Learning From Experience: Evaluating Early Childhood Demonstration Programs (1982) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Comprehensive Family Service Programs: Special Features and Associated Measurement Problems
Comprehensive Family Service Programs: Special Features and Associated Measurement Problems
Pages 203-253
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 203... ...
Intrigued, they looked at 3 more of the 11 demonstration programs in other areas and subsequently produced a glowing report on the comprehensive family service model as implemented by the Child and Family Resource Program. Their report called attention to several aspects of the model that distinguished it from most traditional child development programs: the emphasis on families rather than children, the approach of developing with parents a distinct plan of service and activities for each family, and the program's role as a coordinator of services in the community for each family.
|
From page 204... ...
They go beyond Head Start and other early intervention programs in enabling greater parent participation in determining the direction of the program, in emphasizing both child development and family services, , in assuming a greater role in coordinating services in the community for participating families, and in improving family services in general for the community. This paper emphasizes the federal demonstration program models, particularly the Child and Family Resource Program and Home Start.
|
From page 205... ...
Thus far the research suggests that however promising the comprehensive family service models may be, they pose conceptual and practical problems for research that are not yet solved. In this paper the problems posed by family service programs and the efforts to grapple with these problems are organized around three features common to most of the programs mentioned.
|
From page 206... ...
This is not merely a philosophical stance. Because of the comprehensive and individualized nature of the programs, a great many domains of family life might be affected by program participation.
|
From page 207... ...
. The Newbrough report summarizes the work and findings of many researchers when it suggests moving federal policies away from programs of categorical services (i.e., programs that provide only health or only child development services)
|
From page 208... ...
Fourth, we assume that there is some awareness and an acceptance of the diversity of family types and lifestyles in this country. If we accept the integrity of various family types and ways of functioning, we can also assume that it is difficult to agree on a single treatment, attitude, or behavior that is the "best" way to enhance child and family development.
|
From page 209... ...
Each program receives approximately $130,000 per year to serve a minimum of 80 families; some programs serve as many as 350 families. The Child and Family Resource Program is a family oriented child development program, providing support services to families with children from the prenatal period through age eight.
|
From page 210... ...
Like the Child and Family Resource Program, Home Start emphasized the whole family and not just children; unlike the Child and Family Resource Program, Home Start served only families with preschool-age children and enrolled them for two years at most. Information about Home Start can be found in Hewett (1978)
|
From page 211... ...
. Child development intervention programs have traditionally concentrated on studying effects on the cognitive and Throughout the paper "model" is used to refer to a specific program that was created by federal or private research with a particular set of guidelines and goals (e.g., the Child and Family Resource Program, Home Start, the Brookline Early Education Project)
|
From page 212... ...
The two views have been characterized by some researchers as the "deficit" and the "strength" models of family functioning. Both support and intervention are implied by the very broad guidelines that defined the Child and Family Resource Program, Home Start, and other programs funded by the Administration for Children, Youth, and Families.
|
From page 213... ...
Because support and intervention are intertwined in most programs, it is difficult to distinguish them from each other. The list below comprises somewhat stereotypical attributes of the two approaches, as a way of contrasting the hypothetical extreme for each approach: INTERVENTION Change desired in children, mother Change expected during or immediately after treatment Treatment provided for one period of enrollment, though this may be intense for one to two years Standard treatment defined by professionals outside the family SUPPORT Change in children, parents, and other family members, social institutions Change may be short term but more likely to take place episodically over years Treatment may be intensive at first but intermittent over years, as needed or desired by family Treatment individualized and determined by family and staff; emphasis on parent imitative
|
From page 214... ...
. The mix of support and intervention is the source of much ambiguity in the family service concept.
|
From page 215... ...
The less formal the distinction is between Policies concerning family enrollment and participation also illustrate philosophies of intervention and support. Although Home Start and the Child and Family Resource Program were intended for low-income families, there was variation in the types of families actually recruited as well as variation in program expectations for participation by families.
|
From page 216... ...
Home Start families were enrolled for two to three years and were expected to participate regularly: weekly home visits, group activities for children every other week, and parent group activities a few times a month were common. In the Child and Family Resource Program, however, there was more variation among programs in expectations for participation.
|
From page 217... ...
In fact, length of time enrolled and intensity of participation are major ways in which treatment has been individualized in these demonstration programs. The Individualization of Treatment Individualization of treatment is entirely consistent with, even inseparable from, the mix of support and intervention in family service programs.
|
From page 218... ...
The plan that results from this assessment is approved verbally or in writing. In some programs, parents meet with program staff and representatives of other agencies who provide services identified in the family's plan.
|
From page 219... ...
While these aspects can be used to identify the type and degree of individualization in a program, they are collected as either input or treatment variables in program evaluations. In most family service programs the number of dimensions on which treatment may vary is large, a fact that poses a fundamental problem for researchers.
|
From page 220... ...
What is the implication of providing support and intervention only to low-income families or to mothers who are not working full time? Many of the problems described above are higher-order problems of conceptualization, definition, and values.
|
From page 221... ...
. At least three types of "process" variables have been distinguished that are appropriate in studying family service programs: · Indicators that the program delivered the services mandated by guidelines or dictated by program goals (Zigler and Trickett, 1978)
|
From page 222... ...
The notion of identifying program goals first is a basic tenet of evaluation research. With regard to family service programs, it is easy to see that broad guidelines may be interpreted locally in different ways in response to different local conditions.
|
From page 223... ...
The Home Start evaluation compiled case studies of the historical and organizational roots of each local demonstration program and included a case study of the national program office and its development of the federal program model. Eventually the evaluator or researcher must choose some goals as the basis for structuring evaluations; the choice of a set of goals (whether those of policy makers, other researchers, or program staff)
|
From page 224... ...
Another aspect of the evaluation of the Child and Family Resource Program used a different qualitative method -- ethnography -- to capture the interpersonal processes between staff and families. Evaluations of educational programs have used this method for studying certain types of questions (Stake, 1978)
|
From page 225... ...
Typically these systems of records attempt to capture measures of participation, although some evaluations also attempt to record family stress, motivation to participate, staff perceptions of families, and other characteristics of the family-staff relationship. In Home Start and the Child and Family Resource Program, participation families.
|
From page 226... ...
There are many technical problems with this approach, some of which have been documented in evaluation literature (Kiresuk and Sherman, 1968; Kiresuk et al., 1978) e However, as the approach has not been widely used in family service programs and does provide useful descriptive information, we will describe some of the problems encountered with this approach.
|
From page 227... ...
There are no models of what is normative or desirable for each family (except what will generally enhance the development of the child) ; thus, the study of goals and goal attainment describes the individualized treatment but does not help determine whether it is an appropriate treatment for the family.
|
From page 228... ...
Videotaped observation systems have been used to capture process variables (as in the evaluation of the Parent Child Development Centers) or outcome (as in the Child and Family Resource Program)
|
From page 229... ...
Although each problem has distinct implications for evaluating impact, all four are interrelated. These problems arise directly from characteristics of the comprehensive family service programs that we have used as illustrations throughout this paper -- Home Start and the Child and Family Resource Program.
|
From page 230... ...
Evaluations of both Home Start and the Child and Family Resource Program organized diverse outcomes into study domains that correspond more or less to areas of psychological or sociological research. Prior work in each research area provided a basis for the selection of variables and measures that would capture change in each domain.
|
From page 231... ...
Since program emphasis and treatments vary by domain over time for a family, expectations for outcomes in the domains of treatment or need can logically be expected to vary as well. In both programs there was consensus among program staff that outcomes in two domains -- child development and parent-child interaction -- could and should be assessed for all families.
|
From page 232... ...
In the Home Start and the Child and Family Resource Program evaluations, the domains of child development and parent-child interaction were emphasized because of their prominence in the program guidelines and because of the expressed interest of policy makers. While such decisions were legitimate given the goals of the programs and the federal agency, they did limit resources that might have been applied to the problem of understanding outcomes for families as a whole, in different domains, over time.
|
From page 233... ...
Since most Child and Family Resource Programs encourage mothers to stay at home so they can concentrate on parenting, the lower employment and reported income figures reflect this; but in some sites, the Child and Family Resource Program encouraged mothers to work, and the employment rates and reported income are higher in these sites. To further assess the ultimate value of encouraging mothers to work or not to work, we would have to cross domains and examine the respective child development gains.
|
From page 234... ...
When such priorities have been set in the past, child development and parentchild interaction have received the most emphasis; perhaps it is not the time to turn additional resources to the exploration of the complex issues of combining outcomes within and across domains. Selecting a Unit of Analysis In Home Start and the Child and Family Resource Program, two units of analysis were recognized as most important: the individual and the family.
|
From page 235... ...
. It seems appropriate that some of these methods be explored for their utility in evaluating outcomes for family programs.
|
From page 236... ...
First, continuing attention should be paid to the use and further development of theoretical models of family development, family-child interaction, and family-social interaction. Attempts to operationalize existing models should be continued.
|
From page 237... ...
. INTEGRATION OF FAMILY SERVICES The third important feature of family service programs is their approach to coordinating services for families within a local community.
|
From page 238... ...
They do carry the brokerage concept considerably beyond that usually found in other service programs. Once families are enrolled in a linkage program, such as the Child and Family Resource Program, they receive many kinds of assistance in obtaining services from other sources.
|
From page 239... ...
As implemented, most linkage programs carry out advocacy functions for the families rather than for the service programs: They assume that some familes are not getting the services they need, to which they have a right. They seldom assume the opposite -- that some families are getting services for which they have minimal need or little right (because they are not fully eligible,
|
From page 240... ...
Some program critics maintain that many program staff deliberately promote family dependence to justify their own reasons for being, even if only subconsciously. The ultimate cost of this dependence may well prove high both to the family and to society.
|
From page 241... ...
Rural areas, especially, may have so few services that comprehensive service programs must use most of their resources to provide services directly themselves. In addition to the four sequential effects of awareness, enrollment, use, and improved family circumstances, there are also two "consumer" effects that may result from comprehensive service programs.
|
From page 242... ...
Failing that, the comprehensive service program can actively petition the agency's head, the board of directors, or the funding source until improvement begins Staff from an established program can often get results when parents alone cannot, because the staff can draw on wider community or political support and because the staff usually have better skills than parents for coping with bureaucratic resistance. Comprehensive service programs can sometimes encourage single-service agencies to obtain more resources.
|
From page 243... ...
Effects on State or National Service Programs Sometimes a comprehensive service program can influence the larger state or federal systems that support the networks of local single-service agencies. Such effects might include the following: · Better coordination between services at the state and federal levels (by standardizing eligibility requirements, application forms, referral networks, and funding procedures)
|
From page 244... ...
. Comprehensive service programs can also help match complementary services.
|
From page 245... ...
Families can be asked directly if they are aware of the services, but other people will usually have to be consulted to determine whether a family is eligible. One of the first activities the staff of the Child and Family Resource Program and Head Start undertake each year is determining which of their families are eligible for food stamps, EPSDT benefits, and welfare assistance, so the families can be enrolled immediately.
|
From page 246... ...
Thus, apart from a few notable excePtions, the ultimate goal of improved family circumstances is the most difficult aspect of program success to assess. The effect of increased family consumer awareness and advocacy usually results from rather obvious involvement of the families and can frequently be determined by direct questions to the families or program staff.
|
From page 247... ...
CONCLUS ION Our discussion has focused on two of the comprehensive family service programs developed as demonstrations under the auspices of Head Start and the Administration for
|
From page 248... ...
One area of evaluation to be expanded is the use of process studies to describe and characterize what actually happens in the program between families and staff, among staff, and between staff and community institutions. Different types of process studies can and should be used to identify and clarify goals and constituencies for family programs, to describe what the programs do, and to help relate what goes on in the programs (the process and/or treatment)
|
From page 249... ...
It would be a mistake for evaluators merely to complain about such complexity or to adopt new methods or perspectives that would eliminate important variety for the sake of precision and manageability. At this point in the development of family programs and of research about families, it is important for evaluators to try to capture this richness and variety in different ways, using multiple methods and perspective.
|
From page 250... ...
15th Anniversary Head Start Committee (1980) Head Start in the 1980's: Review and Recommendations.
|
From page 251... ...
(1981) Methodology for the Ethnographic Study: The Child and Family Resource Program Evaluation.
|
From page 252... ...
Evaluation of the Child and Family Resource Program: Phase III Executive Summary. Cambridge, Mass.: Abt Associates, Inc.
|
From page 253... ...
(1981) An Ethnographic Perspective on the Child and Family Resource Program.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.