Southwark Fathers Group

Feasibility study

Southwark Fathers Group

Feasibility study

Download

Summary

Research highlights the critical role of fathers in children’s development, supporting children’s socio-emotional, educational, and developmental outcomes. However, support services often fail to engage them effectively, and there is a limited evidence base informing the delivery of these services.  

Fathers involved with children’s social care face unique challenges, including complex co-parenting relationships and high levels of interparental conflict. The Southwark Fathers Group (SFG) was developed to address the lack of tailored parenting programmes for fathers in need of support, including those with children’s social care involvement. The intervention aims to improve fathers’ parenting, by helping them improve their relationship with their child and other people involved in the care of their child, including partners, co-parents, and social care professionals. 

We commissioned the Anna Freud Centre, in partnership with UCL, to conduct a feasibility study of the intervention, to determine whether a full-scale trial would be possible.

Aims

The overall aim of the feasibility study was to see whether scaling up to a larger trial of the service could be possible. This included an assessment of whether it was possible to deliver the Southwark Fathers Parenting programme to male carers of children aged 4 – 12 who have a social worker, and whether it was possible to recruit and retain this same population into a study.  This study also aimed to evaluate the acceptability of the intervention and research protocol, and its suitability for producing outcome data for this population of fathers.  

The study looked at the following research questions: 

  1. Is it possible to recruit and retain participants to an evaluation of the SFG and collect quality outcome data?  
  2. Are the outcomes quantifiable?  
  3. Is the programme acceptable to fathers and the network of professionals around them, and is it generalisable?  
  4. Is a cost evaluation feasible and what are the recommended procedures to calculate it?  
  5. What is the most suitable design for a future large-scale trial? 

Method

This study ran from April 2023 to January 2025. Three groups of fathers took part in the 10-week group course, led by a trained parenting practitioner in Southwark. Anna Freud used a mixed-methods approach to evaluation the service, making use of both quantitative and qualitative data.  Data was gathered from the fathers themselves, their partners (where applicable), social workers, and other child services staff. Anna Freud collected scores from parenting and mental health questionnaires, including the Child Abuse Potential Inventory, alongside carrying out qualitative interviews from both fathers and professionals. This interview data was reviewed and sorted into key themes using a method called “framework analysis.” 

Key Findings

The results of this feasibility study show that doing a larger trial of this program is possible, but the content of the program would need to be standardised, and new group leads would need appropriate training and support. Any larger trial would also need a more robust recruitment and retention plan—especially choosing the right researchers, and recruitment settings, to help reduce the reluctance fathers can often feel about joining. 

Although the study wasn’t specifically designed to measure the program’s effectiveness, both the qualitative and quantitative results suggest that the program offered significant benefits for fathers. It provided a valuable opportunity for them to connect with others, gain confidence in their parenting skills and navigate the challenges of engaging with social services. Participants reported feeling more empowered and supported, and some shared that they saw improvements in their relationships with their children and co-parents as a result of the program. 

Key findings included: 

  • Participation: 41 dads took part in the parenting program, and 36 of them agreed to be part of the study. About 60% of those who joined actually finished the program. 
  • Tracking Outcomes: The researchers were able to collect data before and after the program, and the majority of fathers gave follow-up information (78%). However, fewer provided data three months later. One key result showed a drop in the risk of harmful parenting behaviour after the program, but because there were only a small number of participants and no comparison group, we can’t be sure the program is what caused this improvement. However, the test used (CAPI) was shown to be able to pick up these changes, and therefore could work well in a bigger study. 
  • Feedback from fathers: Most fathers gave positive feedback about the program. They said it helped them feel more confident as parents, improved their relationships, and made them feel less alone. But some found it hard to take part because of struggles in their personal lives or conflicting work commitments.  
  • Costs: Running the program cost about £225 per person, which is quite low compared to other similar programs. 
  • Difficulties: Barriers to engagement included getting fathers to participate in the research, handling practical issues (like schedules), and making sure they had enough support during the programme. 

Future versions of the programme should offer more flexible session times, do more outreach to  fathers, and provide extra support—like help with childcare, transport, or access to legal advice. 

Implications for future research

  • Some feedback suggests that using a waitlist for a future study might not be well-received. Instead, the study should consider using a different approach, like comparing the program to another active group 
  • Recruitment strategies, like holding morning coffee meetings or other events to attract potential participants, and working with trusted community leaders, could help get fathers involved earlier 
  • This study provides some early insights into the programme’s cost. Future research should look more closely at how much the programme costs and whether it can save money for social care services in the long run 
  • While the study showed that the current assessment tool (CAPI) could work well in measuring change, feedback suggests that adding other measures, like looking at changes in fathers’ attitudes, along with social workers’ concerns, could give a fuller picture of how effective the programme is. 
Linked Project

You can view the project linked to this publication here: 

SHARE

Related Publications

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.