FAST
Families and Schools Together
June Burnett Institute for Children, Youth, and
Families of SDSU Foundation
Evaluation Report 1996-2002
Prepared by:
Alliance for Children and Families
11700 West Lake Park Drive
Milwaukee, WI 53224
Tel: (414) 359-1040
Fax: (414) 359-1074
Table of Contents
|
Executive Summary |
2 |
|
Program Description |
4 |
|
Objectives of Program
Evaluation |
5 |
|
Evaluation Design |
6 |
|
Evaluation Instruments |
6 |
|
Data Collection |
7 |
|
Sites and Participants |
8 |
|
Cycle and Site Information |
8 |
|
Family Information |
8 |
|
Family Profile |
9 |
|
Child Information |
10 |
|
Child Profile |
11 |
|
Evaluation Results |
12 |
|
In the Home |
12 |
|
In the School |
20 |
|
In the Community |
28 |
|
Conclusions |
29 |
|
References |
30 |
|
Appendix |
31 |
Executive Summary
This evaluation report lends support to FAST as an effective program for the reduction of factors related to alcohol and drug abuse, violence and delinquency, and school dropout. Outcomes reported in child behavior, family functioning, and parent involvement indicate positive changes at the home, school, and community levels. The parents’ and teachers’ average Revised Behavior Problem Checklist posttest data showed statistically significant 30% and 29% reductions respectively. The parents reported statistically significant decreases on each of the four subscales relevant to the FAST program: a 28% decrease in the conduct disorder, a 33% decrease in the attention problems, a 29% decrease in anxiety/withdrawal, and a 28% decrease in the motor excess. Teachers also reported statistically significant decreases on each of the four subscales: a 31% decrease in conduct disorder, a 28% decrease in attention problems, a 29% decrease in anxiety/withdrawal, and a 25% decrease in motor excess.
The aggregate results showed statistically
significant improvements in family functioning and social isolation. Parents also reported participation in FAST brought their families closer and improved communication. As a result of participating in the program,
parents reported increased opportunities to share parenting experiences with
other adults in the community as well as seek out community resources.
On the Witte Parent Survey, measuring parent
involvement, average post-program scores showed remarkable increases in
parental involvement at the school.
Parents reported increases in contact to the school about doing volunteer work, participating in fund
raising, providing information for school records, and helping in the
classroom. Their average post-program
scores also showed statistically significant increases in contact to the school about participating in
fund raising, providing information for school records, and helping in the
classroom. Their average post-program
scores also showed significant increases in contact from the school concerning their children’s academic performance,
behavior, doing volunteer work, and participating in fund raising. Pretest-posttest comparisons also revealed
significant increases in the number of parents attending parent-teacher
conferences, belonging to a parent-teacher organization, attending meeting of
parent-teacher organizations, taking part in activities of parent-teacher
organizations, and belonging to other organizations dealing with school
matters. Parents reported statistically
significant increases in how often they watched educational programming on
television and participated together in sports activities with their child.
The Families
and Schools Together (FAST) program is a collaborative prevention and
parent involvement program designed to reduce factors related to alcohol and
drug abuse, violence and delinquency, and school dropout. FAST
was developed in 1988 by Dr. Lynn McDonald and Family Service Madison,
Wisconsin. In 1993, the Alliance for
Children and Families (formerly Family Service America) with support from
DeWitt Wallace-Reader’s Digest Fund became the national training and replication
center for the program. The FAST program has since expanded from six
to 38 states, the District of Columbia, Canada, and Australia.
FAST
is a two-year program focused on strengthening the entire family unit. The program invites families with children
ages 4-9 who display behavior problems at school or at home, low self-esteem,
short attention span, or hyperactivity to participate in eight or ten weekly
multi-family meetings at their child’s school.
During the sessions, families participate in research-based activities
that are not only fun, but are designed to build on the natural strength of the
family unit. The FAST curriculum is designed to work toward four general goals: enhancing family functioning, promoting child success in school, preventing substance
abuse by the child and the family, and reducing the stress that parents and
children experience from daily life situations.
The eight or ten week multi-family meetings makeup
the core of the FAST program. A collaborative team comprised of four
community members facilitates FAST
weekly sessions: a parent partner, a school partner, a community-based mental
health partner, and a community-based substance abuse partner. Each individual team member brings unique
skills and experiences to the program and serves as a resource in achieving the
program goals. The four core team
members also operate as a team of coaches supporting the parents in
strengthening their own family units, building a social support network of
their design, and modeling the power of a respectful and supportive team
approach to problem solving.
Furthermore, the team facilitates communication among program
administrators, collaborative community partners, and parents.
Each of the weekly sessions includes six key
components: (1) a meal shared as a
family unit, (2) several communication games played at the family table, (3)
time for adults to talk one-on-one with another adult, (4) a parent self-help
group, (5) one-to-one quality play, and (6) a door prize, in which each family wins
once. The six components are designed to
strengthen the bonds within and between families and their community. Protective factors are built through
strengthening the parent-child bond, creating an intimate support network,
building a cohesive family unit, and connecting families to the community
(McDonald & Sayger, 1998). Following
the weekly sessions, the families graduate into FASTWORKS, a two-year follow-up
program that meets monthly to continue building on the bonds created during FAST.
Families
and Schools Together (FAST) works toward four general goals for each
participating family:
I. Enhance family functioning.
B. Empower the parents to help them become the primary prevention
agents or their own children.
II. Promote child success in school.
B. Empower the parents in their role as partners in the
educational process.
C. Increase the child's and family's feelings of affiliation
toward their school.
III. Prevent
substance abuse by the child and family.
A. Increase the family's knowledge and awareness of substance abuse,
and the impact of substance abuse upon child development.
B. Link the family to appropriate assessment and treatment services,
as needed.
IV. Reduce the stress that parents and
children experience from daily life situations.
A. Develop an ongoing support group for parents of at-risk
children.
B. Link the family to appropriate community resources and services,
as needed.
C. Build the self-esteem of each family member.
Evaluation Design
FAST
uses a non-experimental, pretest-posttest evaluation design that focuses on initial
outcomes and protective factors (Billingham, 1993; McDonald & Billingham,
1992). FAST is an early intervention/prevention program that targets
children before they show problems with school failure, violence, delinquency,
or substance abuse. Thus, FAST cannot directly measure these
problems. Instead, FAST measures factors that are highly correlated with the onset of
these problems in adolescence and adulthood.
That is to say, these child and family factors are proven predictors of
school failure, violence, delinquency, substance abuse, etc.
The factors assessed by FAST are child behavior, family functioning, parent-school
involvement, and families’ experience of the program and its impact. Families complete a series of questionnaires
before the program begins. After the
eight- or ten-week sessions, they complete these questionnaires once again, and
an additional set of questionnaires.
Teachers complete the child behavior questionnaire before and after the
program.
The Revised Behavior Problem Checklist (RBPC; Quay
& Peterson, 1987) is a widely respected tool for assessing children’s
behavior problems. The RBPC manual
provides normative data for both boys and girls, and for normal and clinical
samples. These data allow FAST to compare the behavioral
characteristics of FAST children with
children in the larger population.
FAST
uses parent and teacher reports of total behavior problems and four of the
RBPC’s six subscales. The conduct disorder subscale measures
unempathetic aggression and is correlated with juvenile offenses. The attention
problems and motor excess
subscales exhibit a negative relationship with academic achievement. The anxiety/withdrawal
subscale assesses the inverse of self-esteem and has a positive correlation
with substance abuse. Because elementary
school children usually have very low scores on the two remaining subscales,
socialized aggression and psychotic behavior, FAST does not analyze these factors in evaluation reports.
Families complete two scales that assess social
characteristics of healthy families. The
Family Adaptability and Cohesion Scale (FACES II; Olson, Portner, & Lavee,
1985) addresses two central factors in family functioning: adaptability (the
ability to change) and cohesion (the degree to which family members are
connected). Research has shown that
these factors predict competence in school, resilience, and the quality of the
parent-child relationship.
The Social Isolation subscale of the Parenting Stress Inventory (Abidin, 1995) measures a parent’s sense of social isolation and social support. Social isolation and insufficient social support can exacerbate a parent’s experience of stress and influence child behavior.
The Witte Parent Survey (Witte, 1991) is FAST’s measure of parent-school
involvement. Selected questions,
answered by parents, address four areas: number of times the parents have
contacted the school, number of times the school has contacted the parents,
parental involvement in school organizations, and parental participation in
school-related activities with their child.
Positive parent-school involvement can promote the child’s academic
success and empower parents as prevention agents in their children's
lives.
The Program Evaluation by Family (McDonald, 1995;
McDonald & Billingham, 1988) is an open-ended questionnaire that provides
families with an opportunity to express their experiences in the program and the
program’s effect in their lives. The
families also rate the program on a 1-to-10 scale.
Families are contacted by school personnel about FAST.
Those that volunteer to participate receive home visits from FAST team members. At this visit, team members explain more
about the program and ask the parents to complete the evaluation instruments
and bring them to the first meeting.
Likewise, teachers of the children are given evaluation instruments to
complete and return to the school team members before the first meeting.
When the program has ended, team members make home
visits to the families to distribute the evaluation forms and also to recruit
for the FASTWORKS follow-up program.
Teachers are also given forms to complete at this time.
During the evaluation process, the confidentiality
of the children and their families is secured by the following procedures. Each child is assigned an identification
number by the team facilitator. This
code number is written on all evaluation materials completed by parents and
teachers. The completed forms, with only
the code numbers, and no other identifying information, are sent to the program
evaluator at the Alliance for Children and Families for analysis. Because the program evaluator reports only
the aggregate results, no individual responses can be matched to a particular
child.
Home Life
Of
the families who completed the program and provided the following family information,
35% (88) were single parent households and 64% were two parent households. The average number of children in the home was
3. The average age of the mothers was
33 years. Sixty-one percent (98) of
the mothers had not completed high school, 19% (29) had graduated from high
school or received a GED, 12% (19) had some technical school or college experience,
and 8% (13) had completed a 2-year or 4-year degree. Sixty-two percent (64) of the fathers had not
completed high school, 17% (18) had graduated from high school or received
a GED, 10% (10) had some technical school or college experience, and 11% (11)
had completed a 2-year or 4-year degree.
Economic Data
Seventeen percent (20) of the mothers who provided
information worked full-time, 9% (11) worked part-time, 11% (13) were looking
for work, 55% (64) did not work outside of the home, and 8% (9) were disabled.
Of the fathers who reported, 56% (42) worked full-time, 12% (9) worked
part-time, 3% (2) were looking for work, 23% (17) did not work outside of
the home, and 7% (5) were disabled. Fifty percent (57) of the families reported
yearly income of less than $10,000, 31% (41) reported income of $10-20,000
per year, 14% (18) reported income of $20-30,000 per year, and 5% (7) reported
yearly income of $30,000 or more. Sixty-eight
percent (83) of the families reported receiving some form of public assistance.
The families largely reported pretest scores in the normal ranges for family functioning, as assessed by the FACES II (Olson, Portner, & Bell, 1981, 1983). Upon entering the program, 34% of the families had scores in the normal range on cohesion, and 49% had normal scores on adaptability.
On the Isolation subscale of the Parenting Stress
Index, the parents reported an average pre-program score of 14334. This score is at the 70th percentile,
near the top of the normal range (Abidin, 1995). About 61% of parents reported Isolation
pretest scores within the normal range.
While, about 29% percent of the families reported Isolation pretest
scores above the normal range. These
results indicate that most of the families did not report high levels of parenting
stress but rather fell within the normal range.
Child information was available for 280 children who
graduated from the program. Of those
reported, 58% (117) were males and 42% (163) were females.
The average age of the group was 7 years.
Three percent (7) of the children were in pre-kindergarten, 16% (44)
were in kindergarten, 21% (58) were in first grade, 29% (81) were in second,
22% (62) were in third, 10% (27) were in fourth, 1% (4) of the children were
in fifth, and less than 1% were in sixth grade.
About 42% of the children were Hispanic, 13% were Asian American, 12%
were African American, 7% were Caucasian, and 26% were of another ethnic or
racial background.
The
Revised Behavior Problem Checklist (RBPC), a deficit based assessment of child
behavior, is used in the FAST program
to show behavior change in children at home and in the classroom. The typical pre-program profile of a child recruited
for FAST shows higher levels of
behavior problems than the Quay-Peterson normal population, but not quite
as high as the clinical population. Thirty-four
percent of the children had a total pretest RBPC scores between the normal
and clinical means; and 31% of the children had scores above the clinical
mean.=
= These normal and clinical
means were extrapolated from Quay and Peterson (1987, pp. 15-16). The mean score for normal children between the
ages of six and twelve is 16.24. The
mean score for clinical children is 44.49.
Evaluation Results
Evaluation results will be presented in three sections: “In the Home,” “In the School,” and “In the Community.” Results related to the home will include changes in child behavior, family functioning, and the parent-child relationship. Results related to the school will include changes in classroom behavior, parent-school contact, and the parent-staff relationship. Results related to the community will include information on program participation and attendance, and the use of community resources.
The average parent posttest scores on the RBPC showed
a statistically significant (p£.001)
30% decrease in the overall behavior problem score. The parents also reported statistically significant
(p£.001)
decreases on the four relevant subscales: a 28% decrease in the conduct disorder
score, a 33% decrease in the attention problems score, a 29% decrease in the
anxiety/withdrawal score, and a 28% decrease in the motor excess score (Table 1) . About 72% (194) of the parents reported a decrease
in their child's total behavior problem score. Sixty-five percent reported decreases in the
conduct disorder score; 60% reported decreases in the attention problems score;
61% reported decreases in the anxiety/withdrawal score; and 49% reported decreases
in the motor excess score. About 30%
(80) of the children were reported to show post-program decreases on each
of the four relevant subscales.
For the boys and the girls separately, RBPC scores
were similar to the aggregate results reported above. Compared to the Quay-Peterson normal and clinical
populations, the means for both the boys and the girls in these groups were
higher than the normal population, but not nearly as high as the clinical
norms. Overall, compared to the California and San Diego FAST
groups, these parents generally reported lower levels of behavior problems
and similar levels of post-program change.
The parents of the boys reported a statistically
significant (p£.001)
32% decrease in the overall behavior problems score. Statistically significant (p£.001) decreases
were also reported on all four of the subscales: 31% in conduct disorder, 33% in attention
problems, 32% in anxiety/withdrawal, and 30% in motor excess (Table 2). Seventy-four percent of the boys were
reported to show a decrease in their total score. Sixty-four percent were reported to show a
decrease in their conduct disorder score; 62% were reported to show a decrease
in their attention problems score; 64% were reported to show a decrease in
their anxiety/withdrawal score; and 49% were reported to show a decrease in
their motor excess score.
The parents of the girls also reported a
statistically significant (p£.001)
28% decrease in the overall behavior problems score. Statistically significant decreases were
reported on each of the four subscales:
24% in conduct disorder (p£.001),
32% in attention problems (p£.001),
35% in anxiety/withdrawal (p£.01),
and a 26% decrease was reported in the motor excess score (p£.01) (Table 3). Sixty-nine percent of the girls were reported
to show a decrease in their total score.
Fifty-nine percent were reported to show a decrease in their conduct
disorder score; 56% were reported to show a decrease in their attention
problems score; 57% were reported to show a decrease in their
anxiety/withdrawal score; and 49% were reported to show a decrease in their
motor excess score.
TABLE 1
PARENT Average Scores on the
Revised Behavior Problem
Checklist (Quay & Peterson, 1986)
N = 268
|
|
|
|
POSTTESTS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL SCORE: |
30.75 |
27.74 |
21.47 |
24.49 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subscales: |
|
|
|
|
|
Conduct Disorder: |
10.69 |
9.59 |
7.48 |
8.61 |
|
Attention Problems: |
7.94 |
7.49 |
5.31 |
6.42 |
|
Anxiety/Withdrawal: |
4.99 |
4.62 |
3.53 |
4.01 |
|
Motor Excess: |
2.65 |
2.43 |
1.90 |
2.21 |
TABLE 2
PARENT Average Scores for the
BOYS on the
Revised Behavior Problem
Checklist (Quay & Peterson, 1986)
N = 154
|
|
|
|
POSTTESTS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL SCORE: |
33.16 |
27.74 |
22.60 |
24.42 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subscales: |
|
|
|
|
|
Conduct Disorder: |
11.14 |
9.49 |
7.68 |
8.45 |
|
Attention Problems: |
8.79 |
7.68 |
5.82 |
6.57 |
|
Anxiety/Withdrawal: |
5.32 |
4.74 |
3.62 |
4.08 |
|
Motor Excess: |
2.90 |
2.52 |
2.04 |
2.28 |
TABLE 3
PARENT Average Scores for the
GIRLS on the
Revised Behavior Problem
Checklist (Quay & Peterson, 1986)
N = 111
|
|
|
|
POSTTESTS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL SCORE: |
27.25 |
27.72 |
19.73 |
24.72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subscales: |
|
|
|
|
|
Conduct Disorder: |
9.37 |
9.74 |
7.13 |
8.88 |
|
Attention Problems: |
6.77 |
7.16 |
4.59 |
6.21 |
|
Anxiety/Withdrawal: |
4.49 |
4.45 |
3.38** |
4.10 |
|
Motor Excess: |
2.28 |
2.28 |
1.68** |
2.10 |
Paired t-tests: statistically significant at p £ .001
** Paired t-tests: p £ .01
* Paired t-tests: p £ .05
Family Functioning
The parents’ average post-program scores showed
about a 1% increase in the cohesion scale score and a statistically significant
(p £ .01) 4% increase
in the family adaptability score (Table 4). However, those families who reported
pre-program levels of cohesion below the normal range reported a statistically
significant (p£.001)
5% increase in their score to just below the normal range. Nearly 34% (93) of the families had posttest
cohesion scores in the normal range and 59% (159) of the families had posttest
adaptability scores in the normal range.
TABLE 4
Family Adaptability and
Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES II)
|
|
|
|
POSTTESTS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
44.31 |
9.87 |
45.93** |
9.75 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Cohesion |
47.96
|
6.85
|
50.46***
|
8.74
|
|
|
||||
|
|
***Paired t-test statistically significant
at p £ .001
** Paired t-test: p£.01
Normal ranges: Adaptability
above 45 Cohesion
above 59
California Mean: Adaptability = 44 Cohesion = 58
[1] The 10 graduates from the 1996 cycle at Euclid Elementary School are not included in this analysis. This program cycle used the FACES III instead of FACES II.
[2] The California data for FACES II was taken from cycles funded through the Office of Child Abuse Prevention (OCAP). San Diego was an OCAP site initially and in order to be able to analyze data longitudinally, decided to adapt the FAST curriculum and continue using FACES II once the OCAP project was completed.
The parent pre- and post-program results on the
Isolation subscale of the Parenting Stress Index indicated a small but
statistically significant (p£.05)
4% decrease in the parents' average overall rating of their feelings of
parenting stress and isolation (Table 5). Forty-three percent (119) of parents reported
a decrease in their overall pre- to posttest scores. Furthermore, less than 7% (18) of the families
reported a posttest score below the normal range. Although the program graduates as a whole
reported little change in social isolation, the program graduates whose
pre-program scores were above the 80th percentile reported a
statistically significant (p<.001) 11% decrease in their feelings of
parenting stress and isolation.
TABLE 5
Isolation subscale of the
Parenting Stress Index
|
|
|
|
POSTTESTS |
|
|
All Graduates (N=265 |
|
|
|
|
| Isolation: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High
Isolation (N=91) |
||||
|
|
19.67
|
2.36
|
17.46***
|
3.67
|
|
|
***Paired t-test: p £ .001
* Paired t-test: p £ .05
Normal range (20th‑80th, 50th %ile) 10
‑ 16, 12
California Mean = 13.93
In addition to the quantitative measures parents responded to qualitative questions about the program concerning their relationship with their child. The parents comments predominantly focused on three aspects of the parent-child relationship: 1) closeness, 2) communication, and 3) parenting.
Family
Closeness: After
participation in FAST, many of the
parents reported stronger bonds or feeling closer to their child and their
families, and spending more time together.
· It has made a stronger relationship with me and my children, we feel that we can talk to each other without being afraid to say what’s on our minds.
·
It helped us all get closer as a family.
·
The FAST team helped us in any way they
could, they helped me and my children to get close, and to be free to say what they
want.
Family
Communication: The
parents also reported experiencing more open communication with their children,
and practicing communication skills.
·
Learned to talk to them more, asked them
what they think about things and how they would like to solve different
problems.
·
The program was good in that it supported,
and rekindled our relationship, emphasizing play, and good, open communication.
·
It opened up lines of communication with my
kids, and it also taught me how to listen to them.
·
It helped us better our communications with
our children and spouses.
Parenting:
Finally, many of the parents reported that FAST helped them feel better able to parent their child.
·
The program gave me a chance to play a
15-minute game with my child, and play at home.
·
I help my child work to do the best she can.
·
My child is the same five year old, but I
believe I understand him better on
his level and his needs.
The
average teacher posttest scores on the RBPC showed a statistically significant
(p£.001) 29% decrease
in the overall behavior problem score. The
teachers also reported statistically significant (p£.001) decreases on
the four relevant subscales: a 31% decrease in the conduct disorder score,
a 28% decrease in the attention problems score, a 29% decrease in the anxiety/withdrawal
score, and a 25% decrease in the motor excess score (Table 9) . About 65% (159) of the children were reported
by their teacher to show a decrease in their total behavior problem score. Fifty percent were reported to show a decrease
in their conduct disorder score; 53% were reported to show a decrease in their
attention problems score; 44% were reported to show a decrease in their anxiety/withdrawal
score; and 37% were reported to show a decrease in their motor excess score. About 17% (42) of the children were reported
to show post-program decreases on each of the four subscales.
Teacher reports on the RBPC were quite similar for
boys and girls. Overall, the teachers
observed behavior problems similar to or higher than those of the normal population
but considerably lower than those of the clinical population. A comparison to the Quay-Peterson normal and
clinical populations, indicate that both the means for the boys and the girls
were close to the normal population. Overall, compared to the California and
San Diego FAST groups, these parents generally reported
lower levels of behavior problems post-program change on most subscales.
The teachers of the boys in these FAST groups reported a statistically
significant (p£.001)
26% decrease in the overall behavior problems score. Statistically significant decreases were also
reported on all four of the measured subscales:
30% in conduct disorder (p£.001),
24% in attention problems (p£.001),
23% in anxiety/withdrawal (p£.01),
and 23% in motor excess (p£.001) (Table
7). Sixty-seven percent of the boys
were reported to show a decrease in their total score. About 54% showed a decrease in the conduct
disorder; 55% showed a decrease in attention problems; 44% showed a decrease in
anxiety/withdrawal; and 41% were reported to show decreases in their motor
excess score.
The teachers of the girls reported a statistically
significant (p£.001)
33% decrease in the overall behavior problems score. Statistically significant decreases were also
reported on each of the four subscales:
a 31% in the conduct disorder score (p£.001),
a 35% decrease in the attention problems score (p£.001),
a 36% in the anxiety/withdrawal score (p£.001),
and a 27% decrease in the motor excess score (p£.01)
(Table 8). Fifty-seven percent of the girls were
reported to show a decrease in their total score. Forty-five percent were
reported to show a decrease in their conduct disorder score; 50% were reported
to show a decrease in their attention problems score; 46% were reported to show
a decrease in their anxiety/withdrawal score; 30% percent were reported to show
a decrease in their motor excess score.
TABLE 6
TEACHER Average Scores on the
Revised Behavior Problem
Checklist (Quay & Peterson, 1986)
N = 251
|
|
|
|
POSTTESTS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL SCORE: |
22.10 |
22.96 |
15.75 |
20.34 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subscales: |
|
|
|
|
|
Conduct Disorder: |
7.53 |
9.86 |
5.20 |
8.60 |
|
Attention Problems: |
7.00 |
7.70 |
5.01 |
6.14 |
|
Anxiety/Withdrawal: |
3.47 |
3.94 |
2.47 |
3.45 |
|
Motor Excess: |
2.09 |
2.62 |
1.56 |
2.32 |
TABLE 7
TEACHER Average Scores for the
BOYS on the
Revised Behavior Problem
Checklist (Quay & Peterson, 1986)
N = 147
|
|
|
|
POSTTESTS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL SCORE: |
24.26 |
22.42 |
17.99 |
20.41 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subscales: |
|
|
|
|
|
Conduct Disorder: |
8.71 |
9.98 |
6.12 |
8.76 |
|
Attention Problems: |
7.53 |
7.79 |
5.71 |
6.49 |
|
Anxiety/Withdrawal: |
3.19 |
3.59 |
2.47** |
3.40 |
|
Motor Excess: |
2.52 |
2.78 |
1.93 |
2.51 |
TABLE 8
TEACHER Average Scores for the
GIRLS on the
Revised Behavior Problem
Checklist (Quay & Peterson, 1986)
N = 101
|
|
|
|
POSTTESTS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL SCORE: |
18.61 |
23.31 |
12.48 |
20.10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subscales: |
|
|
|
|
|
Conduct Disorder: |
5.60 |
9.36 |
3.85 |
8.31 |
|
Attention Problems: |
6.07 |
7.40 |
3.95 |
5.49 |
|
Anxiety/Withdrawal: |
3.90 |
4.42 |
2.49 |
3.55 |
|
Motor Excess: |
1.42 |
2.20 |
1.03** |
1.96 |
Paired t-tests: statistically significant at p £ .001
** Paired t-tests: p £ .01
Parent-School Involvement
The parents' average post-program scores showed
statistically significant (p£.001)
increases in contact to the school
about participating in fund raising, providing information for school records,
and helping in the classroom. Their
average post-program scores also showed statistically significant (p£.001) increases in contact from the school concerning their
children’s academic performance, behavior, doing volunteer work, and
participating in fund raising.
Pretest-posttest comparisons revealed significant (p£.001) increases in
the number of parents attending parent-teacher conferences, belonging to a
parent-teacher organization, attending meeting of parent-teacher organizations,
taking part in activities of parent-teacher organizations, and belonging to
other organizations dealing with school matters. Parents reported statistically significant
increases in how often they watched educational programming on television and
participated together in sports activities with their child (p£.001) (Table 9).[3]
[3]
For information about the California outcomes
for parental involvement please refer to Appendix A.
Table 9
Parental Involvement in School and School Related Activities (N
= 269)
A. Frequency with Which
Parents Contacted School
Question: This year, how many times did you (or someone
in your household)
contact
the school about each of the following:
Scale: 1 = zero (0)
2 = one to two times 3 = three to
four times 4 = five or more times
|
|
PRETESTS |
|
POSTTESTS |
|
|
|
Mean |
SD |
Mean |
SD |
|
Child’s academic performance |
2.5 |
1.2 |
2.6* |
1.1 |
|
Class your child took |
2.0 |
1.1 |
2.2* |
1.1 |
|
Volunteer work for school |
1.7 |
1.1 |
1.9** |
1.1 |
|
Participate in fund raising |
1.3 |
0.8 |
1.6*** |
0.9 |
|
Provide information for records |
1.7 |
0.9 |
2.0*** |
1.0 |
|
Child’s behavior |
2.3 |
1.2 |
2.5** |
1.1 |
|
Help in the classroom |
1.6 |
1.0 |
1.9*** |
1.1 |
B. Frequency with Which
School Contacted Parents
Question: This year, how many times, not counting
report cards, did someone
at
the school contact you about each of the following:
Scale: 1 = zero (0)
2 = one to two times 3 = three to
four times 4 = five or more times
|
|
PRETESTS |
|
POSTTESTS |
|
|
|
Mean |
SD |
Mean |
SD |
|
Child’s academic performance |
1.8 |
0.9 |
2.0*** |
1.0 |
|
Child’s behavior |
1.8 |
1.0 |
2.0*** |
1.1 |
|
Volunteer work for the school |
1.4 |
0.7 |
2.6*** |
0.9 |
|
Participate in fund raising |
1.3 |
0.6 |
1.5*** |
0.8 |
C. Parental Involvement
in School Organizations
Question: Did you or your spouse/partner do any of the
following at your
child's
school last year?
Percentage answering YES
|
|
|
|
|
Attend parent-teacher conference |
79% |
88%*** |
|
Belong to a parent-teacher organization |
25% |
34%*** |
|
Attend meeting of parent-teacher organization |
56% |
67%*** |
|
Take part in activities of parent-teacher org. |
39% |
50%*** |
|
Belong to other org. dealing with school matters |
25% |
39%*** |
D. Parental
Participation in School-Related Activities with Child
Question: How many times in a normal week would some
household member
participate
in the following activities with your child:
Scale: 1 = zero (0)
2 = one to two times 3 = three to
four times 4 = five or more times
|
|
PRETESTS |
|
POSTTESTS |
|
|
|
Mean |
SD |
Mean |
SD |
|
Read with or to your child |
3.1 |
0.9 |
3.2 |
0.8 |
|
Work on arithmetic or math |
3.1 |
1.0 |
3.2 |
0.9 |
|
Work on penmanship or writing |
3.0 |
1.1 |
3.0 |
1.0 |
|
Watch educational programs on T.V. |
2.6 |
1.1 |
2.9*** |
1.0 |
|
Participate together in sports activities |
2.2 |
1.0 |
2.5*** |
1.0 |
***
Paired t-tests: p £.001
**
Paired t-tests: p £ .01
*
Paired t-tests: p £ .05
In addition to the Witte Parent Survey, parents
commented on how participation in FAST
affected their relationship with school personnel and staff. The parents also reported more positive
feelings about school personnel and parent involvement with the school.
Feelings
about School Personnel:
After the involvement in the eight-week program, many of the parents
reported feeling better about school staff, and the role they play in their
child’s education.
·
I feel a more personal relationship with
school personnel, and their desire to help my children succeed.
·
I’ve realized that they are there to help.
·
I’m able to know up close some school
personnel and I think I now have a better relationship with them.
Parent-School
Communication: Parents
also reported feeling more comfortable approaching and talking with school
staff.
·
It is now easier to talk to his teacher.
·
It has made the staff and I focus on my
child’s strengths and weaknesses.
Parent Involvement: Furthermore, many of the parents reported wanting to increase their involvement with the school, and feeling part of the larger school community.
·
It has caused me to want to volunteer at
school.
·
More involved with school concerns.
·
I Keep in touch with his teacher on a weekly
basis and working together with his teacher to improve his education and behavior
at school.
·
I feel more involved in the school.
·
I talk teachers now more than ever.
FAST
is collaborative program involving partnerships among parents, schools, and
community agencies. Parent responses on the Program
Evaluation by Family indicated that FAST
provided parents with an opportunity to form supportive relationships with
other adults in the community and make connections with community agencies and
resources.
Parent-to-Parent
Connections: Parents reported
that FAST gave them an opportunity to
talk with other adults about parenting and day-to-day stresses.
·
It was great because we get together and
talk and listen.
·
The Parent Time was very good for me, gave
me a chance to meet new parents.
·
The parents helped each other and found
information for each other. We were able
to share problems in the group.
·
The parent group was a great opportunity to
share knowledge and listen to other families opinions about the program and
things in our community.
·
Sharing ideas, information, and resources
about how to educate our children.
Parent-Community
Connections: In
addition to the connections made with other families, the FAST team also provided support to the parents, and helped
establish connections with additional community resources.
·
The FAST
team helped me find resources for my family in the community
·
Gave us more resources to help with our
problems.
Aggregate evaluation results indicate that these
twenty-seven Families and Schools Together
program cycles in San Diego have successfully achieved the immediate
outcomes associated with the FAST program. Outcomes reported at the home, school, and
community levels indicate that these FAST
teams were able to successfully replicate the program curriculum. The parents’ and teachers’ average Revised
Behavior Problem Checklist pretest-posttest comparisons showed significant
reductions in child behavior problems on all four of the subscales relevant to
the FAST program: conduct disorder, attention problems,
anxiety/withdrawal, and motor excess.
Furthermore, improvements in family functioning, social isolation, as
well as numerous improvements in each area of parent involvement at the school
were reported on the quantitative measures, and further supported by
qualitative responses by the parents.
The results in this evaluation are consistent with
national and California FAST
outcomes, and reflect the effectiveness of the program curriculum. San Diego FAST
programs continue to build on their prior successes and strong history. We commend you for your continued support and
commitment to the FAST program.
Abidin,
R. R. (1995). Parenting Stress Index: Professional manual, 3rd
ed. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Billingham,
S. C. (1993). Evaluation research
design for the family and school together program (FAST). Unpublished doctoral dissertation. DePaul
University.
Epstein,
J. L. & Salinas, K. C. (1993). School
and family partnerships: Surveys and summaries. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Center on Families, Communities, Schools and Children’s
Learning.
McDonald,
L. (1995). Evaluation report on the national replication of FAST. Milwaukee, WI: Family Service
America.
McDonald,
L. & Billingham, S. (1988). Program evaluation by family.
Unpublished manuscript. Madison, WI: Family Service.
McDonald,
L. & Billingham, S. (1992). FAST evaluation: Report to the FAST
statewide advisory board. Madison, WI: Family Service.
McDonald,
L. & Sayger, T. V. (1998). Impact of a family and school based prevention
program on protective factors for high risk youth. Drugs & Society, 12,
61-85.
Olson,
D. H., Portner, J., & Bell (1981, 1983).
FACES II. St. Paul, MN: Family Social Science, University of
Minnesota.
Quay,
H. C. & Peterson, D. R. (1987). Revised Behavior Problem Checklist:
Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Witte,
J. F. (1991). First year report: Milwaukee Parental Choice Program.
Madison, WI: Robert M. LaFollette Institute of Public Policy, University of
Wisconsin-Madison.
[3] For information about the California
outcomes for parental involvement please refer to Appendix A.