PARENT INVOLVEMENT AS A PROTECTIVE FACTOR TO PREVENT DRUG ABUSE FOR INNER-CITY YOUTH
RECRUITING INNER-CITY PARENTS INTO HIGHER INVOLVEMENT IN SCHOOLS:
DRAFT
Jan 12, 2001
By
Lynn McDonald, PhD, MSW, FAST Program Founder, Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison, WI.
PARENT INVOLVEMENT AS A PROTECTIVE FACTOR TO PREVENT DRUG ABUSE FOR INNER-CITY YOUTH
The Office of National Drug Control Policy’s (ONDCP) is currently sponsoring a major multi-media campaign to increase parental awareness about the importance of taking the time to talk with their children about drugs, in order to prevent drug abuse (New York Times). The youth themselves, when surveyed, speak out on the importance of a positive relationship with their parent(s) to help them avoid drug abuse. Resnick et al. (1997) reported the results of 12,000 youth interviews, using a stratified, national, random sample. “Bad outcomes”, including youth drug abuse, according to the youth, were avoided if they had positive relationships with a parent. In other words, youth drug abuse was inversely correlated to good youth-parent relationships. This inverse correlation has also been reported by other researchers including Hawkins and Catalano. Research studies report that good relationships with parents are a protective factor against drug abuse.
Despite the consensus of the media, the youth, and the drug abuse prevention research, drug prevention programs have only recently begun to deliberately reach out to parents as part of the solution. Of those, only a few can report success in engaging the parents who are considered most at risk for drug abuse: low-income parents in inner cities.
· In a 1990 list of the Office of Substance Abuse Prevention Awards to National Exemplary Programs, only one of the 12 programs used a family approach.
· The 1993 White Paper on Effective Drug Prevention Approaches reported that 10% of drug prevention programs used a family approach (Office of National Drug Control Policy ONDCP).
· In 1998, CSAP (Center for Substance Abuse Prevention) identified nine effective substance abuse prevention models and recommended them for national replication: of these nine models, three involved the parents.
· In 2000, 34 family strengthening models were identified as being effective by CSAP (Center for Substance Abuse Prevention). Few of these have reported effectiveness in engaging low-income parents from inner-city, minority communities.
This paper reports on parent involvement data as a part of research funded by the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) on one of the few recognized drug prevention approaches which involves families. The study took place in Milwaukee, with ten elementary schools serving primarily low-income communities, with primarily African American and Hispanic children. The prevention process implemented and studied is an outreach and multi-family group approach, called FAST (Families and Schools Together). FAST was developed in 1988 at a family counseling community agency by a former faculty member at the University of Wisconsin School of Social Work in Madison, WI. (McDonald et al 1991; McDonald et al, 1997; McDonald and Sayger, 1998). First funding for implementing FAST came from the United Way of Dane County, supplemented by a State of Wisconsin high-risk youth substance abuse prevention services grant. In 1989 FAST was included as part of the Wisconsin Assembly Anti-Drug Bill 122, for statewide replication and dissemination through the Department of Public Instruction. $1 million annually has been allocated in grants to school districts for FAST over the last ten years. With training and routine evaluation, FAST has been systematically replicated in over 600 schools in 38 states and 5 countries (www.wcer.wisc.edu/FAST).
This paper has three parts: first, a description of recruitment strategies to engage inner-city parents to prevent drug abuse; second, the NIDA study and the correlation of initial family characteristics with levels of parent involvement; and third, analysis of societal obstacles to increasing parent involvement.
FAMILIES AND SCHOOLS
TOGETHER (FAST)
FAST is a positive, multi-family group approach which builds relationships at multiple levels of the at-risk youth’s social ecology. These targeted relationships are protective factors which enhance resilience, by increasing youth involvement with their parents, with their families, with the parents of other youth at the school, with a positive peer group, with their school, and with representatives from community agencies. Parent involvement is systematically increased with the schools, with the youth, with their own family, and with the families of other youth at the same school. The specific parent involvement strategies researched included the FAST structure of 1) a parent-professional team, 2) doing outreach to parents and 3) the co-facilitating multi-family, positive, activity based groups. Parents are a respected part of the prevention team in FAST. (McDonald and Sayger, 1998)
One goal was to increase parent involvement in second grades (the year before third grade reading tests are given) of ten inner city elementary schools in a Midwest metropolis. Parent involvement in school was considered a protective factor for stressed children. The Milwaukee schools had recently been threatened with a take-over by the State of Wisconsin Government and the Governor’s Office, because of “poor academic performance.” The inner-city schools served disproportionately low income families, single parent families, living with high crime rates in their neighborhoods, with high mobility, and high minority populations.
The FAST research project was presented to all 100 of the elementary school principals in the Milwaukee school district. In addition, each school principal was invited by letter to nominate themselves to participate in the study. Of those who responded to the letter, ten schools were selected. Several criteria shaped our selection:
Each principal personally met the Principal Investigators more than once, in order to develop collaborative relationships to do FAST and to become involved in randomized trials. Finally, of the 10 principals, 50% women and 50% were African American or Hispanic.
In 1996, Milwaukee had some areas of extreme poverty, high unemployment, extreme racial divides, and high murder rates. The urban schools were all locked all day, and a buzzer system and school monitor facilitated access, because of the high level of violence in the areas. A sign hung outside on the school wall: “no one admitted entrance into this school without permission.” The neighborhoods had many individual dwellings with boarded up windows, empty lots strewn with garbage, streets untended, and unemployed people hanging out in groups. There were often news reports of drug dealings and shootings in the areas served by these schools. Rarely were there any restaurants or stores available in the area, and often the atmosphere on the street was tense.
Although Milwaukee schools were considered “under-performing” by the state, the 10 selected schools had high energy and were positive environments. In contrast to the neighborhoods outside, inside the old solidly constructed schools were brightly colored banners and wall displays attractive to the eyes. The halls were clean. The teachers (predominantly white) were enthusiastic and committed to both the well-being and the education of their children. There was always a buzz of activity. School was a good place to be. In addition, there was usually a sign somewhere on an inside wall of the school welcoming parent involvement.
Parent involvement, however, as described to us in individual interviews with the principals and one or two other key personnel selected by the principal, was always too low. Typically, there were great concerns expressed about the lack of parent involvement. This proved to be a key element inspiring the collaboration between the schools and the University research project.
TRAINED
PARENT-PROFESSIONAL TEAMS and PROGRAM INTEGRITY
Ten schools created collaborative, parent-partnership FAST teams and were then trained to do outreach and recruitment of families to attend the 8 weekly multi-family groups. Each school based team minimally had a parent with a child at that school, a professional from a substance abuse treatment agency, a professional from a mental health agency, and a school representative; most of the teams were quite a bit larger than the four minimum partners. A FAST rule is that teams must look like the families they serve. Therefore, although the teaching faculty of the children at the Milwaukee Public Schools is 90% European American, the ten FAST teams represented the culture, language, and ethnicity of the families being served in each of the elementary schools.
The two-day FAST training was led by the program founder, with Certified FAST trainers. Team members from 10 schools participated in team bonding exercises, and discussions of roles, values, and of the research base of FAST. The training also included parent empowerment and recruitment and home visiting role-plays. The role-plays on recruitment included building positive relationships with the parents, and asking them to “come and try it once”. The goal was to recruit parents to bring their whole families. The teams were then responsible to do outreach to parents and to facilitate the multi-family groups.
To maximize the program integrity of the implementations for the research, each team was trained by the FAST program founder and then supported as they implemented two 8-week cycles by a Certified FAST Trainer. Each cycle was directly observed and assessed during at least one site visit by a Certified FAST Trainer. Nineteen of the 20 implementations were assessed as ideal on the FAST program integrity checklist, and one was adequate; none were unacceptable. Although there was no variability on the integrity of the implementation (i.e. no drift), there was great variation on the quality of the implementations, often due to circumstances beyond the teams control.
RECRUITMENT AND
INITIAL OUTREACH TO PARENTS
Second grade classrooms in each of the ten schools were randomly assigned to FAST or to FAME. The comparison group, FAME, received behavior modification parent education booklets each week for 8 weeks, and then were offered a 2 hour parenting lecture. The teachers then announced the FAST and FAST projects to all of their students, and encouraged them to take home information about FAST or FAME to their parents. The teacher’s support was critical in raising the child’s interest. Cards were send home with the children for their parents to return if they were willing to have a home visit about the study.
Once the forms were returned, multiple home visits were made, if needed. Parents were informed of their opportunities to participate in the research on the program. The team members were willing to meet at a time and place convenient to the parent. The parent partner frequently attended the home visits to help recruit families to attend the multi-family groups and participate in the research. During the home visits, the parents heard about both the research and the FAST program. They were invited to attend program to benefit their child, and were encouraged to bring their whole family. A relationship was forged between the parent and the recruiter during the home visit, which increased the probability that the parent would risk coming to the multi-family groups.
Recruitment home visiting by trained parent-professional team partnerships, who culturally matched the parents they serve, and who came at times and places convenient for the parents, were effective. 28% of families in FAST classrooms and 21% in FAME classrooms agreed to participate in the program and the research.
The socio-demographic characteristics of the families recruited into the study were:
67% of the families had annual incomes under $20,000
47% of the parents had not completed high school
ATTENDANCE AT
MULTI-FAMILY GROUPS
Attendance is strategically maximized in several ways: FAST takes responsibility for overcoming the common obstacles parents face to increased involvement. The parents were offered free transportation to the school, on-site childcare, and a family meal. The family eats at a cozy family table decorated by the family with a “family flag” and family picture. In addition, each family is informed that they will have a turn to win a large lottery basket with $40 worth of items--but they do not know which week they will win. The week they win the lottery for their family, the parent also receives funds ($40) with which they are requested buy food. They shift from being the “winning” family to being the “hosting” family: they plan, shop, and prepare a meal for the entire multi-family group. The principle of reciprocity is for the program to give the parent a lottery prize, and in return the parent is expected to cook for all of the families.
The program takes place in a public setting with ten to fifteen whole families each sitting at their own tables. The public space blocks openly conflicted behaviors, and the sequenced family activities switch from one positive set of interactions to the next. Children and parents laugh and seem to have fun; the routine is repeated each week so that it feels predictable and safe. The 2½ hour FAST program offers one hour of family time each week. This hour includes family greetings, family meals, structured family communication games, and feelings identification charades games. These strengthen the parental role and the hierarchy in the family, as well as build family cohesion and conflict resolution skills. Parents are given the information about what to do, so that they, rather than a team member, may exercise the leadership role within their own family. Parents repeatedly make small requests from their children for compliant behavior, and gradually, with support, become more skilled at being in charge of their family (a pre-requisite to monitoring behavior).
The parents then get one hour to “hang out” with other parents and make connections with the parents of their child’s friends at school. The children are busy with staff during this hour, providing respite for the parents. There are no lectures, handouts, or lesson plans for the parents over the whole eight weeks. Instead, the parents network together and in the process, discover their own voice. The parents learn that their experience is not unique, and that they are not alone; they frequently give one another advice. In one study, 86% of the parents reported 2-4 years later that they made new friends at FAST (based on CSAP grant, McDonald, et. al., 1997).
Peer networking is followed by 15 minutes of one-on-one communication and playtime with one parent and their second grade child. Three rules about process are given to the parents: no teaching, no directing, nor criticizing. The child-initiated play is uninterrupted positive attention given by the parent. Finally, the whole group of 8-15 families reconvenes for a closing circle.
After eight weekly multi-family group meetings, group cohesion amongst the parents builds. The parents all live in similar conditions in the same areas, each had a 2nd grade child, and they shared many strengths and challenges. The children looked forward to the increasingly familiar routines. The repetition each week of going to the school as a family, for a meal, singing, games and visits with other parents, became a comfort for families.
At the end, the parents are publicly celebrated for their high parent involvement with a school-sponsored family graduation ceremony. The children make graduation caps for the entire family. They wear their hats as a family, and march together across the room to the tune of “Pomp and Circumstance,” to receive their certificate from the School Principal. The family poses for a family picture with the principal, who commends and acknowledges them for taking the time in their busy lives to become actively involved in their child’s school.
LEVELS OF PARENT
INVOLVEMENT
The most accepted definition of parent involvement is that of Epstein, which describes six types or levels. The frequency of involvement, i.e. weekly, is not usually mentioned. It is unusual for schools to offer meetings for parents as frequently as once a week. PTA (Parent Teacher Association) meetings are monthly or every other month gatherings of families at schools. The willingness of the schools to extend themselves and open their doors after school hours to families of the children is exceptional.
If the goal is to increase frequencies of parent involvement, it should start with offering more intensity for the initial building of relationships with the school. FAST is intense during the eight weeks of weekly multi-family groups. Attending weekly is certainly an active level of parent involvement, which results from the outreach and engagement strategies.
Of 272 families, 241 (88.6%) increased their level of parent involvement by attending at least one evening of FAST. Of this group of 241 parents, 78.4% (a total of 189) further increased their level of parent involvement in the school by participating in five to eight sessions, and graduating from FAST. In contrast, 52 attended one to four times and dropped out, and another 31 of those recruited into the study never attended at all. The graduation rate across FAST cycles ranged from 40% to 100% of those who attended once.
|
Recruited Into FAST |
No Involvement |
Some Involvement (1-4 Sessions) |
Active Involvement (5-8 Sessions - Graduated) |
|
272 families |
31 families (11.4%) |
52 families (19.1%) |
189 families (69.9%) |
Most schools will define parent involvement “inclusively” for their mandated Title I parent involvement reports: a count of any and all parent(s) who attends any of the school functions offered in that school year. Each and every time a parent participates at the school building in an event, it will be included on the schools’ report card of “parent involvement.” Any school receiving federal monies through the Title I legislation has been mandated to report annual levels of parent involvement. When schools complain that parent involvement rates are low, it often means that most parents do not show up even once during the year. (This does not include being called in because of trouble with the child.)
A parent, however, who attends 5-8 school related functions
for their child during the school year, would be considered an “active” or
“highly involved” parent. Voluntary
participation by the parents at school-endorsed events designed to help
children and families, is a highly desirable, meaningful level of parent involvement. Active parent involvement is correlated with
increased academic success and enhanced resilience in their child. In previous
studies on FAST, of those parents who graduated from FAST, 75% continued to
stay actively involved in their child’s school.
If one could predictably shift parents from “no” or “some” involvement to “active” parent involvement in the school, this approach could be instituted by school reform and paid for by general budget, or Title I monies. Investing in a research based, universal approach, which predictably increased the number of actively involved parents in a school, would have a significant impact: children would learn better. The statistically significant relationship between level of parent involvement (active vs. some vs. none) with a child’s success in school has been reported by numerous researchers.
Thus, extra efforts made by the school pay off with results: offering the structured positive family time at the school for many families is only worth it if there are high retention rates: The overall engagement rates for parent involvement (defined by FAST program retention, e.g. graduation) across 20 implementations at 10 inner city schools serving communities, with high levels of poverty, violence, disengagement, and social isolation, were 78%. This is high for any community of busy parents. Parent involvement rates in elementary schools are dramatically falling across the US. For the inner city schools in Milwaukee, 78% was effective.
Parent involvement was dramatically increased for the almost 80% who were willing to try it once. What were the characteristics of those who were willing to try it once, and what were the characteristics of those who kept coming and thereby dramatically increased their parent involvement rates with the school?
This paper reports on the socio-demographic descriptors, family factors, and personal characteristics of parents and children, as they are correlated with three distinct levels of parent involvement in their child’s school. Over the years of evaluations of FAST, we have not had the opportunity to correlate personal parental characteristics of those willing to try FAST once, and compare them with parents who both tried and then completed FAST. These data are especially of interest to the recruitment process of low-income, isolated families in inner-city school settings.
No involvement: Parent agreed to join, completed the baseline interview and home visit, but never attended FAST
Versus:
At least some involvement: Parent attended at least one session, and anywhere from one to eight sessions
Some involvement: Parent attended at least one, and up to four sessions, but not enough to graduate
Versus:
Active involvement: Parent graduated from FAST (attended 5 to 8 sessions)
We correlated the data from parent interviews on 30 measured factors with three levels of parent involvement. The variables we examined were socio-demographics (5), family dynamics (7), parent characteristics (6), parent involvement variables (5), and child variables (4 by teacher, 3 by parent)
BASELINE
CHARACTERISTICS CORRELATED WITH
NO, MEDIUM AND HIGH PARENT INVOLVEMENT[1]
|
Socio-demographic |
Medium and High VS No |
High VS Medium |
|
|
|
Parent education |
|
|
|
|
Household income |
|
|
|
|
Ethnicity of family |
|
p =.023 |
|
|
Family structure |
p =.036 |
|
|
|
Mobility |
|
|
|
|
Child gender |
|
|
Family Dynamics |
|
|
|
|
|
Expressiveness |
|
|
|
|
Conflict |
|
|
|
|
Attachment |
|
|
|
|
Adaptability |
|
|
|
|
Hardiness |
|
|
|
|
Problem-solving communication |
|
|
|
|
Social support |
|
|
Parent Characteristics |
|
|
|
|
|
Self-efficacy |
p =.003 |
|
|
|
Ethnic affiliation |
|
|
|
|
Depression |
|
|
|
|
Mental health |
|
|
|
|
Physical health |
p =.017 |
|
|
|
AOD use |
p =.023 |
|
Parent Involvement |
|
|
|
|
|
Opinion of school |
|
|
|
|
Involvement with school |
p =.023 |
|
|
|
Involvement with child’s education |
|
|
|
|
Parent initiating contact with school |
p =.047 |
|
|
|
School initiating contact with parent |
|
|
Child Characteristics |
|
|
|
|
Rated by parent: |
|
|
|
|
|
Internalizing |
|
|
|
|
Externalizing |
|
|
|
|
Social skills |
|
|
|
Rated by teacher: |
|
|
|
|
|
Internalizing |
|
p =.002 |
|
|
Externalizing |
|
p =.005 |
|
|
Social skills |
|
p =.009 |
|
|
Academic performance |
|
p =.002 |
Those who never came VS those who attended at least
once.
Given the total FAST sample, those who tried it once versus those who never tried it once had some distinctions: there were several significant differences between those who never attended FAST (N=31) and those who attended at least once (N=241). Parents who attended one or more sessions showed statistically significant differences on six of the 31 assessed factors, and of these 50% were personal parent characteristics (3); parent involvement factors (2), and being married(1). There were no family dynamics that emerged as statistically significant.
Those parents who attended a minimum of one session of FAST, have increased their level of parent involvement a little bit. These parents were distinguished from those unwilling to try attending even once by several factors:
SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC
FACTORS:
Married households
more likely to try FAST
One- or Two-Parent Family
|
|
Single Parent |
Two Parents |
| Recruited, attended at
least once |
123 (85%) |
118 (93%) |
| |
|
|
| Recruited, never
attended |
22 (15%) |
9 (7%) |
PARENT FACTORS:
High self-efficacy
more likely to try FAST
|
|
Recruited, attended at least once |
Recruited, never attended |
t |
df |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
| |
MEAN |
|
|
|
|
| Self-Efficacy |
119.4 (13.3) |
111.8 (13.7) |
2.969 |
268 |
.003 |
Higher physical
health more likely to try FAST
|
|
Recruited, attended at least once |
Recruited, never attended |
t |
df |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
| |
MEAN |
|
|
|
|
| Physical Health |
49.7 (9.5) |
45.4 (8.3) |
2.404 |
256 |
.017 |
Substance abuse
less likely to try FAST
|
|
No |
Yes |
| Recruited, attended
at least once |
185 (91%) |
50 (81%) |
| Recruited, never
attended |
18 (9%) |
12 (19%) |
PARENT
INVOLVEMENT WITH SCHOOL:
Higher
involvement with school more likely to try FAST
|
|
Recruited, attended at least once |
Recruited, never attended |
t |
df |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
| |
MEAN |
|
|
|
|
| Parent-School
Involvement |
7.7 (4.4) |
5.8 (4.1) |
2.283 |
267 |
.023 |
Initiate more
contact with school more likely to try FAST
|
|
Recruited, attended at least once |
Recruited, never attended |
t |
df |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
| |
MEAN |
|
|
|
|
| Parent Initiated Contact
|
5.0 (4.2) |
3.5 (3.7) |
1.995 |
270 |
.047 |
Those
who attended some sessions VS those who graduated.
We then looked at the 30 measured characteristics of those 242 families who attended FAST at least once, but did not complete and compared them with those who participated and graduated. There were five statistically significant (p<05) baseline differences between those who attended enough sessions to graduate (5 or more sessions) (n=189) vs. those who dropped out (n=52). Of those five, 80% were teacher assessments of the child’s behavioral characteristics in the classroom. In most of the other categories, there was no predictor of who would complete FAST and graduate. There were statistically significant in differentiating those who graduated: one was socio-demographic and four were teacher assessment of the child characteristics: the teacher pre-tests saw the child in more positive light.
SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC:
Ethnicity is correlated with FAST
graduation for those who tried FAST
|
|
African American |
Latino |
Caucasian
or other |
| Tried FAST, |
30 (29%) |
19 (20%) |
2 (7%) |
| Graduated FAST |
72 (71%) |
77 (80%) |
28 (93%) |
TEACHER REPORTED CHILD
CHARACTERISTICS:
Children with better
behavior in class were more likely to graduate
|
|
Graduated FAST |
Came at least once, did not graduate |
t |
df |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
| |
Mean (S.d.) |
|
|
|
|
| Internalizing |
45.7 (8.3) |
49.9 (9.2) |
-3.140 |
234 |
.002 |
| Externalizing |
51.1 (9.4) |
55.3 (10.3) |
-2.829 |
234 |
.005 |
| Total Social
Skills, Std Score |
96.8 (17.1) |
89.2 (17.0) |
2.628 |
200 |
.009 |
| Academic Competence, Std Score |
94.7 (11.8) |
88.6 (12.8) |
3.125 |
224 |
.002 |
|
|
Single/unmarried
parent |
Parents
married |
| African American |
164 |
49 |
| |
77.0% |
23.0% |
| Latino |
55 |
126 |
| |
30.4% |
69.6% |
| Caucasian or
other |
14 |
35 |
| |
28.6% |
71.4% |
DISCUSSION
The data collected and presented in this NIDA study enable us to examine some constructs related to recruiting higher parent involvement with schools. We plan to incorporate the results into our recommendations of effective strategies for outreach and engagement.
Socio-demographics which have been reported to be related to parent involvement, were not statistically significantly related to either level of engagement in this study of 10 elementary schools the inner city of Milwaukee. Neither income nor education predicted either initial involvement or successful engagement of the participants into FAST. However, marital status was correlated with willingness to try FAST once: if married, there was more likelihood to try once. Race was correlated with graduation of FAST families, but not with initial involvement.
However, race and marital status and religion were highly correlated in this study, and one should not draw conclusions from this.
Family variables, including social support or family cohesion or family conflict, i.e. internal communication patterns, did not correlate with either willingness to take the first step into involvement nor perseverance in completion and graduation.
Child gender and parent-reported characteristics of the child’s functioning in terms of social skills or behavior problems were also not related.
Teacher reported characteristics of the child’s behavior in the classroom were not correlated with initial willingness of the parent to come once, but were related to graduation. How the teacher perceived the child was correlated with completion rates: the graduated FAST children and families were reported as better in social skills and externalizing and internalizing by the teachers at base2line at a statistically significant level than the non-graduated FAST children.
If the parent was already initiating contact with the school and already involved with the school, that parent was more likely to come to FAST than to never try it. However, even though previous parent involvement predicted who was willing to try FAST once, it did not differentiate the one-time attendees, from the retained, graduated families. This means that the program was able to successfully engage a range of parents in terms of school related involvement, once they had tried FAST once.
Perhaps the most interesting category of characteristics, however, is the personal parent characteristics. When considering these, several reported factors predicted whether the parent was willing to try FAST once, however these same characteristics did not differentiate those who then graduated from those who dropped out. Again, the FAST program was sufficiently engaging to a range of parent functioning –including a range of depression, physical health, substance abuse, and most interesting success expectancy. Each of these would be, one assumes, relevant in predicting who would complete FAST and graduate with their children.
However, the data shows that although these characteristics do predict who is willing to try the multi-family groups once, the factors did not predict drop out. Thus, personal predictors of low initial parent involvement, such as parent health, expectancies, and substance abuse involvement, were not correlated with engagement rates once they attended one FAST session.
These data suggest that even in low-income, inner-city schools, in dangerous neighborhoods, where parent involvement ranges between rare and non-existent, outreach and engagement strategies can have an impact. By creating respectful partnerships with parents and offering multi-family groups in the school, significant increases in parent involvement resulted.
The relationship building outreach efforts and the invitation to the parent by an empowered FAST parent to “just try it once” is key for overcoming personal inhibitions. They are invited to bring their whole busy family for a multi-family group opportunity which respects their role as parent leader in their own family, and offers them a chance to build relationships with other parents of children attending their child’s school.
These strategies when offered to low-income, uninvolved parents resulted in 78% completion rates of those who attended one multi-family group session. These researched strategies illustrate that one can reach the “hard to reach” parent and increase their levels of parent involvement. Even with these relatively high levels of active parent involvement in these stressed, impoverished urban environments, some parents were more responsive than others to the outreach recruitment and multi-family group strategies. Parents who were willing to take the first risk of “trying it once” had different personal characteristics, rather than different socio-demographic characteristics: they had more expectancies of self-efficacy, better health, and less drug abuse.
Once they tried FAST and attended once, 78% completed the 8 weeks of multi-family groups. Once they experienced FAST, and these personal variables were no longer correlated with personal health, self-efficacy, and drug abuse characteristics.
Although these FAST strategies did effectively reach the “hard to reach” parents, the criticisms of this approach include:
1) too complex: the processes needed to implement FAST are based on family systems theory, requiring training and technical assistance, and support,
2) too collaborative: the time involved in creating a team of people, including a parent, a school representative, and community agency partnerships, who represent the cultural heritage of the participating families;
3) too costly: money and time when compared with other classroom based drug prevention approaches and standard parent education programs.
OBSTACLES TO INCREASING PARENT
INVOLVEMENT:
Why do so few drug prevention dollars support parent involvement strategies, despite the significant agreement amongst the public, the youth, and the researchers, that parents are a central part of the solution? Parent involvement is a vital protective factor for youth at-risk for drug abuse; with their parent more involved, the youth’s resilience is enhanced, and even the most challenging circumstances can be overcome.
Three obstacles to parent involvement are discussed below:
1) Professionals
believe that low parent involvement is a result of parents’ not caring
about their child.
Typically, parents who never show up, despite many documented efforts to get them to come, continue to never show up. Although professionals develop or purchase curricula, brochures, and videos, to educate parents about the important anti-drug messages they should be telling their children, and offer parent workshops and parent-nights at the schools and in the community, parents who “need it the most” don’t come. Parents who are without high school degrees, low-income, single, minority, or who are known drug users are often considered the parents that “most need the help.” Their response to well-meaning efforts is dramatic: they just do not show up.
What does this really mean? Does it mean that the parents who do not attend do not care? The answer seems too obvious to be of interest: well meaning efforts to fix the “lack of parent involvement” problems for youth have been unsuccessful, because of “lack of parent involvement.” The circular nature of this conundrum seems self-evident to those trying to get parents to participate in drug abuse prevention initiatives. The parents who “need it the most”, and who “do not care about their child” are the very same parents who must not care enough about the child to come in and find out what they can do to improve their child’s situation. Because this conclusion seems totally logical, most drug prevention program developers and program staff have given up on reaching out to parents as a critical part of the solution of youth drug abuse.
2) Costs compared with what? Schools perceive outreach and engagement as costing too much time and money
A second reason that communities do not involve parents in drug prevention programs, is that the perceived efforts to do so are too great. OK—maybe we could involve the parents “who need it the most” but it is too costly in terms of time and money to do it. Even when research demonstrates effective approaches successfully involving previously uninvolved parents, who are low-income, stressed and isolated, with strategies which could be replicated in their community, there is the perception that the extra costs in terms of money and energy, for effective parent involvement for all parents would be too great.
The costs of replicating a research based, drug prevention program which involves parents, are often contrasted either with the other 90% of the drug prevention programs which are delivered in the classroom and do not involve parents, or contrasted with the usual (ineffective) ways of involving parents. The costs for a drug prevention program usually involve simply the purchasing of a curriculum and training. The intervention is delivered in the classroom by the teacher as an ordinary part of her daily instructional activity, so her time and salary is an invisible cost contributed by the school district. Because the school children are the target of the intervention, and are present in the classroom, the costs of the transportation it took to get them to school are not considered to be part of the prevention costs. Because their attendance in school is of central concern to the district, the strategies for recruitment and retention issues are not relevant as separate cost items for the prevention initiative. There are no reported costs of reinforcing participant behavior. They seem very inexpensive.
The costs of the usual strategies used to increase parent involvement are low:
parent education, because staff blames parents for youth drug abuse (no cost)
advertising a workshop—inferring that the African American and Hispanic
parents need information from a European-American expert (minimal cost)
(convenient to school—may involve minimal costs)
large public posters in school displaying (minimal cost)
“how to become good parents to prevent drug abuse”
(no cost)
passively throughout the lecture by expert on how “fix their parenting”
(two hours of staff time)
Although the costs are low for this parent involvement workshop, the results are also low. Most parents do not come and do not find this approach compelling; yet these represent common and familiar strategies used to involve parents. The striking conclusion drawn by the staff, however, when parent response and participation is so low, is what had always been suspected: “those” parents are not interested in their youth.
However, the alternative of using researched, effective strategies to increase parent involvement, (which are described below), are time consuming for professional staff, demand collaborations of schools with community agencies and partnerships with parents, change the insularity of the schools, involve shifts and losses in administrative power, and require money for incentives of food, prizes, transportation and childcare.
Examples of additional costs of reaching out to busy, low-income parents, with no phone and no car, who might be distrustful of the “system” include
1) multiple home visits for recruitment (60% of families in FAST have no phones)
2) providing transportation if needed (40% have no cars)
3) providing child care
4) providing meals for the whole family,
5) personalized shopping for supplies and lottery baskets,
6) having the school buildings open beyond the instructional classroom schedule;
7) supporting school staff flextime (for evening and weekend availability);
8) administrative oversight of financial sub-contracts between community agencies and schools, as well as multiple purchase orders for food, materials, transportation, child care provides;
9) the costs of initial, intensive program training and on-site direct observation for program integrity and adaptation, and
10) process and outcome evaluations.
These all add up to significant additional expenditures, not trivial ones In order to take on this additional expenditures of professional time and resources, there must be a very convincing perception that there is a high cost-benefit ratio. The effort and dollars it takes to overcome the “lack of parent involvement” must be seen as worth it for the positive effect on the youth. The question is: how much is “too much” to invest in building protective factors for at-risk youth, i.e. increasing parent involvement, If one really believes that the parent IS CENTRAL to the solution, then costs should not be a problem but a funding challenge.
3) “Time
crunch” for parents (and school staff) reduces participation in after
school parent involvement approaches.
From parents in a national survey, using stratified random sampling, we learned about stresses and needs in the 1990’s. There was a striking agreement amongst all of the parents about the number one stress and need of American parents today: they need MORE TIME. Parents from a cross section of social class, cultural heritage, geographical location, etc. had overwhelmingly high levels of consensus on the most important priority: they needed more time. The results of this survey were reported in a book published in 1998, entitled War On Parents, by Hewlett and West. They write about their in-depth analytical study and chronology of family policy in the US. Their conclusions demonstrate a gradual reduction in social policies and institutional practices which have historically supported the family functioning successfully as a unit. They document shifts in work place and governmental policies, as well as increasingly negative attitudes about parents’ roles. These have created a relatively hostile and unwelcoming environment for parents raising children in the US, in contrast to other industrial nations.
Most of the middle class staff who would be involved with providing these parent involvement programs are themselves parents; they will resist using their precious home time with more work. They do not want to do multiple home visits and repeated, weekly, evening multi-family group meetings. Most of the low-income parents who are the targets of the prevention program, may be working more than one job per parent, and they may simply be too exhausted to do anything but basic survival when they get home to their kids. It is a major challenge for a single, working parent with an income under $10,000, without a high school degree, with three small children at home who have missed the parent all day, to make arrangements to get the children fed and taken care of while the parent gets to the school in the evening for a two hour lecture on drug abuse. These are the challenges that face drug prevention specialists who may wish to engage parents in the solution.
Prevalent notions in our field are shifting towards increased interest in drug abuse prevention. In the past, crisis management, treatment, and incarceration were the priorities. Some now can see that we must invest in prevention. In prevention we can make more of an impact before the problems get too big. Politicians are beginning to see the long-term social benefits of prevention. Cost effectiveness studies demonstrate that for every dollar spent on prevention/early intervention, society saves $10 later. It’s pay now or pay later. Prevention is being seen as an effective use of private and public resources. However, because effective prevention efforts do take time and money, and because prevention is nobodies’ business, there will always be resistance to prevention.
Policy makers are starting to recommend the funding of prevention, and specifically of researched drug prevention strategies. FAST is one of the strategies on many short lists of exemplary prevention models of several federal agencies and national organizations. (ONDCP; OHD; CSAP; CMHS; OJJDP; Title I; OSERS; see McDonald and Frey, 1999) The goal of each of the research based prevention approaches is the same: help the child to be resilient against stress in our society today, by building their protective factors or reducing their risk factors. They have demonstrated effects and with careful training and replication strategies, they will be an effective application of taxpayers’ dollars.
However, only some of the researched strategies engage parents in the solution. The media, the public, the youth, and the research all agree on something: parents are a vital part of the solution to preventing drug abuse. Yet communities are giving up on parents. Perhaps, before giving up on parents, especially low-income, minority, single parents in urban settings, policy makers at local levels in school districts and community agencies might review their core mission. If parents are the most powerful prevention agents for our children, how can we create a community that supports the most potent protective factor for the youth at risk for drug abuse?
Communities must be willing to 1) invest in a research based prevention model and invest in the professional time needed for training, evaluation and monitored implementation; 2) share governance with parents; and 3) move slowly and wait for prevention outcomes. Society reaps substantial benefits, including reduced drug abuse, if the youth achieves a communicative relationship with his parent. We must not give up on the challenge of engaging the parents; parents are the child’s best drug prevention agent.
Black, MM and Krishnakumar, A (1998) Children in low-income, urban settings: interventions to promote mental health and well-being. American Psychologist. 53 (6) 635-646.
Bradley, R. H., Whiteside-Mansell, L.: Brisby, JA, Caldwell, BM (1997) Parents socioemotional investment in children. Journal of Marriage and the Family 59 (Feb. 77-90.
Chavez, E.L, and Swaim, R.C. (1992) Hispanic substance use: Problems in epidemiolgoy. The Haworth Press. 211-250
Dumka, LA, Roosa, MW, and Jackson, KM (1997) Risk conflict, mothers’ parenting and children’s adjustment in low-income, mexican immigrant, and mexican american famlies. Journal of Marriage and the Family 59 (May) 309-323.
Dunst, C. (1995) Key Characteristics and Features of Community Based Family Support Programs. Family Resource Coalition: Best Practices Project. Chicago, Illinois.
Gager, PJ and Elias, MJ. (1997) Implementing prevention programs in high risk environments: application of the resiliency paradigm. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 67 (3), July, 363-373.
Graue, ME. (1993) Social Networks and Home School Relations. Educational Policy 7 (4): 466-490.
Guang, G. and Harris, KM (1998) The mechanixmx mediating the effects of poverty on children’s educational achievement (Linking Poverty to cChildren’s Educationa Achievement, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, in press.
Gutierrez, L., Alvarez, AR, Nemon, H., and lewis, EA (1996) Multicultural community organizing: a strategy for change. Socail Work 41 (5) September, 501-508
Hall, NW and Zigler, E. (1997) Drug abuse prevention efforts for young children: a review and critique of existing programs. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 67 (1, January, 134-143.
Hawkine, JD, Graham, JW, Maguin, E., Abbbott, R., Hill, KG., and Catalano, RF (1997) Exploring the effects of age of alcohol use initiation and psychosocial risk factors on subsequent alcohol misuse, Journal Studies Alchohol. 58: 280-290.
Hussong, AM and Chassin, L, (1997) Substance use intiation among adolescent children of alcoholics: testing protective factors. Journal Studies Alcohol, 68: 272-279.
Resnick, MD Bearman, PS, Blum, RW, et al. (1997) Protecting adolescnets from harm: findings from the national longitudinal study on adolescent health. Journal of American Medical Association 278: 823-832.
Spoth, R. Redmond, C., Hockaday, C., and Yoo, S. (1996) Protective factors and young adolescent tendency to abstain from alcohol use: a model using two weaves of intervention data. American Journal of Community Psychology 24 (6) 749-770.
Tigges, LM, Browne, R., and Green, G. (1998) Social isolation of the urban poor: race, class, and neigborhood effects on social resources. The Sociological Quarterly. 39 (1): 53-77
Walsh, F. (1996) Resilient Families. Family Process, Vol 35, September, 261-281.
Wandersman, A. and nationa, M (1998) Urgban neighborhoods and mental health: psychological contributions to understanding toxicity, resilience, and interventions. American Psychologist. 53 (6), 647-656.
Zambrana, R., Dorrington, C. and Hayes-Bautista D. (1995) Family and Child Health: a Neglected Vision in Understanding Latino Families. Sage Publications, Calif. 157-176.
Zigler, EF, Finn-Stevenson, F. Stem, BM (1997) Supporting children and families in the schools of the 21st centjury. American Journal of Olrthopsychiatry. 67 (3) 396-407.
TABLE 1
Mobility
(Number of Schools Focal Child Attended Since 1st Grade)[2]
|
|
FAME |
FAST |
TOTAL |
|
One |
156 (80%) |
207 (79%) |
363 (79%) |
|
Two |
28 (14%) |
33 (13%) |
61 (13%) |
|
3 or More |
11 (6%) |
22 (9%) |
33 (7%) |
Marital Status
of Adult Respondent
|
Married |
95 (48%) |
127 (47%) |
222 (47%) |
|
Divorced or Separated |
28 (14%) |
39 (14%) |
67 (14%) |
|
Never been married |
53 (27%) |
83 (31%) |
136 (29%) |
|
Member of unmarried couple |
19 (10%) |
15 (6%) |
34 (7%) |
|
Widowed |
4 (2%) |
6 (2%) |
10 (2%) |
Highest Level
of Education for Adult Respondent
|
Grades 1 - 8 |
35 (18%) |
51 (19%) |
86 (19%) |
|
Some HS |
53 (27%) |
76 (29%) |
129 (28%) |
|
HS grad or GED |
48 (25%) |
70 (26%) |
118 (26%) |
|
Some College |
46 (24%) |
56 (20%) |
38 (22%) |
|
4-Year College degree or more |
13 (7%) |
12 (5%) |
25 (6%) |
Household
Income
|
Under $10,000 |
61 (32%) |
100 (39%) |
161 (36%) |
|
$10,000 to less than $20,000 |
59 (31%) |
79 (31%) |
138 (31%) |
|
$20,000 to less than$30,000 |
33 (18%) |
45 (18%) |
78 (18%) |
|
$30,000 to less than $40,000 |
24 (13%) |
15 (6%) |
39 (9%) |
|
$40,000 or More |
12 (6%) |
18 (7%) |
30 (6%) |