Abstract
Little is known about police sponsored interventions designed to positively impact upon the problem of Child and Adolescent to Parent/guardian Violence and Abuse (CAPVA) and their effectiveness in helping to divert children and young people away from criminalisation. Here we describe a United Kingdom (U.K.)-based programme called Step Up. The aim of the programme is to deliver, through a holistic approach, parental/carer education and child coaching to reduce violence and abuse towards parents/guardians. Utilising a mixed methods approach, our research was designed to provide understanding of the outcomes and impact of the programme for service users and key stakeholders including funders of the provision and local communities. The primary aim was to examine the impact of the programme in the short-to-medium term on behaviour, wellbeing, and reoffending with a deeper analysis of the mechanisms of the programme that influence changed behaviour. Findings showed that while the programme had some positive impact, with most of the surveyed families reporting some improvements in behaviours and attitudes, for a small minority, offending behaviours continued or increased. In this article, we expand upon these findings and discuss positive aspects of the programme which appeared to contribute towards improved behaviours. We also identify key barriers for young people and their families in reducing incidents of CAPVA. While based on a particular intervention in the United Kingdom, our discussion offers insight that contributes towards a broader understanding of “what works” which can be utilised in interventions beyond regional and country specific borders.
Introduction
Child-to-Parent Violence (CPV), Adolescent Family Violence (APV) or Child and Adolescent to Parent/guardian Violence and Abuse (CAPVA) is recognised as a complex pattern of harmful behaviours that take place within the context and dynamics of the family unit. Such behaviours can range from direct and indirect physical violence, coercive control, emotional abuse (e.g., humiliating language and threats, belittlement), economic/financial abuse, and heightened sexualised behaviours (Holt, 2013, 2016). While often seen as sub-sets of Domestic and Family Violence (D&FV) or Domestic Abuse (DA), some of the behaviours listed above are less well recognised or acknowledged, and there is often a blurring of the conceptual boundaries between CAPVA and other forms of intimate and/or familial violence directed towards women (Holt & Lewis, 2021). Such conceptual slippages can obscure not only the age-related power dynamics involved in CAPVA but also the gender dynamics within families in which relationships are mediated by complex power differentials.
As is increasingly recognised in national and international research on the topic, there are complex relationships betwixt health and social issues (Macafee & Reeves, 2024). In several jurisdictions, CAPVA sits uneasily at best, and harmfully at worst, within existing child protection, domestic violence, and/or youth justice frameworks. Children and adolescents may find themselves dually adjudicated by child welfare and youth justice systems (Baidawi & Sheehan, 2019) and criminalised at an early age (Bettinson & Quinlan, 2020). Indeed, the complex pathways to CAPVA and the contextual situations in which it occurs (see Billingham & Irwin-Rogers, 2022; Calvete et al., 2020; Cuervo, 2023; Gray et al., 2023; Moran et al., 2024) can leave children's and adult's needs hard to determine, and support and availability of service provision can be mismatched and/or mistimed. In recent years there has been an effort to understand and improve evidence on the contributory factors and developmental pathways of CAPVA and diversionary interventions which avoid criminalisation have become popular in both the United Kingdom and Australia.
In the U.K. context, a programme called Step Up has been adopted and established since 2009. The Step Up intervention has its origins in an American model (Routt & Anderson, 2004) and has been re-designed and implemented in different regions in the United Kingdom. Despite variations, a common feature is that the intervention is underpinned by restorative practice aiming to deliver, through a holistic approach, parental/carer education and child coaching to reduce CAPVA. The programme we report upon was established in the Northwest of England in 2015. It uses a cognitive behavioural skills approach to help young people stop the use of problematic and abusive behaviours including threats, intimidation, property destruction, degrading language, and physical violence, and to replace these with nonviolent, respectful ways of communicating and resolving conflict with family members. By encouraging accountability, family safety and conflict resolution, the Step Up programme aims to help develop respectful family relationships so that all family members feel safe at home.
Drawing upon our research of this particular Step Up intervention, we discuss positive aspects of the programme which appeared to contribute towards improved behaviours. We also identify key barriers for young people and their families in reducing incidents of CAPVA. While the data presented here relates to a U.K.-based intervention, our findings and discussions contribute towards a broader understanding of “what works” which can be utilised in interventions beyond borders.
Background context to CAPVA
CAPVA represents a serious social problem. This has long been recognised in several countries, though since the turn of the century, scholarship aimed at understanding the nuances to this form of family violence has gathered momentum. In Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand there is a growing body of work on police and service sector support (Hamilton et al., 2021, 2023; Hamilton & Harris, 2021; Macafee & Reeves, 2024) and Peck et al. (2021, 2023) conducted the first integrative review of evidence in these jurisdictions. That review concludes that integrative pathways that contribute towards such violence are limited by the amount and quality of the research. Systematic (see e.g., Rogers & Ashworth, 2024; Rutter, 2023; Toole-Anstey et al., 2023) and other reviews (Baker & Bonnick, 2021) of CAPVA, varying in breadth and depth of focus, have also been conducted outside of the Australasian context. Despite a growing global awareness however, the context and scale of the problem remains obscure. There are complex reasons for this.
First, despite growing awareness of the problem, there is no shared universal definition of CAPVA (Rogers & Ashworth, 2024). Different terms, abbreviations, language and descriptions are in common use both within and between countries. The definitional problem is compounded by inconsistency in categorising variables (see Peck et al., 2023) and by differing policy and practice variations between and within countries. The use of police discretion (Moulds et al., 2019) gives rise to such variation. In the United Kingdom, scholars have pointed out that without an official definition and without concordance around terminology, problems will remain with statistical data collection, understanding and awareness and the commissioning of services (Holt, 2022; Home Office, 2023). Ultimately, contested definitions (Brennan et al., 2022; Burck et al., 2019) give rise to anomaly and ambiguity, in turn creating a problem in recognising, identifying and quantifying the scale of the problem.
Second, there are universally high levels of under-reporting of CAPVA which compound the knowledge problem. For various reasons (see below) many instances of D&FV go unreported to the police, therefore recorded data underestimates rates of perpetration and victimisation (Holt, 2016, 2022). Thus, as with other forms of familial based violence, CAPVA is largely a hidden form of abuse. Literature on CAPVA, as with the wider research on DA, will often acknowledge that a range of socio-cultural features are at play. For example, there is an apparent gender bias in reporting practices with adults more likely to report male violent behaviours to the police (Brennan et al., 2022) and mothers being silenced (Burck et al., 2019). Furthermore, in the absence of physical violence, research suggests that abuse is often masked and minimised. Indeed, in parallel with DA between adults (Barlow et al., 2020) there are often difficulties in recognising all behaviours as harmful and abusive and in acknowledging the gendered nature of the patterns to such behaviours. Like DA, therefore, CAPVA is often “normalised”. Parents mistake their child's behaviour as a “normal” phase of adolescence, subsequently minimising their behaviour as simply “challenging” (Fitz-Gibbon et al., 2018). Research also highlights the “double stigma” (Holt, 2011) and shame associated with CAPVA (Brennan et al., 2022; Holt, 2022) in which parents/carers will either view a child's problematic behaviour as being representative of their own failings as a parent or, worry that they will be blamed by the police and other agencies. Fear of criminalising their children also acts as a barrier to reporting incidents of CAPVA (Condry & Miles, 2014, p. 2021).
High under reporting levels linked to stigma, shame and lack of awareness impact upon our understanding of CAPVA. Gender stereotypes, myths and contrasting dominant disciplinary discourse combine to compound the problem of “knowing” (Walklate & Mythen, 2011) and understanding the aetiology of CAPVA. Nonetheless, research suggests that, as with other forms of D&FV, CAPVA appears to be an asymmetrical or gendered problem. While, as noted, gender stereotyped reporting bias may in part explain gendered patterns (Brennan et al., 2022), global research findings all suggest sons are far more likely to be abusive towards their mothers or female guardians (Fawzi et al., 2013; Holt, 2021; Ulman & Straus, 2003). Similarly, while debates exist regarding the age categorisations under which the definition of CAPVA ought to be used (Baker & Bonnick, 2021; Holt, 2022), research indicates patterns here too. While CAPVA can begin from an early age, it appears to peak between the ages of 14 and16 (Calvete et al., 2020; Holt, 2013; Simmons et al., 2018).
What constitutes the periods of childhood and adolescence, however, is contested and as Bobic (2004) points out, adolescence can be understood as an “in-between” developmental stage ranging from 12 to 24 years. Yet, age is a determinant of criminal responsibility and can also be a requirement built into legal definitions and classifications of violence and abuse. For example, while the relational dynamic between parent and child may change across the life course, the adult has a legal and moral responsibility towards their child until a specific age (Condry & Miles, 2021). In the United Kingdom this is 18 years. In this context, depending on the age of the young person, the abuse – if reported – may be identified and recorded as a different crime type. The U.K. government lowered its age parameters for DA in 2013 from 18 to 16 years, thus what previously presented as CAPVA by those between the age of 16 and 18 thereafter could be identified, classified and recorded as DA. Alternatively, if the parent or guardian is over the age of 65, the abuse may be recorded as “elder abuse” (Holt, 2022). Age-based complexities and categorisations make sizing the problem an imprecise science.
Research on the aetiology of CAPVA also points towards the importance of understanding the impact of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) including child neglect, trauma, abuse and deprivation (Baidawi & Sheehan, 2019; Nowakowski-Sims, 2019) amongst children and young people. Indeed, research suggests an over representation of children from child protection backgrounds involved in youth justice supervision and in detention (Malvaso et al., 2018). Research also suggests that an overlap may exist between CAPVA and other forms of D&FV such that witnessing adult intimate partner violence and abuse in the home may increase the likeliness of CAPVA (Calvete et al., 2020). Yet, while the implementation of trauma-informed approaches to working with children and adolescents in the justice system in the United Kingdom is becoming common practice, Gray et al. (2023) suggest that there remains a dearth of research into the efficacy of such approaches.
Research also suggests a link between CAPVA and neurodisability (Baidawi & Piquero, 2021) – including learning /intellectual, autism spectrum and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). While a recent cross-sectional study explored the prevalence of neurodevelopmental and mental health conditions in young offenders in Scotland (Moran et al., 2024), understanding of the needs of this population is still developing (Beaudry et al., 2020). In the United Kingdom, Holt (2024) continues to further our knowledge on CPV having recently explored how 15 mothers of neurodivergent children understand the violence they experience from them. Furthermore, since the COVID-19 pandemic there has been a 306% increase in the number of children waiting for an autism assessment (Centre for Young Lives, 2024). The number of adults waiting for community services has increased by 3.2% since late 2022, whilst wait lists for children and young people's services have increased by 10.2% over the same period. 6% of children and young people on community waiting lists have been waiting for over 52 weeks (Foundation Trust Network, 2023). Indeed, in the region we conducted our research, evidence suggests children and adolescents are waiting more than two years for autism and ADHD assessments leaving wait times beyond recommended compliance levels.
In the remainder of this article, and through our discussion of the United Kingdom-based Step Up programme, we aim to narrow the gap in research and add to the evidence base. Following an overview of the intervention and our research methodology, we outline key findings. We then make some observations about the strengths and limitations of this particular intervention leading into a discussion of two inter-related features which have cross border relevance.
The intervention
The Step Up programme, was developed as a cognitive-behavioural and skills-based approach within a restorative practice framework by Routt and Anderson in the United States in 1997. By encouraging accountability, family safety, and conflict resolution, the primary aim is to challenge young peoples’ abusive behaviours by supporting them to develop and replace these with nonviolent, respectful ways of communicating and resolving conflict (Routt & Anderson, 2004, p. 2016). The original 21 week programme was designed for a group-based delivery of a skills-based curriculum reliant on interactive exercises (Routt & Anderson, 2011). At the core of these exercises are the “Mutual Respect” and “Abuse/Disrespect” behavioural wheels (see Appendix 1). These wheels, developed from the Duluth “Power and Control” wheel (Routt & Anderson, 2016) are designed to encourage young people account for their actions, while simultaneously helping them and their families to develop healthy communication and conflict resolution skills. Sessions facilitated by trained practitioners, using these exercises, encourage a restorative conversation based on effective communication and self-evaluation through which all parties can be heard to support the family unit.
The Step Up programme has since been adapted to meet the needs of families in the United Kingdom and it now exists as one of several established CAPVA intervention programmes (Baker & Bonnick, 2021; Bates et al., 2023). The programme we examined is delivered by an established not-for-profit Community Interest Company provider across one county in the Northwest of England. While it remains underpinned by restorative practices and cognitive behavioural skills approaches, since it began in 2015, this provider has adopted various delivery models including group-based and one-to-one sessions. With the onset of COVID-19, however, the service developed into its present hybrid/blended service model of face-to-face and/or on-line delivery on a one-to-one family basis. Although the programme is needs-led with a suitability-based assessment which allows flexibility around age and duration, the programme is most recently delivered over an 8-week period, aimed at children aged 11‒17 years. While individuals can be referred into the programme through a variety of ways – a point which is discussed later – participation is voluntary.
As noted, the aim of a restorative approach is to provide support for the whole family. In the opening session, utilising the wheel of abuse, facilitators ask young people to score themselves on a scale of 0–5 on how they think their behaviour has been in recent weeks. Following a discussion of this behaviour, during subsequent sessions, the young person's behaviour is reflected upon and re-assessed. In due course, the wheel of respect is introduced to champion the use of more positive, respectful behaviours. During the sessions, parent(s)/carer(s), and wider family – for example, other siblings – are encouraged to listen and reflect upon how they feel about the score and behaviour. While all parties’ voices are heard, the emphasis is on young people leading the reflection to encourage accountability for their actions. In addition to this family coaching, the programme offer includes telephone support for parents as well as the offer of online and face-to-face parental peer support to help parents/carers overcome barriers to change, address feelings of isolation, failure, and shame. Uptake on the peer support aspect of the service was limited in the period under review.
Methods
The research was designed to provide an understanding of the outcomes and impact of the United Kingdom-based Step Up programme for service users and key stakeholders including funders of the provision and local communities. The primary aim was to examine the impact of the programme in the short to medium term on behaviour, wellbeing, and reoffending with a view to developing a deeper analysis of the mechanisms of the programme that influence changed behaviour amongst young people engaged in CAPVA. The evaluation focussed on the period from July 2022 to August 2023 when a hybrid in-person and online delivery model was in place following the legacy of COVID-19. A mixed-methods approach incorporating two interrelated phases of research was adopted.
Due to the sensitive nature of the research and the potential to exacerbate child-parent relations and interfere with the intervention, a range of ethical safeguards were built into each phase of the research. We adopted a peer approach to devising appropriate documentation and processes for securing informed consent and ensuring data protection. We were especially careful to ensure information about the research was child and adult friendly with age appropriate language and style of briefing materials. We obtained approval from our institutional Ethics College prior to our observations and fieldwork.
Phase one
Phase one included desk-based activity and an in-depth review of existing literature and programme related documentation. It also included an in depth quantitative and qualitative analysis of existing service monitoring and performance data. During the evaluation period, there were 119 referrals made to the Step Up programme. An in-depth thematic analysis was conducted on a redacted and anonymised sample drawn from this whole service provider archived dataset. Where comparable, the research team thematically analysed this data against the four previous evaluations dating back to the only independent evaluation (Woods, 2018).
An in-depth thematic analysis of 49 families who consented to engage in research – hereafter referred to as “completers” – was also conducted. Our analysis of the completers focused in the main on: (a) service users and their referral routes, (b) levels of engagement and attrition rates, and (c) impact of engagement on factors such as educational attainment and reoffending rates. This data was triangulated with discussions of impact extrapolated from qualitative interviews and participant observations conducted in phase two.
Phase two
Phase two included semi-structured interviews with each stakeholder group and participant observations. In total, 23 qualitative interviews were conducted with key frontline stakeholders including programme team members, police, social workers, education sector (n = 7) and service users including young people (n = 6) and their parents (n = 10). Two versions of the information sheets and consent forms for use with adult and child stakeholders were co-developed with the professional workers. For each of the stakeholder groups a similar interview schedule was used though it was suitably adapted to ensure our prompts were stakeholder group and age appropriate. The schedule covered 10 areas of questioning including the impact of the programme on behaviour, well-being, reoffending, children, parents/carers, features of the programme by delivery mode that influenced behaviour change, disengagement, age and time appropriateness of the intervention.
All interviews with professional stakeholders were audio recorded with the participant's consent. Interviews lasted between 55 and 100 min in length. Interviews with parents/carers and children were conducted either face-to-face or by telephone. The face-to-face interviews were conducted immediately after the face-to-face support sessions and lasted between 14 and 34 min. The telephone interviews were conducted after we had observed several face-to-face and on-line sessions, and two telephone interviews took place with a parent and young person both of whom we had not previously met. Telephone interviews were generally shorter than face-to-face interviews. Most were recorded; comprehensive contemporaneous notes were made for a small minority of these. Again, interviews were thematically analysed according to the research aims. Several key themes emerged from the interviews with the adult (parent/carer). These tended to coalesce around four key areas: (a) behaviour, (b) communication, (c) mechanisms/aspects of the programme influencing change (e.g., taking responsibility, consideration of consequences and behaviour and so on), and (d) wider well-being issues.
During phase two, controlled observations of key stakeholder meetings, including programme sessions between facilitators, young people and their parents/carers were also conducted. In total, the research team conducted 20 such observations. Twelve of these were in-person observations located within an urban town centre location. A further six in-person observations took place in a smaller town centre location in a more rural area. Finally, reflecting the hybrid delivery model adopted during the evaluation period, two observations were conducted remotely of on-line sessions. While sessions were audio-recorded where consent was given, and detailed notes were taken, in line with the principles of controlled observation which involves observing spontaneous and natural behaviour in a manipulated situation, the researchers did not interact with participants during the sessions or influence the content in any way. Utilising contextual analysis, a method which emphasises the importance of understanding interactions within their broader situational and institutional context (Silverman, 2004), the researchers were able to observe the behaviours, interactions, relationships and social dynamics of the sessions. Observations were coded according to the core areas of questioning in interviews with the dominant themes being behaviour and communication. These observations were helpful in providing further context and meaning.
Findings and analysis
As noted previously, for the year July 2022–June 2023 there were 119 referrals made to the Step Up programme. Of these, 117 were new referrals and two were re-referral requests from families who did not initially engage when first referred but who subsequently requested support. Consistent with the previous evaluation reports for this programme (Woods, 2018), police were the highest referring agency within the reporting period at 46% (n = 54). This was followed by educational establishments at 15% (n = 18) and social workers at 10% (n = 12) (see Figure 1). Of the 117 families who were referred into the programme, 56 families completed. One-third of those referred were recorded as female, two-thirds were recorded as male. This is consistent with wider research which suggests there is a gendered dynamic to incidents of CAPVA. However as noted above, this may be linked to the increased likelihood of parents/guardians reporting male violence and abusive behaviours to the police (Brennan et al., 2022). There were more males represented in almost all age categories. The exception to this was for those aged 13 where there were equal numbers of males to females. Again, for those aged under 11 years, the vast majority (n = 5) were male including the youngest who was aged 8 years. According to the referral form information, calling the police is often viewed as a last resort for parents/carers who are at “breaking point”.
Referring agencies.
Programme impact
Consistent with previous evaluations (Woods, 2018), we discovered the programme has a positive impact for some families. Impact for the provider is captured through a standardised feedback survey which is administered on ending the programme. For the reporting period in question this survey was completed by 34 of the 49 completer families (69%) who consented to engage in research. A range of proxy indicators are used to measure impact including engagement with education, the extent to which the young person takes responsibility for their actions, family health, well-being, and relations. This survey data is supplemented with police data on reoffending.
Reoffending
Reoffending rates should be treated with much caution due to selective reporting and inconsistent recording practices discussed earlier that apply within policing areas. It was not possible to drill down into the precise nature of the offending behaviour due to missing and incomplete police data. Furthermore, incidents of CAPVA are not routinely disaggregated from other crimes against the person including criminal damage, damage to a vehicle, theft, public fear alarm or distress, sexual offences (not rape), obscene publications, arson and shoplifting. Nevertheless, for police stakeholders and service commissioners, they remain a simple quantitative measure of success. Headline findings on reoffending suggest that of the 42 completers whose data was collected, almost half (45.3%) (n = 19) saw positive changes since completing the programme. Of these, 12 individuals (63%) who had committed offences before the programme had no further offences recorded following their engagement, while (21%) (n = 9) saw offending behaviours continue and/or increased. A further seven individuals (37%) had offended less following their engagement.
Although reoffending data provide a mixed picture of success in relation to the Step Up programme, it is important to recognise that behavioural changes were captured and observed in other areas.
School attendance
From our interviews with service users we found that positive improvements were evident in respect of schooling. During one interview with a mother who had been attending face-to-face sessions with her son, she explained that while he was “still quite physical, pushing and shoving with everyone… swearing at everyone in general conversation” in the home environment, she was aware of a marked improvement in his behaviour at school. Subsequently although her opinion of the effectiveness of the programme on reducing incidents of CAPVA was limited, her overall assessment was tempered by her son's improved behaviour at school.
Of the 34 families who responded to the survey question on school attendance, 73.5% (n = 25) reported no change. Of these 25, 22 were in education both at the time of referral and on completion of the programme. Three were not in education before or after the programme. A total of five families (15%) reported seeing positive changes within their young persons’ engagement in education and a further family noted that although their child was being home schooled, they were optimistic that he may return to public school in the future.
Accepting responsibility and improving communication
A total of 82% (n = 28) of those who responded to the survey question, stated that their child/young person had accepted some responsibility by the end of the programme. Of these, seven (25%) felt the young person had accepted at least partial responsibility and/or took responsibility for their actions “some of the time”. Only five families (15%) reported that their child/young person had not taken any responsibility for their actions. As noted, a core feature of the restorative-based Step Up programme is to facilitate dialogue and effective communication between all members of the family. A significant number of adult family members reported feeling greater confidence in knowing how to communicate with their children which was attributed to helping improve family dynamics: I think we're all communicating better, [my son] is calmer more willing to listen, taken responsibility and is trying to be better. (Parent) Before the sessions I didn’t know how to communicate with him and then after a couple [of sessions] it worked really well. I find it quite easy to communicate with him now. (Parent) For us (the wheel) it was really beneficial and helpful. The spokes on the wheel resonated with us. Its topicality was very true to us and (son) liked checking his progress. (Parent)
The dialogue and talking prompted active listening and for some, a thinking through of the consequences of actions. Indeed, as evident in the extract below, exemplars that focussed on real-life scenarios appeared to be those which were valued the most in helping young people to “think about things” (young person), reflect and to take accountability: It's lasted. A good dose of reality I would describe it as. One of the things talked about was getting a knife… explaining what it can lead to. A reality check – what could be the consequences… think of the consequences – that's not acceptable.
Barriers to engagement and success
Of the 119 referrals into the programme during the reporting period, 50 families (42%) disengaged. Of these, 34% (n = 17) had taken part remotely, while the remainder 66% (n = 33) took part face-to-face and/or as part of a hybrid approach. While it is not always possible to gather such information, the provider of the Step Up programme seeks to capture reasons for disengagement within their service monitoring and performance data. As indicated in Figure 2, of those who gave a reason for disengagement, 13 of these families either did not want or refused any mode of support. A further 11 families refused to engage. Three families were recorded as needing no support, nine no longer requiring support, two families as having had “light touch” support while seven families had not/no longer responded to the provider. A further three families did not wish to participate because of the number of other agencies that they were currently engaged with.
Reasons for disengagement.
Complex needs and intervention match
Although the programme is needs-led with a suitability-based assessment which allows flexibility around factors such as age and duration, a minority of referrals are deemed not suitable for embarking on it. This was linked to young children's referrals and/or the needs-assessment criteria outcomes. Even for those who are accepted, best timing of the offer and likelihood of uptake can be hard to determine, and this is sometimes misjudged. the intervention not always proving timely for all members. As illustrated in the below extract, this meant that the programme had limited, if any, benefit for those involved: The Step-Up programme didn’t really work for us unfortunately… it was difficult for it to be of any benefit to him at that time… (Parent)
Yet, while remote online sessions provided greater flexibility for both facilitators and families, facilitators recognised that these were not suitable or appropriate for all. This was discussed in the context of parents with young neurodivergent children: Some of the younger age groups we were working with, quite a few young people have autism or ADHD and Zoom, or any remote working is not really conducive to engaging those young people. They find it very difficult to engage remotely. (Facilitator) It got worse after the sessions came to an end. He got in trouble with the police as he's at court… he got a…. order and was expelled from school. There's been issues at his Mums, at mine, at my Mums… [things are] too dangerous… there have been threats with knives. (Parent)
Wrap around support and multiagency working
As noted, CAPVA sits uncomfortably between different policy frameworks and while young people are often engaging in criminogenic behaviours, they are also often extremely vulnerable and in need of wider support. As indicated in the extract below, police are often one of the first organisations to become involved following instances of CAPVA when parents/carers feel they have nowhere else to turn: Quite often a lot of [parents] were like ‘I’m desperate for some help’ especially under the circumstances of child upon parent abuse really, because they didn’t know where to take it’. (Police officer) It does make quite a difference who refers them if they're referred by police and the police have been on the scene after a call out, sometimes families will feel that that it is a mandatory referral, and the mandatory referrals have never worked as effectively. (Facilitator)
Like the Step Up facilitators, police and the social work respondents were acutely aware of the complex nature of CAPVA and the wider issues impacting young people and their families. Several practitioner stakeholders discussed the importance of making referrals to multiple agencies to enable support to be matched to needs that are complex and interrelated. As was evident in completer case files reviewed and in interviews with young service users and their parents/carers, many families engaging with Step Up are either currently working with, or have had previous engagement with, a wide variety of agencies across health, education, social justice, and criminal justice sectors. For several families, the mixed economy of support that was in place was welcomed and valued. For one family, for example, the programme coincided with another intervention: For us we had a tag team between a therapist who did the softer side and the Step Up sessions which were about facing up to behaviours. It was a good balance.
The timing and combination of this more holistic, wrap-around support was regarded as being effective producing positive results.
For others, however, engagement with multiple agencies was considered potentially overwhelming and a key barrier to engagement and success. This issue was raised by two professionals: A lot of people pull away from the support services because they’re overwhelmed and that's something we’ve got to be mindful of as well. (Police officer) Most of the people that we contact will engage, not, not all of them. There's certainly a few that say well, I'm working with too many other agencies at the moment, so it'd be one too many. (Facilitator)
For other families, while it was evident that they were keen “to do anything” (Parent) to help their child/young person and change their situation, there was a clear lack of knowledge about where to go and how to enact this change. As alluded to in the literature, what became acutely evident during conversations with parents and families was that despite knowing that additional support was needed, many were awaiting this support – for example, from Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS), therapeutic, and/or neurodiversity diagnosis. Those in this situation were left frustrated about the slow processes and unsuccessful efforts to gain access. As is evident in the quote below, Step Up was seen as an avenue of support at least for parents/carers even if they did not feel it was suitable or appropriate for their child/young person: It was better for me going to them sessions, it was as if no one was helping us. It helped me more than it helped [son].
The issues reported upon above are testimony to the multiple and complex needs of individuals in diverse family environments and relationships. As discussed earlier, the matching of needs to support becomes a matter of multi-agency involvement and, as with interventions to address the problem of DA where a perpetrator focused partnership approach presents both opportunities and challenges (Davies, 2022; Davies & Biddle, 2017), the latter are especially heightened in the context of CAPVA. Ultimately, a holistic approach was the aim where wrap around and multiagency working would tackle the complex factors surrounding CAPVA and avoid the criminalisation of young people. What we witnessed was a material gap between the aspiration and the operationalisation of a holistic approach.
Discussion
The findings reported on above pertain to one United Kingdom-based programme designed to tackle the problem of CAPVA. There is clearly a need for a carefully balanced response to such violence and it is important to contemplate these findings in the broader context of evidence-based research on the topic. Here we discuss two inter-related high-level features emerging from our research which relate to the efficacy of this intervention, and which have cross border relevance beyond the United Kingdom. First, we further consider the extent to which interventions are holistic, and second, we foreground what we refer to as the policy nexus clash.
A holistic approach?
As discussed, the Step Up programme, underpinned by a restorative practice approach, is designed to deliver holistic support to all children and parents/carers to help reduce incidents of violence/abuse. Despite the dedicated work of programme facilitators and other stakeholders, however, the adaptation we observed did not, on reflection, fully meet this aspiration. The delivery mode and geographical topography of the region in which the programme was offered, which was often described as particularly rural and “hard-to-reach”, impacted upon the accessibility of support for families (see also, Barlow et al., 2022). Further, while the programme did not claim to be trauma informed in line with evidence-based suggestions of best practice (Gray et al., 2023; Holt & Lewis, 2021), it became clear that many of the children/young people and their families had a range of complex needs which required support beyond the scope of the programme aims. The Step Up intervention did reveal – though this was coincidental, and parent driven rather than multiagency partnership driven – that for a very small minority, a mixed economy of support was especially useful. Yet, for many, involvement with multiple agencies can be overwhelming and a key barrier to engagement and success.
Such findings highlight the fine balance that needs to be struck for families in need of support and the importance of well matched, timely, and holistic intervention packages, as well as the importance of coordination and effective information sharing when engaging in multiagency working. While programme facilitators were often invited to multiagency TAC meetings, the staffing of the provision and demand for the intervention left limited capacity for engagement with other services. Indeed, since around 2015, there has been a fundamental shift in the allocation of public money for services and support in the United Kingdom (Hall, 2020). This has led to the now almost universal approach which sees short-term competitive tendering and commissioning of service provision. Such funding arrangements, inhibit the ability to provide long-term support and dedicated professional teams to provide effective interventions. The precarity of the resourcing of the intervention always loomed large. The steadfast commitment to market driven services and support (Hall, 2020) has rippled through public sector and services and has impacted third sector and specialist support providers. While local flexibility and accountability might be something to celebrate, questions remain about whether a disintegrated and increasingly neo-liberal service market is the way forward.
The policy nexus clash
While whole systems thinking has permeated the public health agenda and parts of the youth and wider justice sector in the United Kingdom, as demonstrated above, operationalising such a holistic and systems-based approach is highly challenging. Trauma-informed approaches to working with adolescents in the justice system is becoming customary practice, and services within and connected to the justice sector have sought to adopt trauma informed practice to prevent and divert from it given the prevalence of trauma histories (see e.g., Gray et al., 2023). In England and Wales, “Child first” has become the overarching “vision” for youth justice (YJB, 2021). This approach aims to challenge traditional adult-centric youth justice by treating children who offend as “children first and offenders second” (YJB, 2021) prioritising their vulnerability by age and the circumstances which underpin their offending behaviour. However, whilst Child first has become the overarching vision for youth justice in England and Wales in 2021 (YJB, 2021), at the point of delivery, Child first practice across criminal justice and partner agencies struggles, clashing as it does with a prevailing risk-focussed, deficit-led approach to preventing offending and reoffending by children. Although, diversion focussed solutions are being bolstered (Chaplin et al., 2021, 2022; Ryland et al., 2022), criminalisation and criminal justice solutions are always at the ready and underpin much of the wider context in which children and families are referred into these provisions.
Our two discussion points are inter-connected. Social harm perspectives frame the problem of youth violence within the context of elevated levels of child poverty, children not in education and high levels of school exclusion (Billingham & Irwin-Rogers, 2022). Individual risk factors clearly intersect with structural factors such as deprivation, poverty, housing, exclusion from school, training or employment. As we note above, violence and abuse constituted as CAPVA intersects with other forms of interpersonal violence and in the United Kingdom, this is reflected in the variations in response. In some regions, intervention and support for families draws on trauma informed practice (Scott & Jenney, 2023) and in others, as in the region we conducted our research, this is less evident. Thus, there is huge variation in response and a range of different types and versions of interventions giving rise to an uneven and sometimes inconsistent response all giving rise to calls for more research on the efficacy of different models of intervention (Toole-Anstey et al., 2023; Zettler, 2021), with some arguing for more psychosocial approaches to trauma-informed policy and practice within the youth justice system (Gray et al., 2023). Family-based interventions like Step Up – often financed in the United Kingdom in part by community safety partnerships including police partners – are considered an increasingly vital tool in helping to divert children and young people away from the wider pains of criminalisation (Maynard, 2021). At present, however, the policy landscape is not conducive for encouraging a child and/or family first approach given the convoluted and jarring features it exhibits. Despite this, family-based interventions are seen as an increasingly vital tool in helping traverse the inter-framework miasma.
Conclusion
CAPVA is a serious and complex social problem playing out in complex domestic settings. There are tensions between the harmful and often criminogenic behaviours exhibited by young people towards their parents/carers and concerns about children's welfare. The challenges in responding to CAPVA (Condry & Miles, 2021) especially in the COVID-19 pandemic (Condry et al., 2020) starkly illustrate these tensions. The scale of CAPVA is difficult to know, in part due to under-reporting, definitional and recording complexities. We know there are gender and age patterns, though there are complex demographic intersectionalities to its aetiology. The findings we report on are based on our research connected to a particular United Kingdom-based programme designed to tackle this issue. We have exposed some of the complex and overlapping issues that are faced by those experiencing violence and abuse in the family context. Across the United Kingdom and indeed elsewhere (Moulds et al., 2019), few family-based interventions have been independently evaluated. The Step Up programme has impacted positively on a considerable number of families, repairing some relationships through improved communications and behaviours on behalf of the children and young people and parents/carers having greater confidence and skills in facilitating these outcomes. Overall, however, the outcomes are mixed, and effectiveness is hampered by a mix of delivery restrictions and resourcing, all overshadowed by the complex, convoluted, jarring, miasma of the policy landscape. The needs of, and support for, families of CAPVA is caught in this impasse.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Police and Crime Commissioner.
Appendix 1
Wheel of Disrespectful Behaviour
Wheel of Respectful Behaviour