Parenting Through Adversity

Parents of children & young people 11 to 18

Equality, diversity, inclusion & equity (EDIE)

As part of Foundations’ commitment to promoting equality, diversity, inclusion, and equity, our review considered how parenting and whole-family interventions address the needs of different populations of parents, caregivers, children, and young people (aged 11 to 18). We examined both the characteristics of the populations included in the evidence base and whether interventions were effective and acceptable across different groups.

The different groups of parents, children & young people included in the evidence

Our review included evidence from different populations of parents and children, as well as young people. The review explored factors that may impact access to parenting programmes and the effectiveness of their outcomes, including:

  • Parent and child or young person’s place of residence
  • Parent and child or young person’s race/ethnicity/language
  • Parent and child or young person’s gender/sex
  • Parent’s occupation
  • Ages of the parent and the child/young person
  • Disability of any type
  • Religion
  • The family’s socio-economic status
  • Parent and child or young person’s sexual orientation.

Parents: Most studies on parenting programmes primarily involved biological mothers, with limited inclusion of foster carers or residential or foster care. Therefore, the term ‘parent’ is used consistently throughout, aligning with the Parenting through Adversity (0–10) Practice Guide.

Child age: Typically ranged from 11 to 18 years, with slightly more studies including male adolescents than female adolescents.

Socio-economic status: Studies used various indicators to assess socioeconomic status, including income, employment, education, and financial hardship. Some studies focused on economically disadvantaged families, while one study included those experiencing homelessness.

Race and ethnicity: Around two-thirds of trials reported data on race/ethnicity. The trials most often described families as ‘White’, ‘Black’, or ‘Hispanic/Latino’, with very few studies including Asian participants. Some trials included ‘Other’ or mixed categories. Reporting on cultural or linguistic background was limited.

What the evidence tells us about the effectiveness of programmes for particular groups of parents, children & young people

Our review found that parenting and whole-family programmes can benefit both parents and children, but there is limited evidence that their effectiveness varies across population groups.

Characteristics of parents & families

Studies reviewed had limited reporting on parent and family characteristics Three studies examined socioeconomic status, with one finding that higher parental education was linked to greater reductions in youth conduct problems. Another study found that children who experienced fewer stressful life events showed greater emotional improvement. Five studies reported abuse within families, including various forms directed at children or caregivers, and in one trial, abuse was cited as the reason for children entering foster care.

Characteristics of children & young persons

A single study suggested that Multisystemic Therapy (MST) may be more effective for boys than girls with severe behavioural issues, showing a protective effect on boys’ self-esteem but a sharper decline for some girls, indicating a need for gender-sensitive adaptations. While most parenting interventions targeted younger children (aged 15 or below), no clear link between age and effectiveness emerged. Additionally, the same study found MST to be more effective for native Dutch youth than ethnic minority groups in reducing externalising behaviours. However, minority groups showed greater improvement in violent behaviour, suggesting cultural tailoring may enhance outcomes. Findings should not be considered generalisable beyond this single study.

Experiences of different populations of parents with children aged 11 to 18

Qualitative evidence suggests that relationships with facilitators strongly shape the acceptability of parenting programmes for families with children aged 11 to 18. Parents from diverse socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds valued facilitators who were respectful, culturally attuned, and approachable, which helped reduce stigma and build trust –particularly among minority ethnic groups. Practical flexibility, such as evening sessions or hybrid formats, was essential for socio-economically disadvantaged families to participate. Group-based programmes offered valuable peer support, although their effectiveness depended on the group composition and sensitivity to specific needs, including those of families with children with SEND.

Overall, the evidence suggests that successful engagement in parenting programmes depends on both relational and structural factors. Programmes are most effective when they offer culturally responsive facilitation, flexible delivery formats, and inclusive peer support, while also addressing barriers like work schedules and childcare. These elements help ensure that families from a range of backgrounds can access and benefit from parenting support equitably.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

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.