has been published as Evaluation of the Matrix Project, which is No 77 in the ...
children referred to Matrix and their parents; and the observation of Local ...
EVALUATION OF THE MATRIX PROJECT
Report to the Scottish Executive Education Department
Gill McIvor with Kristina Moodie
Social Work Research Centre Department of Applied Social Science University of Stirling Stirling FK9 4LA
June 2002
The Scottish Executive is making this research report available on-line in order to provide access to its contents for those interested in the subject. The Executive commissioned the research but has not provided editorial input to the report. The views expressed in the report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Scottish Executive or any other organisation(s) by which the author(s) is/are employed. The Executive has not published this full report in hard copy, but a summary version has been published as Evaluation of the Matrix Project, which is No 77 in the Interchange series (ISSN 0969-613X). This is available both in hard copy (telephone 0131-244 0634 to obtain one) and on-line.
CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Preventing offending and anti-social behaviour Risk and protective factors The Matrix Project Organisation of the report
CHAPTER TWO: METHODS Introduction Collection of information from project records Identifying a comparison group Interviews with project staff Interviews with other professionals Interviews with children and families Observation of Local Referral Group meetings Costing of Matrix services
CHAPTER THREE: REFERRAL TO MATRIX Introduction Project objectives and referral criteria The referral procedure Children referred to Matrix Risk and resilience among children referred to Matrix Matrix assessment Family agreements Summary
CHAPTER FOUR: SERVICES PROVIDED BY MATRIX Introduction The Matrix approach The nature of work carried out The context of intervention Inter-agency work Reviews Case closure Summary
1 1 2 4
5
5 5 6 6 7 7 7 8
9
9 9 11 14 15 20 21 26
27
27 27 28 31 37 40 42 45
CHAPTER FIVE: THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MATRIX Introduction Children’s responses to intervention Families’ responses to intervention Achievement of objectives Reducing risk factors Promoting protective/resilience factors Reducing offending Preventing children being accommodated Keeping children in mainstream education Overall perspectives on Matrix Summary
47 47 47 48 49 50 54 55 57 57 58 59
CHAPTER SIX: THE COSTS OF MATRIX Introduction Matrix costs Estimating the longer-term financial consequences of Matrix Conclusion
60 60 60 62 63 64
CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSIONS Introduction Summary of main findings Issues arising from the study
64 64 64
REFERENCES
68
ANNEX
70
ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The Matrix Project is a programme that has been established in central Scotland with the aim of reducing the risk of offending and anti-social behaviour among vulnerable children. The project is led by Barnardo’s and funded by the Scottish Executive and provides a range of services to children between eight and 11 years of age who are at risk in the local authority areas of Clackmannanshire, Falkirk and Stirling. It builds upon well-established working relationships between Barnardo’s, the local authorities and other relevant agencies. The objective of the work undertaken by Matrix is to reduce the risk factors associated with offending and anti-social behaviour and promote those factors which provide children with resilience in the face of these risks. This report provides an account the Matrix Project’s work over a period of almost two years. The research on which it is based included: the collection of information about children and their families from project files; interviews with project staff, with representatives of agencies who have contact with vulnerable children and with children referred to Matrix and their parents; and the observation of Local Referral Group meetings.
REFERRAL TO MATRIX Matrix was regarded as a valued resource by social workers, teachers and other agencies in contact with vulnerable children. The emphasis upon early intervention was regarded as particularly appropriate for helping to prevent anti-social behaviour and offending by children who were at risk. Matrix’s attention to risk and protective factors was regarded by project staff as a useful mechanism for keeping work focused and was viewed by other professionals as being in tune with other developments in the child protection field. The procedure for referring cases to Matrix varied across the three local authorities that made use of the project and the types of children referred similarly varied from one area to another. Social workers believed that the referral process was relatively straightforward but some confusion existed among other professional groups with respect to the appropriate mechanisms for referring children to the project. A total of 23 children had been referred to Matrix. Seventeen of these cases had been closed and in six the work was ongoing. It was difficult to assess the overall level of demand for places at Matrix since the project was operating at full capacity and social workers tended not to refer to the project when they were aware that there were no places available. The children who were referred to Matrix varied in terms of their previous involvement in offending and anti-social behaviour. However, the children and their families tended to have multiple, long-standing problems and to show evidence of a range of risk factors for offending and anti-social behaviour.
iii
SERVICES PROVIDED BY MATRIX The range and complexity of the difficulties experienced by families was reflected in the breadth of the issues, goals and tasks identified in the initial family agreements. These set out the areas of difficulty that had been identified though discussion with the family and contact with other relevant agencies and the goals that would need to be achieved to enable the areas of difficulty to be addressed. The work subsequently undertaken by Matrix focused on school-related issues, offending (though the latter was usually not addressed directly), child-related issues and issues for parents. Matrix intervention took place in a range of contexts including individual and groupwork with children and their parents. Matrix workers employed a range of informal activities in their work with children, using these activities as a vehicle for children to have appropriate behaviour modelled to them and to have an opportunity to reflect upon the consequences of their behaviour. Project staff emphasised the holistic and systemic nature of the work they undertook and stressed the importance of working both with the child and with the family. Other professionals regarded this as a major strength of the Matrix approach, along with the ability of Matrix staff to engage effectively with families who were reluctant to respond to statutory intervention as a result of extensive prior involvement with social work services. Matrix staff, by virtue of their non-statutory role and their ability to work intensively with families, were able to gain parents’ trust and co-operation. Work with families often focused upon establishing routines, improving parenting skills and supervision and encouraging families to engaged in social activities together. Parents valued the support provided by the Parent’s Group. Inter-agency work was an important element of the Matrix approach. Generally, communication and exchange of information between Matrix and other agencies was good. The potential existed for overlap of effort and blurring of professional boundaries, though this was not generally viewed by Matrix staff or by other professionals as a problem. The work undertaken with children and their families was subject to a system of eight-weekly reviews. Reviews were chaired by the Project Leader and were normally attended by the project worker, child, one or both parents, the social worker and a teacher. Project staff regarded reviews as a useful mechanism for involving the family in decision-making and maintaining the focus of the work. Reviews were one mechanism through which Matrix workers could identify when it was appropriate to begin withdrawing their involvement from a family. The mean duration of Matrix intervention was just over 12 months. Social workers did not believe that the original intention that Matrix would work with families for between three and four months was realistic. Whilst there was a possibility that Matrix were keeping some cases open longer than was strictly necessary, there was little evidence that this had occurred on a systematic basis and project staff appeared alert to the consequence of so doing. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MATRIX The perceived benefits to families of attending Matrix included increased confidence on the part of children and their parents, improved behaviour by children and an
iv
increase in parenting skills. However fundamental changes in parental behaviour and attitude were more difficult to achieve. According to the assessments conducted by project staff, it appeared that there was less evidence of a range of risk factors and more evidence of some protective factors at the end of the families’ involvement with Matrix. It appeared that at least some of the children who attended Matrix stopped offending or began offending less while they attended the project. The ability of the project to help maintain children in mainstream education and prevent the need for children to be accommodated by the local authority was more difficult to determine. Overall, the Matrix workers were viewed as enthusiastic, committed and good at what they did. However some questioned whether the short-term benefits experienced by children and families who attended the project could be sustained without longer-term support. CONCLUSION Matrix provides intensive intervention and support to families with a range of often long-standing difficulties. The associated costs are not low, but they are in line with the costs of other projects that work intensively with young people in a preventative capacity. An initial costing suggests that the combined direct and indirect cost of providing services to an ‘average’ case was approximately £14,395. It is too early to tell how effective Matrix has been, though initial indications are encouraging. What is less certain is how well the benefits experienced by children and their families who attend Matrix will be sustained in the longer-term.
v
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION PREVENTING OFFENDING AND ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR 1.1 The research described in this report focuses upon an innovative project that was established in Scotland in 1999 with the aim of reducing the risk of offending and anti-social behaviour among children. In the UK and beyond, increasing attention is being directed towards the potential of various interventions to prevent or reduce the occurrence of social problems such as youth crime, school failure, drug misuse and inappropriate early sexual behaviour. In the UK, for instance, various reports exploring the phenomenon of youth crime (e.g. NACRO, 1995; Audit Commission, 1996; The Princes Trust, 1997) have advocated an increased emphasis upon preventive strategies. The importance of prevention has likewise been highlighted in Continental Europe where countries such as Sweden, Denmark, France and Belgium have established National Crime Prevention Councils (Ruxton, 1996) and in the USA by a Congressional mandate to evaluate crime prevention initiatives across a range of institutional contexts (Sherman et al., 1997). 1.2 The US Congress adopted a definition of prevention which focuses upon reducing the risk factors and increasing the factors which can offer individuals protection against involvement in delinquency and other behaviours (Sherman, 1997a). Risk and protective factors have been identified which relate to a variety of institutional contexts or domains, such as the family, school, community and peer group1 and preventive efforts have likewise been variously directed. As Gottfredson (1997) has argued, preventive strategies are based upon the assumption that interventions aimed directly at reducing risk and increasing protective factors will reduce the incidence of youth crime.
RISK AND PROTECTIVE FACTORS 1.3 There is broad agreement regarding the nature of the risk and protective factors for delinquency and other problem behaviours and agreement that the risk and protective factors for different types of behaviour overlap to a substantial degree. The risk factors that have been identified from longitudinal cohort studies as being associated with offending and anti-social behaviour include: · · · · · · · ·
previous offending or other anti-social behaviour; poor attachment to carers; attachment to delinquent peers; poor physical health; substance misuse; poor parental management of their children; harsh, inconsistent or neglectful parenting; poor parental supervision of children; offending by parents or siblings;
1
For example, Loeber and Dishion (1983); Hawkins et al. (1992); Utting et al. (1993); Coote (1994); Yoshikawa (1994); Howell et al. (1995); Gottfredson et al. (1996); and Farrington (1996).
1
· · · · · · · · · ·
parental substance misuse; separation from parents; low educational attainment; poor school attendance; anti-social behaviour in school; risk of or actual school exclusion; disadvantaged communities; community disorganisation and neglect; availability of drugs; and high neighbourhood turnover and lack of community attachment.
1.4 Factors which serve to protect young people from the adverse effects of risk factors (see for instance, Communities That Care, 1998) include: · · · · · · · · ·
a positive home environment; effective parenting skills; strong bonds in infancy; good physical health; the absence of prolonged early separation; an environment which responds positively to the child; strong networks of social support for the family and the child; good links between home and school; and the existence of positive, pro-social peer influences.
1.5 Although there is some consensus as to what constitute the risk and protective factors for delinquency (see also Jamieson et al., 1999 for a discussion of professional perspectives on risk and protective factors) the empirical evidence with respect to the effectiveness of social crime prevention initiatives is less clear cut, partly because initiatives of this kind have not tended to be subjected to rigorous evaluation. Recent reviews of the relevant literature, however, suggest that the most effective programmes of primary and secondary prevention which aim to strengthen protective factors tend to be school or family focused, some of which are universal and, therefore, regarded as less stigmatising (e.g. Farrington, 1996; Utting, 1996; Sherman et al., 1997; Asquith et al., 1998; Goldblatt and Lewis, 1998). These include early intervention programmes aimed at improving parenting skills and providing support for parents; pre-school education programmes, particularly those which encourage parental involvement in their children’s education; school-based anti-bullying strategies; and whole school initiatives aimed at modifying the school ethos, clarifying and communicating norms about behaviour and teaching and reinforcing social and cognitive skills. As Asquith et al. (1998, p.52) have argued, ‘crime prevention strategies should commence not as criminal justice reactions, but via a range of early-years health and education initiatives to counter the high-risk precursors of delinquent behaviour’.
THE MATRIX PROJECT 1.6
The Matrix Project is a prevention programme that has been established in
2
central Scotland with the aim of reducing the risk of offending and anti-social behaviour among vulnerable children. The project is led by Barnardo’s and funded by the Scottish Executive and provides a range of services to children between eight and 11 years of age who are at risk in the local authority areas of Clackmannanshire, Falkirk and Stirling. It builds upon well-established working relationships between Barnardo’s, the local authorities and other relevant agencies and provided an opportunity for Barnardo’s to adopt an evidence-based approach to intervention with younger children who are at risk2. The objective of the work undertaken by Matrix is to reduce the risk factors associated with offending and anti-social behaviour and promote those factors which provide children with resilience in the face of these risks. 1.7 Matrix provides services to the families of children who fall into three categories. The first category includes children who have a history of referrals to the reporter on care and protection grounds and two or more referrals on offence grounds (‘high level offending category’ or ‘Level Three’). The second category includes those with a history of care and protection referrals who are referred on offence grounds for the first time (‘early intervention category’ or ‘Level Two’). Children may also be referred to Matrix even through they have not been referred to the reporter on offence grounds if they have a cluster of risk factors in their lives which place them at risk of offending behaviour (‘Level One’). 1.8 Children may be referred to Matrix by a range of agencies who are in contact with young people but each referral must be accompanied by assessment provided by a social worker and by the child’s school. Referrals to Matrix are considered first by Local Referral Groups (LRGs) that have been established in each of the participating authorities. These groups assess referrals with respect to the existence of risk and protective factors in children’s lives. Those assessed as meeting the project criteria are offered a place at Matrix if one is available. 1.9 When a child is offered a place at Matrix the project will draw up a detailed action plan identifying the services and supports that are required to address existing risk factors and to promote the development of protective factors. An individual programme of work is developed for each child and this is regularly reviewed. Matrix provides a range of services through a combination of individual work and groupwork with children and with their parents. It also aims to work with existing agencies and social support networks for children and families or promote the development of relevant supports where these do not already exist. 1.10 The concept behind the project evolved through discussion between representatives of Barnardo’s, the Scottish Executive and the participating local authorities. A successful application was made for funding through the Treasury’s ‘Invest to Save’ Initiative and a project steering group was established in 1998. The steering group was comprised of representatives from Barnardo’s, the Scottish Executive, social work, education, health, the police and the Children’s Hearings
2
The Freagarrach Project, also run by Barnardo’s, provides intensive intervention for young people aged between 12 and 16 years of age who have had at least five episodes of offending in the last 12 months (see Lobley et al., 2001).
3
System3. Its purpose initially was to develop consistent criteria and procedures for the operation of the project across the three local authorities. 1.11 Following the appointment of a staff group the Matrix Project began receiving referrals in September 19994. The Scottish Executive commissioned an evaluation of the project that was intended both to describe the operation of the project and to assess its effectiveness in reducing offending and anti-social behaviour among children. However, the focus of this research has been shaped significantly by the low number of cases that the project has worked with to date and by the difficulty in identifying a comparison group of children who met the Matrix criteria but who received mainstream services. Instead, therefore, this report provides a largely descriptive account of the project’s work over a period of almost two years and although an attempt is made, where possible, to offer an assessment of its effectiveness, any conclusions is this respect are necessarily tentative.
ORGANISATION OF THE REPORT 1.12 The remainder of this report is organised into six chapters. Chapter Two describes the research methods that were adopted and offers comment on the limitations of the methodology. Chapter Three discusses the criteria for inclusion in the project and the process of referral to Matrix. The characteristics of a sample of children referred to Matrix are described and the process of developing the initial Family Agreement is discussed. Chapter Four focuses upon the approach adopted by Matrix and the nature of the intervention with children and their families, including work aimed at co-ordinating and supporting the activities of other agencies. This chapter also describes the processes by which cases are reviewed and decisions about case closure are made. Chapter Five discusses the effectiveness of Matrix in reducing risk and promoting protective factors, in reducing offending and anti-social behaviour and in maintaining children in their families and in mainstream schools. In Chapter Six the costs of Matrix services are discussed while Chapter Seven summarises the main findings of the study and discusses the implications for practice.
3
In Scotland the majority of offending by young people under 16 years of age is dealt with by the Children’s Hearings System. Initial referrals by the police are made to the Children’s Reporter who, if s/he considers that compulsory measures of supervision may be necessary, will refer the case to a Children’s Hearing. 4 The ‘core’ staff group consists of a Project Leader, three project workers and an administrator. Three sessional workers were also subsequently appointed.
4
CHAPTER TWO: METHODS INTRODUCTION 2.1 A range of research methods was employed in the evaluation of Matrix. To a large extent, the emphasis was upon qualitative methods (such as interviews and observation) in view of the small number of families who had been provided with services by Matrix by the end of the research fieldwork (see Chapter Three). Here we briefly describe the approach adopted to the evaluation and highlight limitations associated with the methodology employed.
COLLECTION OF INFORMATION FROM PROJECT RECORDS 2.2 An initial task for the researchers was to assist Matrix to develop a monitoring system that would both enable the project to monitor and generate reports about its work and provide data for the evaluation. It became apparent, however, that these two functions were not, in fact, easily reconciled. The amount of information that was required for the evaluation was far in excess of that which was required by the project to monitor its activities with the consequence that the monitoring system that was developed proved too time-consuming for completion by staff. For this reason, information about children and their families was, subject to the families’ consent, gathered directly from project files, although project staff provided anonymised information about three families whom they had not yet approached to elicit their consent5. File-based information was accessed in relation to 13 families whose cases had been closed6 and four families who were still receiving services from Matrix. 2.3 The data gathered in these 17 cases included demographic information about the child and family, details of involvement with social work and other agencies, history of referrals to the children’s reporter, risk and protective factors identified by social workers, by schools and by Matrix staff and details of the Family Agreements that were developed at the end of the project assessment period. In the case of families whose involvement with Matrix had ended (and in one ongoing case in which the family had agreed to access being granted to their project file) information about the work undertaken by Matrix (including the goals identified and tasks set, methods of intervention and number of location of contacts) was collected along with details of case reviews and the project’s assessment of the risk and protective factors at the end of the intervention7.
5
It had been hoped originally that families would be invited to provide consent early in their contact with Matrix. In practice, however, project staff preferred to wait until they had developed a working relationship with families because they believed that this was more likely to elicit a positive response. 6 Four other cases had been closed but the families withheld consent to information being accessed from their project files. 7 This latter information was only available in respect of 12 of the 13 closed cases.
5
IDENTIFYING A COMPARISON GROUP 2.4 The researchers had also intended to gather information about cases referred to Matrix but either not assessed as suitable or assessed as suitable but offered mainstream services because the project was full. However, the referral procedures that were adopted in the three authorities precluded this approach. In practice, Matrix was operating at full capacity throughout the fieldwork period and potential referrers rarely made referrals when they were aware that the project had no spaces available. Only four cases (each in Falkirk) were referred to Matrix during this period and placed on a waiting list and in only two of these cases did the local authority secure the families’ consent to the researchers having access to their social work files.8 2.5 The inability to identify cases that might provide a comparison group against which the outcomes for children and families referred to Matrix might be assessed clearly limits any conclusions that can be reached about the effectiveness of the project’s work. This is also hampered by the relatively small sample of completed cases. The original intention was that the project would work with approximately 30 families per year, with the duration of the project’s involvement lasting between three and four months. In reality, however, as Chapter Four demonstrates, the duration of project involvement with families has been considerably longer and this has had implications for the throughput of cases and, hence, for the research sample size. 2.6 To compensate for the absence of a comparison group, a prediction exercise is being undertaken in which professionals with knowledge of services for vulnerable children are being presented with vignettes based upon actual Matrix cases and asked to predict what would have happened to these cases if they had received mainstream services. The outcome of this exercise will be reported on in due course.
INTERVIEWS WITH PROJECT STAFF 2.7 Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the Project Leader and three project workers. The purpose of these interviews was to explore a range of issues, including: staff perspectives on the criteria for inclusion of children and their families in the project and on the efficiency and effectiveness of the referral process; the methods and modes of intervention adopted, their theoretical basis and their appropriateness to different problem behaviours and risks; staff perspectives on the duration, frequency and intensity of intervention required to achieve a range of outcomes and the criteria employed with respect to the closure of cases; staff views about the effectiveness of the work undertaken in reducing risk factors, enhancing protective factors and reducing the risk of subsequent offending and other problem behaviour; and staff views about the efficiency and effectiveness of inter-agency arrangements for referral to Matrix and the provision of services and support.
8
Information about two cases would have been of little value to the research and this information was therefore not subsequently collected.
6
INTERVIEWS WITH OTHER PROFESSIONALS 2.8 Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a range of other professionals who had contact with vulnerable children. Respondents were drawn from across the three geographical areas in which Matrix provides services and included seven social work respondents, six teachers or head teachers, two police officers, three respondents from the children’s reporters service and one health professional. The number of professional respondents who were interviewed was influenced by the relatively low number of cases with whom Matrix had worked, since individuals who had not had direct contact with the project usually did not feel able to offer an informed perspective on its work. 2.9 The topics explored in the interviews varied slightly according to the professional background of the respondents but generally included: the project selection criteria and referral process; the approach and methods adopted by Matrix and their relevance to the types of problems the project was attempting to address; the duration and intensity of intervention; the effectiveness of inter-agency communication and collaboration; and the effectiveness of the work. 2.10 The interviews were intended to elicit perspectives on Matrix at a general level. In practice, however, respondents’ knowledge of the project had usually been gained through contact with Matrix in relation to individual children who had attended the project and most respondents, therefore, based their responses upon their knowledge of one child or, at most, a handful of children.
INTERVIEWS WITH CHILDREN AND FAMILIES 2.11 Ten parents (from seven families) and seven children were interviewed about their experiences of Matrix. Although other families had agreed to be interviewed, some could not be located and some regularly failed to keep appointments with the researcher. The interviews were conducted in the family home and those involving the children were relatively brief because of the difficulty of sustaining the child’s attention. The interviews with children focused upon what they had liked and disliked about attending Matrix. Interviews with parents explored their views about the approach and methods adopted by Matrix, the relevance and duration of the intervention and the effects of the work undertaken on the family and on the child.
OBSERVATION OF LOCAL REFERRAL GROUP MEETINGS 2.12 One meeting of the Local Referral Group in each local authority was observed. The intention had been to use this method to assess the relative weight placed by these groups on different types of information when considering referrals to Matrix and the perspectives brought to bear by group members from different agencies. However, as has already been indicated, social workers and other potential referrers tended not to refer cases to Matrix when they were aware that the project was operating to capacity. The observation of the Local Referral Groups confirmed this to be the case. In Stirling and Clackmannanshire, Matrix cases were referred to a
7
broader multi-agency screening group that considered referrals to a range of services. No Matrix referrals were discussed at the meeting in Stirling and only two potential Matrix cases were discussed in Clackmannanshire, though in both cases there was insufficient information available at that stage for a decision to be made. Only in Falkirk was a Local Referral Group convened specifically to consider cases for Matrix and only in Falkirk were cases, if considered suitable for Matrix, placed on a waiting list until places became available. Despite attempts on the part of the Matrix Project Leader and the Project Steering Group to establish similar referral procedures across the three authorities, this appeared to be difficult to achieve where existing systems were already in place for the multi-agency assessment of children deemed to be in need of specialist services.
COSTING OF MATRIX SERVICES 2.13 Using financial information provided by the project, the costs of providing services to children and their families by Matrix were estimated. The low throughput of orders and the absence of a comparison group meant that the approach to costing that was originally envisaged had to be revised. Instead of producing an average cost per case and comparing this with the average cost of a similar case receiving ‘normal’ services, illustrative costings were estimated based on the average duration of Matrix involvement with a family and the throughput of cases in the project.
8
CHAPTER THREE: REFERRAL TO MATRIX INTRODUCTION 3.1 This chapter describes the objectives of Matrix, the criteria for suitability and the referral procedures. Drawing upon case data, observation and interviews with project staff and other professionals it examines the appropriateness and clarity of the referral criteria and the operation of the different procedures for referral to Matrix that evolved. The characteristics of the children referred to Matrix are described and some limited comparisons drawn between the characteristics of children referred from different authorities with respect to the risk factors identified at the referral stage. The chapter concludes by describing the process by which families are assessed by Matrix and a Family Agreement developed. PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND REFERRAL CRITERIA 3.2 The objectives of the Matrix Project are to reduce the risk of children aged between 8 and 11 years becoming persistent offenders by reducing risk factors and enhancing protective or resilience factors. Matrix works with children who are already involved in offending or anti-social behaviour or who are at risk of becoming so involved. The purpose of the project, as one project worker explained, was “to turn around young people who are offending or about to offend or get involved in antisocial behaviour.” Another worker emphasised the project’s role in providing support to children and families with a view to reducing their risk of further offending. The objectives of Matrix were, according to this worker: “To provide early special support to children and families with a view to reducing the risk factors that children are presenting and enhancing the protective factors…To reduce offending behaviour and to support family functioning …Supporting children’s positive development…Supporting them being able to participate within the family and within the community.” 3.3 Project staff were agreed on the criteria for suitability, which centred on the existence of factors that suggested that a child might be at risk of becoming a persistent offender. Evidence of offending or anti-social behaviour might also indicate a child’s suitability for Matrix though this was not considered essential since the project aimed to target three categories of children. Level One children were those identified as having risk factors but who had not yet come to the attention of the children’s hearings system. Level Two children were those who had offended for the first time, but who had a history of care and protection. Level Three children were those who were already know to the Children’s Hearings System as a result of their offending. Project staff emphasised that although the three categories appeared to be distinct, in practice it was less easy to differentiate between them. For example, children who had not yet come to the attention of the Children’s Hearings System or who had done so previously on care and protection grounds, were often found to have been involved in offending and anti-social behaviour.
9
3.4 The project staff believed that the age group of children they were targeting was appropriate, as evidenced by the steady flow of referrals of high risk children, though each stressed that the methods of intervention adopted needed to be carefully tailored to the maturity of the child. Whilst some older children were able to engage directly in discussion of their behaviour, this approach was not considered appropriate for the younger children and work with younger children was, as a consequence, activity based. Project workers observed that an advantage of working with children up to 11 years of age was they were only required to work with the primary school system. Project staff also pointed to the benefits of working with children at the lower and of the target age group since this offered an opportunity to intervene when children were beginning to exhibit difficulties in school or in the community. In some instances, however, even the younger children were said by project workers to have a long-standing history of family problems and to have been displaying problematic behaviour for several years, with one worker describing the behaviour of some eightyear-olds as already “entrenched”. Whilst this might suggest that the lower age limit should be extended downwards, one worker also cautioned against the risk of labelling children inappropriately at an early age. 3.5 Professionals who were interviewed were mostly aware of the target group of children for whom attendance at Matrix might be deemed appropriate. As one police officer explained: “The impression I got was that it was designed to identify at an early stage young people who could become very problematic in terms of offending later on in life, in their teenage years. This was an attempt not only to identify that but to address that at an early stage through intensive working with them and I thought that was a particularly good idea.” 3.6 Social workers, who had most knowledge of Matrix through their involvement with children and families who attended the project, were most conversant with the project’s objectives and criteria and believed that the latter were appropriate. Social workers and other professional respondents welcomed Matrix’s emphasis upon early intervention partly because there had previously been an absence of provision of this kind and partly because intervening at an earlier age made it more likely that behavioural problems could be addressed before a pattern of offending and anti-social behaviour had become firmly established. As one social worker commented: “I think they have got it right, pitched at the right level, because you are not asking kids to be into offending to be accepted, you are asking for kids that are displaying behaviour that might develop into offending behaviour”. Social workers believed that there was more opportunity to promote resilience among younger children, and that intervention was less likely to be effective with children who had already become heavily involved in offending. One social worker expressed concern that as the project became more established it might, because 3.7
10
places were limited, increasingly concentrate upon this latter category with the result that its preventative potential would be untapped. 3.8 Project staff were of the view that most problems were appropriate for Matrix to address, though they believed that they had been particularly effective in working with children’s behavioural problems and working closely with families and schools. Staff believed that they had been effective in engaging with families who had failed to engage with other services in the past. Each of the workers stressed the importance of working with the family as a unit, rather than focusing on the child in isolation. As one worker explained “you’ve got to be working with the family to do the work with the child”. 3.9 Matrix staff were reluctant to automatically exclude families with particular types of problem and expressed some concern that the referral group in Falkirk was unwilling to refer children with diagnosed psychiatric conditions to community-based services. Staff concern centred on whether medical intervention alone was likely to be effective with children who had a range of other problems.
THE REFERRAL PROCEDURE 3.10 When cases were being considered for possible referral to Matrix by a social worker or other professional, a formal referral would usually be preceded by a telephone discussion with a Matrix staff member to ensure that the criteria were met. A formal referral would then be made to a Local Referral Group (LRG), accompanied by assessment forms completed by a social worker and by the child’s school, identifying the risk and protective factors present. 3.11 One of the tasks of the Matrix Steering Group was to establish a procedure for referring cases to Matrix that could be instituted across the three local authorities that made use of the service. In practice, however, the process by which cases were referred to Matrix differed across the three local authorities making the referral procedure unduly complicated. Each of the authorities had a Local Referral Group at which referrals to Matrix would be considered. However, the composition and purpose of these groups was different in each authority. 3.12 In Falkirk a Local Referral Group, which met every three months, was established specifically to deal with referrals to Matrix. The group comprised representatives from social work and education. The Matrix Project Leader attended the group to advise on the availability of places and to update on the progress of children attending the project but was not involved in the decision-making process. At an LRG meeting that was observed by one of the researchers seven cases were discussed: four on a waiting list and three new referrals. Two of the new referrals were deemed to fit the criteria and placed on the waiting list and two cases already on the waiting list were kept on it. Updated information was deemed to be required in respect of two young people on the waiting list to determine whether they still met the Matrix criteria. Finally, no decision was reached in respect of one child, who had been referred by his school but who had no social work involvement. In this case further information was said to be required before a decision could be reached.
11
3.13 In Stirling Matrix referrals were considered alongside referrals of other children deemed to be in need of specialist resources (including disabled children and children who needed to be accommodated by the local authority). This Multi Agency Resource Group (MARG), which met fortnightly, was attended by representatives from education, social work and psychological services. The Matrix Project Leader did not attend the meetings but liaised with a group member to provide updates on children attending Matrix and to advise on the availability of places. At the MARG meeting that was observed, no discussion of Matrix referrals took place. Scrutiny of minutes of a previous MARG meeting also indicated that there had been no discussion of possible referrals to Matrix though some discussion had taken place as to whether or not a separate group should be set up to deal specifically with potential Matrix cases. 3.14 In Clackmannanshire, as in Stirling, Matrix referrals were considered at a meeting convened to discuss referrals to a broader range of resources for children. The meetings were attended by representatives from social work, education, social inclusion and psychological services. The Matrix Project Leader did not regularly attend the meeting but was invited to attend on an occasional basis. At a meeting of the group that was observed, two potential Matrix cases were discussed. Both appeared to meet the Matrix criteria but in both cases further information was deemed necessary before a formal referral to Matrix could be considered. 3.15 Project staff indicated that the majority of referrals to Matrix had been initiated by social workers, with a few referrals emanating from schools and from the reporter. School-initiated referrals were usually channelled through the social work department, though in Falkirk some had gone directly to the LRG and had no social work involvement. Where this had happened, a decision had been deferred until the head teacher on the group had an opportunity to discuss the case with the social work department. 3.16 Matrix staff were of the view that those who were referring to the project were, on the whole, conversant with the project’s referral criteria. Matrix workers had visited social work teams in Stirling and Falkirk to provide information about the types of children for whom Matrix was appropriate and the methods of work adopted by the Project and had made a similar presentation to panel members in Stirling. Teachers had tended to become aware of the project primarily through their involvement with children who attended Matrix. Project staff believed that knowledge about the project had improved over time, though they were also aware that new members of staff in the three local authorities may have been less well informed about Matrix. 3.17 Social workers confirmed that they had received information about Matrix through visits by project staff to area teams, through leaflets and through visits to the project. They were satisfied with the information they had received and commented that it gave a clear insight into the approach taken by Matrix, the referral criteria and the referral procedure. Social workers suggested that the referral criteria made it relatively easy to identify children who might benefit from Matrix input and that staff could be easily contacted by telephone to discuss potential referrals where necessary.
12
Social workers described the referral procedure as straightforward and the referral form itself as brief and easy to complete, while providing the appropriate information upon which decisions could be based. As one social worker explained, the referral form: “…gives us an opportunity to provide a potted history of the client with specific areas of concern, the areas we would hope to focus on and hopefully effect some change.” 3.18 Other professional respondents tended to be less conversant with the referral procedures, expressing some confusion as to whether they could refer cases to Matrix or whether referrals would need to be channelled through other routes. As one teacher explained, “I didn’t think we could. I always thought it had to be through other agencies”. Another professional respondent had been deterred from initiating referrals to Matrix because of the perceived complexity of the referral process and a lack of clarity as to through whom referrals should be channelled. This was said to have been exacerbated by frequent changes in local authority personnel as a result of staff turnover and organisational restructuring. 3.19 Each of the three local authorities had been allocated a quota of places at Matrix based upon their respective populations. To date the project has been operating to full capacity and these quotas have been filled. It is difficult to assess the overall level of demand for Matrix since potential referrers tended not to make referrals when they were aware that there were no spaces available. Reporters indicated that a referral to Matrix would be most likely to be considered if current measures of supervision were not having a positive effect. However, one reporter had been discouraged from making referrals because all of the spaces had been taken up and suggested that Matrix was, perhaps, perceived as having been ‘commandeered’ as a social work resource. Reporters also suggested that the volume of work in one area had resulted in the involvement of reporters from other areas on a temporary basis and this might have meant that potential Matrix cases were not always being ‘flagged up’. 3.20 One reporter also expressed some disquiet about referrals being made by social workers on the basis of police reports of offending, without the child first having been referred to a children’s hearing. The concern centred on the family not having an opportunity to dispute the allegation at a hearing: “The family is never going to have a chance to say ‘wait a minute, that’s not how it happened’. There might be kids going in who maybe didn’t offend. They might be on the fringes of that kind of behaviour but might not actually have offended.” 3.21 Although reporters tended not to be taking an active role in referring children to Matrix, they perceived themselves as benefiting from the fact that children were referred to the project by other agencies. This was because Matrix staff were then able to furnish reporters with additional information on which to make decisions about children who were referred to them or already known to them and subject to social work supervision.
13
3.22 Despite having no involvement in decision-making at the referral stage, project staff were content that they were receiving a sufficient number of appropriate referrals from the three local authority areas and attributed this at least in part to the fact that they gave clear information about the criteria to those considering making a referral. However, they also observed that the types of children referred tended to differ from area to area, reflecting each area’s perceptions of the type of service they wished Matrix to provide. More specifically, children referred from Falkirk were more likely to be ‘early intervention’ cases while those referred from Stirling usually had a lengthy prior involvement in offending and anti-social behaviour.
CHILDREN REFERRED TO MATRIX 3.23 By September 2001, a total of 23 children from 19 families had attended Matrix. In six of these cases work was ongoing and in 17 others the case had been closed. Information was available from case files in respect of 17 children who had been referred to Matrix. Thirteen of these cases were closed and in four others involvement with Matrix was ongoing. In three of the latter cases, project staff had not had an opportunity to seek the consent of the family for the researcher to have access to their Matrix file. Where consent had been given, the researchers collected information directly from the project file. In the remaining three cases project staff provided anonymised information about the characteristics of the children who had been referred. 3.24 Eight of the children were from Stirling, seven from Falkirk and two from Clackmannanshire. The original source of referral could not always be identified from the case file, since referrals were made from the Local Referral Groups rather than directly to Matrix. It appeared, however, that three children had been referred by a reporter, three by a social worker, two by a school and one by an educational psychologist. One child was seven years of age when referred, two were eight years of age, four were nine, seven were ten and three were eleven. Sixteen of the young people were boys and one was a girl. Living arrangements 3.25 Information about who the child was living with at the point of referral was available in fifteen cases. Six children were living with their mother and father, six with their mother alone and three with their mother and her partner. Most of the children (nine) had two siblings under 18 years of age living at home. One had one sibling, three had three siblings and two had six siblings. History of referral to the reporter 3.26 All but one of the children had been previously referred to the children’s reporter. The number of previous referrals and the grounds for referral were not always available, but four children were known to have had two previous referrals and two children had had four. Six children were known to have had at least one referral on offence grounds, six were known to have been referred on at least one
14
occasion on care and protection grounds and one had been referred as a result of truancy. Four children were known to have been between five and seven years of age when first referred and six were between eight and ten years old at the point of their first referral. One child was known to have been seven years of age when first referred on offence grounds, two were known to have been nine years old and one was ten. Social work involvement 3.27 Nine children were not subject to supervisory orders when referred to Matrix, though social workers were involved with each of the families referred. Six children were subject to home supervision and two were being supervised on a voluntary basis. Other agencies that were known to be involved with the children included educational psychologists (eight children), psychiatrists (three children) and the police (seven children). A range of other agencies was involved with individual children. These included a befriender, a family centre, a youth strategy worker, a behavioural support unit and a community project run by another voluntary organisation. Education 3.28 One child was attending a primary school support unit when referred to Matrix and the others were in mainstream primary schools. Four children were known to have been excluded from school on at least one occasion (though this information was available only in respect of nine children). One child was identified by his school as having a record of needs, ten were identified as requiring support for learning and nine were identified as requiring support for their behaviour. 3.29 Four children were identified by the school as having had six or fewer days absence from school in the previous 12 months. On average, the ten children for whom this information was available had had 19 days absence from school in the previous 12 months, with two children having 47 days and 55 days absence respectively. In one case (involving three absences) all of the absences had been explained, in five cases (including the two children with the highest number of absences) absences had been mostly explained and in two cases absences were mainly unexplained.
RISK AND RESILIENCE AMONG CHILDREN REFERRED TO MATRIX 3.30 In addition to providing information about absences, support needs and exclusions, schools were asked to provide, for children referred to Matrix, their assessment of a range of educational risk factors. This information was available in respect of 15 children, though it was not complete in all cases. The relevant data are summarised in Table 3.1.
15
Table 3.1: Educational risk factors
School-based Level of school performance Social skills Organisational skills Coping skills Relationship with peers Relationship with adults Response to routine controls Response to supports Self-esteem School-home links Home-based Home-school links Parental attitude to education Parental supervision/management Parental response to school controls Family coping strategies Relationships within family
Significant difficulty
Some Difficulty
Satisfactory
Very good
9 10 8 11 10 6 9 6 8 2
6 5 7 4 5 7 4 6 5 7
2 1 2 3
2
2 6 9 2 7 7
7 2 4 4 6 5
4 5 6 2
2 2 2 -
3.31 These data suggest that the children referred to Matrix had a range of schoolrelated difficulties including poor attainment, poor social, organisational and coping skills, poor relationships with peers, low self-esteem and a poor response to routine controls within the school. Although home-school links, parental responses to school controls and parental attitudes to education were less often identified as problematic, in most cases parental management and supervision of their children, family coping strategies and relationships within the family were believed to represent an area of difficulty. 3.32 At the referral stage social workers were also required to provide an assessment of risk factors related to the individual child, the family and the community. These are summarised in Table 3.2. Again, the relevant information was missing in some cases, which explains why the figures in each row do not always total 17. 3.33 Individual risk factors that featured commonly included anti-social behaviour, offending behaviour and poor attachment to carers. In four cases there was evidence of alcohol use by the child while drug use and the use of other substances were each identified once. 3.34 The most common family risk factors included poor child management and supervision. Although parental drug use was identified in only one case, eight children lived in families where there was evidence of offending by parents or siblings and eight lived in families where alcohol misuse was an issue. The social workers’ assessments also indicated that the majority of families lived in disadvantaged neighbourhoods characterised by community neglect, high turnover, a
16
lack of community attachment and the availability of drugs9. Reference was also made in the social work assessment to one child experiencing mental health problems. Parental mental health problems were also referred to in one case while domestic violence featured in eight cases, in four of which it was identified as an ongoing problem. Table 3.2: Risk factors identified by social workers
Individual Offending behaviour Anti-social behaviour Poor attachment to carers Poor physical health Drug use Alcohol use Other substance use Family Poor child management techniques Harsh/neglectful parenting Poor supervision of children Offending by parents/siblings Separation from parents Parental drug use Parental alcohol abuse Parental use of other substances Community Disadvantaged neighbourhood Community disorganisation and neglect Availability of drugs High housing turnover and lack of community attachment
Significant evidence
Some evidence
No evidence
Previous evidence
8 11 2 1 2 -
7 5 9 3 1 2 1
2 1 6 13 16 13 16
-
9 4 8 5 5 4 -
8 6 4 3 4 1 4 -
6 4 9 7 16 9 17
1 1 -
6 -
8 9
1 4
1 1
4 4
7 8
3
1 -
Social workers also were required to provide an assessment of the extent to which there was evidence of protective factors that might promote resilience in the face of the risk factors to which the child was exposed. As Table 3.3 shows, there was some evidence of a range of protective factors, though there was significant evidence in a relatively high proportion of cases for two protective factors: ‘good physical health’ and ‘strong bonds in infancy’. The majority of children had experienced separation from one or both parents and most children gained no protection from the positive influence of peers. 3.35
9
It is, therefore, perhaps surprising that in only one family did parental drug use appear to be an issue. It is possible that drug use was more prevalent but was hidden by the families out of a concern that, if detected, it might result in the removal of children from the home.
17
Table 3.3: Protective factors identified by social workers
Good home environment Good parenting skills Strong bonds in infancy Good physical health No prolonged separations Environment which responds positively to child Strong social support network for child and family Good links between home and school Positive peer influence
Significant evidence 4 5 7 3 1 1
Some evidence
No evidence
8 15 3 9 4 8 10
5 1 2 9 5 5
2 -
9 3
5 14
3.36 Following referral of a child, Matrix project workers undertook their own assessment of risk factors, based upon the information provided by the social worker and the school, further contact with these and other agencies and contact with the child and family. This enabled a more rounded and comprehensive analysis of risks. of Table 3.4 summarises the risk factors as assessed by Matrix, while Table 3.5 summarises the protective factors. In addition to the information contained in these tables, one child was identified by Matrix as having a mental health problem and parental mental health was identified as an issue in three cases. In four cases Matrix workers identified domestic violence as a current issue. 3.37 The Matrix assessments corresponded, in the main, to the assessments initially undertaken by social workers and by schools. Offending and anti-social behaviour, parental management and supervision, school attainment, school behaviour and risk of school exclusion most often featured as risk factors for the children referred to the project. The absence of prolonged separations, good health and strong bonds in infancy were the only protective factors regularly identified as providing children with protection or resilience in the face of these risks.
18
Table 3.4: Risk factors assessed by Matrix
Individual Offending behaviour Anti-social behaviour Poor attachment to carers Poor physical health Drug use Alcohol use Other substance use Family Poor child management techniques Harsh/neglectful parenting Poor supervision of children Offending by parents/siblings Separation from parents Parental drug use Parental alcohol abuse Parental use of other substances School Low educational attainment Poor school attendance Antisocial behaviour at school Risk of exclusion Community Disadvantaged neighbourhood Community disorganisation and neglect Availability of drugs High housing turnover and lack of community attachment
High
Medium
Low
7 9 1 1 1 -
6 7 11 6 2 2 2
4 1 5 10 14 13 14
11 5 8 1 3 1 3 1
6 2 7 4 2 1 4 1
10 2 11 11 14 9 14
9 2 11 10
5 1 6 1
3 13 6
7 5 6 4
8 6 7 10
2 6 4 3
No
3 7 10 7 1
Partly true/ sometimes 9 13 5 4 1 12 8
3 -
8 4
4 11
Table 3.5: Protective factors assessed by Matrix Yes Good home environment Good parenting skills Strong bonds in infancy Good physical health No prolonged separations Environment which responds positively to child Strong social support network for child and family Good links between home and school Positive peer influence
3 2 1 1 7 3 6
3.38 The observation by Matrix staff that different types of children were being referred from Stirling and Falkirk10 is supported by a comparison of the risk factors
10
We have not included children from Clackmannanshire in this comparison since only two had been referred to Matrix during the relevant period.
19
identified by Matrix for the two groups of children11. As table 3.6 shows, children from Stirling were more often assessed as being high risk in relation to offending, anti-social behaviour in the community and anti-social behaviour at school. These data therefore support the project’s view that Stirling children were more often already involved in offending, while Falkirk children were more often referred as a form of early intervention.12 Table 3.6: Differences in risk factors between children referred from Falkirk and Stirling Risk factor Offending behaviour Falkirk Stirling Anti-social behaviour Falkirk Stirling Anti-social behaviour in school Falkirk Stirling
High
Medium
Low
1 5
4 2
2 1
2 6
4 2
1 -
2 7
5 1
-
MATRIX ASSESSMENT 3.39 Once a child had been referred to Matrix by one of the Local Referral Groups the case was allocated to a project worker and assessment of the child and the family undertaken. The purpose of the assessment was not to decide whether or not to offer a service, but to the get to know the child and family and to identify potential areas of work. 3.40 None of the cases referred to Matrix were considered by staff to have been inappropriate, though one boy had refused to engage with the project and when he subsequently was accommodated by the local authority, Matrix decided to cease being involved. None of the families who were referred had refused to become involved with Matrix though one family was said by project staff to have been initially reluctant to do so. Most of the parents who were interviewed, however, alluded to feeling powerless to control their child’s behaviour and relieved to have the offer of intervention from Matrix. As one mother explained: “I had no control over [the child] at all. I was at the stage where I was saying ‘just take him away, forget about it’ and that’s a horrible thing to say about a kid.” 3.41 The culmination of the assessment period was the development of a care plan to inform subsequent intervention based upon a Family Agreement. The Family Agreement set out the areas of difficulty that had been identified through discussion 11
Though the number of cases is low and no inference is being made about the statistical significance of any differences. 12 Children from Stirling were also more likely than those from Falkirk to have been assessed as living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods characterised by community neglect, high housing turnover and the availability of drugs.
20
with the family and contact with other relevant agencies (such as social workers and schools) and the goals that would need to be achieved to enable the areas of difficulty to be addressed.
FAMILY AGREEMENTS Drawing up the family agreement 3.42 · · · ·
The process of drawing up the family agreement involved the following steps:
identifying the areas of difficulty identifying the goals to be achieved to enable areas of difficulty to be addressed; identifying the tasks that would need to be undertaken to achieve the goals and who is responsible for carrying out the tasks; and regular review of the areas of difficulty, goals and tasks (see Chapter Four).
3.43 The Family Agreement meeting would normally be attended by the social worker, the child’s teacher and other significant individuals. The Family Agreement would be agreed and signed by all present, with a copy given to the family and the child. Project staff noted that the aim was to keep the Family Agreement as concise as possible and to include within it achievable goals since this was consistent with the task-centred approach adopted by the project. As one project worker commented, “it’s not about setting things up that are totally unachievable”. 3.44 Analysis of data from individual project files indicated that the first contact between Matrix and a family took place, on average, 15 days after the case had been accepted by Matrix. In every case but one (where the child was first seen six days after the first contact with the parents) the first meeting was with both the family and the child. The initial Family Agreement was drawn up, on average, 14 weeks after Matrix accepted the case, representing an average assessment period of just over three months. 3.45 The initial family agreement was known to have been drawn up at the project premises in six cases, at the child’s school in six cases and in the family home in one case. In four cases both the mother and father were present when the initial Family Agreement was drawn up, in one case the mother and her partner were present, in nine cases only the mother was present and in one case the father attended alone13. Siblings were known to have been present when two initial agreements were drawn up. Social workers were present at the drawing up of two-thirds of initial family agreements (10/15) and teachers were present at a similar proportion (9/14). The Matrix Project Leader also attended the majority of initial Family Agreement meetings (11 of the 15 for which the relevant information was available). Areas of difficulty identified 3.46 At the drawing up of the initial family agreement, an average of just over four areas of difficulty was identified per family. The areas most often identified are 13
Information about who attended was not available in two cases.
21
summarised in Table 3.7. In addition, the following issues were each identified in a single case14: · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
not reaching school potential; failing to return from school; child unhappy; at risk of losing place in mainstream school; distracting others in class; not coming in on time; fighting with sibling; being stubborn; not considering others’ feelings; high level of offending; unable to deal with difficulties; not going to bed on time; change and uncertainty in family circumstances; anti-social behaviour during break times; child low or depressed; mother having problems parenting; child stealing from home; fragile relationship with father; parents feeling out of control; and child running away from home.
This illustrates the wide range of problems experienced by the children and families referred to Matrix and the wide range of issues with which the project attempted to engage. Table 3.7: Areas of difficulty identified in first Family Agreement Number of cases (n=15)15 7 5 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Area of difficulty identified Anti-social behaviour in school and community Bad behaviour at home Anti-social behaviour in the community Dangerous/disruptive/aggressive behaviour Bad behaviour at school Child’s low self esteem Difficulty in relationships with peers Outwith parental control Parents do not provide boundaries No positive home environment Difficult to keep within boundaries Threat of eviction due to bad behaviour Not attending school Mum struggles with children’s’ behaviour Has difficulty sustaining friendships
14 15
These difficulties relate to the child unless otherwise stated. This information was not available in two cases.
22
Goals identified 3.47 The outcome of the initial Family Agreement was the identification of goals related to offending, education and the community and goals for the parents and for the child. Goals aimed directly at offending (to reduce anti-social, dangerous or offending behaviour) were set in only four cases. By contrast, goals related to education or to the community were identified in each of the 15 cases for which the relevant information was available. The most common educational goals are summarised in Table 3.8. Other goals (each of which was identified in only one case) included: · · · · · · · · · · ·
setting up school targets and rewarding achievements; looking at the school’s expectations; stopping distracting others; remaining in the primary support unit; moving towards mainstream education; attending school every day; being allowed out at lunchtimes; reducing antisocial behaviour and comments; maintaining behaviour in school; using school supports; and not swearing at the teacher.
Table 3.8: Educational goals identified at the initial Family Agreement. Number of cases (n=15)16 9 5 5 4 3 2 2 2
Goal Consider other’s feelings Open up school-home links Improve education Get on better with people Stay in mainstream education Develop positive peer relationships Complete work on time Reduce violent behaviour.
3.48 The main community-related goals are summarised in Table 3.9. Other community goals (each identified in one case only) included: · · · · · · ·
16
family to tackle community issues; develop links with community police; develop links with housing; ‘stranger danger’; ensure that adults are aware where child is; treating mother with more respect; and developing ‘getting on with others’ skills.
This information was not available in two cases.
23
Table 3.9: Community goals identified at the initial Family Agreement. Number of cases (n=15)17 6 5 4 2 2 2
Goal Find positive interests for child and parents Reduce anti-social behaviour Reduce failure to come home Develop positive relationship with peers Develop awareness of danger Develop positive friendships
3.49 Child-related goals were identified in twelve cases and are shown in Table 3.10. Further child-related goals included: · · · · · · · · ·
develop a positive sense of identity; build relationships and trust; come in on time; get to bed and get up on time; improve relationship with siblings; do as told; respect others; develop relationship with extended family; and increase awareness of personal safety.
Table 3.10: Child-related goals identified at the initial Family Agreement. Goal Explore feelings Develop inner controls to manage behaviour Raise confidence/self-esteem Inform parents of whereabouts
Number of cases (n=12) 6 5 3 2
3.50 Finally, parent-related goals were set in 12 cases, with the most common shown in Table 3.11. Other parent goals included: · · · · · · ·
17
working with agencies; improving communication with children; knowing where their child is; maintaining ‘bedtimes’; attending literacy classes; being a good role model; and reducing swearing.
This information was not available in two cases.
24
Table 3.11: Parental goals identified at the initial Family Agreement. Number of cases (n=12)18 6 6 4 3 2 2 2 2
Goal Develop family bonds Develop confident parenting Develop boundaries Achieve settled home environment Develop community support networks Explore family issues Create a division of labour Give the child a consistent, clear response
Tasks identified 3.51 Up to ten tasks per family were identified at the initial Family Agreement meeting to pursue these goals. Six families had between three and five tasks set, five had between six and eight tasks set, three had nine tasks set and one family had ten. The most common tasks identified at this stage of involvement with Matrix are illustrative of the range of work engaged in by the project and are summarised in Table 3.12. A full list of tasks identified at the initial Family Agreement meetings, each of which was identified only once, are summarised in the Annex to this report. Table 3.12: Tasks set at initial Family Agreement meeting Task Weekly contact with parents Weekly contact with child Sharing of information Child to inform parents where s/he is Twice weekly contact with child Attend Matrix group Improve school-home links Attend Matrix Parents’ Group Use support strategies in school Attend after school activities Praise positive behaviour Parents to monitor, encourage and reward behaviour Stay in class and complete work Ensure child is supervised by an adult when parent is at work Take child to school Keep room tidy
Number of cases (n=15)19 11 8 8 6 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2
3.52 The initial Family Agreement also identified who was responsible for carrying out these tasks. This was most often the project worker and child (20 tasks), the project worker and parent (18 tasks), all of those concerned (13 tasks), the parent (11 tasks), the child (10 tasks) and the parent and child (six tasks). Others who were given responsibility for tasks, either alone or in combination with others, included the
18 19
This information was not available in two cases and not applicable in three. This information was not available in two cases.
25
school, the family GP, the social worker, a psychologist, an educational support worker, a sibling and a grandmother. 3.53 Parents who were interviewed appeared comfortable with the use of goals and tasks as the vehicle for intervention and most thought that what they were asked to do was generally achievable. However some parents indicated that it could be difficult to encourage their children to complete their tasks. As one parent explained: “He had a star chart and he just totally refused to do it. If he went to school he would get a reward. Some weeks he would do it and some weeks he wouldn’t. Sometimes he worked on it and sometimes he didn’t. It depended what mood [the child] was in.” 3.54 The initial Family Agreement was not, however, immutable and could be amended at or between reviews. Six families had either two or three Family Agreements during their involvement with Matrix, seven had between five and seven and one family had eight. The nature of the Family Agreement was changed as tasks were completed and goals achieved and as new circumstances or difficulties emerged.
SUMMARY 3.55 Matrix was regarded as a valued resource by social workers, teachers and other agencies in contact with vulnerable children. The emphasis upon early intervention was regarded as particularly appropriate for helping to prevent anti-social behaviour and offending by children who were at risk. Matrix’s attention to risk and protective factors was regarded by project staff as a useful mechanism for keeping work focused and was viewed by other professionals as being in tune with other developments in the child protection field. 3.56 The procedure for referring cases to Matrix varied across the three local authorities that made use of the project and the types of children referred similarly varied from one area to another. Social workers believed that the referral process was relatively straightforward but some confusion existed among other professional groups with respect to the appropriate mechanisms for referring children to the project. 3.57 It was difficult to assess the overall level of demand for places at Matrix since the project was operating at full capacity and social workers tended not to refer to the project when they were aware that there were no places available. The children who were referred to Matrix varied in terms of their previous involvement in offending and anti-social behaviour. However, the children and their families tended to have multiple, long-standing problems and to show evidence of a range of risk factors for offending and anti-social behaviour.
26
CHAPTER FOUR: SERVICES PROVIDED BY MATRIX INTRODUCTION 4.1 This chapter focuses upon the range of services provided by Matrix, drawing upon interviews with professionals, project staff, parents and children. It begins by describing the overall Matrix approach then considers each of the various ‘elements’ of the work: individual work with children; family work; group work with children; and the Parents’ Group. The chapter discusses the importance of both ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ activities and the nature and effectiveness of inter-agency work. It also examines the methods of work adopted by Matrix staff and the process of case review and concludes with a discussion of the processes by which decisions about the closure of cases were made.
THE MATRIX APPROACH 4.2 The approach adopted by Matrix was said by project staff to have been informed by research that had identified those individual, family, school and community factors that were associated with persistent offending among young people and, equally, those factors which appeared to protect young people by providing them with resilience in the face of adverse life circumstances. Research by Farrington and Asquith was cited as having informed the project’s approach. It also drew upon the Barnardo’s ‘What Works’ series of publications. However, most of the existing material that was available for working with children and their families had been developed for an older age group and had to be adapted to ensure that it was appropriate for the children who were provided services by Matrix. 4.3 The approach adopted by the project to reduce risk factors and enhance protective factors was variously described by staff as ‘family friendly’, ‘holistic’, ‘systemic’ and ‘solution focused’. Staff emphasised the importance of building up a rapport with the family and ensuring the involvement of the whole family in the work being undertaken. As one project worker explained, work with parents as well as children was crucial because “the parents have the potential to impact on all the risk factors”. 4.4 The project aimed to support families in seeking solutions to their own difficulties, building upon previous experiences of coping well with problems that had arisen “rather than just get locked into a cycle of hopelessness which many families are already in” (Project Worker)20. The project also claimed to adopt an ecological approach, by working with children in the context of their families, schools and any other relevant networks or systems that impacted upon them. To this end a range of methods and approaches were employed in the work undertaken with children and families.
20
One mother described the approach of the project worker as being “someone who wasn’t there to criticise you about what you were doing, but say you could have done that a better way and make you stop and think”.
27
4.5 Initially project workers would spend time working individually with the young person and getting to know them. The focus of this early work would also be on building up relationships with families who may have had considerable prior experience of intervention by a range of agencies and be distrustful of projects like Matrix as a consequence. 4.6 Most of the professionals who were interviewed identified a key strength of the Matrix approach as being its emphasis upon early intervention. Social workers, who had more first-hand knowledge of the project’s work through having supervised children who had attended Matrix, were also able to identify particular features of their method of working that they considered to represent particular strengths of their approach. 4.7 Social workers commended the way in which Matrix worked with families in a very ‘child-centred’ way and provided children with an opportunity to express their viewpoints and feelings. They also referred to the project’s ability to engage with families who, as one social worker described it, had been “social worked to death”. However, the main strength of the Matrix approach was perceived by social workers to be its emphasis upon working with the family as a whole and involving the other agencies who were providing services or support to the family: “bringing all the aspects of the child’s life together …and working with the other agencies in supporting the child and the family” (social worker). 4.8 Some of the families acknowledged that they were initially reluctant to become involved with Matrix but had been ‘won over’ by the staff. Parents particularly appreciated having been actively involved in decision–making by Matrix. For example, one mother explained that “they always actually put me first” while another observed that “they spoke to you and never did anything without your consent”. Several families also referred to the benefits of having one Matrix worker rather than a range of different agencies involved with the family.
THE NATURE OF WORK CARRIED OUT 4.9 Information about the type of intervention provided by Matrix was collected from project files in 14 cases, 13 of which had been closed. The work undertaken could be broadly classified as falling into four categories: work on offending behaviour; work on school-related issues; work on family issues; and work on individual issues. Each type is discussed in turn. Work on offending 4.10 Work on offending issues was undertaken with eight children, two of whom participated in groupwork focused on the development of social skills. Offending was addressed individually with seven children and offending-related work was undertaken with the family of one child. The methods of intervention included counselling (two cases), the use of rewards (one case), behavioural methods (two cases), cognitive behavioural methods (two cases), task centred work, (five cases)
28
systemic methods (four cases) 21, solution focused work (one case), problem solving (two cases) and the use of individualised learning packs (three cases). Intervention was usually undertaken by project workers. Other agencies who undertook work related to offending included social workers (two cases), a psychiatrist (one case) and a teacher (one case). The specific approaches used in relation to offending are summarised in Table 4.1. Table 4.1: Approaches used in relation to offending Method/approach Discussing anti-social behaviour in the community Following rules (coming in on time) Addressing dangerous/aggressive behaviour Discussing communication and safety Reflecting on behaviour Community behaviour (activities and games) Work on consequences of actions Informing parents of whereabouts Staying away from bad area/bad influences Behaviour charts Work on getting on with others
Number of children (n=8)22 5 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
School issues 4.11 In each of the 14 cases for which information was available there was some emphasis upon school-related issues. Individual work was undertaken with each of the children and seven children attended groupwork programmes focused upon reading and writing and social skills. Individual work was also undertaken with the families of seven children and family work was undertaken in four cases. The methods employed by project staff included counselling (seven cases), advocacy (five cases), behavioural methods (two cases), task centred work (six cases), family therapy (three cases), systemic methods (nine cases), solution focused work (seven cases), problem solving (five cases) and the use of individualised learning packs (one case). Work in relation to school issues was also undertaken by social workers (three cases, in two of which the work was supported by Matrix) and by teachers (eight cases). In one of these latter cases the Matrix worker and teacher undertook joint work and in five other cases Matrix supported the work being undertaken by the school. The approaches used to address school-related issues are summarised in Table 4.2.
21
This refers to work aimed at supporting the work undertaken by other agencies or individuals or involving others in supporting the work carried out by the project. 22 Work on offending and offending-related issues was undertaken in eight cases.
29
Table 4.2: Approaches used in relation to school issues Method/approach Given support in school at lunchtime etc. Behaviour book/chart Work with school support services Work on increasing school attendance Changing the consequences of actions to have an effect on behaviour Developing home-school links Groupwork (reading group) Work aimed at keeping child in mainstream education Work on bad behaviour in school Work aimed at increasing parents’ responsibility (providing child with lunch, PE kit etc)
Number of children (n=14)23 5 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1
Family issues 4.12 Family issues were addressed in 13 cases through a mixture of groupwork with parents24 (seven cases), groupwork with the child (one case), individual work with the child (11 cases), individual work with the parents (12 cases) and joint work with the child and the family (five cases). The methods used included role play (one case), group discussion (seven cases), counselling (11 cases), advocacy (eight cases), behavioural methods (four cases), task centred work (seven cases), systemic methods (11 cases), solution focused work (three cases), problem solving (one case) and the use of individualised learning packs (one case). Social workers were also involved directly in addressing family issues in three cases, with the work in one case being supported by Matrix. The approaches used to address family issues are summarised in Table 4.3. Table 4.3: Approaches used in relation to family issues Method/approach Parenting skills Help with housing problems and benefits Helping parents to set boundaries Organising routines Developing home-school links Encouraging child to inform parents of whereabouts Encouraging to attend adult literacy classes Discussion of alcohol use Helping to create family bonds Behaviour charts Exploring issues relating to absent parent Examining abusive language Promoting links to police, social services etc.
23
Number of children (n=13)25 8 7 5 5 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
Work on school-related issues was undertaken in 14 cases. This focused upon parenting, bonds with children and the setting of boundaries. 25 Work on family issues was undertaken in 13 cases. 24
30
Individual issues 4.13 In all 14 cases Matrix engaged in intervention aimed at addressing individual issues relating to the child. Eleven children participated in groupwork (focused on social skills and reading and writing) and one child received joint intervention with another boy with similar problems who did not attend Matrix. Work was undertaken individually with 13 children and separate work was undertaken with parents in ten cases. Joint work with the child and the family occurred in four families. The methods employed by Matrix staff included rewards (one case), counselling (seven cases), advocacy (two cases), cognitive behavioural methods (five cases), behavioural methods (six cases), task centred work (nine cases), family therapy (three cases), systemic methods (ten cases), solution focused work (five cases), problem solving (one case), the use of individualised learning packs (four cases) and befriending/mentoring (one case). Work with the child on individual issues was also being separately undertaken in one case each by a social worker, a psychiatrist and a teacher. In one case a befriender/mentor was also supporting the child. The approaches used to address individual issues are summarised in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4: Approaches used in relation to individual issues Number of children (n=14)26 11 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
Method/approach Groupwork Work aimed at increasing confidence/self-esteem A focus on problems with peers Helping to express feelings Help to make and maintain friendships Reflecting/thinking about feelings Drama classes Befriending Community risks (‘Stranger Danger’) Establishing rules and boundaries Work on the consequences of behaviour Behaviour charts Community activity Learning to control behaviour Safety issues
THE CONTEXT OF INTERVENTION Individual work with children 4.14 The purpose of the individual work undertaken with children was described by Matrix staff as being to get to know the children, to elicit their perspectives on their difficulties, to build their self-esteem, to help them to communicate their perspectives to their parents and to help them to develop positive relationships with others. The individual work with children was viewed by staff as a vehicle for addressing their offending, though this was not usually done directly. Instead, the 26
Work on individual issues was undertaken in 14 cases.
31
project’s approach was to model pro-social behaviour and encourage children to make positive decisions through the use of enforcement and praise. Project staff stressed the importance of a structured approach involving the clear communication and reinforcement of rules. 4.15 Individual work with children took place in a variety of locations including in the Matrix building, at school (in the playground or in a room provided by the school for that purpose), in the family home or in community centres. Project staff stressed that they would always have another adult nearby when they were working with a child. The choice of location was partly determined by where the child lived and by the purpose of the individual session (or, as one worker put it, by what was likely to work best). For example, work aimed at helping establish family routines, such as mealtimes, was carried out in the child’s home. A lack of transport often meant that work with children was, by necessity, undertaken at home or in their local community. Project staff suggested that finding somewhere suitable to work could sometimes present difficulties. 4.16 The frequency of contact with children on an individual basis varied according to the needs of the child and was believed by social workers to be appropriate to the child’s needs. Typically the project worker would meet with the child more often in the early stages (usually twice per week for a period of up to two hours) with less frequent contacts as the focus of work shifted to the family or to groupwork. The length of the individual sessions would be varied according to the purpose of the contact and the level of concentration that could be sustained by the child. One project worker explained that most of the time spent with children individually was not task focused but instead concentrated on getting them sufficiently settled in order that they might then focus on their task. 4.17 Social workers believed that the individual work that was undertaken with children by Matrix staff was effective in engaging children’s interest and increasing their self-esteem. Because of the children’s age, the project workers described using a mixture of activities and ‘fun’ in their individual sessions: project workers explained that maintaining children’s attention could often be a challenge, especially at the end of a school day. 4.18 A typical session might begin with a snack followed by an activity introduced by the worker and an activity (such as drawing or completing a jigsaw) chosen by the child. At the end of the session there would be an opportunity for review. However, staff emphasised that even the informal activities that they engaged in with children still involved the worker modelling appropriate behaviour and prompting the children to reflect on their behaviour. For this reason, Matrix workers found it very difficult to make a distinction between activities that might be described as ‘formal’ and those that might be characterised as ‘informal’. Each of the activities undertaken with children and families were said by staff to have an underlying rationale which might include broadening children’s experiences, enabling children to practice social skills in the community, or helping families to spend time together. 4.19 The children who had attended Matrix enjoyed the activities and outings, identifying things such as “the party, the thing we had out the back”, “goin’
32
swimming”, “playin’ games and that” and baking cakes as they things they liked most about Matrix. One child, on the other hand, explained that what he liked best about Matrix was “learning how to behave” and most of the others were able to identify things that they had learned through their contact with the project. These included: “all kinds of different things, my behaviour”; “being good in school and that”; talking about the “dangers of places”; “saying better things to my sister and brother”; and learning to “keep out of trouble”. 4.20 By virtue of their behavioural difficulties, the children attending Matrix often posed risks to project staff or to other children. Staff in interview described experiences of verbal abuse and aggression, though they said that the latter was more often directed towards other children. Project workers suggested that aggressive behaviour often resulted from the children’s frustration at being unable to express their feelings verbally. Much of the work undertaken with children was therefore aimed at helping them to recognise their feelings, express them more appropriately and get along with other people. Work with families 4.21 At the same time that the project worker would be working on an individual basis with the child, work would also be undertaken with the family. Social workers were of the opinion that the level of contact between Matrix staff and the parents of children attending the project was appropriate. Staff indicated that there was a tendency over time to shift the focus of intervention towards the family to enable parents to support the work that was being undertaken in relation to the children. Supporting parents to maintain and encourage the child’s behaviour was said by one project worker to be one of the most difficult areas of work, especially if two parents had different expectations or if one was committed to the work and the other was not. 4.22 Some of the contact with families took place informally, when, for example, the project worker dropped a child off at home. Parents appear to have valued this regular but informal contact and sharing of information and to have found it reassuring. 4.23 Work with families tended to focus upon relationship difficulties, poor family bonds and parenting skills. With regard to the latter, the emphasis was upon ‘good enough’ parenting since this was considered a more realistic and achievable goal. As one project worker explained, Matrix attempted to promote: “…not perfect parenting but good enough so it’ll carry your kids through and make them good and useful and functioning members of the community.” 4.24 Parental supervision was viewed by project staff as an important focus of individual and group work with parents. As one project worker explained, this was an issue “you talk about all the time because most of the kids come to us because they’re not supervised and are getting up to nonsense in the community”. Staff regarded improved parental supervision as an area that needed to be addressed quickly in order that children’s involvement in anti-social behaviour might be reduced.
33
4.25 Project workers indicated that they were alert to the need to avoid the temptation to intervene in difficult situations rather than encouraging families to be instrumental in their own change. That said, it was often difficult to assist families to support their children if they were overwhelmed by other problems such as health issues, domestic violence, alcohol misuse, low income and housing issues. Project staff observed that parental stress could impact adversely upon children’s behaviour in school and in the community, making it necessary for them to offer practical assistance to parents if difficulties arose. Examples of this type of work included helping a family who were facing eviction by advocating on their behalf with the housing department and assisting a mother with alcohol-related problems to seek specialist help. 4.26 According to the project workers, an important emphasis of family work was encouraging families to engage in activities together as a family. Parents usually did not spend time with their children and as a result were unaware that their children had their own perspectives on issues. Matrix staff therefore actively encouraged family activities because the children enjoyed them, it helped the parents to engage better with their children and it provided an opportunity for role modelling and helping parents with behaviour management. 4.27 The types of family activities engaged in included going swimming, going for walks, scavenger hunts, going to the pantomime and barbecues. Another important function of these activities was to given parents ideas about things that they could do together with their children even if they had little money. Project staff commented that parents were often under the impression that material things were most important for their children and needed to be shown that other things - such as praising their children’s behaviour or smiling - were more important. Groupwork with children 4.28 In addition to working with children on an individual basis, Matrix staff had undertaken groupwork both with children who were receiving a service from Matrix and with other children considered by their social workers as being likely to benefit from this approach. All of the children who were interviewed had taken part in some form of groupwork at Matrix and most indicated that they had enjoyed it and learned from it. 4.29 A total of five groups had been run since the project started. One group, entitled ‘Fun with Words’ ran for a period of six weeks over the summer holidays in 2000. Aimed at children with learning support needs, it employed a range of activities such as writing poems and stories and word games with a view to encouraging and developing reading, writing, communication and social skills. Five children, four of whom were attending individual Matrix programmes, attended the group and all completed it. Project staff were of the view that the children who participated in the group developed increased confidence as a result. 4.30 The other groupwork that Matrix engaged in focused upon the development of pro-social behaviour. This work varied slightly in focus and content on each of the
34
four occasions on which it was run, It was also variously referred to as the ‘Getting on With Others’, ‘Cool Kids’ and ‘Pokemon’ Group. This group ran for around ten weeks and was aimed at helping young people to handle conflict and aggression and to develop their relationship skills in order that they might get along with others and cope better in the community. Behavioural methods were the principle form of intervention employed in the group, aimed at helping children to make connections between actions and their consequences. 4.31 Six children from the Falkirk area, all of whom were attending Matrix, participated in the first group in July 2000 and all but one completed it. A similar group run in the Stirling area in the autumn of 2000 was attended by six children, three of whom attended Matrix and three of whom were referred by social work area teams. The third group ran with four children in Falkirk in January 2001, three of whom were known to be on an individual Matrix programme27. Finally, the Pokemon Group ran in Stirling/Clackmannanshire in May 2001 with six children, at least four of whom were attending Matrix28. 4.32 The first pro-social behaviour group that Matrix ran was said by staff to have been less successful than subsequent groups. As a result of their keenness to get a group up and running staff admitted that they had probably not taken enough care to ensure that the balance of the group was appropriate. As a result, there was a considerable amount of aggressive behaviour displayed by the children attending the group and a third staff member had to be brought in to help maintain order. Staff reported that this experience had taught them not just about the importance of careful selection of group participants, but also the importance of rules being spelled out clearly from the outset and consistently enforced. The Parents’ Group 4.33 Matrix were interested from an early stage in developing a group for parents, but had failed initially to elicit any interest in such a group through the families of children they were working with or through social work area teams. However at a Project Open Day held in June 2000 a workshop for parents identified the types of support that parents wanted from the project. A planning group was established which included a parent from each of the three local authorities and a list of topics of interest to the parents was identified. The Parents’ Group that was subsequently set up met once every six weeks and focused upon issues such as child development, stress management, children’s rights and use of leisure activities. All but one of the families involved in Matrix became involved in the Parents’ Group, though some attended more intermittently than others. 4.34 One of the main objectives of the Parents’ Group was to provide parents with another source of information and support in order that they were better able to deal positively with difficult situations and difficult behaviour in the future. Matrix staff
27
In one case the family did not consent to research access: it is therefore not clear whether this child was referred by a social worker or was already the focus of intervention by Matrix. 28 One child was a social work referral. The parents of one other child did not consent to the researcher having access to information about them: it is not clear if this was child from Matrix or a child referred by an area team.
35
were of the view that, through their involvement in the group and in its planning, parents had gained considerably in confidence. As one project worker explained: “You see the parents’ confidence really growing and for us that’s great because at the end of the day we will be coming out of their lives and it’s the parents that need to be confident and be feeling that they can cope with some of these issues that the children are presenting.” 4.35 Through attending the Parents’ Group, parents could support each other and learn from each others’ experiences and successes. Project staff emphasised that hearing something from other parents could be more effective than hearing it from staff. The Parents’ Group also helped reduce parent’s isolation by bringing them into contact with others who were in a similar situation to themselves. As one project worker observed: “I think it is about reducing their isolation and bringing them together as a group [so that they realise that] they are not on their own. Their common saying is ‘Yes, it’s great somebody else is in the same boat as us’…There’s a lot of learning from each other, so that’s been really good.” 4.36 This view was re-iterated by the parents who were interviewed. As one mother explained: “…mixing with other parents and starting a Parents’ Group, it helped because we were all in the same boat we discovered, and Matrix actually helped a lot of parents get together and work out our problems and get out together.” 4.37 Parents especially valued the ongoing link that the Parents’ Group provided to Matrix after the latter had stopped being formally involved with a family. Two parents commented that they had subsequently contacted Matrix for advice and support when a crisis had arisen. 4.38 Social workers also believed that parents of children attending Matrix had benefited considerably from attending the Parents Group, both as a result of learning from other parents and through gaining increased confidence and self-esteem. However one social worker also expressed some concern that, while parents may have been enthusiastic about the group, this did not necessarily mean that their underlying problems had been addressed. 4.39 At the time that Matrix staff were interviewed they had begun to consider the possibility of introducing of a second Parent’s Group to accommodate the growing number of parents who had been involved in the project. Staff considered that this might be necessary because some parents whose involvement with Matrix was approaching an end were expressing a desire to continue attending the Parents’ Group as a source of ongoing support.
36
Conferencing 4.40 Family group conferencing is an approach – initially developed in New Zealand but used increasingly in other countries including the UK – that aims to actively involve children, families and other significant individuals in discussing their difficulties and identifying potential solutions. It was identified from the outset as an approach that might be adopted by Matrix. However no use had been made of conferencing as a means of bringing families and other significant individuals together in a decision-making forum and the existing premises were currently not suited to this purpose. However the introduction of conferencing was being considered by the social work department in Stirling and Matrix staff were of the view that there might be opportunities for them to become jointly involved with social workers from Stirling in this method of work. INTER-AGENCY WORK 4.41 Matrix staff emphasised the ‘systemic’ or ‘holistic’ nature of their approach, stressing the need to integrate the work they engaged in with children and families with the work being undertaken by other agencies who were involved in providing the children or their parents with support. As one Matrix staff member commented, communication with other agencies was a “huge part” of the project’s work to which all staff members were committed. Each of the project staff members highlighted the key role for Matrix in “keeping a network together and keeping the family and different agencies communicating” (project worker). Agencies involved in inter-agency work and the nature of their involvement 4.42 The agencies most often involved with children attending Matrix included social work and educational services (including educational psychologists) and the police (in relation to the anti-social behaviour). A range of other agencies was also identified as being involved with young people or their parents, including alcohol counselling services, psychiatric services, criminal justice services, housing services, debt services, family centres, community mental health services and community education. Overall, a wider range of agencies was identified as being involved with a family in relation to the parents than to the child. 4.43 Matrix staff interfaced with other agencies in a variety of ways. The most formal arrangements pertained to those professionals most directly involved with the child, such as social workers and teachers, who would normally attend the regular project reviews. Matrix staff likewise attended reviews held by other agencies, such as schools, to discuss children attending the project. 4.44 Liaison with other agencies also occurred through the sharing of information on a less formalised basis from the referral stage, through assessment and through the period of intervention undertaken with the family. This type of communication, along with more formalised meetings, was aimed at ensuring that other agencies were aware of the nature of Matrix’s involvement with a family in order that they might more effectively support its work.
37
4.45 Inter-agency working was perhaps most evident in relation to schools. Children who attended Matrix had a range of school-related problems, such as school attendance, behavioural problems in the classroom and poor educational attainment. Goals and tasks identified in the work with children and their families therefore often focused upon school-related issues, such as ensuring that the child gets to school on time. Matrix staff were keen to promote positive links between parents and schools in order that parents might also support the work being undertaken by the school. Project staff reported having received positive feedback from schools with respect to improvements in the behaviour of children who attended the project. 4.46 This perception was supported by the education staff who were interviewed. Whilst some had more direct experience than others of the work Matrix engaged in with children, there was a general view that children’s behaviour had improved while they attended the project. They attributed this to the support Matrix provided both for the parents and for the child. Education respondents were satisfied with the exchange of information they had with project workers in respect of individual children, which was described by one head teacher as a “two-way dialogue”. Teachers also regularly attended reviews, though it was often difficult for class teachers to be freed up to participate in them. One teacher believed that Matrix’s principle strength lay in its promotion of multi-disciplinary work, with different agencies working together cooperatively with children and their families: “I think the main strength that came out of that was the way we all worked together, the kind of partnership part of it, the co-operative working. And I think it made a difference to this family we were working with, the fact that we weren’t both going down even parallel lines - we were working together”. 4.47 Teachers acknowledged that there was sometimes an overlap between the work undertaken in schools and the work undertaken by Matrix. However, while this could in some circumstances have resulted in a redundancy of effort or, worse, in different messages being communicated to the family, in practice the work of the two agencies was thought to have been strengthened and reinforced because the communication between the school and Matrix ensured that there was a consistency of approach. 4.48 At another level, links were established with other agencies as a means of helping to address families’ problems, promote their well-being or provide them with additional forms of support. Within this category would be included health promotion work (for instance, encouraging parents to take their children to the dentist or doctor and providing dietary advice), advocating on behalf of families with other agencies (such as housing or benefit agencies) and encouraging families to make use of a range of services (such as alcohol counselling services or adult education). Matrix staff did not consider it their role to formally refer families to other agencies: where a referral of this kind was required it would normally be made by the social worker in their statutory capacity. Instead, project workers provided families with information about services and accompanied them to appointments if they did not have sufficient confidence to attend by themselves.
38
4.49 Matrix staff explained that they also attempted to find out what activities were available locally in order that children attending Matrix might participate in them. However the behavioural problems displayed by the children often meant that they could only participate in community-based activities such as youth clubs with the support of Matrix staff, since their behaviour might otherwise result in their being excluded. Effectiveness of inter-agency work 4.50 Matrix staff reported that, on the whole, their experience of inter-agency work had been positive and that communication with other agencies, if not always perfect, had been satisfactory. They did not believe that they were perceived by other professionals as ‘stepping on their toes’. Social workers thought that, in general, any tensions that might have arisen out of inter-agency work had been handled well, though one social worker felt that Matrix workers occasionally had stepped beyond the boundaries by appearing to challenge the social worker’s version of events or attempting to assume a statutory role: “I think sometimes that the boundaries between them and us can be muddled at times don’t think that Matrix always understand the boundaries – they cross over them.” 4.51 Matrix staff suggested that social workers were usually pleased when Matrix become involved with a family because it allowed them to take more of a ‘back seat’ and concentrate their resources on other cases. This perspective was, in general, shared by social workers, who identified their primary role as that of care manager: managing the care plan and liaising with Matrix and with other agencies. The nature of social workers’ involvement with a family when Matrix became involved varied from case to case. In some cases social workers and Matrix workers undertook joint pieces of work, while in others the social worker and Matrix worker focused upon different issues and tasks. Usually, it appeared, the social workers continued to fulfil their statutory responsibilities in relation to a family, but relied upon Matrix to undertake most of the direct work. As one social worker commented, the fact that the social worker still had some contact with a family “doesn’t impede or impinge on Matrix going in and doing what they are supposed to be doing”. Social workers explained that they often limited their contact with families while the latter were receiving support from Matrix. 4.52 All of the social workers who had supervised children who attended Matrix were content with the nature and level of contact they had with project workers. This took the form of weekly and sometimes more frequent telephone contact with the project worker, attendance at reviews and other meetings and occasionally joint home visits. Social workers were also happy with the sharing of case-related information between themselves and Matrix. The frequency of contact that Matrix staff had with families meant that they were usually well-placed to identify family problems (such as alcohol problems or domestic violence) that had not been picked up by the social worker or the severity of which could not easily have been identified through occasional home visits.
39
4.53 Other professionals expressed satisfaction with the communication and sharing of information with Matrix staff though one also expressed the view that the roles of Matrix staff and other agencies might occasionally become blurred, creating some confusion for the family. Project staff acknowledged that this was an everpresent risk but were confident that the system of regular case reviews and staff supervision would identify if this was happening and most of the social workers and other professionals who were interviewed did not consider it to be a problem. 4.54 Whilst Matrix were involved in health promotion with families and were able to direct families to health resources, one professional respondent believed that there was scope for Matrix to become more directly involved in integrated work with health services such as, for example, liaison with health visitors. This, it was suggested, might result in improved multi-agency planning for children and families with a range of health and social problems. 4.55 Staff turnover was a factor that was identified by professional respondents as having the potential to undermine inter-agency work. For example, police officers might be transferred to other duties, which meant that they ceased to have direct contact with families who attended the project. Another factor which might arguably have detracted from the effectiveness of Matrix’s inter-agency work was the wide geographical area covered by the project and the fact that staff were required to familiarise themselves with services and resources provided by three different local authorities. Project staff acknowledged that by having to spread themselves thin, they may have been less effective at engaging with resources in local communities.
REVIEWS
4.56 Following the drawing up of the Family Agreement, the work undertaken with children and their families was subject to a system of eight-weekly reviews. Each review, which was chaired by the Project Leader, was normally attended by the project worker, child, one or both parents, the social worker and the class teacher or head teacher29. Where appropriate, siblings and other individuals who were important to the child (such as befrienders or young club leaders) were encouraged to participate in reviews. The role of the professionals in reviews was regarded by staff as being to provide information about how the young person was behaving in different settings and to gain a clear picture of how they fitted into the work being undertaken by Matrix with the child and his/her family. 4.57 The purpose of the review was to look back on what had been happening over the past few weeks and to plan the work to be undertaken over the next two months. Reviews were regarded by staff as a positive feature of the Matrix approach for several reasons, First, they helped to ensure that the work remained ‘on track’ and appropriate to the needs and circumstances of the family. Second, they provided an 29
If there was no teacher present, feedback would be requested from the school and fed into the review by the Matrix worker. Reviews had on occasion been held at school so that the head teacher and class teacher could be present. Teachers would not attend reviews if no school-related difficulties had been identified.
40
opportunity for children to receive positive reinforcement for progress they had make on tasks and goals. Third, they provided an important opportunity for family involvement in decision-making processes. The review process 4.58 Prior to each review the project worker met with the family to review the Family Agreement and to reflect upon the difficulties and goals contained therein. The aim of this meeting and of any contact with other professionals at this stage was to establish consensus about what the goals for the next period of work should be and the tasks that would need to be undertaken in order that they might be achieved. The agreed tasks would then be discussed as part of the review. 4.59 Matrix workers emphasised the importance of ensuring that reviews were child-friendly and offered as much opportunity as possible for the child to contribute. Prior to the review the project worker would spend time preparing the child for the review by encouraging him/her to talk about what s/he has been doing, with this work usually undertaken in the context of another activity such as baking, drawing or preparing a snack. In practice, however, project staff reported that while some children would readily participate in reviews, others found it very difficult to communicate to a group of adults. The procedure typically followed in reviews was that the child would be asked to tell the group what they had been doing since the last review and they may have been encouraged to bring along a piece of work (such as a drawing) to share it with the group. Next the group would consider the Family Agreement, reviewing the goals and tasks and identifying relevant goals and task for the next stage of work. Once the tasks and who was responsible for executing them had been agreed, a review form would be signed by those present and a copy given to the family. 4.60
4.61 Project staff believed that the frequency of review (eight-weekly) was about right: they were sufficiently spaced apart to enable progress to have been made by the next planned review but not so far apart that the focus of the work could not be maintained. Project staff were also keen to minimise as far as possible the number of meetings that families were required to attend at Matrix and at other agencies. In the event of changed circumstances warranting an earlier review of a case an intermediate review could be convened. 4.62 Further information about case reviews in individual cases was obtained from project files. Information about the date of the first review was available in 14 cases. On average, the first review of a case was held 22 weeks after the case was accepted by Matrix and eight weeks after the drawing up of the initial Family Agreement. The number of reviews that had been held for the completed cases varied from one to five: six families had five reviews, one had four reviews, two had three reviews, two had two reviews and two had a single review. The majority of reviews (44 out of 46) had been scheduled, with only two having taken place as a result of an intervening crisis. 4.63 The majority of reviews took place in the Matrix building (21). Other locations included schools (seven reviews), a carer’s home (three reviews), the family
41
home (two reviews), a social work office (two reviews) and a hospital (one review)30. Information about who was present at the review was available in 12 cases. Mothers attended all of the reviews (39) for which this information was available: in 23 cases the mother attended alone, in 14 cases with the father and in two cases with her partner. Siblings were present in just under half the reviews for which this information was available (16/34 reviews) and two reviews were attended by an aunt. Social workers and teachers attended the majority of reviews (27/34 and 22/34 respectively) while educational psychologists attended five reviews, head teachers attended four reviews and a school support worker attended one review. Outcomes of reviews 4.64 The majority of reviews for which the information was available (25/40) resulted in an agreement to continue the existing work. In three reviews additional difficulties were identified, in four reviews additional areas of work or new tasks were identified and in one review a decision was made to remove a task. Five reviews resulted in a decision to discontinue working with the family because the intervention was deemed to have been a success, in four reviews a decision was taken to end Matrix’s involvement with the family because the project worker was leaving and sufficient progress was deemed to have been made and in one review it was decided that the case would be discontinued as a result of the failure on the part of the child to engage with the project.
CASE CLOSURE 4.65 Thirteen cases in which the family had consented to be included in the research had been closed at the end of the fieldwork period. In nine cases the case was closed because the work had been completed. In two cases the project worker was moving to a new post and sufficient work had been competed to enable the case to be closed. In one case the child had failed to engage with the project and was subsequently accommodated by the local authority and one case was closed at the family’s request because the child was no longer offending. 4.66 There was, as Table 4.5 illustrates, an average of 67 recorded contacts between Matrix workers and families during the period of intervention.31 The highest number of recorded contacts was with the child alone, with most of these taking place in the Matrix building or in an alternative location such as a school: very few individual contacts with children took place within the family home. By contrast, the majority of contact with parents took place in the home, and this was also the most common location for joint meetings with the child and the family.32
30
The location of ten reviews could not be discerned from the project file. This may not include ‘informal’ contacts that may have taken place when, for example, a project worker dropped off a child at home. 32 Matrix would have preferred to have kept this case open for a little longer until the boy had made a successful transition to secondary school 31
42
Table 4.5: Number and location of contacts with children and families
At Matrix At home Elsewhere Total
Child 22 -33 16 38
Family 3 13 2 18
Child and family 2 6 3 11
Total 27 19 21 67
4.67 When the Matrix Project was first established it was anticipated that the average duration of the project’s involvement with a family would be around three to four months. In practice, however, the project has worked with families for considerably longer. The duration of Matrix involvement varied from five months to 20 months from the date of referral to the date of case closure, with an average of 12.5 months. Six cases were closed within twelve months, while three lasted for between 18 and 20 months. The mean duration of intervention was shorter in Falkirk (10 months) than in Stirling (13 months), suggesting that the length of time that Matrix worked with families was influenced at least partly by their level of risk. 34 4.68 Project staff identified two mechanisms through which they would identify when it was appropriate to begin withdrawing their involvement with a family. The first was the regular monthly supervision meetings that took place between the project workers and the project leader. The second was the system of eight-weekly reviews. Project staff explained that through these two mechanisms an assessment was undertaken of how much progress had been made towards the achievement of goals and how much more work was required before sufficient progress would be deemed to have been made. As one staff member explained: “It’s more looking at the goals which are related to the risk factors have we set out what we set out to achieve?” 4.69 In reaching a decision to bring their work to an end, project workers said that they would be looking for some evidence that they had succeeded in minimising the risk factors and enhanced the resilience or protective factors. However it was also acknowledged that risk factors that were assessed as being ‘low’ at the outset could be higher at the point at which the case was closed. One worker, for example, recounted how parental alcohol abuse had been identified as an increasingly important factor in one case, though not one that in itself could justify ongoing project involvement with the family. As she explained, “alcohol will remain a feature in that family…but it’s not a big enough issue to merit us being involved” (project worker). 4.70 The emergence of further difficulties or the identification of additional issues through Matrix’s involvement with a family was said by project staff to have had a bearing upon the length of time the project remained involved. Overall, the severity of the children’s behavioural difficulties and the complexity of their family situations was said by staff to have precluded the relatively short periods of intensive 33
There was, on average, less than one contact with the child alone at home. It should, however, be acknowledged that these average figures are based on only four cases and seven cases respectively. As a result, this conclusion must be regarded as speculative.
34
43
intervention that had been envisaged when the project was established. Even the ‘early intervention’ cases had been found to require a more extensive input from Matrix than had been foreseen. 4.71 Once it appeared that it might be appropriate for project workers to begin planning for closure of a case - for example, the young person had stopped offending, they were managing well in school, the family situation had improved and the other agencies involved were working together effectively - this would be discussed first with the Project Leader and then with the family before being recorded in the Family Agreement. Project staff reported that families and other agencies were usually in agreement about the proposed timing of case closure because they were able to identify progress that had been made. The parents who were interviewed were generally content with when the decision had been taken that the case should be closed. 4.72 Whilst families could, and occasionally did, instigate case closure, it was more usual, according to the Matrix workers, for families to wish to extend the project’s involvement to delay losing the support it had provided. Project staff described their approach in this situation as being to convince the families that they had made sufficient progress such that ongoing project involvement was no longer required. The Parent’s Group offered an opportunity for parents to continue to receive support beyond the period of formal project involvement with the family. Matrix staff also aimed to maintain some contact with families with whom their work had ended by, for example, sending Christmas cards and inviting them to participate in project outings. 4.73 A few professionals expressed views about the length of time Matrix remained involved with families. In some cases it was felt that Matrix might have withdrawn too early, while in others it was felt that the period of intervention may have been too long. As one respondent commented: “18 months is too long, it’s not sustainable. I don’t think it’s fair for the children and families – it gives the wrong impression. I think it goes back to the way Barnardo’s work – they always keep an open door, they won’t say ‘no’ to people, for the best reasons… maybe Matrix need to be stricter about that and saying ‘right, we are finishing the work: we set out to do ‘blah’ and ‘blah’ has been achieved or not achieved in the framework’.” 4.74 Social workers found it difficult to comment overall on whether Matrix staff were remaining involved with families longer that was necessary. All were agreed that the original intention to work with families for a period of three to four months was unrealistic since it was unlikely, given the complexity of families’ problems, that much could be achieved within this timescale. Social workers believed that the duration of intervention should be needs-led, with Matrix withdrawing their involvement with a family once progress had been made in the areas that were a cause of concern. Social workers who had supervised children whose involvement with Matrix had ended were of the view that the length of involvement had been appropriate. As one social worker explained:
44
“This mother could have had Matrix involved for years and years and years and I think that the time they pulled out was probably the right time because I think she would have become very dependent and I think that is something to watch for.” 4.75 Each of the social workers observed that Matrix was often faced with having to decide whether to withdraw from a family who had made progress but who still had ongoing support needs or to remain involved in order to provide ongoing support with the attendant risk of creating dependency upon the project. None of the social workers believed that the latter had necessarily happened, but they, like project staff, regarded it as an ever-present risk. 4.76 The difficulties of disengaging after a period on intensive involvement have been well documented. There was, however, no evidence that Matrix were systematically keeping cases open for longer than was necessary. It appeared from the analysis of the reviews that goals were continuing to be pursued and tasks set right up to the point of case closure, suggesting that useful work was continuing to the end. Staff appeared fully alert to the possibility of creating dependency on the part of families if they remained involved with them too long and there was evidence that they were basing decisions about when to withdraw from a family on what was realistic rather than what was ideal. As one project worker commented, “they might not have transformed but you’ve got the right support in school for the school to take that on and manage it”. Similarly, another staff member was alert to the dangers of continuing involvement with a family for it’s own sake when she observed that “you can reach saturation point where it stops being useful”.
SUMMARY 4.77 The range and complexity of the difficulties experienced by families was reflected in the breadth of the issues, goals and tasks identified in the initial family agreements. The work subsequently undertaken by Matrix focused on school-related issues, offending (though the latter was usually not addressed directly), child-related issues and issues for parents. Matrix intervention took place in a range of contexts including individual and groupwork with children and their parents. Matrix workers employed a range of informal activities in their work with children, using these activities as a vehicle for children to have appropriate behaviour modelled to them and to have an opportunity to reflect upon the consequences of their behaviour. 4.78 Project staff emphasised the holistic and systemic nature of the work they undertook and stressed the importance of working both with the child and with the family. Other professionals regarded this as a major strength of the Matrix approach, along with the ability of Matrix staff to engage effectively with families who were reluctant to respond to statutory intervention. Work with families often focused upon establishing routines, improving parenting skills and supervision and encouraging families to engaged in social activities together. Parents valued the support provided by the Parent’s Group.
45
4.79 Inter-agency work was an important element of the Matrix approach. Generally, communication and exchange of information between Matrix and other agencies was good. The potential existed for overlap of effort and blurring of professional boundaries, though this was not generally viewed by Matrix staff or by other professionals as a problem. 4.80 Project staff regarded reviews as a useful mechanism for involving the family in decision-making and maintaining the focus of the work. Reviews were one mechanism through which Matrix workers could identify when it was appropriate to begin withdrawing their involvement from a family. The mean duration of Matrix intervention was just over 12 months. Social workers did not believe that the original intention that Matrix would work with families for between three and four months was realistic. Whilst there was a possibility that Matrix were keeping some cases open longer than was strictly necessary, there was little evidence that this had occurred on a systematic basis and project staff appeared alert to the consequence of so doing.
46
CHAPTER FIVE: THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MATRIX INTRODUCTION 5.1 This chapter draws upon file-based data and upon interviews with various professionals, matrix staff, parents and children. It begins by considering how children and parents were perceived to have responded to the Matrix intervention before going on to examine the extent to which Matrix had succeeded in reducing risk factors and promoting protective factors (based upon interviews and project workers’ assessments at the end of a case). The effectiveness of Matrix in reducing offending and anti-social behaviour is discussed, as is its perceived success in preventing children from being accommodated and keeping children in mainstream education.
CHILDREN’S RESPONSES TO INTERVENTION 5.2 Social workers, in discussing the effectiveness of Matrix, usually framed their responses in terms of how the family responded to the intervention. They invariably commented that children enjoyed their contact with Matrix because the facilities and activities they offered were designed to engage children’s interest. Social workers also believed that children valued their contact with Matrix project workers, who took an interest in them and gave them an opportunity to express their feelings and views. Some children were, they suggest, better able to trust and relate to adults as a result. 5.3 Parents believed that children enjoyed attending Matrix and enjoyed their contact with the project staff. However some also felt that by the end of their involvement with the project their child was showing signs of restlessness and was wanting to “move on”. As one parent explained, “near the end he got fed up”. That said, several parents reported having observed a marked improvement in their child’s behaviour while they attended Matrix. As one mother explained: “…they have done brilliant for him. It’s unbelievable what they have done for that boy. They even got him going to school.” 5.4 Most of the children who were interviewed said that they had found Matrix enjoyable and a few indicated that they would have liked to carry on attending the project. Several children still described their behaviour in terms of the Traffic Light exercise they learned at Matrix (red for behaviour, green for good behaviour and amber for behaviour that is in between): some thought that their behaviour was better and some thought that it was just the same. 5.5 Some parents were disappointed that their child’s behaviour had deteriorated since they stopped attending Matrix, resulting on one case in the children being referred to the reporter on account of his behaviour at school. However, some parents were realistic about what might be achieved. As one observed: “Before Matrix was involved it was six steps back and one forward; now
47
it’s six forward and every now and then it’s one back – kids are not perfect!” 5.6 Children who attended Matrix were said by social workers to gain in confidence and self-esteem. Some were said to have shown improvements in their behaviour at home, at school or in the community, though social workers believed that this was not necessarily matched by improvements in parents’ understanding of their child’s behaviour or in fundamental changes in parents’ attitudes towards their child. This, they suggested, might serve in the longer term to undermine some of the benefits that children had experienced from attending the Matrix Project.
FAMILIES’ RESPONSES TO INTERVENTION 5.7 A major strength of the Matrix approach was perceived by other professionals to be the ability of the staff to engage with families with very complex problems who had an extensive history of involvement with statutory services and who were distrustful of external involvement as a consequence. Parents described the Matrix workers as approachable and interested and easier to talk to than their regular social workers. 5.8 Parents – and in particular mothers – were said by social workers to have gained confidence through the work undertaken by Matrix and, especially, through attending the Parents’ Group. One reporter commented on the changes s/he had observed in one set of parents at a family meeting: “They are much more enabled to be able to actively discuss their feelings and being actively involved in the process which will make a difference for their child…they seem to be particularly good at involving parents and enabling them and encouraging them, making them feel confident that they can make a difference themselves.” 5.9 Most social workers believed that parents had benefited in practical terms from the work undertaken by the Matrix Project. This included the establishment of family routines; improved parental management and supervision of their children; improved parental understanding of their children’s behaviour; and improved coping skills. One mother whose child attended Matrix explained how she had benefited from the experience, although she acknowledged that she still had some way to go: “I’m not perfect, I’m not a brilliant parent because I am still learning, but I am better now than I was two years ago – a lot better. And I have got a lot better relationship with the children – I was very negative.” 5.10 Some social workers suggested that the practical gains made by parents were often set against the absence of fundamental changes in parents’ attitudes and behaviour, in family dynamics and in the ability of the family to ‘move on’. As one social worker explained: “I think anybody would struggle to effect change with the parent and that
48
is to do with the parent’s understanding of what we are all trying to do. It’s not a failure on the part of Matrix – it’s just a difficult situation.” 5.11 The perceived inability of Matrix to impact more broadly upon parental attitudes and behaviour was not, therefore, attributed by social workers or by teachers to shortcomings of the Matrix approach or the quality of services provided. As one teacher observed: “I would probably say that for these parents there is a limit to what we can do to support them and it’s almost too late in the day to bring about any changes in the pattern of behaviour in the children – I think they are all damaged.” 5.12 Instead, it was seen to reflect the deep rooted and complex nature of the difficulties faced by families who had a limited understanding of child development and a limited capacity to put into practice what they had learned, especially under periods of crises and stress.
ACHIEVEMENT OF OBJECTIVES 5.13 The researchers had hoped to be able to make an assessment of the extent to which Matrix had succeeded in achieving a range of objectives that were set in the work with families. However, this approach was undermined by the low number of cases that had actually closed and by the fact that the objectives set by Matrix were highly individualised and, therefore, usually relevant to only a handful of cases. For information, we present a summary of the main objectives in the 13 cases that were closed along with an assessment of the extent to which they appeared by the end Matrix’s involvement, to have been achieved35. In general, it appeared that significant progress had been made in respect of the majority of objectives and some progress had been made in respect of most of the others.
35
A further caveat is that the assessments were made by one of the researchers on the basis of information contained in the project files and will have been influenced both by the nature and quality of that information and by the researcher’s interpretation of it.
49
Table 5.1: The extent to which the objectives of intervention were achieved
Reduce anti-social behaviour in community Reduce offending Reduce anti-social behaviour at school Improve family relations Improved confidence in parenting Come in on time Stay in school Remain in mainstream education School attendance Increase parenting skills Develop positive behaviour Control behaviour Improve school behaviour Improve confidence and self-esteem Cessation of police involvement Increase awareness of personal safety Develop friendships with appropriate peers Improve home-school links Reduce bad behaviour at home Increase parental understanding of child’s needs Increase child’s happiness Improve reading skills
To a limited extent 1 2 1 1 1 1
To some extent 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 -
To a significant extent 5 3 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -
REDUCING RISK FACTORS 5.14 The objective of the work undertaken with children and families who attend Matrix is to reduce the risk factors associated with offending and enhance the protective factors. Project staff regarded the emphasis upon risk factors as a useful tool for keeping the work focused when it might otherwise become side-tracked by the complexity of families’ problems. Risk factors were also viewed by project staff as a useful tool for reviewing progress with families. 5.15 The project staff were in united in their view that the work they undertook was effective in reducing a range of risk factors. The risk factors that they believed they were most successful in reducing included school-related factors such as attendance, behaviour in school and school achievement, improving the school-home links and opening up communication between parents and their children. With respect to school-related problems, one project worker explained the approach as follows: “What we’re trying to do is help the kids cope better with classroom life to the point where they are actually able to learn, because I think with a lot of our kids, they don’t have a learning difficulty or anything, but their learning is hampered by the behaviour – you can’t learn if you aren’t in the classroom.” 5.16
Improvements in parenting and parental management of their children’s
50
behaviour were also said to have been observed by staff, though one project worker added that, while parents usually become more aware of their children’s needs, this was not necessarily translated into them providing a higher level of support. 5.17 Social workers and teachers were also able to comment on the perceived effectiveness of the project in reducing a range of risk factors. Teachers believed that in some instances children’s behaviour in school had improved markedly although in others there had been little discernible improvement in this regard. Sometimes it was difficult to disentangle the effect of input from Matrix from that being provided by other agencies (such as primary school support), though in other instances teachers believed that the involvement of Matrix staff had been critical. 5.18 Social workers and teachers believed that the work undertaken by Matrix had impacted upon a number of different risk factors for offending. These included improvements in school behaviour, school attendance and school attainment, homeschool links, parental management and supervision of their children, relationships between children and their peers, self-control by children and children’s involvement in activities in their communities. One social worker, however, questioned whether the behavioural boundaries being set for children by Matrix were sufficiently tight and suggested that this might be limiting the effectiveness of the work being carried out by the project. 5.19 Matrix staff stressed that the effectiveness of their work, especially in the longer term, was dependent upon the ongoing provision of support by other agencies. Staff regarded the availability of support networks as crucial in helping maintain the progress made by families after their involvement with Matrix had ended, though developing these networks was a time-consuming process because the project was working across three local authorities. 5.20 Matrix was also regarded by some agencies as a source of ongoing support to whom they could turn if a child’s behaviour began to deteriorate again. A teacher explained how there had been a substantial improvement in the behaviour of one child who had attended Matrix and added that: “…we also have a lifeline that we can contact them if we see things going off again, if other things happen.” 5.21 Some risk factors were considered by Matrix staff to be difficult to change. These included the impact of poverty, unemployment and poor housing and the disadvantaged neighbourhoods in which the families lived. One project worker believed that the project might have played a useful role lobbying for improvements in facilities and services at the community level but that because it worked in three local authorities covering a wide geographical area it had been difficult to have an impact in this respect. Another risk factor that the project workers reported having no control over was offending in the family: many young people who attended the project had extended families in which offending was the norm. Likewise, while Matrix could help children to develop relationships with others, negative peer group influence was difficult to address. Many of the children who attended Matrix had offended in the company of older children and would be at continued risk of
51
offending unless they were able to develop other groups of friends. 5.22 At the end of each case, the Matrix project workers re-assessed each child and family in relation to the risk and protective factors that had been initially considered when they were first referred to the project. This information was only available for eleven of the 13 cases that had been closed. Table 5.2 summarises their assessments across each of the individual, family, school and community risk factors. Table 5.3 shows in how many cases the risk appeared to have reduced, remained the same or increased in comparison with the initial assessment that was made at the start of the families’ involvement with Matrix. Table 5.2: Risk factors at end of Matrix intervention
Individual Offending behaviour Anti-social behaviour Poor attachment to carers Poor physical health Drug use Alcohol use Other substance use Family Poor child management techniques Harsh/neglectful parenting Poor supervision of children Offending by parents/siblings Separation from parents Parental drug use Parental alcohol abuse Parental use of other substances School Low educational attainment Poor school attendance Antisocial behaviour at school Risk of exclusion Community Disadvantaged neighbourhood Community disorganisation and neglect Availability of drugs High housing turnover and lack of community attachment
High
Medium
Low
2 -
3 4 6 1 1 2 1
8 5 5 10 10 9 10
2 3 3 3
9 5 8 3 2 2 1 1
6 3 8 9 6 7 7
2 2 1 2
7 6 1
2 9 4 8
3 3 3 3
6 6 4 4
2 2 1 3
5.23 Table 5.3 suggests that improvements had been achieved in relation to many of the risk factors. For example, risk factors relating to offending and anti-social behaviour, the child’s physical health, parental management and supervision, school attainment and anti-social behaviour at school appear to have reduced in a high proportion of cases. Factors that are more static in nature (or at least are not amenable to individual intervention) such as the community risk factors and separation from parents were least likely to have changed. This was also true of risk factors (such as children’s use of alcohol or drugs or school attendance) that had initially been present
52
in a very small number of cases. 5.24 Some risk factors appear, moreover, to have increased. This is particularly true of parental use of drugs, alcohol and other substances. This suggests that the intensive contact between the family and the project worker may have brought to light problems that had hitherto been hidden from statutory agencies. This is consistent with the earlier hypothesis that levels of perceived drug use among parents may have been artificially low because parents were taking steps to conceal their use of drugs. Table 5.3: Change in risk factors by end of intervention
Individual Offending behaviour Anti-social behaviour Poor attachment to carers Poor physical health Drug use Alcohol use Other substance use Family Poor child management techniques Harsh/neglectful parenting Poor supervision of children Offending by parents/siblings Separation from parents* Parental drug use Parental alcohol abuse Parental use of other substances School Low educational attainment Poor school attendance Antisocial behaviour at school Risk of exclusion Community Disadvantaged neighbourhood* Community disorganisation and neglect* Availability of drugs* High housing turnover and lack of community attachment*
Lower
Same
Higher
8 6 2 4 1 1 1
3 5 9 7 8 9 8
1 1
5 4 8 2 1 1 2 1
6 5 2 8 9 4 6 5
2 1 5 2 4
6 1 9 3
2 10 2 8
1 -
2 1 1 1
9 8 9 9
2 -
*These risk factors are either ‘fixed’ or are unlikely to have been amenable to change by Matrix intervention. 5.25 Whilst these findings appear encouraging it must be recognised that the assessments on which they are based were undertaken by project staff and may have been influenced, albeit not necessarily consciously, by a desire for the outcomes of their work to be depicted in a positive light. The fact that the changes are in the directions that one might have expected in view of the focus of the project’s work and include both increases as well as decreases in the risk factors suggests that any such ‘halo effect’ may not have been marked. However, in the absence of a more objective and rigorous mechanism for assessing changes in risk factors, these findings must be
53
regarded as being tentative at best.
PROMOTING PROTECTIVE/RESILIENCE FACTORS 5.26 Project staff believed that the work they undertook was also effective in enhancing some of the resilience factors that can help protect young people from involvement in offending or anti-social behaviour. Work with schools to improve the child’s school experience, improve their attendance and prevent them from being excluded from school were cited in this regard. Other work that was believed to enhance protective factors included health promotion work and interventions aimed at improving parenting skills and behaviour management, establishing routines in the home and enhancing communication between parents and schools. Project staff suggested that much of their work in relation to resilience involved helping parents to become more self-aware, more aware of their children’s needs and better able to communicate with their children. 5.27 Social workers were the only other professionals who were able to offer a prospective on whether the Matrix Project had helped to promote resilience in children and families. Several social workers identified various ways in which they believed that this had happened. These included increased confidence and self-esteem in children and parents, improved links between families and schools, and strengthened emotional bonds between parents and their children. As one social worker commented: “Don’t get me wrong, it hasn’t solved every single problem that this family have, but it has given them a foundation to build on if they want to.” 5.28 Two social workers suggested that a particular benefit of Matrix involvement in families had been their ability to identify parents’ strengths and support them in the things they were already doing well. 5.29 Most families who attended Matrix lacked social support networks that might help promote resilience in the face of risk factors. One of the objectives of work with families was, therefore, to help build up support networks that could provide families with ongoing social support. The development of positive peer influences was a protective factor that Matrix staff said was often difficult to impact upon, particularly when children lived in disadvantaged neighbourhoods and mixed with other children in similar circumstances. 5.30 At the end of a case Matrix project workers re-assessed each family in relation to the protective factors against which they were assessed at the point of referral to the project. The relevant data are summarised in Table 5.4, while Table 5.5 shows whether, over the period of intervention, each area of resilience had increased, decreased or remained the same. It should be noted that two of the protective factors strong bonds in infancy and no prolonged separations – refer to previous experiences and are not, therefore, amenable to change.
54
Table 5.4: Protective factors at end of Matrix intervention Yes Good home environment Good parenting skills Strong bonds in infancy Good physical health No prolonged separations Environment which responds positively to child Strong social support network for child and family Good links between home and school Positive peer influence
No
3 1 6 8 5 2
Partly true/ sometimes 8 10 5 3 2 11 7
8 1
3 7
3
4 2
5.31 It appears that some of the protective factors, which can provide children with resilience in the face of risk factors, were assessed by project workers as having increased. These included, in particular, a good home environment, good homeschool links and positive peer influence. Consistent with the views expressed by project staff in interview, less impact was, however, made in terms of the enhancement of parenting skills or of an environment that responds positively to the child, suggesting that changes in parents’ attitudes and behaviour towards their children were more difficult to effect. Similarly, progress appeared to have been made in relatively few cases with respect to the development of social support networks for the child and the family. Table 5.5: Change in protective factors by end of intervention
Good home environment Good parenting skills Strong bonds in infancy* Good physical health No prolonged separations* Environment which responds positively to child Strong social support network for child and family Good links between home and school Positive peer influence
Lower 1 1 1 1
Same 3 8 6 9 8 9 6
Higher 7 2 1 1 1 3
-
3 5
7 5
*These factors are historical and were not, therefore, amenable to Matrix intervention.
REDUCING OFFENDING 5.32 Although the work undertaken with children and families who attended Matrix did not usually focus directly upon offending behaviour36, the overall objective of the project was to reduce the risk offending and anti-social behaviour among the 36
However, staff described methods that they used to encourage children to avoid further offending, such as crossing dates off on a calendar to show how long they had kept out of trouble.
55
children referred to it. The work undertaken was, therefore, aimed at providing the necessary support for children and their families in order that improvements in children’s behaviour might be effected and sustained. One police officer believed that Matrix had the potential to impact upon anti-social behaviour and offending whereas existing measures did not work because parents took little interest in the behaviour of their children. 5.33 Analysis of data in the case files of 13 children who had completed Matrix suggested that six had come to the attention of the police in connection with further offences while they were attending the project. In most of these cases the precise number of new incidents was not known, though in one case the child was known to be offending at a much lower frequency. Only one child was known to have been referred to the reporter on offence grounds. What cannot be determined, however, is the level of offending that would have occurred if the children had not attended Matrix. 5.34 Some professional respondents emphasised that it was not always appropriate to assess the project’s success in reducing offending since young people referred to the project were not necessarily involved in offending in the first place. However, social workers, who were often best placed to comment on whether offending had been reduced among children who attended Matrix, believed that this had often been the case, citing reductions in the numbers of referrals from the police or from the reporter while children participated in the project. In other instances Matrix involvement was believed by social workers to have prevented a pattern of offending from developing. However, some social workers expressed reservations about whether these benefits would be sustained in the longer term, especially if significant family problems still remained after involvement with the project ceased. 5.35 Reporters found it difficult to provided an informed perspective on how effective Matrix was in reducing re-offending, partly because they tended not to have further contact with families unless there was another hearing and partly because of the small numbers of children who had attended the project. However, the impression gained by one reporter was that children referred to Matrix were not being regularly re-referred to the reporter on offence grounds: “I certainly think that we don’t seem to be getting repeated referrals. I don’t see that happening.” 5.36 The staff group reported that most of the children who participated in a Matrix programme had stopped or at least reduced the frequency of their offending. One staff member suggested that those who had been offending the most when referred to Matrix had shown the most marked reductions in their offending, while those who had been offending a little tended to continue to do so while attending the project. 5.37 The staff attributed these improvements to the fact that children were enabled, through their involvement with Matrix, to experience positive and supportive relationships in a variety of domains. Being provided with stability and a sense of control over various aspects of their lives was thought by project staff to make it more likely that children could avoid further offending.
56
5.38 Matrix staff also identified approaches that they considered to be less effective in reducing offending among the age group of children who attended Matrix. Unstructured visits and conversations with children, for example, were thought unlikely to work. As one staff member explained: “I think we are very careful about structuring our interactions with people. I think you have to be very clear and that helps the child be clear, especially with kids at this age.” 5.39 Lack of clarity on the party of the worker, a failure to engage both the child and the parents and a failure to involve other agencies were also identified by staff as undermining potentially effective work. Similarly, the use of ‘scare tactics’ – such as showing children police cells – was not considered to be effective, even though parents often were keen to encourage such an approach.
PREVENTING CHILDREN BEING ACCOMMODATED 5.40 The living circumstances of most of the 13 children who had completed Matrix were the same at the end of the project’s involvement as at the beginning. In only two cases had the living arrangements changed. One child had been accommodated by the local authority at his mother’s request and one child was living with a member of his extended family while his mother was in hospital. 5.41 Social workers found it difficult, in the main, to comment on how successful Matrix had been in preventing children from being accommodated by the local authority, because Matrix was not specifically a resource for children who were at risk of a residential placement. Indeed, one social work respondent observed that children who were being considered for a residential school would not be appropriate for referral to Matrix since these two resources drew upon different criteria. Some social workers, on the other hand, believed that some children who had been referred to Matrix had avoided a residential placement as a consequence of the intervention and support they received. 5.42 Matrix staff also believed that their involvement with families had, in some instances, helped to prevent children from being accommodated by the local authority, at least while their involvement with the project continued. They also emphasised that children being accommodated need not necessarily be an indication of ‘failure’: for example, a short-term placement might be of value in the longer term by offering the family an element of respite.
KEEPING CHILDREN IN MAINSTREAM EDUCATION 5.43 Project staff believed that Matrix had succeeded in keeping children who might otherwise have been excluded in mainstream education, by improving attendance and behaviour at school. However they stressed that keeping the young person in mainstream education may not be the most appropriate outcome if an
57
alternative placement would be better able to meet the child’s needs. 5.44 Compared with when they were first referred to Matrix, the position of seven children with regard to the schools they attended and their attendance level was unchanged at the end of the intervention. In two cases the child’s attendance appeared to improve. One child was moved from mainstream education to a residential school at his mother’s request; one moved from the primary support unit to a day placement at a residential school; and two children were excluded from school while attending the Matrix Project. 5.45 Social workers and teachers were divided in their views as to whether the involvement of Matrix had helped keep a child in the mainstream education system. Some believed it had done so and some believed that it had not, though in some of these latter cases removal from mainstream school had never been an issue. A complicating factor was the role of primary support in helping prevent young people from being excluded from school: this could make it difficult to identify the specific contribution, if any, that Matrix had made. In general, the work that Matrix undertook in relation to schools was viewed by other professionals as helpful, with teachers reporting that improvements in children’s behaviour often occurred after they began attending the project.
OVERALL PERSPECTIVES ON MATRIX 5.46 Project staff and other professionals were generally united in their overall perspectives on Matrix. Professionals who were interviewed were generally positive about the contribution that the project had made. The focus upon early intervention and upon risk and protective factors was considered helpful and broadly effective. In this respect, one professional respondent believed that Matrix might usefully contribute to ongoing multi-agency developments in the child protection arena that were similarly aimed at prevention through attention to risk and protective factors. 5.47 Project staff and other professionals stressed that there were few other services available to meet the needs of the children offered services by Matrix. Although other services were available for children or for families in each of the three authorities, none were focusing upon the same group of children as Matrix, most were unable to offer the level of support that could be provided by Matrix37 and most provided services to children or to families but not to both. 5.48 Social workers commented that the project staff at Matrix were committed, enthusiastic and “willing to go out of the way to help”. The informal, child friendly approach adopted by the project was, they suggested, combined with an ability to “get the job done”. Some social workers singled out the Parent’s Group as an important development that was valued by parents and that provided them with an opportunity for ongoing support after Matrix had withdrawn.
37
Matrix staff suggested that the social worker’s role was increasingly that of case manager, with the result that social workers tended to have more limited contact with children and their families.
58
5.49 The issue of longer-term support was touched upon both by social workers and project staff. Matrix workers were able to identify tangible improvements in children’s circumstances and behaviour during their period of involvement with the project, but some also questioned whether, without the option of further support from other agencies in the future, these improvements might be sustained. One member of staff suggested that family support workers could be a useful additional resource in helping families to establish routines and in providing other types of planned, timelimited support. Similarly, one social worker proposed that the services provided by Matrix might usefully be extended through the use of volunteers who could provide children and families with support when the intensive service provided by Matrix stopped.
SUMMARY 5.50 The perceived benefits to families of attending Matrix included increased confidence on the part of children and their parents, improved behaviour by children and an increase in parenting skills. However fundamental changes in parental behaviour and attitude were more difficult to achieve. 5.51 According to the assessments conducted by project staff, it appeared that there was less evidence of a range of risk factors and more evidence of some protective factors at the end of the families’ involvement with Matrix. It appeared that at least some of the children who attended Matrix stopped offending or began offending less while they attended the project. The ability of the project to help maintain children in mainstream education and prevent the need for children to be accommodated by the local authority was more difficult to determine. Overall, the Matrix workers were viewed by other professionals and by families as enthusiastic, committed and good at what they did. However some other professionals questioned whether the short-term benefits experienced by children and families who attended the project could be sustained without longer-term support.
59
CHAPTER SIX: THE COSTS OF MATRIX INTRODUCTION 6.1 It was originally intended that a detailed costing would be undertaken of the costs of Matrix services in comparison with the costs of providing ‘normal’ services to vulnerable children, that is the services that they would have been likely to receive if the Matrix Project had not been available. A comparative costing of this kind was not possible as a result of the difficulties in identifying a comparison group of similar children who received alternative services. Instead, therefore, the costs of the Matrix services are discussed along with the potential longer-term cost savings for children who are provided with services by Matrix.
MATRIX COSTS 6.2 The relatively small sample of cases also makes if difficult to attach costs to the service since each case was highly individualised, with the nature and duration of the intervention varying from one case to another. For this reason it is possible to attach costs to an ‘average’ case, but this may differ considerably from the costs of the services provided to individual families. What are provided here are, therefore, illustrative costings based upon knowledge of the capacity of Matrix, the mean duration of involvement with families and the annual expenditure of Matrix, with the latter derived from the Matrix Annual Report for 2000-2001. Annual expenditure 6.3 The total expenditure by the project in 2000-2001 was £202,326 consisting of £168,780 in revenue expenditure (staff salaries, expenses etc.) and £33,546 in capital expenditure on the Matrix premises. Direct costs 6.4 Matrix usually worked at any time with 12 children in individual programmes and the mean duration of intervention was just over 12 months. Given that the project has been working to full capacity since its introduction, this means, in effect that the cost of providing services to an ‘average’ case in terms of duration was one-twelfth of the total project expenditure, or £16,860. This assumes that the costs of, for example, publicising the project and development work are spread across the cases with which the project works. This estimate pertains to the direct costs of providing services and does not include the costs of other services that might be accessed by families as a result of their involvement with Matrix: such a calculation would be impossible given that the timescale for involvement of these other services is unlikely to be known. 6.5 This approach also enables an estimate to be made of the cost of providing services to children who are referred for early intervention purposes and those who have already become involved in offending. For example, in one of the former cases
60
the project was in contact with the family for a period of seven months. Since the mean cost per month of Matrix services was £1,405 (£16,860/12), then the total cost of services in this case would be approximately £9,835. In one of the latter cases, by contrast, the duration of Matrix intervention was 20 months and the overall package of services provided by the project would cost approximately £28,100. 6.6 Not all of the work undertaken by the project was, however, concentrated on the children and families who were receiving full Matrix ‘programmes’. As we saw in Chapter Four, some of the children who attended Matrix groupwork programmes were referred by social workers for this purpose but not formally referred for individual services by Matrix. The inclusion of other children in groups might be assumed to reduce the costs per child for Matrix children attending the group. However, the majority of children who took part in groups were also attending Matrix and all of the groups were likely to have taken place even if no other children had been referred specifically for groupwork. It is therefore assumed that the involvement of other children in groupwork would not have had a major effect on the costs of Matrix services. We have not, therefore, separately costed the savings that are likely to accrue, other than to note that they might reduce the overall costs of Matrix involvement with a family by a very small amount. Indirect costs 6.7 There will be costs that accrue to other agencies through the use of Matrix, principally the costs associated with the initial referral and assessment of cases. There should be little if any additional cost to referrers of referring cases to Matrix since it is assumed that if the project were not available, alternative resources would be sought. Similarly, in Stirling and Clackmannanshire Matrix referrals were included as part of a wider resource allocation mechanism for children with specialist needs and the additional costs of considering Matrix cases at these meetings would be low. Additional costs would, however, be associated with the Matrix selection procedure in Falkirk where the Local Referral Group was convened specifically to consider Matrix cases. The costs of the LRG meetings in Falkirk will, therefore, need to be estimated and added to the Matrix costs, though does not add significantly to the costs per case. For example, Netten and Curtis (2000) have estimated the hourly cost of a social work team leader as being £30 for client-related work. Although they do not provide a comparable costing for a principal social work officer/middle manager, it might be assumed that this would be in the order of £45 per hour. If it assumed that screening group meetings are attended by the principal social work officer and by a head teacher or other representative of the education department to whom is attached a similar hourly cost, the additional costs per screening group meeting per hour will be approximately £90. If six screening group meetings are held each year and each lasts for two hours, the total additional cost will be £1,080. If this is spread over the 12 cases worked with by Matrix per annum, this results in an additional cost per case of £90 and a total cost per case of £16,950. 6.8 The other main indirect cost will attach to the attendance of other professionals (in practice mostly social workers and teachers) at project reviews. Families had an average of four reviews, and social workers and teachers attended around three-quarters and two-thirds of reviews respectively. The mean cost of social
61
worker and teacher attendance at reviews will also, therefore, need to be added to the overall costs per case. Again, however, the additional costs are small in comparison to the direct costs involved in the provision of services by Matrix. Netten and Curtis (2000) estimate the mean hourly cost of a social worker (children and families) as £23 per hour of client-related work in 2000. Again, in the absence of comparable data, we assume that a teacher would have a broadly similar hourly cost. If we assume that each review last up to two hours then we would expect social workers on average to spend around 6 hours attending reviews and teachers to spend around 5 hours attending reviews per Matrix case. This would produce an additional indirect cost of £253, resulting in a total cost per case of £17,203. 6.9 However, it is also clear that when a family is provided with services by Matrix there is likely to be a reduction in the costs associated with statutory social work supervision of the case. Social workers in interview often remarked that the involvement of the Matrix worker meant that they were able to reduce their level of contact with a family to a monitoring function consistent with statutory requirements. The costs of a child attending Matrix must, therefore, be offset to some extent by the cost savings to the social work department through reduced social worker costs associated with supervision of the case. It is difficult to provide a precise estimate of the reduction in social work input that this might entail. However it would seem reasonable to assume that the social worker’s involvement with a family who are attending Matrix might amount to one quarter of the time that would be invested in the family if Matrix was not involved. Netten and Curtis (2000) suggest that the average weekly cost of a child care case – in terms of social worker time – is £72. It is therefore assumed that this would be, on average, £18 per week while a child attended Matrix. In other words the weekly saving, in terms of social worker time, would be £54. Over an average Matrix case lasting 12 months, this would produce an indirect cost saving to the social work department of £2,808. If this amount is subtracted from the previously estimated cost per case £17,203, this produces an average cost of £14,395. This is not much higher than the estimated unit cost of £13,580 for attendance of a young person at Freagarrach, a Barnardo’s project based in Falkirk that works intensively with persistent young offenders aged between 12 and 15 years of age (Lobley et al., 2001).
ESTIMATING THE LONGER-TERM FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF MATRIX 6.10 The costings undertaken to this point are based on the immediate costs and savings associated with the provision of services to children and their families by Matrix. However, it is also necessary to consider the economic consequences of Matrix involvement with a family in the longer term. Indeed, the Invest to Save funding provided to the project by the Treasury was predicated on the assumption that the provision of resources at one point in time would be offset by cost savings in the future through the prevention of more costly outcomes. 6.11 One way in which Matrix might contribute to longer-term savings is in the reduction of young people. It is difficult with the small sample size in this study and from the relatively ‘soft’ recidivism data that were available to quantify the likely
62
impact of the Matrix Project in this respect. However, it is possibly to draw upon existing economic analyses to estimate the costs (both to society and to the criminal justice system) of youth crime. For example, Lobley et al. (2001) cite Coppers and Lybrand’s (1997) estimate of £2,700 as being the marginal cost of the average youth crime to society and Greenwood et al’s (1998) estimate that the average criminal career costs £50,000 to the criminal justice system. Clearly, therefore, if the intervention provided by Matrix does help reduce young people’s risk of re-offending – and the data from this study are cautiously optimistic in this respect – then the cost savings are likely to be large. 6.12 Another way in which Matrix might produce economic benefits is through preventing the need for young people to be looked after by the local authority. Netten and Curtis (2000) estimate that the weekly unit cost of a local authority community home for children was £1,847 (including care costs) in 2000 while Hogg (1999) put the weekly unit cost of a place in a secure unit at £2,500 in 1999. Attendance at Matrix over a period of 12 months is therefore less costly than a residential placement over a relatively short period of time. 6.13 A third way in which Matrix might produce cost savings in the longer term is through the retention of children in mainstream education. For example, it has been estimated that the provision of educational support to pupils in school for one year is £2,000 while the annual cost of educating children in a referral unit for excluded pupils is £2,000 (Hughes et al., 2000). 6.14 Finally, it is possible to draw upon some estimates produced by Barnardo’s of the potential financial benefits in the longer term of early intervention aimed at the prevention of more serious problems among children and young people (Hughes et al., 2000). Two of the cases on which these estimates were based appeared to share many similar characteristics to the children who were provided with services by Matrix. In one example, the failure to invest in early services was estimated to have cost £33,266 while in the other the costs of not providing preventative services were estimated to be £153,649. Whilst it is difficult to extrapolate directly from these figures, they do illustrate the potential consequences, in financial terms, of not providing services that might prevent longer-term problems and help improve children’s quality of life.
CONCLUSION 6.9 These costs per family associated with participation in Matrix may, at £14,395 appear high, but they are comparable to the unit costs of other projects that work intensively with children and young people with a view to reducing their risk of reoffending. In addition, these costs must be set against potential cost savings that might accrue from the prevention of further offending and anti-social behaviour, the retaining of children in mainstream educational provision and the prevention of the need for children to be accommodated by the local authority.
63
CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSIONS INTRODUCTION 7.1 In this final chapter we consider those issues that may require some attention if the efficiency or effectiveness of the work undertaken by the Matrix project is to be further enhanced. It must be re-iterated that the small sample sizes and the relatively short timescale for the evaluation mean that any conclusions about the effectiveness or otherwise of the services provided by Matrix are necessarily tentative. A more robust evaluation would require a larger number of cases followed up over a longer period of time, and relevant outcomes compared with a sample of similar children who receive the services that would be made available if Matrix did not exist.
SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS 7.2 In general Matrix was regarded as a valued resource by social workers, teachers and other agencies in contact with vulnerable children. The Matrix workers were viewed as enthusiastic, committed and professional and the project’s emphasis upon early intervention was considered appropriate in view of the absence of similar resources for this age group of children. Other professionals regarded the holistic approach adopted by Matrix to be a major strength, along with the ability of project staff to engage effectively with families who were reluctant to respond to statutory intervention. The project adopted a variety of methods in their work with children and families and emphasised the importance, at a number of levels, of inter-agency work. 7.3 The perceived benefits to families who attended Matrix included increased confidence on the part of children and their parents, improved behaviour by children and an increase in parenting skills, though more fundamental changes in parental attitudes and behaviour and were more difficult to achieve. There was some evidence of an decrease in the incidence of risk factors and an increase in protective factors at the end of families’ involvement with the project and some of the children who attended Matrix had either stopped offending or began offending less while they attended the project. However it is not clear whether these short-term benefits could be sustained without longer-term support.
ISSUES ARISING FROM THE STUDY 7.4 Despite the generally positive appraisal of Matrix by other professionals and by the children and families who attended the project, the research identified a number of issues that require some further attention. We do not purport to have answers to the questions that these issues raise, but present them in order that Matrix staff and other relevant agencies might reflect upon the implications for policy and practice.
64
Referral procedures 7.5 The procedure for referring cases to Matrix varied across the three local authorities that made use of the project. This may have contributed to the confusion that existed among some professional respondents with respect to whether or not they could refer cases to Matrix and the mechanisms for doing so. Only social workers appeared to be fully conversant with the referral criteria and procedures. 7.6 Some confusion may also have existed with respect to the objectives of Matrix and the different categories of children for whom a place at Matrix might be appropriate. Whilst Matrix was generally recognised as providing a service for children who were already offending or displaying anti-social behaviour, there appeared to be less widespread recognition of the project’s intention to work also with children at risk (who could be referred from a wider range of agencies). Each of the three Local Referral Groups appeared to have slightly different expectations about where Matrix should most appropriate focus its efforts in this regard. It is not surprising, therefore, that some uncertainly about the ‘target group’ existed among professionals who had little direct contact with the project. 7.7 It is understandable that local authorities were reluctant to introduce new referral procedures for Matrix cases when mechanisms already existed through which cases referred to Matrix could be considered. The Steering Group had attempted to introduce a uniform approach to referral to ensure consistency of practice across the three authorities during the period of the evaluation and the operation of different systems of referral will be less important in the longer term. However, it is important that a wider range of agencies have a clear understating about their potential to refer to Matrix and do not feel discouraged from doing so by what they may perceive as slightly cumbersome bureaucratic procedures. Matrix criteria 7.8 The Matrix Steering Group may also wish to review the criteria against which children are assessed as suitable or otherwise for Matrix. At the moment the project is working with three groups of children, though the distinctions between them are often blurred. This raises the question as to how appropriate the existing classifications are? The concept of ‘early intervention’, for example, was variously invoked in relation both to children who had never offended and to those who were referred to the reporter for the first time on offence grounds. This lack of clarity is likely to be unhelpful to potential referrers, to those who assess the referrals and to project staff. 7.9 Also in relation to the referral criteria, staff indicated that even by eight years of age some children had already become entrenched in a pattern of anti-social behaviour that was consequently difficult to change. Should Matrix therefore be working with younger children and intervening in a higher proportion of cases before a pattern of offending or anti-social behaviour has developed? Such a re-focusing of the project’s work would, however, have associated drawbacks. These are that 1) further work would be required to develop developmentally appropriate methods of work and 2) groupwork would probably not be feasible with such a wide age group of
65
children. Inter-agency work 7.10 When several agencies are involved in providing services to a family the risk always exists that there may be some overlap between them in the work being undertaken and some blurring of professional roles. Neither of these appeared to be a particular issue with respect to Matrix but ongoing attention to them is required. The potential exists, for example, for some tensions to arise between project staff and social workers with respect to their respective responsibilities: for example, Matrix workers perceived the co-ordination of the work of different agencies to be an important element of their approach. However this might be regarded by social workers as an attempt by Matrix to usurp their role as case manager, rather than simply being one of a range of services being co-ordinated through the local authority care plan. 7.11 Some scope was identified for greater involvement of Matrix staff in interagency work with other agencies, such as various health professionals, who have involvement with Matrix children and their families. Whilst this is an area that might usefully be developed it must also be recognised that Matrix workers are already required to make considerable efforts to develop effective working relationships with staff from a variety of different agencies in three local authorities that together constitute a wide geographical area. Project staff suggested that already they were spreading themselves very thin in this respect and that the effectiveness of their work at the community level might have been compromised as a result. The definition and measurement of success 7.12 Although the objectives of the Matrix project were reasonably clear and were generally understood, the work undertaken with children and families was highly individualised and that could make it difficult to define and measure success. For example, some respondents questioned whether it was appropriate to evaluate Matrix against certain preventive outcomes such as avoiding removal from the mainstream educational system and avoiding the need for the child to be accommodated by the local authority. Determining whether Matrix had impacted upon offending and antisocial behaviour could also be difficult if there had been no evidence of behaviour of this kind prior to a child being referred to Matrix. Assessing the preventive effects of interventions is a difficulty common to any projects that aim to prevent particular outcomes, rather than being an issue unique to Matrix. 7.13 As we observed in Chapter Five, in some cases there was more evidence of certain risk factors being present in more cases at the end of the project’s involvement with families. This is likely to be because regular intensive contact with a family served to uncover problems that had not previously been detected by other agencies that had less frequent contact with the family. On what basis, therefore, can it be adjudged that sufficient progress has been made with a family and that the risks that still remain are not so great that it is inappropriate to withdraw? Does a risk-focused approach encourage decision-making that is overly conservative and results in a reluctance on the part of staff to close cases even though all of the work deemed
66
necessary at the outset has been completed? 7.14 As already indicated, there was no evidence that Matrix were systematically keeping cases open for longer than was necessary. Staff also appeared fully alert to the possibility of creating dependency on the part of families if they remained involved with them too long. This, however, is an issue that the Matrix Steering Group might wish to keep under review, particularly given the relatively high unit costs of the services provided by the project. 7.15 The question also arises as to what might Matrix reasonably be expected to achieve in the longer-term with families with complex and deep-seated difficulties. How effective, in other words, is time-limited intervention with families who are unlikely to function well in the absence of relatively open-ended long-term support and how can the work undertaken by Matrix be supported and reinforced in the longer term?
67
REFERENCES Asquith, S., Buist, M., Loughran, N., Macauley, C. and Montgomery, M. (1998) Children, Young People and Offending in Scotland, Edinburgh: Scottish Office Central Research Unit. Audit Commission (1996) Mis-spent Youth: Young People and Crime, London: The Audit Commission. Communities That Care (1997) Communities That Care (UK): A New Kind of Prevention Programme, London: CTC. Cooper and Lybrand (1997) Young People and Crime in Scotland, Glasgow: The Prince’s Trust. Coote, A. (ed) (1994) Families, Children and Crime, Institute for Public Policy Research: London. Farrington, D.P. (1996) Understanding and Preventing Youth Crime, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Goldblatt, P. and Lewis, C. (1998) Reducing Offending: An Assessment of Research Evidence on ways of Dealing with Offending Behaviour, Home Office Research Study 187, London: Home Office. Gottfredson, D.C. (1997) School-based crime prevention in L. Sherman et al. (Eds.), Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising, Report to the US Congress, Washington D.C.: National Institute of Justice. Gottfredson, D.C., Sealock, M.D. and Koper, C.S. (1996) Delinquency, in R. DiClemente et al. (Eds.), Handbook of Adolescent Health Risk Behaviour, New York: Plenum. Greenwood, P. W., Model, K.E., Rydell, C.P. and Chiesa, J. (1998) Diverting Children from a Life of Crime: Measuring Costs and Benefits, Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation. Hawkins, J.D., Catalano, R.F. and Miller, J.Y. (1992) Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in early adulthood: Implications for substance abuse prevention, Psychological Bulletin, 112, 64-105. Hogg, K. (1999) Youth Crime in Scotland, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Policy Unit. Howell, J.C., Krisberg, B., Wilson, J.J. and Hawkins, J.D. (1995) A Sourcebook on Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Hughes, M., Downie, A. and Sharma, N. (2000) Counting the Cost of Child Poverty, Ilford: Barbardo’s.
68
Jamieson, J., McIvor, G. and Murray, C. (1999) Understanding Offending Among Young People, Edinburgh: The Stationery Office. Lobley, D., Smith, D. and Stern, C. (2001) Freagarrach: An Evaluation of a Project for Persistent Juvenile Offenders, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Central Research Unit. Loeber, R.T. and Dishion, T. (1983) Early predictors of male delinquency: A review, Psychological Bulletin, 93, 68-99. NACRO (1995) Crime and Social Policy, Report of the Crime and Social Policy Committee, London: NACRO. Netten. A. and Curtis, L. (2000) Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2000, Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit at the University of canterbury. Prince’s Trust (1997) Young People and Crime in Scotland, Edinburgh: The Prince’s Trust. Ruxton, S. (1996) Children in Europe, London: NCH Action for Children. Scottish Office (1999) A Safer Scotland: Tackling Crime and its Causes, Edinburgh: The Scottish Office. Sherman, L. (1997) Thinking about prevention, in L. Sherman et al. (Eds.), Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising, Report to the US Congress, Washington D.C.: National Institute of Justice. Sherman, L., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P. and Bushway, S. (1997) Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising, Report to the US Congress, Washington D.C.: National Institute of Justice. Utting, D. (1996) Reducing Criminality Among Young People: A Sample of Relevant Programmes in the United Kingdom, Home Office Research Study 161, London: Home Office. Utting, D., Bright, J. and Henricson, C. (1993) Crime and the Family: Improving Child-rearing and Preventing Delinquency, London: Family Policy Studies Centre. Yoshikawa, H. (1994) Prevention as cumulative protection: Effects of early family support and education on chronic delinquency and its risks, Psychological Bulletin, 115, 28-54.
69
ANNEX
Tasks identified only once each in the initial Family Agreement Three times weekly contact with child Child behaviour chart and reward scheme To come straight home Share information at review meeting Keep daily diary to record feelings/behaviour Bring diary to project worker sessions Spend family time together Watch health issues Fortnightly contact with parents Parents to stay in contact with staff Child to take bag to school every day Ensure child home by reasonable hour Home-school diary To attend youth club Meet fortnightly with parents Attendance chart Bedtime chart To stay in playground with him To share info with police Keep appointments Family time Identify school supports needed Practical family issues Show consistency Do homework Parent to attend literacy classes Joint work with another boy Find an after-school club
70
