Parenting suport - a political quick fix?
In South Tyneside, three years ago, “Mary” a single mother of five talked passionately about her positive experience of parenting classes: the key to a different life. Initially, she had been resistant. A victim of domestic violence in the past, she said she’d had particular difficulties with her oldest son, throughout his teens. Finally, he had received an Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) and she had been given a compulsory parenting order. Six out of ten residents in South Tyneside live in neighbourhoods ranked in the 25 most deprived in England. Mary had survived on a very low income with poor literacy skills and mental health issues not helped by several ex-partners whom had been violent towards her in front of the children. At that time, under a Labour Government, improving the quality of parenting via a spectrum of support from a light-touch approach (access to a website or a telephone conversation) through to intensive help (provided for instance, by parenting courses imported from the US and Australia such as Webster Stratton and Triple P) had become a key priority expressed in a range of policy documents. For example, Every Child Matters (2004) and the Children’s Plan (2007) and Sure Start (launched in 1998). The Respect agenda (2006), alarmingly, helped to turn parenting support into a corrective “treatment” with compulsory parenting orders and terminology such as “worst families first”. [i]
In 2007, Ed Balls then Minister for Children, described “progressive universalism” as “support for all with more support for those who need it most”. This dual approach – asset-based and positive for those parents in search of ‘light touch’ guidance and deficit-based, corrective and coercive for those deemed “bad” parents as if their financial, educational and mental and physical health problems were incidental to the child-parent dynamic – has meant that parenting support retains a stigma and arguably fails to help either group on a large enough scale. This is not least because for both, with admirable exceptions, parenting support is too often muddled in its intentions and confused about its outcomes.And its definitions are far from clear: how do you define ‘what works’ or, for that matter, ‘good enough’ parenting?
Authoritative parenting characterised as attentive, caring, responsive, consistent, co-operative and warm with age appropriate and fair methods of discipline is deemed most beneficial According to Churchill and Clarke this balance of care and control, promotes “children’s self esteem, social skills and competence”[ii] However, if a child lives in a dangerousdeprived neighbourhood, it has been argued that authoritarian parenting may keep him or her safe and in one piece.Place matters.
As Gorman-Smith and Tolan point out, guided by a developmental-ecological model of risk and development, it may be that how families function or how their parenting differs, may depend on the neighbourhood in which they live. The greater the sense of belonging and security in the neighbourhood, the less harm accrued by ‘bad’ parenting. They conclude, “It may be as useful to help youth connect to neighbourhood support as it is to try and improve family functioning.” [iii]
In2004, “What works in parenting support” [iv]was published followedin 2011, by aa review[v] of parenting support in five countries, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy and Netherlands,as well as Englandconducted byBoddy et al.The review raised a fundamental conceptual question about the understanding of “what works” and therefore, the way in which existing provision is evaluated.
In England, Boddy et al, say the often standardised approach (fidelity to the parenting course for instance) is very different from the customised support for the whole family and peer to peer help in the other countries in the review. The ethos also differs for professionals. For instance, in France, the aim is “accompagnement”, “going alongside” [vi] the parent on their journey rather than directing them to “predetermined standardised objectives”. “In understanding what works – in assessing efficacy – there is a crucial distinction…between evaluation as an assessment of progress within an individual case intervention (does it work for this family?) and service level evaluation of the programmatic efficiencyof a standardised model of intervention (does it work for most families?)” Boddy et al write.
So, why did parenting support work for Mary?In the last few years of the Labour government, a national parenting support network was launched. Local authorities were asked to assess the level of need in their area and draw up a strategy.A report by PriceWaterhouseCooper (2006)[vii] uncovered “a significant amount of unmet need and latent demand”. The focus of the report was the value of early intervention in families where there is a lower tier of need.The concern of this paper is that ever since while there has been lip service paid to a universal offer in parenting support- Sarah Teather at the Liberal Democratic Party Conference this year (2011) announced yet another trial in two or three areas, issuing parenting vouchers for all parents of children aged under five – in practise, a reductionist and highly confusedapproach to parenting support is taking place.
On the one hand, the universal parenting offer is neither universalnor – as has been argued - very clear in its aims and outcomes. An IPPR report[viii] also points out that, “…. in the UK, it is children from disadvantagedbackgrounds – arguably with the most to gain – who use these services least.” On the other hand, corrective parenting support begins with a deficit model – what’s wrong? - when arguably an asset-based approach beginning with the areas in which the family have coped, often against horrendous odds, might prove more productive. The Coalition is focussing on families who are deemed chaotic and have complex needs, numbering120,000families (according to the Coalition) or 140,000 (under Labour). They are seen as “bad” parents. Although the impact of negative circumstances on parenting - unemployment, illness, addiction etc - is acknowledged in programmes such as the Family Intervention Programmes (FIPs) ,they are too rarely effectively addressed.
In 2010, for example, David Gregg, re-analysed the results of a number of FIPs, .FIPs families allegedly bring misery to their community.”Fips supposedly cure the presumed cause, poor parenting, with a mixture of threats, parenting classes and ‘intensive support’” Gregg writes, “In reality, the Fips target socially inadequate families around 80% of whom have significant mental and physical health problems and learning disabilities. …with such high levels of mental health problems we would expect to see matching levels of medical support in the projects. In reality, only 11% received professional psychiatric treatment or counselling. With around 80% of families exhibiting ‘poor parenting’ only 35% attended parenting classes and only half of these were delivered by professional agencies.”
Gregg began with the flagship Dundee Family Project established in 1996, it has become the prototype for all subsequent efforts. It claimed an 84% success rate with “the most difficult families”. Mostly they were very, poor, single parents. 50% were on anti-depressants; 75% had alcohol or drug abuse problems. Gregg writes, “We will see again and again over the years, most families were referred [to FIPs] for mental health problems and social inadequacy rather than offending the public. In most cases, these health problems were not addressed in the projects.”
Gregg says the 84% success rate comes down to 39% based on family behaviour, risk factors and ongoing problems. In an evaluation[ix] ofthe highly successful holistic H.O.P.E family centre in a deprived ruralarea Herefordshire,Margaret Lochrie of not for profit organisation ‘Capacity’ points out the importance of addressing issues such as mental health andthe lack ofliteracy and life skills in parents. “A national survey by the National Literacy Trust of 500 local providers working with families found that nearly half rarely or never signpost parents to support for themselves,” she writes H.O.P.E. works laterally – it provides literacy and numeracy courses, it offers cookery classes, computers, employment preparation, self esteem and confidence building, childcare and rungs to employment, as well offering non-stigmatising support in parenting. That is precisely the kind of incremental help that made a difference for Mary. South Tyneside’s Families First Parenting Strategy 2008-2011 saw parenting support as the door to a better life for the whole family. In Mary’s case, the parenting course leader was also a buddy, encouraging her to attend, removing barriers in the way, encouraging Mary to commit to other courses, to build up her confidence and her basic skills and discover ways of controlling her anger, and improving her own sense of wellbeing (too often neglected in parenting support).
“If you are a parent with a 14 year old who smashes the house up on a regular basis what happens to you when your six week course comes to an end?” Margaret Welch, parenting commissioner at the time, said, “We continue to offer support long after a course ends. We aim for more than just making things a little better. This is about the wellbeing of the whole family.”[x]
Early intervention matters. The findings of neuroscience tell us that volatile and erratic parenting and poor childcare impacts negatively. However, what passes for a parenting strategy in this country needs a radical overhaul. If parenting is so central to flourishing and civil communities (and therefore less costly to the public purse) it has to be genuinely universal; it has to invest significantly, even in an era of austerity, in non-parenting support that is crucial especially to families with complex needs. It has to be customised to the family and that includes income; job prospects; their ability to read and write and addressing unmet adult needs such as unresolved loss and trauma in childhood. And we need to move away from the irrelevant notion of “bad” and ‘good enough” parenting.
Parenting may be (very temporarily) challenging or constantly profoundly difficult – and that can vary from child to child within the same family. Parenting is not a static set of tools nor is it a science or even a skill; it occupies the most anarchic part of life – love and the lack of it. It is time for a holistic 21st century flexible and organic system of support that makes life better for us all, not, in some cases, infinitely worse.
[i] Home Office website no longer active
[ii] Churchill, H and Clarke, K (2007) Parenting interventions with the parents of adolescents: a review of approaches, programmes and outcomes The University of Manchester
[iii] Gorman-smith D and Toal Patrick H Positive adaptation among youth exposed to community violence chapter inResilience and Vulnerability Adaptation in thecontext of childhood adversities(2003) edited by Suniya S Luthar Cambridge University Press
[iv] Moran, Ghate and van der Merwe What works in parenting support (2004)
[v] Boddy J, Smith M, Statham J Understanding of efficacy: cross national perspectives on ‘what works’ in supporting parents and families article for Ethics and Education (2011) 4:1
[vi] This is also the approach in New Zealand in SKIP Strategises for Kids Information for Parents, that encourages peer to peer help and has had success with the so called ‘hard to reach’ parents/
[vii] PrcieWaterhouseCooper (2006) The market for parental and family support services Department for Education and Skills
[viii] Ben-Galim D Parents at the centre (2011) IPPR
[ix] Lochrie M H.O.P.E (holistic opportunities for health and education) and change for families (2011) not for profit organisation ‘Capacity’
[x] Roberts Y, Brophy M and Bacon N (2010) Parenting and wellibeing: knitting families together The Young Foundation
