Parenting in poor environments

stress, support and coping

a summary of key messages for policy
and practice from a major national study

Deborah Ghate and Neal Hazel

policy research bureau messages

 Parenting in Poor Environments
Stress, support and coping
Summary of key messages for policy
and practice from a major national study

Deborah Ghate and Neal Hazel

Hard copy of this summary can be obtained from

[email protected] priced at £2.50 inc p&p"

policy research ureau 2004

The study described in this summary was funded by
the Department of Health under their Supporting
Parents Research Initiative. Fieldwork took place
between 1997 and 1999.

Much more detail about the methods and findings of

the study can be found in: Ghate D and Hazel N (2002)
Parenting in poor environments: stress support and coping
London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers
isbn 1 84310 069 x.

We are grateful to the Department of Health for

agreeing to fund the production of this summary.
To obtain further copies, contact:
The Administrator, Policy Research Bureau,
2a Tabernacle Street, London EC2A 4LU
t +44 (0) 207 256 6300.
e [email protected].

design DeMo [email protected]

print Kingfisher Print, Totnes, Devon
 Contents
5 Introduction
Background
Research methods
7 Characteristics of parents in poor environments
Who are parents in poor environments?
What is it like to be a parent in a poor environment?
9 What undermines coping with parenting?
Stresses faced by parents in poor environments
Stressors at the level of the individual
Stressors at the level of the family
Stressors at the level of the neighbourhood
What problems have the greatest impact on coping with
parenting?
13 How well supported are parents?
Informal support
Semi-formal support
Formal support
Negative support
Who needs more support?
20 How can we better support parents?
What parents say they want from family support services
Practical services that meet parents’ self-defined needs
Accessible services
Improved range of services
Demand for information: knowledge is power
Services that allow parents to feel ‘in control’
24 Key principles in supporting parents
Diversity of provision
Tackling poor awareness and the poor image of family
support services
Multiple problems need multiple solutions
Build on strengths as well as tackling weaknesses
The concept of negative support
Allowing parents to feel in control

contents 3
4 parenting in poor environments: stress, support and coping
Introduction
Background
According to the most recent statistics available, one third of children
in Britain are being raised in poverty. In recent years, we have
amassed considerable evidence about the poor outcomes for these
children, and we know that their life chances are substantially
weakened by growing up in poverty. But how much do we know about
their parents? The answer is not much, unless they happen to come
to the attention of the authorities, perhaps for child abuse or other
serious problems with parenting. We know relatively little about
‘ordinary’ parents in poor neighbourhoods – the many thousands who
struggle with the daily hassles of parenting in difficult circumstances
but who may never come to the attention of the official agencies.
The research summarised in this booklet is described in detail in
Ghate and Hazel (2002). It provides some insights from the
perspective of parents themselves into the world of parenting in
impoverished circumstances. Based on a major national study, it
explores: the stresses parents face at the individual, family and
neighbourhood level; how those stresses impact upon coping with
parenting; what supports are available to parents both within and
outside their personal networks; what parents want from family
support services; and how we can improve the way we plan and
deliver those services. This summary is intended for all those involved
in service planning and management. We hope it will be useful for
policy readers in government and the voluntary sectors, as well as
those responsible for services for families and children in local
authorities and voluntary agencies.
Research methods
The study consisted of two components:
a rigorous, nationally representative face-to-face survey of 1,754
parents of children under 17 years old across Great Britain,
sampled from 10,500 household in 135 areas of the country.
Areas were randomly selected according to their scores on a
specially created parenting deprivation index. All areas in the
country were scored, with higher scores indicating greater levels
of deprivation. Households were selected from areas with scores
in the upper third of the national distribution, and were therefore
representative of the poorest areas in Britain.
qualitative (in depth) follow-up interviews with forty parents in
different types of difficult circumstances.

introduction 5
 All the statistical differences between groups that we highlight in
this summary were substantial enough to reach statistical
‘significance‘. This means they were most unlikely to have occurred
by chance.

6 parenting in poor environments: stress, support and coping

 Characteristics of parents in poor
environments
Who are parents in poor environments?
Not all parents living in poor neighbourhoods are themselves poor.
Though the average family in the study was surviving on a very low
income, within the sample as a whole there was in fact a wide range
of circumstances from the very affluent to the extremely poor, and
incomes ranged from £1,850 to £71,000. However, the average
annual disposable income before housing costs (standardised to take
into account family size) was just £7,000 for all families, and was less
than £5,500 for lone parents. Half the families had no-one in paid
work and were dependent on state benefits.
Other findings may perhaps challenge some of the media
stereotypes of parents in poverty. For example, most parents described
themselves as White British (89%) and though 92% of the parents
who took part were mothers, 8% of families (one in twelve) had a
father as a main or joint equal carer. Though two in five respondents
were single parents (nearly twice the national average), most parents
(61%) were married or living with a partner. Ages ranged from 17 to
69 years but the average age was a relatively mature 33 years old. The
average number of children in the family was two. 43% of parents had
a part time or full time job. The list below shows the characteristics of
the ‘average’ parent living in a poor neighbourhood:
List 1
The ‘average’ • white
parent in a poor
environment • married or living with a partner
• mature (median age 33)
• around two children, and household size around four people
• an index child aged seven and a half
• living in social housing
• mobile: resident at current address for four years or less
• no or low academic qualifications
• household social class iii (n) or below (skilled non-manual
occupation, or lower)
• low median equivalised household income (c £7,000 p.a)
• more likely to be out of paid employment than to be working
• as likely to be reliant on benefits as to have income from paid work
• as likely not to have access to a car as to have access to one

characteristics of parents in poor environments 7

 What is it like to be a parent in a poor environment?
Though parents’ descriptions of the environmental and social
problems in their neighbourhood confirmed that these areas are
physically dirty and degraded, crime-ridden, dangerous and generally
challenging places to live, parents’ overall assessment of the quality of
their communities was not nearly so negative. Around three quarters
described their neighbourhood as generally friendly and stable, and
55% said they knew neighbours to talk to. Even in the very poorest
areas, over half of parents said their neighbourhood was a ‘good place
to bring up a family’. Many parents felt a substantial pride in their
local area.
Despite the fact that many parents were struggling with a low
income and a multiplicity of other stressors, parents in poor
environments were almost as likely to say they were ‘coping well’ with
parenting as to say they were experiencing difficulties. Given that
parenting is frequently described as a challenge even by parents in
more comfortable circumstances, this suggests that parents in poor
environments are a fairly resilient group.

Figure 1 52% sometimes coping,

Coping with being sometimes not
a parent

2% hardly ever/never
coping

48% generally coping well

As one mother summed up, many parents in poor environments

employ pragmatic attitudes to the challenges they face as a form of
coping strategy:
Sometimes it gets you, but you accept it really, don’t you? You’ve got to
really, because no matter how much you let it get you down, it don’t get
you anywhere.

In the rest of this booklet, we look in more detail at the problems

that parents in poor environments face, and explore what bolsters and
what undermines coping with parenting in these circumstances.

8 parenting in poor environments: stress, support and coping

What undermines coping with parenting?
Stresses faced by parents in poor environments
Parents living in poor neighbourhoods described a complex set of
stressors that made parenting more difficult to cope with. Stressors
can be grouped at the level of the individual, the family and the
community. Many of the stressors were found to occur with much
higher frequency than for adults in the general population, and so
point to particular challenges for bringing up children in poor
environments.
Stressors at the level of individual parents and children
Although most parents described their health as generally good,
two in five parents had long-term physical health difficulties - a
substantially greater proportion than for adults in the general
population. More than a quarter of these parents (29%) felt that
it affected caring for their children. On the Malaise Inventory, a
standardised scale, parents in the study were also three times as
likely as other adults in the general population to indicate they
suffered from emotional and mental health problems.
Similarly, two in five parents had a child with a long-term
physical health problem. For almost half of them (43%), this
meant having to spend more time caring for that particular child.
Parents described how this could make it impossible to balance
home and work commitments. 13% of children in the sample
scored abnormal ratings on the Strengths and Difficulties
Questionnaire (SDQ), a standardised measure of behavioural and
emotional difficulties, a figure slightly highly than for children in
the population as a whole. Demonstrating how problems tend to
overlap in poor environments, children with physical health
problems were also more likely to have objectively defined
behavioural difficulties.
Stressors at the level of the family
Unsurprisingly, problems relating directly to the widespread
occurrence of very low incomes dominated the difficulties
reported by parents in poor neighbourhoods. Low or no
qualifications limited employment opportunities, and half of
families had no adult in paid work. Thus, two-thirds of parents
could not afford at least one ‘basic’ necessity, such as toys for
their children or a family holiday once a year. Similarly, parents
in poor environments had a lower rate of access to a car (56%)
than households in the general population had a generation ago,

what undermines coping with parenting? 9

 with clear implications for access to local services and amenities.
Low income also meant substantial financial strain, with one in
five parents having problems servicing long-term debts.
Strongly related to low income, poor quality of housing was a
major stress factor. Overall, two in five families suffered serious
accommodation problems such as overcrowding or insufficient
heating - three times the rate for the general population. Such
difficulties were even more widespread for families who were
private tenants (53%) or local authority tenants (51%).
The size and structure of their family corresponded closely with
a number of stressors that parents reported. Notably, larger
families were hit by the ‘double whammy’ of having more
expenses and smaller household incomes. Lone parents were
struggling more than parents with partners on almost all counts,
reporting greater frequencies of low income, poor health, poor
accommodation and difficult child behaviour. On the other hand,
having an unsupportive partner introduced another set of
problems, with one in six parents reporting having been made to
feel bad or worthless by their current partner. One in twenty had
been physically assaulted by their current partner.
Stressors at the level of the neighbourhood
Environmental hazards in the local area directly impacted on
families’ daily lives in a number of ways. Dog fouling was the
most widespread concern, with the majority of parents (54%)
saying this had a direct impact on their family, such as not being
able to let children use local play spaces. Similarly, danger from
traffic and stray or loose dogs were felt to restrict places where
children could play. Other difficulties included pollution from
traffic, poor street lighting and the dilapidated condition of local
buildings.
Similar levels of concern were expressed about crime and anti-
social behaviour in the locality, although fewer parents felt
personally affected by this type of problem. The most commonly
experienced problem was property crime, which had directly
affected more than a quarter of families (29%). However, almost
one in five parents reported the family having suffered from
vandalism and graffiti, from noisy neighbours and from having
drug users in the neighbourhood. Other problems encountered
included joy riding, and disorderly behaviour in the streets by
both youths and adults.

10 parenting in poor environments: stress, support and coping

 What problems have the greatest impact on coping with parenting?
Undoubtedly, poverty was the common thread running through the
various difficulties in the lives of parents in the study, underlying and
compounding stressors at the individual, family and neighbourhood
levels. Consequently, by definition, most parents living in poor
environments could be said to be ‘in need’ to some extent. However,
many reported coping well with parenting in the face of such
difficulties, and so it is important to be able to identify which
particular stressors were most likely to correspond to problems in
coping with parenting. The study found that while many parents
coped well with low income and living in poor neigbourhoods, those
experiencing the greatest levels of material deprivation and those
living in the very poorest parts of the country were substantially less
likely to feel they were coping than other parents.
However, other factors make a difference too. A series of statistical
models were built to determine which stress factors contributed most
to ‘coping’ or ‘not coping’ with parenting. The results indicated that
(in order of contribution), having a ‘difficult’ child (one with a high
score on the sdq), having a high number of personal problems, a high
Malaise score, being a lone parent and having a large family (more
than two children) were especially associated with coping less well.
At all three levels (individual, family and community), parents’
problems were multiple, overlapping, and cumulative. So, if parents
had problems in one area they almost certainly had problems in other
areas of their life, further compounding parenting difficulties. The
greater the number of stress factors that were reported by parents, the
less likely to be ‘coping’ with parenting. As can be seen from the
figure below, the proportion of parents having difficulties coping rose
dramatically with an increasing burden of stress factors.

Figure 2 100
Not coping with 90%
parenting – by 79
cumulative 80
69
burden of
problems 60
47
40 36

20

% none one two three four or five risk factors

(n=485) (n=635) (n=376) (n=169) (n=69)

what undermines coping with parenting? 11

 To summarise, based on the findings of the study, we identified a
number of ‘priority need’ groups – that is, parents whose problems
coping suggested they are a particular priority in terms of targeted
support. These are shown in the list below:
List 2
Priority
• parents living in the very poorest neighbourhoods
need groups
within poor • parents on the lowest incomes
environments
• lone parents
• parents with high Malaise scores
• parents with high levels of current problems
• parents with ‘difficult’ children
• parents with accommodation problems
• parents with large families

12 parenting in poor environments: stress, support and coping

How well supported are parents?
This section outlines the extent and quality of support available to
parents bringing up children in poor environments. Support can
usefully be categorised into three main types:
• informal support (from personal social networks, family and
friends)
• semi-formal support (from organised community networks, e.g.
mother and toddler groups and other services often provided by
the voluntary sector)
• formal support (from statutory and professional services,
e.g. health and social services)
The study found that each of these sources of support offered
different benefits to parents, were accessed for different reasons, and
were used by parents in different ways. Gaps and deficits in each of
these sources of support, together with negative experiences of
services, could leave some groups of parents feeling unsupported.
Informal support
Parents generally had substantial networks of informal support,
with only a small minority (3%) saying that they had nobody to
call on for help. Furthermore, these support networks were
characterised by close-knit relationships in close geographical
proximity, with frequent contact both on the telephone and in
person. It is mainly women who do the supporting in poor
environments, and parents’ own mothers were the most
frequently cited source of help. Overall, female friends were
more likely to be cited as supporters than partners, although this
was in part due to the relatively high number of lone parents
living in poor neighbourhoods. However, the make-up of support
networks changed at different stages of parenthood. Children
themselves can be important sources of support to their parents,
so that in families with teenagers, older children were increas-
ingly likely to be cited as supporters. Lone parents and ethnic
minority parents reported having smaller networks than others.
Informal support was generally restricted to emotional support
and short-term practical help. Hypothetically speaking most
parents felt they could, if needed, find ‘someone to talk to’,
borrow a small amount of money from, or leave their child with
for a couple of hours, and at the time of the study, informal
supporters had been called upon recently by four out of five
parents, most commonly to mind their child (42%) or to talk to
about a problem (39%).

how well supported are parents? 13

 However, one in five parents reported having received no help of
any kind in the past four weeks, and certain groups of parents
were likely to receive less informal support than others. In
particular, parents from the lowest income families and from
ethnic minority groups reported receiving lower levels of this
kind of support. In addition, more substantial needs were less
likely to be catered for by informal support than others. Only a
minority of parents felt that they could usually leave their child
for a day or over night if necessary (45%), or get a lift to an
important appointment (45%), or borrow more than £10 (34%).
Semi-formal support
Despite the neighbourhood-based nature of most semi-formal
support, parents were surprisingly unaware of semi-formal
services in their local area. With the exception of playgroups, only
a minority of parents were aware of each of the common types of
services listed below in Figure 3. Over one in ten parents were
not aware of any of the services at all. Correspondingly, take-up of
these services was also relatively low, with two in five parents
never having used any of the services at any point, and nearly two
thirds not having contact in the last three years.
75
Figure 3 baby/toddler/playgroup 42
Use of 23
semi-formal 48
playscheme or after-school 18
support 12
43
day nursery or creche 17
10
26
toy library/playbus 6
4
17
drop-in family centre 4
3
15
lone parent support service 1
0
13
parenting education classes 2
1
9
special needs services 2
1
9 awareness of
befriending or support group 1
1 ever used
used in past 3 years
6
home support 1
1
11
40
none of these 60

% of parents
0 20 40 60 80

14 parenting in poor environments: stress, support and coping

 Reflecting the types of services in Figure 3, parents were much
more likely to have accessed semi-formal support if they had
younger children, particularly pre-schoolers. Though semi-formal
services were also more likely to be used by parents with high
levels of current family and relationship problems, and also by
parents of children with long-term health difficulties, there was
mixed evidence in relation to whether semi-formal support
reached the most needy parents. Parents who faced other types of
stressors, such as poor emotional or mental health or difficult
child behaviour were no more likely than others to access the
services. Indeed, families on lower incomes and minority ethnic
parents were significantly less likely to have used semi-formal
services in recent years than others.
Parents used semi-formal services for mainly child-centred, social
reasons (e.g. for meeting other parents and children) rather than
for practical or instrumental purposes. Overall, by far the most
common single reason cited by parents for using a service in the
past three years was to give their child the opportunity to mix
with others of the same age (66%). Instrumental reasons figured
to a lesser extent, including access to toys that might otherwise
not be available to the family (36%). Parents also used these
services for a break from solitary child care (21%). Parents were
generally very positive about the services they had used, with two-
thirds of parents (65%) who had accessed services in the last
three years considering them ‘very helpful’. This was mainly
attributed to the child having enjoyed the service, or because it
was considered to have helped children’s learning or
development.
However, there was evidence that semi-formal support services
may not always offer the kind of help that parents might
welcome as appropriate or worthwhile. Over a quarter of parents
(28%) who failed to access support felt that none of the services
offered anything of interest to them, with a smaller number
(11%) considering all the services on our list unsuitable for them.
Formal Support
Awareness and use of formal support services was somewhat
higher than for semi-formal support. Overall, only a small
minority of parents (6%) were unaware of at least some of the
formal support services listed in Figure 4. Take up of services
was also much higher, with only one in five parents (19%) having
never used any organised support services at any point, and the

how well supported are parents? 15

 majority of parents (54%) having been in touch with a formal
service in the past three years. Nevertheless, both awareness and
take-up figures suggested that parents in poor environments are
not being reached by so-called ‘universal services’ intended for
all, such as the health visiting service, let alone more ‘targeted
services’, such as social services.

87
Figure 4 health visitor 68
Use of formal 41
support 62
ante-natal class 33
13
61
social services 13
8
40
speech therapist 13
8
31
child psychologist 9
7
27
educational social worker 3
3
23
referral-based family centre 3
2
6
other services 1
1
6
none of these 19
46

% of parents
0 20 40 60 80

awareness of
ever used
used in past 3 years

16 parenting in poor environments: stress, support and coping

As with semi-formal services, parents with younger children
were most likely to report having accessed formal support in the
recent past, although the decline in use as children grew older
was not nearly as marked. There was also evidence that formal
sources of support were more successful in reaching parents
with higher needs, including: parents with poor emotional or
mental health, parents of children with health or behaviour
difficulties, and parents with high levels of current family and
relationship problems. However, there were still specific high-
need groups, such as lone parents and families on lower incomes
who were no more likely to have accessed services than other
parents. As with semi-formal support, ethnic minority parents
were less likely to have accessed services in recent years than
white parents.
The reasons for using formal services were much more parent-
centred and instrumental than for semi-formal support.
Although the majority of parents were directly referred to (or
contacted by) services, parents actively seeking formal support
tended to do so in order to get specific advice or talk to someone
about a particular personal or family problem, rather than for
social reasons. Most parents who had used a formal support
service were positive about their experiences, with almost nine
out of ten parents (88%) saying that they would recommend it to
other parents in their situation. Satisfaction tended to relate to
the extent to which service providers had listened to, respected
and addressed parents’ own self-defined needs with practical help
and assistance.
Like semi-formal support, there was evidence that some parents
failed to take-up any formal support services because they saw
them as irrelevant or unsuitable. Again, over a quarter of parents
(28%) who failed to access support felt that none of the services
could offer them anything of interest. Moreover, qualitative
interviews revealed some important levels of dissatisfaction with
formal services. Parents complained of excessively long waiting
times to use services (especially health services), and sometimes
felt that even when help was offered, it was often insufficient or
inappropriate to meet the pressing needs they had. Sometimes it
seemed that the help offered ‘missed the mark’, reflecting
professional agendas (and perhaps also resource availability)
rather than parents’ own self-defined agendas.

how well supported are parents? 17

 Negative support
The study illustrated vividly that asking for and accepting social
support can have its downsides, and the concept of ‘negative
support’ emerged as important. In relation to informal support,
parents indicated that there was a fine dividing line between
‘help’ and ‘interference’, and some parents were reluctant to ask
for or accept help in case helpers ‘took over’ and undermined
their own sense of control in family life. Other concerns included
fear of burdening others with ones’ own problems; feeling
obligated to reciprocate favours; fear of seeming not to be coping;
and loss of privacy over confidential family issues. Similarly, in
relation to formal support services, a major theme was the threat
to autonomy that could arise from involving professionals in
family life. Almost a third of parents in poor environments
(29%) felt that professionals ‘start interfering or trying to take
over’ when asked for advice on parenting issues. Other reasons
for reluctance to engage formal support included experiences of
being patronised by busy professionals who failed to respect
parents as experts in their own lives and made them feel
belittled. In the end, some parents felt that these negative
consequences of engaging support were too great, and preferred
to face the stress of parenting in poor environments alone.
Who needs more support?
Overall, just under half of all parents (47%) considered that they
would benefit from more support with bringing up children, and
more than one in ten (11%) stated that they often wished for such
help. Crucially, parents who felt unsupported were less likely to say
they were coping with parenting. Paradoxically, however, parents who
felt unsupported were also more likely to be the parents who were
receiving higher levels of actual support from informal, semi-formal
and formal sources. The perception of being supported therefore
emerged as a more critical indicator of coping with parenting in poor
environments than the actual level of support received.
In general, those in the priority need groups we identified earlier
were the most likely to consider themselves lacking in support:
including lone parents, those with mental and physical health
problems, those with sick or disabled children, and parents with high
levels of relationship and family problems. Parents with pre-school
children were also more likely to feel unsupported. Lastly, though
parents with partners were in general more likely to say they were
coping and to feel well-supported in their parenting role when

18 parenting in poor environments: stress, support and coping

 compared to lone parents, parents who reported that they had an
‘unsupportive’ partner had the same rates of not coping as lone
parents.
Based on the findings of the study in relation to existing patterns of
support, a number of key groups therefore emerged who might be
considered a priority for enhanced support with parenting. These
‘priority support groups’ were those who reported restricted access to
support and/or a sense of being inadequately supported, and are
summarised in the list below:
List 2
Priority
support groups • parents who feel they are ‘not generally coping’ with parenting
within poor
• minority ethnic parents
environments
• lone parents
• parents with high levels of current problems
• parents with high Malaise scores
• parents with pre-school children
• parents with conflicted or unsupportive relationships with partners

how well supported are parents? 19

 How can we better support parents?
What parents say they want from family support services
From the combination of survey and qualitative in-depth information
collected for the study, we were able to identify a number of key
criteria that make up parents’ own self-defined agenda for appropriate
and effective support services. Below we summarise these, and in the
blue text highlight the recommendations for improving existing
service provision that arose from the research.
Practical services that meet parents’ self-defined needs
Service agendas for supporting families are sometimes seen as
reflecting what is available rather than what is actually needed.
Parents want useful, practical services that meet their own self-
defined needs. Help that is well-meant, but seen as irrelevant to their
actual needs is described by parents as worse than useless. Where
formal (statutory) helping agencies are concerned, parents tended to
describe largely instrumental, rather businesslike approaches to their
use of these services, which tended to be in times of specific need or
crisis. They valued clear practical outcomes above ‘feel good’ qualities
like ‘friendly’ style of delivery.
Recommendation: Family support services need to pay more
attention to parents’ perceptions of the support they provide in
terms of how useful and appropriate it is felt to be. Assessing
needs in partnership with parents by asking what they themselves
think would be helpful is a good place to start.
Accessible services
Parents want services that are available when they need them. They
deplore the long waiting times it takes to access many essential
services, and there is a great need for better access to support services
on demand. By far the most frequently cited suggestions for
improving services were, for semi-formal services, increase/extend
service hours and for statutory services reduce waiting lists and waiting
times, and increase the number of staff. Many said both types of services
could be improved by increasing the opening hours; and increasing the
number of staff or volunteers.
Recommendation: Services need to be structured to provide
support to parents when they say they need it, not weeks, months
or even years later. In formal services restricted opening hours and
overstretched staff limit user access.

20 parenting in poor environments: stress, support and coping

Improved range of services
Many parents thought that both semi-formal and statutory services
could be improved by increasing or extending their ‘reach’ in terms of
the range of support provided. Where semi-formal services were
concerned, increasing the range of activities offered and improving the
quality of equipment or facilities was highlighted as a potential area for
improvement. Because parents use these sorts of services for mainly
social reasons nearly one third wanted to see a wider range (and
number) of parents and children using them, and around a quarter of
users wanted these services made cheaper to use.
Recommendation: Services should consider how to reach more
users in poor environments. In semi-formal services in particular,
more diverse services in terms of activities, facilities, mix of users
and numbers of workers should be considered. Charges for service
use should be kept minimal, as they may deter the poorest users.
Demand for information: knowledge is power
Parents expressed a strong demand for more information about
parenting and child care issues. When offered a list of thirteen
common topics about child care and child development about which
parents might seek information, over two thirds of the sample (68%)
said they would like to know more about at least one topic, and one in
five parents wanted to know more in four or more distinct areas.
Needs for information change as parents and children mature,
though overall, child behaviour issues topped the list: many parents
wanted to know more about what is and is not ‘normal’ child behaviour
at different ages (25%), and how to deal with problems with children’s
behaviour (25%). One fifth wanted information on discipline. It was
striking that when parents said they would like more information,
they strongly preferred ‘self-administered’ methods of accessing
information (e.g. leaflets, booklets, videos) to methods that involved
face-to-face contact with other people, perhaps because this
maximises control and minimises the risks associated with seeking
support. However, a substantial minority would attend an informal
discussion group with other parents, depending on the topic at issue,
and some would consult professionals in matters of children’s
physical and emotional health.
(The results are shown in more detail in the Figure on the next page.)

how can we better support parents? 21

 Figure 5
How parents prefer
to receive Preferred methods of receiving information about
specific topics (% of parents citing method as appropriate)
information about
parenting
Topic most popular 2nd most popular 3rd most popular
method method method
What to expect in terms of ‘normal’ leaflet 57% video 28% discussion group 25%
behaviour at different ages (n = 446)
How to deal with problems with leaflet 46% home visit 30% video 26%
children’s behaviour (n = 435)
Education or schools (n = 379) leaflet 60% home visit 26% discussion group 23%

The pros and cons of different ways leaflet 49% discussion group 30% video 30%
of disciplining children (n = 362)
Parenting teenagers (n = 311) leaflet 50% video 29% discussion group 28%

Problems between siblings (n = 290) leaflet 49% discussion group 27% video 25%

How children learn (n = 274) leaflet 56% video 32% TV/radio 29%

How to talk to children about growing leaflet 59% video 39% discussion group 23%
up, bodies and sex (n = 271)
Children’s or babies’ diet (n = 157) leaflet 63% visit to professional 36% video 26%

Problems with children or babies leaflet 50% video 31% home visit 29%
sleeping or crying (n = 141)
Children’s or babies’ health (n = 124) leaflet 65% visit to professional 36% video 24%

The normal stages of baby or child leaflet 64% video 32% parent class 25%
development (n = 101)
How parenthood affects relationships leaflet 47% home visit 24% video 23%
with partners (n = 95)

self-administered delivery
semi-formal delivery
formal delivery

Recommendation: Formal support services in particular should

provide written information for parents to take away and consult at
their own convenience. Contrary to popular belief, many parents
say they do read and keep written materials for future reference.

22 parenting in poor environments: stress, support and coping

Services that allow parents to feel ‘in control’
A key principle stressed by parents in relation to all services is that
seeking support should not leave them feeling they had relinquished
control over their own life. Parents said strongly that making them
feel listened to and respected, and acknowledging that they are also
‘experts’ in their own lives is as important, if not more important, as
providing access to specific types of help. They described a fine line
between ‘help’ and ‘interference’, and this applied equally to help
from informal sources (friends and family) as well as from organised
services. According to the parents we interviewed, ‘good’ support is
that which nevertheless allows a parent to feel in control of decisions
and what is happening to them and their families. Parents often felt
disempowered by the way they were treated by busy professionals – as
if they were over-anxious, inexperienced, or ignorant, for example.
Health professionals (GPs, and health visitors) particularly came in
for criticism in this respect. Fear of loss of autonomy was a barrier to
seeking professional support, and sometimes the more serious the
problem, the greater the fear and the greater the disincentive to seek
help. This was especially the case where social services was
concerned.
Recommendation: Services and professional support staff need to
find ways to demonstrate respect for parents’ own ‘expertise’ in
their own lives. Parents do most certainly welcome help and
support, but not at the cost of their own autonomy. Training in
listening and engaging seriously with parents’ own concerns, and
negotiating in partnership with them about the best course of
action may be needed for health and social care workers who
support parents.

how can we better support parents? 23

 Key principles in supporting parents
Overall, the findings of the study led us to identify six key principles
that underlie the provision of effective and comprehensive support
services for families and children in need, from the perspective of
parents bringing up children in impoverished environments. These
are summarised below.
Diversity of provision
The study showed how different forms of support fulfil different
functions for parents. Parents use informal support from family and
friends to provide emotional support and every-day practical help.
Semi-formal services are used for mainly social reasons, to broaden
the social networks of parents and children. Formal services are used
more instrumentally, for professional advice with specific problems
and sometimes at points of clear crisis. Retaining and supporting a
diversity of provision is therefore essential to meet this diversity of
need. For parents in poor environments, it is especially important that
an emphasis on building up informal and semi-formal support
systems should not erode the availability of formal (statutory)
services. Despite their shortcomings, these services provide vital
support to the families in greatest need, many of whom cannot or do
not want to access family or community-based support.
Tackling poor awareness and the poor image of family support services
There are some serious gaps in awareness of what services are
available locally in poor environments. Even in the case of universal
services like health visiting, some parents were unaware of this
service and had never used it. Better advertising and marketing of
what is available to parents at the local and national level is required.
However, raising awareness is only half the story: justly or unjustly,
many services had a very bad reputation amongst parents in poor
environments. Primary health care services were often described as
rushed, dismissive, patronising; social services were perceived as an
agent of social control rather than help. There is a very urgent need to
tackle this poor public image, because some needy parents will go to
almost any lengths to avoid using these services as a result.
Multiple problems need multiple solutions
The study showed that many families in poor environments are
subject to multiple and overlapping stressors. Many parents reported
several distinct risk factors at the individual, family or community
level, and some ‘sets’ of stressors were commonly found together (for
example poor parental physical health, poor mental health and child

24 parenting in poor environments: stress, support and coping

behaviour problems). To be really effective, support to families needs
to operate in a number of dimensions. The study adds to the
substantial body of evidence indicating the need for comprehensive,
‘joined-up’ services, delivered by partnerships between agencies and
across sectors. Single agencies working alone are unlikely to be able
to make much impact on the lives of families with such complex and
interlocking needs.
Build on strengths as well as tackling weaknesses
Despite living in conditions of considerable stress, parents in poor
environments were on the whole remarkably resilient and positive.
They often expressed pride in their local neighbourhood, despite a
keen awareness of its deficiencies, and were strongly committed to
staying and making a good life for themselves and their children.
Most felt they had reasonably extensive support networks, despite
receiving relatively little actual practical help from external sources.
They described resourceful strategies for dealing with day to day
problems and were experts in making a little go a long way. Overall,
there were as many parents ‘coping well’ with parenting as there were
parents who were not. This is not to say that parents in poor
environments do not want or welcome services and support – quite
the reverse. However, the design of family support at the macro level
should try to recognise and build upon existing strengths as well as
address weaknesses and deficits. For example, one strategy to boost
informal and semi-formal community-based support could involve
mobilising parents who are coping well (often those with older
children and more experience) to befriend and support those who
cope less well. Similarly, when working with parents in poor
environments, formal agencies should try to identify and boost
parents’ existing strengths as well as address parenting problems.
The concept of negative support
Not all support offered to parents is perceived as wholly positive. An
appreciation of the downside to social support is important to help
understand the limitations of what can be done to support parenting
‘from the outside’. Again reflecting the fine dividing line between
help and interference, many parents felt there were disincentives to
accepting informal support from friends and family, including the
obligation to reciprocate and the fear of burdening others. On the
other hand, fear of loss of confidentiality and control loomed large as
issues underlying parents’ willingness to accept support offered by
agencies. We should not expect that measures aimed at enhancing
support available to parents will always be welcomed by all individuals.

key principles in supporting parents 25

 Allowing parents to feel in control
The overriding message from this study was that how parents feel
about support is critical, and they feel best about support when it is
offered in a way that does not undermine their own sense of personal
control. At present, some parents in poor environments feel family
support services are pulling against them instead of with them. There
is a strong culture of family self-sufficiency within poor communities,
and external support that steps over the fine line between ‘help’ and
‘interference’ may actually make things worse, not better, for parents.
Asking parents what they want and how they want it therefore has to
be the starting point for all family support services, whether at the
community or individual family level. As one mother put it:

‘Support’ means that you are still in charge; the parent is still in charge
and you are asking for help, advice and whatever - but you are the one
in charge. You are not handing over your kids to someone else to take
over.
Mother, lone parent, low income, sick child

26 parenting in poor environments: stress, support and coping

The policy research bureau is a politically independent, not for
profit research centre specialising in social policy research on and with
children, young people and their families. We carry out research on a
wide range of topics including family support, parenting, fatherhood,
early intervention and prevention, anti-social behaviour, youth justice,
child maltreatment and child protection, and child and adolescent
mental health. Our research takes a variety of forms, including large
scale surveys, quasi-experimental studies and evaluations, qualitative
studies, literature reviews and scoping studies.
Current and recent research projects include: the National Evaluation
of On Track; Mental health needs of children in the child protection
system; Children who commit serious crimes; a national study of
parents, children and discipline in Britain; a review of the international
evaluation literature on ‘what works’ in parenting support; an
evaluation of the Youth Justice Board’s Parenting Programme; a study
of young people’s perceptions of the criminal justice system, and an
analysis of consultation responses on the education of young people in
the public care.
Recent bureau publications include:
Moran P, Ghate D and Van der Merwe A (2004 forthcoming),
What works in parenting support? A review of the international evaluation
literature. London: DfES and Home Office
Ghate D, Hazel N, Creighton SJ and Finch S (2003) Key findings from
the National Survey of Parents, Children and Discipline in Britain: ESRC
Research Findings Summary series London: The Policy Research
Bureau
Ghate D and Ramella M (2002) Positive Parenting: An evaluation of the
Youth Justice Board’s Parenting Programme. London: Youth Justice Board
(http://www.youth-justice-board.gov.uk/publications/research/positive
parenting)
Hazel N (2003) Holidays for families in need: the research and policy
context PRB Briefing Paper 151 London: The Policy Research Bureau
Ghate D and Hazel N (2002) Parenting in Poor Environments: Stress,
support and coping, London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers
Ghate D, Shaw C, and Hazel N (2000) Engaging fathers in preventive
services: fathers and family centres. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation and
York YPS
Rutter M, Giller H and Hagell A (1998) Antisocial Behavior by Young
People. New York: Cambridge University Press

27
 Deborah Ghate and Neal Hazel Parenting in poor environments: stress, support and coping
policy research ureau

With a unique focus on the effects of poverty,

the book this summary is taken from explores
what professionals and policy makers can do to
support families living in poverty.
The authors examine community-level poverty
and its relationship to family and individual
problems such as low income, poor mental
health and child behavioural difficulties.
Using data from the first nationally
representative survey of parents living in
especially poor circumstances, they assess the
wider help parents receive, both through formal
support services and through informal networks
of family and friends. Drawing on a study of
1,750 parents carried out by the policy
research bureau for the Department of
Health, this book shows what service users
think of the resources available to them, and
how policy and practice in family support
services could be improved.
Deborah Ghate is Director and Neal Hazel was a
Senior Research Fellow at the policy research
bureau.