summary

A different
kind of
social work?
Summary of Key Points from the
Evaluation of Quarriers Family
Resource Centre
This is the summary report of
the evaluation of Quarriers
Family Resource Centre which
opened in June 2000. The study
was funded by a grant Quarriers
received from Glasgow Council’s
Changing Children’s Services
Fund and was carried out by
staff at the Social Work
Research Centre, University of
Stirling, between September
2003-2005
Introduction
The project began life in a flat in Ruchazie, but moved to In addition, a grant from Children in Need funded a post
new accommodation in October 2001. The new premises dedicated to work with dads.
were purpose built and included space for a nursery, while
Quarriers Family Resource Centre was considered to merit
also accommodating a team of health visitors working on
evaluation because in its first few years of operation it had
the Starting Well health demonstration project. It was
become recognised, locally and across Scotland, as a
expected that the centre would be a community resource,
‘flagship’ service. There was therefore value in
providing a nursery and drop-in whilst also collaborating
understanding to what its success might be attributed,
with other local resources to enhance the quality of life of
with a particular focus on how it had managed to combine
people living in the area. It was also part of the centre’s
open access and a community development ethos with
remit to work with families experiencing difficulties. Higher
individual work with families where children were in need
than usual numbers of children were being brought to the
of care and protection, and the extent to which its aim of
attention of Social Work Services and the Reporter to the
developing a non-stigmatised service had been achieved.
Children’s Panel, resulting in some being accommodated.
It was expected that the centre would help reduce these The evaluation involved two sets of group and individual
referrals and the need for accommodation, partly by interviews with key people: parents attending the centre,
offering general support to parents and partly through centre staff and managers, nursery staff and parents and
working more intensively with families whose problems professionals from other local agencies. In addition, detailed
were already severe. Key elements of the direct services information was obtained on the service offered to ten
offered by the centre were: nursery, women’s group, dads’ individual families. The study was guided throughout by
group, intensive work with individual parents and children, an advisory group composed of parents, centre staff and
literacy support, drop-in, playtime and parenting classes. other professionals working in the local area.
The centre’s social development and interdisciplinary ethos
was reflected in the range of partner agencies which
contributed to its development and funding. These were
Quarriers, Glasgow City Council Social Work Services,
Glasgow City Council Education Department, Greater
Easterhouse Social Inclusion Partnership, Communities
Scotland Formerly known as Scottish Homes, NHS
Glasgow, Scottish Enterprise and The Big Step [Social
Inclusion Partnership].
 When I came here at first
I didn’t know who was staff and
who were just people using the
centre...all very informal and
friendly...and the staff weren’t
in offices, I think I met most of
them in the kitchen and the drop
in room...staff and users of the
centre all eating lunch together
in the drop in room...you don’t
see that often
Key points from the evaluation
• Three key elements were identified as contributing
to the centre’s success: its non-judgemental,
participative approach, actively engaging with
other services in the community, high level of skill
in managing risk.
• Each aspect of the centre’s service contributed to
developing non-judgemental, participative practice.
These included: actively challenging negative stereo
types of parents living in poor areas, basing care plans
on parents’ priorities, challenging prejudice in staff
supervision and through team development,
developing skills in challenging unhelpful or harmful
behaviours in an non-rejecting way. Creating a
welcoming atmosphere, maximising the communal
use of space in the building and fostering a sense of
ownership also contributed to breaking down barriers
between staff and service users.
‘you know how…sometimes you go to a place and you
know that people are looking at you, passing judgement
about you? Well that is not the case here.’ (mother)
‘supervision has kept me on track [...] I have had to come
to terms with my own prejudices, some that I didn’t even
know I had. It is too easy to make value judgements about
people or situations when you are only presented with half
a picture.’ (centre staff member)
‘they said, they wouldn’t let you off with crap, you know if
I was doing something that [worker] didn’t agree with, she
would be the first to say you’re not keeping your side of
the agreement or something.’ (mother)
‘when I came here at first I didn’t know who was staff and
who were just people using the centre…all very informal
and friendly…and the staff weren’t in offices, I think I met
most of them in the kitchen and the drop in room...staff
and users of the centre all eating lunch together in the drop
in room... you don’t see that often.’ (father)
‘the building is excellent, you know, everything you need is
just where it should be. And it’s got a nice friendly
atmosphere in here. It’s like a pal’s house; it’s just like going
to your pal’s house for a cup of tea.’ (mother)

‘there is always a friendly face when you get in the

door…and the staff remember your name and the wean’s
name.’ (mother)

‘when I first came here I thought it was just going to be the

same old…you have problems and we can tell you what
they are, sort of stuff, but it wasn’t that…we sat down and
spoke about what we all thought was going on. I actually
got a chance to say…this is what I think is going on…and I
got to say this is what I would like to do.’ (mother)
 We need to let people
know what the centre really has
to offer. I am speaking mostly
about men, dads in particular.
The stigma that is attached to
groups like this is a very real
thing. Men don’t want to be seen
to ask for help
• Other professionals appreciated that staff had been
very pro-active in making links with other agencies.
Several expressed the view that the benefit to the
community had not simply been in terms of what the
centre offered directly, but the positive energy its staff
created in the community as whole:
‘the manager was determined to establish better working
relationships between other service agencies within this
field of work and I think she was quite successful…I hope
this work continues.’ (worker in a local project)
‘I would just like to add that Quarriers have made a
significant difference for the families who attend and for
all of the community in Ruchazie.’
(worker in a local project)
‘Quarriers are a very welcome addition to this area, it gives
a sense of hope back to the community.’
(worker in a local project)
• Centre staff were recognised as having a high level of
skill in managing and working with risk. The essence
of their approach was to focus on the effect of parental
behaviour on the child, rather than judge the behaviour
itself. Health visitors and social workers talked about
learning from the centre’s practice, while workers in a
range of community projects had appreciated receiving
advice in situations when they were concerned about
a child’s welfare or safety.
‘Quarriers helped our staff and me deliver a message about
children and their needs in that just because a parent
behaves in a certain way doesn’t mean to say their kid will
come into care. What we need to look at is how that
actually impacts on the needs of the child...that’s been
dead important to us.’ (social work manager)
‘the staff at Quarriers are very well trained to work with
people where a child is considered to be at risk. Risk
management is definitely one of the centre’s strongest
points.’ (worker in a local project)
• Through having the nursery, groups and drop-in, the
centre promoted access to all local parents and so
hoped to become a non-stigmatised resource. Most
staff and parents involved in the centre thought this
had been achieved, but a number of other professionals
and parents of children attending the nursery indicated
that it was still viewed locally as a service for families
who were not coping, so some mothers and fathers
remained unsure of what was on offer and wary of
getting involved. There was scope for considering
further how links with other local services might help
promote more local awareness and involvement.
‘we need to let people know what the centre really has to
offer. I am speaking mostly about men, dads in particular.
The stigma that is attached to groups like this is a very real
thing. Men don’t want to be seen to ask for help.’ (father)
• The range of services offered at the centre was key to
its capacity to engage with parents with different needs
and preferences. In addition there were opportunities
for parents to get to know different members of the
staff team. Parents liked that they could get advice or
help with a whole host of issues in the same place. The
nursery was highly valued by all respondents as a key
part of the service. The literacy worker’s role was
considered crucial, because it boosted parents’ self-
esteem, supported them as parents (e.g. by being able
to respond to letters from school or read children
stories) and helped them prepare for further education
or work.
• The women’s group was a key service because it
brought together a wide range of women and
addressed a variety of topics, from child health to self-
defence. One of its strengths was that women could
learn from each other. Those who attended said they
enjoyed it and it made them feel good about
themselves:
‘I know some people come here because they have a
worker, or maybe their worker has suggested to them that
it might be good for their case or something if they come
here regularly, but a lot of other people just come because
they love it here. If I didn’t come here I would just sit about
watching painting programmes on the telly all day.’
(mother)
• The dads’ group was widely recognised as successful
in engaging and working with men who had previously
resisted social work involvement. It was particularly
effective with men who had recently taken on
additional child care responsibilities. Its success was
attributed to giving men a real say in how the group
was run, encouraging mutual support, challenging
negative stereotypes about working class men as
fathers and creating a safe environment in which
emotional issues could be shared and a high level of
support offered, without implying weakness or
dependency. The success of work with dads was clear,
but attempts to start two new dads’ groups had
faltered because of low take up. The plan had been to
cater for teenage dads and men from another area,
but at the time the research ended this was being
revised.
‘dads are usually viewed as bystanders when it comes to
parenting and mothers get all the credit for a child’s
development. The group here gives men a place to talk
about what they think about being a parent. There is no
other place for men to meet and talk about that kind of
stuff except in a pub or something…but that is not really
the kind of stuff that men talk about in a pub. You would
be laughed at…to say the very least.’ (father)
‘there are other men’s groups, and groups that have
projects for men, but the difference with this place is that
the dads’ group is ours. The agenda is about us, the
dads…it’s not like what other groups are saying ‘what can
we do to help you…in here it is what can we all do together
to help us all…It’s about the men and the men have a big
say in what happens.’ (father)
• Asked to rate their expectations and actual benefits
from attending the centre, most parents reported that
they had gained more than they had expected. Typically
people said they had come along expecting to meet
other parents and have a break, but reported
improvements in how they cared for their children, felt
about themselves and got on with other people in
their family.
• The evaluation examined in more detail the experiences
of ten families who had been allocated a project worker.
After a year, staff considered that some of the initial
difficulties had been reduced in each case, for example
parents no longer misused drugs, were better able to
control their temper or had developed enough
confidence to parent their child. However elements of
the initial difficulties remained in all cases except three
men who had been offered support to take on
responsibility for the care of their children. Though this
had been a considerable challenge for each of them,
their difficulties were far less entrenched than in some
 other families where mental health issues, unresolved
childhood trauma or learning difficulties made living in
social disadvantage even more difficult. In these
circumstances it was not surprising that initial problems
had not been completely overcome.
• A year on, children from two families had their names
removed from the child Protection Register. One set
had returned home from being accommodated.
Assessing less tangibleimpacts on children was difficult
and could only be approximate, but, based on the views
of key professionals and parents, the evaluation
concluded that in five of the families the children’s lives
had clearly improved, whilst three had had
improvements in some, but not all, aspects of their lives.
In the remaining two families concerns persisted about
how the children were cared for, so workers had
concluded that more intensive practical support and
supervision would be needed, if the children were to
remain safely at home.
• Collaboration with social work colleagues worked well,
despite clear indications that the two services adopted
a very different approach. Parents often contrasted the
centre’s willingness to take account of their priorities,
with the more authoritarian approach adopted by social
workers. This corresponded with how each group of
staff viewed their own and each other’s roles. Social
workers appreciated that working in a voluntary
capacity and having more time meant centre staff could
expect to effect change with families, whereas their
own role was primarily about assessing and monitoring
risk. Both sets of workers agreed that it was appropriate
at times for centre staff to advocate on behalf of
parents, a role which parents much appreciated. Even
when acting as an advocate, centre staff were clear
that the best interests of the children remained their
primary concern, but some social workers thought this
implied that the parents’ interests became paramount.
Some social workers expected that centre staff would
be reluctant to challenge parents when their behaviour
was unacceptable, whereas centre workers saw this as
an integral part of their job. For the most part, social
workers and centre staff were in agreement when
decisions were made that a formal child protection
response was required or that a child should be
accommodated.
‘for a lot of people we are the bad guys. We are the people
who have put their kid on the register or taken their kids
from them. So they don’t always feel that well disposed
towards us. And they worry that we will see everything in
a negative light and we want them to fail. And I think
Quarriers staff are able to have a much better relationship
with parents and be seen as a lot less threatening. I think
parents can probably relax a bit more and be more natural
when they are interacting with their children in front of
them.’ (social work manager)
‘I know that my kids would not be with me today if it wasn’t
for the staff here at the centre. They have worked with the
health visitor and the social worker to get me back on my
feet…you know what I mean? They have seen me with the
kids on a regular basis and they know what I am like with
the kids…and they have spoke up for me a few times.’
(mother)
‘it is very important to keep a happy balance between
friendship and professionalism in this job as a major part
of the work we do is about assessing risk to any family
member and being able to challenge any behaviour that
could be considered as unacceptable.’ (centre worker)
 I know that my kids
would not be with me today if
it wasn’t for the staff here at
the centre. They have worked
with the health visitor and the
social worker to get me back
on my feet…you know what I
mean? They have seen me with
the kids on a regular basis and
they know what I am like with
the kids…and they have spoke
up for me a few times
• While the collaboration with statutory social work staff
generally worked well, there were potential difficulties
which resulted from each service operating in
accordance with a different ethos. One example was
that the statutory services had decided to create a joint
social work/health visitor team to provide intensive
input to families where child protection concerns were
serious enough to merit a multi-agency response. This
fitted well with current trends towards targeted, time-
limited, interdisciplinary, specialist interventions for
‘high risk’ families. However the new team’s
underpinning approach was quite different from
the centre’s aims of providing a non-stigmatised service
to all families, using relationship in the helping process
and willingness to engage with people over the longer
term. Whereas the centre’s approach included tackling
social disadvantage and its corrosive effects through
developing community resources, the new statutory
team would focus primarily on individual families.
• With the creation of the new team, local health visitors
were no longer based in Quarriers family resource centre.
In addition it had been proposed that the centre should
focus primarily on early intervention, which would
restrict its initial role. This study indicated that
challenging negative stereotypes was the essence of
the centre’s success with parents, so it is to be hoped
that elements of this approach will be built into the new
service. It is this strong commitment to non-judgemental
practicewhich arguably meant the centre offered a
‘different kind of social work’.
‘there is nothing available for families with older children’
(father)
‘I would like some advice on how to deal with teenagers,
there is no advice or help on how to deal with teenagers,
like my son,…he is the one I need more help understanding.’
(mother)
• The evaluation concluded that Quarriers Family
Resource Centre had developed a way of working which
benefited many families and had managed to effectively
combine a focus on community development, open
access and work with families where children are in need
of protection. On this basis, a strong case could be made
for replicating and developing this model. Comments
from some parents and the experience of some of the
families who took part in the study suggested that it
would be particularly valuable to cater for older children
and their parents and for families whose multiple
problems mean they need even more intensive support
than the present service is able to offer.

• When asked how the centre might be improved, most

parents and other professionals suggested extending
its remit. The most common request was that it should
cater for families with older children:
Quarriers, Quarriers Village
Bridge of Weir, PA11 3SX
Tel. 01505 616000
Fax. 01505 613906
Email. enquiries@quarriers.org.uk

For more information please visit our website on www.quarriers.org.uk

Quarriers is a registered Scottish Charity No SCO01960 and is a company limited by

guarantee and registered in Scotland No 14361 VAT registration No 263 5009 75