STOP Parenting Group Evaluation
September – December 2012
Facilitators –
Kathryn Warner, Family School Support Worker, Network Willink.
Penny Myers, Senior Family School Support Worker, Network Willink.
Venue -
The Willink School Library, Burghfield Common. Thursday evenings 7.30 – 9.30pm.
About STOP
The STOP Programme was developed in the UK by Jeannie Gordon (Ministry of Parenting) & Mike
Kellett (Police Constable, Youth Offending). It was originally designed for troubled teenagers who
were offending or at risk of offending and exclusion. However, it has also been found to be an
effective preventative programme at a more universal level. The development of STOP was greatly
influenced by the Webster-Stratton Incredible Years programmes, as it follows the same nurturing
and empowering ethos, and as such can be seen as a continuation of Incredible Years programmes
for parents of pre-teens and teenagers.
STOP is a 10 week course that helps the parent to strengthen the core relationship with their
teenager, to develop positive parenting skills to manage confrontations and difficult behaviour, and
to gain a greater understanding and awareness of teenage development and expectations. There is a
growing body of empirical evidence to support the efficacy of this parenting programme.
Recruitment and process
The attendance of the group was voluntary and no formal referral process (such as a CAF) was
required. A poster advertising the group was sent to all Willink parents via email requesting parents
to contact the FSSWs to reserve a space if interested. It was agreed that 12 families could be offered
a place on the group. Fifteen parents contacted the FSSWs with thirteen parents (1 couple) offered
a place on the group, with the other two parents held on a reserve list. All thirteen parents attended
the group and all thirteen parents completed the group; it is very rare to have a zero drop-out rate.
Four of the parents have attended groups run by FSSWs for primary aged children. Two of the
parents have had some individual interventions from the FSSWs prior to the group. The remaining 7
parents have had no previous contact with FSSWs.
When asked how they had heard about the group six parents stated they had received information
from the Willink School via email, three had heard from the FSSWs and three parents were informed
by a friend who had attended previous parenting groups run by Willink FSSWs.
The STOP group ran over 10 weeks (27.9.12 – 6.12.12 with a break for half term) with each session
lasting 2 hours.
1
Parents
Of the thirteen parents that attended ten were mothers; one was a ‘step-Mum’ and two were
fathers. One couple attended together (Dad with new partner). Of the remaining eleven group
members eight were married and three were single parents.
The majority of the families were either tier 1 (universal) or tier 2 (vulnerable and needing additional
support from one other agency) but 3 families were tier 4 (acute issues requiring support from
specialist statutory agencies).
The parents had 28 children between them. The ages and schools currently attended are as follows
with the child they are most concerned about in bold.
Parent
Mother 1
Mother 2
Father 1
Step-mother 1
Mother 3
Mother 4
Mother 5
Mother 6
Mother 7
Mother 8
Mother 9
Mother 10
Father 2
TOTAL
Age and gender of child
11 (male)
8 (female)
11 (male)
7 (male)
12 (male)
10 (female)
14 (female)
12 (male)
19 (female)
14 (male)
7 (male)
11 (female)
7 (female)
5 (female)
14 (male)
13 (male)
11 (female)
11 (female)
5 (female)
11 (female)
5 (male)
11 (boy)
12 (female)
8 (boy)
2 x adults
14 (female)
11 (female)
28 children
School attended
Willink
Garland
Willink
Garland
Willink
Mortimer St Mary’s
Willink
Willink
University
Willink
Garland
Willink
Garland
Mrs Bland’s
Willink
Willink
Willink
Willink
Mrs Bland’s
Willink
Mrs Bland’s
Willink
Willink
Mortimer St Mary’s
Willink
Castle
Assessment:
Pre and post group questionnaires were completed by all of the parents with the exception of the
step-mother who felt it more appropriate for the father to complete the forms. The questionnaires
measured child behaviour, parenting stress & competence and parental wellbeing. The table below
shows the group’s mean average scores for each questionnaire, for before the course started
2
(average pre scores) and after the course had finished (average post scores), thus highlighting the
trends for the group as a whole. The ‘cut-off’ scores are included to show the point at which the data
is outside of the normal range and into a clinical range.
Table 1: The average scores for each of the pre and post measures
Average Scores:
Pre
Post
Cut-off
Child Behaviour
Strengths & Difficulties Questionnaire
SDQ - Total Difficulties
13.3
11.6
<17
SDQ - Impact Score
2
1.91
<2
Parental Distress (PD)
31.3
28.5
<33
CDI)
31.2*
26.4*
<26
Difficult Child (DC)
39.3*
33.3*
<33
PSI - Total
101.8*
82.2
<90
GHQ
15.6*
11.2
<15
Parenting Stress & Competence
Parenting Stress Index
Parent-Child Dysfunction Interaction (P-
Parental Wellbeing
General Health Questionnaire
(* means the score is within the clinical cut-off range, therefore indicating a potential problem)
These questionnaires are not diagnostic tools; instead they can be used as an indicator of the
parent’s perception of problem areas. The data shows that over half of the ‘pre scores’ were within
the clinical range, indicating that this group of parents were experiencing problems with their
children, with their parenting stress and competence, and with how they felt about themselves prior
to completing the STOP programme. The ‘post group’ scores indicate that in all of the areas
examined the parents have recorded an improvement with now only two areas just within the
clinical range.
The Strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ) measures the parent’s perception of their child’s
behaviour. This information can be used to indicate the level of risk that the child has an emotional,
behavioural or concentration problem severe enough to warrant a diagnosis. Scores of 14-16
represent a borderline or medium risk and scores of 17 and above indicate a high risk. As a group
they did not score within the clinical range. Individually however 4 parents pre-group scored their
children within the clinical range with the highest being 34. Post group only 1 parent (the parent
who scored 34) was still within the clinical range.
The Parenting Stress Index (PSI) measures the stress experienced by the parent in relation to their
parenting role. This is broken down into three sub-scales: parental distress (PD), which refers to an
3
impaired sense of parenting competence, lack of social support and the restrictiveness of
parenthood; parent-child dysfunctional interaction (P-CDI), which focuses on the parent’s perception
that their child is not meeting their expectations and that the interactions are poor; and difficult
child (DC), which considers behavioural characteristics that would make a child more difficult to
manage. These sub-scales are combined to give a total parenting stress score; the clinical cut-off for
the total PSI is a score of 90. The average group score was not high for parental distress pre or post
group although
individually 5 parents
scored within the
clinical range pregroup and this
reduced to 3 parents
post-group. The
group did score highly
both pre and post
group for parent-child
dysfunctional
interaction although
the average score did
decrease. Nine
parents scored above
the clinical cut off point pre-group and this reduced to 7 parents post group. Again the group’s
perceptions of their children being difficult was high pre group but it dropped to be close to the
clinical cut off point post group which illustrates that improvements were made. When all scores of
the sub-scales are considered the group moved from within the clinical range pre-group to below
the clinical cut off point post-group. The graph above shows the parents’individual improvements.
The General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) measures the parents’ psychological wellbeing. This 12item questionnaire covers
three aspects of mental
health: anxiety and
depression, social
dysfunction, and loss of
confidence (the clinical
cut-off score is 15). Pregroup scores were above
the clinical cut off point
with 6 parents scoring
highly. Post-group scores
dropped well below the
clinical cut off point with
only 2 parents scoring
highly. The most
4
significant improvement was one mother who scored 29 pre-group and who subsequently scored 10
post-group.
Summary of Assessment data
The quantitative data collected shows that all parents have noticed improvements. The most
noticeable of improvements was recorded by the father who came with his new partner. He
completed forms in relation to his Year 6 daughter who, pre-group, scored as above the clinical cut
off point for four of the seven areas examined. Post-group his scores were all below the clinical cut
off point. FSSWs’ assessment of need would place the family as tier 1 or 2. Interestingly one of the
families who would be classed as tier 4 of need scored above the clinical cut off point for all areas
pre-group. Post-group the scores fell so that only three of the seven areas were above clinical cut
off point illustrating that the STOP group can be effective for all parents, even at the highest level of
need.
Qualitative evaluation
All parents were asked to complete a weekly evaluation form which assisted the FSSWs in tailoring
the group to meet individual needs whilst also gauging the progress of the group as a whole. Twelve
parents also completed an overall evaluation at the end of the group which are summarised in the
table below.
Overall Group Evaluation
Was the time of the session ok?
Yes
12
Was the number of sessions ok?
11
Did the group meet your expectations?
11
No
0
1*
“Wouldhave
liked more!”
1*
*”Exceeded
them”
What, for you, was most useful about the group?
 Support from other parents / shared experiences / knowing you are not alone (11 parents
reported this)
 Excellent facilitators providing info, handouts and support when needed / guiding
conversations (7 parents reported this)
 Friendliness and rapport of group (2 parents said this)
 Learning new skills – particularly not to “pick up the rope” and learning when to walk away
from arguments (2 parents)
What, for you, was least useful?
 None – all was useful (5 parent)
 Session 8 – relationships (1 parent)
Are there other topics/issues that would have been useful to look at?
 No (4 parents said this)
 Not sure (2 parents)
 Sibling relationship (1 parent)
 Internet safety (3 parents) – NB: FSSWs organised an internet safety evening in January as a
response to the request from parents attending STOP group
How has the group changed you as a parent?
 More relaxed / calmer / more positive (6 parents said this)
5







More confident (5 parents said this)
Not losing my temper / not picking up the rope (3 parents said this)
Made me happier (2 parents)
Less of a ‘helicopter’ ((style of parenting) 2 parents)
More in control (1 parent)
“Definitely – and in the rest of my life too” (1 parent)
Consistent (1 parent)
Has the group made any difference to your teenager’s behaviour? If yes,
please describe or explain the change:
 Less argumentative / less conflict (6 parents said this)
 Calmer / happier (4 parents)
 Less negative behaviour (2 parents)
 Accepts parents decisions more readily (2 parents)
 Clearer expectations and boundaries (1 parent)
 Not really (1 parent)
Has the group made any difference to your relationship with your teenager? If
yes, please describe or explain the change:
 We talk more (4 parents said this)
 We spend more quality time together / have fun together(3
people said this)
 Less shouting / screaming and conflict. (2 parents said this)
 More confident in dealing with difficult behaviour (3 parents)
 Understanding more about their world (1 parent)
 We are a lot closer again (1 parent)
10
1
11
0
What was the best moment of the group?
 The presence of the ‘rope’ every week – powerful metaphor (7 parents said this)
 Sharing experiences and realising you and your family are ‘normal’ (2 parents said this)
 Laughter (2 parents)
 Learning about the ‘escalation curve’ (1 parent)
 “Every moment” (1 parent)
 Sharing positives / progress and getting praised by group and facilitators (1 parent)
Did you feel supported in the group by the group leaders?
Not supported 0
Unsure
0
Supported
0
Very Supported 12
Any other comments about the group leaders:
 “Fantastic – informed, guiding, relaxed and professional”
 “Really helpful – supportive and caring”
 “Always available if needed”
 “Brilliant – recommend to all!”
 “Fantastic, friendly, easy to talk to”
 “Really helpful and informative – highly recommend”
 “’Penryn’ (Penny / Kathryn) are terrific teenage teachers”
 “Very good at facilitating the course whilst allowing the group to speak freely”
Please feel free to leave any comments about taking part in the group:
 “It has been life enhancing and the skills are transferable to all aspects of life”
6







“It’s a work in progress but I know I can look back and go over things again. I know I can call
Penny /Kathryn if things got bad!”
“Can’t recommend any higher”
“It was fantastic to share ideas and problems. It made me aware my child wasn’t as bad as I
thought!”
“An excellent course – been great to swap stories and experiences. Learnt a lot”
“This was a great group that helps with issues. I wish it wasn’t ending”
“Can I come again when my child is older!!”
“Would recommend to other parents”
The qualitative information provided by the parents in their evaluations strengthens the views held
by the FSSWs that all of the parents found the group worthwhile (also as evidenced by their
continued attendance) which impacted positively in their relationships at home. Many of the
parents not only commented on the positive input from the FSSWs but they also valued other
parents input. Group work is not only a cost effective way of addressing parenting issues with
families but it is also creating a supportive environment for parents to share their ideas and build
their confidence in their skills as parents.
Conclusions
Both the quantitative and qualitative evidence shows that all the parents who took part in the STOP
group benefitted from attending the group. Parents noticed improvements in their children’s
behaviour, in relationships in the home and in their view of themselves and their children. These
improvements are supported by the graphs shown above. Evidence shows that children who are
valued in their family and who have stable and loving adults around them are more likely to succeed
in school and reach their potential in adult life.
Although some families had much higher levels of needthan others (outside the clinical range
expected for FSSW work), and came from a variety of socio-economic backgrounds, the group was
mutually supportivethroughout. They learnt from each other as well as gaining support from the
FSSWs. As professionals we found their engagement highly rewarding and are able to report that the
group continues to meet and support each other which provides sustainability both in the quality of
family life and in their children’s ability to access their education.
Kathryn Warner
FSSW Network Willink
February 2013
7