DART – Evaluation of a large scale project Matt Barnard Head of Evaluation NSPCC

Domestic Abuse Recovering Together Theory of change –Child’s recovery improved if non-abusing parent involved –Mother/child relationship may need strengthening Aims –Rebuild mother/child relationship –Help with other aspects of recovery Programme structure –10 weeks long for hours a week –Separate and joint sessions

Evaluation Methods Aims –Measure impact –Identify barriers and facilitators Mixed methodology –Quasi-experimental –Standardised measures –Qualitative interviews –Surveys Data collection –Before (T1) –Straight after (T2) –Six months after end (T3)

Standardised Measures Mothers –Parental Locus of Control scale –Parental Acceptance and Rejection Questionnaire (PARQ) –Rosenberg self esteem questionnaire Children –Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire –PARQ (Child version) –Self esteem measure (adapted from Rosenberg)

Comparison group –Play therapy intervention at women’s refuge –SDQ data collected before and at end of service Limitations –Wider age range 2-11 (excluded those under 5) –Small sample (19 after exclusions) –Numbers of sessions (mean =15, DART = 10) –DART group had higher ‘difficulties’ scores at T1

Early Impact results Outcomes improved over time –Mothers all scales –Children SDQ and some PARQ subscales Outcomes improved more than comparison (SDQ) –Total difficulties only significant –Other scales approaching significance

Early process findings Key facilitators –Joint sessions facilitated communication –‘Adult only’ and ‘child only’ sessions enabled peer support Key barriers –Level of programme prescription –Difficulties in understanding language and concepts –Low levels of referrals –Distress caused by contact with perpetrators –Lack of services for onward referral

Lessons Degree of cultural change –Organisation –Individuals Data collection logistics –Measure data –Basic demographic/ programme data Pre-planning –Comparison group