Program Outcomes for Children

Family Involvement / Accommodation & Adaptation Outcomes

Introduction

The NCEO model adopted by the Children's Program Outcome Workgroup includes Family Involvement / Accommodation & Adaptation as an outcome domain because the amount and quality of family involvement must be measured, even if these are not child outcomes in the most traditional sense (Ysseldyke & Thurlow, 1993; Ysseldyke, Thurlow & Erickson, 1993; Ysseldyke, 1994a & 1994b).  In the NCEO model, the Family Involvement / Accommodation & Adaptation outcome domain falls into a special category called the Learning and Opportunity Process.

NCEO Family Involvement/Accommodation & Adaptation Model

The model recognizes the need to measure family involvement even when parents themselves are not the main focus for change.  For more information about evaluating programs which are primarily focused on parents, see the Parent and Family Program Outcome website. 

Whether parents actually attend programming or not, adults in the family are usually the ones who must coordinate schedules for their children's activities, provide transportation, make sure that they have the appropriate clothing or equipment, and generally support the child's participation.  If families do not see the program activities as worthwhile for their child, they are unlikely to make the effort to adapt their schedules or provide the resources needed for the child to attend regularly.  If the children’s program does include components specifically targeted to parents, such as parenting skills training, it may require even greater effort to convince parents that the program is of high quality and worthy of their time and effort.  Thus on the one hand, Family Involvement/Accommodation & Adaptation are causal or “independent” variables, because they affect the degree to which certain child outcomes can be achieved.  On the other hand, they are also outcome or “dependent” variables, either because they are affected by the quality of the program experience, or because parents and families may themselves be a focus of a learning opportunity or program intervention.

Another reason to measure family involvement factors in evaluating children's programs is that this information can help us understand how or why successful programs work.  Weiss (1988) says that while it is now clear that some intervention programs do produce meaningful and sustained gains for children, limited measurement has restricted our understanding of the process by which programs achieve their results.  Since some researchers hypothesize that programs change parents and families in ways that have both direct and indirect benefits for the child (Bronfenbrenner, 1984 & 1979), evaluations that document the process of change as well as the outcomes can be especially valuable in planning future programs that are likely to be effective.

Much of the early evidence on the value of parental involvement comes from studies of early intervention programs in the 1960s and 1970s, which worked with the child in a preschool setting and also worked with the family through home visits and parent groups.  When longitudinal studies compared participants in one program with a control group at age 19, previous program participants were more likely to be employed or pursuing their education, less likely to have had a teenage pregnancy or to have been arrested or in detention, and likely to have performed better on a test of functional competence (Weiss, 1988).  The importance of involving parents is also substantiated in more recent studies of successful early childhood programs.  Those predominantly child-focused educational programs which also offer supportive services for parents or services to enhance parenting skills are the most promising.  In fact, when thirty-three intervention programs were reviewed, only the eleven which offered the combination approach showed a broad range of positive outcomes for both children and parents.  It was also primarily the combination programs that produced long-term declines in antisocial behavior and delinquency (Yoshikawa, 1995; Barnett, 1995).

The role of family support in achieving desirable child outcomes in older children and in other settings has also been well documented.  Dunst and Trivett (1988) present an integrated social systems framework which draws from social network theory, human ecology, help-seeking theory and adaptational theory.  These theoretical foundations emphasize the importance of informal support systems such as parents, relatives, friends for buffering negative reactions and promoting positive functioning.  According to them, social support includes the "emotional, psychological, physical, informational, instrumental, and material assistance provided to others to either maintain well-being or promote adaptations to different life events".  In multiple studies with handicapped children and their families, social support accounted for a significant amount of variance in stress, emotional and physical health, and psychological and personal well-being. 

Studies based on resilience theory also provide evidence that a good relationship with a parent, marked by warmth and the absence of severe criticism, can have a substantial protective effect against the development of later antisocial behavior (Werner & Smith, 1982).  Thus, we might hope that building strong family support and involvement into community intervention programs for early and middle childhood will result in more nurturing relationships with at least one parent.  However, it is also important to recognize that for some at-risk children participating in State Strengthening projects, family relationships may not change significantly as a result of the program.  In these cases, relationships with the program staff and participants may still help to compensate for less-than-adequate support from family. 
 

Outcome Components

The NCEO model names three specific desirable outcomes in this domain: 
 

  • The family demonstrates involvement and support for the child's needs 
  • The family has access to resources to support the child 
  • The family makes adaptations, accommodations, or compensations necessary to achieve child outcomes in each of the major domain areas.


Suggested Indicators 

The following are some appropriate indicators of positive program outcomes for children in the area of family involvement, accommodation and adaptation, based on the NCEO model (Ysseldyke & Thurlow, 1993), as adapted for community-based programs by the Children’s Outcome Work Group.  The appropriateness of any given indicator for your program evaluation depends on the age of the children you serve, the setting, and goals and activities of your particular program.  Much of this information is likely to be available through local program records and will not require standardized measures.  

  • Family characteristics for mother and father (age, education, income, ethnicity)
  • Number and percentage of parents who attend and participate in special activities designed for parental participation (by family characteristic category).
  • Number and  percentage of parents (by family characteristic category) participating in home visit sessions scheduled by program staff.
  • Number and percentage of parents (by family characteristic category) enrolling in parenting sessions designed to complement child-focused activities.
  • Level of family participation in parenting sessions (by family characteristic category)
  • Number of parent referrals for community services to enrich child quality of life.
  • Number and percent of parents who follow-up on referrals (by family characteristic category)
  • Number and percent of parents who adopt selected behaviors designed to enhance parent-child relationship and improve child outcomes (by parent characteristic category)
  • Number and percent of parents who make necessary arrangements for children to have resources which enhance their development (personal books, etc.)
Summary

It is important to measure the quality and quantity of family involvement in children's programs for two main reasons.  The most basic reason is that children usually depend on parents or other adults in the family to support them in getting to the program and provide the necessary resources to participate.  If the child is unable to attend regularly, he or she is unlikely to benefit from the program, no matter how well designed it may be.  The second reason is that there is increasing evidence that children benefit from more comprehensive programs that address their families as well.  Most children spend more time with their families than they do in a community-based program, such as a State Strengthening program, and so the child's new skills, behaviors or attitudes are reinforced when they are supported or encouraged by the family or home environment. 
 

References

Barnett, W. S. (1995).  Long-term effects of early childhood programs on cognitive and school outcomes. The Future of Children,  5 (3).  Los Altos, CA: The David and Lucile Packard Foundation,  Center for the Future of Children, 25-50.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986).  The ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives.  Developmental Psychology,  22, 723-742.

Dunst, C. J., & Trivette, C. M. (1988).  Toward experimental evaluation of the family, infant and preschool program.  In  H. B. Weiss & F. H. Jacobs (Eds.), Evaluating Family Programs  (pp. 315-346).  New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Deal, A. G. (Eds.) (1994). Supporting and strengthening families: Methods, strategies and practices, Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books 

Weiss, H. B. (1988).  Family support and education programs:  Working through ecological theories of human development.  In  H. B. Weiss & F. H. Jacobs (Eds.), Evaluating Family Programs  (pp. 3-36).  New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1982).  Vulnerable but invincible: A longitudinal study of resilient children and youth.  New York:  Adams, Bannister, Cox.

Yoshikawa, H. (1995).  Long-term effects of early childhood programs on social outcomes and delinquency. The Future of Children,  5 (3).  Los Altos, CA: The David and Lucile Packard Foundation,  Center for the Future of Children, 51-75.

Ysseldyke, J. E., & Thurlow, M. (1993, October).  Developing a model of educational outcomes (NCEO Report No. 1). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, College of Education, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Ysseldyke, J. E., Thurlow, M. L., & Erickson, R. N. (1993). Educational outcomes and indicators for early childhood (Age 6).  Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, College of Education,  National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Ysseldyke, J. E. (1993).  Educational outcomes and indicators for early childhood (Age 3).  Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, College of Education,  National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Ysseldyke, J. E. (1994).  Educational outcomes and indicators for grade 4.  Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, College of Education,  National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Ysseldyke, J. E. (1994).  Educational outcomes and indicators for grade 8.  Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, College of Education,  National Center on Educational Outcomes.


Bibliography


Measures

| Program Outcomes for Children |


| NOWG Home |