Home Research Crime prevention Evaluated projects Strong Families, Strong Children

Strong Families, Strong Children

What was Strong Families, Strong Children?

The Strong Families, Strong Children (SFSC) project operated from 2000-2003 in Moncton, New Brunswick, sponsored by Moncton Youth Residences Inc. It offered an array of supports, including in-home support and family nurturing, as well as individualized service plans designed to meet the needs of each participant family.

Families could refer themselves to the program or they could be referred by community agencies from the greater Moncton area. Families accepted into the program were identified as needing intensive in-home support. The program targeted children between ages 5 and 12 who showed some of the significant risk factors associated with crime and victimization, including socio-economic deprivation, poor school performance, and antisocial tendencies.

The SFSC program’s aim was to promote competent parenting, increase family interactions and address children’s behavioural problems. Priority was given to children engaged in behaviour that would result in criminal charges if they were of the age of criminal responsibility. The program aimed to help families recognize their competencies and develop the necessary skills to stabilize family functioning.

A Family In-home Support program served as the core of the SFSC program. Other key elements linked to In-home Support included: Family Nurturing Program for Parents and Children; Parent Support Group; Social Skills for the Prevention of Aggressive Behaviours; Family Resources Lending Library; Respite Care; and Family Fun Times.

What was the Strong Families, Strong Children evaluation methodology?

The evaluation examined both process and outcome variables, and was completed by Morrison and Associates, an independent third-party evaluator. The evaluation employed a quasi-experimental evaluation design using a control group. The control group consisted of families previously involved in the Moncton Headstart early intervention program that, at the time of data gathering, were not formally involved in any specific community-based intervention program or support.

The evaluation collected pre, post and follow-up data to identify areas of change in the functioning of SFSC participants. Baseline data were collected from 64 SFSC participant families and follow-up data from 39 families. Baseline data were also available for 30 Headstart comparison families, and follow-up data from 27 families. The following standardized measures were used in order to determine program effect: Child Behaviour Checklist (CBCL); Parenting Stress Index (PSI); Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS); and the Family Child Profile Questionnaire (FCPQ). Inferential and descriptive statistics were both used to draw baseline and follow-up comparisons between the Headstart control group and the SFSC participant group. The findings below are taken from the evaluation reports prepared by Morrison and Associates.

What were the project’s key findings?

Process evaluation findings

Two of the major program elements were altered during the implementation of the program. The formalized respite care services were omitted during the first year of implementation in order to increase emphasis on personal family support for childcare. The Parent Support Group was renamed ‘Parent Luncheons’ in an attempt to increase parent participation.

These, and other modifications to the program that were made, reflect the integration of insights and feedback from both staff and project participants. It was also found that confidence, flexibility, empathy and resourcefulness were identifiable personal qualities required to be an effective worker in the program. Participants generally felt very positive about the program: 97% of parents reported that the staff dealt with their concerns adequately.

Outcome evaluation findings

Results revealed positive changes for both child and parent participants. Parents showed greater confidence about their abilities to address concerns and cope with parenting issues. Child participants showed decreased tendencies toward inattention, anxiety, anger, impulsiveness and aggression, as well as increased levels of happiness and daily functioning when solving everyday problems.

The SFSC group showed a greater degree of improvement than the Headstart control group on rating scales reflecting happiness, ability to solve day-to-to problems, inattention, anxiety, anger, impulsiveness and aggression. Also, 70 to 85% of parents reported that the program helped their children to develop better relationships with other family members and enhanced their child’s personal development.

What are the implications of the findings?

Due to the strength of the evaluation, it can be concluded that the SFSC program had a positive impact on the children and parents participating in the program. The information and lessons learned gained from this program can serve as a model for future programming. However, further evaluations of this type of initiative must be completed in other regions of Canada before any firm conclusions can be made about its general effectiveness. In particular, the evaluators noted that there is a need to expand the program’s capacity to address the needs of Francophone communities effectively.

What were the key lessons learned from this evaluation?

Many valuable lessons were learned from this project, including:

• During preliminary planning efforts it is important to consult other local crime prevention programs in order to identify community capacities and service gaps;
• respectful and optimistic attitudes facilitate building relationships with parents and children;
• it is important to address basic needs and concerns prior to implementing other family interventions;
• informal language is a better and more inviting way to secure involvement in project components. For instance, when the Parent Support Group was renamed to Parent Luncheons, attendance rates increased
• school advocacy should be an additional program element. Linking with local universities and teacher education programs may potentially secure additional services for parents; and
• family facilitators can help to provide contact information or arrange meetings with participant families in order to ensure follow-up data is gathered for evaluation purposes.

For more information or to receive a copy of the final evaluation report please contact the National Crime Prevention Centre at 1-877-302-6272.