francesca adler-baeder, ph.d., cfle human development and family studies
Post on 11-Jan-2016
47 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
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
top related