|
|
Building Strong Families: Parenting Young ChildrenBUILDING STRONG FAMILIES EVALUATION REPORT |
|
| WHAT IS BUILDING
STRONG FAMILIES? Building Strong Families (BSF), a Michigan State University Extension program, helps parents and caregivers develop skills to assist children in reaching their fullest potential.Specifically, the Building Strong Families is a parenting education program that provides information to help parents: respond to children in ways that are appropriate to their development. create positive, safe environments for children facilitate their personal development and self-care. The BSF program uses multi-cultural, cartoon style flip-charts, videotapes, experiential activities and handouts as program delivery tools. The materials are designed to accommodate the needs of limited resource, limited literacy audiences. Curriculum resources are produced with four-color artwork and written at a third grade reading level. IS THE BUILDING STRONG FAMILIES PROGRAM EFFECTIVE? A formative evaluation was conducted in 1995. Significant changes were found in the parenting behaviors of the study participants. After the program, parents reported that they were more likely to: Interact positively with their children. Use positive discipline. Promote their child's social, emotional, intellectual and physical well-being. Create more positive, safe environments for their children. Change to enhance their personal development. THE EVALUATION STUDY 1. Whom did we study? Fifty parents completed the study. Attrition was due to mobility of parents and client loss because of changes in staffing. The mean age and income of the participants who completed the study were lower than the means for the original sample. They were similar in all other demographic characteristics. Participants in the study were primarily women in their mid-twenties, living in single parent households (72%) in urban areas. The educational level of the participants ranged from 6 years to 15 years. Half of the sample did not have a high school diploma and 74 percent earned less than $800 a month. The mean number of children in the home was two children, and the mean age of the child used for the assessment was 19 months. The range of the children's ages in for the study 1 month to 36 months. Demographics of the Sample
Characteristics Participant Profile (n=50)
Mean Age of Parent (SD).............................26 yrs. (6.9)
Age Range.........................................15-42 yrs.
Mean Educational Level of Parent (SD)...............11 yrs (2)
Education Range....................................6-15 yrs.
Median Income Levela.................................1(74%)
Median Household Composition (%)b....................1(72%)
Mean Gender(%)c .....................................2(84%)
Mean Ethnicity(%)d...................................2(54%)
Mean Residence (%)e..................................2(70%)
Mean Number of Children (SD).........................2 (1.4)
a Income Levels: 1=$800,
2="$800-$1,000,"
3="$1,000-1,200," 4=$1,200 II. What did we ask? The research questions for the study were:
III. How did we measure results - instruments/procedures/analysis The Instruments: Four instruments were developed to collect data related to the perceptions of parents about their behavior, their attitudes about the program, instructors' perceptions of parent change, and a family information form for collecting relevant demographic data. 1. Parenting Behavior Assessment (PBA). The PBA instrument was designed to assess changes in parenting behaviors related to the promotion of children's physical, intellectual, social and emotional development. It examined changes in both parent/child interaction and the consistency/appropriateness of parenting behaviors for the developmental stage of the child. The PBA was adapted from the Q-Sort Inventory of Parenting Behaviors (Lawton, Coleman, Boger, Pease, Gelejs, Poresky, & Looney, 1983). The goal was to develop an instrument to fit the needs of the limited literacy, low income participants involved in this study. It was designed to accommodate a variety of information acquisition preferences, including kinesthetic, visual, and auditory. An innovative version of the Likert Scale was developed to document changes in participants' perception of parenting behaviors. The Likert Scale was visually portrayed through five pockets inserted in a folder. The pockets were labeled, "like me - all the time," "like me -most of the time," "like me- some of the time," "like me- hardly ever," "like me - never." Thirty-two cards were developed with one parenting behavior printed on each card. The cards were designed to be placed in the pockets of the folder that most closely represented a parent's perception of the frequency of each behavior. 2. Parent Questionnaire. The parent survey was designed to collect quantitative and qualitative changes in services the parents were receiving and parents' satisfaction with these services. This instrument addressed the research question related to whether or not the parent made changes in his or her social support network that might lead to increased personal development and self-care. Open-ended questions elicited information regarding changes in activities, programs, and services accessed. 3. Instructor Summary. The instructor summary measured the parenting instructor's perceptions of the effectiveness of the program. This instrument was designed to address questions related to changes in the participant's social support network as a result of the program, changes in the physical environment over the course of the program and changes in the participant's parenting behaviors. 4. Family Record Form (FRF). The FRF contained fourteen family demographic questions including parents' gender, family composition, ethnicity, residence, household income, and education. The Procedures: Pre-and post-test data were collected from parents. The Family Record Form and Parenting Behavior Assessment (PBA) were administered by trained parenting instructors at an initial interview. Questions were read orally, and a flip chart was used to assist in administering the PBA. Following the initial interview, participants' responses to the PBA were recorded on a scoring sheet. Participants received weekly parenting classes following the initial interview. Paraprofessionals taught the Michigan State University Extension Building Strong Families parenting curriculum. The curriculum is a parent education program for low-income, limited literacy parents of children 0-3 years of age. The curriculum uses flipcharts, scenario-based videotapes, experiential activities and handouts to present parenting information. Topics covered in the curriculum are child development, positive discipline, parent-child interaction and goal setting. The program delivery ranged from eight to seventeen weeks, with a mean of 10 weeks. Parenting sessions were conducted both in the home and through small group classes. The majority of the parenting sessions were home-based (71%). A second interview followed the completion of the parenting classes. The Parenting Behavior Assessment was repeated at the second interview and the parent survey was completed. The instructor survey was completed following the second interview. The Analysis: 1. Paired t tests The t test for dependent samples was used to examine data from within subjects designs because two measures were taken on each participant. Paired t tests were run on the thirty-two parenting behaviors included in the PBA. The sample was divided into two groups for the purpose of the analysis. One group contained the parents of children eighteen months or younger (n=21). The second group was the parents of children older then eighteen months (n=29). 2. Open-ended Coding The primary categories for open-ended questions were safety issues in the home and changes in social support systems that may lead to personal development. The instructor's survey asked the following open-ended questions regarding safety, "During home visits, did you have any concerns about the safety of the home environment and what were they?" and "If there were safety concerns, were they addressed by the end of the program?" Safety concerns were reported from 28 out of 50 families. The concerns were categorized by the headings of cleanliness, unsafe clutter and unsafe physical structure. When multiple concerns were listed, each of the concerns was coded separately. The instructor's survey also included questions on changes in the participant's support system. The instructor's summary asked the questions, "Did you refer this parent/family to any other agencies? If yes, where?" The instructors reported that 32 out of the 50 families were referred to other agencies, programs or services. When multiple referrals were made, each of the referrals were coded separately. The services were coded by the following categories: employment assistance, nutrition classes, parenting classes, legal aid, assistance to material goods, counseling, substance abuse assistance and domestic violence assistance. IV. What were the results? As a result of the Building Strong Families program parents were more likely to respond to children in ways that are appropriate for the developmental stage of their child, provide a more positive, safe environment for the child and facilitate changes in their personal development. I. Changes in the parents' behavior in responding to children in ways that are appropriate to the developmental stage of the child: Group 1: Parents of children ages 0-18 months Paired t tests found significant changes at the .05 level in nine out of the 32 items in the Parenting Behavior Assessment. The significant items in group 1 were: I listen to my child (p<.00). Group 2: Parents of children older then 18 months Twenty out of 32 items showed significant changes at the .05 level for group 2. The significant changes were found using the paired t test analysis. I help my child feel safe and secure (p<.04) The mean scores for all the items for both groups increased, except the parenting behavior, "I spank my child." This parenting behavior item decreased significantly. II. Changes made by the parents' to create positive and safe environments for children, ages 0-3 years. Instructors reported safety concerns in 56 percent of the participant's homes. The concerns were as follows:
When asked if the safety concerns were addressed by the end of the program, 93 percent of the instructors reported that they had been addressed. III. Changes in the parents' support systems that may lead to increased personal development. Instructors made referrals for 32 out of the 50 participants in the study, or 64 percent of the participants. The referrals were coded into the following categories: Referral Categories Percentage Additional Parenting Classes 41% Employment Assistance 17% Access to Material Goods 15% Educational Nutrition Programs 15% Legal Aid 6% Counseling 2% Substance Abuse Assistance 2% Domestic Violence Assistance 2% V. What did we learn? The results of this study indicate that parents who complete the Building Strong Families program report improved interaction between themselves and their children in areas like reading, listening and play and changes in their behavior in some key areas like spanking and encouraging independence. Change can also be observed in the physical safety in the family environment and in the support networks of parents. The small sample size for this study is of concern, however, and the evaluation process is being extended to all Building Strong Families programs throughout Michigan. Additionally, follow-up study needs to be done to verify the sustainability of these changes. Future efforts will focus on the sustainability of change in parenting behavior, changes in the physical environment, and changes in the size and usefulness of the participants' support system. |
|
| Special
Appreciation: We would like to extend special
appreciation to the Building Strong Families
staff in Ingham, Jackson, and Wayne counties for
assisting us with this evaluation project. BSF Research Team: Pam Boyce, coordinating program leader, Family Strengths Dawn Contreras, program leader Bruce Hass, evaluation consultant Dawn Koger, Extension home economist Barb Mutch, coordinating program leader, Food, Nutrition and Health Jodi Wildrom, associate program leader June Youatt, Extension specialist and professor, Department of Family and Child Ecology For More Information Contact:
Dawn Contreras, program leader |
|
| If you are interested in
additional information, or would like to set up a
Families Worldwide Chapter in your community,
please feel free to contact us via
e-mail. Families Worldwide |
|
