Fiona Green – Cafcass Head of Commissioning

1. Fiona Green – Cafcass Head of Commissioning Separated Parents Information Programme Commissioning and Partnerships Team

3. Thank you • We have made considerable progress since December 2008, particularly since April 2010 • The numbers attending PIP are substantially up:

6. Progress • This has helped consolidate a substantial change within the FJS • Well placed in the Family Justice Review • We are aware that this has not always been an easy journey for providers – it is a work in progress and your input has been vital • The multi-agency aspects of PIP are now much more clear

7. Progress • We think that PIP has a long term future in the FJS – having providers confident and competent delivery of this service is key to the future.

8. Aims for today: • Presentation of the results of the Liz Trinder Team research –time for questions and discussion • To describe current plans for new developments • To use Provider experience to help steer the process

9. Building bridges? An evaluation of the costs and effectiveness of the Separated Parents Information Programme (PIP) https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/.

10. PIP evaluation: report back Sanctuary Buildings, 10th June 2011

11. Presentation contents • The study and the team (Liz Trinder) • Case pathways (Liz Trinder) • Impact of PIP (Caroline Bryson) • Understanding impacts • The course: Cat Houlston and Janet Reibstein • Following through: Leanne Smith • Recommendations (Liz Trinder) • Questions

12. The study - aims • How do PIP pathways compare to standard court pathways? • What is the impact of PIP compared to non-PIP? • What do parents and professionals think works/doesn’t work? What changes needed?

13. Quantitative elements • Telephone survey: 600 PIP and non-PIP parents: • Pathways analysis – who gets what when? • Impact study – to what effect? • Costs study – at what cost? • PIP delivery cost tool: 9 providers • Design and analysis – Bryson Purdon Social Research • Telephone survey – TNS-BMRB

14. Qualitative interviews and focus groups • Family solicitors: 11 (LS) • Judges: 24/3 (LT) • CAFCASS: 28/4 (LT) • PIP providers: 26/3 (JR/LT) • Post-PIP parent groups: 15/4 (One Plus One) • Positive outcome parents: 12 • Negative outcome parents: 12

15. Understanding PIP Pathways • Context: rapid rise in PIP referrals • April 2010 – 366 claims • October 2010 – 1148 claims • But wide local variation in referrals • How are cases selected? Why the variation? • Where/when does PIP fit within court pathways? • Is PIP an additional or alternative intervention?

16. Selecting cases for PIP • s 11 A-E criteria: welfare, appropriateness, suitable provider, reasonable distance, religious beliefs, education/employment • But selection is routinised not individualised, depends upon local court practice • Move towards opt-out referral • Risk screening - <50 per cent pre-FHDRA phone calls, v high threshold, view that PIP harmless (despite pro-contact message)

17. PIP and non-PIP cases compared (our sample) • PIP sample from mid-high PIP use courts; non-PIP sample from no-low use courts • Similar in wide range of pre-court socio-demographic, relationship, litigation history profile • But PIP higher income, education and more likely to have contact • 31 per cent of PIP parents with safety concerns, 9% of PIP mothers with past injunction, 9% current injunction (and similar to non-PIP) • No evidence of case selection re case difficulty

18. The timing of PIP and case pathways • PIP – half referred at first hearing, half at subsequent • PIP and non-PIP similar processes and agreement rates at first hearings • PIP parents more likely to return to court for second time but greater use of review, less use of hearings/trials • Low uptake of MIAM (5-6%) and mediation (8-5%) for PIP and non-PIP • PIP as additional step in existing court pathways with expected review as effective case management

19. Relative cost of PIP and non-PIP cases • Total cost for PIP case = £4,726; versus £4,636 without PIP. • But PIP cases less likely to be closed. At ‘case closed’ stage, PIP group costs may be around £200 - £400 ahead of non-PIP costs

20. Pathways - summary • Little to distinguish PIP and non-PIP samples other than local court practice • Risk filtering ineffective • PIP integrated into existing court processes not a means (usually) to exit them early

21. Impact design • 349 PIP parents from courts which send a high proportion of parents to PIP • Cases where both parents attended PIP • Cases where harm box not ticked • 292 comparison group parents from courts which send no or few parents to PIP • PIP and comparison group parents matched

22. Measured impact… • overall • on resident and non-resident parents • on parents with safety concerns • on families with newer and older applications

23. Outcomes • Case progress • Relationship with parents • Family circumstances • Situation from child’s perspective • Intentions for dealing with issues around contact

24. Case progress • No statistically significant impacts detected

25. Parents’ relationships • No statistically significant impacts detected

26. Family circumstances • PIP has a significant and positive impact on contact rates

27. Child’s perspective (parent report) • No statistically significant impacts detected

28. Dealing with contact issues in future • PIP group significantly more likely to think they will need to renegotiate arrangement • And significantly more likely to think they will sort it out between themselves

29. Resident and non-resident parents • PIP equally effective for both parent groups • More impact on how resident parents feel about arrangements, e.g. in contrast to comparison group PIP resident parents are- • Happier with current situation • Happier with amount of decision making • Think child is happier with arrangements • Less likely to have safety concerns

30. Risk cases • Compared to risk cases in the comparison group, PIP risk cases - • Have more contact • But - • Have more tension about arrangements • Are less likely to think arrangements are in child’s best interest • Feel worse about the situation

31. 2009 and 2010 applicants • How useful is PIP for parents who have been in the court system for a long time? • Among older cases, positive PIP impacts on having contact and having arrangements in place • But, negative PIP impacts on how parents feel – • Less happy with arrangements • More likely to return to court for renegotiation • More likely to have safety concerns

32. Summary: PIP … • Has a positive impact on contact rates (but not weekly contact rates) • Has no impact on quality of relationship between ex-partners • Increases contact arrangements which will be renegotiated – • but increases the likelihood of parents sorting things out themselves • Had more impacts more on feelings of resident parents • Can be beneficial for older cases as well as newer cases

33. Understanding impacts Qualitative data and further quantitative data were used to understand the impacts identified earlier. Possible mechanisms for change and identifying barriers and limitations. Qualitative sources of information included focus groups and interviews with parents, professionals and PIP providers. 3 stages: pre-PIP, course itself, and post-PIP.

34. Understanding impacts: transferring to PIP Briefing and preparing parents for PIP • Variability in fullness and accuracy • Little information of what to expect • Some misconceptions (ex-partner, group, focus of the course) • Title misleading • Verbal explanation of PIP also needed • Some concerns that professionals may not be giving accurate info to parents • Presentations and taster sessions- raise awareness and commitment (resource limitations)

35. Understanding impacts: transferring to PIP “I'm glad I did it, although my initial reaction was very negative – I didn’t like the whole idea – I suppose maybe providing people with more information and just make sure they don’t take it the wrong way, as I did.” (Female interviewee, positive outcome group; PF6) “We spent a lot of time in the early days undoing the damage when people came to us about they’re coming on a parenting course. And they still, it’s not as bad as that, but we still have added in a good five minutes worth of chat at the beginning about why you are here, what’s expected, who heard what, who was told what at the Court...” (Individual provider interview 4)

36. Understanding impacts: transferring to PIP Transmitting the referral and delay • PIP introduces a number of additional stages which may lengthen case. • Some areas: the process from referral to attendance was swift, efficient and reliable. • More often: process was slow, unreliable and burdensome. • No uniform national or regional approach to referrals. • Good practice: not down to job titles but effective relationships, leadership and clarity. Non-attendance

37. Understanding impacts: transferring to PIP These features (delays, lack of appropriate preparation or misinformation, and non-attendance) may impact on the outcome and effectiveness of PIP.

38. Understanding impacts: the PIP course Method of PIP delivery • Either 1x4 or 2x2 sessions. • Group size typically 4-14, usually mixed gender. • Usually 2 trainers. Course aims and purpose • Broadly focused on trying to orient parent towards focusing on their children’s needs. • No single statement of course aims. • Child’s experience of separation Programme structure and materials • Fixed elements: overview and divorce/separation process, parenting divorce or separation- children (include DVD), parenting divorce or separation- communication, emotional divorce or separation and moving forward.

39. Understanding impacts: the PIP course Quantitative: Parents asked how far they felt PIP had played a role in helping them reach an agreement. Perception of how much of an impact PIP had in reaching an agreement or court order about contact. Base: all PIP parents (n = 348) A big role 8% Some role 16% No role at all 72% Don’t know 4%

40. Understanding impacts: the PIP course Also asked how far parents felt PIP had played a role in: • Communication with their ex-partner • Understanding perspectives of their children and ex-partner. More parents were positive about the role that PIP has had in the factors, compared to securing contact agreement. • 2 in 5 (38%) think it has improved their ability to discuss issues about their child and their ex-partner. • 3 in 10 (31%) thought that it helped them to sort out arguments or disputes. • 46% think they have a better understanding of ex-partner’s perspective • 2 in 3 (67%) think they are better able to understand their children’s feelings.

41. Understanding impacts: the PIP course Qualitative findings: Knowledge (reinforced existing knowledge, learning new information). Reminder to parents to focus on the child’s needs. Perspective-taking (children and in some cases ex-partner). Taking responsibility for things they can change (better coping). Behavioural impacts. Some parents reported no impact.

42. Understanding impacts: the PIP course “That’s right – just basically about not arguing in front of the littl’uns … that’s why there won’t ever be any more cross words between me and me ex–partner in front of the lad. And there won’t be anyway, because obviously I’ve vowed to just turn me back and walk away than to start to have any upset..I speak to her now…and see it like a businesslike relationship – short, brief and to the point and you don’t let any emotional feelings get in the way of anything, you see. And that works for me.” (Male interviewee, positive outcome group; PM4)

43. Understanding impacts: the PIP course Change mechanisms: • Group process • Normalise people’s experience – feel less alone. • Give different perspectives. • Group mix – gender, applicant/recipient, level of conflict and duration of court process. • Size of the group • Course content (DVD, scenarios)

44. Understanding impacts: the PIP course Factors limiting the effectiveness of the course. These factors address problems in making a generic programme fit individual circumstances: Relevance: family and cultural assumptions. Relevance: skills and behavioural change. Relevance: safeguarding concerns amongst PIP parents.

45. Distinguishing positive and negative cases Interviews with two groups of PIP parents: Positive outcome group - those who had reached an agreement over contact arrangements, were overall satisfied with these arrangements, and who attributed this, at least in part, to going on PIP. Negative outcome group - those who still had not reached an agreement or were not satisfied with the existing contact arrangements. Ultimately this enables us to consider why PIP may be more or less effective in some cases than others.

46. Distinguishing positive and negative cases Barriers to change: Perceived lack of relevance. Entrenched conflict. Perceived ex-partner resistance and disengagement. Extended family or new partner involvement. Court process – when not consistent with messages from PIP. Individual difference.

47. Distinguishing positive and negative cases Features of positive change: Greater group and course engagement. Incorporate key focus on the child. Actively seek solutions to barriers. Contact agreement established gradually and over-time. Targeted interventions for complex cases.

48. Distinguishing positive and negative cases “I think you had to look very hard and want to take those messages away and actually implement it very much yourself and if you’ve been made to go on the course and you didn’t want to engage with it, I don’t think it would have made any difference to at all. You know – I did because I thought, well, if I’m gonna spend two hours there, I'm gonna trying and get something out of it. That’s just the way that I am but I think a lot of people would not have done that – they’d just to do it out of compulsion and that would be it.”“ (Female interviewee, positive outcome group; PF4)

49. Ending PIPs - looking forward Final hour of course dedicated to ‘Emotional divorce/separation and moving forward’ Reality: planning ahead time is very limited The in-course exercise focuses only on individual changes and actions

50. Post-PIP interaction between parents Very little interaction reported by parents 20% of Telephone Survey parents unaware if partner had even attended Some parents are motivated to make contact after PIP but this is relatively unusual Interaction sometimes channelled through lawyers