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%) |