The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

SCOTTISH CHILD CONTACT CENTRES: CHARACTERISTICS OF CENTRE USERS AND CENTRE STAFF

CHAPTER FOUR: CONTACT CENTRE STAFF

INTRODUCTION

4.1 This chapter outlines the results of the national survey of contact centre staff described in Chapter 2. It was designed to collect basic demographic information on key characteristics of contact centre workers, and also to collect some basic information on respondents' experiences while working at contact centres. This chapter covers the following topics:

• Sample characteristics
• Experience and skills of contact centre workers
• Training needs and training received
• The responsibilities and roles of contact centre workers
• Services provided other than supported contact
• Experience of working with users with a history of domestic violence, mental illness and / or substance abuse
• Safety and support within the contact centre.

Sample characteristics

4.2 The majority of respondents were females aged 45 or over. Only 2 respondents (4%) were aged under 35 and 3 respondents (7%) were male. Three respondents identified themselves as disabled. All of those responding to the survey identified themselves as white and British

Status and hours of contact centre workers

4.3 As Figure 4.2 shows, the majority of respondents to the survey were volunteers - 29 respondents (69%) worked at the centre on a voluntary basis. Twenty-five of these volunteers (59%) worked in a non-supervisory capacity. The distinction was drawn between voluntary organisers (those running contact centres) and voluntary workers (those helping on a more casual basis) because of the different responsibilities these two roles entail. Five of the respondents worked in contact centres full time and 37 worked part time. Of the full time workers, 2 were paid workers and 3 were volunteers.

4.4 The majority (21 of 29) of part time volunteers worked one day per month. The paid part time workers worked between 1 and 4 days per month. The large proportion of part time workers working 4 days or less per month in the survey population is not surprising, as on average contact centres are open to users for around 5 hours per week, and usually only on Saturdays.

EXPERIENCE & SKILLS

4.5 The median length of time at their current contact centre for all respondents was 3.5 years. The median length of time at their current contact centre for paid workers was 4 years and for volunteers it was 3.5 years. Nine respondents had worked at contact centres in the past (two had worked at more than one). The median length of time that they had spent working at other centres was 18 months ¹⁰. Five of the paid workers and four of the volunteer workers / co-ordinators had previously worked in another contact centre.

4.6 Ten (77%) paid workers and 19 (66%) volunteer workers had other paid commitments in addition to their contact centre commitments. Types of other paid work tended to be work such as child care, social / community work, advice and education work. In addition to this, 13 respondents had other voluntary commitments. Over half of these were in similar fields (e.g. youth work / family mediation).

4.7 In general, both voluntary and paid staff had a wide range of relevant experience to bring to their contact centre work. Only 2 respondents (both volunteers and non-organisers) did not seem to have any relevant experience, and both had been given initial and refresher training in the course of working at a contact centre.

Languages

4.8 Thirteen respondents spoke more than one language. All but three of these respondents spoke French as their second language. The remainder named English, Italian & Spanish as their second language. All but one of the respondents' first language was English (this respondent's first language was Italian).

4.9 Of the 13 respondents who did speak a language other than English, only two had ever had reason to use it during the course of their work at the contact centre. Of the remaining 29 that had no second language, 12 stated that they had been in at least one situation where a second language would have been useful, although there was no one language which appeared to be significantly in demand.

Reasons for working at contact centres

4.10 Only the volunteers interviewed were questioned about their reasons for working at a contact centre. Their responses are listed in Table 4.1 below:

*'Other' reasons for working at a contact centre included the ways in which they had heard about the opportunity to work there. One had formerly been a centre user, another had spoken with staff at a contact centre before deciding to volunteer, and another had responded to an advert in a newspaper.

TRAINING

4.11 A total of 37 out of the 42 respondents (89%) had received either formal or informal training. Respondents were asked to specify if they had received any formal or informal training and guidance. There was the potential for variation among respondents about what constituted 'formal' and 'informal'. However the open question at this point in the questionnaire allowed them to go into a little more depth, and the definition was fairly consistent between respondents ¹¹.

4.12 Respondents who had received some kind of training were asked what form the training delivery took, the majority of those receiving training were given this in the form of a course over several days. Twenty-six (84%) of the 31 respondents who answered this question stated that either Family Mediation Lothian or Family Mediation Scotland provided their training. The standard training provided by FMS also functions as a screening process, whereby potential volunteers can assess whether the role of a contact centre worker is appropriate for them, and the centre staff can assess whether the candidates are suitable for the role.

4.13 Three contact centre workers said that they had not received any training until after they had started working at the contact centre, which was perceived to be of limited use by these respondents.

4.14 It should be noted that the high levels of relevant experience generally held by centre staff is pertinent when considering training issues. While superficially it may seem to be of some concern that three out of the 13 paid organisers surveyed had not received formal training, in practice they are experienced professionals who had 'trained themselves' by attending courses and seminars as and when they felt that it was appropriate.

4.15 Respondents were also questioned on what topics their training covered. The training topics which were listed as options in the questionnaire were based on those recommended by the SNCCC guidelines for training of voluntary and paid staff (SNCCC 1999:5). These are:

• General facts / statistics about divorce and separation
• Effects of divorce and separation
• Loss and separation issues
• Domestic violence guidelines
• Child protection procedures
• Legislation
• What a contact centre is / is not
• Sources of referral
• Advantages and disadvantages of using a contact centre
• Managing conflict

4.16 Tables 4.2 and 4.3 outline the topics covered by the training given to the participants ¹².

4.17 The respondents who had received training were also asked if there were any areas where they would have liked to receive more training. Eleven out of the 37 respondents who had received some training said that there were areas where they would like more training. The areas that they would like more training in included: child protection (2), managing conflict (2), staff training skills (1), family law (1), sources of referral (1), drug & alcohol abuse (1), cultural awareness (1), issues around domestic violence (1) and how to help families relax / play together (1).

4.18 SNCCC guidelines also note the following; "regular ongoing training and built in support is strongly recommended for both organisers and volunteers". Twenty-eight (76%) of the 37 respondents who had received training also stated that they had received refresher training. This was typically received at least twice a year (as was the case of 19 of these respondents, or 68%), and a further 5 stated that refresher training was given "on demand".

4.19 Those who did not receive any training were asked whether they would have liked to receive some, and if so, in what areas they would have liked to be trained. As the number of workers who did not receive training was small, there were no discernible trends detectable.

RESPONSIBILITIES AND ROLES OF CONTACT CENTRE WORKERS

4.20 The main roles and responsibilities identified by contact centre workers are described below ¹³.

4.21 For both volunteer workers and volunteer organisers / co-ordinators, the main responsibilities identified were the responsibility of making sure that the handovers and the contact itself go as smoothly as possible.

Volunteer workers - main responsibilities : Of the volunteer workers, 64% said that chatting with families to make them feel at ease was one of their main responsibilities, and 55% stated that overseeing handovers was one of their main responsibilities.

Volunteer workers - other responsibilities The vast majority of volunteer workers stated that they were involved in play activities in some way - 84% provided play ideas if asked to do so, and 92% were responsible for putting out toys and play materials for children visiting the centre. The other roles identified by a large majority of volunteer workers centred around taking care of families; such as talking to families, and making tea and coffee.

Paid workers and volunteer organisers - main responsibilities : Of the paid workers and volunteer organisers, 67% said that ensuring that handovers and contact proceed as agreed was one of their main responsibilities. Other roles identified as 'main' responsibilities were health and safety (40%), the briefing and debriefing of staff (33%), liaison with referrers and other agencies (27%) and overseeing the entry and exit of centre users (27%).

Paid workers and volunteer organisers - other responsibilities : All of these respondents said that they had responsibility for maintaining records, and for health and safety within the centre. Again, the vast majority identified roles involving taking care of centre users, such as preparing for families (94%) and overseeing the entry and exit of centre users (88%). Staff issues such as briefing / debriefing and staff supervision were also commonly cited. However only 5 of the paid workers and volunteer organisers (29%) identified fundraising and / or budgetary management as a responsibility of theirs.

SERVICES OTHER THAN SUPPORTED CONTACT

Defining levels of contact

4.22 This part of the study has looked at the different levels of contact provided by centre workers in terms of supported and supervised contact (rather than statutory supervised contact) ¹⁴. Various terms are used to describe the various types of contact available within contact centres. These are set out in Chapter 1.

Service provision in Scottish contact centres

4.23 All Scottish contact centres provide supported (low vigilance) contact, and for most this is the only service provided by the centre. As discussed elsewhere in this report, contact centres in Scotland are not generally set up for the purpose of providing counselling or statutory supervised contact. However as one of the aims of this stage of the research was to investigate the types of services that are currently provided by contact centres in Scotland, respondents were questioned about provision of services other than supported contact. Respondents were also questioned regarding additional services beyond this; namely, supervised contact, counselling and statutory supervised contact. In addition this part of the research also sought to collect basic information on centre staff's perceptions of the demand for services other than supported contact.

Supervised (high vigilance) contact

4.24 57% of respondents (24) had been asked to provide supervised contact. Of these, the majority stated that they were 'sometimes' or 'rarely' asked to do so. The remaining 6 said that they were asked 'all the time' or 'frequently'. Thirteen respondents, from 8 centres, had actually provided supervised contact. Of these respondents, less than half (5) were paid respondents; the rest were voluntary workers (1 was a voluntary organiser). Most respondents who had chaperoned had done so for between one and five families.

4.25 The reasons why respondents had been asked to provide supervised contact are given in Table 4.4 below.

4.26 Most of the requests for supervised contact were made by parents (named as the source of a request by 10 respondents). The 11 respondents who had been asked to chaperone a child during contact, but who had not actually done so, were asked why they did not provide this service. All of these respondents stated that it was against their centre's policy to do so.

Counselling

4.27 Seven respondents had, at some point, been asked to provide counselling, mainly for adult members of the family. Only two stated that they had actually provided any counselling; both of these were paid workers with experience in social work, and were from different centres. However, one of these respondents defined 'counselling' in the informal sense of listening and giving advice, whereas the other respondent regarded it in terms of a more formal process that was part of her job. Of those who had not, two stated that their centre policy precludes counselling.

Statutory Supervised Contact

4.28 Eleven respondents had been asked to provide Statutory Supervised Contact (SSC) at some stage while working at their current contact centre. Of these respondents, three had been asked frequently, five had been asked 'sometimes', and the remaining three said that this was rare.

4.29 Only three respondents stated that their centre had actually provided SSC at some point - these were all volunteer workers at the contact centre in the Western Isles. The two respondents that provided an estimate of the extent to which this service is provided stated that between 1 and 5 families had received SSC over the past 6 months. The reasons given for providing this service were in response to court and / or social work requests.

4.30 Eight respondents had been asked to provide SSC but had refused this request; all said that this was because it was not the centre's policy and / or responsibility to provide this service.

Services other than supported contact: The Western Isles

4.31 The reporting of provision of counselling and statutory supervised contact in this part of the study originates from only one contact centre. While the practice throughout the rest of this report has been to anonymise the centres and report results in aggregate form only, there are special circumstances to note in this case. The provision of counselling and SSC are not standard functions of a contact centre, and it is to an extent the geographical location of the centre in the Western Isles that determine their provision of these services ¹⁵.

4.32 Counselling and family mediation are provided by centre staff. However this is on the condition that a staff member does not see a family in more than one capacity. For example, if a family member is receiving counselling from a member of staff, this person should not be on duty when they are visiting the premises in its role as a contact centre.

4.33 It appears that the Western Isles contact centre is the only centre in Scotland at the time of the research to provide statutory supervised contact. As it is a small community there are a limited number of neutral venues available to social workers in which they can provide statutory supervised contact. In these circumstances contact centre staff would still provide a basic service while a social worker provided formal supervision and undertook any reporting duties.

FAMILIES WITH SPECIFIC ISSUES

4.34 Centre workers were questioned on their experiences when dealing with families who may require additional attention or have specific needs that may need to be borne in mind by workers responsible for supporting them during their visits. They were questioned about any contact they may have had with centre users with histories of domestic abuse, substance abuse and mental health issues, and whether there were specific requirements that such users may have of the contact centre and its staff.

4.35 Contact centres do not operate universal screening policies when taking on new centre users. In addition to this, the information held by centre organisers regarding the backgrounds of centre users is generally reliant on either the information given by referrers such as solicitors, all of whom will use their personal discretion regarding what the centre needs to know about the family in question, or on the information volunteered by the centre users themselves. Similarly, it is left to the centre organiser's discretion whether families are admitted to the contact centre.

4.36 With this in mind, it must be appreciated that centre workers will not necessarily be aware of users' personal histories, even though such referring agencies may be party to this information. It must also be noted that workers occasionally expressed reservations that these allegations were always true or accurate, particularly as hostile and estranged parents or other family members may have made these allegations.

4.37 Further, the accuracy of allegations impact on the validity of the results outlined below. For example, participants were asked about their experiences in working with centre users with a history of mental health problems. Allegations notwithstanding, this is something that respondents are not really in a position to assess. Mental health problems will not always manifest themselves in a recognisable behavioural form. Further, types of behaviour that the respondent has judged as indicative of mental illness may not have such reasons as their root cause.

4.38 Respondents were asked to distinguish between what they believed to be 'mental illness' from what they believed to be anti-social behaviour unrelated to mental illness. However these judgements may be very impressionistic and are highly subjective. There are cognate problems involved in respondents' accounts of working with the other 'user groups' covered in this section. Staff are not well placed to form a complete or well informed picture of abusive family histories or a person's history of substance abuse.

4.39 Finally, these three issues are only examples of the types of situations which may make contact difficult for families, and which may necessitate different types or quantities of attention from the centre and its staff. The complexity of how such issues interact with and impact upon a family's circumstances is difficult to assess. The results from this section can be taken only as indicative of some of the kinds of issues and complex social situations that contact centre staff must navigate in the course of their work.

Users with a history of domestic abuse

4.40 79% (33) of respondents said that they had worked with families that had a history of domestic abuse. Most of these respondents (30 of the 33) felt that such users have specific requirements of the contact centre. Only four of these respondents said that they did not feel equipped to meet some of these needs. Three of them identified the same issue that could be problematic for families with a history of domestic abuse, which was that the centre does not allow for the staggered entry of centre users. These respondents all worked at different centres.

4.41 This has been identified as a problem for some centres in a more general sense, but is clearly a serious issue for families with a history of domestic abuse. If the resident parent cannot leave the centre after dropping the child off, or enter the centre to pick the child up without passing the visiting parent at some point, then this may, at the very least, limit the usefulness of a contact centre to such families ¹⁶. The contact centre may be seen as a way in which a child can have contact with a non-resident parent whom the resident parent does not want to see. This is clearly very serious in cases where issues of domestic abuse are involved. Domestic abuse was also cited by some respondents as a safety issue when working in the centre.

Users with a history of alcohol / drug abuse

4.42 The SNCCC guidelines state that "if it appears, in the organiser's opinion, that the contact parent is under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the commencement of contact (such that they are unable to care for the child during contact, appropriately relate to the child during contact or follow the reasonable directions of the organiser) the contact should not be allowed to take place". (SNCCC 1999: 7)

4.43 93% of respondents (39) stated that they had worked with centre users who had a history of drug or alcohol abuse. Twenty seven of the respondents who had had experience of working with those with a history of substance abuse (69%) stated that they felt these users had specific needs that ought to be attended to when using the centre.

4.44 Anecdotally, there appeared to be differences in opinion among organisers as to whether centre users under the influence of alcohol or drugs should be admitted to the centre, and correspondingly different practices in these circumstances.

Users with 'problematic' histories: some further issues

4.45 It is worth noting that there are a number of issues with how this part of the questionnaire was framed, with concomitant effects upon the responses and results obtained. Firstly, no details were ascertained regarding such 'problematic' histories; for example, the roles of resident / non-resident parents. Secondly the labelling of 'problem' families is possibly stigmatising, both implicitly in terms of this research, and possibly explicitly if a centre chooses to 'screen' for certain families with certain issues that we have categorised here as 'problematic'. Finally, the 'specific needs' named by centre staff tend to refer to the needs of centre workers rather than centre users. This is likely to be a result of the way that the question was framed, and the context of the whole questionnaire, which focused very much on the respondent and their work rather than the service users.

SAFETY AND SUPPORT

4.46 Respondents were asked a range of questions about their well-being while working at contact centres. This part of the survey focused on the perceived safety of the centre they currently work at, any aspects of their work that they find upsetting or emotionally taxing, and the types of formal and informal support that they have available to them as centre workers.

Abusive or violent incidents encountered by centre staff

4.47 Four of the respondents reported that in the past they had been threatened with violence while working at the contact centre. One stated that they had been threatened once, and the remaining three stated that they had been threatened between 2 and 5 times, during the previous 12 months.

4.48 No-one had actually been physically assaulted over the last 12 months. However 18 respondents (43%) stated that they had been "verbally assaulted" at least once during the previous 12 months.

4.49 In addition to this, 23 respondents (58%) stated that they had witnessed physical or verbal violence directed at a contact centre worker over the previous 12 months. Of these, 15 (36%) had witnessed physical violence and 22 (53%) had witnessed verbal violence.

4.50 This is in contrast to the number of incidents recorded on FMS's Serious Incident Register. At the time of the research only 2 incidents had been recorded since 1997, when the register was first set up. There may be a number of reasons for this discrepancy.

4.51 Firstly, a serious incident is defined as one where formal action of some kind has been taken; for example, if a warning letter is sent to a user or referrer regarding future behaviour in the centre or the police are called. It is clearly feasible that not all of the incidents referred to by the survey respondents resulted in this kind of action, which is likely to be a major factor in this discrepancy.

4.52 However at the time of this research it was the case that the reporting of serious incidents is not actually incorporated into the SACCC guidelines. It may be that lack of knowledge of the register is the main reason why the number of serious incidents reported in the register is so low. There was nothing to suggest that the prevalence of physical violence or verbal abuse was concentrated in particular centres.

Safety measures

4.53 83% of respondents (35 in total) stated that they were confident with the centre's safety. The seven respondents who were not confident of the centre's safety were asked if there were any measures that could be taken to make them feel more comfortable. Few suggestions emerged among the 7 respondents. The measures that were suggested included more training for centre staff, higher staffing levels and a different system for people entering the centre.

4.54 There was nothing to suggest that the individual centre or the centre organisers had any bearing on respondents' perceptions of the centre's safety; all of the 7 respondents were from different centres, which were in turn distributed among most of the organisations running child contact centres.

Support issues

4.55 A total of 31 respondents (74% of the survey population) stated that they found aspects of working at the centre emotionally challenging. The aspects that these respondents named as such are outlined in Table 4.5 below.

4.56 While 43% stated that they had been "verbally assaulted" over the past 12 months, 36% had witnessed a physical assault in the centre and 53% had witnessed a verbal attack in the centre, none of the respondents referred to aggressive encounters by centre users when naming the aspects of their work that actually upset them. It is difficult to say why this is, as the definition of a verbal or physical attack in this case is not clear.

4.57 Only 2 respondents (5%) stated that no support was available to them in the centre if they found their work upsetting. The remaining 40 respondents were questioned about the kind of support that was available to them; an outline of their account of support available in the centre is given in Table 4.6 below.

4.58 As was the case with the definition of 'formal' and 'informal' training, it was left to respondents to explain what they regarded as formal and informal support. Respondents' definitions of formal and informal support are summed up in the classifications outlined in Table 4.6 above. However caution should be exercised in interpreting this table, as there could be some disparity among respondents. For example, what is regarded by some as a formal debriefing may in reality have the same content as "speaking to the centre director" for others. However it may be useful to recant that 94% of paid workers and volunteer organisers regarded briefing and debriefing of staff as a responsibility of theirs, and 33% regarded this as one of their main responsibilities.

4.59 Using this definition, 14 respondents in total named at least one type of formal support that was available to them in the course of their work. A further 26 respondents named at least one type of informal support available to them. The remaining 2 respondents stated that they did not have any support available to them. ¹⁷

4.60 The other type of support available which was not classified as 'formal' or informal' that was described by respondents was the freedom given to volunteers to decline work that they did not feel comfortable with - for example the supervision of families.

4.61 Two respondents said that they did not have support available to them in the centre when they were upset. The types of support these respondents said that they would like to be available were: debriefings by organiser / co-ordinator, professional counselling and an informal support network (all were cited by both respondents). Both of these respondents worked at different centres, run by different organisations.

SUMMARY

• In general both voluntary and paid staff had a wide range of relevant experience to bring to their contact centre work.
• 14 respondents in total named at least one type of formal support that was available to them in the course of their work. A further 26 respondents named at least one type of informal support available to them.
• 37 out of the 42 respondents (88%) had received either formal or informal training. 28 respondents (67%) stated that they also received refresher training. This was typically received at least twice a year (as was the case of 19 of these respondents).
• 57% of respondents (24) had been asked to provide supervised contact (with high vigilance as opposed to statutory supervised contact). 13 of these respondents had actually provided supervised contact;
• 8 respondents had been asked to provide statutory supervised contact but had refused this request; all said that this was because it was not the centre's policy and / or responsibility to provide this service;
• 7 of the respondents had, at some point, been asked to provide counselling, mainly for adult members of the family. Only 2 stated that they had actually provided any counselling; both of these were paid workers with experience in social work.
• The reporting of provision of counselling and statutory supervised contact in this part of the study originates from only one contact centre. The geographical location of this centre in the Western Isles determined their provision of these services.
• 79% (33) respondents said that they had worked with families with a history of domestic abuse. Most of these (30 of the 33) felt that such users have specific requirements from the contact centre.
• Only 4 of these respondents said that they did not feel equipped to meet some of these needs. All of them identified the same issue that could be problematic for families with a history of domestic abuse, which was that the centre does not allow for the staggered entry of centre users.
• 93% of respondents (39) stated that they had worked with centre users with a history of substance abuse. 27 of the respondents who had had experience of working with those with a history of substance abuse stated that they felt these users had specific needs that ought to be attended to when using the centre.
• 31 respondents (74% of the survey population) stated that they had worked with centre users who had a history of mental illness. 5 respondents felt that the centre was not equipped to deal with some of the requirements of these centre users. These respondents mentioned issues such as the extra staffing which would be helpful when extra vigilance is needed, and the need for greater awareness among workers regarding the skills needed to cope with some centre users with mental health problems.
• 4 of the respondents reported that in the past they had been threatened with violence while working at the contact centre. 1 stated that they had been threatened once, and the remaining 3 stated that they had been threatened between 2 and 5 times, in the course of the previous 12 months.
• No one had actually been physically assaulted over the course of the last 12 months. However 18 respondents (43% of the survey population) stated that they had been "verbally assaulted" at least once during the previous 12 months.
• In addition to this, 23 respondents (58% of the survey population) stated that they had witnessed physical or verbal violence directed at a contact centre worker over the previous 12 months. Of these, 15 had witnessed episodes of physical violence and 22 had witnessed episodes of verbal abuse. However, 83% of respondents (35 in total) stated that they were confident with the centre's safety.
• 31 respondents (74% of the survey population) stated that they found aspects of working at the centre emotionally challenging. The aspects that these respondents named as such tended to centre on witnessing the distress of centre users, especially children.
• One third of respondents had some kind of 'formal support' available to them in the course of their work. All but 2 of the remaining respondents stated that they had an informal support network available to them. It should be noted, however, that the distinction between 'formal' and 'informal' is not completely clear.

« Previous | Contents | Next »