Bounce Back 4 Kids

Pilot randomised controlled trial

Bounce Back 4 Kids

Highlights

  • Children and young people who are victims of domestic abuse are not always able to access support needed to help them on their journey of recovery, particularly those not assessed to be at high risk of harm. Bounce Back 4 Kids aims to address this gap.
  • Bounce Back 4 Kids is a trauma and therapeutically informed programme supporting the non-abusive parent alongside the child. Crucially, it provides support for young children between the ages of 3 to 11 years old.
  • Pilot findings suggest that Bounce Back 4 Kids can improve parental confidence and children’s behaviour. Parents valued peer support and described the programme as a safe and validating space. Home visits prior to starting sessions, were important to build trust between families and facilitators, and encouraged children to attend.
  • As expected, due to the small sample size and some missing endline data, a larger trial is needed to fully understand the impact of the programme.
  • The pilot showed an randomised controlled trial (RCT) is feasible for domestic abuse programmes, under certain circumstances, and highlighted the programme’s potential. A full scale RCT will provide stronger evidence, to understand if BB4K could become a scalable, cost-effective and evidence-based programme available nationwide. This would help ensure that children receive the support they need while reducing pressure on already stretched services.

Summary report

Download

Full report

Download

Summary

Bounce Back 4 Kids (BB4K) is a trauma and therapeutically informed group programme to support children aged 3–11 years old and their non-abusive parent in their recovery from the impact of domestic abuse.

Delivered by PACT, BB4K provides pre-session home visits, followed by 8–12 in-person weekly sessions using age-appropriate materials and therapeutic activities, alongside parental support. The number of sessions is dependent on the age of the child, with children aged 2–5 years old receiving 12 sessions, and those aged 6–11 years old, receiving eight sessions.

In 2024–2025, with funding from the Cabinet Office’s Evaluation Accelerator Fund, we commissioned IFF Research to conduct the first independent pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) of BB4K.

Aims

The main aims of the evaluation were:

  1. To understand how Bounce Back 4 Kids was delivered, how it was experienced by children and their non-abusive parent, and whether it achieved its intended outcomes in a pilot context, including if there were any unintended consequences or risks of harm
  2. To understand whether a full-scale randomised controlled trial of Bounce Back 4 Kids was viable, and provide recommendations for future evaluation design.

Method

IFF Research conducted a pilot randomised controlled trial was conducted between April 2024 -April 2025 with 65 children-parent pairs. This trial used a waitlist design. Half joined the programme straight away, the other half were placed on a waitlist for upto eight months before joining, mimicking existing programme waitlists.

To understand the impact of the programme, parents completed self-report questionnaires to assess: parental confidence, children’s behaviour at home and parents’ closeness to their child.

IFF spoke with children, parents and facilitators about their experience to understand what worked well and what could be improved. As well as analysed service delivery costs.

Key Findings

The pilot showed that Bounce Back 4 Kids is promising and worth testing at scale. It demonstrated that a full trial is feasible with adjustments, and early findings suggest that the programme has the potential to improve parents’ confidence and children’s behaviour.

Parent’s confidence

Parents who took part in the intervention group showed increased confidence, while scores for the waitlist group declined slightly, using the tool to measure Parenting Self-Efficacy (TOPSE).

Children’s behaviour at home

Children in the intervention group also showed a small reduction in behavioural and emotional difficulties compared to the control group, using the Brief Assessment Checklist for Children (BAC-C).

Child–parent relationship

Both the intervention and waitlist control group reported high closeness at the start and end of the pilot, using the Child-Parent Relationship Scale (CPRS). The outcome measure may not have been sufficiently sensitive, and the sample size too small to detect changes. This outcome will be further explored in the full-scale trial.

Programme delivery

BB4K ran as planned across 3 sites. Two-thirds of families in the intervention group attended all sessions and most missed no more than one session. Catch up one-to-one sessions were offered where occasional sessions were missed due to illness or childcare for other children. There were some challenges with attendance for parents with younger children not yet in school and those working during the day. Recruiting suitably experienced staff was also challenging, compounded by a short set-up period.

Experiences participating in the programme

Parents’ experiences were very positive, many described the programme as a safe space where they felt listened to and supported. Peer support emerged as a powerful aspect of BB4K, providing a sense of validation and connection. Parents also noted that they and/or their child had improved emotional regulation and were better able to express their feelings.

Cost of programme delivery

The estimated cost per family supported during the trial was £3608 (excluding costs of evaluation related activities). Delivery costs were higher due to delays in recruitment of new practitioners at the beginning of the programme, which meant the Team Manager had to deliver some of the programme, at a higher cost. Additionally, some delivery took place in a new site, which increased the set-up costs compared to existing sites.

Recommendations

The pilot shows that BB4K is promising and worth testing with a larger sample size. The report outlines several recommendations to deliver a full scale RCT successfully:

  • Increase the number of delivery sites to ensure a larger sample can be achieved
  • Increase the delivery timeline to maximise term-time delivery windows and allow sufficient time to embed BB4K in the new sites
  • Take proactive steps to ensure a more diverse and inclusive sample, such as more families from minoritised ethnic backgrounds, parents who do not speak English as a first language, parents who work during school hours, and those with additional needs such as neurodivergence
  • Capture and centre children’s voices directly
  • Reduce the burden on frontline practitioners by recruiting delivery staff who are responsible for all evaluation-related activities.
SHARE

Related Publications

See all publications
  • Briefing

Domestic abuse

REACH: An update on our five year plan

Learn More
  • Report

Domestic abuse

WeMatter

Learn More

Cost ratings:

Rated 1: Set up and delivery is low cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of less than £100.

Rated 2: Set up and delivery is medium-low cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £100–£499.

Rated 3: Set up and delivery is medium cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £500–£999.

Rated 4: Set up and delivery is medium-high cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £1,000–£2,000.

Rating 5: Set up and delivery is high cost. Equivalent to an estimated unit cost of more than £2,000.

Set up and delivery cost is not applicable, not available, or has not been calculated.

Click here for more information.

Child Outcomes:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.

Supporting children’s mental health and wellbeing: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing child maltreatment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Enhancing school achievement & employment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing crime, violence and antisocial behaviour: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing substance abuse: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing risky sexual behaviour & teen pregnancy: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing obesity and promoting healthy physical development: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Evidence ratings:

Rated 2: Has preliminary evidence of improving a child outcome from a quantitative impact study, but there is not yet evidence of causal impact.

Rated 2+: Meets the level 2 rating and the best available evidence is based on a study which is more rigorous than a level 2 standard but does not meet the level 3 standard.

Rated 3: Has evidence of a short-term positive impact from at least one rigorous study.

Rated 3+: Meets the level 3 rating and has evidence from other studies with a comparison group at level 2 or higher.

Rated 4: Has evidence of a long-term positive impact through at least two rigorous studies.

Rated 4+: Meets the level 4 rating and has at least a third study contributing to the Level 4 rating, with at least one of the studies conducted independently of the intervention provider.

Rating has a *: The evidence base includes mixed findings i.e., studies suggesting positive impact alongside studies, which on balance, indicate no effect or negative impact.

Click here for more information.