Evaluation findings Nicola McConnell NSPCC Evaluation Department - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Caring Dads: Safer Children

Evaluation findings

Nicola McConnell NSPCC Evaluation Department Working with Fathers: Research Evidence for Practice Manchester – 31st March 2015

1

Interventions with fathers who perpetrate domestic abuse – hold fathers accountable for their children’s wellbeing – places the responsibility for the fathers abusive behaviour with him – contribute to ending violence against women and child abuse – enable the monitoring and assessment of risks posed by the father – promote positive change in men and in the father-child relationship. Previous evaluation of Caring Dads – Promising findings about effectiveness – Involve relatively small samples within the UK – Few studies examine whether outcomes for children improve CDSC is the result of a partnership between the NSPCC, the Canadian

• riginators and the London Probation Service (RISE).

2

Background and rationale for CDSC

About Caring Dads

3

Caring Dads is devoted to ensuring the safety and wellbeing

• f children through working with fathers who have abused and

neglected their children or exposed them to abuse of their mothers http://caringdads.org/

• Originated from Canada:
• Katreena Scott (University of Toronto)
• Tim Kelly (Changing Ways, Ontario)

The programme model

• Group work programme
• Fathers attend for 17 weeks
• Weekly 2 hour sessions
• Two group facilitators
• Partners and children contact
• Co-ordinated case management

4

Since October 2010:

5 NSPCC service centres 50+ groups delivered 300+ fathers started CDSC 190+ completed programme 500+ evaluation participants

5

Mixed method evaluation : – standardised measures before and after intervention – face to face surveys and qualitative interviews – analysis of case records Three time points for data collection: T1 - Before entry to the programme T2 - End of programme T3 - Follow up 6 to 12 months after end of programme Ethics: Research Ethics Committee, guidance, training, and ethics review Limitations: Small comparison and child samples, fathers’ self reports.

6

Overview of CDSC evaluation

Theory of change

Adapted from Abidin 1995

7

Awareness of child centred fathering Awareness and responsibility for abusive and neglectful fathering Father’s parenting stress reduces Fathers successfully completing the CDSC programme Children and partners report improvements in the father’s behaviour and their own wellbeing. Relationships within the child’s family improve Father’s behaviour towards children and partners improves

Participant Evaluation measures or tools Fathers Parenting Stress Index Controlling Behaviour Inventory (behaviour towards partner) Acceptance and Rejection Questionnaire (behaviour towards child) Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (his views about child) Children Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire Adolescent Wellbeing Scale Acceptance and Rejection Questionnaire Qualitative interviews and surveys Partners & Mothers Adult Wellbeing Scale, Controlling Behaviour Inventory for partners, Strengths and difficulties questionnaire (younger children) Qualitative interviews and surveys Staff Interviews with practitioners, administrators and managers

8

Evaluation measures

Programme attrition:

Referred fathers: 95% invited for assessment 61% assessed 50% assessed as suitable for CDSC 43% started group work Fathers completing the programme: 51% of fathers who started group 22% of fathers referred

Source: Closing summaries of case notes October 2010 to October 2014

Fathers reported statistically significant improvements in: – his stress experienced as a parent – his perceptions of his child’s strengths and behavioural difficulties – his behaviour towards his child or children Children reported improvements in his behaviour toward them. Partners and fathers reported statistically significant improvements in: – his behaviour towards her Partners reported statistically significant improvements in – her depression, anxiety and inward directed irritability Child wellbeing results suggest improvement but not statistically significant

10

Quantitative findings

11 Source: CDSC teams October 2010 – October 2014

Fathers’ parenting stress

Average scores for Parenting Stress Index, comparing pre- and post-programme scores

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 Parental distress** Parental-Child Dysfunctional Interaction** Difficult Child** T1 T2

**p<0.01

Fathers’ parenting stress

12

Source: CDSC teams October 2010 – October 2014

Number of fathers moving between the normal and clinical ranges of the Parenting Stress Index when comparing pre- and post-programme scores

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Remained within clinical range, n=6 Recovered, moving from clinical to normal range n=21 Deteriorated, moving from normal to clinical range, n=6 Remained within normal range, n=125

Comparison group

13

Source: CDSC teams October 2010- February 2015

Change in mean scores for parenting stress index, comparing fathers in Belfast who completed programme with fathers who were waiting to start.

• 1.34

1

• 0.86
• 3.46
• 2.85
• 2.23
• 7
• 8
• 7
• 6
• 5
• 4
• 3
• 2
• 1

1 2

Parental distress Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction Difficult child Total stress

Intervention N=26 Waiting for intervention N=15

Sustaining change: follow up results

14

Source: CDSC teams October 2010 – February 2015

Fathers PSI subscale scores at each time point, N=52

5 10 15 20 25 30 T1 T2 T3 Mean PSI subscale score Parental distress Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction Difficult Child

Controlling behaviour towards partner

15

Source: CDSC teams October 2010 – October 2014

Average number of incidents reported by partners via the Controlling Behaviour Inventory, comparing pre- and post-programme scores

**p=<0.01 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 Pre-programme Post-programme

Mothers’ wellbeing

16

Source: CDSC teams October 2010 – October 2014

Average scores for responses to Adult Wellbeing Questionnaire, comparing pre- and post-programme scores

*p=<0.05

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 Depression* Anxiety* Outward directed irritability Invward directed irritability* Pre-programme Post-programme

Qualitative themes: Families

Differing experiences, views and needs Children’s understanding, sense of guilt Observed change or partial change Partners appreciated involvement Views on evaluation process Change to service involvement

Qualitative themes: Practitioners

Described evidence of change Facilitators and barriers to change Importance of partner engagement Relationships with referrers Service centre differences Areas for improvement

Recent publications:

McConnell N, Barnard M, Holdsworth T and Taylor J. (2014) Caring dads: safer children: interim evaluation

• report. London: NSPCC

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/research/findings/evaluatio n/caring-dads-pdf_wdf101264.pdf McConnell N. and Taylor J. (2014), Evaluating Programmes for Violent Fathers: Challenges and Ethical Review, Child Abuse Rev., doi: 10.1002/car.2342 Children and Young People Now (2014) Improving the behaviour of dads makes families feel safer. Children and young people now, 4-17 March, pp 34-5 Final report will be available during 2015.

19

Further information:

Di Jerwood Development Manager for Looked After Children and High Risk Families NSPCC 07717881735 diane.jerwood@nspcc.org.uk Nicola McConnell Senior Evaluation Officer NSPCC Evaluation Department NSPCC, Weston House, 42 Curtain Road, London EC2A 3NH 020 3772 9161 nmcconnell@nspcc.org.uk

20