfluencehowitisundertakenislessened;


www.sccjr.ac.uk 45

The lack of information about the impact of the work on some participants had

implications for thecurrent evaluationandwouldalsoapply toany futureoron‐goingevaluationofthework; thereisaneedforallmanagersandstaffwholeadprogrammes to recognise the importance of building in evaluation and impactmeasurement;

The ‘rollingout’modelofworkingwas effective inbuildingcapacity in staff skillsandexperience.

Goodpracticeandengagement3.60 The experience of undertaking the direct work with parents/carers hashighlighted a number of issues in relation to practice; in some instances theseconfirm the findings from the first phase of theNPDP evaluation, although thecircumstancesofparentsinsomecaseswerequitedifferent.

Keypoints It was considered important that parents were at a stage where they could

acknowledge family difficulties, reflect on the impact of their parenting style onyoungpeopleandbeopen tomakingchanges themselves, rather thanplacingalltheresponsibilityforchangeontheyoungpeople;

Parenting work can highlight very difficult issues for parents, for example inrelation totheirownearly livesandrelationshipsandworkersneedtobeabletoadopt a sensitive and flexible approach to the progress and structure of theprogrammework;

Positive engagement with parents during the early stages of the work is crucial;meetingparentsindividuallyandonmorethanoneoccasion,beingclearabouttheprogramme content and approach and starting to build a relationshipwith themmeans that they aremore likely to attend and, in the case of groupwork, onceintegratedhavemorechanceofcompletingallormostoftheprogramme;

A respectful and supportive approach by programme facilitators towardsparticipants, leading to open and trusting relationships being formed, is a crucialfactorinthepositiveimpactofthecourseonparents/carers;theimportanceofthequalityoftherelationshipbetweenthetwocannotbeoverstated.

3.61 In addition, indications from the evaluation suggest that parentingprogramme work should be available both as an element of early yearsintervention,aspartofuniversalprovisionbutalsoatstagesofayoungperson’slife when s/he are at their most vulnerable.. Additional resources might betargeted for those for whom the indications are that difficulties are likely todevelop.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 46

Useofmeasurementtools3.62 The use of standardisedmeasurement tools to assess the impact of theinterventionwas in evidence for just less than half the familieswhoundertookthe parenting work. There were clearly some issues about their use for bothfacilitators and parents, both in relation to how they were used and theirusefulness.

Keypoints In some cases, parents were expected to complete Family Grid forms without

assistanceandmanystruggledwiththistask,findingthemconfusing;thiswasdueto staff time constraints and lack of recognition of the role of the forms inprogrammeevaluation;furthermore,itwouldappearthatinsomeinstances,formswerenotfilledincorrectly,andthismayhaveskewedtheoverallresults;

OnlyasmallnumberofStrength&DifficultiesQuestionnaireswerecompletedpreand post intervention, although they were used in some additional cases as adiagnostic or assessment tool; these measurement tools may have a place inassessingimpactifusedcomprehensively;

Giventheabove,itisparticularlyimportantthatimpactis‘measured’inadditionalways,forexamplebytheuseofgoalsettingandreviewing,bycanvassingtheviewsofreferringworkersandparentsthemselves.

Strategicdevelopment3.63 Insomerespects,thestrategicdevelopmentofparentingworkinthisareahadnotproceededas initiallyenvisagedandtheworkoftheParentingSteeringGroup, for a number of reasons, had taken longer than planned to workeffectively. It is not the purpose of this case study, with its focus primarily ondirect deliverywork, to explore the reasons for this. SteeringGroupmemberswereclearthatthePDWhadplayedasignificantroleintryingtokeeptheworkofthegroupontrack.Inaddition,byprogressingawiderangeofparentingfocussedwork at practitioner level, the PDW had effectively helped to build thefoundations for the strategic workwhile also having a role in the provision ofservicestofamiliesandinenhancingtheskillsofstaffacrossarangeofagencies.

Keypoints Theroleofadedicatedparentingdevelopmentworkerisvaluableinincreasingthe

profile of thework and trying to keep a focus on strategic planning, particularlywhenthesteeringgroupworkisgoing‘offtrack’;

Strategicdevelopmentcanbeusefully informedbythedirectpracticeworkthat istaking place on the ground, thus demonstrating the important link betweenstrategyandpractice.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 47

While strategic planning is a crucial element in the development of integratedservices,collaborativeworkatpractitioner levelmaybean importantcomponentinbuildingtrustingrelationshipsacrossagencies.

PerformanceIndicators3.64 The work of the PDW in this area has contributed to the followingPerformanceIndicatorssetfortheproject:Project

Increasednumberofparentingprogrammesdelivered; Assistedinthedevelopmentofinter‐agencywork; Disseminated information about parenting work across a number of

agencies; Deliveredtrainingandenhancedskillsamongststaffacrossagencies; Contributedtothedevelopmentofstrategicplanningworkinparenting; Includedparentsandyoungpeople’sviewsaboutpracticeandservices.

ParentsPositiveoutcomesforparentsinclude:

Increasedawareness,skillsandconfidenceinparenting; Improvedparent/childcommunication&relationships; Enhanced skills in setting boundaries, handling conflict and positive

parentingstyles.YoungpeoplePositiveoutcomesforyoungpeopleinclude:

Improvedfamilycommunicationandrelationships; Reductionofanti‐socialbehaviourandoffending; Improvedschoolattendanceandreductioninexclusions; Reduction in number of referrals to the Reporter to the Children’s

Hearing.

ConcludingPoints3.65 Thecasestudyinthisareareflectsthewiderangeofworkundertakenbythe PDW under the umbrella of direct delivery work, while also including hercentral strategic role.Her remit toundertakedirectworkwith families, supportand advise other staffmembers in parentingwork, encourage the programmework to become sustainable and provide and develop training and information


www.sccjr.ac.uk 48

materialsinparentingworkhasclearlyprogressedeffectively.Theworkisseenasavaluablecomponentanddriverofparentingdevelopmentinthearea.Ithas:

Builtcapacityandsustainability,inrelationtostaffskillsandexperienceinparentingwork,acrossarangeofagencies,throughconsultation,staffdevelopmentand‘rollingout’programmework;

Addedtheprogressofintegratedworkingacrossagencies; Demonstrated the ways in which the practice of parenting work can

build the foundations for strategic development of services and theimportanceofthelinkbetweenthetwo.

Contributed to local agencies requirement to progress national policyobjectives inthedevelopmentof integratedservices for familieswhichoffered accessible support and opportunities to build capacity inparentingskills.

LongerTermImpactoftheParentingProgrammeWork3.66 The evaluation of the project over a period of five yearsmeant that, intheory, there could be potential tomake contact with families who undertookparenting programme work during the early stages and at subsequent periodsacross the life of the project, in order to assess whether the work had had alonger‐term impact on parenting styles and family relationships. Parents whowere interviewed were asked whether they would be willing to be contactedagain by researchers at a later date and all were in agreement. However, it isgenerallyacknowledgedthatinpracticethislongertermperspectiveisdifficulttoachieve for a range of reasons; people often change address, lose contactwithagencieswithwhomtheyhaveworkedor,ifcontactissuccessfullymade,decidethattheynolongerwishordonotfeelitisapriorityforthemtocontinuetobepartoftheresearchproject.3.67 Stepsweretakentotraceandcontactthreeparentswhohadundertakentheparentingprogrammework inSpring2004aspartof the first cohortwhichtookplacewithwomenaffectedbysubstanceuseresidinginanAberlourprojectinEdinburgh.Theseparentshadallbeen interviewedfortheFinalReportofthefirst phase of thework.Most recent addresseswere obtained through projectoutreachstaff;althoughtheynolongerhadformalcontactwiththewomentheywereallknowntobemanagingwellinrelationtotheirsubstanceuseandcareoftheirchildren,whichwaspositiveinitself.Letterswithpre‐paidreturnenvelopeswere sent and face‐to‐face or telephone interviews offeredwith flexible timesand dates, but no replies were received and one letter was returned, markedunknown at that address. In addition, attemptsweremade to contact parents


www.sccjr.ac.uk 49

whohad undertaken a parenting group inAberdeen inOctober 2005 andwhohad been interviewedby the researchers, but the staffwhoworkedwith themhadleftandtheparentscouldnotbetraced.3.68 Although it proved impractical to interview these parents who hadundertaken the work four or three years ago, it was however possible tointerviewparentswhohadundertaken theworkoneand twoyearspreviously;this offered some opportunity to see if the intervention had had a sustainableeffect. Threeparentswere interviewedwhohadparticipated inaprogrammeayearagoandonewhohaddonesonearlytwoyearsago.Oneoftheparentswhohadundertakentheworkayearagohaddonesoonanindividualbasistogetherwithherpartner;theothershadallundertakentheworkaspartofagroup.3.69 The parent who had undertaken the programme two years ago couldclearly remember, unprompted, the content of some sessions andwas able togiveexamplesofthese.Shewasalsoabletotalkaboutthewaysinwhichshewasstillsustainingsomeaspectsofthework,forexampleinfindingwaysofkeepingthelinesofcommunicationopenwithinthefamilyandtakingacalmerapproachto potentially contentious situations by sitting downwith her sons and talkingissuesthroughinordertotrytounderstandtheirviewpoint.Thisparentfeltthatthe parenting work had led to tangible differences and improvements for herfamily.

‘Ihaveseendifferences;mainlyasaresultoftheeffectithadonmeandthatwasdowntothegroupinthatitcausedmetoreactdifferentlytothem (the boys). Also the support I got from other parents and theleaders, their supportive approach, has had a lasting effect’ (Parentparticipant).

3.70 Theparentswhoparticipatedintheworkayearbeforewereaskedsimilarquestions.Allthreecouldremembertwoorthreesessionsfromtheworkinsomedetail without prompting; clearly the detail of these had stayed with thembecausethecontentwasparticularlypertinenttotheirsituation.

‘Welookedatascaleofwhatthey(theyoungpeople)weredoingthatwe didn’t like, such as keeping their bedrooms so untidy and themessage was you have to chose your arguments and only go for themajororlife‐threateningissues’(Parentparticipant).

3.71 Inrelationtowhatparentshadcontinuedtoputintopracticeasaresultofthework,allcouldreportthattheywerestillsustainingsomeofwhattheyhadlearntalthoughtwoadmittedthatsomethingshadgonebytheboard.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 50

‘Wedidafamilyagreementattheendandsaidhowwewantedthingsto be. Rules, such as more fun, more hugs, more listening and lessshouting.Westillhaveacopyofitontheboardandthoughsomethingshavegoneoutofthewindow,wearestilldoingsomethings’(Parent).

3.72 Alltheparentsstatedthattherehadbeensomelastingimprovementsfortheir family although twoof the parents reported someups and downs, partlyinfluenced by external circumstances such as a young person moving to aseparated partner’s home and a period of difficulty between a young personleavingschoolandfindingwork.Oneoftheseparents,however,feltthattheskillsshe had learnt at the group were useful for her in coping with two youngerteenagersinthefamily.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 51

4. CASESTUDYTHREE:PILOTPARENTINGPROGRAMMEWITHINH.M.PANDY.O.I.CORNTONVALE

Background4.1 TheNational ParentingDevelopment Project (NPDP) in partnershipwiththe prison Programmes Unit began to develop a pilot Parenting Programme inHMPandYOICorntonVale,Scotland’sonlydedicatedprisonforwomen,inApril2006. The introduction of this programme was preceded by a considerableamountofpreparatoryworkintermsofdiscussionsandliaisonwithprisonstaff.4.2 ThisprojectisuniqueinScotlandasitwasdevelopedtoworkspecificallywithwomenprisoners.ItisalsouniqueinapplyingforPrisonServiceApprovalasajointapproachbetweentheprisonandavoluntaryagency(theAberlourChildCareTrust).Themodelonwhichtheprojectisbasedisalsodistinctivei.e.asinotherNPDPparentingforums,emphasisisgiventoworkingalongsideotheragencies(inthiscaseprisonstaff)toaidtheirdevelopment,knowledge,experience,andskillsinparentingwork,anddrawsuponNPDPexperienceofworkingwithvulnerableindividuals.4.3 InundertakingthisworkthetwoagenciesaimedtodirectlyaddressnationalpolicyobjectivesasoutlinedinthedocumentHiddenHarm:NextSteps(ScottishExecutive,2006),indeedtheprogrammewasspecificallymentionedaspartofthereportactionplan.Theworkalsohelpedtomeetpolicycommitmentstoensuretheinclusionofallchildreninservicedevelopmentsaimedatpromotingtheirsafety,healthandnurture,asoutlinedintheGettingitRightforEveryChildvisionforchildrenstatement.Theagendatodevelopintegratedworkacrossagencieswasalsofurtheredbythecollaborativenatureoftheprogrammedesign.

4.4 Initially, it was hoped that the evaluation would identify improvedparentingpracticesandthepotentialimpactonoutcomesforchildrenandyoungpeople.Identifyingoutcomes/potentialoutcomesisanimportantelementofanyevaluation, however given the (initially) short‐term nature of the interventionavailablethroughtheprisonprogramme,itwouldbedifficulttoclearlyillustrateoutcomes for individual children and young people, whose experience in thecommunity may be influenced by a range of factors, not least available


www.sccjr.ac.uk 52

communitysupports.Manyotherfactorsarelikelytoimpactontheoutcomesofchildrenincludingtheoverallexperienceofhavingaparentinprisonandongoingcircumstancesintheirlives.However,itispossibletoidentifythemainaimsandobjectives of the programme, the extent towhich they are achieved and theirrelationship to previously identified outcomes for women and, whereappropriate,childrenandyoungpeople.4.5 Moreover, this work is significant in the opportunity that it presents tointervenewithhardtoreachparentswhotypicallyhavedifficultyinaccessingandengagingwithservices.Womenwhoareinvolvedwithsubstancemisuseand/orthecriminaljusticesystemfitthisdescription.LessonslearnedfrompilotworkinotherAberlourDependencyProjects,andinothernationalresearchstudies,willbe built upon to identify potential outcomes of this form of intervention.Importantly, theworkprovidesanopportunitytodevelopknowledgeaboutthemost effective ways of working with mothers in prison and can contribute toenhancingtheevidencebaseaccordingly.

Methods4.6 Datacollectioninrelationtothetwoparentingprogrammegroupswhichhavetakenplaceisasfollows:

Aproposaloutlining the researchaimsandmethodswas submitted tothe SPS Ethics Committee; this process was completed in December2006andpermissiontoundertakethestudywasobtained;

Interviews took place with the NPDPmanager overseeing the projectandthetwoprogrammeleadersofeachgroup(fourinall),twoofwhomwereProgrammesUnitPrisonOfficersandtheothertwoAberlourstaffmembersoneofwhomwassecondedfromaprojectwhichworkswithfamilies affected by substance use. These interviews providedpartnershipagencyperspectivesontheissuesinvolvedinsettingupanddelivering the programme including the challenges of undertakingparentingwork in this settingand referral andengagement issues; theimpactonparticipantsoftakingpart intheprogrammeandthecoursecontentwerealsodiscussed;

Interviews were conducted with two members of prison staff notconnectedtotheprogramme;

Individualinterviewswiththreeoutofthesixprogrammeparticipantsofeach group (six in all) enabled the research team to record theirexperiences of undertaking the programme and their perspectives ontheimpactoftheprogrammeonthemandontheirfamilies;


www.sccjr.ac.uk 53

Informationwascollatedonallparticipants’circumstances,reasonsfortheir referral to the programme, comments from programme leadersand,inmostcases,evaluationformscompletedbytheparticipants;

Ongoing discussions have taken place between project managers andthe research team on the use of measurement tools to record theimpact of thework. In an attempt to inform this, research has takenplacetoascertaintheways inwhichotherprojects inthissettinghaveassessedtheimpactofparticipation.FamilyGridesteemmeasurementswere taken pre and post intervention; additionally, a questionnaire‐basedmeasurementtoolwasdesignedandusedwithparticipantsofthesecondgroupprogrammetomeasureeffectiveness.

4.7 Data collection and findings from the third parenting group currentlybeingundertakenwillbeaddedtotheaboveandpresentedinaseparatereportinApril2008.

EstablishingtheProgrammeWork4.8 The implementation and development of the project took much longerthanhadbeenanticipated. Itwas intended that threepilotprogrammeswouldhavebeencompletedbysummer2007. Duetostaffing issues,delays insettingup the programme and establishing referral procedures within the prison onlytwoprogrammeswerecompletedbySeptember2007.4.9 CircumstanceswhichincludedstaffturnoverandshortagesatNPDP,alongwith increasedadministrative requirements,meant that the initialpressuresongettingthecourseestablishedweresignificant.Oneworkercommented:

‘Therewere also time‐pressureswhile delivering the programme–wehadtorunthegroup,evaluateitandplanthenextoneallonthesameday’.

4.10 Workers also recognised the need for sensitivity when providing aprogrammewhichwouldundoubtedlyraisedifficultandchallengingissuesforthewomen.Itwasnotedbyoneworker:

‘Themain (challenge)wasmakingthecontent fit forpurpose,giventhevulnerabilityoftheclientgroupandtheirneedtobeemotionallydefended. It’s hard enough formen in prison but even harder forwomen,giventhewaytheyareviewed–asbeingoutofcontrolandif mothers, even worse, seeing themselves negatively and withsubstancemisuse issuesevenmore so. So theyhave reasons tobe


www.sccjr.ac.uk 54

emotionallydefendedandweunpickallthisatour–orrathertheir–peril’(programmeprovider).

CircumstancesofParticipants4.11 ThewomenwhoparticipatedinthetwogroupbasedprogrammeswhichraninNovember2006andAugust2007rangedfrom21yearsto48yearsofage.Their home areas, prior to imprisonment, were mainly fromwithin the centralbeltofScotland,althoughtwooriginatedfromthenortheast.Thewomenwereservingsentenceswhichrangedfrom10monthstoLife;withinbothgroupshalfthe women were serving three years or more and half were serving two yearsentencesorless.Inrelationtothestageofthewomen’ssentenceatwhichtheprogrammework tookplace,bothgroupswere similar in that theycontainedamixture of women who were due for release very soon after the programmeendedandtwoorthreewhosereleasedatewasatleasttwo,orinonecasefive,yearsahead.ReasonsforimprisonmentofthewomeninthefirstgroupincludedBreachofProbation,AssaultandRobberyandalsoMurder;inthesecondgroupall reasonswere related toMisuse of Drugs Act offences except onewho hadcommittedaTheftoffence.4.12 The women in the first group had either one or two children, whereasthreeofthoseinthesecondgrouphadthreechildren.Theagesofthechildrenofparticipants inthefirstgrouprangedfromfouryearsto18years; inthesecondgrouptherangewaswiderandwasfromeightmonthstothoseofadultage,inonecase24years.Mostofthechildrenwerebeingcaredforbygrandparentsorotherfamilymembers,althoughthreechildrenwereinresidentialschoolorwithfostercarers.Allthewomenhadsomeformofcontactwiththeirchildren,bywayof visits or phone calls, although it was noted that two of the women in thesecond group rarely had contact with their children. The future care plans forchildren of women in the first group were mostly uncertain, although in oneinstance therewereclear plans for themother to resume thecareofher childand,inanother,thegrandparentswereseekinglegalcustodyofthechildren;thisinformationwas not available in relation to thosewho took part in the secondgroup.4.13 Information collated from the participants’ files revealed that all thewomenhad substanceuse issues.Therewas lessdetailed informationavailableaboutparticipantsinthesecondgroupbutatleastthreeofthewomenfromthefirst group had been on a methadone programme prior to their incarceration.Homelessnesswasan issueforat leasttwoofthewomenandtwowomenhad


www.sccjr.ac.uk 55

onlyintermittentcontactwiththeirchildrenpriortotheirperiodofcustody,duetotheirunsettledlivingcircumstances.4.14 Programme leaders interviewed indicated that the diversity of women’sages, sentence length and extent of contact with their children did not proveproblematicinrelationtotheirexperienceofthegroup.Differenceswereopenlyacknowledgedanditwassuggestedthattheparticipantswerecomfortablewiththisandabletobesupportiveofoneanother.

ReasonsforReferraltotheProgramme4.15 A ‘Working inPartnership’contractwascompletedwitheachparticipantwhichlistedeightpossibleareasofworkwhichreferraltotheprogrammeaimedtoaddress.Identifiedareasofworkincluded2:

parent/childinteractionandcommunication consistency managementofemotions appropriatediscipline self‐confidence boundaries conflictresolution communitysupport

ReferralProcess4.16 Prior to parenting groups taking place promotional materials, leaflets,referral forms and posterswere displayed, the original ones being updated forthe second group. The programme leaders of the second group also indicatedthatsomepromotiontookplacebywomenwhohadattendedthefirstgrouporwho had attended groups run by the Programmes Unit on other topics.Encouraging women to take part could be challenging, as there might beunderstandable apprehension aboutwhat a parenting course could entail. Theprogrammeleadersinterviewedafterthefirstgroupexpressedtheviewthatthereferral processwas not straightforward and that the two agencies (NPDP andSPS)mayhavehaddifferentexpectationsabouthowtheprocesswouldworkandhowtheprogrammewaspresentedandpromoted.

2Multiplecategoriescouldbeidentifiedforindividualwomen.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 56

4.17 Just before the assessment and programmework of the first groupwasdue to start, referrals had been reduced to four and it was necessary for twomore participants to be found. These interviewees indicated that the womenwereinterestedintakingpartbutcircumstancessuchaschangedliberationdatesor involvement in other programmes also had to be taken into account. Itwasalso necessary for programme staff to check with social work staff in thecommunity about child care plans and that information received about this insomecasesprecludedwomenfromtakingpart.4.18 The difficulty in obtaining initial referrals may have impacted on theappropriatenessofthefirstcohort. Onewoman, forexample,whoparticipatedinthecourse,wasnoteligibleforreleaseuntilsomeyearshence.However,oncethemanagementofseparationwasidentifiedasakeyfocusfortheprogramme,thereleasedateofparticipantsseemedless important,andworkershopedthatwhere appropriate, women who had gone through the programme with asignificant amount of time left to serve, could assist in future programmedelivery.4.19 There was no detailed information available about who had referredindividual women for the second group, although the three participantsinterviewedsaidtheyhadbeenapproachedabouttakingpartbytheProgrammesUnitparentinggroupleader.Someaspectsofthereferralprocesshadchangedbythetimethesecondgroupwasscheduled,forexampleratherthanmakingdirectreferrals, Family Contact Development Officers sent a list of all women withchildrenunder16yearsofagetotheProgrammesUnit fortheparentinggroupleadertodecidewhomightfitthecriteria.4.20 Otherprison‐basedworkershaddifferingviewsontheappropriatenessofthereferralcriteria.Onecommented:

‘Thecriteriaaretoorestrictive.Inmyview,someofthewomenmaynothavecontactwiththeirchildrennowbutinafewyearsmayhavemorechildren so then theywould have had the benefit of the course. Thenyoumight havewomenon itwho really need it. Someof thewomenwhohavedoneithaven’thadsuchsevereproblemswiththeirchildren’.

4.21 Lengthof sentenceandexpecteddateof releasecanprovidechallengesforprogrammerecruitment inwomen’sprisonswherethemajorityofprisonersaresentencedtoshortsentenceswhichcanoftenexcludethemfromprogrammeinvolvement. The numbers of women eligible for the programmewere clearlyrestrictedbyfactorssuchasthenumbersonremand,shortsentencesduetotheuseofHomeDetentionCurfewsandtheextentoftheircontactwithandfuture


www.sccjr.ac.uk 57

care plans for children. A further selection or opt‐out stage occurred after theinitialorientationsession.

‘Inrelationtoselection,sometimeswomenselectthemselvesoutoncetheyknowwhoelseisinthegroup.Andtheleadersalwayshaveaneyeto group dynamicswhen forming a group. Imet them for an informalchat and then we drew up a short list. We looked at how theyresponded to theorientationandallwenton toattend, includingonewoman who other staff thought would not manage’ (Programmeleader).

Assessment4.22 Womenwhoareacceptedontotheprogrammeundertakeaonetooneassessmentwithoneofthegroupleaders.Theprocessisconsideredimportantinincreasingwomen’sengagementandinenablingworkerstofindoutmoreaboutthewomen’scircumstances–whichcouldallowrelevantissuestobeaddressedduring the programme. The assessment framework usedwith the first cohortwas considered to be overly complex, and it was subsequently agreed that itwouldbe‘streamlined’.Forthesecondgroupaparentingworkbookwasdevisedand used as an assessment tool and which simplified aspects of the previousformsused.However,thefacilitatorsofthesecondgroupsuggestedthattheystillneeded to find the right ‘tool’ for effective assessment and, most specifically,waysofengagingwomenwithparticular communication needsor had sufferedtraumaticlifeexperiences.

‘It would be useful to have more communication tools for use in theassessment aswe are asking very personal and direct questions at anearly stage of forming a relationship. Having only two sessions forassessment, it’s a lot toask toexpectwomen tobeopenanddisclosewhatmaybeanabusiveorchaoticpast.Sometimesthebarriersgoupandonewomandidn’tevenmakeeyecontactwithmeduringthefirstsession. I see the assessment process as being about relationshipbuildingandassessingthewoman’ssuitabilityforthecourseanditmaybe that deep disclosures might come later – an on‐going individualassessmentmore(Programmeleader).

4.23 It was also noted that a potential gap in assessment process was theabsence of views of the children concerned, or anyone outside the prisonwhowas involvedwith the children on a regular basis.On‐going programme review


www.sccjr.ac.uk 58

enablesclarityaboutthepurposeoftheassessmentandmaterialstobeusedintheprocesstoberefinedandreviewed.

Attendance4.24 In relation to both the groups, individual assessment and groupprogrammesessionsweregenerallywell attended. One participantmissed thelast foursessionsasshewasreleasedearly fromprisonontheHomeDetentionCurfew (HDC) early release scheme. Three participants of the second groupattendedallsessionswithafurtherthreewomenmissingonlyonesession,duetoattendance at a Children’s Hearing in one case and early release on HomeDetention Curfew in two others. A seventh group member attended the firstsevensessionsbutcompletedtheprogrammeonan individualbasisasshehaddifficulties copingwith the group setting. In addition, a further groupmembertookpartintheinitialassessmentsessionsbutwasunabletoparticipateingroupsessionsasshewasadmittedtothehospitalwingwithaseriousillness.

ProgrammeContent4.25 The content of the nine programme sessions brought togethermaterialfrom a range of sources including NPDP’s work with parents affected bysubstance use, and fromwork undertaken by otherAberlour project staffwithchildrenwhoselivesareaffectedbyparentalsubstanceuse,someofwhomhavebeenimprisoned.Astheprogrammewasfocusedonparentingwithinthecontextofaparent’simprisonment,itwasrecognisedthatanimportantelementwasinproviding women with support in the management of separation from theirchildren.4.26 Emphasis was placed on creating a safe and supportive groupenvironment which would help participants to understand more about theirchildren’s needs and increase their confidence in their parenting ability,particularlyinrelationtocommunicationandcontactwiththeirchildren.Thefirstsession included introduction exercises and discussions about expectations andground rules for the group. Each session started with a ‘mood check’ and thechanceforparticipantstotalkaboutonegoodthingandonenotsogoodthingthathadhappenedsincethelastsessioninrelationtobeingaparent.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 59

4.27 Tengroupsessionstookplace, inthemaintwiceweekly.ThecontentofthesessionsofthefirstgroupwasrefinedandapprovedbytheSPSforuseinthesecond and subsequent groups. Topics covered byway of interactive exercisesincluded:

exploringthegeneralpressuresandrewardsoftheparentingrole; enhancingparticipants’knowledgeandunderstandingofchilddevelopment; looking at participants’ knowledge of their children and the implications of

otherinfluencesonchildren; reflectingonparticipants’ownexperiencesofbeingparentedandgenerational

changesintheparentingrole; communication with children and exploring children’s feelings about their

parent’ssubstanceuse; exploring, through participation in play activities, the role of play in

communicatingandinteractingwithchildren; dealingwithservicesandagencies;exploringwithparticipantssupportservices

availableinthecommunityandencouragingthemtomakeuseofthem.4.28 Craftworkwas an integral part of the programmeandwas intended tointroduce a ‘lighter side’ to theworkwhile also being a recognised therapeuticapproach; in addition, it gave participants the opportunity to make things fortheirchildrenandthemselves.Initially,thecraftworkwasscheduledforthelatterpartofmostsessionswithonesessionfocusedentirelyonthis,howeverasmostsessions ran out of time the format was changed for the second group andseparate weekly craft sessions were instituted. At the end of each sessionparticipantsweregiventheopportunitytotalkabouthowtheyfeltandwhethertheir‘mood’hadimprovedonascaleof0‐10.Theywereofferedindividualtimewithagroup leader if anydifficult issueshadarisen for them.Therewasalsoafollow‐upsessionattheendofthegroupatwhichfeedbackwassoughtandpostinterventionmeasurementformscompleted.4.29 At the outset, there were some reported differences in workersexpectationsoftheprogramme:

‘My idea was that it was about child development, child care andtechniques. During the assessment the women seemed to know all thatstuffsoIwonderedwhatthepointwas…Ittookawhileformetocatchontothetherapeuticsideandatfirst Iwasn’ttoosureabout it. Iftheywerereflectingtoomuchonhowtheyhadbeenparentedforexampleandtherehadbeenabuseorothertraumas,thenwemightharmthem.Butitturnedouttobequitetheopposite–itwasvaluableforthemandseemedtomeettheirneeds’(Programmeleader).


www.sccjr.ac.uk 60

4.30 By the second group the objectives of the programmewere clearer andwereconsideredbygroupleadersto:improvewomen’sself‐confidenceandself‐esteem; increase their motivation to parent; and enable women to see thingsfrom a child’s point of view. It aimed to enhance the women’s ability tocommunicate with their children and to feel more able to ask for help fromagencieswithout feeling that they have to cope unsupported until a crisis wasreached.4.31 Thewomenwhohadparticipatedinthetwogroupswereaskedfortheirviewsonthecontentofthecourseandwhattheyparticularlyremembered.

‘Icanunderstandbetternowwhychildrenactincertainways,liketrashingtheirroomswhentheirmumgetssentenced.Welearnttipsabouttalkingtoourchildren,evenonthephone,likeaskingthemopenquestions,gettingtheconversationgoing’(Programmeparticipant)

4.32 Theparticipantsalsoidentifiedtheimportanceofpeersupport:

‘At firstwewerenervousaboutwhetherwe could trusteachotherand iftheotherswouldgooutandtellpersonalthingsbutbythesecondorthirdweek we earned each others’ trust so we could get emotional’(Programmeparticipant).‘Itwasagoodatmosphere.Ifonepersonwasdown,theotherstriedtocheerherup.Iftheyputasadfaceup,youweremorecautiousaboutwhatyousaid,itmadeyouthinkofothers’(Programmeparticipant).

4.33 Otheraspectsoftheprogrammewerechallenging.

‘Thevideosbroughthomehowitfeltforthechildren–likemine,alwaysonthemovefromhousetohouseandlosingallourthings.Itopenedmyeyes,howitwasforthemandnevergivingthemtimetosaywhatitwaslikefromtheirpointofview.Someofuswereupsetatthevideobutitwasgoodtofaceit’(Programmeparticipant).

4.34 Theprogrammeleaderscommentedthattherewerewaysinwhichsomeofthesessionscouldbeadaptedorimproved.

‘There’s a need to clarify the rationale, aims and objectives behind eachsessionsothatthefacilitatorsknowwheretheyaregoingwitheachsession.And developing tools for different learning styles, such as role play andpractical exercises so that we can be flexible if required’ (Programmeleader).


www.sccjr.ac.uk 61

4.35 Inrelationtoprogrammecontentitwasfeltthatadditionalmaterialcouldbeaddedtooneortwosessionstoimprovegroupparticipation.

ImpactoftheProgramme4.36 Information about the impact of the programme on participants wasobtained through interviews conducted with women who took part in theprogramme,programmeleadersandotherprison‐basedworkers;inaddition,theresults of the pre and post intervention Family Grid and self‐completionquestionnaireusedwiththesecondgroupwereanalysedtomeasurechangesinarange of areas including self‐esteem, understanding of children’s problems andability to cope with separation. The feedback forms completed by participantswerealsomadeavailabletoresearchers.4.37 Programme leaders felt that the majority of participants engaged wellwith theprogrammeandappeared tobenefit from theopportunities it gave todiscussseparationissues,formutualsupportandtoenhancewomen’sabilitytocommunicatewiththeirchildrengiventheirseparation.Thefeedbackformsandthe interviewswithwomenconfirmedthis.Womenspokeabouttheir increasedawarenessoftheneedsoftheirchildren,howtocommunicatewiththemmoreeffectivelyandaboutlearningnewparentingapproaches.

‘I learnt not to shout at them but speak to them as you want to bespokento.Youfeellikeachildwhentheprisonofficersshoutatyou,soyouknowhowachildmustfeelwhenyoudoit’.

‘[Ilearnt]howtotalktomydaughterandlistentoherandfindoutwhatmatterstoher;IrealisedIdidn’tknowherverywellatall’.‘Makingchangeslikebeingconsistent,havinggroundrulesandknowingwhat’s important inachild’s life. WhenIcomeout I’llmakeupforlosttime,butnotbycompensatingwithgivingmaterialthingsasmysonnowsayingthatitsmehewants’.’

4.38 Programme leaders stated that, although itwaspossible toobtain someinformal feedback about how women had benefited from the programme, forexample bywritingmore letters to children or using craftmaterials to engagethemduring visits, the long term impact of the programme could only be fullyassessedoncewomenhadreturnedtothecommunityandwerecaringfortheirchildren in the context of other pressures such as substance use. It would benecessary to involvesocialworkerswhereappropriateandask themtoprovide


www.sccjr.ac.uk 62

feedback about how families fared and to try to ascertain the children’sperspectiveaboutanydifferences.4.39 Otherprisonworkerswerenotable togiveanyspecificexamplesof theimpact of the programme, as contact visits with children were not closelysupervisedbythembutbysocialworkersifthiswasassessedasnecessary.

‘I have contact with some of the women who have been on theprogramme,buttheyhaven’treallytalkedabout it,nottomeanyway.So I don’t really have any feedback to report. I’ve not noticed anydifferencesbutthat’snottosaytherearen’tany.Onewomandidbringcraftstuff fromtheAberlourcoursewithhertodowithherchildonavisitbutdidn’ttalkabouttheactualcourse.ButImaybeseeingchangeswithoutrealisingit’.

4.40 They alsomade the point about the need to look at howoutcomes aresustainedinordertomeasureeffectivenessinthelongerterm.

‘Youwouldn’t know about any impact on themuntil they get outsideandtrytosustainit,andIwonderifmostcan.I’mquitescepticalaboutthemsustainingit.Inhereit’sdifferent–theycantalkagoodgame,butonewomanIknowwasontheprogrammehashadanegativedrugstestsince so lapses do happen. And another has had loads of chances butcannotremaindrug‐free,eventhoughshe’sgotagreatrelationshipwithherchild’.

4.41 TheFamilyGridresultswhichwereavailablefor fourofthewomenfromthe second group indicated that three of the four showed an increase in self‐esteemandallfourshowedthattheyhadamorepositiveattitudetowardstheirchildren.Theprogramme leadersandoneofthewomen interviewedfoundtheuseoftheFamilyGridtooltobevaluable.

‘The results were as I thought – my feelings about the oldest andyoungestofmychildrenwereverysimilarasbeforebuttherewasabigimprovementinmyrelationshipwiththemiddleone.Itwasemotionalforme to see it but helpful too as I could really see the difference. Icouldseeit inthevisitstoo–shealwaysusedtokeeptoonesidesoImadebigefforttoincludeherandhergranalsonoticedthechange.Itwasencouragingtogetthissortoffeedback’(Programmeparticipant).

4.42 Results of the pre and post intervention self‐completion questionnairewereavailable for fiveparticipantsofthesecondgroup.Atotalof21questions


www.sccjr.ac.uk 63

wereaskedwhichbroadlyaddressedthefollowingareas:confidenceinparenting,understanding of own children’s lives and problems, communication with ownchildren, consistency and ability to set boundaries, copingwith separation andeaseoftalkingaboutfeelings/usefulnessofsupport.Theresultswithinthesesixareasindicatedthat:

confidenceinparentingtwoof thewomen recorded improvements, two recorded no change andonerecordedlessconfidenceaftertheprogramme; understandingofchildren’sperspectivetwoofthewomenrecordedimprovementsoverall,onerecordednochangeand two recorded that they had less understanding of what mattered totheirchildrenaftertheprogramme; easeofcommunicationwiththeirchildrentwo of the women recorded overall improvements, one recorded nochange, one recorded a mixture of results and one recorded thatcommunicationhadoverallbecomemoredifficultpostintervention; consistencyandboundarysettingtwoofthewomenfeltmoreequippedinthisarea,tworecordednochangeoverall and one felt more able to set boundaries but less able to beconsistentasaresultofprogrammeattendance; copingwithseparationtwo of the women recorded that they felt more able to cope withseparationasaresultoftheinterventionandthreerecordednochange; easeofexpressingfeelingsandusefulnessofsupportthreeofthewomenrecordedthattheyfeltmoreable,onefeltlessableandone felt the same as before, in relation to discussing their feelings aboutbeinginprisonandfindingsupportmoreusefulasaresultofparticipationintheprogramme.

4.43 Theresults indicatethatsomeofthewomenderivedbenefit fromsomeaspectsoftheprogrammeandothersgainedmorefromquitedifferentaspects.However, examination of the overall results for each individual participant,indicatemixedresults.Thesmallnumbersandequaldistributionofresultsmakeit difficult to conclude that any particular aspect of the programme is moreeffectivethananother.4.44 The questionnaire results reflected differences in some cases from theviews expressed by women in their programme evaluation forms and by thewomen interviewed. There is no clear reason for this discrepancy; however itcouldbeanindicationofthefactthatwomenintheprisonenvironmentarelikelyto experience frequent changes in their attitude towards their difficulties. This


www.sccjr.ac.uk 64

servestohighlightthedifficulties inherent inattemptingtomeasurethe impactofaninterventionsuchasthisinaprisonenvironment.4.45 Evaluationscompletedbyparticipantsindicatedthatthey:

Valuedthegrouphighly; Reportedincreasedconfidence; Reportedincreasedwillingnesstofaceandexploretheimpactoftheir

imprisonmentandtheirproblematicsubstanceuseontheirchildren; Reportedimprovedcommunicationwithandknowledgeoftheir

children; Reportedimprovedabilitytoseeksupport.

GeneralViews4.46 Prisonstaff(notinvolvedwiththeprogramme)whowereinterviewedhadsomecommentstomakeaboutthetiming,processandnatureofparentingworkinprisoninrelationtotheprogramme,theirownroleandtheworkingeneral.

‘Iwouldsay‐getitdonequicker;withthisprogrammeyouhavetomakeareferral,thenwaitforthegrouptostartwhereas(we)haveinputonanadhocbasiswhenitisneeded.Wedon’thavelotsoftraining;justdrawonbeingparentsourselvesandourownexperience.It’sdoneonaninformal,drop‐inbasis–weareveryaccessible.Evensocialworkhereyouhavetobookinadvancetoseethem.Quiteoftenaphonecalltoachildisalltheyneed–youcan’tleavewomenhangingforthreedays’.

4.47 Timing was an also considered significant in relation to dealing withseparationissues:

‘Iwonderabout the timing– separation issuesneed tobedealtwithatthestartofthesentence ideallyas it’sabout learninghowtocope– it’snotgoing togoaway.But certainly it shouldbedoneat the startof theprogrammeandI’mnotsureatwhatpointitcomesin’.

4.48 Prison respondents made reference to other ways of approachingparentingandseparationwork:

‘TheHealthVisitorusedtodoaninformaldrop‐insessionforwomenwithyoung children – they did crafts etc and talked about feelings, ways ofhandlingthings–thewomenwerelearningbutdidn’tknowtheywere.Itwassupportive–likeatoddlergroupwithouttoddlers.Itworkedwelland


www.sccjr.ac.uk 65

the environmentwas nice, informal and not a classroom. She still doesindividualworkandcoulddogroupsagain,buthasn’tthetime.Ihaven’tseentheAberlourgroups–theycouldbeokay’.

4.49 Thecontributionofanon‐goingand informal rolewas clearly viewedasimportant.4.50 An Open Day that had been held at the prison in November 2007 hadincluded a presentation about the programme and contributions from womenwhohad taken part. Thiswas attended by 37 socialworkers from17 differentareasandfeedbackabouttheworkhadbeenpositive.

Partnershipworking4.51 Differences were evident initially between individual staff approaches,based on different organisational and professional cultures. But the impact ofpartnership working was considered favourable overall, by both programmeleadersandgroupparticipants. Thecombinationofaprison‐basedworkerandone from outside the prison worked well, as did the combination of areas ofexperienceandexpertisebroughtbytheworkers.Workerscouldemployskillsincounselling vulnerable people, experience of group work, and both also hadspecialist skills such asworkingwith children, adult learning, and knowledge oftheprisonsystem.4.52 Workersthemselvesconsideredthatthejointworkwasimportant:

‘Westartedoffpolesapartbutwerethrowntogetheranditgelled’.‘Weworkedwelltogetherandgotoverpre‐conceivedideaswebothhad.Itwasverymuchco‐facilitation’.‘Theco‐workingworkedwell;havingthetwoagenciesmadeittwoforthepriceofonewithtwodifferentslants–thechildandSWperspectiveandthethrough‐careperspectiveaswellastheprisonone.Thisiswherepartnershipcomesintoitsown.Idon’tthinkitwouldworkifrunbyonlyoutsideagenciesastheywouldn’tunderstandtheprisonenvironmentsowell’.

4.53 Workersfeltthattherewasasharedethosandapproachtotheworkandthatbringingtheirown,differentexperiencesmaderunningthegroupinteresting,positiveandalearningexperienceforbothofthem,inadditiontothebenefitsitbroughtforgroupparticipants.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 66

Engagement4.54 Theworkersexpressedtheviewthatanumberof factorscontributedtomostwomenengagingwellwiththeprogramme.Theseincluded:

The relationship building during the assessment stage which showedthattheworkerswereinterestedinparticipantsasindividuals;

The atmosphere of trust and support which was established throughworkers being open and honest about their own parenting and beingnon‐judgmental;

Anapproachwhichaimedtoenhanceself‐esteemandself‐confidence; Workers willingness to take part in all aspects of the programme

themselves; Inclusionofinteractiveandfunelements,suchastheplaysession.

‘Theyengagedbecause they reallyenjoyed,andneeded, to talkabouttheirchildren,eventhoughitwaspainfulattimes.Therewasatrustingatmosphere, helped by us talking about our own children.One of thereasonsthattheymaybedon’ttalkabouttheirchildreninotherforumsis thattheyfeel theyhavetoprotectthemfromsomeotherprisoners,bynot showingphotos, forexample.Theytook really short teabreaksandonlyrarelytalkedaboutanythingotherthanparentingsothatwasanindication!’(Programmeleader).

4.55 This was reiterated by the participants themselves, who noted theimportanceofworkers sharingabit of their ownexperiencewhichencouragedthe women to ‘open up’ and talk about themselves and their children. Thewomencommented:

‘Their approachwas brilliant – it was non‐judgemental. They tookour feelings intoaccountandourcircumstances,anddidn’t labelusasbadparents.Therearedifficultthingsforeveryoneaboutbeingaparent’.‘Theyhadagoodmanner–youcoulddiscussthingswiththemandtheyoffereda 1‐1 if anyonehadanything theywanted todiscussafter–quite a fewwomen did. You need someone to sound off to and notbottlethingsup’.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 67

ConcludingPoints4.56 While this evaluation is based on limited data and a small number ofrespondents,thereareanumberofissueswhichcanbeidentifiedfromtheinitialprogrammes:

Theprogrammetacklesanareaofsignificant importanceforwomeninprison and, consequently, for their children, as evidenced by nationalandinternationalresearchfindings;

Interventions which enhance and encourage effective communicationfor women and their children are likely to have longer termconsequences, in terms of reduced rates of reoffending, reducedlikelihood of juvenile criminal involvement, and improvements in thelivesofthesechildrenandyoungpeople;

Itwas recognised by programme leaders andwomenparticipants thattheprogrammeprovidedanopportunity toaddress ‘separation issues’and to assistwomen to address these issues, and find better ways ofmaintainingcontactwiththeirchildrenduringtheirimprisonment.Thisobjective meets an important need identified by other studies whichhave looked at the experiences of women prisoners, and should beemphasisedaccordingly,forexampleintheprogrammetitle;

LinkingsupportfromprisontothecommunityisimportantindeliveringanIntegratedCarepackage;wheregeographicallyavailable,womenareencouraged to access appropriate support services, including thoseprovidedbyAberlour,onreleasefromprison.

Overall,womenreported:- Increasedcontactwiththeirchild(ren);- Improvedqualityofcontact;- Learningnewandimprovedwaysofcommunicating;- Thedevelopmentofrelationshipswithintheprison;- Discussionswereseenasuseful;- Supportprovidedbyotherwomeningroups;- Sharedexperiencesofworkersandprisonerswasimportant;- Itwasveryhelpfultohavesomeonefrom‘outside’totalkto;- Increasedconfidenceinseekingsupportforthemselvesand

theirchildren;- Enjoyment.

The collaborative nature of the work and the programme contentcontributed to national policy objectives within this area of servicedevelopment.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 68

5. CONCLUDINGPOINTS5.1 Keytothedevelopmentoftheproject’sworkinallthreecasestudyareaswas the relationshipwithpartnershipagencies; theability todeliver servicesorprogress strategic planning was dependant on these agencies having a clearunderstanding of and commitment to parentingwork, communication betweenagenciesworkingeffectivelyandlocalconditionsandresourcesenablingtheworktoproceedeffectively.5.2 Thecasestudiesindicatedthat:

Strategic planning of parenting services through the operation of asteeringgroupprogressedataslowbutsteadypace;thisreflectedthemanychallengesofinvolvementinmulti‐agencywork;

TheworkofNPDPtookanumberofdifferentforms,asreflectedinthecase studies. With the exception of the prison‐based case study, thewayinwhichparentingworkdevelopedwasgovernedbytheparentingstrategydevelopedlocallyandthestructureswithinwhichthisstrategyhad been designed. Thus, in one area, there was an emphasis onembedding parenting work within existing community‐based, multi‐agencystructureswhichunderpinneditssupportworkbytakingafamilylearningperspective.

TheworkofNPDPwasbasedwithinanoverallstrategicapproachwhichwas developed according to local need. The relationship betweenstrategic oversight and direct work has been key throughout all threecasestudies;

Intermsoftheevolutionofparentingservices, therewasseentobeacontinuedneedforaco‐ordinatingorleadofficertopromoteintegratedworkingandsupportdevelopments.

TheRelationshipbetweenStrategicandDirectWork5.3 The two case studies which focused on the role of the PDW and theproject in developing both strategic and direct work illustrated differentapproaches;strategicplanninganddirectdeliveryworktookplace inparallel tosomeextent,butdidsoindifferentways.5.4 Thefactorswhichinfluencedthedifferentapproachesresultedfromlocalconditions,forexampleintheorganisationofservices;thisservestoillustratethe


www.sccjr.ac.uk 69

fact thataone size fitsall approach isnotappropriate in thedevelopmentanddelivery of parenting services and each area will operate under differentconditions and constraints which make it difficult to draw generalisedconclusions.5.5 InrelationtocasestudyonethefocuswasonstrategicworkthroughthePDW’s role on the Steering Group, with LCNs and links with other agencies,training co‐ordination and less on direct delivery. The aim was to lay strongfoundations for sustainable parenting services.By contrast, in case study twoadraftparentingstrategyandactionplanhadtakenlongerthanenvisagedtoputinplace; however, the work the PDW had undertaken, across the spectrum ofuniversal and preventative services with more vulnerable families, meant thatwork within the broad elements of the strategy had to some extent beenprogressed. By focusing on direct delivery work, workers across a number ofagencies were able to see just how strategic planning translated to parentingservicesontheground.

While strategic planning is a crucial element in the development ofintegrated services, collaborativework at practitioner levelmay be animportantcomponentinbuildingtrustingrelationshipsacrossagencies.

Strategic development can be usefully informedby the direct practicework that is taking place on the ground, thus demonstrating theimportantlinkbetweenstrategyandpractice.

Inter‐agencywork5.6 The projectworked in a collaborativewaywitha range of agencies andthecase studyexamples reflectdifferentaspectsof integratedworking,both inservice development and in joint workingwith families at practitioner level. Ingeneral, the collaborative nature of the work demonstrated a ‘good practice’exampleof integratedworkingonthegroundandtherebyfurtheredtheaimofnationalpolicyobjectivesformulti‐agencyworkwithfamilies.Theexperienceoftheproject’sinvolvementinstrategicdevelopmentworkdemonstratedthat:

Building strong foundations for sustainable work through strategicplanning by amulti‐agency steering groupwas crucial but challengingdue to different perspectives of what parenting work is and how itshouldbeundertaken,andtheconflictingwork‐loadprioritiesofgroupmembers;

therewasclearlyaneed foraco‐ordinatingor leadofficertopromoteintegratedworking andwhose key rolewas to support developmentswhichkeptafocusonparentingservices.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 70

the direct parenting work which the PDW and staff from a range ofagencies undertook jointly enabled practitioners to see the tangiblebenefitsofparentingworkwithfamiliesandhowintegratedworkcouldoperateeffectively.

Once a shared understanding had been developed, the joint workbetween partnership agencies was considered beneficial for workersandprogrammeparticipantsalike,intermsofthedifferentperspectivesandskillsandthepotentialforstaffdevelopmentthisoffered.

WherethePDWhadaconsultancyrole,thiswaspresentedinawaythataimed to compliment thework being undertaken by the existing caseworker,acknowledgingtheirperspectiveandapproach,whilesuggestingwaysinwhichtheworkmightbedeveloped;

In developing the work, it was important to take account of theconstraintsonmanycollaboratingworkers intermsofcompetingworkpriorities;whileparentingworkwasconsidered important,workersdidnotalwayshavesufficienttimetoundertakeitnorwastheimportanceofmeasuringimpactalwaysrecognised.

EngagementandApproach5.7 The experience of undertaking the direct work with parents/carers hashighlighted a number of issues in relation to practice; in some instances theseconfirm the findings from the first phase of theNPDP evaluation, although thecircumstancesofparentswereoftenquitedifferent.Manyofthepracticeissuesidentifiedechothosereportedinsimilarstudiesandrelatetotheimportanceofthe skills and attributes of programme leaders (Andrews et al, 2001). It is notenough toexpectaprogramme todelivera ‘magicbullet’withoutanumberofotherfactorsbeinginplace(LipseyandWilson,1998).5.8 Factorswhichhelpedparentsengagewere:

opportunitiestomeetgroupleadersandgettoknowthemovertwotothreesessionsbeforethegroupstarted;

theinformalandrelaxedatmosphereinwhichthegroupwasdelivered. thatallmembersweremade to feel importantand the smallnumbers

were important for discussing matters of a personal nature such asparenting.

Arespectfulandsupportiveapproachbyprogrammefacilitatorstowardsparticipants, leading to open and trusting relationships being formed;this was a crucial factor in the positive impact of the course onparents/carers and the importance of the quality of the relationshipbetweenthetwocannotbeoverstated.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 71

Parenting work can highlight very difficult issues for parents, forexample in relation to their own early lives and relationships andworkers need to be able to adopt a sensitive and flexible approach totheprogressandstructureoftheprogrammework;

Participantswhoundertooktheworkaspartofagroupfoundthemutualsupportofgroupmembersverybeneficial.

5.9 Additionalfeaturesofthedirectprogrammedeliveryworkwhichaidedengagementinclude:

Theprogrammecontentwasinteractiveandinclusive;itfeaturedgroupdiscussion and exercises and focused on encouraging participants’strengthsandmutualsupport.

The work was person‐centred and was conducted individually withfamilieswheregroupworkwasnotappropriate.

5.10 Timingofthework:

It was felt that for some families, the parentingworkwould bemoreeffective if it took place at an earlier stage before difficulties becameentrenched; indications from the evaluation suggest that parentingprogrammeworkshouldbeavailablebothasanelementofearlyyearsintervention,aspartofuniversalprovisionbutalsoatstagesofayoungperson’s life when s/he are at their most vulnerable.. Additionalresourcesmightbetargetedforthoseforwhomtheindicationsarethatdifficultiesarelikelytodevelop.

In addition, it was considered important that parents recognised thattherewasaproblemandwereatastagewheretheycouldacknowledgefamilydifficulties,reflectontheimpactoftheirparentingstyleonyoungpeopleandbeopentomakingchangesthemselves,ratherthanplacingalltheresponsibilityforchangeontheyoungpeople;

5.11 TheworkwithinCorntonValeindicatedtheimportanceof:

The relationship building during the assessment stage which showedthattheworkerswere interested inparticipantsas individuals;positiveengagementwithparentsduringtheearlystagesoftheworkiscrucial;meetingparentsindividuallyandonmorethanoneoccasion,beingclearabout the programme content and approach and starting to build arelationshipwiththemmeansthattheyaremorelikelytoattendand,inthe case of group work, once integrated have more chance ofcompletingallormostoftheprogramme;


www.sccjr.ac.uk 72

The atmosphere of trust and support which was established throughworkers being open and honest about their own parenting and beingnon‐judgmental;

Anapproachwhichaimedtoenhanceself‐esteemandself‐confidence; Workers willingness to take part in all aspects of the programme

themselves; Inclusionofinteractiveandfunelements,suchastheplaysession.

ImpactoftheProject’sWork5.12 TheimpactoftheworkofNPDPwasassessedusingmethodswhichwereappropriateforthecontextofthework.Insomecases,theseweredevelopedbytheproject itself,sometimes inconjunctionwithpartnershipagencies.Thedatarelatingtothiswasmadeavailabletotheresearchteam,whoaugmentedthisbyobtainingtheviewsofkeystaffinordertoprovideanindependentperspective.5.13 Incasestudyonewhichfocusedontheproject’scontributiontostrategicserviceplanning,theparentingstrategyhadsixkeyobjectivesandtheextenttowhich these were being progressed was measured by reviewing objectivesaccordingtoidentifiedSMARTmeasurements.Thisreflectedageneralviewthatthe work was mostly on track. The intention was to monitor and review theprogress of the implementation of the Parenting Strategy using an assessmenttooldevelopedbytheFamilyandParentingInstituteforthispurpose.5.14 In relation to thedirectdeliveryofparentingwork,whichwas themainfocus of case study two, the impact on individual familieswasmeasured usingstandardisedmeasurementtools,byreviewinggoalsandbycanvassingtheviewsof professional staff and parents as to the outcomes of participation in theprogramme.

Therewasapositive impact indicated inrelationto inter‐agencywork,

delivery of parenting programmes, enhancement of staff developmentin parenting work and dissemination of information about parentingwork;

Positiveoutcomes forparents included increasedawareness, skills andconfidence in parenting; improved parent/child communication &relationshipsandenhancedskillsinsettingboundaries,handlingconflictandpositiveparentingstyles.

Positiveoutcomesindicatedforyoungpeopleincludedimprovedfamilycommunicationandrelationships;reductionofanti‐socialbehaviourandoffending;improvedschoolattendanceandreductioninexclusionsandinthenumberofreferralstotheReportertotheChildren’sHearing.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 73

There were challenges in persuading agencies to see the need forevaluation and include it as part of the process of undertakingprogrammework.

Assessing the impact of wider direct work, such as consultancy andinformationprovision,wasproblematictoachieve,howevertheviewsofpartnershipagency staff clearly indicatedhowmuch itwasvaluedandconsideredtoenhancetheworkundertakenwithfamilies.

5.15 Inrelationtocasestudythree,impactwasmoreproblematictomeasurein terms of the outcomes for individual participants. However, there wasevidenceof‘effectiveness’inrelationto:

the contribution made to the national parenting agenda and policiesregarding collaborativemulti‐agency family supportwork in the prisonsettinginadditiontothedevelopmentofaserviceforwomeninprisonaffectedbysubstanceuse;

Theprogrammeprovidedanopportunitytoaddress ‘separation issues’andtoassistwomenincopingwiththeseissues,andfindbetterwaysofmaintainingcontactwiththeirchildrenduringtheirimprisonment.

The women valued the support provided by other participants andgroup leadersgroupsandexperienced increasedconfidence in seekingsupportforthemselvesandtheirchildren.

Sustainability5.16 Theprojectaimedtodevelopparentingworkinwayswhichwouldenableittobeembeddedinbothfutureserviceplanningandpracticeacrossarangeofagencies.Akeyaimoftheworkwastoenhancetheskillsandexpertiseofstaffacrossagenciesinordertoenabletheworktobesustainedandprogressed.Thiswassuccessfullyachieved,withstafffromseveralagenciesundertakinggroupandindividualparentingprogrammeworkwithfamiliesandmanymoreparticipatingintraining.

The ‘rollingout’modelofworkingwaseffective inbuilding capacity instaffskillsandexperience;however,thereweresomeissuesinvolvedin‘rollingout’ theworkrelatingto issuessuchastimeconstraintsduetostaff workload and a lack of recognition of the need to evaluate andmeasureimpact;

The accessibility of the PDW to offer support and advice to workersundertaking programmes with families, especially in the initial stages,was seen as important; the guidelines for running group programmesbeingwrittenbythePDWaimstopartlyaddresssomeofthe issues in


www.sccjr.ac.uk 74

rolling out the work; however, as this occurs the PDW’s ability toinfluencehowitisundertakenislessened;

In terms of the future development of parenting services, there wasseen to be a continued need for a co‐ordinating or lead officer topromoteintegratedworkingandsupportdevelopments.

5.17 Ensuringsustainedfundinghasbeenasignificantforallthreecasestudiesduring the course of this evaluation. The temporary nature of funding clearlyimpactsontheopportunitytodeveloplonger‐termplanningandvisionaswellastheabilitytomeasurethelonger‐termoutcomes.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 75

REFERENCESAndrews, D., Hollins, C., Raynor, P., Trotter, C. and Armstrong, B. (2001)

Sustaining Effectiveness in Working with offenders: Glamorgan, CognitiveCentreFoundation.

Burgess,C.andWalker,M.(2006)NationalParentingDevelopmentProject,Stirling:UniversityofStirlingfortheAberlourChildCareTrust.

DepartmentofHealth(2004)HealthforallChildren:GuidanceonimplementationinScotland,London:DepartmentofHealth.

Lipsey, M.W. and Wilson, S.J. (1998) Wilderness Challenge Programs forDelinquentYouth:AMeta‐AnalysisofOutcomeEvaluations.EvaluationandprogrammePlanning.23:1‐12.

Moran, P., Ghate, D. and van derMerwe, A. (2004)WhatWorks in ParentingSupport? A Review of the International Evidence, London: Policy ResearchBureausReportRR574.

Pawson,R.andTilley,N.(1997)RealisticEvaluation,London:Sage.ScottishExecutive(2001)ForScotland’sChildren,Edinburgh:ScottishExecutive.Scottish Executive (2002) Scotland’s Action Programme to Reduce Youth Crime,

Edinburgh:ScottishExecutive.Scottish Executive (2004)Protecting Children and Young People: Framework for

Standards,Edinburgh:ScottishExecutive.Scottish Executive (2005)Getting it Right for Every Child: Proposals for Action,

Edinburgh:ScottishExecutive.ScottishExecutive(2006)HiddenHarm:Nextsteps:SupportingChildren‐Working

withparents,Edinburgh,ScottishExecutive.Scottish Executive (2007) A Framework for Parenting Orders in Scotland,

Edinburgh:ScottishExecutive.Trinder,L.(2000)‘ACriticalAppraisalofEvidence‐BasedPractice’inTrinder,L.

andReynolds,S(eds)Evidence‐BasedPractice:ACriticalAppraisal,Oxford:BlackwellScience.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 76

APPENDIXONETheNPDPFrameworkforanauditofparentingservices

TheNPDPFrameworkfortheStrategicDevelopmentofParentingServices


www.sccjr.ac.uk 77


www.sccjr.ac.uk 78

APPENDIXTWORecommendationsofanAuditofParentingWorkinMoray

1ParentingStrategyTodevelopaparentingstrategywhichoutlinesa‘continuum’ofparentinginterventions.

2InteragencyTrainingNeedforboth‘coreskills’trainingwhichaddressesengagingwithparents;workwithfathers;assessmentandaselectionofparentingprogrammes.

3PractitionersGroup

Inthelongtermsetupinter‐agencypractitionergroupsasforumswherepractitionerscanreflectonresearchandpracticeandshareideas.

4ContinuedmappingofparentingworkinMoray

Identifycentralpointineachgeographicalareawhereinformationandplanningaboutparentingworkcanbeco‐ordinated.

5ResourcingToidentifyfundingandresourcestobothdeliverparentingworkandofferchildcareprovision.

6EvaluationNeedtobuildinmoreconsistentevaluationmethodsthatfocusonoutcomesforchildrenaswellasforparents.

Documents

Evaluation of the National Parenting Development … National...of the National Parenting Development Project ... CASE STUDY THREE: ... of the National Parenting Development