Ruchazie Evaluation Summary

summary

A different kind of social work? Summary of Key Points from the Evaluation of Quarriers Family Resource Centre

This is the summary report of the evaluation of Quarriers Family Resource Centre which opened in June 2000. The study was funded by a grant Quarriers received from Glasgow Council’s Changing Children’s Services Fund and was carried out by staff at the Social Work Research Centre, University of Stirling, between September 2003-2005

Introduction The project began life in a flat in Ruchazie, but moved to new accommodation in October 2001. The new premises were purpose built and included space for a nursery, while also accommodating a team of health visitors working on the Starting Well health demonstration project. It was expected that the centre would be a community resource, providing a nursery and drop-in whilst also collaborating with other local resources to enhance the quality of life of people living in the area. It was also part of the centre’s remit to work with families experiencing difficulties. Higher than usual numbers of children were being brought to the attention of Social Work Services and the Reporter to the Children’s Panel, resulting in some being accommodated. It was expected that the centre would help reduce these referrals and the need for accommodation, partly by offering general support to parents and partly through working more intensively with families whose problems were already severe. Key elements of the direct services offered by the centre were: nursery, women’s group, dads’ group, intensive work with individual parents and children, literacy support, drop-in, playtime and parenting classes. The centre’s social development and interdisciplinary ethos was reflected in the range of partner agencies which contributed to its development and funding. These were Quarriers, Glasgow City Council Social Work Services, Glasgow City Council Education Department, Greater Easterhouse Social Inclusion Partnership, Communities Scotland Formerly known as Scottish Homes, NHS Glasgow, Scottish Enterprise and The Big Step [Social Inclusion Partnership].

In addition, a grant from Children in Need funded a post dedicated to work with dads. Quarriers Family Resource Centre was considered to merit evaluation because in its first few years of operation it had become recognised, locally and across Scotland, as a ‘flagship’ service. There was therefore value in understanding to what its success might be attributed, with a particular focus on how it had managed to combine open access and a community development ethos with individual work with families where children were in need of care and protection, and the extent to which its aim of developing a non-stigmatised service had been achieved. The evaluation involved two sets of group and individual interviews with key people: parents attending the centre, centre staff and managers, nursery staff and parents and professionals from other local agencies. In addition, detailed information was obtained on the service offered to ten individual families. The study was guided throughout by an advisory group composed of parents, centre staff and other professionals working in the local area.

When I came here at first I didn’t know who was staff and who were just people using the centre...all very informal and friendly...and the staff weren’t in offices, I think I met most of them in the kitchen and the drop in room...staff and users of the centre all eating lunch together in the drop in room...you don’t see that often

Key points from the evaluation •

Three key elements were identified as contributing to the centre’s success: its non-judgemental, participative approach, actively engaging with other services in the community, high level of skill in managing risk.

‘supervision has kept me on track [...] I have had to come to terms with my own prejudices, some that I didn’t even know I had. It is too easy to make value judgements about people or situations when you are only presented with half a picture.’ (centre staff member)

•

Each aspect of the centre’s service contributed to developing non-judgemental, participative practice. These included: actively challenging negative stereo types of parents living in poor areas, basing care plans on parents’ priorities, challenging prejudice in staff supervision and through team development, developing skills in challenging unhelpful or harmful behaviours in an non-rejecting way. Creating a welcoming atmosphere, maximising the communal use of space in the building and fostering a sense of ownership also contributed to breaking down barriers between staff and service users.

‘they said, they wouldn’t let you off with crap, you know if I was doing something that [worker] didn’t agree with, she would be the first to say you’re not keeping your side of the agreement or something.’ (mother)

‘you know how…sometimes you go to a place and you know that people are looking at you, passing judgement about you? Well that is not the case here.’ (mother) ‘there is always a friendly face when you get in the door…and the staff remember your name and the wean’s name.’ (mother) ‘when I first came here I thought it was just going to be the same old…you have problems and we can tell you what they are, sort of stuff, but it wasn’t that…we sat down and spoke about what we all thought was going on. I actually got a chance to say…this is what I think is going on…and I got to say this is what I would like to do.’ (mother)

‘when I came here at first I didn’t know who was staff and who were just people using the centre…all very informal and friendly…and the staff weren’t in offices, I think I met most of them in the kitchen and the drop in room...staff and users of the centre all eating lunch together in the drop in room... you don’t see that often.’ (father) ‘the building is excellent, you know, everything you need is just where it should be. And it’s got a nice friendly atmosphere in here. It’s like a pal’s house; it’s just like going to your pal’s house for a cup of tea.’ (mother)

We need to let people know what the centre really has to offer. I am speaking mostly about men, dads in particular. The stigma that is attached to groups like this is a very real thing. Men don’t want to be seen to ask for help

•

Other professionals appreciated that staff had been very pro-active in making links with other agencies. Several expressed the view that the benefit to the community had not simply been in terms of what the centre offered directly, but the positive energy its staff created in the community as whole:

‘the staff at Quarriers are very well trained to work with people where a child is considered to be at risk. Risk management is definitely one of the centre’s strongest points.’ (worker in a local project)

•

‘the manager was determined to establish better working relationships between other service agencies within this field of work and I think she was quite successful…I hope this work continues.’ (worker in a local project) ‘I would just like to add that Quarriers have made a significant difference for the families who attend and for all of the community in Ruchazie.’ (worker in a local project) ‘Quarriers are a very welcome addition to this area, it gives a sense of hope back to the community.’ (worker in a local project)

•

Centre staff were recognised as having a high level of skill in managing and working with risk. The essence of their approach was to focus on the effect of parental behaviour on the child, rather than judge the behaviour itself. Health visitors and social workers talked about learning from the centre’s practice, while workers in a range of community projects had appreciated receiving advice in situations when they were concerned about a child’s welfare or safety.

‘Quarriers helped our staff and me deliver a message about children and their needs in that just because a parent behaves in a certain way doesn’t mean to say their kid will come into care. What we need to look at is how that actually impacts on the needs of the child...that’s been dead important to us.’ (social work manager)

Through having the nursery, groups and drop-in, the centre promoted access to all local parents and so hoped to become a non-stigmatised resource. Most staff and parents involved in the centre thought this had been achieved, but a number of other professionals and parents of children attending the nursery indicated that it was still viewed locally as a service for families who were not coping, so some mothers and fathers remained unsure of what was on offer and wary of getting involved. There was scope for considering further how links with other local services might help promote more local awareness and involvement.

‘we need to let people know what the centre really has to offer. I am speaking mostly about men, dads in particular. The stigma that is attached to groups like this is a very real thing. Men don’t want to be seen to ask for help.’ (father)

•

The range of services offered at the centre was key to its capacity to engage with parents with different needs and preferences. In addition there were opportunities for parents to get to know different members of the staff team. Parents liked that they could get advice or help with a whole host of issues in the same place. The nursery was highly valued by all respondents as a key part of the service. The literacy worker’s role was considered crucial, because it boosted parents’ selfesteem, supported them as parents (e.g. by being able to respond to letters from school or read children stories) and helped them prepare for further education or work.

•

The women’s group was a key service because it brought together a wide range of women and addressed a variety of topics, from child health to selfdefence. One of its strengths was that women could learn from each other. Those who attended said they enjoyed it and it made them feel good about themselves:

‘I know some people come here because they have a worker, or maybe their worker has suggested to them that it might be good for their case or something if they come here regularly, but a lot of other people just come because they love it here. If I didn’t come here I would just sit about watching painting programmes on the telly all day.’ (mother)

•

The dads’ group was widely recognised as successful in engaging and working with men who had previously resisted social work involvement. It was particularly effective with men who had recently taken on additional child care responsibilities. Its success was attributed to giving men a real say in how the group was run, encouraging mutual support, challenging negative stereotypes about working class men as fathers and creating a safe environment in which emotional issues could be shared and a high level of support offered, without implying weakness or dependency. The success of work with dads was clear, but attempts to start two new dads’ groups had faltered because of low take up. The plan had been to cater for teenage dads and men from another area, but at the time the research ended this was being revised.

‘dads are usually viewed as bystanders when it comes to parenting and mothers get all the credit for a child’s

development. The group here gives men a place to talk about what they think about being a parent. There is no other place for men to meet and talk about that kind of stuff except in a pub or something…but that is not really the kind of stuff that men talk about in a pub. You would be laughed at…to say the very least.’ (father) ‘there are other men’s groups, and groups that have projects for men, but the difference with this place is that the dads’ group is ours. The agenda is about us, the dads…it’s not like what other groups are saying ‘what can we do to help you…in here it is what can we all do together to help us all…It’s about the men and the men have a big say in what happens.’ (father)

•

Asked to rate their expectations and actual benefits from attending the centre, most parents reported that they had gained more than they had expected. Typically people said they had come along expecting to meet other parents and have a break, but reported improvements in how they cared for their children, felt about themselves and got on with other people in their family.

•

The evaluation examined in more detail the experiences of ten families who had been allocated a project worker. After a year, staff considered that some of the initial difficulties had been reduced in each case, for example parents no longer misused drugs, were better able to control their temper or had developed enough confidence to parent their child. However elements of the initial difficulties remained in all cases except three men who had been offered support to take on responsibility for the care of their children. Though this had been a considerable challenge for each of them, their difficulties were far less entrenched than in some

other families where mental health issues, unresolved childhood trauma or learning difficulties made living in social disadvantage even more difficult. In these circumstances it was not surprising that initial problems had not been completely overcome.

•

•

A year on, children from two families had their names removed from the child Protection Register. One set had returned home from being accommodated. Assessing less tangibleimpacts on children was difficult and could only be approximate, but, based on the views of key professionals and parents, the evaluation concluded that in five of the families the children’s lives had clearly improved, whilst three had had improvements in some, but not all, aspects of their lives. In the remaining two families concerns persisted about how the children were cared for, so workers had concluded that more intensive practical support and supervision would be needed, if the children were to remain safely at home. Collaboration with social work colleagues worked well, despite clear indications that the two services adopted a very different approach. Parents often contrasted the centre’s willingness to take account of their priorities, with the more authoritarian approach adopted by social workers. This corresponded with how each group of staff viewed their own and each other’s roles. Social workers appreciated that working in a voluntary capacity and having more time meant centre staff could expect to effect change with families, whereas their own role was primarily about assessing and monitoring risk. Both sets of workers agreed that it was appropriate at times for centre staff to advocate on behalf of parents, a role which parents much appreciated. Even when acting as an advocate, centre staff were clear

that the best interests of the children remained their primary concern, but some social workers thought this implied that the parents’ interests became paramount. Some social workers expected that centre staff would be reluctant to challenge parents when their behaviour was unacceptable, whereas centre workers saw this as an integral part of their job. For the most part, social workers and centre staff were in agreement when decisions were made that a formal child protection response was required or that a child should be accommodated. ‘for a lot of people we are the bad guys. We are the people who have put their kid on the register or taken their kids from them. So they don’t always feel that well disposed towards us. And they worry that we will see everything in a negative light and we want them to fail. And I think Quarriers staff are able to have a much better relationship with parents and be seen as a lot less threatening. I think parents can probably relax a bit more and be more natural when they are interacting with their children in front of them.’ (social work manager) ‘I know that my kids would not be with me today if it wasn’t for the staff here at the centre. They have worked with the health visitor and the social worker to get me back on my feet…you know what I mean? They have seen me with the kids on a regular basis and they know what I am like with the kids…and they have spoke up for me a few times.’ (mother) ‘it is very important to keep a happy balance between friendship and professionalism in this job as a major part of the work we do is about assessing risk to any family member and being able to challenge any behaviour that could be considered as unacceptable.’ (centre worker)

I know that my kids would not be with me today if it wasn’t for the staff here at the centre. They have worked with the health visitor and the social worker to get me back on my feet…you know what I mean? They have seen me with the kids on a regular basis and they know what I am like with the kids…and they have spoke up for me a few times

•

While the collaboration with statutory social work staff generally worked well, there were potential difficulties which resulted from each service operating in accordance with a different ethos. One example was that the statutory services had decided to create a joint social work/health visitor team to provide intensive input to families where child protection concerns were serious enough to merit a multi-agency response. This fitted well with current trends towards targeted, timelimited, interdisciplinary, specialist interventions for ‘high risk’ families. However the new team’s underpinning approach was quite different from the centre’s aims of providing a non-stigmatised service to all families, using relationship in the helping process and willingness to engage with people over the longer term. Whereas the centre’s approach included tackling social disadvantage and its corrosive effects through developing community resources, the new statutory team would focus primarily on individual families.

•

With the creation of the new team, local health visitors were no longer based in Quarriers family resource centre. In addition it had been proposed that the centre should focus primarily on early intervention, which would restrict its initial role. This study indicated that challenging negative stereotypes was the essence of the centre’s success with parents, so it is to be hoped that elements of this approach will be built into the new service. It is this strong commitment to non-judgemental practicewhich arguably meant the centre offered a ‘different kind of social work’.

•

When asked how the centre might be improved, most parents and other professionals suggested extending its remit. The most common request was that it should cater for families with older children:

‘there is nothing available for families with older children’ (father) ‘I would like some advice on how to deal with teenagers, there is no advice or help on how to deal with teenagers, like my son,…he is the one I need more help understanding.’ (mother)

•

The evaluation concluded that Quarriers Family Resource Centre had developed a way of working which benefited many families and had managed to effectively combine a focus on community development, open access and work with families where children are in need of protection. On this basis, a strong case could be made for replicating and developing this model. Comments from some parents and the experience of some of the families who took part in the study suggested that it would be particularly valuable to cater for older children and their parents and for families whose multiple problems mean they need even more intensive support than the present service is able to offer.

Quarriers, Quarriers Village Bridge of Weir, PA11 3SX Tel. 01505 616000 Fax. 01505 613906 Email. [email protected]

For more information please visit our website on www.quarriers.org.uk Quarriers is a registered Scottish Charity No SCO01960 and is a company limited by guarantee and registered in Scotland No 14361 VAT registration No 263 5009 75