Improving the engagement of fathers in child protection
Jonathan Scourfield, Nina Maxwell, Sally Holland, Richard Tolman, Luke Sloan,
Brid Featherstone, Alison Bullock
* Cardiff University
** University of Michigan
*** Open University
March 2013
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... 4
1.
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 6
2.
METHODS .................................................................................................................................................. 7
3.
2.1.
Literature review ............................................................................................................................... 7
2.2.
Pre-intervention qualitative research ............................................................................................... 8
2.3.
Intervention development ................................................................................................................ 8
2.4.
Intervention piloting .......................................................................................................................... 9
2.5.
Process evaluatioN ............................................................................................................................ 9
2.6.
EXPLORATION OF TRIAL FEASIBILITY ............................................................................................... 10
RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................... 11
3.1.
3.1.1.
What prevents fathers from engaging with child welfare services? ....................................... 11
3.1.2.
What facilitates father engagement with child welfare? ........................................................ 14
3.1.3.
The effectiveness of interventions for maltreating fathers .................................................... 16
3.1.4.
Conclusions of literature review .............................................................................................. 17
3.2.
Intervention design ......................................................................................................................... 18
3.2.1.
Pre-intervention qualitative research ..................................................................................... 18
3.2.2.
Training course content ........................................................................................................... 19
3.3.
4.
Narrative review of recent research on engaging fathers in child welfare ..................................... 11
Process evaluation ........................................................................................................................... 23
3.3.1.
Profile of pilot training course attendance.............................................................................. 23
3.3.2.
Acceptability of training to social workers .............................................................................. 25
3.3.3.
Quantitative research on change over time for trainees ........................................................ 27
3.3.4.
Qualitative research on the training process .......................................................................... 34
3.3.5.
Intervention costs .................................................................................................................... 38
DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................................. 40
4.1.
Discussion of process evaluation results ......................................................................................... 40
4.2.
The feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) ..................................................................... 41
5.
DISSEMINATION OF PROJECT .................................................................................................................. 43
6.
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................... 44
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................................... 45
Appendices ...................................................................................................................................................... 50
Appendix1 – t2 questionnaire ..................................................................................................................... 50
Appendix 2 – outline of training course ...................................................................................................... 55
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Improving the engagement of fathers in the child protection field should be a priority for
services because of its importance to effective risk management and because fathers and
paternal families can be important resources for the care of children. Historically, however, the
engagement of fathers – by which we mean all men involved in children’s lives regardless of
their biological link to the child – has been poor for a range of different reasons.
This project involved the development of a training course designed to improve social workers’
engagement of men in the child protection field, its piloting with 50 social workers in South
Wales and a mixed-method process evaluation.
A two-day course for social workers was developed on the basis of a literature review and
interviews with practitioners, managers and service users in two Welsh local authorities.
Consultants with experience of training practitioners on relevant issues contributed to the
development of training materials. Trainers were identified with either practice experience in
the child protection field or particular expertise in skills training.
Day One of the two-day course focused on acknowledging the complexities of the child
protection social work role and raising awareness about the importance of engaging fathers.
Day Two was skills training, via an introduction to Motivational Interviewing, an approach found
to be very effective in working with resistance in allied fields of health and social care. The
course was based on the assumption that increased self-efficacy for work with fathers should
lead to increased identification and engagement of men and that training whole teams of social
workers would have some impact on team culture.
Quantitative measures were taken of change over time in training course participants, with
questionnaires completed at the start of Day One and again two months after the end of Day
Two. There were measures of self-efficacy, team culture and self-reported caseloads.
Self-efficacy in relation to work with fathers improved over time. Trainees’ responses about
their confidence levels showed positive change that was highly statistically significant (p=<0.01)
in relation to each one of the 17 different statements about work with fathers. These
statements covered both working with men as a resource for children and working with men
whose behaviour poses a risk. The magnitude of change was greatest for trainees’ confidence in
discussing problematic and abusive behaviour.
Changes in team culture were modest. Although a metric of all responses to questions about
teams added together showed statistically significant change, for the individual questions there
was only significant change in relation to two questions: ‘In my team, staff are comfortable
working with fathers’ (p=<0.05) and ‘I myself would feel able to offer advice and consultation to
others on work with fathers’ (p=<0.01).
Self-efficacy does seem to have followed through to practice. Trainees were asked about
categories of fathers on their caseload and how many men had been worked with. For the
category of men whose behaviour puts children at risk of harm there was no change over time.
For the category of men living with children who are not putting them at risk of harm there was
a significant increase following the training in rate of engagement (p=<0.05). Finally, for fathers
whose whereabouts are known but who are not living with their children there was a highly
significant increase in the rate of engagement (p=<0.01).
Trainees’ satisfaction levels were high, as expressed in questionnaire responses. For example,
89% agreed or strongly agreed that they had used knowledge and skills from the training in their
jobs (the other 11% selected ‘slightly agree’). Follow-up telephone interviews with trainees also
suggested high levels of satisfaction. When asked about gaps in the training, some interview
participants said they would have liked more on risk management and work with aggressive
men. The training on Motivational interviewing was highly regarded, though the contrast
between this approach to interviewing and the familiar style of communication in child
protection work was very evident both from observation of the training and from the follow-up
telephone interviews.
The full cost of the intervention, including opportunity costs such as staff time which could have
been spent on routine casework, is £18,730.91 with 22 people attending. Per trainee the full
cost is £851.41, although if the course were run commercially the cost to local authority training
departments, which would not include covering staff time, would be substantially less and no
more expensive than mainstream training provision in the sector.
This project involved piloting the training with only 50 social workers and the quantitative
aspect of the evaluation was limited to pre-post testing and social workers’ self-report. To be
surer about the effectiveness of the training, there would need to be a control group, ideally in
the context of a randomized controlled trial. There would also need to be other sources of data,
such as case records and the view of service users. The current project tells us nothing about
outcomes for children. Ideally a future study would include an evaluation of the impact of
professionals’ engagement of fathers on the well-being of children.
The feasibility of a randomized controlled trial was discussed with senior managers in Children’s
Services. It was thought feasible to randomise teams on a waiting list basis, so that all teams
would eventually be trained. It may be that a practitioner-researcher could be identified in each
area to collect data locally. Funding possibilities will be explored during 2011-12.
1. INTRODUCTION
There is considerable evidence internationally that child welfare services focus on working with mothers in
the child protection process and typically fail to adequately engage fathers (O’Donnell et al. 2005; Strega et
al., 2008, Brandon et al., 2009). In relation to practitioners’ roles, it is not so much individual worker
characteristics that are highlighted in research as the powerful effect of occupational culture, whereby
certain gendered ways of understanding problems in families and responding to them become taken for
granted within organisations (Scourfield, 2003). The problem is not simply one of deficits in professional
practice, however, but the reasons for men to be less engaged than women are complex, including men’s
own reluctance to be involved (Schock and Gavazzi, 2004) and mothers acting as gatekeepers (Malm,
Murray and Green, 2006). Family structures are complex, with men present in families who have a range of
different relationships with children (Bellamy, 2009). In this report we therefore use the term ‘fathers’
inclusively, to encompass biological and social fathers.
The rationale for the need to work more with fathers is both improved risk assessment and enhanced
resources for the care of children (Daniel and Taylor, 2001; Featherstone, 2009). There is relatively little
evidence that better engagement of men by services will lead to better outcomes for children or adults.
There is some emerging positive evidence, however. Lundahl et al., (2008) conducted a meta-analysis of
parent training evaluations and found that programmes involving both mothers and fathers achieved more
desirable parenting practices and more positive changes in children’s behaviour than programmes involving
only mothers. This meta-analysis did not include any interventions for fathers only. However, Cowan et al.
(2009) set up a randomised controlled trial to compare the outcomes of a group programme for fathers, a
group programme for couples and a one-off informational meeting. Both group programmes showed
greater gains than the control group in terms of father engagement, children’s behaviour and couple
relationship. Interestingly, however, the group programme for couples resulted in longer term and more
consistent improvements than the programme for fathers only. Despite some emerging evidence, the
general picture is of a dearth of intervention studies in relation to fathers and perhaps especially in relation
to preventing child abuse (Lee, Bellamy and Guterman, 2009).
Similarly, there has been little work done on systematically attempting to improve the engagement of
fathers by mainstream services. The one example of an evaluated intervention is the US study by English,
Brummel and Martens (2009). These authors put in place a half-day training course for all practitioners, as
well as optional additional training modules taken up by some staff. Pre-post testing suggested some gains
in father engagement as evidenced by agency self-assessment and case file review. The training course
consisted of information –giving on a wide range of relevant issues, ‘video demonstration of techniques for
engaging fathers and written case examples of father involvement in assessment and case planning’
(p.219). The current project presents an attempt to build on English, Brummel and Marten’s (2009)
approach in the Welsh context, through the careful design of a more intensive short course, incorporating
evidence-based skills development (i.e. Motivational Interviewing), to facilitate improved father
engagement. The course (often referred to in the report as the ‘intervention’) was developed, piloted and
evaluated in collaboration with two Welsh local authorities.
2. METHODS
The project can be seen to have six distinct elements: literature review, pre-intervention qualitative
research, intervention development, intervention piloting, process evaluation and exploration of the
feasibility of a future randomized controlled trial. Research design decisions in relation to each of these
elements will be outlined below.
2.1. LITERATURE REVIEW
The aim was to synthesise the recent international research evidence on father engagement, in the form of
a narrative review, so as to inform the development of the training intervention. It is not the first research
review of the field; there are others (see Ryan, 2000; 2006; Sonenstein et al., 2002), as well as books which
have given a scholarly overview of research, theory and practice (Daniel and Taylor, 2001; Featherstone,
2009). However, the current review is a useful contribution, as in comparison with previous research
reviews it is either more comprehensive in its search strategy or provides a more up-to-date summary of an
expanding field.
There are a number of methods for reviewing evidence in a specific field. Commonly, distinctions are made
between a systematic review, in which all primary evidence that meets clear inclusion criteria is retrieved
and its quality appraised using explicit and reproducible methodology, and narrative reviews which do not
always make clear the inclusion criteria or methods for appraisal (MacDonald, 2003). However, in defence
of narrative reviews, Collins and Fauser (2004) note they can have the advantage over systematic reviews
of tackling more comprehensive topics. These authors call for narrative reviews to be strengthened by
adopting some of the techniques of systematic reviews such as transparency in reporting methods. We aim
to do that in this section.
The literature review has clear aims and is based on a systematic search strategy. The research questions
were as follows:


What are the barriers to and facilitators of better father engagement in child welfare services?
What is the evidence on the effectiveness of work with maltreating fathers?
The search was conducted from July to September 2010 and included a range of national and international
databases: The International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Social Science Citation Index, CINAHL,
Psychinfo, Medline, EMBASE, ASSIA, Sociological Abstracts, Social Service Abstracts and Health
Management Information Consortium. Intute: Social Science, Social Care Online and Google Scholar were
used to identify internet-based ‘grey literature’ (i.e. empirical research commissioned by governmental and
non-governmental bodies published on-line) as well as journal papers not picked up by other databases. In
order to maximise retrieval of relevant sources the search was supplemented by the use of citation followup which entailed the review of the reference list in relevant publications. Studies known to the research
team, but which did not emerge from the initial searches, were also included. Most of these databases
include only refereed journal articles, however, research-based books known to the research team were
also used in the review.
The search strategy involved multiple keyword searches using the terms ‘fathers’, ‘dads’ ‘men’ or ‘gender’
with ‘child protection’, ‘safeguarding’, ‘parenting’, ‘family services’, ‘family support’ or ‘child welfare’. The
search was limited by language (English), date (2000-2010) and academic discipline (social sciences, social
work, behavioural sciences). This initially yielded 415 publications. The abstracts and/or title of each
publication were scanned to determine relevance to the research questions and publications were included
if they were empirically-based and focused on fathers (using the broadest definition of that term). Sources
were excluded if they did not closely relate to the research questions. Some were excluded where it was
unclear to what extent the evidence related to fathers as opposed to ‘parents’ or ‘mothers’. Three
hundred and eighty-three articles were excluded at this stage. All sources included were based either on
primary empirical research or systematic reviews of empirical studies. Thirty-two studies were reviewed.
Data analysis was carried out in a transparent and systematic manner (Whittemore and Knafl, 2005). Firstly
publications were displayed on a table, allowing the comparison of country of origin, research design
(including sample size, data collection instruments and setting) and results. Results were appraised as
stronger or weaker according to clarity of reporting of research methods and close relevance to research
questions. Secondly, codes were generated from the results column, and developed into the nine themes in
the findings below. Thirdly, the evidence in each theme was synthesised and developed with particular
attention to evidence from the stronger studies, exceptions and anomalies.
2.2. PRE-INTERVENTION QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
The two Welsh local authorities who agreed to be involved in the research and intervention pilot were
identified because they were large enough to supply good numbers of social workers and because both had
(in 2008) levels of child protection registration levels above the Welsh average. The first stage of the
project was to carry out semi-structured interviews in these two authorities with key stakeholders
(practitioners, managers and service users). These focused on current barriers to the engagement of men;
effective approaches to changing front-line child protection practice; and the feasibility of an RCT of a
training intervention, with the last issue only being raised with managers. Eighteen interviews were
conducted in the two local authorities. We spoke to four social work managers, six social work practitioners
and eight service users (five fathers and three mothers). Team managers were identified by service
managers, practitioners by team managers and service users by social workers. All interviews followed a
clear interview schedule and focused on the topics noted above. They were digitally recorded and fully
transcribed. Thematic analysis was facilitated by N-vivo software (v.8). A coding frame was agreed by four
members of the research team after reading of one interview from each group of stakeholders
(practitioners, managers and service users). The coding was then carried out by the project researcher, Dr
Nina Maxwell, who also wrote a report on the findings to inform intervention development.
2.3. INTERVENTION DEVELOPMENT
The development of a training content and structure was informed by the review of existing research
evidence on barriers to and facilitators of father involvement and by the qualitative research in the two
local authorities. In addition to the research team, there was input from consultants and the trainers.
Consultants were engaged with specialist expertise in training on fathers and child protection (Sean
Haresnape from the Family Rights Group), knowledge of service provision for fathers in Wales (Tony Ivens
of Children in Wales) and experience of working with men (Ian Bickerton from South Wales Probation).
Each of these consultants suggested potential training materials which were fed into the design of the twoday course, although ultimately decisions on training content were made by the research team. Prior to the
development of training materials, decisions were taken about the aims of the training, mode of delivery
and appropriate participants, as well as broadly mapping out appropriate content. Discussion of these took
place via a round-table meeting of the UK-based members of the research team, the consultants listed
above, an experienced social work practitioner from one of the local authorities (Matt Lewis) and three
freelance trainers. Two trainers were engaged who had practice experience in child protection social work
and academic expertise on working with fathers – Polly Baynes had completed Masters research on social
work with violent men that was subsequently published (Baynes and Holland, 2010); Daryl Dugdale is
currently undertaking a professional doctorate on fathers in the child protection process. Both are
experienced trainers. A third trainer, Karen Marsh, was engaged because of her experience in motivational
interviewing training, having been specifically recommended by one of the founders of the approach,
Professor Stephen Rollnick. Following the round-table meeting and production of some training materials
by the consultants, a first draft of the training materials was sent to the freelance trainers who were be
responsible for delivering the course. They developed the content considerably at this stage.
2.4. INTERVENTION PILOTING
Fifty social workers attended a pilot of the two-day training intervention in three cohorts. A profile of
trainees can be found in section 3.1.2. A further 16 attended for only Day One of the course. The second
day of course two unfortunately had to be postponed on the day because one of the trainers experienced a
sudden close bereavement. It was inevitably difficult to fill the re-arranged Day Two. The decision was
therefore taken to run a third course, which had not originally been anticipated. The original attendees
were invited to the training and numbers were supplemented by participants working beyond the two
original local authorities . All training was delivered by the freelance trainers named above.
2.5. PROCESS EVALUATION
A mixed method process evaluation of the pilot training course was carried out, following the ‘realistic
evaluation’ approach of Pawson and Tilley (1997). The evaluation design included qualitative research –
observation of the three courses by three research team members and follow-up telephone interviews with
a purposive sample of ten course participants and the three trainers – and quantitative research in the
form of a questionnaire administered at the beginning of Day One of the course (T1) and again two months
later (t2). Forty-seven of the fifty who attended both days of the course (94%) completed t2 questionnaires.
Economic evaluation was limited to identifying the costs of the intervention, as the research design did not
allow for comparison of the cost outcomes of the training with continued practice in the absence of
training.
As explained more fully in section 3.2.2, the intervention hypothesised that increased confidence in
engaging fathers would lead to higher levels of engagement. The decision was taken therefore to measure
change in confidence levels. A bespoke scale was constructed which drew on Holden et al.’s (2002) social
worker self-efficacy scale. The Holden et al. scale measures self-efficacy across a wide range of social work
tasks and since the priority outcome for the course was readiness to work with fathers, the items were
heavily adapted. The scale developed by English, Brummel and Martens (2009) was also consulted. This is
more focused on attitudes towards work with fathers, assuming that more positive attitudes from workers
would be a desirable goal. On consideration, we did not use statements from the English, Brummel and
Martens scale, as we took the view that more positive attitudes were not essential to engagement. It would
be quite possible for a practitioner to have rather negative attitudes to men who pose a risk to children but
to nonetheless consider it very important to engage these men. Seventeen statements were used to
measure self-efficacy in relation to work with fathers. The t2 questionnaire is reproduced in appendix 1.
In the light of Scourfield’s (2003) ethnographic research, which described the powerful occupational culture
in a social work child welfare team, and the decision in this pilot study to train whole teams of social
workers, a measure was taken of team effects. Eight questions were constructed which asked about the
climate of the social work team in relation to fathers.
Since it is possible that increased confidence will not result in any significant change in practice, a third set
of questions were asked about caseloads. Course participants were asked about their overall current
caseloads and about three categories of fathers: men whose behaviour puts children at risk of harm; men
living with children who are not putting them at risk of harm; and fathers whose whereabouts are known
but who are not living with their children.
Finally, the Human Services Training Effectiveness Postcard, devised by Curry and Chandler (1999) was
employed. This has five items which ask about satisfaction with training and its impact on subsequent
practice.
The distribution of the data was tested and as would be expected for 10-point and 6-point scales, the data
were not normally distributed. We considered the 10-point confidence scale and 6-point Likert scale in
relation to team effects to be ordinal rather than interval. In the light of this decision, the distribution of the
data and the small sample, we used the appropriate non-parametric test for comparison of mean
responses at t1 and t2, namely the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test (Argyrous, 2011, p.472). Significance was
highlighted at the p=<0.05 level.
2.6. EXPLORATION OF TRIAL FEASIBILITY
The feasibility of a future randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the training intervention was explored via the
pre-intervention qualitative research with managers, additional telephone interviews with Children’s
Services managers and an initial investigation of the potential usefulness of routine data in Children’s
Services departments. The additional telephone interviews with Children’s Services managers in England
and Wales (n=6) were commissioned from the Fatherhood Institute. The usefulness of routine data for
research on training outcomes was explored via a visit to each of the two target local authorities, with ten
case files studied in each one, and telephone consultation with a Performance Management Development
Officer in one of the authorities. Advice was also taken from the South East Wales Trials Unit on issues to
consider about trial feasibility.
3. RESULTS
3.1. NARRATIVE REVIEW OF RECENT RESEARCH ON ENGAGING FATHERS IN CHILD
WELFARE
The review’s scope goes beyond the context of child protection, as insights relevant to engaging fathers can
also be found in research on parenting support. For this reason the broader term ‘child welfare’ is used in
the report. The review primarily aims to describe the substantive themes emerging from recent research,
rather than present methodological critique, but there are some concluding comments about what kinds of
additional evidence might be needed. Of the 32 studies reviewed, four were systematic reviews, sixteen
were based on qualitative research, six were quantitative and six used mixed methods.
It is widely recognised that there tends to be relatively poor engagement of fathers in child welfare services
and this is thought to be detrimental, either because a man’s potential (and that of his wider family) to be a
resource for the care of children is not used or because the risk posed by a man to children is not properly
assessed and managed. In the course of child protection work, it can feel to social workers as though they
are bombarded with men who are posing a risk to children, through physical abuse, sexual abuse and
emotional maltreatment (Scott and Crooks, 2004). Fathers may be intimidating or intoxicated and abusive
to workers, leading workers to be reluctant to confront or engage with them or to purposefully avoid them
for fear of their violent reactions (O’Donnell et al., 2005). In this context, it is perhaps not surprising that
men can be perceived as being dangerous non-nurturers (Ferguson and Hogan, 2004). If, however, men are
labelled as violent without recognition of their role as fathers, this not only negates any chance of changing
the negative aspects of these fathers’ behaviours to children but also may do little to stop them from
leaving the home and moving on to new relationships with new children, both their own and step-children.
In writing this review we adopt the position that, ‘... [t]o move toward true inclusiveness in both protecting
and supporting children, practitioners need to proactively assess and engage with all significant men in a
child’s life, understanding that some may pose risks, some may be assets and some may incorporate
aspects of both’ (Strega et al., 2008:713).
3.1.1. WHAT PREVENTS FATHERS FROM ENGAGING WITH CHILD WELFARE SERVICES?
3.1.1.1.
GOOD FATHER – BAD FATHER
In an analysis of the Serious Case Reviews conducted from April 2005 to March 2007 across England into
the deaths or serious injuries of children where abuse or neglect were known or suspected, Brandon et al.
(2009) found a tendency for professionals to adopt what they term ‘rigid’ or ‘fixed’ thinking. Fathers were
labelled as either ‘all good’ or ‘all bad’, leading to attributions as to their reliability and trustworthiness. The
consequences of such labelling prevented workers from taking seriously views expressed by ‘bad fathers’.
There were also apparent difficulties in how to label those fathers who had successfully completed
interventions, especially as workers struggled to balance fathers’ ability to change alongside past patterns
of behaviour. Brandon et al. (2009) describe how these fathers can be labelled as ‘reformed good dad’ and
present an example where a father was re-categorised following the successful completion of a domestic
violence programme. In this case, an optimistic perspective became the dominant view and the relevance
of previous risk information was not considered, with tragic results. This illustrates the process described by
Ferguson and Hogan (2004) where stories about fathers ‘float around the system’. Using a case study
approach of 24 vulnerable fathers, 12 mothers, 12 children and 20 professionals in Ireland, Ferguson and
Hogan found that fathers’ identities were sometimes constructed by professionals in collaboration with
family members, with fathers often labelled as dangerous without the professional having had any direct
contact with the man. Based upon this limited assessment, fathers were excluded. The diffusion of negative
stories about fathers has also been found in an ethnographic study within a UK social work office, where
Scourfield (2003) identified a number of pejorative discourses, including those of men as absent, irrelevant,
a threat, and no use (although some men were regarded more positively, in contrast to failing mothers, and
some couples were seen to be ‘as bad as each other’). O’Donnell et al. (2005) in a qualitative study in the
US found that team members tend to reinforce each others’ positive or negative construction of male
service users. It can be seen in the studies reviewed in this section that similar patterns of labelling men
have been found across a number of national settings.
3.1.1.2.
MOTHERS AS GATEKEEPERS
Mothers can either facilitate or block access for both resident and non-resident fathers (Huebner et al.,
2008; O’Donnell et al., 2005). In their study of 1,958 US cases, Malm et al., (2006) found that only one third
of mothers identified the father when asked. Drawing upon focus group evidence from individual cases
with 34 child welfare staff, US caseworkers outlined several reasons why a mother may choose not to
provide this information (O’Donnell et al., 2005). These may include reluctance about letting the father
know that child welfare services are involved, fear that the father may gain custody, anger at the father for
being in a new relationship or fear of the father’s reaction, particularly if there has been a history of
domestic abuse. The decision to conceal a father’s identity may also rest upon financial incentives, as the
mother may receive more money informally from the father or assume she qualifies for more welfare
benefits if his presence in the home is not known. This perception of financial disincentive to identify
fathers is noted in Dominelli et al.’s (2010) study, which is based on qualitative interviews with eleven
fathers of children in the Canadian public care system.
With regard to involving fathers in contact with child welfare professionals, a similar picture emerges
whereby mothers may be reluctant to divulge information to social workers for fear that they may lose
their children, not wish to include fathers if there has been a history of abuse or conflict between them or
may be unwilling to involve fathers in what they perceive to be ‘their territory’ (Ferguson and Hogan, 2004).
Findings from Huebner et al.’s (2008) mixed method survey of 339 fathers and 1,203 social service workers
suggest that professionals need guidance on how to support mothers to manage the emotional nature of
father involvement. A qualitative Canadian study of 22 caseworkers (Parent et al., 2007) found that more
than half the caseworkers believed that the mother had the right to accept or refuse involvement from her
partner.
In evaluating these findings it is important to note that in some cases the mother may be perfectly justified
in her fear, and some men will need to have contact with children restricted because of risk of serious
harm. It should be noted that of course not all mothers will restrict access to fathers. Roskill (2008), in focus
groups with 17 women service users from two English local authorities, found many of the women to be
expressing strong views that the involvement of men with children’s services was very important.
3.1.1.3.
PRACTITIONERS’ TRADITIONAL APPROACHES IN RELATION TO GENDER AND
PARENTING
Child welfare workers tend to focus on mothers and exclude or at least make little effort to include fathers
(Brandon et al., 2009, Davidson-Arad et al., 2008; Strega et al., 2008,). The prevalence of a view of mothers
as the primary caretakers of children can be seen when more information is recorded about the mother,
regardless of who is responsible for abusing the child or who the child lives with. Qualitative analysis of
court petitions in Israel, for example, has shown that as many as two and a half times more words are
recorded about mothers than fathers (Davidson-Arad et al., 2008). A mixed method study of social work
case files in Canada revealed that social workers deemed fathers to be irrelevant to mothers and children
in 50% of cases and only 50% of those fathers who were seen as an asset to children were contacted
(Strega et al., 2008). Low levels of engagement are also reported in relation to men who pose a risk to
children. In Baynes and Holland’s (2010) English study of 40 child protection case files, over a third of
fathers had no contact with a social worker prior to the first child protection meeting. In Roskill’s (2011) file
audit of cases involving domestically violent men, the father was neither seen nor contacted by phone in
32% of the core assessments studied. This means that little is known about fathers or other men in the
household, their relationships with the mother and the extent to which they are involved with the children.
Failure to know men in households has been a feature in serious case reviews in England (Brandon et al.,
2009), where information about men has not been passed on or pursued by caseworkers.
In addition to men who are currently living with children, it is well documented that many birth fathers are
not present in households where there are child welfare issues. Roskill’s (2008) study of 67 case files
(children in need, ‘looked after’ children and child protection) in two English local authorities found that in
80% of cases, the birth fathers was not part of the household where children were living. Practitioners do
not always engage with fathers who are not living with their children. In Roskill’s study there was no
information recorded about birth fathers in 20% of cases.
3.1.1.4.
FATHERS AS RELUCTANT CLIENTS
It is often supposed that fathers avoid contact with child welfare staff. O’Donnell et al. (2005), in their focus
group study, note that caseworkers, from their experience, have a range of explanations for this avoidance.
These include a fear that they cannot be good fathers for their children; a fear that involvement with the
child welfare system will exacerbate their problems with the criminal justice system; fear that relationships
with current partners not related to the child would be affected; fear of losing custody of children; and, for
fathers in difficult circumstances, a perception that the system is not there to help them.
Some evidence is emerging of fathers’ own perspectives. Schock and Gavazzi’s (2004) qualitative research
in the USA noted, amongst many issues raised by fathers, the impact of their past experience with family
services and their perception of their children’s behaviour. Berlyn et al. (2008) also note, from their
qualitative research with fathers and family welfare staff in Australia, that some men do not regard
themselves as competent in child care and there is a tendency or men to be reticent about seeking or
accepting help. Drawing on focus groups with fathers in the UK, Bayley et al. (2009) found that fathers’
perceptions of help with parenting served as a barrier to their involvement. Fathers displayed concern that
parenting programmes would dictate how they should parent and believed such groups were more suitable
for mothers. Indeed, family centres and family support services tend to be perceived by fathers as mothers’
places where women sit and chat (Ghate et al., 2000). Entering this largely female domain can make fathers
feel self-conscious or intimidated (Ghate et al., 2000; Garbers et al., 2006; Berlyn et al., 2008). In a study
carried out from 1998-99 of thirteen family centres in seven British local authorities, interviews with 90
fathers, mothers and staff found that in some cases women felt that these centres were their domain and
represented a safe place away from abusive partners, rendering them reluctant to welcome fathers into
these groups (Ghate et al., 2000). In other cases, Ghate et al. found that fathers, especially the
unemployed, valued the time they had alone while their partners and children attended such ventures.
3.1.2. WHAT FACILITATES FATHER ENGAGEMENT WITH CHILD WELFARE?
3.1.2.1.
EARLY IDENTIFICATION AND INVOLVEMENT
Early identification and involvement of fathers corresponds with higher levels of engagement later on in
the child welfare process (Garbers et al., 2006). In a qualitative study of vulnerable fathers in Ireland,
Ferguson and Hogan (2004:13) note that ‘[w]ithout exception those professionals who were most
successful in engaging fathers and ‘holding’ them in the work were those who invited the father to attend
from as close to the start as possible’. Father engagement within Sure Start programmes in the UK has also
been found to be associated with early identification and involvement (Lloyd et al., 2003). Using
quantitative data at baseline and one-year follow-up from the US Fragile Families and Child Well-being
Study, Mincy et al. (2005) found that establishing paternity at birth was associated with greater father
involvement in terms of contact, overnight stays and financial support. Whilst research findings suggest
that fathers should be engaged in hospital at the time of their child’s birth (Mincy et al., 2005; Lloyd et al.,
2003), young fathers are often excluded at this time and some of those who request help do not receive it
(Ashley et al., 2006). For young fathers without employment or educational prospects, fatherhood can offer
them something meaningful which can help them to feel worthwhile (Ferguson and Hogan, 2004). These
fathers may be keen to take on the role of father but may need help and support in making this transition.
The research project Fathers Matter 3 (Ashley, 2011), which includes an audit of 70 children in need and
child protection cases as well as 10 focus groups with social work managers, social workers, mothers and
fathers in the UK, found that young fathers appear to want help with negotiating relationships following
the birth as well as support in caring for their offspring.
3.1.2.2.
A PROACTIVE APPROACH TO ENGAGING FATHERS
Drawing on data from a literature review as well as empirical data from fathers, practitioners and academic
experts in the UK, Bayley et al., (2009) highlight the need to make services available to all fathers, including
those who are employed. Drawing on qualitative evidence from in-depth interviews with 90 fathers,
mothers and family centre staff, Ghate et al. (2000) found a mixed picture in relation to services’ opening
hours. They found opening hours to be less of an issue for fathers than they had anticipated, largely
because most of the potential male service users were unemployed. Bayley et al. (2009) suggest flexibility
of provision, as whilst 9-5 week day hours will be difficult for some, evenings and weekends may be difficult
for others.
Those services which refuse to accept referrals without reference to fathers tend to have higher levels of
father engagement, as found in Fabiano’s (2007) systematic review of 32 studies of father involvement in
behavioural parent training. Professional attitudes towards men further enhance engagement, so workers
must be willing to include, invite and have positive attitudes towards working with fathers (Ashley et al.,
2006; Ghate et al, 2000). Interview findings from 162 parent support professionals from 12 local authorities
found that the ways in which fathers were approached about engagement had a direct effect on their
involvement. In this study, Cullen et al. (2010) provide support for findings that visiting fathers at home,
being persistent and consulting fathers as to what services they required were effective strategies in
increasing father engagement (Bayley et al., 2009; Berlyn et al., 2008; Ghate et al., 2000). In addition,
Bayley et al..’s (2009) findings highlight the need to employ male staff, advertise in alternate locations such
as sports centres, job centres or workplaces, and display positive images of fathers and their children.
Various researchers have argued on the basis of their findings that active targeting of ‘fathers’ as opposed
to ‘parents’ should be adopted (Berlyn et al., 2008; Lloyd et al., 2003). This strategy might help avoid the
assumption that ‘parents’ means mothers, but it is also possible that some men will be less self-conscious
about attending a service for all parents than one specifically for fathers, so caution is needed in the
labelling of services.
One study of a preventive intervention provides support for both father specific and inclusive services.
Cowan et al. (2009) conducted a randomized control evaluation of an intervention to increase fathers’
engagement. Participants included 289 couples with children under 7 years of age, primarily from lowincome Mexican American and European American families in California, who were recruited from family
resource centers, other county service agencies, community advertisements and other community events
where fathers were present. Participants were randomly assigned to either a 16-week group for fathers, a
16-week group for couples, or a 1-time informational meeting. Results from an 18 month follow-up
demonstrated that both higher-dose interventions produced superior effects for fathers’ engagement with
their children, couple relationship quality, and children’s behavior as compared to the lower dose
condition. However, only the parents from the couples’ groups showed significant declines in parenting
stress. It is important to emphasize, however, that this study was for preventive services and working with
couples together in a context where abuse or violence has already occurred may hold additional risks.
3.1.2.3.
MAKING SERVICES RELEVANT TO FATHERS
In a US qualitative study on young fathers and risk, Weinman et al., (2002) found that of 128 fathers
attending a social work programme, 73% were unemployed, 69% were school drop-outs, nearly 40% had
substance abuse problems, and around 30% had committed a crime. When asked about service needs, the
majority of fathers wanted employment as they saw this as a way of establishing themselves as ‘provider‘
and in turn, gaining access to their children. Despite the presence of multiple risk factors in these young
men’s lives, when asked, the young fathers did not perceive a need for parenting support or substance
abuse counselling. Both Potter and Carpenter (2010) and Cullen et al. (2010) describe the need for ‘a hook’
to draw men in to parenting services, with Weinman et al. (2002) suggesting that employment may be one
such effective ‘hook’ for young fathers. Other incentives include mental health or substance abuse
intervention, and general health components (Weinman et al., 2002).
In their qualitative study of family centres in seven local authorities across England and Wales, Ghate et al.,
(2000) found that fathers preferred activity-based approaches which allowed them to spend time with their
children and take part in outdoor activities or skill-based exercises. Levels of engagement were associated
with fathers having a specific activity or objective such as a course or sporting activities. The National
Evaluation of Sure Start in the UK supports these findings in that fathers were found to engage more in
activity-based or outdoor activities than classroom-based parenting sessions or discussion groups (Lloyd et
al., 2003). Magill-Evans et al.’s (2006) systematic review of the effectiveness of twelve interventions for
fathers with infants or toddlers found that those interventions which involved active participation with
children were associated with increased father-child interaction. More generally, research findings suggest
that fathers prefer services that have been designed specifically for them, that provide the opportunity for
them to spend time with their children and where they are able to access peer support (Bayley et al., 2009;
Berlyn et al., 2008; Bronte-Tinkew et al., 2007; Garbers et al., 2006; Lloyd et al., 2003; Ghate et al., 2000). A
recent mixed method survey with 339 fathers and 1,203 social workers involved in active child welfare
cases in the US revealed that fathers requested strengths-based, family-centred services (Huebner et al.,
2008). It seems that in the context of family support work, the most effective interventions adopt a
strengths-based approach which focus upon the important contribution fathers make to their children’s
lives where workers are positive about the father’s ability and are honest about the issues faced yet which
emphasise the father’s existing skills and use solution-focused thinking to develop their skills and build
confidence (Berlyn et al., 2009; Gearing et al., 2008).
3.1.3. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERVENTIONS FOR MALTREATING FATHERS
There is a certain lack of evidence about the effectiveness for fathers of parenting programmes which teach
child management skills, as many programmes are attended only by mothers, as can be seen in a recent
Cochrane review on interventions for teenage parents (Barlow et al. 2011). Lundahl et al.’s (2008) metaanalysis, however, suggests that parent training programmes which fathers attend as well as mothers
result in better child behaviour outcomes, although fewer desirable gains for fathers than for mothers. In
the context of child harm, however, it is not certain that interventions found to be effective with mothers
will work as well with fathers, as there seem to be some distinctive features of men who maltreat children.
Quantitative findings from a relatively small study suggest that maltreating fathers (n=24) differ from nonmaltreating fathers (n=25) on a number of cognitive and affective constructs, including their experience
and expression of anger, parenting stress and level of empathy with their children (Francis and Wolfe,
2008). In their mixed method study of 53 fathers interviewed as part of the Integrative Assessment
programme in the US, Smithgall et al. (2009) found that those fathers described as being ‘negatively
involved resident fathers’ did not understand the impact of their behaviour upon their children and were
often resistant to services. These fathers were more likely to have been convicted of a violent crime with
many reporting problems with substance abuse. Fathers who are abusive to women and children therefore
pose particular challenges for practitioners. Given the distinctive features described, there would seem to
be a certain logic to cognitive-behavioural interventions. These have been used to intervene with men who
abuse women partners, with some modest success, as a meta-analysis of intervention studies has
demonstrated (Babcock et al., 2004).
Scott and Crooks (2007) have developed a 17-week programme specifically aimed at maltreating fathers,
called ‘Caring Dads’. The Caring Dads programme is currently in use in parts of the UK and draws upon an
integration of research evidence on parenting, child maltreatment, readiness to change and domestic
abuse (although there is consensus that this is not a domestic abuse perpetrator programme). Reporting
findings from an initial pre-post test evaluation, Scott and Crooks (2007) present promising results on
certain measures with 45 fathers referred to Caring Dads in one city in Canada over a one-year period.
There was a significant decrease in the men’s level of hostility, denigration and rejection of children,
parenting stress and level of angry arousal in a family context. However, the current evidence base on the
effectiveness of Caring Dads is slim (further evaluations are underway). Specialist programmes such as this
are sometimes criticised because of the length of interventions and high drop-out rates, which do not suit
all potential participants, but evidence-based specialist programmes for maltreating fathers would ideally
be part of a menu of services social workers can choose from when working with fathers.
Field social workers also need approaches which will help them in routine case work and in areas where
there may be no specialist programmes to which they can refer men. Although there is not any direct
evidence of its effectiveness for engaging fathers in a child protection context, and introducing it here
means going beyond the limits of our original search criteria, motivational interviewing (MI) has been found
to be effective in allied fields such as substance misuse (Lundahl et al., 2010) and has considerable promise
for the engagement of reluctant service users. MI is a client-centred yet directive style of therapeutic
engagement which aims to enhance motivation to change through the resolution of ambivalence (Miller
and Rollnick, 2002). It combines Rogerian humanistic relationship-building with more active cognitivebehavioural strategies (Burke et al., 2003). MI has been used successfully with perpetrators of domestic
violence to maintain attendance at programmes and reduce drop-out (Taft et al., 2001) as well as
increasing receptivity to programme activities (Kistenmacher and Weiss, 2009; Musser et al., 2008). It has
also been applied to training of field social workers, in an attempt to reduce aggressive and confrontational
styles of communication. Forrester et al.’s (2008a, 2008b) mixed method study of 40 social workers in a
London borough showed a moderate level of success in improving practice three months post-training
where workers displayed lower levels of confrontation and higher levels of listening to parents. The MI skill
level was low, however, and Forrester et al. (2008a) suggest that confrontational styles may be systemic in
practice culture. Fathers who pose a risk to women and children are likely to be resistant to authoritarian
social workers, so it may be that MI has potential to engage these men more successfully, allowing for
more effective assessment and management of risk. Caution is needed, however. There is no direct
evidence that MI is effective with fathers in a child protection context and it cannot be assumed that an
approach that works in one field can necessarily be transferred to another. For example, Burke et al.’s
(2003) meta-analysis of 30 clinical trials found that although MI was effective in alcohol treatment, the
evidence did not support its use for HIV-related risk behaviours or smoking prevention.
3.1.4. CONCLUSIONS OF LITERATURE REVIEW
It has been argued that one of the main obstacles to father involvement in the child protection process is
dichotomous thinking, where men become labelled as either a ‘risk’ or ‘resource’ for their children as
opposed to potentially a complex mix of both elements. Fathers may be excluded from child welfare work
because of a pejorative practitioner culture, because mothers fail to identify them or are unwilling to
include them, or because workers focus child welfare interventions upon the mother, possibly because of
traditional assumptions about gender roles. In addition, fathers may avoid contact with workers, view
parenting as the mother’s role or find that interventions are not focused upon their perceived needs or
preferred activities. To overcome these barriers the early identification and involvement of fathers appears
to be a crucial first step in ensuring that they are contacted and understand that child welfare workers
expect them to engage. In adopting a proactive approach to engaging fathers there are various practical
measures that can be employed, including offering flexible hours of services for working fathers, visiting
them at home, being persistent and highlighting the positive gains to children of father involvement. With
regard to service provision, the research evidence presented emphasises the need for activity-based
interventions where fathers can spend time with their children and where their strengths are built upon to
positively enhance their fathering skills.
For maltreating fathers, the evidence suggests that fathers do not always understand the negative effects
of their behaviour upon their children. Little is known about which approaches are the most effective,
although there would seem to be a theoretical rationale for approaches which help fathers to consider
their actions and how they affect others, perhaps on the basis of cognitive-behavioural principles. Whilst in
its infancy within child welfare work, Motivational Interviewing is an approach that appears to lend itself to
work with resistant clients. It may therefore hold some promise for the initial engagement of fathers who
pose a risk to children, although it would be wise to proceed with caution.
Although this review has concentrated on substantive findings, and has not paused to discuss the
methodological basis of studies, it will have been evident that there are both qualitative and quantitative
studies into the issue of father engagement, but relatively little evidence which is focused on the
effectiveness of interventions, especially in the context of risk. This is of course a difficult and sensitive
issue to research, but this review suggests a need for more outcome studies, including those using
experimental and quasi-experimental designs. Such studies are badly needed to inform the development of
evidence-based policy and practice with fathers, although we note that the transferability of programmes
to a different national and cultural context should not be assumed. In considering the evidence base for
practice it should also be noted that engaging fathers cannot be considered a discrete set of activities but
part of wider engagement with families and crucially with mothers. There is therefore much to be learned
from the broader inter-disciplinary evidence base on the outcomes of child welfare services.
3.2. INTERVENTION DESIGN
3.2.1. PRE-INTERVENTION QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
The overall picture was that the interviews conducted in the development phase reflected the themes that
emerged from our literature review about the barriers to the engagement of fathers; for example
highlighting the role of mothers as gatekeepers, practical difficulties in arranging meetings with fathers who
work, fathers’ avoidance, absenteeism, and reluctance to engage. It would not be particularly useful to
rehearse these findings about barriers at length in the current report, as they do not add substantially to
the findings of the literature review; findings which have emerged from the bulk of studies on fathers and
child protection. Nonetheless, this was an important grounding to the project that might have identified
specific local issues. While some practitioners did suggest that local cultures of gender relations might
impact on patterns of engagement, the types of cultural behaviours identified have been found in studies
throughout the UK and internationally.
I don’t know whether that is cultural or what because there is that sort of attitude with lots of
men in the valleys where it is down to the woman, it’s not their job sort of thing. (Interview
with Social Services Manager)
Of more interest are the main themes that emerged in response to the question for social workers ‘have
you got any thoughts on your own training needs in relation to working with fathers?’ and the question for
parents ‘are there any things you’d like to see social workers do differently?’.
Of the four managers, two recommended guidance on how to manage the process of challenging difficult
people. This reflects that both mothers and fathers may present aggression and/or hostility when their
parenting skills are called into question. Similarly, a third manager emphasised the need for good
communication skills that are based upon strategies of enabling ways of talking to people (not just fathers),
especially those who do not want to engage or may be evasive when questioned. In regard to working with
fathers, the fourth manager highlighted the need to raise awareness about the barriers to working with
fathers so that social workers can understand and adopt a more patient, persistent approach. For social
workers, two echoed the need for training on how to manage challenging behaviour, how to engage
parents and how to work with violent parents. In relation to specific training for father engagement, two
social workers wanted more information on legal aspects, especially around parental responsibility. One
practitioner suggested it would be beneficial to hear from fathers themselves to find out what their
perspectives are in working with social workers.
Key issues for designing the training course from the interviews with practitioners were that there was a
perceived need for awareness-raising on gender issues in child protection, factual information about legal
aspects and skills development on engagement and handling difficult behaviour. These three elements of
awareness, information and skills were therefore all integrated into the final course design.
Interestingly, while all practitioners emphasized the need to minimize lectures and integrate as much in
terms of practical exercises and skills development, there was some reluctance to take part in role play
exercises. Nonetheless, some acknowledged that although not popular, it can be a valuable learning
experience. In designing the course these concerns were acknowledged and the trainers demonstrated role
play of interviewing skills to the whole group, while participants were mostly asked to role play in pairs and
small groups in the hope that this would feel more comfortable. It was not regarded as practical to develop
interviewing skills without some element of role play.
When asked what they would like to see social workers do differently, all eight of the service users
(including five fathers) complained that they were dictated to with little attempt made at understanding
their particular situation. The majority of fathers felt that they were talked at, with one stating that they did
not understand what they were being told to do and another suggesting it would be helpful to be kept
informed of any progress they had made. Whilst one father felt that his social worker was ‘on a crusade’
against men, both he and the rest of the parents interviewed were all able to recall periods where they had
worked with what they perceived to be good social workers. Overwhelmingly, good social workers were
perceived to be those that demonstrated some understanding of the family’s position and communicated
clearly with the family. The following quotation from one of the fathers, who had experience of working
with a number of social workers, succinctly summarizes these points:
If you’ve got an arrogant, bombastic social worker coming in saying you’ve got to do this,
you’ve got to do that otherwise that’s what’s going to happen, you’re going to sit there and
you’re going to think, fine. But if you’ve got a social worker who’s going to come in and say,
well look, I can see you’ve got a problem let’s see if we can sort it out. A little bit of empathy,
little bit of sympathy and a lot of respect and then that will go around an awful long way
(interview with father).
A key message, therefore, from the interviews with services users was that they felt most engaged by
practitioners who appear empathetic, are prepared to listen, and can communicate clearly what is
expected and what is likely to happen next. These findings also informed the training design and, alongside
the interviews with practitioners, reinforced the need to include a skills-based element to the training.
3.2.2. TRAINING COURSE CONTENT
A full outline of course content can be found in Appendix 2. The aim of the course was to improve social
workers’ engagement of men in the child protection process and there were four main objectives:
1.
2.
3.
4.
To recognise the benefits of working with men for improving the safety of children.
To enhance social workers’ knowledge in relation to work with fathers.
To enhance inter-personal skills for engaging with reluctant clients.
For social workers to feel more confident and effective in working with fathers.
The course content was broadly in line with Bandura’s (1977, 1986) Social Cognitive Theory (SCT). This
theory sees an individual’s personality, behaviour and environment interacting to determine what actions
will be taken. It has been applied to staff development (e.g. Gibson, 2004), although typically only one
aspect of the theory, that of self-efficacy, is highlighted. The wider SCT model would argue that training
must be situated within the social context as learning behaviour is a function of the interaction between
the learner and their environment (Gibson, 2004). Scourfield’s (2003) ethnographic study highlighted the
importance of occupational culture in child protection work, with gendered discourses strongly influencing
practice. According to Smith et al. (2006), social workers place equal or higher value to informal learning
mechanisms such as consultation with peers and experience than training or academic courses. Phillips and
Phillips (2001), writing about the evaluation of training, comment that the workplace environment is an
important variable affecting the application of learning. They suggest that “even if learning occurs during
training, the work climate may either support or inhibit the application of learned behaviours on the job”
(p243). It was therefore decided that social workers would be trained as whole teams. It was not feasible
for whole teams to vacate the office at once, so half a team was present at any one course, with the other
half invited to attend the second time the course ran.
In line with SCT, Day One of the course focused upon personality factors, broadly construed, with social
workers encouraged to reflect critically on their knowledge and values and acknowledge the difficulties and
complexities of the dynamics that exist in any practice situation involving fathers. The day was divided into
eight sessions, with three knowledge-based sessions of ‘why engage fathers?’, ‘barriers, facilitators and
practitioner fear’ and ‘legal and ethical issues’ including some brief lecture input. Four sessions were valuebased and involved reflection upon attitudes and values about fathers; the gains and losses of involving
fathers for social worker, mother, father and child; assessing the likelihood of risk; and initial impressions of
services for fathers. Finally there was an initial introduction to skills via practice interviewing of a father
within a role-play scenario.
Day Two highlighted behavioural factors, with skills developed for working with reluctant clients using
Motivational Interviewing (MI). After an initial session bridging back to Day One with a reminder of key
themes and video testimony from fathers who had experienced the child protection process, Day Two was
divided into four skills-based sessions. These were ‘background to MI’; ‘engaging skills’; ‘readiness to
change’; and ‘MI with fathers’, each consisting of role-play exercises. According to Bandura (1995:2), selfefficacy refers to ‘the belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to
manage prospective situations’. For learners, it refers to the confidence they have in using their newly
acquired skills where the most effective method of developing strong self-efficacy is that of having the
opportunity to use these skills successfully through what Bandura calls ‘mastery experiences’. To this end,
social workers were initially given the opportunity to learn and practise these new skills by drawing upon
their own personal experiences, e.g. dieting or stopping smoking, rather than expecting them to
immediately apply new techniques to work-based scenarios.
Phillips and Phillips (2001), in the context of staff development, reviewed factors that promote change and
stage of change models have been suggested which recognise the importance of the context in which
change is expected to occur, including the support of others (Hellman et al., 2010). Key to models of
change is the notion that the learning programme or intervention needs to fit with the participants’
‘readiness to change’ level. This is reflected in the emphasis in the course given to what the learner brings
to the training (both days) and readiness to change (Day Two).
The relationship between training and performance is complex. Knowledge is necessary but not sufficient
for practice change and good training alone may not secure change. Barriers and facilitators to
implementation relate to the individual, others (colleagues, managers) and the organisation (resources,
structures, culture). Parent, Roy and Jacques (2007) write about a knowledge transfer capacity model which
includes what they label as an “absorptive capacity” which brings together a number of elements relevant
here. They describe this capacity as the ability to do three key things in relation to new knowledge, namely,
recognise its value, assimilate it and then apply it. They identify that this capacity is typically found in
certain environments, those possessing “prior related knowledge, a readiness to change, trust between
partners, flexible and adaptable work organizations and management support” (p87). Clearly, in addition
to attending to training content, delivery method and what the learner brings, a fourth element that
requires consideration is the workplace context. The intervention was limited in the extent to which it
could impact on the workplace. Although whole teams were trained – a strategy which could potentially
affect team culture – there was no work done with managers or within organisations, other than initial
meetings to agree that staff should be released.
The importance of context is reflected in the process evaluation, which adopts a realistic evaluation
approach focused on what works, for whom and in what circumstances (Pawson and Tilley, 1997). In this
realistic evaluation we began with a set of theories about the factors or process that may explain why an
intervention would produce a particular result. The evaluation made use of a logic model (see Figure 1).
The literature review and pre-intervention research interviews were used to define the theory,
assumptions and evidence underlying the rationale for the intervention and shaping the development of
the training (the input). The evaluation looks at the causal relationships between context-input-outputoutcomes-impact to arrive at an understanding of the combination of factors that result in the intended
and unintended effects. The programme effect is assessed in terms of the (short term) outputs (for
example, did knowledge and confidence increase, to what extent, for whom?) and (interim) outcomes (for
example, the extent to which knowledge was applied to practice). In the longer term (beyond the scope of
the time-frame for this evaluation) the intention would be to explore the impact of the training on risk
management, outcomes for children and the costs of social work.
As learning readiness and knowledge gain have been found to predict training transfer (Antle, Barbee and
van Zyl, 2008), Day One of the course acknowledged the difficulty and complexity of the roles involved in
child protection, encouraged social workers to consider their own values and beliefs and highlighted (with
reference to research evidence) the rationale for father engagement as a means of encouraging social
workers to consider new ways of working. This approach was especially pertinent as we would not expect
all practitioners to be equally committed to increasing father involvement in the child protection process
(McBride, Rane and Bae, 2001). In the light of the pre-intervention qualitative research that was
summarised above, we decided an important aspect of any training intervention would be skills training for
work with reluctant clients. This was therefore the main focus of Day Two, via an introduction to
Motivational Interviewing. Both days combined a range of teaching methods including information-giving,
discussion, group activities and role-play.
Figure 1 overleaf summarises the main elements of the training design logic.
Figure 1: Logic Model
CONTEXT
Lack of progress in
involving men within
child protection process:
- Routine practice in child
and family teams
(Scourfield, 2003).
- Views of service users
(Ashley et al., 2006).
- Serious case reviews of
child deaths have
highlighted problems in
engaging men who pose
a risk to children (e.g.
Brandon et al., 2009).
Aims:
- Improve the
safeguarding of
children with regard
to the early
engagement of fathers
in protection/
prevention related
issues.
- Inform front-line
practice with research
evidence about
effective strategies in
working with fathers.
- Enhance the
intervention skills of
the social care
workforce when
working with fathers
in child protection.
INPUT
OUTPUT
OUTCOMES
POTENTIAL IMPACT
Training development
Research:
- Professional and service user
qualitative interviews.
- Literature review.
- Practitioners apply effective
strategies to locate fathers.
Advisory group input to identify key
elements of training.
Training delivery: 2-day training
course for teams of practitioners
Aim:
- To improve social workers’
engagement of men in the child
protection process.
Day One
- Acknowledgement of the
difficulty and complexity of roles.
- Critical reflection and further
development of knowledge and
values.
Day Two
- Develop skills for working with
reluctant clients (motivational
interviewing)
- Practitioners have a better
understanding of the role of father
engagement in effective risk
management.
- Practitioners have greater
awareness of effective strategies
to engage fathers.
- Practitioners feel more confident
in their ability to engage fathers.
- Practitioners feel more confident
in their ability to gain information
from fathers.
- Practitioners apply effective
strategies to engage fathers
- Social work teams support
moves to engage fathers.
- A record of basic information
about fathers (e.g. location,
DOB) is included at initial
assessment.
- Increased numbers of fathers
attend Child Protection
conferences.
- Increased level of engagement
of:
o Fathers living with
children
o Fathers not living with
children and whose
location is known
o Fathers not living with
children and whose
location is unknown
- Improved outcomes for
children.
- More comprehensive
and effective risk
assessment.
- Cost reductions related
to number of looked
after children.
EVALUATION
INPUTS What amount of time/money were invested? How many sessions were actually delivered? OUTPUTS Who/how many attended? Did they attend all the sessions? Were
they satisfied? Did knowledge/confidence increase? To what extent? For whom? Why? OUTCOMES Was learning gained from the course applied to practice? What were the
consequences? To what extent did father engagement improve? IMPACT Does this result in more effective risk management, improved outcomes for children, reduced costs?
3.3. PROCESS EVALUATION
3.3.1. PROFILE OF PILOT TRAINING COURSE ATTENDANCE
Fifty participants attended both days of the training course, with 23 attending course one, 11 attending
course two and 16 attending course three. Of these, five were male and 45 were female reflecting more
general gender patterns within the child protection social care workforce. Participants ranged from under
30 years of age (11:22%) to 60+ (1:2%) with most aged between 30 and 39 (20:40%). In terms of
experience, participants were equally divided between 1-5 years (12:24%) and 6-10 years (12:24%), with
12% (6) of the sample having 16+ years of social work experience. Over half of the sample had
qualifications of a Bachelors degree or above. No relationship was noted between years of experience and
highest qualification (χ2 = 38.12, df = 24, p = 0.34).
Courses one and two consisted of participants from the two target local authorities only (17:34% and
20:40%, respectively). Course three necessitated wider sampling, as explained in section 2.4, with two
additional areas within the second target authority being approached (Area B and C) as well as a further
three local authorities. Hence, participants were recruited from five authorities in total. This resulted in 8
participants (16%) from authorities outside of the initial target populations.
The majority of participants worked full-time (40:80%) with most working within the Assessment and Care
Planning team (36:72%). Whilst the name of this team differed across Authority (e.g. Initial Assessment,
Duty and Assessment), in all five Authorities this team represented the first port of call for cases entering
the department. Participants who attended the course from other teams all expressed a professional
interest in ways of working with fathers.
Table 1 Description of participants
Variable
Course attended
Course one
Course two
Course three
Gender
Male
Female
Age range
Under 30
30-39
40-49
50-59
60+
Years qualified
1-5 years
6-10 years
11-15 years
16+ years
Not qualified
Other
Student
Frequency
Percentage
23
11
16
46
22
16
5
45
10
90
11
20
11
7
1
22
40
22
14
2
12
12
4
6
8
3
5
24
24
8
12
16
6
10
Highest qualification
Bachelors degree
Postgraduate degree
Higher National Diploma
NVQ 3
Diploma
Authority
Authority 1 (Target authority)
Authority 2 (Target authority)
- Area A
- Area B
- Area C
Authority 5
Authority 6
Authority 7
Employment status
Full-time
Part-time
Team
Assessment and Care Planning
Child Protection and Family Support
Disabled Children’s Team
Family Support Service
Other
24
13
1
5
7
48
26
2
10
14
17
25
34
50
20
2
3
40
4
6
5
2
1
10
4
2
40
10
80
20
36
9
1
1
3
72
18
2
2
6
As would be expected, 84% (42) participants had attended child protection training, with most having had
the training within the last 1-5 years (23:46%). Fourteen per cent of participants (7) indicated that they had
received training on working with fathers within the previous five years. Around a third of participants
(18:36%) had received training on Motivational Interviewing.
Half of participants had received training on domestic abuse, with most undertaking training within the last
five years (13:26%). A similar pattern was noted for training on working with violence and aggression, with
approaching half of the sample having received such training and most of these (13:26%) within the
previous five years.
Table 2 Relevant training attended
Variable
Child Protection
Less than 12 months ago
1-5 years
6+ years
None attended
Missing
Total
Working with fathers
1-5 years ago
None attended
Missing
Total
Frequency
Percentage
17
23
2
6
2
50
34
46
4
12
4
100
7
36
7
50
14
72
14
100
Motivational Interviewing
Less than 12 months ago
1-5 years
6+ years
None attended
Missing
Total
Domestic Abuse
Less than 12 months ago
1-5 years
6+ years
None attended
Missing
Total
Working with violence and aggression
Less than 12 months ago
1-5 years
6+ years
None attended
Missing
Total
5
9
4
25
7
50
10
18
8
50
14
100
9
13
3
19
6
50
18
26
6
38
12
100
7
13
4
22
4
50
14
26
8
44
8
100
3.3.2. ACCEPTABILITY OF TRAINING TO SOCIAL WORKERS
For the final course evaluation, participants were asked to rate the course from 1-6, where 1 signified a low
rating and 6 a high rating. The terminology differed according to item, for example, where participants
were asked to rate the balance of materials, the scale ranged from ‘poor balance’ to ‘good balance’
whereas rating the effectiveness of the activities used a scale ranging from ‘ineffective’ to ‘effective’. In
order to aid analysis the scale was divided into two, with 1-3 meaning a poor rating and 4-6 a good rating.
All fifty participants who attended both days of the training rated the course as excellent, with all three
trainers being rated as good/very good across all three courses. A small number of participants (n=6) felt
that the course was too short. In relation to the pace of the training, the majority felt that the course was
just right. Forty-six participants rated the number of participants on each course as just right. The four who
did not all attended course two, which had 25 participants on Day One and 11 on Day Two (see section 2.4).
Interestingly, all four trainees who disagreed that the number of participants was right felt there were too
many people on the course. A tentative explanation to this finding is that the participants preferred the
smaller group on Day Two as opposed to the larger group on Day One.
The overwhelming majority described the course as having a good balance of information giving, activities,
discussion and use of media. All fifty participants felt the practical activities were very effective. When
asked to comment on the practical activities in more detail, 33 responded, with most comments relating to
the inclusion of role-play. More specifically, participants stated that, ‘role-play was difficult but helped put
a lot of it all into practice’ and ‘the role-play was very effective regarding the case studies on Day One and
enabled me to emphasise with dads’. Related to this, the next largest category (5) related to how the
activities had enabled participants to put the theory they had been taught into practice, followed by the
effectiveness of the MI activities in developing a fuller understanding of this technique. Other comments
included the relevance of the activities to the course content (3), helping to place new knowledge into
perspective (2), and the benefits of group work (1). Two comments gave suggestions for future
improvement with one stating there were too many practical activities and another noting that many of the
MI questions written on the flipchart were not distributed as handouts. With regard to handouts, 31
participants rated the number as just right with eight stating there were too few, across all three courses.
The actual time devoted to practical activities and activity debriefing were rated as good/very good by
almost all participants.
Forty-seven participants responded to the open-ended item on what participants liked best about the
course, with a wide-range of responses given. The largest category was for MI (11), followed by comments
relating to the expertise of the trainers and their ability to create a safe training environment where
participants felt relaxed and able to participate (8). Five comments simply stated that they had found the
entire course enjoyable. Four participants found the opportunity to reflect upon their practice and the
information they had been presented invaluable, whilst three others found the opportunity to interact with
staff from other local authorities and the trainers to be beneficial. The remaining comments related to the
balance of information giving and practical activities (3), group activities (2), discussion (2), relevance of the
course to practice (2), thinking about men (2), and the DVD (1).
When asked about what they liked least about the course, eighteen participants responded. Of these, five
comments stated that they had enjoyed the entire course whilst a further five related to the inclusion of
role-play. Two participants felt the MI component had included less focus on practice and had lost
perspective. Two participants commented on the distance they had to travel to the course (both from
course 3 where the venue was located some distance from participants’ place of work) whilst another
noted the temperature in the course three training room was very low. Finally, one comment related to the
amount of moving around the room which the course included and one participant would have liked more
observation similar to the DVD which was shown at the beginning of Day Two.
Twenty-five suggestions were made about what to add to the course. The largest number of responses (7)
called for more time on MI, followed by the need to include fathers so their perspectives could be gleaned
(4). Two participants would have liked more on parental responsibility and legislation and two others called
for a further training day in order allow more time to digest the information they had been presented. Four
comments related to the inclusion of different types of clients e.g. resistance and how to manage this,
aggressive fathers etc. Finally, one suggestion was made about including staff from other agencies involved
in safeguarding. No comments were given about what should be removed from the course.
Finally, when asked to comment generally about any areas the training course had not covered, nineteen
comments were given. Seven of these simply stated that the course had been excellent with a further five
commenting on how useful they had found the course. Two participants commented that they would take
a lot from the course back to their practice. One participant felt that the MI trainer was ‘brilliant’ whilst
another noted that the role-play had not been as bad as they had originally thought it would be. Finally,
three comments provided feedback for improvement. One related to the catering on course two, whilst
another suggested that it would have been useful to see some of the books which the trainers had
recommended throughout the two days. Another noted that the course would have been better if they
whole team had attended as, ‘individual team cultures impact upon the practice’.
Around two months after attending the Fathers and Child Protection Course participants were asked as
part of the t2 questionnaire to complete the Human Services Training Effectiveness Postcard (Curry and
Chandler, 1999) to evaluate satisfaction with the course and its impact on practice. Here we present the
data in relation to those who attended both days of the course, to be consistent with other data presented
in the report. The majority of participants indicated that they were satisfied with the training course (Table
1). Most stated that they had learnt a substantial amount of information on the course and had used the
knowledge and skills from the course within their work. Responses ranged from slight agreement to strong
agreement on whether participants perceived themselves to be more effective workers following the
course. In response to the question regarding whether they had observed client progress as a result of
using the knowledge and skills from the course, results were more mixed. Six per cent of participants
disagreed with this statement although the majority either slightly agreed (32%), agreed (49%) or strongly
agreed (11%).
It is worth noting that two people who had only attended Day One returned the t2 questionnaire with the
lowest possible ratings on the Human Services Training Effectiveness Postcard. They had apparently not
returned for Day Two because they were unhappy with Day One. Unfortunately, attempts to conduct
follow-up telephone interviews with these two were unsuccessful, so it was not possible to find out more
about the reasons for their discontent. As noted above, to be consistent with other data and because this is
an evaluation of a two-day course, we have not included these more negative responses in the data
presented here. It is important, however, to note that there was not a unanimously good reception given to
the course.
Table 3 Percentage of Agreement/disagreement on the Human Services Training Effectiveness Postcard (t2)
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Slightly
disagree
Slightly
agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Overall, I am very satisfied with
the Fathers and Child
Protection course.
0
0
0
0
51
49
During the course I learned a
substantial amount of
information.
0
0
0
15
55
30
I have used the knowledge and
skills from the course on the
job.
0
0
0
11
66
23
As a result of using the
knowledge/skills from the
course I have observed client
progress.*
0
0
6
32
49
11
As a result of the course I am a
more effective worker.
0
0
0
28
49
23
N = 47 *N = 46
3.3.3. QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH ON CHANGE OVER TIME FOR TRAINEES
There are a few specific issues to note about the different numbers of cases used in relation to each scale in
the results which follow. Firstly, all of those who attended only one of the two training days (12 with t2
data out of 16 possible respondents) were excluded altogether. These people had not experienced the full
training intervention and specifically not the skills training, so it would not have been a fair assessment of
the intervention to include their data. A larger number from this group might have allowed for some
interesting comparison of the effect of one or two days of training, but the small numbers in this study
argued against such a comparison. Secondly, in relation to the team effects question only, we excluded
from analysis anyone who had less than three colleagues from their team attend the course. There was no
need to exclude these individuals from analyses of other effects. Thirdly, there were some individuals who
did not answer the caseload questions, because their role did not involve holding cases (e.g. team
managers). These individuals were not excluded from all analyses, however. There were also instances
where an individual answered most but not all questions on a theme. We used test-by-test case-wise
deletion rather than excluding these cases altogether.
3.3.3.1.
CONFIDENCE/SELF-EFFICACY (LOGIC MODEL OUTPUT)
Social Cognitive Theory predicts that self-efficacy, i.e. confidence in one’s ability to engage in a specific
behavior, increases the probability of engaging in that behavior. Table 4 presents the results for change on
items related to workers’ confidence in their ability to carry out a number of behaviors related to
identifying, assessing, engaging and motivating fathers on their caseloads. Each of these items represented
an area of content covered during training. We computed an overall self-efficacy scale by summing the
ratings for each item and dividing by the number of items completed. The means represent their average
confidence, ranging from 0 to 100% for each item. The scale had high reliability at both pretest and posttest
(t1, Cronbach’s alpha=.94; t2, Cronbach’s alpha= .95). Overall, for workers completing both the pretest and
posttest measure, self-efficacy increased from pretest to posttest (mean t1=.61; mean t2=.73, t= -7.77;
df=58; p<.001).
To examine further whether self-efficacy increased in certain areas rather than others, we analyzed change
for each item, restricting our analyses to just those participants who completed both sessions, as noted
above. For each one of the 17 behaviors, participants reported significant increases in confidence to carry
out the behaviours. Notably, these significant changes included increased confidence in assessing both risk
and potential of father behaviour, which may indicate that the intended balance between these two areas
was successfully addressed in the training. The two statements where there was greatest magnitude of
change in mean score from t1 to t2 were concerned with working on problematic behaviour and abuse and
the two with the least change over time were concerned with fathers’ positive qualities and employing
empathy.
Table 4 Self-efficacy – change over time (t1-t2)
Z:
Asymp.
Sig. (2tailed):
t1 n:
t2 n:
t1 mean:
t2 mean:
t2 - t1
(mean):
t1 SD:
t2 SD:
t2 - t1
(SD):
-5.088a
0.000**
46
46
4.8043
6.8261
2.0218
1.7841
1.6641
-0.1201
-5.092a
0.000**
46
46
5.087
6.8043
1.7173
2.0958
1.8574
-0.2384
-4.111a
0.000**
46
46
5.7391
7.3696
1.6305
1.7312
1.4811
-0.2501
-4.623a
0.000**
46
46
5.413
7.0435
1.6305
1.8806
1.4901
-0.3906
Work with men who appear hostile or aggressive
-4.538a
0.000**
46
46
5.0652
6.6739
1.6087
2.4802
1.7519
-0.7283
Help fathers to understand better the consequences of their
behaviour for their children
-4.007a
0.000**
46
46
6.0652
7.587
1.5218
1.6111
1.2574
-0.3537
Teach fathers specific skills to deal with certain problems
-4.270a
0.000**
46
46
5.2609
6.7609
1.500
1.744
1.3364
-0.4076
Help fathers to changes ways of thinking that contribute to
their problems
-4.289a
0.000**
46
46
5.4348
6.8913
1.4565
1.6553
1.370
-0.2854
Apply knowledge of the law on parental responsibility
-3.760a
0.000**
45
45
6.3778
7.7333
1.3555
2.3577
1.5433
-0.8144
Assess risk in relation to fathers
-3.875a
0.000**
45
45
6.400
7.7111
1.3111
1.9117
1.3919
-0.5198
Highlight fathers' successes to increase their self-confidence
-3.829a
0.000**
46
46
6.587
7.8913
1.3043
1.7585
1.5089
-0.2496
Develop a relationship with fathers there they feel able to
be open and honest with you
-3.838a
0.000**
45
45
6.2222
7.4444
1.2222
1.9056
1.3409
-0.5647
Provide emotional support for fathers
-3.617a
0.000**
45
45
5.800
6.9111
1.1111
1.9377
1.5641
-0.3735
-3.391a
0.001**
46
46
5.8261
6.9348
1.1087
1.9698
1.6787
-0.2912
-3.517a
0.000**
46
46
6.8478
7.8696
1.0218
1.966
1.3761
-0.5899
Assess fathers' positive qualities
-3.541a
0.000**
45
45
7.0889
8.0667
0.9778
1.7032
1.2863
-0.417
Employ empathy to help fathers feel that they can trust you
-2.811a
0.005**
46
46
7.0217
7.9783
0.9566
1.6396
1.3415
-0.2982
Statement:
Motivate fathers to changes their problematic behaviours
without increasing their resistance
Engage men who are abusive in discussion about their
behaviour
Help fathers to understand better the consequences of their
behaviour for their partners
Assess when father engagement is most likely to be
successful.
Engage fathers in ways that don't jeopardise the safety of
mothers and children
Develop a relationship with father where you feel able to be
open and honest with them
a. Based on negative ranks.
b. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test.
** Significant at the 0.01 level
3.3.3.2.
TEAM CULTURE (LOGIC MODEL OUTCOME)
Our model suggests that behaviour change by workers, towards more engagement of fathers on their
caseload, will be more likely to occur if they are part of a team that has made such work with fathers a
normative expectation, views fathers as a potential resource and provides support to manage the process.
We created a team culture scale from the sum of the eight team climate items (reversing one item- ‘My
team views fathers as a resource only if they have parental responsibility’). At both pretest and posttest,
the team culture scale demonstrated adequate internal consistency (t1, Cronbach’s alpha=.79; t2,
Cronbach’s alpha=.78). When comparing change from the pretest to the posttest for all participants
completing both surveys, we found a small, but significant change in team climate (mean t1=36.3; mean
t2=37.8, t=-2.44; df=58; p=.018).
To assess further what dimensions of climate appeared to be most impacted by the training, we conducted
non-parametric tests for each item, limiting our analysis to just those workers who attended both sessions
and had at least two other team colleagues who also attended the training. Table 5 presents the eight
items related to team culture. Only two items changed significantly from pretest to posttest. Participants
reported an increase in comfort of their team in working with fathers and an increase in their own comfort.
However, they did not report an increase in their team’s norms for involvement or receptiveness of fathers,
their team’s view of fathers as resources, their procedures or practices for fathers. Despite an increased
perception of the team’s comfort in approaching fathers, they did not increase their belief that they would
have someone on their team to turn for support. Apparently most of the significant change overall in team
climate appears to be limited to their own increased comfort and that of other team members and not to
other procedural or attitudinal change within their teams.
Table 5 – Change over time (t1-t2) in team culture
Statements:
In my team there are clear expectations that
fathers of children should engage with social
service
The majority of front-line staff in my team are
open and receptive to working with fathers
In my team, staff are comfortable working with
fathers
In my team, child protection plans always include
fathers
In my team the message if given to fathers that
their role as active parents is crucial to their
children's development
My team views fathers as a resource only if they
have PR
There is someone on my team who I could turn to
for advice and consultation on work with fathers
I myself would feel able to offer advice and
consultation to others on work with fathers
Z
Asymp.
Sig. (2tailed)
t1 n:
t2 n:
t1 mean:
t2 mean:
t2 - t1
(mean):
t1 SD:
t2 SD:
t2 - t1
(SD):
-.312a
0.755
34
34
5.0882
5.1176
0.0294
0.86577
0.94595
0.08018
-.734a
0.463
34
34
5.0588
5.1765
0.1177
0.6486
0.75761
0.10901
-1.934a
0.053*
34
34
4.6176
4.9118
0.2942
0.73915
0.66822
-0.07093
-.063b
0.950
34
34
4.7059
4.7353
0.0294
1.00089
0.93124
-0.06965
-.784a
0.433
34
34
4.8235
4.9706
0.1471
0.93649
0.86988
-0.06661
-1.342a
0.179
34
34
2.7059
3.0882
0.3823
1.33778
1.42207
0.08429
.000c
1.000
34
34
4.5
4.5294
0.0294
1.10782
1.07971
-0.02811
-3.621a
0.000**
34
34
4.0294
4.7353
0.7059
0.93696
0.75111
-0.18585
a. Based on negative ranks.
b. Based on positive ranks.
c. The sum of negative ranks equals the sum of positive ranks.
d. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test.
* Significant at the 0.05 level
** Significant at the 0.01 level
3.3.3.3.
CASELOAD (LOGIC MODEL OUTCOME)
As our model suggests, if the training is successful, participants should increase both their identification and
engagement of fathers on their caseload. It is important to recognize diversity in caseloads. Men’s
involvement might overall be regarded as positive or harmful and strategies for engagement of fathers
might vary for residential and non-residential men. We therefore asked about three different categories of
men in client families. We expected that caseworkers would be already be aware of residential men who
were involved in the families on their caseloads, but might not have made attempts to engage them
actively. We anticipated that caseworkers might be less likely to be aware of non-residential fathers and
therefore identification of these men would be a necessary first step towards engagement. Once identified,
engagement would be a positive next step.
Tables 6 and 7 present the results for each of the caseload measures. In examining the results, it is
important to note that caseloads themselves increased from pretest to posttest. Given that, we calculated
rates for engagement of helpful and harmful residential fathers, and for the rate of non-residential fathers
identified and engaged at pretest and posttest. We then tested for change from pretest to posttest on each
measure.
The results indicate that participants did increase their engagement of fathers but not in every category.
While the rate of “non-harmful” residential fathers on caseloads did not increase, the rate of engagement
of these fathers did increase. The rate of non-residential men on the caseloads increased, as did
engagement of these men. As mentioned above, the increase of men reported on caseload could reflect an
actual increase of the number of those men, or increased awareness of men who had not previously been
identified. Either way, once identified, participants reported increased engagement of non-residential men
at time 2.
What did not change from pretest to posttest was the number of “harmful” men on caseloads, nor did the
rate of engaging those men increase. This indicates that the training seemed to impact identification and
engagement of men who might be positive resources, but not those who were perceived as putting
children at harm. Clearly, engaging men as resources is less challenging than reaching out to or confronting
men whose behavior is abusive or harmful.
Our qualitative results may shed some light on the differential results for men perceived as harmful rather
than helpful, as will be seen in the next section. Respondents to our qualitative interviews stated that they
would have preferred more material on working with aggressive men and that the course focused more
upon engaging those who were difficult to engage rather preparing participants to deal with those were
actually aggressive. We should note however, that the confidence ratings workers reported for working
with hostile and aggressive men were not markedly lower than for other self-efficacy items (see Table 4).
Therefore, it remains unclear as to why engagement increased primarily for the men workers identified as
helpful. Another explanation might be that workers chose to not engage those men whose involvement
was harmful because they believed doing so might increase danger to the family or involve a great deal of
effort with low probability of benefit. Such a result would be consistent with training goals to focus on both
risk and potential of engaging fathers.
Table 6 Caseload data
t1
t2
Rate of
harmful
men on
caseload
Rate of
harmful
men
engaged
Rate of
residential
men on
caseload
Rate of
residential
men
engaged
Rate of
nonresidential
men on
caseload
Rate nonresidential
men
engaged
Rate of
harmful
men on
caseload
Rate of
harmful
men
engaged
Rate of
residential
men on
caseload
Rate of
residential
men
engaged
Rate of
nonresidential
men on
caseload
Rate nonresidential
men
engaged
N
44
41
44
36
43
44
43
41
43
34
41
41
Mean
0.4514
0.5678
0.3218
0.731
0.1009
0.2568
0.438
0.6233
0.3573
1.0592
0.212
0.5189
Std.
Deviation
0.27965
0.35068
0.26565
0.33865
0.20194
0.40159
0.29742
0.36006
0.26632
0.70071
0.24517
0.41659
Minimum
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Maximum
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.13
1
1
4
1
1
Table 7 Testing for significant differences in caseload between t1 and t2 using Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests
Rate of harmful
Rate of
Rate of
Rate of non-res
men on
Rate of harmful
residential men
residential men
men on
Rate of non-res
caseload
men engaged
on caseload
engaged
caseload
men engaged
Z
-.724a
-.288b
-.966b
-2.199b
-2.358b
-2.756b
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
.469
.773
.334
.028
.018
.006
a. Based on positive ranks.
b. Based on negative ranks.
3.3.4. QUALITATIVE RESEARCH ON THE TRAINING PROCESS
Drawing on data from observation notes taken during the course and telephone interviews conducted after
the training, the following sections present findings in relation to the benefits and challenges of attempting
to improve father engagement and to use Motivational Interviewing in child protection practice.
3.3.4.1.
THE BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES OF ATTEMPTING TO IMPROVE FATHER
ENGAGEMENT IN CHILD PROTECTION
One of the main themes emerging from the data was that the training highlighted the need for
perseverance, effort, practicalities and the time needed to engage fathers. Hence, one observer
commented:
Much of the emphasis seemed to be on what hard work, how difficult and time consuming
working with men was (observer field notes).
Interviewees noted that they had come away from the course recognising the importance of considering
their beliefs and understanding the father’s perspective, both of which could be related to three of the four
course objectives (2, 3 and 4). One example of such a comment was this:
Personally I like any course that kind of flags up a kind of minority position in a way, or a
minority view in a way that asks people to stop and reflect and kind of put themselves in the
shoes of the person who occupies them in a minority position.
This comment is of interest in a number of ways. Firstly, it constructs fathers as a minority (and possibly a
victimised minority?). Secondly, the use of the word ‘minority’ might be seen to reinforce the idea that
practice with fathers is a discrete process rather than part of engaging with families in a more holistic way.
The issues around engaging fathers can be seen to feed into a wider set of concerns about contemporary
practices and even into debates about the nature of social work. One observer noted that to the trainees,
work with men who are abusive did not seem to be seen as part of the social work role and therefore when
there are issues in relation to abuse, the social work focus remains on the mother.
It is of interest that one participant noted that their team did try to work with the whole family and that
was part of their ethos but the comment below from another interviewee suggests that for some people at
least this was in fact a major learning point from the course:
The message came loud and clear I think that the focus of the training was for us not to forget
there is more than one parent in any situation.
The importance of not assuming that because the father is not resident, he is not interested or that he does
not have an important role to play was something that many respondents focused on. Also there was an
interesting point made about how assumptions made at an earlier stage in a case may need to be revisited.
One respondent noted that it was important to try to unpack whether what was presented as aggressive
behaviour was actually frustration and to seek to go below the surface. Interestingly, there was little
reference in respondents’ comments to the importance of re-thinking assumptions about fathers’ physical
appearance as noted by Ferguson and Hogan (2004) and also on the Family Rights Group DVD that was
shown on the course.
A number of interviewees noted that their practice had already changed since the training course, primarily
in terms of making more effort to find out where the father was and get his details and his views. One
noted that a child had gone to live with the father and another felt that the father had got more involved
and was being very supportive as a result of her contacting him. Another important issue identified in
terms of benefits was that the course had sparked conversations at a team level. This development, if
sustained, is likely to be important, given the power of occupational culture. For one participant, an
important change had been her perseverance with fathers who are violent. Her experience had been that
they did not want to speak to her but through perseverance she was getting them to talk to her. She also
referred explicitly to the assumption that a man in that situation might have about a woman social worker
being on the woman’s side.
There was a concern that if non-resident fathers are engaged with, workers would get caught up in battles
within relationships, an issue which has been discussed in the literature more generally. It raises the
question of whether social workers are trained to engage with the complexities of the relationships they
encounter especially in diverse family constellations (Featherstone, 2004). Rather than recognising
complexity, the observers noted that there was a tendency for course participants to fall into thinking that
‘fathers’ referred to birth fathers, despite attempts by the trainers to emphasise inclusive use of this term.
This is perhaps indicative of the challenges of terminology in this field. In designing the training course, we
followed recent UK policy discourse in using the term ‘fathers’, but the course participants did not
necessarily associate this term with a wider group of men in some kind of parenting role, including, for
example, a mother’s fairly new boyfriend. Use of language will shift over time and according to context, but
it may still be difficult to maintain a focus on a wider group of men if we use the term ‘fathers’ in training.
When asked about any gaps in the training, most of those identified seemed to relate both to the risks
attached to engaging fathers and the risks posed by fathers/men. Whilst overall the training was rated very
positively, it was noted in the previous sub-section of the report that social workers perceived the course to
be focused upon engaging those who were difficult to engage rather than those who were actually
aggressive. Social workers stated that they would have preferred more on working with aggressive men.
The feeling that risk could have been more prominently dealt with connects to a more general issue raised
by one of the observers, namely that it is very difficult to maintain a consistent focus on both risk and
resource over a two-day course. There is a tendency for the discussion to veer towards either a sole focus
on men as risk or a predominant focus on men as resource for children. To an extent – and this is not
meant to absolve the trainers’ responsibilities – trainees will pick up what they want to pick up on an issue
that has such considerable personal resonance and is so affected by life experience. Ideally, as Ferguson
concludes, education and training should
provide opportunities for workers to critically reflect on their assumptions and attitudes
towards men, women and gender roles, and their own experiences of being fathered, so that
learning can occur about how these influence their understanding of masculinity and practice
(Ferguson, 2011: 163).
Whilst our course did start with some discussion about participants’ own values in relation to fathering, the
material was not generally geared towards a more personal biographical dimension. To tackle underpinning
beliefs in more depth, this would probably be necessary.
3.3.4.2.
THE BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES OF USING MOTIVATIONAL INTERVIEWING
IN CHILD PROTECTION PRACTICE
It was interesting to note that about a third of training course participants reported on t1 questionnaires
that they had already attended some Motivational Interviewing training (see Table 2). Despite this previous
experience, there was little sense from observation of Day Two of the training course that Motivational
Interviewing (MI) approaches were familiar to participants. In fact, although the principles of MI seemed
quite compatible with the principles of social work they had learned about in initial qualifying courses, the
practice of MI communication seemed to be in contrast to their communication with service users in
routine practice.
In general, course participants responded very positively to MI. This aspect of the training intervention was
frequently mentioned in the end-of-course evaluative comments (when participants were asked, in turn, to
verbally state what they would take away from the course) and in the anonymous end-of-course written
evaluation form. Whilst MI skills were clearly fresh in trainees’ minds at the end of the course, interestingly,
they were mentioned far less frequently in the post-course qualitative interviews which took place a few
weeks later than the general message of the need to engage fathers more. Nonetheless, a small number
mentioned specific communication skills that they had learned and tried to use in the month since
completing the course. Here are two examples:
I think that with some clients it has worked particularly well. I can think of one in particular
who wants to talk to me but, sort of, can’t. It’s about sort of helping him find the words almost
and I think that the Motivational Interviewing facilitates his side of it you know to bring out in
conversation.
I’ve tried a little bit of Motivational Interviewing [laughs]… it at least got me thinking about
well look perhaps I could try approach these situations differently and perhaps I could be
putting more time aside in order to try and get underneath the problem by allowing more
space for people to kind of provide their own look on things where you are using more openended questions and by trying to get people to try and engage in that way.
It is possible that once the practitioners returned to their busy, everyday practice the overall theme of the
training was easier to remember, put into practice and report than the micro-skills of MI. The statutory
social worker role is complex and involves much more than engaging, listening and enabling change. This is
summarised by one of the trainers, herself an experienced child protection social worker:
Motivating people to change is a really important bit of what social workers do but I think that
looking back, we would have done better to acknowledge that they also have to investigate,
they have to gather information, and they have to convey information
This trainer went on to state that MI is an important part of the practitioner’s repertoire of communication
styles. During one of the courses two participants debated the applicability of MI to their work:
‘This is much easier to use in substance misuse services and when people want to be there
than in children’s services. We always have the balance of risk. We often have to demand.’
‘But (another intervenes) we could use the decisional balance with them and they lay out the
map and we can use that to navigate through with them.’
K (trainer) says this is a really good way of describing MI.
(Observer field notes)
Two of the participants who took part in qualitative post-course interviews mentioned that they did not
think MI had a role in their current case load or even team. One stated,
If I was in a long-term team then that (MI) would have been very beneficial but you know in
Duty and Assessment if you are doing an initial assessment it’s in-out, you get the information
you don’t tend to be able to … use it to its full potential really because you just haven’t got the
time. You know an initial assessment will be completed in an hour’s visit you know and the
Motivational Interviewing is something that I feel would be used further down the line
(emphasis added).
This interviewee suggests that the time restrictions on her team’s roles means that they have to
concentrate on gaining information, ‘it’s in-out.. get the information’ rather than engagement activities
that are perceived to be lengthy. The course appeared to encourage many to reflect on their usual style,
which many mentioned tended to be questioning, interrogatory and above all, speedy. Many participants
noted that they tend to rush in and out of assessment interviews, because of the time pressures of the
statutory frameworks (Broadhurst et al, 2010). However, some participants observed that with just a slight
change of pace and style, much more could be learned about a service user’s life and perspective. In Day
Two of the training course, two of the trainers role-played an initial assessment meeting with a father using
MI approaches. This provoked the following feedback from participants (emphasis added):
You seemed to slow down the process.
There were periods when you didn’t talk at all and he had the chance to say more.
It seemed relaxed. He talked a lot.
He was quite hyper when he came in but you managed to calm him down.
It is notable that all of these comments were concerned with pace and style. Participants here observed
that the slower pace allowed them to learn more about this father. Two went on to contrast this to their
usual style.
‘What’s interesting about this is the contrast between this interview and one we all do which is
all about getting info and filling in forms.’
One whispered to the other – ‘I do that when I go out. I start interviewing straight away.’
(Observer field notes).
As was noted above, it can be seen that MI communication was a style that contrasted fairly starkly with
some of these participants’ usual ways of working. Indeed one participant, in responding to the trainer’s
comment that people are more likely to change if they decide to do so themselves, rather than are told to
by someone else, stated (possibly humorously) ‘so what’s the point of social workers?’ (observer
fieldnotes). There was a risk that this training course could be seen as preaching by academics who
understand little about the everyday realities of practice and who do not value the effort that practitioners
are already putting in to engage with fathers and to use engaging style of communication. Fortunately, the
trainers were experienced, current child protection practitioners, which seems to have been particularly
valued by participants. This was mentioned in almost every post-course interview:
They were so knowledgeable, and you could see that they had worked on our level, they knew
the pitfalls (post course interview 3)
I always find that very valuable having somebody who’s got that kind of amount of knowledge
and practice of the field to bring to the course. (post course interview 9).
There were three important risks in devoting one day of the course to using MI with fathers. One was that
this approach would be seen as irrelevant because, as has been seen, it contrasts with the predominant
culture of communication in child protection which can be dominated by information-giving (telling parents
what the concerns are), evidence gathering and confrontation (Forrester et al, 2008a). It has been seen in
this section that this was recognised by many course participants, but that most showed an enthusiastic
willingness to reflect on their usual communication style with fathers and other service users and to try
new ways of working. The second risk was that the course would be seen as something imposed by
academics who know little about statutory social work and who do not value the considerable experience
and existing skills of the participants. Here, the trainers’ practice credibility and ability to use recent
examples from their own practice helped considerably. Thirdly, there was the risk that one day of skills
training would not be enough to enable new communication styles on return to practice. There is evidence
that some practitioners have indeed tried to use MI in their practice. Further evaluation, using an
experimental design, would be required to know for sure whether the training ‘worked’ for practitioners
and families.
3.3.5. INTERVENTION COSTS
We have provided a basic calculation of the full cost of providing the training, including opportunity costs.
Table 8 provides a breakdown, which includes staff travel expenses; staff time in attending the course and
travelling to the venue (as costed in Curtis, 2010); and the cost of employing two trainers for both days. In
addition, the cost of the venue is included. For the first two courses, hotels were selected on the basis of
proximity to staff in both target authorities. For course three, one of the target authorities provided a free
venue. Although this venue was provided free of charge to the project, there would be opportunity costs
involved and we do not have data on these. Travel costs for course three have therefore been considered a
missing value and the mean cost of venue one and two has been used to replace this. It was difficult to
recruit trainees for this unanticipated third course, so in order to get sufficient numbers trained, the
research team had to recruit from five different local authorities, with some individuals travelling a large
distance to attend. This would not occur if the training were to be rolled out, as courses would be focused
on one or two authorities. We have therefore assumed a 50-50 split of staff from the two target authorities
across all three courses and calculated the travel costs accordingly.
It was not possible to disaggregate administrative costs from the cost of running the research project, so no
sum has been included for administration. If the course were to be rolled out more widely, we suggest that
administrative costs would be fairly minimal. Finally, the average number of participants across all three
courses (22) has been taken as a target figure for attendance. As was explained in section 2.4, a sudden
bereavement affected the attendance for course two. This was such an unusual circumstance that we have
worked with the number of participants who turned up for the original Day Two of that course, rather than
the lower number who attended the re-arranged training day. A total of 67 people attended across all
three courses at a total of £57,044.14. The cost per person trained is £851.41.
Table 8: Cost of one training course, on the basis of 22 attending
Quantity
Unit cost (£)
Travel costs for
trainees*
Mean travelling distance per person =
14.05 miles
Mean expenses paid by LAs
= 0.43 per mile
132.91
Staff time for
trainees
16.5 hours (includes ¾ hr travel) for 19
social workers and 3 managers
Social workers @ 38.00 per
hour**
Managers @ 49.00 per
hour**
Mean cost of venues
used*** = 2,260.00
1000.00 (500.00 per day)
11,913.00
Venue and
1
catering
Trainers
2
Total
* Assuming a 50-50 split of staff from the two local authorities
Cost (£)
2,425.50
2,260.00
2,000.00
18,730.91
** Curtis (2010)
*** In fact the venue for course three was provided free by a local authority, but as we have no data on opportunity
costs, the mean cost of the commercial venues has been used.
According to Curtis (2010), the average weekly cost for ‘looked after’ children is £761 while for children
supported in their families or independently the cost is £157, with an average of £324 for a child ‘in need’
(at 2009-10 prices). The cost of providing the course for 22 delegates is £18,730.91. In order to recoup this
sum, for every 22 staff trained, one child would need to be kept out of foster care for 25 weeks. We have
no information on the actual cost of any training outcomes, as an experimental design would be required to
assess this and the pilot study was not based on such a design. It may well be that increased engagement of
men will increase workloads and therefore require more staffing. However it might also be hypothesised
that if the course does indeed lead to a significant increase in the engagement of non-residential fathers,
this may result in different decisions about placements of children deemed to be at risk and therefore
lower spending on ‘looked after’ children. Anecdotally, it was mentioned by one trainee that she had
placed a child with a birth father (rather than foster care) as a result of her awareness being raised by the
course. A future randomised controlled trial of the training intervention could assess its effect on use of
resources, including foster care.
These intervention costs are on the basis of local provision. Since the training has relied on specialist
trainers it may be that costs would increase if the course were to be delivered outside South Wales and the
same trainers or others with sufficient expertise had to travel some distance. However, the venue costs
could be reduced if local authority training rooms were used instead of commercial premises. If the course
were run commercially, the cost to local authority training departments, which would not include covering
staff time, would be substantially less and no more expensive than mainstream training provision in the
sector.
4. DISCUSSION
4.1. DISCUSSION OF PROCESS EVALUATION RESULTS
In considering the process evaluation results, the first thing to note is that this is a limited intervention.
Beyond the initial meetings to set up the pilot study, no work was done with managers on improving the
organizational context of father engagement. This alternative strategy is being followed, for example, by
the current project of the Fatherhood Institute and the Family Rights Group, funded by the English
Department for Education, which works with Local Safeguarding Children Boards to improve the policy
context to support work with fathers. Also, although we set out to train whole teams, we did not
proactively recruit team managers (some came anyway) and did not address team culture directly in the
training content. This might in part explain the limited change in responses to the individual team culture
items between t1 and t2. The limited change may also indicate that team culture runs deep and is difficult
to shift on the basis of only a two-day training course.
It should be noted that although only training front-line social work practitioners is a limited intervention,
these practitioners are central to the child protection process and in-service training can make a difference.
For example, the large-scale study of inter-agency training in safeguarding children by Carpenter et al
(2010) found large or very large effect sizes across a range of outcomes, including knowledge of the
substantive topic, attitudes to service users and self-efficacy. If the Fathers and Child Protection course
were to be rolled out more widely, some supporting activities could be put in place to support learning,
such as email updates, additional e-learning and production of a course handbook.
It was disappointing that the social workers’ self-report of engagement with men who put children at risk
showed no change two months after the training intervention. It should be acknowledged that this is
usually the most difficult group to work with, but it may also indicate – and our post-training qualitative
research would perhaps back this up – that the training did not keep enough of a focus on working with
risky men. Although the trainers did attempt to keep a balance of men as risk and resource and keep in
mind all men involved with children’s lives, there was a tendency for the trainees to see the training as
most relevant to biological fathers who are often an untapped resource for the care of children. Although
arguably Motivational Interviewing can be applied to risk assessment and management, it is not so much in
these areas that its potential strikes front-line social workers. Its emphasis on empathy, for example, does
provide more of a challenge for working with people who have harmed children.
However, more optimistically, the areas of practice where the magnitude of increase in confidence was
greatest were engagement with problematic and abusive behaviour. So it does not seem as though these
areas were marginalised in the training. It may be that these are simply the most difficult aspects of the
child protection social work role. Two days of training, including only one day of Motivational Interviewing,
may be too little time to properly cover risk management and enhance skills in working with aggressive
men. Initial engagement (as opposed to avoidance) may also imply referral for some kind of intensive
intervention such as a domestic abuse perpetrators programme and we know that such services are not
currently available in the two targeted local authorities, except for men on probation.
Overall, the training intervention logic model seems to stand up. Increased self-efficacy across all aspects of
work with fathers did, according to social workers’ self-report, lead to an increased rate of engagement of
men who are not putting children at risk of harm, including non-residential fathers. However, the team
culture aspect may need to be developed if the (organisational) social context of practice is to be addressed
and there may need to be an increased emphasis on working with risky and aggressive men.
A further study would need to investigate the costs of practice outcomes following training. Potentially,
increased engagement of fathers means a need for more staff time and therefore greater cost, although
savings could also potentially be made in accommodating ‘looked after’ children, if fathers and their wider
families are more often used for kinship placements.
The process evaluation carried out to date has methodological limitations. The most obvious ones would be
the lack of a control group and its reliance on social worker self-report. Any further testing out of the
training intervention would need to employ an experimental design and involve data on outcomes from
other sources – organizational data and the views of service users, including children.
4.2. THE FEASIBILITY OF A RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIAL (RCT)
Encouragingly, all four managers from the two South Wales authorities interviewed in the pre-intervention
phase were positive about the principle of randomization for a possible future trial. Because of the
potential for a future trial to access UK-wide funds, further interviews were carried out with local
authorities in England and Wales by the Fatherhood Institute, on behalf of the research team. The
Fatherhood Institute made initial contact with 24 authorities - a mixture of Welsh contacts identified by the
research team, existing Fatherhood Institute contacts in English authorities, and cold calling. It seemed that
senior managers in local authorities were deciding whether or not to take part in a phone call on the basis
of their initial responses to the idea of a trial. Reasons for not wanting to discuss participation in a trial
were usually based upon concerns about capacity and re-structure changes happening within local
authorities. Whilst most of those who did not want to be interviewed said they recognised the importance
of working with fathers, a frequent message was that ‘it is not the right time for us to be doing anything
more’. In a few instances authorities said they had their own training programmes. In several authorities it
was felt that the training should be multi-agency rather than just aimed at social workers.
The six authorities which did agree to be interviewed (three Welsh, three English) were very interested in
the prospect of a trial and indeed willing in principle to take part. What was discussed was a waiting list trial
where all participants would eventually get the training but with randomization as to when this would take
place. What emerged from the discussion with senior Children’s Services managers was the proposal that a
cluster randomised controlled trial would be most suitable, with randomization at the level of social work
team. To randomize individuals within teams would not allow for the intervention to have an impact on
team culture, whereas randomization at the team level would keep teams intact and allow for the
intervention to influence team culture. The idea that some practitioners would have to wait for the training
was not seen as problematic. Asking social workers to keep any separate record of contact with families
was not thought to be feasible due to workload levels and the amount of recording that already takes
place. The majority of authorities identified that they had electronic systems that should be useful sources
of routinely collected data. Collecting data directly from service users was seen to be valuable and feasible
with the obvious proviso of consent being required from those participating. Some kind of tracking of cases
was seen to be acceptable in all areas, as was looking at case files with the understanding that consent
from families would be required and that research staff would need to have enhanced CRB checks and in
two of the authorities references for those staff would also be required. In conducting these interviews, the
suggestion was made (from the research team) that potentially a social worker in each authority could have
some of their time funded by a trial to collect data from client families. This suggestion was well received in
four of the authorities, but two of the Welsh ones were concerned about the difficulty of ‘back-filling’ staff
in a small authority.
In addition to pre-intervention qualitative interviews with managers and the extra interviews
commissioned from the Fatherhood Institute, a visit was made to the two local authorities to explore the
potential of routine data collection for future research. This exercise led to the conclusion that there is
potential but also limitations in existing data sources. It should be possible to produce anonymised reports
from electronic files on numbers of fathers on caseloads (although data coverage will be patchy), numbers
of ‘looked after’ children and children on the child protection register by social workers and by team,
whether fathers are seen in initial and core assessments and possibly whether fathers have attended case
conferences, although here data will be patchy. Paper files are rather more problematic for several reasons.
It is not possible to anonymise them, so consent from service users would probably be required. The quality
of data on family structure and on Parental Responsibility was variable. On average, it took around 15
minutes to collect key information on father involvement from each file although in many cases the
required information could not be found. It was not possible to ascertain from case files whether social
workers were actually engaging with fathers, but it was only possible to work out (and even then only in
some cases) whether or not fathers were present during home visits. Case conference notes were not
easily located within the files but where they could be found they provided a clear outline of who was
present at the meeting.
Most often the files provided information concerning the birth father although in a number of files contact
numbers were omitted. There was discrepancy about what information was collected about mothers’
partners. It should be noted that child protection cases can be complex making it difficult for someone
unfamiliar with the case to grasp the main facts by simply looking through the file searching for particular
information especially where mother and father are both making complaints about each other over a long
period of time. More time would be needed for a clearer understanding of the child protection concerns. In
sum, gleaning information from paper files would be a timely and difficult task to complete for research
purposes. In terms of time, it would not be possible for every case held by social workers participating in a
trial, although it may be that a sub-sample could be identified for this more in-depth data-gathering.
In considering a future trial, it is important to consider potential funders and local authority partners.
Within Wales, one limitation is that social workers in some areas have been trained in Motivational
Interviewing as part of the roll-out of the IFSS model. That said, within the context of a course specific to
work with fathers, a one-day refresher on motivational interviewing could nonetheless be useful,
depending on the timing. To consider funders outside Wales, framing the intervention in terms of public
health, which is possible given the potential for reduction in child injury or emotional harm, would open the
door to a body such as the National Institute for Health Research. This organisation does not fund
intervention costs, however, so an application to its Public Health Board for trial costs could only be on the
basis of local authorities funding the training itself. Economic and Social Research Council responsive mode
funding may be worth exploring, although the success rate is very low and the wider social scientific
interest of the project would need to be made clear. One issue of wider social scientific relevance is the
need for building capacity within social work for experimental research on the outcomes of interventions,
as well as raising awareness amongst service providers of the value of RCTs. Finally, a charity such as the
Nuffield Foundation may possibly be able to fund a trial – this organisation has children and families as one
of its priority areas and is keen to fund outcomes research. Its funding limit is £250,000 which is rather low
for a trial but not out of the question.
5. DISSEMINATION OF PROJECT
To date, the project has been disseminated at the following conferences:






4th International Gender and Child Welfare conference, Galway, Ireland, 15 June 2011 (invited
keynote; mostly practitioner audience)
Joint Social Work Education / Social Work Research conference, Manchester, 15 July 2011
(audience of social work educators)
Social work CPD conference in Kings College London, 4 July 2011 (practitioner audience)
Health Challenge Wales seminar on Motivational Interviewing and child welfare in Cardiff, 27
September 2011 (invited keynote; event addressed by the originators of Motivational Interviewing,
Stephen Rollnick and Bill Miller)
British Association for the Study and Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect biennial conference,
Belfast, 15-18 April 2012.
British Association for the Study and Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect Wales conference,
Builth Wells, September 2012
And the following events:



Presentation of results as part of Brid Featherstone’s Master class on working with fathers at
University of Birmingham 8 November 2011
Presentation of results as part of Brid Featherstone’s Master class on working with fathers at
University of Nottingham 10 November 2011
Presentation of results by Brid Featherstone at the roundtable event on fathers and safeguarding
organised by the Fatherhood Institute and Family Rights Group in London, March 2013.
Articles published:
Maxwell, N., Scourfield, J., Featherstone, B., Holland, S. and Lee, J. (2012) The benefits and challenges of
training child protection social workers in father engagement. Child Abuse Review. 21 (4) 299-310.
Maxwell, N., Scourfield, J., Featherstone, B., Holland, S. and Tolman, R. (2012) Engaging fathers in child
welfare services: A narrative review of recent research evidence. Child and Family Social Work, 17 (2): 160169.
Scourfield, J., Tolman, R., Maxwell, N., Holland, S., Bullock, A. and Sloan, L. (2012) Results of a training
course for social workers on engaging fathers in child protection. Children and Youth Services Review, 34
(8): 1425-1432.
6. CONCLUSION
A two-day training intervention was developed which aimed to influence social workers’ personal
orientation towards work with fathers, influence the social context of practice via training of whole teams
of practitioners and improve skills for work with resistant clients via an introduction to Motivational
Interviewing. The results were promising, insofar as trainees’ self-efficacy had significantly increased two
months after the training course, in relation to all aspects of the social work role, including discussion of
fathers’ problematic behaviour. In terms of caseloads, the rate of engagement increased for non-residential
fathers and residential men who were not putting children at risk. There was, however, no change in the
rate of engagement for men whose behaviour puts children at risk of harm. The full cost of the
intervention, including opportunity costs such as staff time, is £18,730.91 with 22 people attending. The full
cost per trainee is £851.41, although if the course were offered commercially the actual cost to local
authorities would be much lower than this and in fact no more than the typical cost of external training.
These results are promising but the evidence is limited. In order to invest in this training, authorities would
ideally need to know the costs of any changes in practice, as costs could potentially be increased or
decreased. They would also ideally know whether the training has any impact on the experience of service
users and especially children. A randomised controlled trial of the intervention would allow for more robust
conclusions about effectiveness. A trial could potentially build social worker research capacity, if local
practitioners were identified to collect data for a trial.
Some aspects of the training could be enhanced in future. Team culture could be properly addressed and
there could be a little more focus on risk management. Although a two-day course may be realistic in the
light of how difficult it can be to release social workers from their routine work, the training could be
supported at the very least via follow-up email reminders about key messages and ongoing e-learning. Also
a course handbook could be produced with key research findings and skills tips for Motivational
Interviewing. It would also be fairly straightforward to adapt the course for other professional groups
involved in child protection work.
REFERENCES
Antle, B.F., Barbee, A.P., van Zyl, M.A. (2008). A comprehensive model for child welfare training evaluation,
Children and Youth Services Review, 30 (9): 1063-1080.
Argyrous, G. (2011) Statistics for Research (3rd Ed.) London: Sage.
Ashley, C. Featherstone, B., Roskill, C., Ryan, M, and White, S. (2006) Fathers Matter: Research findings on
fathers and their involvement with social care services, London, Family Rights Group.
Ashley, C. (ed.) (2011) Working with Risky Fathers: Fathers Matter 3: Research findings on working with
domestically abusive fathers and their involvement with children' social care services. London, Family Rights
Group.
Babcock, J.C., Green, C.E. and Robie, C. (2004) Does batterers' treatment work? A meta-analytic review of
domestic violence treatment. Clinical Psychology Review 23 (8): 1023-1053.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84,
191-215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1995). Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies. Cambridge University Press.
Barlow, J., Smailagic, N., Bennett, C., Huband, N., Jones, H. and Coren. E. (2011) Individual and group based
parenting programmes for improving psychosocial outcomes for teenage parents and their children.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD002964. DOI:
10.1002/14651858.CD002964.pub2.
Bayley, J., Wallace, L.M. and Choudhry, K. (2009). Fathers and parenting programmes: barriers and best
practice. Community Practitioner 82(4), pp. 28-31.
Baynes, P. and Holland, S. (2010). Social work with violent men: a child protection file study in an English
local authority. Child Abuse Review. On-line publication ahead of print, DOI: 10.1002/car.1159
Berlyn, C., Wise, S. and Soriano, G. (2008). Engaging fathers in child and family services. Participation,
perceptions and good practice. National Evaluation Consortium (Social Policy Research Centre, at the
University of New South Wales, and the Australian Institute of Family Studies: Australia.
Brandon, M., Bailey, S. Belderson, P., Gardner, R., Sidebotham, P., Dodsworth, J., Warren, J. and Black, J.
(2009) Understanding serious case reviews and their impact: A Biennial Analysis of Serious Case Reviews
2005-7, Research report DCSF-RR129, London, DCFS.
Broadhurst, K., Wastell, D., White, S., Hall, C., Peckover, S., Thompson, K., Pithouse, A. and Davey, D. (2010)
‘Performing ‘Initial Assessment’: Identifying the Latent Conditions for Error at the Front-Door of Local
Authority Children’s Services’, British Journal of Social Work, 40 (2) 352-370.
Bronte-Tinkew, J., Carrano, J., Allen, T., Bowie, L., Mbawa, K. and Matthews, G. (2007). Elements of
promising practice for fatherhood programs: evidence-based research findings on programs for fathers.
Gaithersburg.
Burke, B. L., Arkowitz, H. and Menchola, M. (2003) The efficacy of motivational interviewing: a metaanalysis of controlled clinical trials. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 71(5): 843–861.
Carpenter, J., Hackett, S., Patsios, D. and Szilassy, E. (2010) Outcomes of Interagency Training to Safeguard
Children, Final Report to the Department for Children, Schools and Families and the Department of Health,
Bristol, University of Bristol.
Collins, J.A. and Fauser, B.C.J.M. (2004). Editorial: Balancing the strengths of systematic and narrative
reviews. Human Reproduction Update. 11(2): 103-10.
Cowan, P.A.., Cowan, C.P., Pruett, M.K., Pruett, K., & Wong, J.J. (2009). Promoting fathers’ engagement with
children: Preventive interventions for low-income families. Journal of Marriage and Family 71 (3), 663-77.
Cullen, S.M., Cullen, A., Band, M., Davis, L. and Lindsay, G. (2010). Supporting fathers to engage with their
children's learning and education: an under-developed aspect of the Parent Support Adviser pilot. British
Educational Research Journal, 1-16.
Curry, D. and Chandler, T. (1999) The Human Services Training Effectiveness Postcard (HSTEP): A tool for
research and evaluation of human services training. Professional Development: The International Journal of
Continuing Social Work Education 2 (2): 43-56.
Curtis, L. (2010) Unit Costs of Health and Social Care, Canterbury, Personal Social Services Research Unit.
Daniel, B., and Taylor, J. (2001) Engaging with Fathers: Practice Issues for Health and Social Care. London:
Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Davidson-Arad, B., Peled, E. and Leichtentritt, R. (2008). Representations of fathers and mothers in court
petitions for dependent minor status for children at risk. Children and Youth Services Review 30, pp. 893–
902.
Dominelli, L., Strega, S., Walmsley, C., Callahan, M. and Brown, L. (2010) ‘Here’s my story’: Fathers of
‘looked after’ children recount their experiences in the Canadian child welfare system. British Journal of
Social Work, advance access online, doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcq099.
English, D.J., Brummel, S. and Martens, P. (2009). Fatherhood in the child welfare system: Evaluation of a
pilot project to improve father involvement Journal of Public Child Welfare 3(3), 213-234.
Fabiano, G.A. (2007). Father participation in behavioral parent training for ADHD: review and
recommendations for increasing inclusion and engagement. Journal of Family Psychology 21(4), 683-693.
Featherstone, B (2004) Family Life and Family Support: A Feminist Analysis, Basingstoke, Palgrave
Macmillan.
Featherstone, B. (2009) Contemporary Fathering: Theory, Policy and Practice, Bristol, Policy Press
Ferguson, H. (2011) Child Protection Practice, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.
Ferguson, H. and Hogan, F. (2004). Strengthening families through fathers: Developing policy and practice in
relation to vulnerable fathers and their families. The Centre for Social and Family Research, Waterford
Institute of Technology.
Forrester, D., McCambridge, J., Waissbein, C. And Rollnick, S. (2008a). How do child and family social
workers talk to parents about child welfare concerns? Child Abuse Review, 17, 23-35.
Forrester, D., McCambridge, J., Waissbein, C., Emlyn-Jones, R. and Rollnick, S. (2008b). Child risk and
parental resistance: Can Motivational Interviewing improve the practice of child and family social workers
in working with parental alcohol misuse? British Journal of Social Work, 38, 1302-1319.
Francis, K.J. and Wolfe, D.A. (2008). Cognitive and emotional differences between abusive and non-abusive
fathers. Child Abuse and Neglect, 32, 1127–1137.
Garbers, C., Tunstill, J., Allnock, D. and Akhurst, S. (2006). Facilitating access to services for children and
families: Lessons from Sure Start Local Programmes. Child and Family Social Work 11(4), 287-296.
Gearing, R.E, Colvin, G., Popova, S. and Regehr, C. (2008). Re:Membering Fatherhood: evaluating the impact
of a group intervention on fathering. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 33(1), 22–42.
Ghate, D., Shaw, C. and Hazel, N. (2000). Engaging fathers in preventive services: Fathers and family
centres. Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Gibson, S.K. (2004). Social Learning (Cognitive) Theory and implications for Human Resource Development.
Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6(2), 193-210.
Hellman C, Johnson C, Dobson T. (2010) Taking action to stop violence: a study on readiness to change
among male batterers. Journal of Family Violence. 25 431-8.
Holden, G., Meenaghan, T., Anastas, J. & Metrey, G. (2002). Outcomes of social work education: The case
for social work self-efficacy. Journal of Social Work Education, 38, 115-133.
Huebner, R.A., Werner, M., Hartwig, S., White, S. and Shewa, D. (2008). Engaging fathers: needs and
satisfaction in child protective services. Administration in Social Work 32(2), 87-103.
Kistenmacher, B.R. and Weiss, R.L. (2009). Motivational Interviewing as a mechanism for change in men
who batter: a randomized controlled trial. Violence and Victims, 23(5), 558-570.
Lee, S.J., Bellamy, J.L. and Guterman, N.B. (2009) Fathers, physical child abuse, and neglect: Advancing the
knowledge base. Child Maltreatment 14 (3); 227-231.
Lloyd, N., Lewis, C. & O’Brien, M. (2003) Fathers in Sure Start. Department for Education and Skills, London.
Lundahl, B.W., Kunz, C., Brownell, C., Tollefson, D. and Burke, B.L. (2010). A meta-analysis of motivational
interviewing: twenty-five years of empirical studies. Research on Social Work Practice, 20(2), 137-160.
Lundahl, B.W., Tollefson, D., Risser, H. and Lovejoy, M. C. (2008) A meta-analysis of father involvement in
parent training. Research on Social Work Practice 18: 97-106.
MacDonald, G. (2003) Using Systematic Reviews to Improve Social Care, SCIE reports no. 4, London: Social
Care Institute for excellence, http://www.scie.org.uk/publications/reports/report04.pdf [retrieved
24/6/11].
Magill-Evans J., Harrison, M. J., Rempel, G. and Slater, L. (2006) Interventions with fathers of young
children: systematic literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing 55(2), 248–264.
Malm, K., Murray, J. and Green, R. (2006). What about the dads? Child welfare agencies’ efforts to identify,
locate and involve nonresident fathers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/06/CW-involvedads/index.htm.
Miller, W.R. and Rollnick, S. (2002) Motivational interviewing: Preparing people for change. London,
Guilford Press.
Mincy, R., Garfinkel, I. And Nepomynaschy, l. (2005) In-hospital paternity establishment and father
involvement in fragile families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(3), 611–626.
Musser, P. H., Semiatin, J. N., Taft, C.T and Murphy, C. M. (2008) Motivational interviewing as a pregroup
intervention for partner-violent men. Violence and Victims, 23 (5): 539-557.
O’Donnell, J.M., Johnson, W.E., D’Aunno, L.E. and Thornton, H.L. (2005). Fathers in child welfare:
caseworkers' perspectives. Child Welfare, LXXXIV(3), 387-414.
Parent, C., Saint-Jacques, M.C., Beaudry, M. and Robitalle, C. (2007). Stepfather involvement in social
interventions made by youth protection services in stepfamilies. Child & Family Social Work 12(3), 229-238.
Parent R, Roy M, St Jacques D. (2007) A systems-based dynamic knowledge transfer capacity model. Journal
of Knowledge Management. 11(6):81-93.
Pawson, R. and Tilley, N. (1997) Realistic Evaluation, London, Sage.
Phillips P and Phillips J. (2001) Symposium on the evaluation of training: editorial. International Journal of
Training and Development. 5(4):240-7.
Potter, C. and Carpenter, J. (2010). Fathers’ Involvement in Sure Start: what do fathers and mothers
perceive as the benefits? Practice: Social Work in Action, 22(1), 3-12.
Roskill, C (2011) Research in three children’s services authorities. In Ashley, C. (ed.) Working with risky
fathers: Fathers Matter Volume 3: Research Findings on working with domestically abusive fathers and their
involvement with children’s social care services, London, Family Rights Group
Roskill, C. (2008) Report on research on fathers in two children’s services authorities in Roskill, C.,
Featherstone, B, Ashley, C and Haresnape, S (eds) Fathers Matter Volume 2: Further Findings on Fathers
and their involvement with social care services, London, Family Rights Group
Ryan, M. (2000). Working with fathers. Radcliffe Medical Press, Oxon.
Ryan, M. (2006). The experiences of fathers involved with social services departments: a literature review.
In Fathers Matter 1 – Research findings on fathers and their involvement with social care services. (eds
Ashley, C., Featherstone, B., Roskill, C., Ryan, M. and White, S.) Family Rights Group: London, 13-24.
Schock, A.M. and Gavazzi, S.M. (2004) A multimethod study of father participation in family-based
programming. In R.D. Day and M.E. Lamb (eds.) Conceptualizing and Measuring Father Involvement, New
York: Routledge, pp.129-159.
Scott, K.S. and Crooks, C.V. (2004). Effecting change in maltreating fathers: Critical principles for
intervention planning. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10, 95–111.
Scott, K.S. and Crooks, C.V. (2007). Preliminary evaluation of an intervention program for maltreating
fathers. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 7(3), 224-238.
Scourfield, J. (2003) Gender and Child Protection, London, Palgrave Macmillan.
Smith, C.A., Cohen-Callow, A., Dia, D., Bliss, D., Gantt, A., Cornelius, L.J. and Harrington, D. (2006). Staying
current in a changing profession: evaluating perceived change resulting from Continuing Professional
Development. Journal of Social Work Education, 42(3), 465-482.
Smithgall, C., DeCoursey, J., Gitlow, E., Yang, D., Jarpe-Ratner, E., Lansing, J. and Goerge, R. (2009).
Identifying, interviewing, and intervening: fathers and the illinois child welfare system. Chicago: University
of Chicago.
Sonenstein, F., Malm, K. and Billing, A. (2002). Study of fathers’ involvement in Permanency, Planning and
Child Welfare Casework. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Strega, S., Fleet, C., Brown, L., Dominelli, L., Callahan, M. and Walmsley, C. (2008). Connecting father
absence and mother blame in child welfare policies and practice. Children and Youth Services Review 30(7),
705-716.
Taft, C.T., Murphy, C.M., Elliot, J.D. and Morrel, T.M. (2001). Attendance-enhancing procedures in group
counselling for domestic abusers. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 48(1), 51-60.
Weinman, M.L., Smith, P.B. and Buzi, R.S. (2002). Young fathers: an analysis of risk behaviours and service
needs. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 19(6), 437-453.
Whittemore R. and Knafl, K. (2005) The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced
Nursing 52(5), 546–553.
APPENDICES
Appendix1 – t2 questionnaire
Appendix 2 – outline of training course
APPENDIX1 – T2 QUESTIONNAIRE
See next page
CODE:........................................
This course is part of a research project funded by WAG. The course is free to
local authorities but you are expected to complete two questionnaires. You should
have completed the first questionnaire at the beginning of the training course. This
is the second questionnaire.
Each questionnaire will take about 10-15 minutes to complete.
Your responses are confidential and no individual will be identified in any project output.
In this questionnaire there are a number of statements. Please indicate your
response by ticking one of the boxes. Make sure that you only tick one box and
please answer every question. There are no right or wrong answers so please be as
honest as you can. Remember that your answers will not be discussed with anyone
else.
In order to match up your responses from both questionnaires we will allocate a
code which will be printed on the front of your questionnaire. A detachable slip
with your name and team will be used to ensure that you receive the correct
numbered questionnaire – please detach this before returning your questionnaire in
the pre-paid envelope provided.
We will also contact a few of the course participants to invite them to take part in
a 20-minute telephone interview.
Thank you for taking part in this research.
Jonathan
Jonathan Scourfield
School of Social Sciences
Cardiff University
If you have any problems completing this questionnaire or have any questions, please contact Nina Maxwell at
MaxwellN@Cardiff.ac.uk.
Your confidence
Please note that for the questions below, the term ‘fathers’ includes biological fathers, step fathers and
mothers’ partners.
1. Develop a relationship with fathers where
you feel able to be open and honest with
them?
2. Assess risk in relation to fathers?
3. Assess fathers’ positive qualities?
4. Develop a relationship with fathers where
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
they feel able to be open and honest with
you?
Employ empathy to help fathers feel that
they can trust you?
Help fathers to change ways of thinking
that contribute to their problems?
Teach fathers specific skills to deal with
certain problems?
Help fathers to understand better the
consequences of their behaviour for their
children?
Help fathers to understand better the
consequences of their behaviour for their
partners?
Provide emotional support for fathers?
11. Engage men who are abusive in discussion
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
about their behaviour?
Work with men who appear hostile or
aggressive?
Apply knowledge of the law on parental
responsibility?
Highlight fathers’ successes to increase
their self-confidence?
Engage fathers in ways that don’t
jeopardise the safety of mothers and
children.
Assess when father engagement is most
likely to be successful.
Motivate fathers to change their
problematic behaviours without increasing
their resistance.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
100 = very confident
20
How confident are you that you can...
10
50 = moderately confident
0
0 = no confidence
Your team
Please note that in the statements below, the term ‘fathers’ includes biological fathers, step fathers and
mothers’ partners.
1. In my team there are clear expectations that fathers of children should engage with
social services.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Slightly
disagree
Slightly
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
2. The majority of front-line staff in my team are open and receptive to working with
fathers.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Slightly
disagree
Slightly
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
3. In my team, staff are comfortable working with fathers.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Slightly
disagree
Slightly
agree
4. In my team, child protection plans always include fathers.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Slightly
disagree
Slightly
agree
5. In my team the message is given to fathers that their role as active parents is crucial to
their children’s development.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Slightly
disagree
Slightly
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
6. My team views fathers as a resource only if they have parental responsibility.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Slightly
disagree
Slightly
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
7. There is someone on my team who I could turn to for advice and consultation on work with
fathers.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Slightly
disagree
Slightly
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
8. I myself would feel able to offer advice and consultation to others on work with fathers.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Slightly
disagree
Slightly
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Your caseload
1. How many families do you currently work with?
2. In how many of your current families are there men involved whose behaviour puts
children at risk of harm?
 How many of these men have you engaged in discussion about this behaviour?
3. In how many of your current families are there men living with children who are not
putting them at risk of harm?
 How many of these men have you involved in discussions about parenting and
child care?
4. In how many of your current families are there fathers whose whereabouts are known but
who are not living with their children?
 How many of these men have you involved in discussions about parenting and
child care?
The course
1. Overall, I am very satisfied with the Fathers and Child Protection course.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Slightly
disagree
Slightly
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
2. During the course I learned a substantial amount of information.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Slightly
disagree
Slightly
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
3. I have used the knowledge and skills from the course on the job.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Slightly
disagree
Slightly
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
4. As a result of using the knowledge/skills from the course I have observed client progress.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Slightly
disagree
Slightly
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
5. As a result of the course I am a more effective worker.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Slightly
disagree
Slightly
agree
MANY THANKS for completing this questionnaire.
Please return in the pre-paid envelope provided.
APPENDIX 2 – OUTLINE OF TRAINING COURSE
Day One
Morning
Activities and their objectives
Resources
Timing
JS to introduce the questionnaire and explain the reasons behind the request for
completion by attendees, its connection to WAG funding and the overall aim of the
research project.
T1 questionnaire
9.109.30
9.30-INTRODUCTION – (DD)
PPT slides 2-4:
aims, outline &
working agreement
9.309.50
PPT slides 5-7 ‘why
engage fathers?’
9.5010.10
Trainers to introduce themselves.
DD delivers aims and objectives, plan for the two days and working agreement
PB asks group to give their name agency, role and one thing they are hoping to get
out of the course over the two days.
9.50 - Why engage with fathers? (PB)
Objective- To establish early on why this course is important and that better
engagement of fathers should lead to better outcomes for children. To use
rationalized power point slides to support this point. This acts as a broad reference
point to the two full days.
Handouts for packs
only:
- pp.51-54 of
Brandon (2009)
summary of SCRs.
- Fathers Matter 2
research
10.10 GENDER, VALUES AND BELIEFS ( DD)
This exercise illustrates the importance of the values and beliefs held by practitioners
in engaging with men and fathers. It also illustrates the concept of gender is
intrinsically connected to our decision making and how we practice.
To acknowledge we all carry a framework within us about “ideal father” which we
make reference to every time we engage with fathers. This may be a conscious or a
subconscious process, and that these different values and experiences will help
inform our judgment and decision making
That what we each individually see may not be the same, therefore the importance of
collaborative and inter-professional working.
DD Task- To break the large group into four groups, each group should represent a
mixture of agencies. Each group is asked to identify five essential qualities and five
desirable qualities for a father.
They are given 15 minutes to come up with their answers.
DD/PB Then feedback- (30 minutes) The large group is asked to evaluate the exercise,
how easy/ difficult was it? It helps illustrate a number of points.
1.
The difficulty in agreeing what an ideal father is.
2.
We all hold different views of what is ideal.
3.
This difference will extend across any agency/ team.
10.1010.55
4.
That fathers themselves will have a different view of what is ideal.
5.
To emphasise the importance of understanding families perception of the
role of fathering and to avoid imposing our own ideals on them. Additional things to
mention, to imagine that having identified your five essential qualities which of these
would be damaged and which could be repaired if the father had instigated
behaviour towards a child which was harmful, eg neglect, emotional abuse, physical
harm and sexual abuse? Do the assessment frameworks that you use help you to
think about fathering as a distinct activity (rather than ’parenting’)?
It also allows for participants to understand that there is a diversity of family forms
and family cultures; to establish some kind of consensus that it is possible to work
with an ideal of gender equality and also engage pragmatically with families who are
far from this ideal. To round the exercise off by drawing attention to the diversity of
contemporary fathering, mentioning also fathers from black and minority groups and
disabled fathers, fathers in same sex relationships.
10.55-GAINS AND LOSSES part 1- (PB)
10.5511.15
Objective- for participants to acknowledge the complexity of child protection work,
the difficulty of engaging fathers and the complexity of gender relations.
PB Task- For participants to be in the same groups as for the previous exercise. Each
of the four groups is given a character, practitioner, father, mother and child. They
each have fifteen to twenty minutes to come up with a list of gains and losses that
might result from the engagement with fathers. Their responses are recorded on flip
chart paper.
Tea/ coffee break
11.1511.30
11.30- GAINS AND LOSSES part 2- (PB & DD)
11.3011.55
Feedback from the exercise. Each group to present their work. In managing the
sharing of work it is important to avoid death by feedback, facilitators balance the
appreciation of their work with lengthy monologues.
DD & PB to share thoughts and feedback based on what is delivered by each group.
Summary- this exercise helps illustrate the complexity of the dynamics that exist in
any practice situation involving fathers. That we must extend our thinking beyond the
duality of “ good or bad” both in terms of what the father presents and also the
potential gains and losses that might exist in engaging with fathers for all parties.
11.55-PRACTITIONERS’ FEAR- ( PB & DD) To address one element of the interaction
with fathers which itself may well have been identified during the gains and losses
exercise.
PPT slide 8 ‘social
workers’ fear’
11.5512.10
PPT slide 9-10
‘barriers and
facilitators’
12.1012.20
Task- (PB)- To do a small exercise to reflect experiences of fear/ harm by service
users. ( 5 mins)
Group is asked to stand, then progressively sit if ever been
assaulted/threatened/sworn at/shouted at/scared by any client.
Task – (DD)- To offer anecdote of own practice, and then to share information from
slide 8.
12.10-BARRIERS AND FACILITATORS- (DD)
- Objective: for participants to understand what practices hinder or help the
engagement of fathers
Handout for packs
DD Trainer to present a brief summary of research evidence on barriers and
facilitators with handout. Based on review of literature and qualitative research in the
two LAs.
only ‘barriers and
facilitators’
To link to previous exercise of gains / losses and fears.
12.20-Parental responsibility –(PB)
Objectives: for participants to appreciate the crucial importance of involving men
who are involved in children’s lives, regardless of PR, as well as engaging fathers who
are not living with children but have PR; to consider positive ways of negotiating
ethically difficult situations.
PPT slides 11-14:
Parental
responsbilty
12.2012.30
Children’s Legal
Centre handout for
packs only
Start with brief presentation from trainers on legal issues (10 min max). Main point to
emphasise is they should not be fixated on whether or not a man has PR.
Lunch
12.301.15
Afternoon
Activities and their objectives
Resources
1.15- ICE BREAKER-( DD)
Divide the large group into four agency specific groups. Each group has two minutes
to list key risk indicators for harm to children. This exercise serves two purposes, it
re-starts the participant group after lunch, and gets them to think about risk,
something we will return to in the next exercise. Each group can very quickly show
the large group what they have produced. Opportunity to recognise that they have
to constantly work under pressure making speedy judgements using an internalised
risk template that draws on practice wisdom as well as training.
Flip chart paper and
pens.
1.25-RISK ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT-(DD & PB)
To begin the exercise by sharing key information on power point slides relating to
what we know about fathers and risk. (DD)
PPT slides 15-16 on
risk assessment.
1.35-Assessing likelihood & impact. ( DD & PB)
Task- This exercise acts a pre curser to the assessment exercise later on in the
afternoon. To read out the scenario relating to Craig.
Likelihood and
impact exercise
To then ask the whole group to choose what they think the scenario represents in
terms of likelihood of violence / abuse and what is the impact of this likely to be?
Additional question may be who is at risk?
(pp3-4 of ‘handouts
for exercises’)
1.
High likelihood high impact.
2.
High likelihood low impact.
3.
Low likelihood high impact.
4.
Low likelihood low impact.
Timing
1.151.25
1.252.15
Each of these options is represented in either corner of the room. The participant
group is asked to move to a corner of the room they feel best represents their view
of the impact from Craig. The facilitator DD or PB then goes round asking each group
for their responses to why they chose to move where they did. Make it clear to the
group that based on the thoughts of the group they may feel they want to move to a
different quadrant
PB the group work element whilst DD does the external/ internal factors?
Once it feels like key points have been expressed ask the group to sit back down .The
facilitator to then share thoughts around external /internal factors. What methods
external and internal are available for protecting children from harm? Which are
most likely to be effective long term? Steer them towards the importance of internal
factors.
If there is enough time to repeat the exercise with the case scenario relating to Phil.
A key issue in this exercise is to emphasize the relevance of thresholds, both in terms
of individual practitioners, team, agency and inter-agency. How this will impact on
decision making in relation to working with fathers.
2.15- HOW NOT TO PRACTICE !- ( DD & PB)
PPT slides 17-19
Having spent some time addressing the issue of identifying risk and the relevance of
external and internal factors, we want to address engagement with men, and how
not to work effectively.
2.152.45
DD and PB To ask the participants to return to their groups (May do this as a whole
group depending on time) and to name practices they think would discourage a
father from engaging with you, what sort of behaviours would you be presenting? (
15 mins)
To get brief feedback from the four groups and to follow this up with the slides 18 &
19 Chris Trotter. To add work of Donald Forrester re empathic working and non
confrontational working practices, small discussion.
Tea/coffee break
2.453.00
3.00- ASSESSMENTS OF FATHERS RISKS AND STRENGTHS- ( DD & PB)
3.00 –
4.15
For participants to understand the importance of considering strengths as well as
risks; For participants to engage with a credible child protection case.
To then introduce the child protection case study.
Ask the participants to read the case study and to address the following two
questions.
1.
What concerns do you identify in this case study and discuss how might you
address them? (15 mins)
Having done this ground work the groups will be divided, two groups will focus on an
assessment of Mike and two groups will focus on an assessment of Brian.
Groups focusing on Brian- A strategy has been agreed of maintaining the children at
home. Your objective as a group is to develop a script that you would want to deliver
to Brian. Your objective is to open up a discussion about his involvement in the
family and the impact of his drinking and violence on the children. What questions
will you ask, how will you ask them?
Groups focusing on Mike- A strategy has been agreed to undertake an assessment of
Mike and his extended family. Your objective is to open up a discussion about his
Case study (pp.5-9
of ‘handouts for
exercises’)
involvement in the family and the previous concerns his behaviour raised. What
questions will you ask and how will you ask them? ( 15 mins)
To then join the two groups focusing on Brain and the two groups focusing on Mike
to consolidate their approaches. What we are after is an agreed approach with clear
questions and clear direction. ( 15 mins)
Then each group will nominate one person to act as their practitioner.
Role play with DD acting as Brian and Mike.
3.40- Scenario 1- The practitioner will deliver their agreed approach in an interview
with Brian. ( 10 mins)
3.50- Scenario 2- The practitioner will deliver their agreed approach in an interview
with Mike. ( 10 mins)
4.00- Fifteen minutes discussion relating to intervention, practice issues thoughts
and reflections. To inform the group that these skills are issues we will be returning
to on day 2 when we focus on practices relating to motivational interviewing.
74.15- KEY ELEMENTS FROM DAY ONE-(DD & PB)
Objectives: To remind participants of key learning points from Day One; To set up
useful preparation for Day Two
PPT slide 20 ‘key
points from Day
One’
4.154.30
PPT slide
‘homework task’
Trainers summarise main points emerging from the day
Handout for packs
only
Set homework task – reflection on practice (Karen)
– resources for
work with fathers,
including reading
list
- reference list for
all citations in
training material
4.30-CLOSE
4.30
Day Two
Morning
9.30-WELCOME BACK & REVIEW OF DAY ONE- (DD & PB)
Timing
9.30-10.00
An opportunity for all participants to engage in discussion relating to reflections,
thoughts about the material and practice issues from Day One.
To offer an open forum for discussion and debate.
10.00- FATHERS’ VIEWS OF THE CHILD PROTECTION PROCESS-(DD & PB)
Objective: Empathy with fathers who are involved with the child protection
system
Show small part of DVD and trainers facilitate brief comment from whole group
10.00-10.30
10.30 BACKGROUND TO MOTIVATIONAL INTERVIEWING (KM)
10.30-11.15
Small group discussion – Can people change?
Persuasion exercise – in pairs
Feedback
Tea/coffee break
Engaging skills:
11.15-11.30
Open questions
11.30-12.45
Affirmations
Reflective listening
Summarising
Describe each skill
Pairs practice using own issue
Readiness to change rulers
Demonstration with student
Round robin – 3 groups – “nice” client
Lunch
12.45-1.30
Afternoon
Activities and their objectives
Timing
Eliciting change talk
1.30-2.45
Recognising change talk
Skills to elicit change talk
Responding to change talk
Coded demonstration - “nice” client
Tea/coffee break
2.45-3.00
Shameful secrets
3.00-4.00
Resistant types and skills
Demonstration “hard” client
Trio role plays – observer coding
Course evaluation questionnaire
4.00-4.15