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 originators 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

of 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 DysfunctionalInteraction**

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

0 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

0

1

-0.86

-3.46

-2.85

-2.23

-7

-8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2

Par

enta

ld

istr

ess

Par

ent-

Ch

ildD

ysfu

nct

ion

alIn

tera

ctio

nD

iffi

cult

ch

ildTo

tal s

tre

ss

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

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

T1 T2 T3

Me

an P

SI s

ub

scal

e s

core

Parental distress

Parent-Child DysfunctionalInteraction

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

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 directedirritability

Invward directedirritability*

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