Making life better for families: do family support services help? Evaluation of Springboard Project in Loughlinstown, : summary report

Item Type Report

Authors McKeown, Kieran;Haase, Trutz;Pratschke, Jonathan

Publisher Springboard

Download date 27/09/2021 05:30:10

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10147/285257

Find this and similar works at - http://www.lenus.ie/hse Making Life Better

For Families:

Do Family Support Services Help?

Evaluation of Springboard Project in

Loughlinstown, Dublin

Summary Report

by

Kieran McKeown, Trutz Haase & Jonathan Pratschke

Kieran McKeown Limited Social & Economic Research Consultant, 16 Hollybank Road, Drumcondra, Dublin 9, . Phone 01-8309506. E-mail: [email protected]

October 2004 Making Life Better for Families: Do Family Support Services Help? Evaluation of Springboard Project in Loughlinstown, Dublin

Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 3

1 INTRODUCTION 4

2 METHODOLOGY 4

3 FAMILY SUPPORT SERVICES IN LOUGHLINSTOWN 7

4 PROFILE OF FAMILIES 7

5 PROFILE OF PARENTS 8

6 WELL-BEING OF PARENTS BEFORE SPRINGBOARD 8

7 WELL-BEING OF PARENTS AFTER SPRINGBOARD 9

8 PROFILE OF CHILDREN 10

9 WELL-BEING OF CHILDREN BEFORE SPRINGBOARD 10

10 WELL-BEING OF CHILDREN AFTER SPRINGBOARD 11

11 PERCEPTIONS OF SERVICE USERS 12

12 PERCEPTIONS OF PROFESSIONALS 12

13 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13

13.1 Understanding the prevalence of family need in the community 13

13.2 Explore new forms of intervention 13

13.3 Reconsider how time is allocated between interventions 14

13.4 Develop initiatives to involve fathers 14

13.5 Integrate evaluation into the work of springboard 14

BIBLIOGRAPHY 15

Page 2 Making Life Better for Families: Do Family Support Services Help? Evaluation of Springboard Project in Loughlinstown, Dublin

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the contributions of many people to this report. The evaluation would not have been possible without the dedicated work of the staff team in the project who completed questionnaires on the parents and children, both at baseline and follow-up. The staff team comprise the following: Tara Kelly - Project Leader

Caroline Jordan Project Worker/Social Worker

Sarah Goodwin Project Worker/Social Worker

Susan Lynott Project Worker/Child Care Worker

Dairin Currey Project Support Worker

Shirley Ng Administrator

Carly Doyle Sessional Counsellor

We acknowledge the ongoing support of the East Coast Area Health Board, particularly Colette McAndrew, Childcare Manager, Keith Nix, Principal Social Worker and Elizabeth Hamilton, Social Work Team Leader.

We also acknowledge the time taken by other professionals to participate in this evaluation.

Finally, we would like to thank the parents and children who participated in the evaluation. We acknowledge the very sensitive information this evaluation contains and we are in debt to all of these families for their huge contribution and commitment to the evaluation process.

Page 3 Making Life Better for Families: Do Family Support Services Help? Evaluation of Springboard Project in Loughlinstown, Dublin

1 Introduction

The family support project in Loughlinstown is part of a larger family support programme called Springboard. This programme was established by the Department of Health and Children in 1998 in order to support vulnerable families1. It began originally as 14 projects and, by 2004, Springboard had grown to 22 projects distributed throughout the country. Since its introduction, it has heralded a new awareness of family support services and facilitated a re-emphasis within social services generally on the importance of families to the well- being of children.

The importance of family support services was underlined in the Government’s health strategy of 2001 - Quality and Fairness: A Health System for You – which makes an explicit commitment that “family support services will be expanded”2. This commitment includes the following proposed developments:  Child welfare budgets will be refocused over the next seven years to provide a more even balance between safeguarding activities and supportive programmes  Springboard Projects and other family support initiatives will be further developed  Positive parenting supports and programmes will be expanded  Effective out-of-hours services will be developed in all health board areas as a priority  Family welfare conferences and other services required to support the Children Act, 2001 will be introduced  Priority will be given to early interventions for children with behavioural difficulties.3

In Ireland as elsewhere, the family has increasingly come centre-stage in public policy thinking about the needs of children while services are increasingly informed by the twin principles enunciated in the National Children’s Strategy of being “child-centred” and “family-oriented”4. These developments underlie the importance of this evaluation since Springboard, like other similar services, is premised on the assumption that family support services are an effective way of promoting the well-being of parents and their children.

2 Methodology

The key research question that we seek to address in this report is whether, and to what extent, the intervention of Springboard has had the effect of improving the well-being of parents and children. In the case of parents, we are particularly interested in knowing if Springboard has brought about an improvement in any of the following: (i) psychological well-being, including levels of depression as well as symptoms of physical well- being (ii) support networks (iii) relationship of parents to their children and (iii) relationship between parents and their partners. In the case of children, the evaluation seeks to identify if Springboard has improved three

1 For an evaluation of the first 14 projects established under the Springboard programme, see McKeown, Haase and Pratschke, 2001; see also McKeown, 2000; McKeown and Sweeney, 2001; McKeown 2001 2 Department of Health and Children, 2001:165 3 Department of Health and Children, 2001:71; see also 165 4 National Children’s Strategy, 2000:10

Page 4 Making Life Better for Families: Do Family Support Services Help? Evaluation of Springboard Project in Loughlinstown, Dublin core dimensions in the life of a child namely: (i) psychological well-being, including physical symptoms and (ii) relationship with parents and (iii) experiences of school.

In order to ensure that the evaluation is valid and reliable we used a range of tried-and-tested instruments for measuring the well-being of parents and children. The scales used to measure the different dimensions of well- being of parents and children are summarised in Table 1 and Table 2 respectively. In addition to measuring well-being, we collected a range of descriptive information on parents and children as summarised in Tables 3 and 4, respectively.

Table 1 Well-Being of Parents Type of Well-Being Scale for Measuring Well-Being Physical Well-Being Revised Symptom Checklist5 Psychological Well-Being Scales of Psychological Well-Being6 Depression Inventory for Measuring Depression7 Social Support Network New scale Quality of Parent-Child Relationship Satisfaction with Parenting – PCRI Involvement with Child – PCRI Communication with Child – PCRI Limit-Setting – PCRI Autonomy – PCRI8 Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS-PC)9 Quality of Couple Relationship Marital Satisfaction Scale10 Social Intimacy Scale11

Table 2 Well-Being of Children Type of Well-Being Scale for Measuring Well-Being Physical Well-Being Health and Daily Living Scales12 Psychological Well-Being Beck Youth Inventories of Emotional and Social Impairment: Self-Concept, Anxiety, Depression, Anger and Disruptive Behaviour13 Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale14 Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire15

5 Adapted from Derogatis, 1992. 6 Adapted from Ryff, 2001. 7 Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock and Erbaugh, 1961 8 All PCRI scales adapted from Gerard, 1994. 9 Straus, Hamby, Finkelhor and Runyan, 1995. 10 Adapted from Rusbult, Martz, and Agnew, 1998. 11 Adapted from Miller and Lefcourt, 1982. 12 Adapted from Moos, Cronkite, Billings, and Finney, 1986. 13 Adapted from Beck, Beck & Jolly, 2002. 14 Adapted from Huebner, 2001. 15 See Goodman, 1997; Goodman, Meltzer and Bailey, 1998; Goodman and Scott, 1999; Goodman, 1999; Smedje, Broman, Hetta and von Knorring, 1999. See also www.sdqinfo.com

Page 5 Making Life Better for Families: Do Family Support Services Help? Evaluation of Springboard Project in Loughlinstown, Dublin

Table 3 Factors Which May Influence the Well-Being of Parents Name of Factor Scale or Variable for Measuring Factor Age, sex, socio-economic Questions on age, sex, length of relationship, housing, education, hours characteristics worked, income, financial well-being, religious practices, quality of parents’ marital relationship Social Class A new scale based on employment status, occupational category, work role autonomy and farm size Personality variables Positive and Negative Affect Scales (PANAS)16 Bem Sex-Role Inventory17 Job Satisfaction Scale New scale Life Events New scale18 Home Environment New scale Cigarettes and Alcohol New scale19 Gender Role Orientation PCRI Gender Role Orientation Scale20 Division of House Work New scale21 Areas of Conflict New scale Ways of Resolving Conflict Conflict Resolution Style Inventory22 Ability to Resolve Conflicts Ineffective Arguing Inventory23 Forms of Conflict Conflict Tactics Scale II24

Table 4 Factors Which May Influence the Well-Being of Children Name of Factor Scale or Variable for Measuring Factor Age and sex Standard questions Educational attainments Number of subjects passed and failed in the Junior Certificate Experiences at school New scale Out-of-school activities Question on participation in a range of out-of-school activities Cigarettes and Alcohol Scale adapted from the Health and Daily Living Scale25 Parental Involvement Parenting Style Scale26 Unresolved Problems with Parents New Scale

16 Adapted from Watson, Clark, and Tellegen, 1988. 17 Adapted from Bem, 1974. 18 Developed on the basis of work by Sarason, Johnson and Siegel, 1978. 19 Developed on the basis of work by Moos, Cronkite, Billings, and Finney, 1986. 20 Adapted from Gerard, 1994. 21 New scale developed on the basis of work by Cowan and Cowan, 1988. 22 Kurdek, 1994. 23 Ibid. 24 Strauss, Hamby, Boney-McCoy and Sugarman, 1996. 25 Developed on the basis of work by Moos, Cronkite, Billings, and Finney, 1986. 26 Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg and Dornbusch, 1991.

Page 6 Making Life Better for Families: Do Family Support Services Help? Evaluation of Springboard Project in Loughlinstown, Dublin

The evaluation is based primarily on 20 parents and 8 children who received intensive support from the project. Detailed information about these parents and children was collected before the intervention of Springboard and at the end of the evaluation period in December 2003. In addition, we surveyed parents and children on their impressions of the service as well as a wide range of professionals who had worked with Springboard in Loughlinstown. In total, the evaluation is based on 140 separate questionnaires, providing a solid foundation on which to evaluate the impact of Springboard on the well-being of parents and children.

3 Family Support Services in Loughlinstown

Springboard in Loughlinstown is located in a local authority housing estate in south . The estate is listed for demolition, including the house in which the project is located, and the area is marked by a number of indicators of disadvantage including a high level of referrals to the Health Board’s Social Work Department, as well as high levels of dependency, unemployment, lone parenthood and reliance on social welfare payments. The project, comprising six full-time staff plus some sessional workers, has developed three main types of services which involve supports in the home, at school and in the community. Over the course of the evaluation, each parent and child received an average of one and a half hours of staff time per week for a period of 11 months. Interventions with parents tended to focus on individual work while interventions with children tended to combine group work with individual work.

4 Profile of Families

The 19 families who attend Springboard are almost evenly divided between those who live in two-parent households (53%) and one-parent households (47%), a significant contrast to the situation in Ireland where about 20% of all families live in a one-parent household. Mothers are present in all but one of the households while fathers are present in less than more than half of all households (47%). Like Ireland, most households have 1-2 children. The vast majority of the families live in a home which is rented from the local authority (89%), a sharp contrast with the rest of the country where just over a tenth of families (13%) live in this type of accommodation. No families are recorded as coming from the Travelling community or ethnic minorities. The main problem areas presented by families, which staff rated as serious, were parents having difficulty in managing the children (rated as serious in 53% of cases), parents having relationship difficulties (rated as serious in 53% of cases), debt problems (rated as serious in 47% of cases) and bad housing (rated as serious in 38% of cases). Most referrals to the project come through self-referral (42%) or Health Board Social Workers (42%) while nearly two thirds of the families (63%) are known to the Health Board Social Work Team. It is clear from this picture that the project is open to all families in the community, particularly those who are actively seeking help for serious family problems as well as more practical problems involving debt and housing.

Page 7 Making Life Better for Families: Do Family Support Services Help? Evaluation of Springboard Project in Loughlinstown, Dublin

5 Profile of Parents

Detailed information was collected and analysed on 20 parents who received intensive support from Springboard. We found that all but one of the parents was a mother, her average age was 34. Parents are almost equally divided between those living with, and those living without, a partner. In turn, those living with a partner are almost equally divided between those who are married (55%) and those who are cohabiting (45%), indicating a much higher rate of cohabitation than is found among parents in Ireland (10%). Education levels among Springboard parents are much lower than among Irish parents with most (80%) having no higher than a Junior / Intermediate Certificate. Parents are nearly equally likely to be either a full-time home-maker (40%) or in paid employment (35%) but a significant minority (20%) are unable to work due to disability. Net income for the majority of parents (75%) is less than €1,000 per month. Springboard parents have a much lower sense of financial well-being compared to the general population in Ireland and nearly half (45%) find it difficult to manage financially. In terms of four personality traits - positive emotionality, negative emotionality, independence and interdependence – we found that Springboard parents tend to be less positive, less independent and more negative than the generality of Irish parents. They have experienced a similar number of negative life events as the average Irish parent and they also have quite similar levels of satisfaction with their home and neighbourhood compared to a representative sample of Irish parents. However they tend to smoke more and drink less than the general population in Ireland. A significant minority of Springboard parents had negative experiences in childhood including emotional abuse (46%), neglect (39%) as well as sexual abuse (31%), the latter being higher than that reported in national studies. Overall, Springboard parents tend to differ from other Irish parents in a number of respects including lower levels of education, income and financial well- being, a more negative and less positive personality disposition, as well as a tendency to smoke more and drink less than the average Irish adult.

6 Well-Being of Parents Before Springboard

We analysed the well-being of 20 parents when they first came to Springboard and found that the average Springboard parent had levels of physical and psychological well-being which were only half that of the average Irish parent. Springboard parents also had much fewer social supports. In addition, they scored consistently below other Irish parents on all dimensions of the parent-child relationship but were dramatically below them in terms of setting limits on their children. Perhaps related to this, Springboard parents were over four times more aggressive towards their children than the average Irish parent, a finding which is consistent with the assessment of staff, that the main problem presented by families is ‘parents having difficulty managing the children’. The relationship between Springboard parents and their partners was much poorer than other Irish parents in terms of fulfilment, intimacy and the extent of conflict; they were less able to resolve arguments and more likely than the average Irish parent to have an ineffective style of resolving conflict such as withdrawing, conflict-engaging or compliant. Perhaps as a result of this, Springboard parents used over five times more aggression against their partners than the average Irish parent but also received a similar level of aggression from their partners indicating a high level of mutual aggression in these relationships.

Page 8 Making Life Better for Families: Do Family Support Services Help? Evaluation of Springboard Project in Loughlinstown, Dublin

The finding that Springboard parents had dramatically lower levels of well-being than the average Irish parent suggests that these families have multiple needs; although this is not a definitive assessment of need based on clinical thresholds of well-being, the findings provide a strong case for offering support services to these families. At the time of coming to Springboard, parents had significant deficits in terms of physical and psychological well-being while relationships within the family, both with children and with partners, were imbued with high levels of physical and psychological aggression. This level of parental well-being is likely to be a contributory factor in the problems identified among their children.

7 Well-Being of Parents After Springboard

The evaluation described how the well-being of 13 parents changed while attending Springboard over a period of 11 months, each parent receiving an average staff input of about one and a half hours per week. Although it is not possible to establish a causal link between the input of Springboard and any changes that may have occurred due to the absence of a matched control group of parents, it is nevertheless appropriate to document any changes which may have occurred in the well-being of parents over this period.

All but two parents improved their physical well-being while attending Springboard although it is still far short of that enjoyed by the average Irish parent. Every parent experienced an improvement in their psychological well-being but the average Springboard parent still had a lower level of psychological well-being (65.5) at the end of the evaluation period compared to the average Irish parent (74.4); all but one parent experienced a reduction in depression. Support networks improved for all but one parent but the size of the improvement between baseline (4.3) and follow-up (4.8) was relatively modest and Springboard parents still have much weaker support networks than Irish parents generally (7.1).

All but two parents experienced an improvement in the parent-child relationship while attending Springboard. The size of the improvement between baseline (36.3) and follow-up (48.9) was substantial and, at the end of the evaluation period, the average Springboard parent was not far behind the average Irish parent (53.8) in terms of the parent-child relationship. However Springboard parents still remain significantly below the average Irish parent in terms of their ability to set limits on children. Over the course of the evaluation period, Springboard parents became less aggressive towards their children although they are still more than twice as aggressive towards their children, both physically and psychologically, compared to the average Irish parent.

There were dramatic improvements in the quality of relationship between Springboard parents and their partners and in a number of crucial areas – such as fulfilment, intimacy and the ability to resolve conflicts – the mean scores for Springboard parents exceeded the mean scores for Irish parents suggesting that high levels of relationship well-being were experienced over the evaluation period. There were also significant reductions in the level of aggression by, and against, partners although Springboard parents and their partners still exhibit double the level of physical and psychological aggression – most of it mutual - to that found among Irish parents generally.

Page 9 Making Life Better for Families: Do Family Support Services Help? Evaluation of Springboard Project in Loughlinstown, Dublin

It is worth noting that, in areas for which there are comparative data, the performance of this project compares very favourably with the performance of 14 other Springboard projects which have already been evaluated27. For example, the proportion of Springboard parents (92%) who experienced a reduction in depression is considerably greater than in 14 other Springboard projects (59%); similarly the proportion who improved their support networks (82%) is well in excess of 14 other Springboard projects (50%) while improvements in the parent-child relationship (82%) is also ahead of 14 other Springboard projects (62%).

8 Profile of Children

We analysed the characteristics of 24 children who used Springboard during the evaluation period and drew upon comparative data from a representative sample of 11-16 year old Irish children28. We found that the project had slightly more girls (54%) than boys (46%), the average age being 10 years. The majority of children live with their mother only (68%), unlike the majority of Irish children who live with both parents (78%). As a result, most fathers live outside the family home and a majority of non-resident fathers (75%) are not in regular contact with the child, where ‘regular’ is defined as once a week or more; in Ireland, non-resident fathers tend to be in more frequent contact.

All but three of the children are in either primary (46%), secondary (25%), or special school (17%) and a majority (73%) are involved in out-of-school activities although this is lower than the involvement of 11-16 year old children in Ireland generally (82%). Only two Springboard children (8%) have ever been in trouble with the law. According to an assessment carried out by the Health Board Social Work Team, one Springboard child is at low risk of abuse and another is at high risk of going into care. Springboard staff also undertook an assessment of the most serious problems presented by children who came to the project and found that the most serious were: emotional problems (62%), behavioural problems (52%), emotional abuse (35%), sexual abuse (21%) and physical or mental disability (21%).

Overall, Springboard children tend to be different from other Irish children in that they are more likely to live with their mother only and to have less contact with their non-resident father than other Irish children in this situation. They have a slightly lower level of involvement in out-of-school activities than other Irish children and are more likely to present with emotional and behavioural problems.

9 Well-Being of Children Before Springboard

We analysed the well-being of 21 children when they first came to Springboard and found that they have significantly more physical symptoms (14.5) compared to Irish children (10.1), including higher rates of smoking and drinking. They have much lower levels of life satisfaction (49.3) compared to a representative sample of Irish children (77.0) and much higher levels of psychological disturbance (110.3 compared to 82.2).

27 See McKeown, Haase and Pratschke, 2001 28 See McKeown, Pratschke and Haase, 2003

Page 10 Making Life Better for Families: Do Family Support Services Help? Evaluation of Springboard Project in Loughlinstown, Dublin

More than nine out of ten (91%) showed evidence of some or serious difficulties according to the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), particularly in the areas of conduct and hyperactivity. Parents perceive these difficulties as causing upset or distress for four out of ten children (40%), interfering with their home life (67%) and classroom learning (57%), and placing a burden on the family (67%). In their relations with parents, Springboard children have the same amount of unresolved problems with their parents (2.4) compared to the average Irish child (2.3) but find their parents less supportive (5.5) compared other children in Ireland (7.4); curiously, fathers are experienced as more supportive than mothers given that a majority of children live with their mother only and many have non-resident fathers. In relation to school, the vast majority of Springboard children (87%) get on well with their teachers and the majority (63%) perform the same as their classmates.

These findings suggest that Springboard children have much lower levels of physical and psychological well- being, and experience their parents as less supportive, compared to the average Irish child. Although this is not a definitive assessment of need based on clinical thresholds of well-being – with the exception of the SDQ – these results provides a strong indication that the well-being of Springboard children falls well below the norm experienced by Irish children generally.

10 Well-Being of Children After Springboard

We analysed how the well-being of 8 children changed while attending Springboard over a period of 11 months, each child receiving an average staff input of over an hour and a half per week. Although it is not possible to establish a causal link between the input of Springboard and any changes that may have occurred due to the absence of a matched control group of parents, it is nevertheless appropriate to document any changes which may have occurred in the well-being of children over this period.

In terms of physical well-being, half the children improved while the other half disimproved and, at the end of the evaluation period, Springboard children still had more physical symptoms (13.0), and therefore lower physical well-being, than the average Irish child (10.1). There was almost no change in the level of smoking and drinking which remains higher than the average for Irish children.

All but one child showed a significant improvement in life satisfaction and a reduction in psychological disturbance. The proportion of children with difficulties, as measured by the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), fell substantially (from 91% to 64%). Some parents saw an improvement in their child’s distress (27%) and a reduction in burden on the family caused by these difficulties (46%). However the proportion of children with difficulties at the end of the evaluation (64%) remains substantial. Overall, the quality of relationship between Springboard children and their parents improved although children still feel less supported by their parents compared to other Irish children. Relations with school remained relatively stable over the evaluation period and Springboard children are quite similar to other Irish children in this regard.

The improvement in psychological well-being among Springboard children is substantial. In particular, the reduction in psychological problems – their area of greatest need – is significant and, based on SDQ scores,

Page 11 Making Life Better for Families: Do Family Support Services Help? Evaluation of Springboard Project in Loughlinstown, Dublin compares very favourably with the improvement recorded in 14 other Springboard projects. At the same time, about two thirds of children still have psychological difficulties as measured by the SDQ, a reliable index of unmet needs, and this supports the case for sustained intervention with these children, in conjunction with parallel supports for their parents aimed particularly at reducing the level of aggression in parent-child relationships.

11 Perceptions of Service Users

We analysed how Springboard is experienced by service users based on a survey of 12 parents and 6 children who each completed a short, one-page questionnaire. Most of those who participated in the survey (89%) had been attending the project for four months or more, and all children were over the age of 11 years. The results indicate that the vast majority of parents and children (over 80%) are satisfied with the service they receive from Springboard and compare it favourably with their experience of other services. There was also a very high level of approval for the personal and professional qualities of staff and the vast majority have very positive perceptions of how Springboard has impacted on them and their families. Overall, parents and children regard Springboard as an excellent service, a view confirmed by more qualitative interviews which we also carried out.

12 Perceptions of Professionals

A survey was carried out of 27 professionals who are involved, directly or indirectly, in the work of Springboard. Responses came from professionals working in the Health Board (8), schools (7) and many other locally-based organisations, both statutory and voluntary (12). The vast majority of these professionals believe that Springboard is good at working with families and has built good working relationships with professionals in a large number of key agencies including the Health Board, schools, the Local Authority, local residents groups as well as other community and voluntary organisations. The approach and skills of the staff team are highly rated and this is seen as one of the key strengths in the project; conversely, a weakness is that the staff team is too small relative to the level of need and demand for services and the size and layout of premises may be in need of improvement. The factors which facilitate inter-agency cooperation include openness, trust and clear communication as well as personal contacts, regular meetings and joint working; by contrast, factors which hinder inter-agency cooperation include poor communication, unwillingness to share information as well as poor understanding of the roles of professionals in different agencies. For these professionals, Springboard has lived up to expectations, is widely perceived as value for money and should continue to be funded. Suggestions for making the project more effective include increased funding, more joint work with schools and young people, and increased involvement by fathers, possibly through the recruitment of men to the staff team. These findings are enormously positive in showing the high esteem in which Springboard is held by other professionals in the field and imply, as the results of this evaluation confirm, that the project is working effectively with vulnerable families.

Page 12 Making Life Better for Families: Do Family Support Services Help? Evaluation of Springboard Project in Loughlinstown, Dublin

13 Conclusions and Recommendations

The findings of this evaluation indicate that Springboard has improved the well-being of parents and children. For parents, there were significant improvements in physical and psychological well-being as well as in the relationship of parents to their children and their partners. For children, the most significant change involved a reduction in psychological disturbance and in the proportion with difficulties as measured by the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). These improvements in well-being compare very favourably with the improvements among parents and children recorded in the evaluation of 14 other Springboard projects. As a result of this evaluation we raise some issues which now form the basis of our recommendations.

13.1 Understanding the prevalence of family need in the community

Springboard families, particularly when they first came to the project, had dramatically lower levels of well- being than the average Irish family. In the case of parents, they had significant deficits in terms of physical and psychological well-being while relationships within the family, both with children and with partners, were imbued with high levels of physical and psychological aggression. In the case of children we found that they had much lower levels of physical and psychological well-being and experienced their parents as less supportive than the average Irish child. Despite the scale of need presented by these families we do not know if they represent all, or some, of the most vulnerable families in the community. The number of families in this community who have similar levels of need to Springboard families, but are not receiving a support service, is unknown since no scientific study has been undertaken to determine the level and dimensions of family need. For this reason, a community-based survey of family need, applying the type of instruments used in this evaluation, would be worth carrying out. Such a study would not only determine the prevalence of need but would also establish if existing services are being targeted effectively.

13.2 Explore new forms of intervention

There is little doubt that the range of interventions being offered by Springboard is proving effective. However significant levels of need remain among both parents and children and it is possible that a more focused approach to some of the difficulties may be required, particularly for parents. For example, specific initiatives for parents in the area of physical and psychological health – such as group-based activities involving relaxation, exercise, diet, cooking, self-esteem, etc – might be worth considering and may also contribute to building of support networks, particularly if they are not confined to those parents receiving intensive support from the project. Similarly the serious level of aggression in family relationships – involving both children and partners – suggests that more tailored programmes to develop listening and communication skills might be appropriate. The proportion of children with psychological difficulties as measured by the SDQ remains considerable and sustained intervention with these children, in conjunction with parallel supports for their parents, would seem to be essential. It should also be noted that Springboard children have lower levels of physical well-being than

Page 13 Making Life Better for Families: Do Family Support Services Help? Evaluation of Springboard Project in Loughlinstown, Dublin other Irish children as well as higher rates of smoking and drinking and consideration should be given to ways of addressing this.

13.3 Reconsider how time is allocated between interventions

On average, each parent and child received about an hour and a half per week from Springboard over a period of 11 months. In the case of parents, this intervention was heavily skewed towards individual work (57%) with a relatively small proportion of staff time devoted to group work (9%) or family work (10%). In view of this, and the continuing high level of need among parents, some re-consideration of how staff time is deployed between different types of intervention – individual work, group work, family work and advocacy - might be appropriate with perhaps a little more emphasis on group work and family work.

13.4 Develop initiatives to involve fathers

Most of the interventions by Springboard are with mothers and their children, essentially because many of the households do not have fathers living there and indeed many fathers are not in regular contact with their children. Nevertheless a household is not the same as a family and, as many studies have demonstrated, the relationships which link parents to their children are central to family well-being. A number of the professionals who were surveyed as part of the evaluation drew attention to the lack of involvement by fathers in Springboard and this may be related, in turn, to the widespread lack of involvement of men in family services generally. This issue is not easy to solve but there are examples of initiatives to address the needs of fathers which could be examined in this context. The possibility of sub-contracting trained facilitators to work on men’s issues might also be worth exploring as long as their work was properly integrated with other Springboard interventions being offered to families.

13.5 Integrate evaluation into the work of springboard

Evaluation provides the most reliable way of tracking changes in the well-being of parents and children essentially because it uses tried-and-tested instruments to compare well-being before and after intervention. As such it is the most transparent way of being accountable not only to funders and managers but also to families. Significant areas of need which are resistant to change can only be identified properly through an evaluation process and this is essential if a service is to remain effective. This evaluation used a wide range of measurement instruments and a selection of these could be adopted in key areas of need to track the progress of parents and children over the coming months and years. An evaluation system based on a small number of key performance indicators could be integrated relatively easily into the work of Springboard and would allow for a regular review of effectiveness as well as checking that improvements in well-being are sustained over time.

Page 14 Making Life Better for Families: Do Family Support Services Help? Evaluation of Springboard Project in Loughlinstown, Dublin

Bibliography

Beck, A., Ward, C., Mendelson, M., Mock, J., and Erbaugh, J., 1961. “An Inventory for Measuring Depression”, Archives for General Psychiatry, Volume 4, pp.561-571.

Beck, J., Beck, A. and Jolly, J., 2002. Beck Youth Inventories of Emotional and Social Impairment. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

Bem, S., 1974. “The measurement of psychological androgyny”. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42 (2), pp. 155-62.

Bernard Van Leer Foundation, 2001. Early Childhood Matters: The Bulletin of the Bernard Van Leer Foundation, No 97, February, The Hague, Netherlands: Bernard Van Leer Foundation. www.bernardvanleer.org

Best Health for Children, 1999. Partnership with Families, Dublin: Best Health for Children.

Best Health for Children, 2001. Get Connected: Adolescent Health Strategy, Dublin: Best Health for Children.

Best Health for Children, 2002. Investing in Parenthood to Achieve Best Health for Children, Dublin: Best Health for Children.

Buckley, H., Skehill, C., and O’Sullivan, E., 1997. Child Protection Practices in Ireland: A Case Study, Dublin: Oak Tree Press.

Centre for Health Promotion Studies, 2003. The National Health and Lifestyle Surveys: Survey of Lifestyle, Attitudes and Nutrition (SÁN) & The Irish Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children Survey (HBSC), Galway: Centre for Health Promotion Studies.

Commission on the Family, 1996. Strengthening Families for Life, Interim Report, November, Dublin: Stationery Office.

Commission on the Family, 1998. Strengthening Families for Life, Final Report, July, Dublin: Stationery Office.

Cowan, C., and Cowan, P., 1988. “Who Does What When Partners Become Parents: Implications for Men, Women and Marriage”, Marriage and Family Review, Volume 13, pp.105-131.

Page 15 Making Life Better for Families: Do Family Support Services Help? Evaluation of Springboard Project in Loughlinstown, Dublin

Department of Education and Science, 1999. Ready to Learn: White Paper on Early Childhood Education, Dublin: Stationery Office.

Department of Health and Children, 1998a. Pilot Projects for Children at Risk: Guidelines for Preparation of Proposals, Dublin: Department of Health and Children.

Department of Health and Children, 1998b. Springboard Initiatives: Family Support Projects for Children at Risk; Request for Proposals for Evaluation of Springboard Initiatives, Dublin: Department of Health and Children.

Department of Health and Children, 1999. Children First: National Guidelines for the Protection and Welfare of Children, Dublin: The Stationery Office.

Department of Health and Children, 2001. Quality and Fairness: A Health System for You – Health Strategy, Dublin: The Stationery Office.

Derogatis, L., 1992. Symptom Checklist - SCL 90-R: Administration, scoring, and procedures manual. Towson, MD: Clinical Psychometric Research. (Originally published in 1977).

Ferguson, H., and O’Reilly, M., 2001. Keeping Children Safe: Child Abuse, Child Protection and the Promotion of Welfare, Dublin: A&A Farmar.

Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats, 1999. An Action Programme for the Millennium An Action Programme for the Millennium, As Reviewed by Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats in Government, November, Dublin: Government Information Services.

French, G., 1998. Enhancing Our Future: A Profile of Parenting Programmes in Ireland, Dublin: Barnardos and the Department of Health&Children.

Gerard, AB., 1994. Parent-Child Relationship Inventory (PCRI): Manual, Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.

Gilligan, R., 1991. Irish Child Care Services: Policy, Practice and Provision, Dublin: Institute of Public Administration.

Goodman, R., 1997. “The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A Research Note”, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Volume 38, Number 5, pp. 581-586.

Goodman, R., Meltzer, H., and Bailey, V., 1998. “The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A Pilot Study on the Validity of the Self-Report Version”, European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Volume 7, pp. 125-130.

Page 16 Making Life Better for Families: Do Family Support Services Help? Evaluation of Springboard Project in Loughlinstown, Dublin

Goodman, R., and Scott, S., 1999. “Comparing the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and the Child Behaviour Checklist: Is Small Beautiful?”, Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, Volume 27, Number 1, pp. 17-24.

Goodman, R., 1999. “The Extended Version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaires a Guide to Psychiatric Caseness and Consequent Burden”, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Volume 40, Number 5, pp. 791-799.

Huebner, E., 1994. “Preliminary development and validation of a multi-dimensional life satisfaction scale for children”. Psychological Assessment, 6, pp. 149-158.

Huebner, E., 2001. Manual for the Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale. SC: University of South Carolina (unpublished paper provided by the author).

Ireland, 1999. National Development Plan 2000-2006, Dublin: Stationery Office.

Kurdek, L., 1994. “Conflict resolution styles in gay, lesbian, heterosexual nonparent, and heterosexual parent couples”. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, pp. 705-722.

Lamborn, S., Mounts, N., Steinberg, L., and Dornbusch, S., 1991. “Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent and neglectful families”. Child Development, 62: 1049-1065.

McKeown, K., 2000. Supporting Families: A Guide to What Works in Family Support Services for Vulnerable Families, October, Dublin: Stationery Office. Available at www.doh.ie

McKeown, K., 2001. Fathers and Families: Research and Reflection on Key Questions, November, Dublin: Stationery Office. Available at www.doh.ie

McKeown, K., Haase, T., and Pratschke, J., 2001. Springboard: Promoting Family Well-Being through Family Support Services, December, Dublin: Stationery Office. Available at www.doh.ie

McKeown, K., and Sweeney, J., 2001. Family Well-being and Family Policy: Review of Research on Benefits and Costs, June, Dublin: Stationery Office. Available at www.doh.ie

Miller, R., and Lefcourt, H., 1982. “The assessment of social intimacy”. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 5, 514-518.

Page 17 Making Life Better for Families: Do Family Support Services Help? Evaluation of Springboard Project in Loughlinstown, Dublin

Moos, R., Cronkite, R., Billings, A. & Finney, J., 1986. Health and Daily Living Form Manual. Palo Alto, California: Veterans Administration and Stanford University Medical Centers.

Murphy, M., 1996. “From Prevention to ‘Family Support’ and Beyond: Promoting the Welfare of Irish Children”, Administration, Volume 44, Number 2, Summer, pp.73-101.

National Children’s Strategy, 2000. Report of the Public Consultation, September, Dublin: Department of Health and Children.

Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, 2000. January, Dublin: Government Information Service.

Roberts, H., and MacDonald, G., 1999. “Working with Families in the Early Years”, in Hill, M., (Editor), Effective Ways of Working with Children and their Families, Research Highlights in Social Work 35, London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, Chapter Two, pp.79-69.

Rusbult, C., Martz, J. & Agnew, C., 1998. “The investment model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size”, Personal Relationships, 5, 357-391.

Ryff, C., 2001. Scales of Psychological Well-Being. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Unpublished paper provided by the author.

Ryff, C., and Keyes, L., 1995. ‘The structure of psychological well-being revisited’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69: 719-727.

Sarason, I., Johnson, J., and Siegel, J., 1978. “Assessing the Impact of Life Changes: Development of the Life Experiences Survey”, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Volume 46, pp.932-940.

Smedje, H., Broman, JE., Hetta, J., and von Knorring, AL., 1999. “Psychometric Properties of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire”, European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Volume 8, pp. 63-70.

Straus, W., Hamby, S., Boney-McCoy, S. and Sugarman, D., 1996. “The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data”. Journal of Family Issues, 17 (3), 283-316.

Straus, M., Hamby, S, Finkelhor, D., and Runyan, D., 1995. Identification of Child Abuse with the Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scales (CTSPC): Development and Psychometric data for a National sample of American parents. Durham, NH: Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire.

Task Force on Child Care Services, 1980. Final Report to the Minister for Health, September, Dublin: Stationery Office.

Page 18 Making Life Better for Families: Do Family Support Services Help? Evaluation of Springboard Project in Loughlinstown, Dublin

Watson, D., Clark, L., and Tellegen, A., 1988. “Development and Validation of Brief Measures of Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS Scales”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070.

Page 19