Last week I was in London for a roundtable event organised by the Fatherhood Institute (FI) and the Family Rights Group (FRG). This was to discuss the issue of engaging fathers in child safeguarding. The main event was the launching of the report on these two organisations’ joint project to improve practice with fathers in children’s social care. Several influential individuals attended, including David Lammy MP, who is Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Fatherhood.
There have been just a few previous projects tackling this issue – at least these are the ones I know of because they have been published or I have heard them presented at conferences. Diana English and colleagues evaluated a pilot project in the US. The core of the project was training for practitioners, with video demonstration of techniques and written case examples. Pre-post testing suggested some gains in father engagement as evidenced by agency self-assessment and case file review.
I then lead a project in 2010-11 to develop and deliver an evidence-based training course to social workers. Central to the course was an introduction to motivational interviewing skills. We found an improvement in workers’ self-efficacy following the course and – according to social workers’ self-report – a large increase in the proportion of non-residential fathers they were working with. There was, however, no change in the rate of engagement of men who were putting children at risk.
Another example is the impressive work of Gavin Swann in Islington. Gavin is a senior manager with a strong commitment to improving work with fathers. He has instigated a number of measures, with support from the highest level within the authority. These have included a co-operative inquiry where staff meet regularly to discuss their progress on the issue, with encouragement for the sharing of the emotional difficulties encountered (and
connections to workers’ own biographies). Routine record-keeping has been improved with regard to fathers.
It is also important to note the work of the FRG’s Fathers Matter action research projects since the mid-2000s which have prepared the ground for the recent FRG/FI project. The greatest strength of the recent FI/FRG project has been its attempt to work systemically at various different levels of organisations involved with child protection. So there was work with Area Safeguarding Boards, which have representation from all key local organisations. There was face-to-face training of a range of professionals. E-learning was also developed, although it proved more difficult to implement. There was an audit of files in children’s social care departments. The project was evaluated by Pat
Smail from Focus Consultancy and colleagues. The evaluation found evidence of improved practitioner self-efficacy in most (not all) areas following training and positive comments about the project’s impact from qualitative research with Area Safeguarding Board members and practitioners.
The evaluation also found that some entrenched practices are difficult to shift. Local authorities are complex bureaucracies with competing priorities. Improving routing record-keeping is a slow and difficult process. But the project represents some progress and there is a follow-up initiative involving several European countries.
There have been just a few previous projects tackling this issue – at least these are the ones I know of because they have been published or I have heard them presented at conferences. Diana English and colleagues evaluated a pilot project in the US. The core of the project was training for practitioners, with video demonstration of techniques and written case examples. Pre-post testing suggested some gains in father engagement as evidenced by agency self-assessment and case file review.
I then lead a project in 2010-11 to develop and deliver an evidence-based training course to social workers. Central to the course was an introduction to motivational interviewing skills. We found an improvement in workers’ self-efficacy following the course and – according to social workers’ self-report – a large increase in the proportion of non-residential fathers they were working with. There was, however, no change in the rate of engagement of men who were putting children at risk.
Another example is the impressive work of Gavin Swann in Islington. Gavin is a senior manager with a strong commitment to improving work with fathers. He has instigated a number of measures, with support from the highest level within the authority. These have included a co-operative inquiry where staff meet regularly to discuss their progress on the issue, with encouragement for the sharing of the emotional difficulties encountered (and
connections to workers’ own biographies). Routine record-keeping has been improved with regard to fathers.
It is also important to note the work of the FRG’s Fathers Matter action research projects since the mid-2000s which have prepared the ground for the recent FRG/FI project. The greatest strength of the recent FI/FRG project has been its attempt to work systemically at various different levels of organisations involved with child protection. So there was work with Area Safeguarding Boards, which have representation from all key local organisations. There was face-to-face training of a range of professionals. E-learning was also developed, although it proved more difficult to implement. There was an audit of files in children’s social care departments. The project was evaluated by Pat
Smail from Focus Consultancy and colleagues. The evaluation found evidence of improved practitioner self-efficacy in most (not all) areas following training and positive comments about the project’s impact from qualitative research with Area Safeguarding Board members and practitioners.
The evaluation also found that some entrenched practices are difficult to shift. Local authorities are complex bureaucracies with competing priorities. Improving routing record-keeping is a slow and difficult process. But the project represents some progress and there is a follow-up initiative involving several European countries.