fiona green – cafcass head of commissioning

Fiona Green – Cafcass Head of Commissioning

Separated Parents Information Programme

10.30 – 11.00 Registration & Coffee11.00 -11.10 Welcome and Introduction Fiona Green11.10 – 1.00 Research Presentation – to include results,

methods and recommendationsLiz Trinder, Caroline Bryson, Leanne Smith, Catherine Houlston, Janet Reibstein

1.00 – 1.45 Lunch1.45 – 2.15 Next Steps to include referrals, PIP Plus, PIP

MIAMS, Programme change, PIP as multi-agency intervention

Mike Coote

2.15 – 3.00 Small Group WorkThe current programme – what works best in the current process?How can PIP become more multi agency focussed?How do providers maintain and demonstrate the quality of the service provision?What activities aimed at behaviour change could be added to the programme?

Yvonne Martin

3.00 – 4.00 approx.

Full group session – feedback and discussion of main points

Thank you

• We have made considerable progress since December 2008, particularly since April 2010

• The numbers attending PIP are substantially up:

PIP cases as a proportion of applications 2009-10

945

28120

59033

Safe and Beneficial contact cases

PIP cases as a proportion of applications projected 2010-11

13178

16178

58722

Safe and Beneficial contact cases

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

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.

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

Building bridges? An evaluation of the costs and effectiveness of the Separated Parents

Information Programme (PIP)

https ://www.education.gov.uk/publications/.

https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/



PIP evaluation: report back

Sanctuary Buildings, 10th June 2011

Presentation contents

1. The study and the team (Liz Trinder)2. Case pathways (Liz Trinder)3. Impact of PIP (Caroline Bryson)4. Understanding impacts

– The course: Cat Houlston and Janet Reibstein– Following through: Leanne Smith

5. Recommendations (Liz Trinder)6. Questions

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?

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

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

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?

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)

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

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

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

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

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

Measured impact…

• overall• on resident and non-resident parents• on parents with safety concerns• on families with newer and older

applications

Outcomes

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

contact

Case progress

• No statistically significant impacts detected

PIP group Matched comparison group

Impact (pp difference)

Court order/agreement in place 80 78 2

Agreement working well 59 51 8

Happy with current situation 50 44 6

Ex happy with current situation 43 41 2

Safety concerns 26 24 2

Case now closed 68 76 -8

Parents’ relationships




Parents have equal say in decisions 16 18 -2

Happy with amount of decision-making

44 42 2

Easy to discuss issues about child 15 14 1

Views relationship as friendly 18 14 4

Ex-partner reliable about arrangements

50 49 1

Arrangements a major source of tension

39 33 6

Family circumstances

• PIP has a significant and positive impact on contact rates



Child has any contact 84 76 8*

Child has at least weekly contact 56 58 -1

Child stays overnight 55 51 4

Respondent happy with contact arrangements

48 54 -6

Maintenance arrangement in place 68 60 7

Child’s perspective (parent report)




Child happy with contact arrangements

50 43 7

Respondent feels arrangement in child’s best interest

53 53 0

Child has socio-emotional problems which interfere with everyday life

17 17 0

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



Likely to need to renegotiate in next two years

39 29 10*

Would negotiate between themselves

36 27 9*

Would return to court 42 38 3

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

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

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

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

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.

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)


• “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)


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


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

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.


• 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%


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 inthe 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.


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.


“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)


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)


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.

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 bemore or less effective in some cases than others.


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.


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.


• “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)

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

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

Post-PIP interaction between parents

Lack of interaction: factors to consider• Timetabled return to court may forestall

attempts at interaction• No mechanism to facilitate Post-PIP

interaction built into PIP or court process• Consistent with findings that PIP has modest

impact on ability to communicate/resolve disputes with former partner

Returning to Court: do courts build on PIP messages?

• Parents sometimes ‘softened-up’ by PIP - court role then shifts to supporting agreements parents are amenable to

• Isolated example of judge integrating PIP with proceedings by ‘talking the same language as the providers’ in ‘a conciliation hearing’

For others:• Concern that court sets

parties back on adversarial route: - this undermines purpose and content of PIP

• Judicial references to PIP are brief

• Result = PIP and legal proceedings run parallel with each other but are not integrated

Summary: next steps after PIP...

• PIP encourages parents to consider how to move forward

• In practice, most parents return to court and few interact to resolve dispute independently

• The language of PIPs and courts is normally very different

• PIP functions as a ‘ring-road’ diversion before returning to the same court process

• Feedback procedures could be clearer and more consistent

Summing up: PIP score card

• Positive professional and parent reaction• Individual success stories• 10% would not recommend

• Contact – YES• Conflict/communication – NO (though trends)• Court use – NO• Cost - MAYBE?

Why is the impact not greater?

1. Difficult cases – hostility and distrust2. Unsuitable cases – concerns and injunctions3. Late in the day – deeply ingrained 4. Ill-prepared5. Short four hour course 6. Broad course aims/focus7. Awareness-raising, not behavioural skills 8. No follow-through, court process resumes

• 2-8 could be remedied

R1: Earlier PIP

• Parent and professional support for earlier PIP • To minimise harm, enhance effectiveness• Voluntary self-referral or mandatory pre-

proceedings• Before mediation: 64% parents support

mandatory mediation [but few choose it/rate it]

• Effective screening and resourced alternative pathways are essential

R2 Course content and delivery

• Retain: – mixed gender format – interactive – group of c8 – two trainers

• Sharpen aims/focus• Incorporate skills/behavioural element• Ideally, randomised trial of refined PIP vs

Children in the Middle vs ?

R3 Follow through on the investment

• More sessions?• Refresher session at 3-4 months?• Post-PIP individual advice session?• Post-PIP facilitated joint meeting (by consent)• “they have been in sessions separately so they have to

come away from the session not knowing what experience each other have had. Obviously they know they have been seeing the same programme but they need someone to bring them together to begin communicating in the ways that they have learnt from the programme” (Judge 1)

R4 Targeted programmes

• PIP as early preventative programme• Expansion of domestic violence intervention

programmes• Trial of intensive programmes for high

conflict/entrenched cases

• Ideally, based on triage rather than a linear/tiered model

PIP evaluation: report back

The End!

Planned responses to learning about PIP

• PIP is a work in progress

• We can now see the multi agency connections • We have to maintain momentum, work within the

current system, with a clear view of the FJR future

• Where we do need to make changes we need to do this clearly and coherently

• Developments will be taking place over the Summer and Autumn

PIP Programme material

• Set up a short life programme review group, with providers, C and P staff and researchers, to evaluate how the programme can be developed.

• A re title for SPIP is desirable• Clearer outcome aims needed• Stronger focus on post separation/parallel

parenting (increased relevance for the never-together parents)

• Inclusion of specific behavioural change training• Relevance to diverse families

Before and after PIP – the multi agency aspects

• Seminars with Cafcass early intervention teams, involving providers – July

• Improving participant preparation• Improving selection• Clarifying expectations – coherence from all

agencies• Setting up pathways and post PIP activity• Improving ordering processes• Taken to Family Justice Councils by Teams

Prototype PIP Plus

• In one area – high usage settled multi agency approach:• Selected cases to have PIP with use of

Parenting Agreement during and after• Judicial expectations set early• Post PIP work with provider staff, separate

and joint meetings, dispute resolution and Mediation enabling

Prototype PIP MIAMS

• Building PIP into the MIAMS process• Using PIP earlier if possible – tuning to the Pre

Application Protocol – to enable more effective MIAMS and increased take up of Mediation

• Two possible routes – it’s more complicated than you might hope

• Focus on short term dispute resolution where appropriate

Small Group Work

The current programme – what works best in the current process?How can PIP become more multi agency focussed?How do providers maintain and demonstrate the quality of the service provision?What activities aimed at behaviour change could be added to the programme?

Small Group Work - 1

• The current programme – what works best in the current process?

• What are the course aims?

• How might our learning and experience modify these?

• Which are the most effective elements of the course to meet these aims?


How can PIP become more multi-agency focussed?

• What would good set up for PIP look like?

• How do we get to better ordering and preparation processes?

• How do we establish realistic next steps for participants in the current system?


How do providers maintain and demonstrate the quality of the service provision?

• What does light touch monitoring look like?

• How do providers develop and keep their edge for delivering PIP?


• What activities aimed at behaviour change could be added to the programme?

• What opportunities to change behaviour already exist in the programme?

• Can these be enhanced, and or is a step-change needed?

• What skills training might fit best?

Summary

• PIP appears to resonate with many parents, has found a significant place in the FJS, but has a modest impact.

• ‘The most effective programmes take time and several iterations to develop... Full potential has probably not yet been realised’

Fiona Green

Mike Coote

Helen Carson

Liz Lawrence

Lisa Marlowe

Marie Holland

Stephanie Merriman

Yvonne Martin

David D’Arcy

fiona green – cafcass head of commissioning

Documents

pip pathways

pip miams

nonpip parents

pip delivery cost tool

jrltpostpip parent groups

pathways analysis

costs study

impact study