Strengthening Families Fortaleciendo Familias CYFAR Conference Baltimore, Md Renee Overath, Jenn Cra

1
Strengthening FamiliesFortaleciendo
FamiliasCYFAR Conference Baltimore,
MdRenee Overath, Jenn Crawford, Drew BetzMay
19, 2009
Welcome! Bienvenidos!
2
Background
3
Ingredients for success of local programs

• 4 Trained facilitators
• 1 site coordinator
• Curriculum supplies
• Dinner each night
• Child Care
• 3 meeting areas
• Recruitment reminders
• Teen panel last week
• Pre- and post-survey

4
Curriculum Materials

• 415 page leader guide with masters for handouts
• DVDs (updated 12/06)
• Discuss adolescent development and model skills
• Actors are Latino, African-American, and white
• 8 parent DVDs
• 1 youth DVD for 2 sessions
• 2 family DVDs
• Love and Limits magnets for home practice
• consumable supplies for youth family
  activities

5
Collaborate! to fund local ingredients

• Example of partners from Kitsap County
• Kitsap Community Resources, WSU, OESD 114
• Community Funders Kitsap County Prevention
  Services, Building Bridges Dropout Prevention
  Grant, Childrens Trust Foundation, Title I
• Community Collaborators - Health District El
  Centro de la Familia, School Districts,
  Bainbridge Youth Services, Commission on Children
  and Youth, Readiness to Learn Consortium, OESD
  114, African American Ministerial Association,
  Pt. Gamble Enterprises

6
RESULTS Positive Changes in YOUTH Behavior
Students who participated in SFP while in 6th
grade were approximately half as likely as
students in the control group to smoke
cigarettes at follow-up evaluations two years
and four years later. were 58 less likely
than students in the control group to report
aggressive behavior at follow-up evaluations two
and four years later. At 8th grade, SFP 10-14
students exhibited a 49 relative reduction in
alcohol use and at 10th grade, a 32 relative
reduction in alcohol use compared to control
group students. Iowa State University
Longitudinal Study results
7
RESULTS - Positive Changes in PARENTING Behaviors
Parents/caregivers who participated in the SFP
Program showed improvement in

• communicating specific rules and consequences
  for using substances
• controlling anger when communicating with their
  youth
• having positive involvement with their youth
• communicating better with their youth
• Iowa State University Longitudinal Study results

8


WSU SFP Evaluation in Washington

• We collect
• Demographics
• Outcomes (Parent and Youth)
• Implementation
• Fidelity

9
Washington State SFP Participants
Washington State Demographics
Race Ethnicity
TOTAL 979 Families 3,234 Participants
117 families 338 participants
Slide courtesy of Dr. Laura Griner Hill
10
Who Is Attending in Washington State
At Pretest, 17 of Youth Report Substance Use in
Past 30 Days
Slide courtesy of Dr. Laura Griner Hill
11
Positive Experiences Increase (More for Parents
than Youth)
Slide courtesy of Dr. Laura Griner Hill
12
Daily Hassles Decrease (Reported by Parents)
Slide courtesy of Dr. Laura Griner Hill
13
Why We Evaluate In Washington State

• Demographic information helps to inform
  recruiting efforts and to identify underserved
  groups
• Fidelity and implementation information guides
  training of new facilitators to improve quality

Over 200 programs have submitted program
evaluation data
These data have helped us to receive over 1.6
million in funding locally and statewide Source
Dr. Laura Griner Hill
14
Fidelity in Youth Session
Slide courtesy of Dr. Laura Griner Hill
15
WSU SFP Evaluation Report
Slide courtesy of Dr. Laura Griner Hill
16
http//sfp_at_wsu.edu
Slide courtesy of Dr. Laura Griner Hill
17
Scientifically Proven Outcomes

• Meta-analysis found only SFP provided
  convincing evidence of long-term effectiveness in
  preventing adolescent substance use and abuse
  (Foxcroft et al., 2003)

• Economic analysis identified a return of
• 9.60 for every dollar spent implementing SFP
• Net benefit of 5923 per youth, and
• Net benefit of 6541 per family
• This amount represents costs saved relative to
  arrest, incarceration, adjudication, victims'
  costs, future earnings, tax revenue and decreased
  public assistance.
• (Spoth, Guyll, Day Washington State Institute of
  Public Policy, 2004 and Penn State Prevention
  Research Center, 2008)
• Using these figures, we calculate that the
  Extension-led program, which has served over 1800
  families, has provided an estimated benefit of
  nearly 12 million for Washington state to date.
  

18
Ingredients for sustainability in WA state

• WSU SFP leadership team
• Certification to train SFP facilitators
• Evaluation process
• Interagency planning, collaboration and funding
• Research and scholarship funding
• Additional faculty positions in counties
• Website accessibility
• Ongoing networking, support for trained SFP
  facilitators statewide

19
Washington State University Extension SFP
Progression
2008 Over 750 SFP facilitators
trained, 1,842 parents and 1,838 youth
participated in SFP Washington state,
Chelan Co position 2006 WSU SFP Website
posted Spanish manual published, DVDs
updated by ISU, Kitsap Co position 2005
Evaluations combined (WSU, SFP, CTED) joint
Spanish/English Facilitator training held 2004
First training for Spanish program 2003 State
interagency group formed 2002 WSU SFP
Evaluations conducted 1999 Facilitators
trained, SFP implemented in WA state SFP 10-14
resulted from a major revision of the original SF
Program developed by Karol Kumpfer, PhD and
colleagues (University of Utah). Program
developer for SFP 10-14 is Dr. Virginia Molgaard
(Iowa State University). Original six-year
longitudinal study commenced in Iowa 1992.

20
SFP Washington State Website Visit us!
http//sfp.wsu.edu
21
References

• Foxcroft, D.R., Lister, Sharp, D., Lowe, G.,
  Sizer, R., Ireland, D. (2002) Primary Prevention
  of Alcohol Misuse by Youth People. The Cochrane
  Database of Systematic Reviews 2006 (Issue 1).
• Hill, L.G., Maucione, K., Hood, B (2007). A
  Focused Approach to Assessing Fidelity.
  Prevention Science, 8, 25-34.
• Jones, D., Bumbarger, D.K., Greenberg, M.T.,
  Greenwood, P, and Kyler, S. (2008) The Economic
  Return on PCCDs Investment in Research-Based
  Prevention Programs A Cost-Benefit Assessment
  of Delinquency Prevention. Pennsylvania State
  University Prevention Research Center
• Spoth, R. L., Redmond, C., Trudeau L., Shin C.
  (2002). Longitudinal substance initiation
  outcomes for a universal preventive intervention
  combining family and school programs. Psychology
  of Addictive Behaviors, 16, 129-134.
• Spoth, R.L. et al. "Randomized trial of brief
  family interventions for general populations
  adolescent substance use outcomes 4 years
  following baseline." Journal of Consulting and
  Clinical Psychology, 2001, 69(4), 627-642. 1744a
  10.2 in 10.2 419.