ELEMENTS OF QUALITY FAMILY LIFE EDUCATION ......site, or other educational media. These elements...

37

CHAPTER 3

ELEMENTS OFQUALITY FAMILY LIFEEDUCATION RESOURCESAND PROGRAMS

Countless family life education (FLE) resources of one kind or anotherexist today. These resources include workshop curricula, newslet-ters, videos/video-based curricula, books, lay publications, support

groups, and Web sites. The materials cut across many content areas, from par-enting and marriage education to individual development. Family life educa-tors (FLEs) are faced with the decision of whether to adopt and adapt existingresources or to create materials of their own. Many of these resources havebeen developed in educational outreach settings, such as land grant universi-ties, while others have been developed and distributed commercially.However, these materials are of varying quality, not always following highdevelopment standards (Hughes, 1994). How do FLEs determine the qualityof existing resources as they consider the many options available to them? Oralternatively, if they decide to develop their own resources, what elementswould appropriately be included?

Beyond materials is the broader FLE program, which we define as com-prehensive, multilevel, collaborative, community-based educational effortsfor children, youth, families, and communities. While many of these kinds of

03-Duncan.qxd 10/25/2004 6:47 PM Page 37

comprehensive programs have been created, few meet the test of time (Lee,Mancini, Miles, & Marek, 1996). What are the elements of successful, sus-tained programs, and how can we infuse those essentials into our efforts incommunities?

Chapter 2 provides a framework for the design of comprehensive FLEprevention programs. In this chapter, first we take the discussion a step fur-ther to spotlight and evaluate the specific features of quality FLE resources.Second, we review the elements that research shows hold comprehensiveprograms together once they are in place, and provide examples of programsaround the United States that contain these elements.

� THE NEED FOR STANDARDS OF QUALITYFOR FAMILY LIFE EDUCATION RESOURCES

Most fields have standards of quality, often embodied in professional bylawsand licensure criterion. For example, the professions of social work and mar-riage and family therapy have long had established criteria for practice. InFLE, progress has been made over the past two decades in the professional-ization of FLE. For example, in 1984, the National Council on Family Relations(NCFR) became the first professional organization to establish criteria andstandards for FLEs, later giving birth to its Certified Family Life Educator(CFLE) program. Certification requires at least a bachelor’s degree, comple-tion of college courses spanning 10 different family life substance areas, andan internship, plus the equivalent of 2 years of full-time related work experi-ences. In 1993, Family Service Canada followed suit by announcing its ownCanadian Certified Family Educator (CCFE) program. In addition to theseprofessionalization efforts, recent efforts have also specified the ethical andprofessional standards of FLEs and family science professionals in general(Adams, Dollahite, Gilbert, & Keim, 2001; Brock, 1993). Advances have alsobeen made in clarifying the content of FLE, teaching, and evaluation strate-gies (Hughes, 1994).

Despite these developments, recommendations for accepted standardsof FLE practice have lagged behind (Hughes, 1994), specifically the nuts andbolts of how to put together quality family life educational resources. Suchstandards are important to guide development efforts if implementers areto maximize their effectiveness. Such a model would suggest minimum stan-dards whereby the quality of a resource might be judged. Thus, a modelwould serve both as a helpful resource development device as well as a toolby which one could make decisions about adopting a particular set of mate-rials for use in one’s community FLE setting.

38–●–FAMILY LIFE EDUCATION


ELEMENTS OF QUALITY FAMILY �LIFE EDUCATION RESOURCES

Work by Hughes (1994, 1997) provides a useful basis for the assessment ofa wide variety of educational products, be it a workshop series, video, Website, or other educational media. These elements include content, imple-mentation process, instructional process, and evaluation. Some of the ele-ments are consistent with the program design framework discussed inChapter 2 and are repeated here as part of the assessment process. Whilesome of the elements have a more direct application to program curricula,we agree with Hughes (1994) that most of the items can be applied to mostany FLE resource.

Content

When evaluating the quality of an FLE resource, there are three elementsof the content that are important to consider: the theoretical/research base,the context-sensitivity of the information, and the practice base.

Theoretical/Research Base

Is the resource based on current scholarship on the topic? Quality FLEresources will have a clear link to leading-edge scholarly thinking and, whereappropriate, will clearly indicate a specific theory and research base thatundergirds the resource. The scholarly base is then woven into the goals,objectives, and activities of the materials. Undergirding such resourcesare specified, widely demonstrated ideas about how positive predictablechange occurs under certain conditions. The job of the materials is toprovide those conditions that facilitate desired change. For example, aresearch- and theory-based marriage education program curricula toenhance the quality of participants’ marriages and protection againstdivorce would seek to address, through knowledge and skills, the docu-mented risk factors for marital trouble (such as mishandling of marital dif-ferences) and enhance protective factors (such as nurturing love andfriendship). Thus, materials based on leading-edge theoretical principlesand research, rather than someone’s intriguing ideas or good intentions,are more likely to produce the outcomes we want as FLEs. These principlesbecome the “teachable” ideas for the lay audience—ideas the audiencereally needs to know.

Elements of Quality Family Life Education Resources and Programs–●–39

03-Duncan.qxd 10/25/2004 6:47 PM 9

Context

Materials based on sound theory and research can miss their mark iftheir principles are not applicable to the diversity of individuals or groups inthe target audience. Thus, the research and theories must be evaluated fortheir applicability to either a wide diversity array of individuals or to thespecific target audience (Myers-Walls, 2000). This effort is especially critical,since much of social science research that undergirds FLE materials is biasedtoward White, middle-class families. For example, FLEs developing curriculato help lower-income families make transitions from welfare dependency toself-support would make sure that the theory, research, and interventions arebased on an understanding of the complex needs of limited resource (lim-ited in terms of education and perception of personal resources as well asincome) at different levels of their social ecology (at the individual, family,and community levels) (Christopher et al., 2001). A parenting newsletterseries for single parents would include an understanding of the challengesand strengths single parents bring to parenting, as well as general principlesemerging from parenting research across groups.

Practice

Quality FLE resources employ not only leading-edge theory and researchbut also the best practices/interventions available (Hughes, 1994). Whereasthe theory and research articulate what needs to be taught, the practice partof an educational resource details how the ideas are to be taught or whatmethods have been used most effectively to teach the principles. Forexample, in developing a multisession workshop series for strengtheningsingle parents, FLEs would review the practice literature that details howsuch workshops for single parents have been taught in the past, the specificmethods that were used, and how effective they were. Then such methodswould be incorporated into the program.

Instructional Process

Teaching Plans

Hughes (1994) warns that even materials based on strong scholarshipand best practices can fall flat if the design for delivery (e.g., teaching plan fora workshop series) is ill conceived or the material is presented poorly. Asa beginning, well-designed teaching plans would include goals and specific,measurable learner-centered objectives, focused on producing changes in


03-Duncan.qxd 10/25/2004 6:47 PM 0

participant knowledge, attitudes, behavior/skills, and aspirations (Bennett &Rockwell, 1995). Directions on how to facilitate the learning process would beincluded, including the amount of time to be spent on each teaching activity.A variety of teaching activities and formats would be used, allowing for variedlearning styles, sensory modalities, and developmental needs/abilities. Theseactivities would be closely tied to goals and objectives. A variety of teachingaids might also be used, including visuals and video clips (see Chapters 4 and7 for additional discussion on goals, objectives, and methods).

Presentation

According to Hughes (1994), two important presentation features are thereadability of participant materials and the appropriate use of examples. Whenthe written word is used to convey FLE information, it must be accessible to allwithin a target audience, neither talking over their heads nor talking down tothem. It’s also important to cull resources to find and share the examples andstories that fit the life experiences of the participants. From comic strips tophotos and video media, care should be taken to illustrate a wide variety of sit-uations without any demeaning reference to any racial, ethnic, or economicgroup or type of family. Instead, a wide portrayal of a variety of groups is appro-priate, or portrayals especially suited to the target audience. Attractiveness ofthe resource is also important. For example, the visual appeal of an FLE Website may be the most important element initially to encourage further explo-ration. Although the material must be tied to sound scholarship, it doesn’thave to look or sound that way. For example, the best research for marriageeducation audiences can be placed in reader-friendly, engaging languageinstead of stilted, scholarly writing and say much the same thing.

Implementation Process

Well-designed and presented materials may still fail if they are not imple-mentation savvy. Hughes (1994) argues that “failures in implementation” arelikely “the most important point of failure” of FLE programming (p. 77).Many programs are doomed before they start because of their failure toconsult the target audience and assess their needs (Duncan, Box, & Silliman,1996). In fact, wise FLEs will consult with the target audience at every stage,from program design and implementation to evaluation. Quality resourceswill show evidence that FLEs have formulated their implementation approachbased on the assessed needs of the target audience. Characteristics of the tar-get audience would also be described in materials such as age, developmental



level, ethnicity, gender, social class, and family life stages. Also important aredata regarding groups for whom the material would not be appropriate, orguidelines for implementation for other groups (e.g., how a marriage enrich-ment program could be adapted for remarried or cohabiting couples). All ofthis information should trace back to information from consulting theintended audience, including data gathered directly from potential partici-pants in a community as well as other data sources already available, such ascommunity demographics collected by a city.

Having a marketing plan is also an important key for implementation.Program resources might field test and include recruitment and marketingideas in their materials. Programs will give attention to the various aspects ofmarketing (Weinreich, 1999) and provide guidelines to implementers as to howto carry out such a plan. Some of these aspects include information such asproduct characteristics (the total program package, including the topics taughtand how), price (cost in terms of time and money), place (where a programshould be located), promotion (what is the best way to get the word out aboutthe program?), publics (whose support in a community do we need to imple-ment the program?), partnership (with whom should we partner or collaboratein order to reach the most people?), policies (what policies support the deliv-ery of the program or would need to be addressed for the program to be suc-cessful?), and purse strings (where would funding be found for a program likethis?) Details of marketing plan development are discussed in Chapter 13.

Evaluation

Quality FLE resources include some provision for determining if thematerials benefit others. For example, a new FLE curricula for a workshopseries will include, at a minimum, data collected on target audiences andhow these data led to the existing design of the program, and tools for con-ducting both formative and summative evaluations. Evaluation tools wouldbe clearly tied to program goals and objectives. The tools would collect dataabout program utilization (e.g., how many attend a program and their char-acteristics?), client satisfaction (e.g., how useful was this Web site for you?),short-term impact (e.g., what changes have you noticed in your marriagethat you believe resulted from the Strengthening Your Marriage program?),and long-term impact (e.g., maintenance of program outcomes a year later)(Jacobs, 1988). More mature curricula would include additional quantitativeand qualitative data that demonstrate program effectiveness.

The adapted tool used to evaluate family life education resources isprovided in Table 3.1.




TABLE 3.1 Family Life Education Program Resource Review Form

Use this form to assess the level of quality of outreach FLE resource materials, including curricula,videos, Web sites, and other resources. Not all items will apply equally to all resources.

Reference Information

Title: _____________________________________________

Author: ___________________________________________

Source: ___________________________________________

Intended Audience. Please note the audience for which the resource is intended. (Check all thatapply.)

____ Parents (Type ___________________)(Single, Step, Adoptive, Teenage, All, etc.)

____ Children (Age Range and/or Family Type) ____________________

____ Married Couples

____ General Public

____ Other (Specify:_________________________________ )

Delivery Method. Indicate the type of resource. (Check all that apply.)

____ News release

____ Short brochure

____ Long brochure

____ Slide/Video

____ Program Curriculum

____ Web site

____ Other _______________

Ratings of the Resource. Please rate the educational resource on the following dimensions. Keep inmind the intended resource and the type of delivery method when making these ratings.

(Continued)



TABLE 3.1 (Continued)

Content: Theory and Research Low/Poor High/Excellent

1. Prevention/intervention theory is clearly stated. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

2. Resource is based on current research findings. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

3. Resource includes the major and/or most important 1 2 3 4 5 N/Aresearch resources.

4. Resource accurately uses the findings from research 1 2 3 4 5 N/A(or other sources).

5. Resource clearly presents the findings from 1 2 3 4 5 N/Aresearch and other sources.

6. Resource draws appropriate implications 1 2 3 4 5 N/Afrom the research and other sources.

7. Resource notes limitations of research findings 1 2 3 4 5 N/Aand conclusions.

Content: Context

8. Contextual information regarding the families’ 1 2 3 4 5 N/Ainvolvement in relevant settings (school, work, child care, church) is appropriately considered.

9. Culture and social class influences 1 2 3 4 5 N/Aare appropriately considered.

10. Political, economic, and other macrosocial 1 2 3 4 5 N/Ainfluences are appropriately considered.

Content: Practice

11. Resource adds something new to the practice/ 1 2 3 4 5 N/Aintervention approaches on this topic/issue.

12. Resource builds on appropriate existing 1 2 3 4 5 N/Aprogram resources (e.g. other programs,professionals, clinical research).

13. Resource accurately uses finding from 1 2 3 4 5 N/Aclinical research/practice.

14. Teaching/intervention strategies and techniques 1 2 3 4 5 N/Aare based on clinical research/practice.

15. Resource notes current limitation of clinical/ 1 2 3 4 5 N/Apractice knowledge in regard to this program/topic.

Comments:



Instructional Process: Teaching Plans Low/Poor High/Excellent

1. The topic is important for the intended audience. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

2. There are clear goals and objectives for instruction 1 2 3 4 5 N/Aor the interactive/teaching elements of the Web site.

3. Activities/interactive features fit the goals and objectives. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

4. Activities/interactive features are appropriate 1 2 3 4 5 N/Afor the intended audience(s) (age group, familytype, gender, ethnic group).

5. Directions for conducting (or doing online) 1 2 3 4 5 N/Ateaching or learning activities are sufficient.

6. A variety of activities and teaching formats are used. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

7. Balance between giving information, discussion, 1 2 3 4 5 N/Aand learning activities is achieved.

8. Structured and/or unstructured approaches 1 2 3 4 5 N/Aare used appropriately.

9. Sufficient time is allowed to cover topics/ 1 2 3 4 5 N/Aactivities (not too much or too little).

10. The structure of the content is logically 1 2 3 4 5 N/Aorganized and easy to follow.

11. Teaching aids (visuals, materials, 1 2 3 4 5 N/Ahandouts, etc.) are appropriate.

12. Potential teaching/practice problems 1 2 3 4 5 N/Aare discussed and solutions suggested.

13. Appropriateness of the length of the resource 1 2 3 4 5 N/Afor the topic and the intended audience.

Instructional Process: Presentation

14. Appropriate readability for the intended audience. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

15. Appropriateness of the examples for 1 2 3 4 5 N/Athe intended audience.

16. Attractiveness of the resource for 1 2 3 4 5 N/Athe intended audience.

17. Appropriate portrayal of a range of racial/ethnic groups. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

18. Appropriate portrayal of a range of family types. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

19. Effectiveness of pictures/graphs, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

20. Quality of the overall design and layout. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

Comments:

(Continued)



TABLE 3.1 (Continued)

Implementation Process Low/Poor High/Excellent

1. General information in regard to using 1 2 3 4 5 N/Athe program is provided.

2. Appropriate audience for program is outlined. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

3. Limits are provided about audiences that 1 2 3 4 5 N/Awould not be expected to benefit from the program.

4. Marketing/recruitment materials and 1 2 3 4 5 N/Asuggestions are provided.

5. Logistical issues in implementation are clarified. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

6. Budget issues are explained clearly. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

7. Community or agency issues in 1 2 3 4 5 N/Aimplementation are explained.

8. Potential implementation problems are 1 2 3 4 5 N/Adiscussed and solutions suggested.

9. If appropriate, staff or volunteer training 1 2 3 4 5 N/Aguidelines are sufficient.

10. Background material and/or resources are 1 2 3 4 5 N/Aprovided to implementers/trainers.

Comments:

Evaluation Low/Poor High/Excellent

1. Evidence of needs assessment process 1 2 3 4 5 N/Awith appropriate audience(s) is provided.

2. Utilization data are provided. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

3. Accountability procedures are provided 1 2 3 4 5 N/Ato track utilization of the program.

4. Results of client satisfaction are provided. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

5. Procedures for assessing client 1 2 3 4 5 N/Asatisfaction are provided.

6. Feedback from staff trainers, 1 2 3 4 5 N/Aother stakeholders is discussed.

7. Procedures for obtaining feedback from staff trainers 1 2 3 4 5 N/Aand other stakeholders are provided.

8. Evaluation of critical program features is provided. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

9. Effectiveness of the program for 1 2 3 4 5 N/Aspecific audiences is clear.

10. Limits of the effectiveness of the program are clear. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A


APPLICATION OF ASSESSMENT TO �EXISTING FAMILY LIFE EDUCATION RESOURCES

As mentioned at the outset, there are many FLE resources, yet none of themare known to have been subjected to a thorough, independent assessmentusing the Hughes (1994, 1997) approach. A comprehensive review of themany actively used materials is beyond the scope of this chapter. However,we wanted to determine the extent to which these elements of quality werepresent in at least a few well-known and often used FLE resources. Our selec-tion of these resources should not be seen as an endorsement of them. Ourpurpose here is not so much critical as it is educational—to illustrate howthe assessment tool can be used to make decisions about the selectionof materials, taking into account both program strengths and limitations.Undoubtedly, resources that meet these criteria to perfection do not exist;many resources not fully meeting the criteria are undoubtedly useful, effec-tive materials.

FLE is a multifaceted, multidisciplinary field with many different contentareas (Arcus, Schvaneveldt, & Moss, 1993a), but much of the programming is


Evaluation Low/Poor High/Excellent

11. Guidelines for impact evaluation are provided. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

12. Evaluation tools (formative and summative) 1 2 3 4 5 N/Aare provided.

13. Summative evaluation tools are tied to 1 2 3 4 5 N/Agoals and objectives.

Comments:

Overall Evaluation of the Resource

____ This resource should not be used at all.(Describe the major problems.)

____ This resource would be useful with the following modifications.(Describe the needed modifications.)

____ This resource would be useful in the following circumstances andwith the following audiences. (Describe circumstances and audiences.)

(Adapted from Hughes, 1994, 1997)


done in marriage and couple relationships and parenting and family strengths.We chose two widely used program curricula for review: the Prevention andRelationship Enhancement Program (PREP) and the Strengthening FamiliesProgram (SFP).

The Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program

PREP is one of the best known marriage education resources available,and also has an extensive research program demonstrating its effectiveness(for a review, see Stanley, 2001). The program was designed to teach couplescommunication, conflict resolution, and problem-solving skills shown to belinked to marital strength. PREP attempts to reduce risk factors and raiseprotective factors through addressing topics such as commitment, handlingconflict using the speaker/listener technique, gender differences, forgive-ness, fun, friendship, and sensuality. The basic PREP program is organizedinto one full-day session followed by two 2-hour weekday evening sessions,totaling 12 hours of contact.

PREP Content

In terms of content, the PREP program material presents a clear schol-arly background for the program, embedded in cognitive-behavioral andcommunication theory, with years of research and clinical practice underly-ing the general principles and the interventions used in the program, pri-marily consisting of skills training in the active listening skill they call thespeaker/listener technique (Markman, Stanley, & Blumberg, 1999). Extensivereferences to up-to-date sources are included. Limitations of the scholarlyfindings and conclusions supporting the program are also discussed, such ascautioning readers regarding positive PREP outcomes based on short-termresults. The PREP evaluation studies have measured many outcomes buthave found modest benefits on only a few. In addition, the communicationapproaches promoted by PREP have been strongly challenged in the schol-arly literature. The authors also provide their response to the debate sur-rounding the use of active listening skills in marriage education and therapy(see Gottman, Coan, Carrere, & Swanson, 1998), but place this discussion ina box within the instructional material yet provide no indication as to theimplications of this concern for applying the material. There is little evidenceof change in approach in concert with the emerging findings.

In terms of practice, the PREP program develops communication skills,using the behavioral techniques of modeling and coaching. Practice strategies



are closely aligned with behavioral marital therapy, and the use of skill trainingis a commonly used strategy within a cognitive-behavioral framework. Theresearch on PREP itself has also provided encouragement to those whoengage in community-based marriage education, since participants receivingthe program from PREP-trained clergy and lay leaders had equal or betteroutcomes than those trained by PREP developers (Stanley et al., 2001).

PREP offers little guidance addressing the contexts in which this programcan be used effectively. The developers claim and their research also showsthat the program can be effectively implemented among premarital, marital(at various life stages), and remarital groups and in Westernized culture (i.e.,the United States and Europe). The accompanying videotape uses couplesfrom different races in early-to-later stages of marriage. However, the programmaterial does not address how it can be used with groups of various cultures,races, socioeconomic background, or literacy levels. While program materialsstate that PREP is best used with couples with lower risks, there is no indica-tion of how the program might be used among truly disadvantaged popula-tions or risk groups as an adjunct to counseling. However, a recent studynot cited in this version of the program does point to its usefulness amongcouples with at least some risks (Halford, Sanders, & Behrens, 2001).

PREP Instructional Process

The program material is formatted around a one full-day and two 2-hourweeknight sessions. The instructional design of PREP largely consists ofminilectures embellished by the use of video clips, overheads, and humor-ous cartoons that illustrate concepts (also available on PowerPoint for PREPtrainees) and dyadic skill training (couples together, assisted by behavioral“coaches”). Program materials provide helpful overviews of the three ses-sions, materials needed, and a checklist for setting up a room. There is a pro-gram outline/schedule for lectures and coached couple interactions usinga variety of alternative formats, including weekend only, one-day, and so on.The program outline has clear indications where video and overheadsegments are to be used.

The delivery process instructions lack clearly articulated, learner-centered goals and objectives. Leader-oriented goals are mentioned in theimplementation materials (and called “objectives”), but no specific, measur-able objectives are associated with the specific sessions and lectures. Thus, itis difficult to determine the fit of the program activities with goals and objec-tives of the program. In addition, there are no specific times for activitiesmentioned, so facilitators would need to determine the times for themselves,including the approximate length of video clips.



The lecture outline is somewhat sketchy and seems to assume the leaderhas a substantial background in the content area. This lack of detail is per-haps related to the fact that professional training in PREP is required beforeinterested parties are contractually allowed to present the full program.Nevertheless, the material lacks specific detail that would be helpful ininstructional processes, such as a suggested script. The outline by itself sug-gests a largely didactic approach to teaching, involving little input from ordirect engagement with the audience (e.g., asking for participants’ questionsor opinions).

There are various supportive materials for the program. A Couple’s Notes

booklet provides a useful way for couples to follow lectures and jot downideas they want to remember that are associated with key concepts of theprogram. In addition, couples receive “The Floor” (a small card), which cou-ples pass back and forth as they practice the speaker/listener technique.Written on The Floor are the rules for speaking and listening that couples areto follow as they practice the skill, a helpful structuring and memory device.

PREP Implementation Process

A useful feature of the PREP program is a fairly detailed leader’s guide.This material includes information on staff requirements, participant eligibil-ity, recruitment ideas, the role of leaders, ideas for delivering lectures (whichthe PREP people call “talks”), program resources, and program logistics.Based on the format selected (weekend, weekday evening, etc.), there is alisting of what leaders need, what the couples need, and various presentationmaterials, sample schedules, and times for each element. In addition, thereis an outline for a booster session, also shown to be a best practice (Carroll& Doherty, 2003; Giblin, Sprenkle, & Sheehan, 1985).

PREP Evaluation

PREP program materials include a review of research that supports theprogram’s effectiveness. In addition, included are a variety of tools, many ofthem with established reliability and validity, that FLEs could use to evaluatePREP effectiveness, depending on the objectives identified for the specificprogram. Some of the tools include a marital satisfaction instrument, a confi-dence scale, a problem inventory, and a relationship dynamics scale. However,it is difficult to know how these tools apply to the goals and objectives of PREP,since there is weak discussion of both.

Missing from the PREP material was any discussion of an effort to inves-tigate the needs of the target audience prior to or concurrent with program



development. Thus, while appearing to address many of the common riskand protective factors in marriage relationships, it is unknown if or how theneeds of the target audience were considered, nor do program leadersreceive any guidance in assessing needs.

Parenting and Family Education: TheStrengthening Families Program for Parents and Youth

The Strengthening Families Program for Parents and Youth 10 to 14 (SFP)is a parent, youth, and family skills-building, video-based curriculum designedto prevent teen substance abuse and other behavior problems, strengthenparenting skills, and build family strengths. Like the PREP program, SFP hasbeen carefully evaluated in many studies as one of the programs used in theacclaimed Project Family project (Molgaard & Spoth, 2001).

SFP is comprised of seven sessions, each 2 hours in length, plus fourbooster sessions. During the first hour, parents and youth meet separatelyand then come together during the second hour to practice skills and havefun. Thus, a special feature of this program is that parents and their youth getto learn together.

SFP content

In terms of content, SFP states it is based on 20 years of research onrisk factors and protective factors for youth behavior problems (Molgaard,Kumpfer, & Fleming, 2001). A review of this research is provided in the mate-rials, but it is very brief and fails to note the specific risk and protectivefactors the program addresses. The program ostensibly draws upon othertheoretical/research bases such as social learning and behavioral manage-ment (use of reinforcements and penalties), humanistic psychology (mutualempathy activities), communication theory (I-messages), and Adlerian per-spectives (family meetings). However, these bases are not delineated in thereview. An extensive reference list to published studies and sources under-girding the program is provided. Limitations of the scholarly findings sup-porting the research is not included. However, the developers do report ontheir efforts to modify the program consistent with the needs of other audi-ences (i.e., African Americans and Hispanics).

In terms of practice, the SFP curricula are video based and use skill train-ing, homework assignments, and a variety of other teaching methods toaccomplish its goals. This approach appears to be consistent with current bestpractices in parenting and family education, but the sources influencing their



decisions about program practices is not mentioned, nor is reference made toother similar successful programs in this area. An important omission is thelack of discussion about the theoretical and empirical rationale behind thespecific structure of SFP, namely holding separate groups for youths andparents for part of the time, coupled with a family gathering. Similar to PREP,professional training is required before one may be a certified SFP leader.Trained leaders who have conducted SFP may in turn train others who workwith them.

In terms of context, SFP appears to be sensitive to the various ethnicand sociodemographic groups. The Leader Guide details research on SFPwith samples that included a high percentage of economically disadvantagedfamilies and also details several program revisions undertaken following theresearch to make the curriculum appeal to a wider audience (specifically,Hispanics and African Americans, as well as Whites). These revisions includedusing actors for the videos from different races and more informal and game-like activities.

SFP Instructional Process

The seven sessions have three separate teaching plans for parents,youth, and family. The first page of each session contains a Contents and aMaterials Needed section, plus learner-centered session goals. The parentsessions employ video clips throughout, the youth sessions use videosduring two of them, and the curriculum otherwise uses a variety of teachingand activity formats, handouts, and home practice activities. The LeaderGuide, list of materials, and the manner in which the sessions are scriptedprovide ample direction for carrying out the instruction, including thelength of time needed to complete each segment. A video script is includedwithin the session so it is easy to refer to ideas mentioned there. Clearinstructions are provided throughout the program, with icons signaling aparticular segment in the material (such as a TV screen to signal when thevideo is to start).

SFP curricula are written in a simple, direct manner, so the materials areeasy to understand for the audience and educator alike. The videos are ofhigh quality and provide both positive and negative examples of the conceptbeing taught. The situations are lifelike and relate to parents’ experiences.The materials have a very professional appearance. All the handouts neededto facilitate the instructional process are professional looking and separatedby session.



SFP Implementation Process

A useful feature of the SFP is the Leader Guide, which contains muchhelpful information regarding many of the more practical and logisticalconsiderations for implementing the program, such as securing funding,finding a place to meet, roles of facilitators, scheduling, booster sessions,recruitment, registration and fees, meals/snacks, child care, transportation,incentives for attendance, and many other useful ideas that might easily slipone’s mind if they were not brought up. The program contains orderinginformation for materials, evaluation tools, and a summary of the evaluationresearch and list of curriculum references.

SFP Evaluation

While the SFP was developed to address the various risk factors facingyoung people at this age, little information is mentioned regarding how theprogram was developed. For example, there is no evidence that the programwas developed to address felt needs of a target audience. No details regard-ing how target audience perspectives and needs were sought are included inthis material. However, the SFP reports positive results in controlled studiesof program effectiveness.

No formative evaluation tools allowing facilitators to assess participantperceptions of individual sessions with an eye to improving them is includedin the evaluation materials. The evaluation tools include a 14-item question-naire for both parents and youth, asking them to compare the knowledge andskills they had before and after the SFP. In addition, a 3-month follow-upphone evaluation is also included. Program leaders randomly select a few par-ticipants and ask them questions similar to the other questionnaire. Theseevaluation tools are directly tied to program goals.

In summary, both PREP and the SFP have many elements of FLEresource quality but also some limitations. For example, both programshave strongly evident scholarly bases, but both fail to report how the needsof the target audience were considered during program design. Both pro-grams ostensibly have goals and objectives, but only the SFP clearly delin-eates them. PREP instructional outlines are general, while SFP’s suggestedguide is quite detailed. FLEs can use this kind of evaluative approach toweigh the strengths and limitations of curricula or other resources theymay be considering for their audiences. Table 3.2 summarizes the strengthsand limitations of these curricula. We now turn to a discussion of the char-acteristics of strong, sustainable, comprehensive FLE programs.




TABLE 3.2 Assessment of FLE Curricula Using Hughes (1994, 1997) AssessmentApproach

Resource

PreventionandRelationshipEnhancementProgram(PREP)

StrengtheningFamiliesProgram(SFP)

Content

Strengths: Clearscholarly base

Weaknesses:Discussion on activelistening caveatlimited; nodiscussion on usingwith various group

Strengths: Ostensiblystrong scholarlybase; video and skilltraining appropriateand context sensitive

Weaknesses:Research and theorynot clearlydeliniated;limitations ofresearch notdiscussed, norapplications tovaried audiences; norationale for family-youth approachgiven

InstructionalProcess

Strengths:Programmaterials,overheads,video, variedformatsuggestions;booklet forcouples

Weaknesses:Lacks goals andobjectives;lecture outlinelacks detail;largely didactic,weakinstructionaldesign

Strengths:Curriculaorganization veryclear; clearcontent; learner-centered goalsand objectives;clear instructionsfor facilitator

Weaknesses:None noted

ImplementationProcess

Strengths:Detailed leader’sguide


Strengths:Excellent leader’sguide,containingpractical andhelpfulinformation


Evaluation

Strengths: Tools,evaluationresearch data

Weaknesses:Unclear howtools tied togoals andobjectives; noinformation onassessing needsof audienceprior toimplementation

Strengths:Reports of resultsfrom controlledstudies;evaluation toolsdirectly tied toprogram goalsincluded

Weaknesses:Little informationon how programwas developedor how targetaudience needswere assessed



CHARACTERISTICS OF STRONG, SUSTAINABLE �FAMILY LIFE EDUCATION PROGRAMS

As important as it is to have strong program curricula comprised of a strongtheory and research base, clear goals and objectives, methods consistent withobjectives, attention to diverse audiences, a guide for implementation, andevaluation tools tied to the objectives, program curricula is only part ofsuccessful, sustainable FLE programs. There are many elements of qualitycomprehensive programs that transcend specific curricula. Drawing on thepublished literature and experiences of leading community-based programs,Lee et al. (1996) identified eight characteristics of quality community-basedprograms. These characteristics are important to keep in mind as you seekto build a comprehensive FLE program in a community that will stand the testof time. Some of these characteristics are also reiterations and extensions ofimportant elements found in quality community-based FLE curricula.

1. Successful community programs are community based and carriedout in collaboration with many community partners.

Successful programs emerge from the needs of the community ratherthan from the desires of outsiders. Instead of “one size fits all,” these pro-grams are flexibly implemented and adapt to community needs. They embedthemselves in the local community, becoming part of a network of support-ive services carried out by collaborative professionals and volunteers (Leeet al., 1996). This collaborative approach minimizes turf issues, brings moreresources to bear on a community issue, maximizes effectiveness in programplanning and implementation, and increases the likelihood that a programwill stand the test of time (Duncan et al., 2003).

Montana Extension’s Educating Families to Achieve Independence inMontana (EDUFAIM) is an example of a community-born collaboration thatfits this approach (Duncan et al., 2003; Woods, 1998). EDUFAIM communi-ties identified the needs of those moving from public assistance depen-dence, and then held visioning and strategic planning meetings involvingcommunity professionals, the target audience, and volunteers. Up to 40different agencies in some areas collaborated in the planning and carryingout of the program. Community professionals were also supported by a col-laborative group of university faculty from 11 disciplines and state agencypersonnel. Thus, a close university-state agency-community partnershipemerged. Chapter 12 provides more discussion about the process of creatingcollaborations.


2. Successful community programs are comprehensive in scope, basedon an ecological or systems view of individuals, families, andcommunities.

The best programs operate at many levels (e.g., individual, family, andcommunity) and incorporate not only specific family-based programs butefforts to strengthen the community context as well (Lee et al., 1996).Clientele are viewed as individuals within families within communities, andprograms are designed accordingly. Successful, long-lasting prevention resultsare most often the result of consistent, multilevel, multifaceted efforts. Forinstance, in addition to parenting skills, a comprehensive Parenting Teens pro-gram might also provide peer mentoring to encourage prosocial teen activity,newsletters for parents and other caring adults who work with teens, andmedia messages promoting positive parent-teen relationships. Successfulefforts at adolescent drug abuse prevention would seek to minimize or elim-inate risk factors occurring at the individual level (e.g., low self-efficacy), thefamily level (e.g., uninvolved parenting), and the peer group level (e.g., peerswho use drugs) as well as enhance protective factors at the same levels (indi-vidual: religious commitment; family: involved parenting; peer: peers who are


TABLE 3.3 Elements of Strong, Sustainable, Comprehensive Programs

Successful community programs are community based and carried out in collaboration withmany community partners

Successful community programs are comprehensive in scope, based on an ecological or systemsview of individuals, families, and communities.

Successful community programs are inclusive of program participants in program planning,delivery, and evaluation.

Successful community programs are preventive in nature through successfully interfacing serviceand education, and recognizing and building on participants’ strengths to enhance skills.

Successful community programs are developmentally appropriate and based on current research.

Successful community programs are accessible to participants with a mix of program deliveriesbased on participant needs.

Successful community programs are accountable to stakeholders and are able to demonstratepositive outcomes in participants and community environments.

Successful community programs have leaders with vision.

(Lee et al., 1996)


nondrug users). Likewise, during program design stages, program developerswould include persons in their task forces representing different levels of thesocial ecology, including parents, youth, school personnel, and other adultswho have an interest in the development of youth. Many researchers reportthat such an approach is critical to the success of prevention programs(Lee et al.).

One program described by Lee et al. (1996) that exemplifies thisapproach is the Hampton Family Resource Project in Hampton, Virginia. Theprogram consists of three components reflecting a multilevel approach tomeet a wide range of family needs: Healthy Start, Healthy Family, and HealthyCommunity. During the Healthy Start or early intervention segment, theproject provides services to pregnant women and their families and trackschildren up through their fifth year. Family support workers are assigned toteach the family skills (home management and parenting) during the preg-nancy and provide emotional and practical support, and to serve as rolemodels. During the Healthy Family or “individualized prevention education”section, parenting education classes are provided to families with children5 years of age and younger, through classes, in-home visits, family resourcecenters in libraries, and child development newsletters. “The promotion ofcommunity values that support positive child development” is the focusof the Healthy Community component. This value is in part fostered througha Healthy Stages newsletter, available to all Hampton residents who havechildren 5 years of age and younger.

3. Successful community programs are inclusive of program participantsin program planning, delivery, and evaluation.

Successful programs involve participants at every level of programdevelopment, from predesign stages to implementation and evaluation.Even if programs are employed in different areas, clientele from those spe-cific communities are involved so that the program is responsive to localneeds. In addition, there is what Lee et al. (1996) refer to as an “integrativeapproach” to program planning. Local leaders are identified and trained, andlocal participants are fully involved in the planning and decision makingregarding a program or its policies, philosophy, or procedures.

Youth Opportunities Unlimited of Manchester, New Hampshire, is men-tioned by Lee et al. (1996) as an example of this approach. Providing after-school activities to at-risk children and youth, this program actively involvesparents and young people in program direction, deciding the nature ofprogram and family activities, and planning monthly meetings. In the processof creating a research and faith-based Web site, developers conducted



numerous 2-hour focus groups to determine what the site would looklike and contain. Once the site was launched, visitors had the opportunity toprovide ongoing feedback on every aspect of the site. Then developers usedthis feedback to make revisions (Steimle & Duncan, 2004).

4. Successful community programs are preventive in nature throughsuccessfully interfacing service and education, and recognizing andbuilding on participants’ strengths to enhance skills.

Successful programs designed to foster resiliency and limit risks amongchildren, youth, and families accomplish their goals through preventive,empowering means rather than through remediation. Thus, these programsaim to stop problem behaviors before they get started, often as early inter-vention (Lee et al., 1996). In addition, some of these programs focus onhelping clientele identify and build upon strengths they already have.

The focus on empowerment and strength building transcends a program.As Lee et al. (1996) explain:

Agency workers attempt to create momentum for positive change basedupon individual, family, and community strengths. Participant autonomyis encouraged through community participation in decision-makingaffecting program development and administration. Empowering agen-cies educate people about their rights and responsibilities, educationabout their individual and social resources, about the barriers to obtain-ing and using those resources, and enable people to develop the skillsto use the power they do have or to create new power, individually andcollectively. (p. 10)

Lee et al. (1996) discuss the Southside Boys and Girls Club as an exampleof a program that has a clear prevention thrust. Their efforts aim to getchildren off the streets and into meaningful programs that build their edu-cational competence and their abilities to get along with family and commu-nity members, and enhance their sense of self-worth.

5. Successful community programs are developmentally appropriateand based on current research.

Successful programs are based on best practice models of effectiveprogramming noted in the scholarly literature and on the specific needs oftheir community. The research is comprised of community needs assess-ments, the existing scholarly literature, and on the best strategies for reaching



a target audience. Needs assessments may include existing data alreadyavailable (e.g., state child abuse data) as well as new data collected from thetarget audience to refine an understanding of the issue for a specific com-munity population, as well as how to best reach them.

Such programs often follow a community-university partnership model,where the community presents the issue in a unified context and university-based researchers provide the expertise of the scientific literature to addressthe community need.

Project Uplift of Greensboro, North Carolina, follows such an approach.As a facilitative organization of many different services and educationalprograms, ranging from GED classes to computer literacy to parenting, theprogram is undergirded by current family support research, theory, and eval-uation. Program leaders are part of a network of professionals seeking toidentify best practices in their service, including trainers, academics, policy-makers, and funders (Lee et al., 1996).

6. Successful community programs are accessible to participants with amix of program deliveries based on participant needs.

To be effective, FLE programs must be accessible to their intended audi-ence (Lee et al., 1996). Clientele may face significant barriers that preventthem from attending programs located at community centers or othervenues. Increasing accessibility may mean that the program is held in smallgroups or one-on-one in the homes of clientele. For many clientele, locationmay be a critical factor as well as its perceived safety, ease of access via publictransportation, and free parking nearby.

Other aspects of accessibility are also important. Successful programsconsider language needs, literacy rate, and educational level of the partici-pants and then gear the material accordingly (Lee et al., 1996). For example,instructional classes might be offered in small groups or one-on-one, asneeded, allowing for more individualized attention and for materials to bemore effectively adapted to individual participant needs. Other strategiesinclude keeping material simple and to the point and using a variety ofhands-on activities and support groups in and out of a learning setting.Successful programs also use existing services as a means to achieve its ends,such as community forums, newsletters, conferences, and workshops.

Many of the programs noted by Lee et al. (1996) use home visiting asa means to maximize accessibility. Some programs are held in the publicschools in the neighborhoods being served, and fit around the day andevening schedule of participants. When participants’ native language, cul-ture, or socioeconomic background is something other than middle class



Anglo-American, effective programs use speakers of those languages orpersons from those cultures or life experience to enhance understandingand more effectively meet individual needs. For example, in one program,an instructional team consisted of a master’s-prepared professional withconsiderable experience in working with low-income persons, paired with aperson who had life experience as a recipient of public assistance (Duncanet al., 2003).

7. Successful community programs are accountable to stakeholdersand are able to demonstrate positive outcomes in participants andcommunity environments.

To be sustained, comprehensive community-based programs need todemonstrate some defensible measure of effectiveness. They need to be ableto show stakeholders that the results achieved have been worth the invest-ment in time and money. Such programs incorporate an ongoing evaluationof what works, what does not work, and what changes need to be made toimprove services to clientele and the community. These data are often bothquantitative (e.g., statistics showing improvement in parenting competenceattributed to a parenting course) and qualitative in nature (success storiesof family budgeting principles in practice), and report data not only fromprogram participants but also from staff, partners or collaborators, and stake-holders.

The Southside Boys and Girls Club (Lee et al., 1996) shows its success byholding up members who have succeeded in business or higher education.Another program called Cities in Schools began its evaluation by gettingbaseline data as participants enter the program, and it holds yearly parent,child, teacher, and tutor surveys. The survey instrument used was designedby university partners, and they have continuously documented theirsuccesses (Lee et al., 1996).

Evaluation data can also be used to market a program. A successful pro-gram can produce a video to document its success and distribute the videoto key agencies and organizations where the program might play a role. Thevideo can give an overview of the program and feature participants tellingtheir own stories of how the program shaped their lives. In addition, collab-orating partners can be interviewed who highlight the value of the programto their community. Evaluation data on the program are woven throughoutthe video. Accompanying the video is a popularized report that presentsboth quantitative data in simplified tables and success stories. Such a videois appropriate if vital stakeholders include many laypersons or if broad aware-ness is an objective.



8. Successful community programs have leaders with vision.

This final characteristic of strong, sustainable programs has more to dowith leadership than with program substance. Leaders of these programs are,according to Lee et al. (1996),

able to think through an organization’s mission and establish it clearlyand visibly. They serve as models, symbolizing a group’s unity and iden-tity. They view themselves as ultimately responsible and therefore sur-round themselves with strong associates and subordinates who functionably and independently and whose development they encourage. Theyfunction in a team relationship. Importantly they demonstrate longrange vision, showing an ability to think beyond the day’s crises, beyondthe quarter. They are able to reach and influence constituents beyondtheir jurisdictions. They think in terms of renewal, seeking the revisionsof process and structure by an ever-changing reality.

These leaders offer strong and committed leadership, keeping theprogram’s vision in front of decision makers over years, being consistent withservice at various sites, facilitating partnerships and ongoing community col-laboration, bringing key partners together to renew and articulate programvisions and strategies, and developing consensus.

The Family Resource Development Association of Cedar Rapids, Iowa,enjoys strong and committed leadership (Lee et al., 1996). The leader seeshis role as a facilitator of partnership planning, ongoing community collab-oration, and maintaining an environment of consensus around a sharedvision.

CONCLUSION �

While there are numberless resources available for FLE, not all materials areof equal quality. Resources constructed with careful and appropriate atten-tion to elements, such as a strong theory and research base, clear goals andobjectives, methods consistent with objectives, attention to diverse audi-ences, a guide for implementation, and evaluation tools tied to the objec-tives, are likely to serve FLE audiences better than those that do not, andcertainly improve FLE practice. FLEs can use these guidelines to help themassess the quality of existing resources or to develop their own. In addition,when FLEs seek to establish comprehensive community-based programs that



transcend curricula, they are wise to model programs that utilize the eightcharacteristics discussed in this chapter.

� EXPLORATIONS

1. Identify an FLE resource (curricula, Web site, etc.) and, using thereview form provided in Table 2.1, do a “quality elements” assess-ment. Based on this evaluation, discuss whether or not you woulduse the resource and how you would improve it. Use the review formas a checklist for ensuring the quality of your own resources.

2. Locate and investigate comprehensive FLE programs in your com-munity. Evaluate these programs against the eight characteristics ofstrong, sustainable programs discussed in this chapter. Find out howlong the programs have existed. Do the longer-lasting ones havemore of the characteristics?



ELEMENTS OF QUALITY FAMILY LIFE EDUCATION ......site, or other educational media. These elements...

Documents

Transcript of ELEMENTS OF QUALITY FAMILY LIFE EDUCATION ......site, or other educational media. These elements...