« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
CHAPTER FIVE ENGAGING WITH CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES
5.1 Effectively engaging clients with support services and interventions is recognised throughout the literature as a key factor in their success at resolving problems and effecting positive change in families' lives. This key factor is at the crux of the Parenting Order legislation and the debate it has generated about the role of compulsion within that process.
5.2 A number of studies of engagement have been conducted and a number of research reviews have also been published. Much of the existing literature relies on professional commentary rather than empirical evidence for its claims. It is also notable that where empirical data exists, a number of qualifications must be borne in mind when using the data to measure the success or failure of services in engaging clients or to determine the factors leading to success or failure. Typically, studies employing solely quantitative analysis of client databases look at rates of take up, completion and attrition, employing completion of the intervention or support programme as the benchmark of successful engagement. As Morawska and Sanders (2006, p. 30) note, however, much of the quantitative analyses of the factors associated with engagement have actually established few causal links, and many of the variables examined have been found to impact positively or negatively on engagement.
5.3 The use of relatively simplistic quantifiable indicators is understandable but, as some commentators have claimed, they are inadequate measures of the concept of engagement. Yatchmenoff (2005, p. 84), for example, argues that measuring rates of take up, attendance and completion is inadequate to monitor the success of engagement strategies as " compliant behaviours may or may not signify meaningful involvement in the helping process". Where compliance with the terms of attendance is achieved without the client's co-operation, collaboration and readiness to change, Yatchmenoff argues that engagement has failed and that the client is merely " going through the motions". The debate recognises that there are different levels of compliance from the purely legal or technical compliance through to meaningful and purposeful engagement and finally compliance to sustaining change in the long term.
5.4 This viewpoint is supported by Littell and Tijama (2000, in Dawson and Berry, 2002, p. 296) and Trotter (1999) who posit that collaboration between the client and the worker, wherein the client has an active role in defining goals and planning the support they receive, is a crucial element of client engagement. While, therefore, it is important to measure compliance, it is clearly also very important to acknowledge that studies relying on such crude indicators can miss fundamental elements of the concept of engagement and are thus limited in their ability to assess its operation and its applicability to practice advice.
5.5 Where collaboration between clients and workers is examined in the literature, the available empirical data is, again, limited. Typically, data has been generated through 'convenience' methodologies (Morawska and Sanders, 2006), focusing on parents and families who successfully engaged with support services and interventions rather than those who did not, or seeking the perspective of service providers rather than clients (Quinton, 2004; Yatchmenoff, 2005). For example, a study of parents' experience of interventions, Dumbrill (2006) relied on a sample of parents who had been deemed by caseworkers as likely to consent to participation; and in investigating possible means of boosting parental involvement, Saint-Jacques et al. (2006) relied solely on an examination of practitioner discourse.
5.6 There is little data to profile the characteristics of those who do not engage with services and little or no exploration of the perspectives of this group on the barriers and attitudes towards participation in services and interventions. Whether, therefore, they represent a distinctive and unique group of individuals and families who do not engage is, as yet, apparently unknown and thus the empirical data provides little in terms of advice for practitioners on how to improve the scope of their service outreach. Nevertheless, the existing studies do provide valuable insight into the complexities of the issue of engagement.
Barriers to engagement
5.7 The issue of engagement of parents and families is long-standing in health and social care. The Black Report (1980 in Pearson and Thurston, 2006) highlighted discrepancies in take up of antenatal care, where women from manual classes were less likely than women from middle class backgrounds to book and attend sessions. Since then, much work has been undertaken to try and explain the difference in rates of take up across the spectrum of parent and family services, with much of the attention focusing on potential barriers to engagement and ways to overcome these.
5.8 The factors associated with lack of engagement identified in the literature are wide ranging. Much of the work focuses on practical and easily resolvable, 'low level', issues although a number of commentaries highlight contextual and structural issues that do not allow for a 'quick fix' solution to the problem of involving parents and families with services. At the lower end of the spectrum however, the work on engagement flags up a number of barriers to families that could be relatively easily overcome. For example, Becker et al. (2002) discuss the potential impact that the approach and timing of the individual worker could have on a family. For example, an overzealous worker who attempts to tackle too much too soon with a family runs the risk of overwhelming family members with the extent of the problems they need to tackle. Such an approach is easily remedied through appropriate training.
5.9 Morawska and Sanders (2006) highlight that practical barriers, such as a lack of transport for accessing services, have been shown to impact on family involvement. They also claim that a perception of fewer practical barriers, even where a high number of such barriers may be actually present, is related to increased participation from parents. In the same vein, Lamb-Parker et al. (2001), following their analysis of interviews with mothers participating in Head Start, state that where mothers claimed to have competing demands on their time and energy, involvement in the service was low. Interestingly, self-reported lack of interest in the programme was not significantly associated with a low rate of attendance, although Wierzbicki and Pekarik (1993) in Morawska and Sanders (2006) argue that parental motivation is a factor significantly associated with completion.
5.10 Crucially, although perhaps obvious, Pearson and Thurston (2006), in their evaluation of a Sure Start education programme, stress that the timing of support provision, classes and so on can be a major barrier to engagement of parents. They argue that support programmes are often geared towards parents who do not have paid employment. Therefore, parents requiring support but with 9am-5pm working hours are effectively excluded from participation. It is clear from such evidence that a number of barriers exist that which could be resolved.
5.11 Morawska and Sanders (2006) also point to a number of possible factors whose impact on engagement has yet to be ascertained. A range of factors have been analysed in various studies with varying results. Interestingly, they claim that socio-demographic factors, such as employment or income, have been found to impact both ways on engagement. For example, high and low socioeconomic status have both been found to lead to greater drop out amongst families, and in some studies to have no impact at all. It is notable however that higher levels of educational achievement among parents have been consistently found to be associated with greater levels of participation (Morawska and Sanders, 2006, p. 31).
5.12 Other inconsistently associated barriers to engagement identified by Morawska and Sanders (2006) include the ethnic background of the parents, single parenthood, lack of family support networks, age of parents, age of child/children, severity of child's problem behaviour, and previous parental antisocial behaviour. Crucially, as we have already outlined in this review, a number of these factors are also associated with increased risk of child neglect and harm and with children at risk of getting into antisocial and criminal behaviour.
5.13 Continuing to move up the spectrum in terms of the severity of the problems leading to lack of engagement, Morawska and Sanders (2006) suggest that a combination of factors contribute to 'resistance' to support and intervention amongst parents. They argue that some forms of resistance, such as irregular attendance or drop out, simply reflect the chaotic lifestyle that some parents can lead. As Petras et al. (2002, p. 228) argue, the behaviour exhibited by a parent is influenced by their own developmental history and personal characteristics and their social connectedness to their environment. Looking solely at engagement with parents accused of neglecting their children, they argue that such families are characterised by social isolation and a " pervasive sense of hopelessness", with both factors compounding the issue of engagement and the ability to develop cooperative and trusting relationships with practitioners (Petras et al., 2002, p. 233).
5.14 To further illustrate that non-engaging parents sit in a context of multiple and intractable difficulties, Atkinson and Butler (1996) claim that a review of case files of Canadian parents who failed to comply with court ordered children's aid appointments were characterised by transience, antisocial behaviour, violent spousal relationships and substance misuse. Interestingly, Taylor and Kroll (2004), in assessing the issues of working with parental substance misuse in the UK, highlight that statutory childcare team workers did not fully recognise alcohol misuse in families and underestimated its impact on parental capacities. Practitioners also reported real difficulties in understanding and assessing parents' substance misuse, as parents were very aware of the multiple consequences their disclosure would have and were typically guarded and secretive as a result. Fear of the consequences of professional intrusion in such situations, often coupled with a perceived inability to cope in the face of complex and multiple difficulties, are important barriers to bear in mind when considering failure to engage. Crucially, substance misuse has already been identified in this review as a key risk factor in the context of neglected and abused children and those at risk of offending. To address such barriers is likely to require a holistic approach to meet the complex range of needs of affected families.
5.15 Morawska and Sanders (2006) also posit that resistance to support and interventions, in cases where the problematic behaviour of the child has led to social work attention, may stem from a history of parental avoidance of confronting or taking responsibility for the child. As Gordon (2002 in Wiley, 2002) contends, for the parent of an offending teenager, intervention may have come too far down the line when they have already disengaged from their child due to a history of defeat and feeling ineffective at managing their behaviour. At this stage it may not be surprising that parents do not engage in interventions where they may be expected to confront a potentially intimidating or abusive teenager. Family dynamics are also a crucial element in successful engagement with parents, and again the resolution of the barriers dysfunctional relationships can create is no small or easy task. This may be a comment more about the appropriateness of earlier intervention rather than lack of intervention. A large scale Scottish study on children referred for offending found that ' on average, first referral to the Hearing system for the 465 young people was 10 years of age, indicating difficulties of a long-standing nature' (Whyte, 2004, p. 403).
5.16 In the face of the difficulties highlighted, some authors have directed responsibility for failure to engage not at the clients and potential clients but at the very structure of professional practice. The implication is that it is not families who put up the barriers to engagement but rather the system they are required to participate in creates barriers. In this vein Gordon (2002 in Wiley, 2002) argues that the responsibility for engagement lies with the therapist, worker or practitioner and not with the client.
5.17 A number of elements of social work practice have been subject to criticism for hindering the engagement process. An important element to consider is the inherently unequal power relationship between client and practitioner. Qualitative studies of parents' experience of child protection and child welfare involvement have highlighted how such an imbalance of power, or at the very least a perception of imbalance, can seriously affect parents' attitudes towards practitioners and participation with the terms of intervention (Dumbrill, 2006; Spratt and Callan, 2004). For example, in Dumbrill's (2006) Canadian study of child protection processes, parents expressed their fears of workers being judgemental and heavy handed in their approach to the family problems, with intervention being forced upon them. Crucially parents reported feeling powerless when workers did not take on board their point of view or empathise with the difficulties they were facing. Where workers took steps that parents felt were inappropriate to their needs, parents reported feeling unable to challenge the preconceptions of the worker or the action plan formulated from their assessment.
5.18 Spratt and Callan (2004) found a similar scenario in their study of child welfare processes in England, where families reported an inability to question or challenge the view of social workers despite dissatisfaction with what they perceived as unnecessary or inappropriate intervention. Spratt and Callan (2004) explain this power imbalance as a product, inter alia, of the adversarial nature of statutory childcare proceedings. Coupled with the multiple difficulties families subject to such measures encounter on a daily basis, it is easy to see why confronting the social work team and the 'muscle' of the local authority is perceived as a mighty task. As Dumbrill (2006, p. 31) states " To overwhelmed parents, child protection services appeared indomitable."
5.19 Amongst his particular sample, Dumbrill (2006, p. 33) found that parents in such situations reacted in one of two ways: they 'fight' and openly challenge the worker (sometimes in court); or they 'play the game' and feign co-operation, echoing Yatchmenoff's (2005) notion of clients 'going through the motions'. The barriers to effective communication between client and worker, imposed by the very structure of the system of child protection, are clearly not conducive to effectively engaging problematic and mistrusting parents and families (Petras et al., 2002), and furthermore, it could be argued, impede the development of effective action plans to address client defined problems.
5.20 Woodcock (2003) is another critic of the operation of social work practice in relation to parents and families. Based on in-depth interviews with social work practitioners, she asserts that parenting assessments and subsequent action plans are frequently grounded in inadequate interpretation of the problems of parents. She claims that social work assessments tend to classify parents as 'good' or 'bad' without adequate investigation into the causes of parents' behaviours.
5.21 From a psychological perspective, Woodcock (2003) argues that good parenting is learned behaviour for which many parents receiving social work attention have had no good modelling. Lack of support in the early years can lead to poor attachment between parent and child, which in turn impacts on the child's behaviour towards the parent in later life. In a cyclical manner this impacts further on the parent's capacity to be a 'good' parent, and so on. Woodcock (2003) argues that this pattern, coupled with multiple sources of stress and disadvantage in the wider social environment, undermine family relationships. She asserts that social workers must pay greater heed to these ecological factors in assessing parent and family functioning. Once again, this echoes the message emerging from the earlier review of risk factors in Chapter 3 of this report.
5.22 Woodcock (2003) found attention to these ecological factors to be scant amongst her sample of social workers. The outcome of ignoring these factors is interventions that fail to address underlying risk factors of the problems that bring individuals to social work attention. As highlighted by Dumas and Albin's (1986) study of parent training outcomes, where families are affected by adverse conditions, they are unlikely to be changed through parent training alone as the ecological context hinders the acquisition of skills. When parents 'fail' to change as a result of inappropriate intervention, Woodcock (2003) found them to be regarded by practitioners as resistant to change and their 'resistance' became the social work target. Thus, because of a lack of adequate information, what is in fact a service failure is misconstrued as client failure.
5.23 Woodcock (2003) is critical of this approach to parenting, arguing it to be the result of the skewed focus of the legal requirements of child protection on social work practice. The focus on the needs of the child is clearly necessary and irrefutable but it is also apparent that tipping the balance slightly towards the needs of the parent, and the recognition and development of appropriate interventions to address them, may impact positively on parental engagement with practitioners and services. Moreover, addressing the issues highlighted by Woodcock (2003) and taking a more holistic view of the family context of a child in need may go some way to overcoming the problems encountered above by Dumbrill (2006) and Spratt and Callan (2004). In effect, as noted earlier in this review, the professional task is always one of getting the balance right between care and control for each individual family.
5.24 The structure of social work practice has been further criticised for its almost systematic exclusion of fathers from child welfare. Taylor and Daniel (2000) posit that in child care and protection practice the term 'parent' is typically synonymous with 'mother' and therefore the female carer becomes the focus of intervention. They claim that social work assessments are " riddled with gendered assumptions" about male and female roles, with the resulting aim of intervention frequently being to support a mother in a stereotyped gender role (Taylor and Daniel, 2000, p. 15).
5.25 Scourfield (2006) argues that this practice culture, wherein dominant discourse places men as a threat or risk to their family, or as useless or absent, and engaging with men is not regarded as a core skill, combined with gendered social policy assumptions and the conformity of men to ideals of masculinity, all act to disengage men from parenting support and services. While it is true that men have been responsible for most abuse and maltreatment within the home (Cavanagh, Dobash and Dobash, 2005), and that aggression can be directed towards frontline social work staff, Scourfield (2006) argues this is no excuse for excluding them from practice and from working constructively towards change. He challenges the dichotomy in thinking wherein men become classed in assessment as 'either' a risk 'or' an asset, stating this to be unhelpful.
5.26 A number of authors have examined the practical difficulties in engaging fathers with services 'on the ground'. Ghate et al. (2000) conducted a comprehensive study of how family centres in England and Wales work with fathers and found a number of barriers, at the cultural, individual and organisational levels, to father involvement. Interestingly, while factors such as gender stereotypes of appropriate male and female roles and spaces, and practical difficulties surrounding male employment patterns, were found to hinder men's engagement with family centre services, the most frequently cited barriers in interviews with fathers and centre staff were those created by the operation of the centres themselves (Ghate et al., 2000). A number of barriers cited echoed the discussion above by Taylor and Daniel (2000) and Scourfield (2006), including the focus of staff on mothers and children rather than the whole family, negative staff attitudes, and child protection anxieties.
5.27 Men also cited the overwhelmingly female environment as off-putting, claiming the lack of other men (in terms of staff and service users) and lack of 'male' activities had led to their alienation. The need for activities oriented towards men is also endorsed by Carr (1998) on the back of his research on father involvement in family therapy. He claims that men and women are different in terms of how they communicate and in the coping strategies they employ under stress. Thus interventions must be geared towards these differences to have resonance for both, with men being offered instrumental coping strategies and task-focused communication from practitioners.
5.28 From this it would appear that practitioners must necessarily be aware of gender difference to successfully engage women and men with support and intervention. Indeed, Ghate et al. (2000) claimed that family centres that had no identifiable or explicit strategy towards working with men were the least successful in doing so. Meek (in press) further highlights that differences between men as well as differences between men and women must be considered in developing services and techniques for working with fathers. In her evaluation of a prison based parenting course she found a number of young fathers from particularly vulnerable backgrounds who claimed to have felt excluded from previous attempts at parenting support by virtue of their age. Thus it is evident that it is not sufficient to generalise services for men as different groups have different needs.
'Boosting' Engagement
5.29 The preceding discussion serves to illustrate that engagement is about more than simple recruitment of parents and families to support services and programmes, and makes clear that a number of complex factors combine to hinder the meaningful involvement of parents and families. Hoskin et al. (2005) argue that engagement is a process consisting of three stages, commencing with the development of underpinning factors that need to be in place prior to commencement of an intervention process, continuing through to getting a parent or family on board, and then maintaining their involvement through to satisfactory completion of a programme. Their argument is that each stage of intervention requires a number of different engagement strategies and that there is no one single method for achieving meaningful involvement. Such strategies are recognised as a key element of the success of programmes, services and interventions and, it has been argued, should form a core element of their planning and implementation (Morawska and Sanders, 2006).
5.30 Much of the literature on engagement proffers advice on strategies and techniques to encourage and increase parent and family involvement with social work and active and constructive participation in support and interventions. The complexity that Hoskin et al. (2005) describe is reflected in much of the advice offered in the literature, with authors and commentators offering a raft of techniques to bolster the various aspects of the process. Given the broad range of strategies documented, and bearing in mind the process outline by Hoskin et al. (2005), the following paragraphs will be categorised according to the following headings: Service Development; Assessment; Case Management Techniques; and Practitioner Qualities. There will also be a final section on engaging fathers.
Service Development
5.31 The development and delivery of appropriate and effective services is a crucial underpinning factor of successful, meaningful engagement. If such services are not available, it seems apparent that the involvement of parents and families is not only doomed to failure but becomes almost a waste of time and other resources. A key element for successful engagement with services seems to be the adoption of what has been termed 'a strengths based' approach (Quinton, 2004; Hoskin et al., 2005; Saint-Jacques et al., 2006), wherein parents are regarded as the experts concerning their children and the existing positives within the family are accentuated and built upon. Saint-Jacques et al. (2006) claim such an approach to be crucial where parents have low self-esteem and may not cope in the face of negative feedback. Highlighting the positives is argued to boost families' confidence and hope for the future and therefore encourage active participation.
5.32 There are a number of other ways in which the confidence of parents and families can be boosted to encourage meaningful and active participation in services. Aldgate et al. (2007) report that parents enjoyed meeting other parents using the same services to socialise, and the opportunity to share their experiences and difficulties with those in similar situations. In the same vein, (Corlett et al. 2006) noted in their evaluation of a Scottish family centre that parents appreciated the informal parent-led sessions wherein they could 'chat' with other parents. However, the formation of these supportive groups does not occur 'naturally' and parents also discussed the difficulty in sustaining group sizes and wide participation. This highlights that practitioners and project staff need to undertake groundwork in establishing such groups and helping parents participate in mutual support. A further means of encouragement was reported by Aldgate et al. (2007) as the involvement of parents in the running of services and projects. Allowing parents to voice opinions on staff recruitment and the opportunity to volunteer to support future parents was an experience valued by their respondents.
5.33 Another key feature of services that enhances participation is argued to be their location, with a number of authors positing the provision, where practical, of home-based services as a means of securing engagement (Pearson and Thurston, 2006; Dawson and Berry, 2002; Gordon, 2002 in Wiley, 2002) particularly for 'hard-to-reach' families. Bringing the services to the family, rather than placing an onus on the family to bring themselves, alleviates issues of transportation and maintains the family in a comfortable, private and familiar environment.
5.34 Providing the possibility of home-based work or home visitation further provides an example of the flexibility and adaptability that Gordon (2002 in Wiley, 2002) argues that services should provide. Gordon (2002 in Wiley, 2002) argues that service provision needs to be adaptable to allow for different individuals and their different requirements. Another example of adaptability was found by Pearson and Thurston (2006) in their evaluation of a Sure Start antenatal parent education course. Retention of parents for the course of 6 sessions had proved difficult and thus staff reduced the number of sessions to 4. Moreover, catch-up sessions were offered to parents who had missed out due to other commitments. Staff believed that in making such adjustments, retention of parents had improved.
5.35 It is also argued that providing services that are both simple and effective increases the likelihood of engaging parents. For example, Burgess and Walker (2006) report that when consulted about the content of parenting programmes, parents generally indicated that they regarded the provision of straightforward practical tips and skills for managing their child's behaviour as the most beneficial. Dawson and Berry (2002) also claim that small simple tasks with easily achievable goals, particularly at the beginning of an intervention or programme, boost the chances of a parent or family bonding with their caseworker and feeling encouraged enough to continue with the programme. A case in point is Gordon's (2002 in Wiley, 2002) use of the simple Parenting Wisely ( PW) programme as a means of engaging families with Functional Family Therapy ( FFT) (see paragraphs 4.8 and 4.16 to 4.18 for more detailed discussion of PW and FFT). Gordon (2002 in Wiley, 2002) states that workers visited a sub-group of target families with a simple self-administered CD-Rom based PW programme to bolster their basic skills prior to commencing the more intensive FFT. He claims that, compared with those who did not receive the Parenting Wisely programme, families better understood the purpose of FFT and were less resistant to participating in discussions about parenting practices and were more likely to practice the skills. It is clear that undertaking basic groundwork with families can increase their active and constructive participation and lessens the likelihood of resistance or Yatchmenoff's (2005) 'going through the motions'.
Assessment
5.36 The use of adequate assessment practices is a recurring theme throughout the literature on engagement, as it is recognised that, put to good use, thorough assessment is a cornerstone to getting families and parents on board with programmes and interventions. Petras et al. (2002) and Tunstill and Aldgate (2000) recommend that parenting assessment has multiple foci, acknowledging the multiple influences on parenting style and behaviour and the myriad problems that families often face. Accounting for all possible influences in this way is heralded as crucial in the development of an intervention that has both resonance for a family and is responsive to their immediate and long term needs (Becker et al., 2002; Dawson and Berry, 2002; Gordon, 2002 in Wiley, 2002; Pearson and Thurston, 2006).
5.37 Particularly in cases of child welfare and protection (Woodcock, 2003), there is a requirement to extend assessment beyond the needs of the child to account for the needs of the parent/s and their capacity to meet the needs of the child and change accordingly to do so. As Dawson and Berry (2002) argue, if families are lacking in resources such as housing, transport and finance, and these needs are not acknowledged or met, the likelihood of their being able to engage with any parenting or family programme is extremely low. Indeed, the preceding discussion on the barriers to engagement highlights that the problems families face can be intractable and complex and the level of need within some is high. Attempting to impose the demands of intensive parenting programmes upon individuals with such a low capacity for engagement is doomed to failure. Thus adequate assessment of the needs is crucial to determine what support is required before parenting work can commence. Thorough assessment, coupled with services that are responsive and fit for purpose, will greatly bolster the capacity of a parent or family to engage with parenting programmes and allow for tailored services that will maintain their interest and investment.
Case Management Techniques
5.38 The ways in which practitioners manage individual cases is another key element of successful engagement flagged up in the literature. It is recognised as an important element in both the initial stages and in maintaining client involvement. A major facet of what is deemed to be effective case management is the agreement between client and worker on the problems to be dealt with and the goals of the programme or intervention (Trotter, 1999; Aldgate and Statham, 2001; Quinton, 2004; Saint-Jacques et al., 2006). Without achieving such an agreement, the likelihood of client resistance is increased. As Saint-Jacques et al. (2006) argue it is most effective for workers to use the parents' own concerns as a starting point, as they are the expert on their situation. This allows the parent more control over the course of action taken and a greater input to the overall process, affording them a greater feeling of power and facilitating a greater relationship with the worker, thus increasing their active involvement (Aldgate and Statham, 2001; Quinton, 2004; Saint-Jacques et al., 2006; Dumbrill, 2006). Crucially however, workers and practitioners must keep clients realistic in their expectations and in their goal setting, in order to avoid crippling disappointment or frustration, and maintain optimism and hope for the future (Saint-Jacques et al., 2006).
5.39 In addition, professional commentators advocate the use of open and clear communication between worker and client. Saint-Jacques et al. (2006) emphasise the importance of the worker facilitating client understanding of the processes they are involved in and clarifying the role both have to play. Parents and families must be left in no doubt as to the requirements placed upon them and of the responsibilities of the worker. Citing Rooney (1992), Dawson and Berry (2002, p. 302) assert that practitioners must seek to make clear and specific requests of families and seek overt commitments from their clients in return. Portraying the qualities of respect and of trust whilst providing clarity is key to building a relationship of trust and therefore critical in maintaining involvement and participation. Furthermore, commentators argue that case management should be flexible to meet and accommodate the varying requirements of individuals and families in order to facilitate their involvement (Dawson and Berry, 2002), including changing allocated workers if necessary (Dumbrill, 2006). The authors cited here set a clear standard for case management that heightens the likelihood of encouraging and maintaining engagement.
Practitioner Qualities
5.40 The social skills and qualities of workers and practitioners are the most oft cited factors for successful engagement of clients and Dawson and Berry (2002) go as far as to state that the behaviours related to these skills are the most important factor in determining success. Saint-Jacques et al. (2006) define the most important qualities as flexibility, openness and sensitivity, with a number of authors describing the minutiae of successful practitioner behaviour more in depth. They go on to describe the most successful workers as adopting a flexible and honest approach with families and being able to convey sensitivity to, and empathy with, their problems (Saint-Jacques et al., 2006). Interpersonal and communication skills are highlighted as central to this achievement, including listening to the parent and taking their concerns and fears on board, whilst being able to offer verbal encouragement and convey belief in their abilities (Aldgate and Statham, 2001; Hoskin et al., 2005; Dumbrill, 2006). Where the views of parents are included in evaluations of services and programmes, it is notable that the qualities of workers are often cited as contributing to an overall positive experience of support or intervention. Workers who convey warmth and understanding are praised by parents (Ghate and Ramella, 2002; Quinton, 2004; Aldgate et al., 2007) and the trusting, supportive relationships that such qualities foster are appreciated and valued (Burgess and Walker, 2006; Corlett et al., 2006).
5.41 Other skills highlighted in the literature as having been utilised with success include the use of informal and (appropriate) humorous delivery to make parents and families feel at ease (Pearson and Thurston, 2006) and the sharing of personal experiences with parents to foster a sense of common understanding and genuine sympathy (Spratt and Callan, 2006). Gordon (2002 in Wiley, 2002) also advocates the use of a sensitive 'salesperson' technique whereby workers use their empathic communication skills to 'sell' a programme on the basis of the costs to the family of not using it. While much of this advice would seem to rest on the idiosyncratic qualities of individual practitioners, it is clear that there are certain core interpersonal skills that can be drawn upon throughout the process of engaging parents and families in order to increase the likelihood of developing successful working relationships and encouraging meaningful involvement.
Engaging fathers
5.42 Aside from the general advice on improving the prospect of engagement, there is a body of literature addressing the more specific issue of how to engage fathers and other significant men in family and parenting programmes and interventions. Given the complex structural roots of this particular problem (discussed in detail above), the means to address the issue merit specific attention. The advice documented in the literature falls into two camps: those advocating change from the top down and those advocating change at the ground level of service delivery. However, implementing change at the ground level does require some reconsideration of approach at a higher, strategic level.
5.43 Scourfield (2006) argues that gender and gender based assumptions need to become explicit at the policy level in order for social work and other relevant practitioners to begin engaging effectively with fathers. He posits that in order to tackle the roots of the problem, and discourse, of men as a risk in child protection proceedings, policy needs to begin serious attempts to tackle gender inequality and the behaviours stemming from this (Scourfield, 2006; Taylor and Daniel, 2000). On the back of this work and the generation of more sophisticated theory for practice, new strategies for working with men are to be developed. Taylor and Daniel (2000) and Ghate et al. (2000) support the need for men to be regarded as 'core' business, advocating the development of models for assessment of fathers' role within families and proactive strategies for both engaging and working with them. Scourfield (2006) states the need to provide genuine whole family strengths based services, with Carr (1998) suggesting the tailoring of delivery to accommodate the differing coping strategies and communication allegedly used by men.
5.44 At a more basic level Ghate et al. (2000) highlight the need to provide more 'male-friendly' environments, starting with an increased level of male staffing and the provision of activities and tasks that men enjoy and find useful. The use of explicit father referrals is also regarded as crucial to the process, stepping away from older practices of referring mothers and assuming fathers will follow at will. In addition, Carr (1998) argues it may be useful to take much more direct routes to fathers by way of simple measures such as telephoning them personally and not conveying messages through partners. Such strategies are increasingly evident in practice in the UK, as the National Evaluation of Sure Start (2005) has pointed out, although are still far from universal in their application. It is also clear that if such simple strategies are to be successful in increasing father and male involvement, gender inequality must be tackled at all levels. Again, it would seem that no single method documented here is enough to wholly address the complex problem and that it is a combination of methods that is required to take on board such a multifaceted issue.
5.45 In short, there are a number of key strategies that can be employed throughout the engagement process to increase the likelihood of success with parents and families. It must be noted that no author advocated that any documented method be used in isolation. Successful engagement rests on a combination of these strategies, the pattern of which is determined by the needs and response of each individual family (Becker et al., 2002). It is important that the onus for securing engagement is firmly placed on the practitioner and their team and on the strategists responsible for developing service responses. Their responsibility for addressing the barriers to engagement is clearly demarcated across the field of literature. Also of note are the concluding comments of Dawson and Berry (2002, p. 312) that these key qualities of practice, deemed necessary for engagement, must be applied in a " supportive and non-punitive manner".
Summary
5.46 Engaging parents and families is recognised as key to the efficacy of services and interventions. This issue is at the crux of the Parenting Order legislation.
5.47 The available data on engagement is, for a number of reasons, limited. Little data is available to profile the characteristics of those who do not engage and no exploration has been undertaken of the perspectives of this group on barriers and attitudes to participation. Nevertheless, the existing studies provide valuable insight into the complexities of the issue of engagement.
5.48 The factors associated with lack of engagement are wide ranging. Much of the literature focuses on practical and easily resolvable issues, but a substantial body of work points to much more complex contextual and structural issues.
5.49 Practical barriers identified include transport difficulties, timing and availability of provision and competing demands on parents' time.
5.50 Others have identified that the context of families prevents their successful engagement, for example some families present high levels of need and a number of complex problems that impact on their capacity to engage.
5.51 Some have argued that, as the purpose of social work and other practice is to support families in addressing their needs, the responsibility for lack of engagement lies as much with the structure of such practice.
5.52 Practice related factors include the inherent power imbalance between client and worker, inadequate assessment of need, practitioner attitude, and the pervasive gendered assumptions influencing both service development and practice.
5.53 Suggested strategies for 'boosting' engagement were found to fall into four broad categories: service development; assessment; case management techniques; and practitioner qualities. There is also a body of work dedicated to improving the engagement of fathers and other significant men with family based intervention.
5.54 Key features of services for successful engagement include the use of a strengths based approach, the provision of home based support, and the flexibility to accommodate the practical needs of parents and families. Simplicity and easily achievable goals were also identified as important features.
« Previous | Contents | Next »