Developing a Program Evaluation

Reading3week9processevaluationexample.pdf

Home >Social Science homework help >Developing a Program Evaluation

The Benefits and Challenges of Training Child Protection Social Workers in Father Engagement It is widely recognised that, in a child protection context, practitioners tend to focus on working with mothers more than fathers. This may undermine risk management and limit the resources available for the care of children. This paper discusses the process of developing and running a training intervention for child protection social workers, designed to improve father engagement (with ‘fathers’ defined inclusively). A short course was provided, consisting of one day of awareness-raising about the importance of work with fathers and one day of motivational interviewing skills training. The emphasis in the paper is on insights from the qualitative elements of the mixed-method process evaluation, namely, observation and pre- and post-course interviews. In particular, there is discussion of the potential benefits and challenges of this kind of training, with consideration given to the general issue of father engagement and more specifically the potential for using motivational interviewing in child protection practice. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

KEY PRACTITIONER MESSAGES:

• The pilot of the Cardiff University Fathers and Child Protection course resulted in improved engagement of fathers, according to social workers self-report.

• Motivational interviewing has potential for developing practitioners’ skills in working with fathers when children are at risk.

• There are some inherent challenges in attempting to improve the engagement of fathers in a child protection context.

KEY WORDS: fathers; child protection; training; process; motivational interviewing

Children’s services are often criticised for their relatively poor engagementof men, which can lead to ineffective risk management and reduced resources for the care of children. Whilst acknowledging the importance of the legal concept of ‘parental responsibility’, we use the term ‘fathers’ in this paper more inclusively to refer to any men who are involved in parenting practices, whether they are biological fathers, step fathers or mothers’ boyfriends, male friends or relatives. We do so because it is the failure to engage men who have a significant role in the child’s life, and not just those men who legally have parental responsibility or are biological fathers, that is problematic for the safeguarding of children.

* Correspondence to: Jonathan Scourfield, Cardiff School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK. E-mail: [email protected]

Nina Maxwell Jonathan Scourfield* Sally Holland Cardiff School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, UK, CF10 3WT

Brid Featherstone Open University, UK

Jacquie Lee Cardiff Metropolitan University, UK

‘The process of developing and running a training intervention for child protection social workers’

‘Children’s services are often criticised for their relatively poor engagement of men’

Child Abuse Review Vol. 21: 299–310 (2012) Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/car.2218

Although there seems to have been some recent progress in improving the involvement of fathers in early years and family support services, there has been little change in child protection work. 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 some circumstances, the risks posed by the involvement of men in par- enting may outweigh any potential benefits, for instance, in cases of substantial domestic violence. However, this should be judged on assessment evidence rather than taken-for-granted gendered assumptions about masculine identities. Munro’s (1999) review of child abuse reports highlights that practitioners are strikingly slow to revise judgments made early in a case, which may lead to a premature avoidance of engaging with fathers who present as violent but who may also afford protective factors and may indeed be vulnerable themselves (Frosh, 1994). The failure to engage these men can lead to ‘mother blaming’ in terms of

‘failure to protect’ rather than engaging the man concerned (Humphreys and Absler, 2011). Whilst there is some literature on working with men perceived as difficult or hostile, there is, as Peled (2000) notes, limited literature on abusive men as fathers, although there are some notable exceptions (e.g. Harne, 2011). 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. Several barriers to father engagement have emerged from the research literature.

Social work has a tradition of focusing upon the mother in relation to child protec- tion issues regardless of who is responsible for abusing the child or who the child lives with (Ashley et al., 2006; Daniel and Taylor, 2001; Scourfield, 2003; Strega et al., 2008). Evidence from serious case reviews in England (Brandon et al., 2009) suggests that social workers can and do neglect to identify and locate fathers, fail to systematically gather or record information about fathers and have a tendency to categorise men as either risk or resource for children, rather than recognise the possibility that they can be simultaneously both of these things. Scourfield’s (2003) ethnographic research has suggested that occupational culture (i.e. the attitudes, knowledge and beliefs of front-line staff that shape routine prac- tice) is powerful in this regard, with received ideas and familiar responses to mothers and fathers taking hold in the culture of the social work team. In addition to practitioner effects, there are alsovarious barriers to father engagement set up by mothers and by fathers themselves (see Maxwell et al., 2012). Although there is evidence about the nature of the problem and some isolated

practice initiatives, there is little systematic evidence about what might help improve father engagement in a child protection context. The one published exam- ple of an evaluated training intervention with practitioners is described by English et al. (2009). This half-day awareness-raising training course resulted in some increased engagement with fathers, as evidenced in case records. The current paper presents findings from an intervention research project which, like English et al.’s study, aimed to improve social workers’ engagement of fathers. Unlike the

‘It can feel to social workers as though they are bombarded with men who are posing a risk to children’

‘Limited literature on abusive men as fathers, although there are some notable exceptions’

‘A tendency to categorise men as either risk or resource for children’

300 Maxwell et al.

English et al. project, our training course was longer – two days in duration – and the training content was different. Our course employed awareness-raising (work- ing with knowledge and values) about the importance of engaging with fathers, combined with specific skills development. Motivational interviewing (MI) has most recently been defined as ‘a collaborative, person-centred form of guiding to elicit and strengthen motivation to change’ (Miller and Rollnick, 2009, p. 137). The purpose of MI is to evoke the person’s own motivation and commit- ment to behavioural change through the use of ambivalence between the person’s own values and actual behaviours. Thus MI generates motivation for behavioural change as the individual seeks to create congruence between their values and behaviours. Whilst there is no direct evidence of the effectiveness of MI for enga- ging fathers in a child protection context, the training course we developed also included skills-based training in MI, as this approach has been found to be effec- tive in other allied fields such as substance misuse (Lundahl et al., 2010) and has considerable promise for the engagement of reluctant service users.

Method

Two local authorities in South Wales were targeted as both served relatively large populations (in the Welsh context) with rates of child protection registra- tions above the Welsh average. Both authorities agreed to take part in the pilot of the training, with all costs being covered by the research grant (see Acknowledgements). It was agreed that, where possible, whole teams of social workers would be trained. The rationale for this was the importance of occupa- tional culture in maintaining gendered practice, as noted earlier. The training intervention development involved the input of consultants with

expertise in the field of father engagement or working effectively with men. These consultants were from the Family Rights Group, the Probation Service and Children in Wales, the national umbrella children’s organisation. The development phase also included a review of research evidence (Maxwell et al., 2012) and semi-structured interviews in the two main local authorities with four social work managers, six social work practitioners and eight service users (5 fathers and 3 mothers). The pilot training course then consisted of two full days, one week apart. It

was envisaged that social workers would find it easier to attend the course on one day in each week as opposed to having two consecutive days away from the office. Participants were divided into two groups, each consisting of roughly equal numbers of staff from both authorities. This mix ensured that sufficient staff from each team remained in the office. The 50 social workers who attended the two-day training course included a few individuals from three other local authorities, to ensure sufficient numbers in the third cohort for a viable group, but attendance was concentrated on the two core authorities. A mixed-method process evaluation was conducted. Observation field notes

were taken by four observers (3 members of the research team and 1 indepen- dent observer), with each training session assessed under three main categories (trainer’s presentation style, success of activities and delegates’ responses). Approximately three weeks following the training, 21 participants were invited to participate in a short (15 minute) telephone interview. A total of ten inter- views were completed. The interview consisted of six main questions relating to the course (e.g. strengths, weaknesses and overall impression) and a further five questions relating to practice (e.g. Have you used anything you learned

‘Awareness-raising about the importance of engaging with fathers, combined with specific skills development’

‘Where possible, whole teams of social workers would be trained’

‘This mix ensured that sufficient staff from each team remained in the office’

301Training Child Protection Social Workers in Father Engagement

from the course in your daily practice?). In addition, the three trainers were inter- viewed about their experiences of delivering the training and thoughts about how the training was received. For this pilot study, no data were collected from service users – either parents or children – after the training had taken place.

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 (Maxwell et al., 2012); for example, highlighting the role of mothers as gatekeepers, practical difficulties in arranging meetings with fathers who work, and fathers’ avoid- ance, absenteeism and reluctance to engage. However, of more interest to the current paper 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. As for social workers, two echoed the need for train- ing 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. We were able to respond to all these points in the training design. When asked what they would like to see social workers do differently, all

eight of the service users (including 5 fathers) complained that they were dic- tated to with little attempt made at understanding their particular situation. The majority of fathers felt that they were talked at, with one stating that he did not understand what he was being told to do and another suggesting it would be helpful to be kept informed of any progress he 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 a good social worker. Overwhelmingly, good social workers were perceived to be those who listened, understood and worked with the family. These findings also informed the training design.

Intervention Design

As well as the expert consultants, the course was designed in collaboration with the three trainers. Two of these trainers had a background in social work

‘Have you got any thoughts on your own training needs in relation to working with fathers?’

‘We were able to respond to all these points in the training design’

‘Good social workers were perceived to be those who listened, understood and worked with the family’

302 Maxwell et al.

training, as well as specialist knowledge from research and (crucially) practice experience of working with fathers in a child protection context. The third trainer’s expertise was in relation to MI. 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. To recognise the benefits of working with men for improving the safety of children. 2. To enhance social workers’ knowledge in relation to work with fathers. 3. To enhance inter-personal skills for engaging with reluctant clients. 4. For social workers to feel more confident and effective in working with fathers.

As learning readiness and knowledge gain have been found to predict training transfer (Antle et al., 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 et al., 2001). In the light of the pre-intervention qualitative research summarised earlier, we decided that 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 MI. Both days com- bined a range of teaching methods including information-giving, discussion, group activities and role-play.

Intervention Outcomes

Data on the outcomes of the training for social workers are presented fully in a separate paper (Scourfield et al., 2012) so are only summarised very briefly here. Quantitative measures were completed by course participants at the start of the first training day and again two months after completion of the course. Self-efficacy in relation to work with fathers improved over time. There was strong evidence (p < 0.001) of positive change in trainees’ responses about their confidence levels in relation to each one of 17 different statements about work with fathers. Increase in confidence ranged between one and two points on a ten-point scale (see Holden et al., 2002). The magnitude of change was greatest for trainees’ confidence in discussing problematic and abusive beha- viour. Changes in team culture were modest. Although a metric of all responses to questions about teams added together showed significant change, for indivi- dual 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 < 0.001). 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 an increase in the rate of engagement following the training (p = 0.03). Finally, for fathers

‘Learning readiness and knowledge gain have been found to predict training transfer’

‘Self-efficacy in relation to work with fathers improved over time’

‘Self-efficacy does seem to have followed through to practice’

303Training Child Protection Social Workers in Father Engagement

whose whereabouts are known but who are not living with their children, there was almost a doubling of the rate of engagement from 26.5 per cent to 52 per cent (p = 0.01).

Qualitative Insights into 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 MI in child protection practice.

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 high- lighted the need for perseverance, effort and time in order to engage fathers. One observer commented thus on the views of trainees: ‘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 perspec- tive, both of which could be related to three of the four course objectives (2–4). 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 nat- ure of social work. One observer noted that to 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 her ethos, but the following comment 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 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 of the presenting behaviours. Interestingly, there was little

‘The training highlighted the need for perseverance, effort and time in order to engage fathers’

‘The use of the word ‘minority’ might be seen to reinforce the idea that practice with fathers is a discrete process’

304 Maxwell et al.

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 (2009) 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 parti- cipant, 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 more generally in the literature. 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 necessa- rily 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, social work- ers 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 dealt with more prominently 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 (2011) 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 learn- ing can occur about how these influence their understanding of masculinity and practice’ (p. 163).

‘Little reference in respondents’ comments to the importance of re- thinking assumptions about fathers’ physical appearance’

‘A tendency for course participants to fall into thinking that ‘fathers’ referred to birth fathers’

‘Very difficult to maintain a consistent focus on both risk and resource over a two-day course’

305Training Child Protection Social Workers in Father Engagement

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.

The Benefits and Challenges of Using MI in Child Protection Practice

In general, course participants responded very positively to day two of the course which was primarily focused on MI. This element 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 commu- nication 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 parti- cular 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 open- ended 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 investi- gate, 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. Karen [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 caseload or even team. One stated (emphasis added),

‘Course participants responded very positively to day two of the course which was primarily focused on MI’

‘Easier to remember, put into practice and report than the micro- skills of MI’

‘During one of the courses, two participants debated the applicability of MI to their work’

306 Maxwell et al.

‘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 informa- tion 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.’

This interviewee suggests that time restrictions on her team’s roles mean that they have to concentrate on gaining information, ‘it’s in-out. . . get the informa- tion’ 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)

It can be seen that the MI training was a style that contrasted fairly starkly with some of these participants’ usual ways of working. This may be a reflec- tion of the procedural and informationally driven nature of contemporary child protection practice (Parton, 2008) overshadowing a more relational approach to working with parents (Ruch, 2005). MI’s emphasis on the person rather than the behavioural ‘problem’ refocuses practice on building collaborative relation- ships and rapport with parents. 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 being told to by someone else, stated (with humour) ‘So what’s the point of social workers?’ (observer field notes). 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 an engaging style of communication. Fortunately, the trainers were experienced current child protection practitioners, which seem to have been particularly valued by partici- pants. 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)

‘The course appeared to encourage many to reflect on their usual style’

‘It is notable that all of these comments were concerned with pace and style’

‘There was a risk that this training course could be seen as preaching by academics’

307Training Child Protection Social Workers in Father Engagement

‘I always find that very valuable having somebody who’s got that kind of amount of knowl- edge 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 commu- nication 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 may be seen as something imposed by academics who know little about statu- tory social work and who do not value the considerable experience and existing skills of the participants. The trainers’ practitioner credibility and ability to use recent examples from their own practice helped considerably in avoiding this scenario. Thirdly, there was the risk that only one day of skills training might not be enough to enable the application of new communication styles 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.

Conclusion

In response to the main aim of the intervention, namely, that social workers’ engagement of fathers could be improved via a short course, the qualitative findings reported provide some tentative support. Social workers who attended the course appeared to reframe their thinking about fathers and demonstrated greater awareness of the need to persevere and make greater efforts to engage fathers. MI was seen as a useful tool for social workers, although there was a clear distinction made as to when MI was useful and when interviewing had to be directed towards gathering important information and ‘dictating’ what behaviours had to be changed. This follows Forrester et al. (2008a, 2008b) who found a tendency for social workers to adopt confrontational styles of communication, but also found that MI training achieved a moderate level of success in improving social work practice, with workers displaying lower levels of confrontation and higher levels of listening to parents. In respect of the difficulties social workers face in balancing risk and

resource, the course had a modest aim in highlighting the need to gather basic information about fathers for effective risk management. To this end, the course was perhaps effective. However, the difficulties in maintaining a focus on both risk and resource have been noted. Post-intervention interviews sug- gested some social workers were fearful about engaging fathers who may pose a risk, and especially aggressive men, and felt that the course did not ade- quately address these issues, although this needs to be balanced against the findings from the quantitative research that the greatest increase in self-efficacy was in relation to discussing problematic and abusive behaviour. The useful- ness of MI to gain a wealth of information by slowing down the pace and style of interviewing clients was noted. However, there could perhaps have been

‘Three important risks in devoting one day of the course to using MI with fathers’

‘Only one day of skills training might not be enough to enable the application of new communication styles to practice’

‘A modest aim in highlighting the need to gather basic information about fathers for effective risk management’

308 Maxwell et al.

more attention paid to the links between possessing the skills to engage reluctant fathers and encouraging them to talk as a means of effective risk management. This paper has described a two-day training course delivered to whole teams

of social workers and aimed at encouraging child protection workers to question their values and attitudes toward fathers, further their understanding about fathers and learn skills that have proven successful at engaging reluctant clients, albeit in different fields. There was some evidence that social workers were spending more time and effort in engaging fathers with a modicum of success. Initial quantitative findings from pre-post measures from social work- ers are presented in a separate paper (Scourfield et al., 2012), but we note that more rigorous evaluation using an experimental design is needed in order to evidence any practical applications and changes made to practice as a direct result of the course. Perhaps the most important evidence gaps are the lack of data on actual as opposed to perceived behaviour change, the reactions of fathers themselves and whether training on engaging fathers can be associated with more beneficial outcomes for women and children. In this pilot study, we did not collect any follow-up data from service users – either parents or children – and it would be important to do this in any further research. Training can serve as a catalyst to changing occupational culture. However,

it is important to note on concluding this paper that although training may be necessary, it may not be sufficient to achieve cultural change without a whole system approach that embeds and sustains the cultural shift within the organisation, for example, through the use of reflective clinical supervision and review of systems and procedures.

Acknowledgements

The project was funded by the National Institute for Social Care and Health Research (Wales). We are very grateful for the cooperation of two Welsh local authorities in the piloting of the training course. Polly Baynes, Daryl Dugdale, Karen Marsh, Ian Bickerton, Sean Haresnape and Tony Ivens all made valuable contributions to the training design.

References

Antle BF, Barbee AP, van Zyl MA. 2008. A comprehensive model for child welfare training evaluation. Children and Youth Services Review 30(9): 1063–1080.

Ashley C, Featherstone B, Roskill C, Ryan M, White S. 2006. Fathers Matter: Research Findings on Fathers and their Involvement with Social Care Services. Family Rights Group: London.

Brandon M, Bailey S, Belderson P, Gardner R, Sidebotham P, Dodsworth J, Warren J, 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, 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.

Daniel B, Taylor J. 2001. Engaging with fathers: practical issues for health and social care. Jessica Kingsley Publishers: London.

English DJ, Brummel S, Martens P. 2009. Fatherhood in the Child Welfare System: Evalua- tion of a Pilot Project to Improve Father Involvement. Journal of Public Child Welfare 3(3): 213–234.

‘Some evidence that social workers were spending more time and effort in engaging fathers’

309Training Child Protection Social Workers in Father Engagement

Family Rights Group. 2009. Fathers Matter DVD: The views and experiences of fathers on their involvement with local authority children’s services. Family Rights Group: London.

Featherstone B. 2004 Family Life and Family Support: A Feminist Analysis: Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke.

Ferguson H. 2011. Child Protection Practice. Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke. Ferguson H, 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, Rollnick S. 2008a. How do child and family social workers talk to parents about child welfare concerns? Child Abuse Review 17: 23–35. DOI: 10.1002/car.981

Forrester D, McCambridge J, Waissbein C, Emlyn-Jones R, 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.

Frosh S. 1994. Sexual Difference, Masculinity and Psychoanalysis. Routledge: London. Harne L. 2011. Violent Fathering and the Risks to Children: The need for change. Policy Press:

Bristol. 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. Humphreys C, Absler D. 2011. History repeating: Child protection responses to domestic

violence. Child and Family Social Work 16(4): 464–473. Lundahl BW, Kunz C, Brownell C, Tollefson D, Burke BL. 2010. A Meta-Analysis of Motiva-

tional Interviewing: Twenty-Five Years of Empirical Studies. Research on Social Work Practice. 20(2): 137–160.

Maxwell N, Scourfield J, Featherstone B, Holland S, Tolman R. 2012. Engaging with fathers in child welfare: A narrative review of recent research evidence. Child and Family Social Work 17(2): 160–169.

McBride BA, Rane TR, Bae J. 2001. Intervening with teachers to encourage father/male invol- vement in early childhood programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 16(1): 77–93.

Miller WR, Rollnick S. 2009. Ten things that motivational interviewing is not. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy 37(2): 129–140.

Munro E. 1999.Common errors of reasoning in child protection work. Child Abuse & Neglect 23(8): 745–758.

O’Donnell JM, Johnson WE, D’Aunno LE, Thornton HL. 2005. Fathers in child welfare: caseworkers’ perspectives. Child Welfare LXXXIV(3): 387–414.

Parton N. 2008. Changes in the form of knowledge in social work: From the ‘social’ to the ‘informational’? British Journal of Social Work 38(2): 253–269.

Peled E. 2000. Parenting by men who abuse women: Issues and dilemmas. British Journal of Social Work 30(1): 25–36.

Ruch G. 2005. Relationship-based practice and reflective practice: Holistic approaches to contemporary child care social work. Child and Family Social Work 10(2): 111–123.

Scott KS Crooks CV. 2004. Effecting change in maltreating fathers: Critical principles for intervention planning. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 10: 95–111.

Scourfield J. 2003. Gender and Child Protection. Palgrave Macmillan: London. Scourfield J, Tolman R, Maxwell N, Holland S, Bullock A, Sloan L. 2012. Results of a training

course for social workers on father engagement in child protection. Children and Youth Services Review, published online in advance of print. DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.03.022

Strega S, Fleet C, Brown L, Dominelli L, Callahan M, Walmsley C. 2008. Connecting father absence and mother blame in child welfare policies and practice. Children and Youth Services Review 30(7): 705–716.

310 Maxwell et al.

or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.