Family Connections in Alabama:Lessons Learned from a Pilot Project focused on

marriage strengthening among low-resource families

Francesca Adler-Baeder, Ph.D., CFLEHuman Development and Family StudiesAlabama Cooperative Extension SystemAuburn University, Alabama

Project Description

Special Improvement Project through U.S. DHHS (Office of Child Support Enforcement) - awarded for January-December 2003

Addressed Program Announcement’s Priority : encouraging new ways to approach unwed parents to emphasize the importance of healthy marriage to a child’s well-being

Partnership between The Children’s Trust Fund of Alabama (state agency) and Auburn University (state Land-grant Institution) and 4 local agencies.

Supported by the State Office of Child Support Enforcement and the Family Assistance Division (Department of Human Resources)

4 pilot sites in Alabama– Mobile County Health Department’s TEEN Center (Urban)– Choctaw County Alabama Cooperative Extension System agency (Rural)– Parents and Children Together (PACT) (Suburban/Urban)– Sylacauga Alliance for Family Enhancement (SAFE) Family Service Center (Rural)

Involved Alabama Coalition against Domestic Violence representatives

Utilized existing personnel, infrastructure, and reputation in the communities.

Project Personnel

– Alabama Children’s Trust Fund: Alicia Luckie, Project Director Lisa Castaldo, Program Manager

– Auburn University, HDFS Dept. Joe Pittman, Consultant GRAs: Laura Lippert, Sarah

Armstrong, Jackie Pflieger, Brian Higginbotham, Amy Long

– Mobile County Health Department’s TEEN Center (Urban)

Sheron Montgomery-Thames, Executive Director

Felecia Allen– ACES of Choctaw County (Rural)

Elaine Shields, Extension Agent– Parents and Children Together

(Suburban/Urban) Tiki Hubbard, Executive Director Susan Roberts

– SAFE Family Service Center (Rural) Margaret Morton, Executive

Director

Facilitators: Shelia Sharpe Lavelle Gaines Odessa Turner Amy Pope Linda Batts Gloria Rodriquez Linda Burton Pamela Lee Lecia Whiteside Ollie Kates Heather Bakane Johnnie Heartfield Russell McCathcen Harold Jones Sandy McQueen

Caring for My Family(Michigan State Extension) http://

www.fcs.msue.msu.edu/cfmf/(Shirer, Contreras, & Spicer, 2002)

Built explicitly on the information from the Fragile Families study

Field tested with target audience (new mothers) for topics, language, and activities

Topics include:– Importance of couple connections/stability, healthy

relationships and marriage– Importance of 2 involved parents– Relationship skills and marriage “readiness” skills– Identifying unhealthy relationships– Decision-making skills– Building self-efficacy and intentionality– Setting goals for your child’s future, your parenting and

your family– Strategies for economic stability– Strategies to build support systems

New Parents: Current or Potential Couple

Relationship

• Improved understanding of healthy

and unhealthy couple relationships/marriage – and the impact on child well-being

• Improved individual skills • Improved Relationships•Acquired Marriage Readiness Skills

Implement CFF Curriculum

Raise AwarenessImprove Knowledge

Improve skills/abilities

Program Impact Study

162 participants; 138 completed (14% attrition rate)

126 women; 36 men Age: Women = 26; Men = 28; target child = 2

68.1%

24.4%

African-American

Caucasian

Participants:

18.9%

23.0%

50.0%

14,000 - 24,999

7,000-13,999

less than 7,000

Program Impactpre/post program changes

Statistically significant increases were found in:– Couple quality dimensions : Level of trust and Level of happiness

in relationship– Individual empowerment

Identification of strengths Stress management skills Problem-solving skills Understanding the importance of recognizing and leaving an unhealthy

relationship– Cooperative Co-parenting: Better attitudes and practices

Statistically significant decreases were found in:– Individual distress level– Negative Couple Interaction

Level of verbal aggression in the relationship (both their own and their partner’s)

Participating with a partner did not appear to be an advantage in documented change patterns

– participants attending singly benefited in similar ways Control subjects did not demonstrate similar patterns of

desired change across time.

Individual Empowerment

Post-ProgramPre-Program

4.1

4.0

3.9

3.8

3.7

3.6

3.5

attendance status

single, no partner

came w/o partner

came with partner

Cooperative Co-Parenting

Post-ProgramPre-Program

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

attendance status

single, no partner

came w/o partner

came with partner

Negative Couple Interaction

Post-ProgramPre-Program

2.8

2.7

2.6

2.5

2.4

2.3

2.2

attendance status

came w/o partner

came with partner

Changes in Level of Trust

Post-ProgramPre-Program

3.8

3.6

3.4

3.2

3.0

2.8

attendance status

came w/o partner

came with partner

Qualitative information from facilitators

Overwhelmingly positive responses enjoyment and comfort with the curriculum “participants were more responsive to this

curriculum and topics than any other program I’ve worked with”

learning environment is non-threatening desire for more long-term programs

– “we had some sessions where they didn’t want to leave”

– “They asked if they could keep coming back”

Qualitative information from participants

gained an awareness of the importance of healthy relationships

– I wish I’d had this class before…I know I was in an abusive, unhealthy relationship before

improvements in relationships– It pulled me and my partner closer together…it gave me a

better heart – Me and my baby dad was not getting along until we

started this class improved individual skills commitment to working on their relationship

– ..I want to keep our family together goals centered on family stability and healthy

relationships– It helped me to make better decisions concerning my

family

Challenges

Recruiting fathers Diverse situations in same group Addressing complex family (co-

parenting) relationships Control group retention

What worked well

Recruitment and retention– Established trusted community agencies and

facilitators necessary Investment/Interest by facilitators to add

this program to their offerings Collaboration Incentives/Motivation for participating CFF curriculum

– Personalizing information and hands-on activities

– The “memory” book Group settings were a preference

Recommendations

Male/Female facilitators Invest in training and training updates Increased community collaboration for

recruitment and referral Add to umbrella of services (can be

embedded or separate) Address co-parenting relationships and

adjustment to parenting Similar couple contexts grouped Long-term participation (12-18 months).

Test various delivery methods/contexts Document/evaluate and follow-up

Overall:

Initial evidence of desired program effects among more vulnerable population.

Desire/interest is strong for both facilitators and target participants

Viewed as important addition to family services