DOCU1ENT RESUME

ED 374 171 UD 030 035

AUTHOR Downs, Susan WhitelawTITLE Neighborhpod-Based Family Support.INSTITUTION Wayne State Univ., Detroit, MI. Skillman Center for

Children.PUB DATE May 94NOTE 6L.p.PUB TYPE Guides General (050) Reports Descriptive (141)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Administration; *Community Programs; Cooperation;

Family Life; *Human Services; Neighborhoods; OutreachPrograms; Political Issues; Program Descriptions;Program Development; *Program Evaluation; SocialServices; Urban Areas.

IDENTIFIERS *Family Support

ABSTRACTThis report provides an overview of

neighborhood-based family-support programs and describes thedevelopment of the family-support movement. It includes sections onthe definition of neighborhood-based family-support programs, theprinciples and theories on which they are based, a discussion of theproblems they are designed to address, a description of their programcharacteristics, a review of their historical antecedents, and asummary of the outcomes to be expected from the programs, which isbased on available research. Part 2 of this monograph providesapplications of the approach through descriptions of four programsthat show the different ways in which the concepts behind theapproach can be put into practice. These program descriptions arefollowed by discussions of three administrative issues that requirespecial attention in relation to neighborhood-based family-supportprograms: recruitment and outreach, staffing issues, and linkages togovernment. The report concludes with a summary of key points and.their implications for programs in Detroit, as well as a discussionof issues in the evaluation of neighborhood-based family-supportprograms. (Contains 70 references.) (GLR)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the pest that can be madefrom the original document. **

*******************u***************************************************

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

0 This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organization

Wing itnor changes have been made to improveproduction Quality

Points of offeror opinions stated in this doCu-mint do not rweAssanly represent othcialOERI poethon or policy

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS EEN GRANTED BY

5 A4, (eav(417V.

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC).-

KIUMMW O

I E lI

Neighborhood-Based FamilySupport

Ws-Wayne Stale University

College of Urban, Labor and Metropolitan Affairs

2

SKI111111111111111

B

Neighborhood-Based FamilySupport

Susan White law Downs, Ph.D.Associate Professor, School of Social Work

May 1994

Vklyne Slate UnVerstly

College of Urban, Labor and Metropolitan Affairs

BEST COPY AVAILABLE3 441314, 4.

Skillman Center for Children

Ernestine Moore, MSW, JD, managing director

Co-DirectorsCharlene Firestone, MA, director,

Center for Urban Studies Urban Families ProgramEli Saltz, Ph.D., director,

Merrill-Palmer Institute

Wayne State University is an equal opportunity/affirmative action institution and is committed toa policy of non-discrimination and equal opportunity in all of its operations, employmentopportunities, educational programs and related activities. This policy embraces all personsregardless of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, sexual orientation, marital status orhandicap and expressly forbids sexual harassment and discrimination. Inquiries regarding equalopportunity and affirmative action policies or complaints may be directed to the Assistant VicePresident for Neighborhood Relations, Office of Equal Opportunity and Neighborhood Relations,3008 Faculty/Administration Building, Wayne State University, Detroit MI 48202; phone (313)577-2280.

Wayne State University People working together to provide quality =vice

For ordering information on this and other Skillman Center for Children publications, contact:

Mary MihovichSkillman Center for Children3063 Faculty/Administration Building656 W. KirbyDetroit, MI 48202Phone: (313) 577-5225 or (313) 993-4130

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD

1INTRODUCTION

PART ONE: OVERVIEW OF NEIGHBORHOOD-BASEDFAMILY SUPPORT PROGRAMS 2

A. PRINCIPLES 3Ecological Approach to Service Delivery 3Empowering Families and Neighborhoods 4Preventing Problems and Promoting Healthy Families 6

B. NEED FOR A NEW APPROACH 8Changing Conditions in American Family Life 8Federal Funding for Family Programs Reduced 8Disillusionment with Great Society Social Welfare Policies 8Human Services Are Fragmented and Overly Bureaucratic 9The Community Response 9

C. PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS 9

D. HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS 11

E. EXPECTED OUTCOMES 13

PART TWO: APPLICATION OF CONCEPTS TO PROGRAM DESIGN 15

A. FOUR PROGRAM EXAMPLES 151. The Center for Family Life 172. The Beethoven Project 213. Project Match 254. Avance 29

B. COMMON PROGRAM ELEMENTS 321. Focus on the Whole Family 322. Opportunities for Parent to Parent Interaction 323. Leadership 334. Cultural Competency and Neighborhood Linkages 335. Comprehensive Services with a Family-Centered Approach 33

C. ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES 33I. Recruitment and Outreach 342. Staffing Issues 363. Linkages to Government 39

D. ISSUES IN EVALUATING NEIGHBORHOOD-BASED FAMILYSUPPORT PROGRAMS: A PERSPECTIVE FOR PROGRAM STAFF 43

1. Problems in Evaluating 43a. Design Issues 44b. Political Considerations 44

2. Implications for Evaluation 48 .

E. CONCLUSIONS: FUTURE DIRECTIONS 50

REFERENCES 55

5 iii

FOREWORD ANDACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Skillman Center for Children,created by a Skillman Founda-tion endowment to Wayne State

University, serves as a central resourcefor information about best practices andmodel service delivery policies and pro-grams for urban children and families.

The Skillman Center for Children is ad-ministered by the College of Urban,Labor and Metropolitan Affairs and isco-directed by the Center for UrbanStudies and Merrill-Palmer Institute.

The mission of the Center is to supportthe work of existing agencies, citizen/parent groups, organizations and gov-ernmental units concerned with theneeds of urban children and youth.

To implement this mission, the SkillmanCenter for Children:

develops information and strategiesthat address contemporary issuesfacing urban children and their fami-lies;selects one critical problem or issueeach year and conducts a nationaland international search for modelsor policies that promise effective so-lutions;prepares related reports on the sta-tus of children in the metropolitanDetroit area;disseminates study findings; andutilizes the resources of the Univer-sity to ensure provision of the mostcomprehensive and highest qualityservices and products.

'The issue selected for this year is neigh-borhood-based family support pro-grams. The Center selected Dr. Susan.Whitelaw Arns, associate professorin the School of Social Work, to be the

6

Principal Investigator for this maidenproject. Her charge was to investigatethe theoretical frameworks and prac-tices of various neighborhood-basedfamily support programs across thecountry and to provide an assessmentof the potential impact of these pro-grams on improving the quality of lifefor urban children and their families.This monograph is the culmination ofher efforts. It formally begins the ef-forts of the Skillman Center for Chil-dren in providing technical assistanceand support to the communities inter-ested in implementing such strategies.

Eli Saltz, PhD, director of Merrill-PalmerInstitute and co-director of the SkillmanCenter for Children states:

All of us associated with the SkillmanCenter for Children are very pleasedand proud of our first "Best Practices"report. Susan Downs has done a re-markable job examining the variousprograms for "Neighborhood BasedFamily Services". We feel that she hasprovided the community with infor-mation that it can utilize. At the sametime, she has produced a valuablescholarly piece. This is a wonderfulbeginning for the Center.

Charlene Firestone, MA, director of theUrban Families Program and codirectorof theSkilhnan Center forChildren states:

The first report of the Skillman Centerfor Children is a wonderful resourcein the field of family support and par-ent education. It provides stimulat-ing new ideas and ways of thinkingabout these kinds of programs to prac-titioners, program developers andevaluators. With the help of facultyand community working together withthe Center, Susan Downs has given usan impressive monograph on this topic.

In addition to the efforts of Dr. Downsin preparing this monograph, severalothers have been indispensable. Wethank:

the Skillman Foundation for recog-nizing the need and believing inthe capacity of Wayne State Univer-sity to be of greater service in sup-porting the work of existing enti-ties in meeting the needs of organi-zations serving urban children andtheir families;

our Faculty Advisory Committeeand Steering Committee for theirhelp in selecting the best practiceissue and in guiding us as we pro-ceeded over the last year.

Judith Waterman arid MaryMihovich for their assistance withresearch and editing tasks.

Amy Lobsiger for the actual layoutof the monograph and the innu-merable tasks associated therewith.

Dean Sue Marx Smock, of the Col-lege of Urban, Labor and Metro -polit'.n Affairs, for the continuingsupport, encouragement and direc-tion.

With their assistance and support, wehave produced a product which will bebeneficial to both the service deliverycommunity and the academic commu-nity as we together develop and sup-port communities which value, sup-port and encourage the full potential ofall our children and families.

Ernestine Moore, MSW, JDManaging Director

vi

FACULTY COMMI nEE AND STEERING COMMITTEE

Faculty CommitteeDavid Britt, Department of SociologySanford Cohen, PediatricsSusan White law Downs, School of Social WorkSharon Elliott, College of EducationJudith Fry-McComish, Department of Obstet-

rics/GynecologyPaul Gib lin, Department of PediatricsJanet Hankin, Department of SociologyJames Knoll, Developmental Disabilities

InstituteFrederica B. Lombard, Law SchoolJeannette Poindexter, School of NursingKathryn Urberg, Department of Psychology

Steering CommitteeJudge Frances Pitts, Wayne County Juvenile

CourtPat Babcock, Kellogg FoundationClementine Barfield, SOSADCynthia Taueg, Detroit Health DepartmentDense S. Brown, Children and Youth Initia-

tive of Detroit/Wayne CountyLynn Burdell-Williams, Youth Services Wayne

CountyMary Cozart, Child and Family Services,

Department of Social ServicesDr. Margaret Demery, Macomb County Youth

ServicesNancy Diehl, Wayne County Proscu tor's OfficeGerry EllingtonJohn Elliot, Detroit Federation of TeachersKalvin Engleberg, Oakland County Probate

CourtJudge Joan Young, Oakland County Probate

CourtMaggie DeSantes, Warren-Conner Develop-

ment CoalitionThe Hon. Sharon Gire, Michigan House of

RepresentativesDana Gire, Macomb County Substance AbuseGeneva Williams, United Community ServicesDavid Hecker, Metro-Detroit AFL-CIO Labor

CouncilEric Lind emeir, Metro-Detroit AFL-CIO Labor

CouncilSusie Heintz, Governor's OfficeKay Hunt, Detroit EdisonSharon Johnson-Lewis, Detroit Public SchoolsDr. Angela Kennedy, Detroit/Wayne County

Community Health BoardDaniel Lafferty, Macomb County Health

Department

Thomas L. Liang , United WayMichael Martinez, United WayMarilyn Lundy, League of Catholic WomenDavid J. Magidson, School of Fine ArtsDr. David Snead, Detroit Public SchoolsPhyllis Johnson Meadows, Kellogg FoundationShelly Norman-Hill, Eureka FoundationDr. Barbara Papania, Wayne County RESABernard Parker, Wayne County CommissionCarole Quarterman, Child Care Coordinating

CouncilJames Rosenfeld, Oakland County Community

Mental HealthVerlie Ruffin, Michigan Federation of Private

Child and Family AgenciesDavid Sanders, Metropolitan Affairs Corpora-

tionRon Schigur, Wayne County Prosecutor's OfficeMonty Sharobeem, Judson CenterNeal Shine, Detroit Free PressCarolyn Forrest, Women's Department, UAWPatricia Skorbe, Women's Department, UAWLynn Smith, Detroit Youth Advisory Commis-

sionLeonard Smith, Skillman FoundationKari Schlachtenhaufen, Skillman FoundationLillie TaborCynthia Taueg, Wayne County Health Depart-

mentKaren Williams, Wayne County Health Depart-

mentJohn VanCamp, Southwest Detroit Community

Mental Health ServicesSara Vandervoort, Northwestern Corn m u ni ty

ServicesJudge Antonio Viviano, Macomb County

Juvenile CourtChristine Antoskiewicz, Macomb County

Juvenile CourtMarilyn Rudzinski, Michigan State University

Cooperative Extension ServiceMacombCounty

Janet Voorheis, Michigan State UniversityCooperative Extension Service

Margaret Warner, Macomb County Departmentof Social Services

Eloise WhittenAgnes Williams, Jefferson Chalmers Citizens

District Council, Inc.Michaele Worrell, Oakland County Children's

VillageJoe Young, Jr., Michigan House of Representa-

tives

vii

INTRODUCTION

This monograph, Best Practices inNeighborhood-based Family Sup-port Programs, offers a review of

the theory and practice of this emergingform of human service. It is intendedprimarily for program planners and ad-ministrators, and also for persons con-ducting applied research on or evalua-tions of these programs. The informa-tion contained in the monograph comesfrom a variety of sources, including pro-gram and research reports and scholarlyarticles on the his tory and theory of theseprograms.

The monograph is organized into twomain parts. Part One: Overview ofNeighborhood-based Family SupportPrograms, describes the development ofthe family support movement. It in-cludes sections on the definition of neigh-borhood-based family support pro-grams, the principles and theories onwhich they are based, a discussion of theproblems they are designed to address, adescription of their program character-istics, a review of their historical ante-cedents, and a summary of the outcomesto be expected from the programs, basedon available research. Part One is in-tended to introduce the reader to theprograms, and place them in their his-torical rnd theoretical contexts.

Part Two of the monograph presentsapplications of the approach in practice.Descriptions of four programs show dif-ferent ways in which the concepts be-hind the approach can be put into prac-tice. These programs were selected onthe basis of their viability, their relevanceto the Detroit area, and their diversity.The program descriptions are followedby discussions of three administrativeissues that require special attention inrelation to neighborhood-based familysupport programs: Recruitment andOutreach, Staffing Issues, and Linkagesto Government. Part Two concludeswith a summary of key points and theirimplications for programs in Detroit aswell as a discussion of issues in evaluat-ing neighborhood-based family supportprograms.

9

1

1

PART ONE:OVERVIEW OF NEIGHBORHOOD-BASED

FAMILY SUPPORT PROGRAMS

The term "neighborhood-basedfamily support program" covers awide array of services for families

which are united by a comm -7P interestin offering supports to families in thecommunities where they live. Theseservices share a philosophy that all fami-lies need help from time to time in main-taining a home environment that is com-fortable and promotes the healthy de-velopment of all family members.

Neighborhood-based family support pro-grams share two overarching goals:

to provide social support and opportuni-ties to strengthen and enhance familyfunctioning, andto build more cohesive communities thatprovide opportunities for personalgrowth, socialization, and recreation forfamily members.

Recognizing that traditional supports forfamilies, such as extended kinship net-works and close-knit communities, mayhave become attenuated or disappearedaltogether in present-day American cit-ies, these programs attempt to recreatethe benefits of these traditional forms ofcaring. The programs emphasize infor-mality, friendliness, flexible and volun-tary participation patterns, and oppor-tunities for socialization with staff andother families.

They are based on the research and prac-tice experience accrued over the pastseveral decades concerning child devel-opment, child management, health andnutrition, recreation and leisure, andmethods of positive family communica-tion and interaction. They have beenstrongly influenced by the self-help

movement and human service modelsemphasizing the empowerment of ratherthan the deficits of program participants.Thus, neighborhood-based family sup-port programs combine the personal, sup-portive qualities of extended family orneighborhood social networks withsound information on child and familylife in order to strengthen parents' abili-ties to provide the best possible homeenvironments for their children andthemselves.

"Neighborhood-based" refers to serviceprograms that are delivered to familiesin settings close to home. In addition tosupporting families, these programs alsohave the goal of restoring or maintainingthe neighborhood as a viable environ-ment for children and families. They arenot simply located in a neighborhoodbut are involved in it. Actively seekingadvice from residents on the design anddelivery of the services, they reflect andrespond to their needs. They usually hiresome staff from the local community.The programs may advocate for neigh-borhoods and help residents organize toaddress community issues. They formlinkages with other services and associa-tions in the community, such as socialservice agencies, schools, health care fa-cilities, religious institutions, and advo-cacy groups and organizations, in orderto address neighborhood-wide concernsand to help coordinate services to fami-lies. Neighborhood-based family sup-port programs try to strengthen the so-cial qualities of neighborhoods, to be re-sponsive to ethnic and cultural issues ofA:.scidentc... to be accessible to families, andto contribute to the quality of neighbor-hood life.

10

cIIImmwThus, neighborhood-based family support pro-grams combine the per-sonal, supportive quali-ties of extended family orneighborhood social net-works with sound infor-mation on child and fam-ily life In order to streng-then parents' abilities toprovide the best possiblehome environments fortheir children and them-selves.

3

1.1111.The ecological perspec-tive draws our attentionto the Influence of theenvironment on humanfunctioning and encour-ages us to look at thecontext In which peopledevelop.

4

There is no one model for neighbor-hood-based family support programs.They vary in many ways, including size,auspices, staffing, program components,and specific program objectives. Someprograms, heirs to the settlement housetradition, offer a comprehensive arrayof services to families and to individualfamily members of all ages. They mayhost developmental, supportive, andtherapeutic programs for families andindividuals of all ages, and provide staffsupport for community and neighbor-hood groups. Other programs may tar-get specific populations, such as fami-lies with young children, families with amember who has disabilities, and fami-lies at risk for abuse, neglect, or delin-quency. Programs also vary in regard tostructure, from drop-in centers to tightlystructured programs requiring faithfulattendance.

There are a wide variety of auspices andfunding sources. Commonly, neigh-borhood-based family support pro-grams combine funding from privatefoundations, community united funds,various levels of government, endow-ments, and user fees. Creative and patch-work funding is the norm and accountfor much of the instability associatedwith these programs. Some programsare free-standing, while others are affili-ated with existing agencies, schools,health centers, or public housing orga-nizations. A common element is thatthey seek the acceptance and "owner-ship" of community residents.

A. Principles

Adherence to several guiding principleshas influenced the development ofneighborhood-based family supportprograms and helps to define them, de-spite their widely disparate features:

an ecological approach to deliver-ing human services,

a helping philosophy emphasizingempowerment of families and neigh-borhood groups, anda belief that many social and familyproblems can be prevented by earlyintervention.

Ecological Approach to ServiceDelivery

The ecological perspective views humanbeings in interaction with their environ-ments. This perspective borrows fromthe biological sciences, which attempt tounderstand the behavior and adaptationsof organisms in relation to their ecologi-cal niches. The ecological perspectivedraws our attention to the influence ofthe environment on human functioningand encourages us to look at the contextin which people develop. It considersindividuals in dynamic interaction withfamily, friends, neighbors.. school andwork mates, and members of the samereligious community, and in relation tolarger cultural and economic forces. Inthis view, individuals have varying op-portunities for and risks to developmentdepending on the characteristics of theirenvironments as well as their own inher-ent qualities. For example, children justentering school will have experiencesthere depending on qualities they pos-sess and on conditions in the school(Garbarino 1986).

The ecological perspective emphasizesthe importance of the child's most imme-diate environment, the family, to her orhis development. Research is beginningto give evidence that the influence of theenvironment on the developing organ-ism is much more complicated than hadbeen previously supposed. It now seemsclear that the family is the most powerfulenvironmental influence on the develop-ing child and profoundly affects the in-teractions the child has with other envi-ronments, such as schools and peergroups (Seitz 1990). Further, the mother

11

is not the only influence; the father is alsoan important factor in the child's devel-opment both through his own interac-tions with the child and through hisrelationship with the mother. If she feelssupported, she is better able to respondto the child's needs. Likewise themother's relationship with the father isan important factor in how well he cannurture the child (Bronfenbrenner 1987).

However, it is not enough to engage theparents in a process of change; it is alsonecessary to consider the environmentin which the parents function. To a greatextent, the ability of the parent to nur-ture a child effectively depends on thesupports available in the larger commu-nity. Isolated parents have a harder timeproviding a nurturing, enriching envi-ronment for children than do parentswho have a supportive network of neigh-bors, friends and families (Gaudin et al.1990-91).

Neighborhoods and communities affectthe ability of parents to raise childrencomfortably and effectively. Neighbor-hoods in 1de dangerous by violence, en-vironmental pollution, abandoned build-ings, and inadequate municipal servicesinhibit the development of adults andchildren by reducing opportunities forexploration, family outings, social inter-action with neighbors, and by greatlyincreasing the risks of disease or perma-nent injury. Family violence, addictionto chemicals, teenage pregnancy, andschool drop-out rates are all increased asa function of negative neighborhoodcharacteristics (Garbarino & Sherman1980; Garbarino & Kostelny 1992;Figueira-McDonough 1992).

Neighborhood-based family supportprograms enrich the social environmentof parents through a variety of programs,including home visits, group supportactivities, parent education programs,drop-in programs and other eventswhich reduce isolation and strengthen

the family's social network. When theprograms are located in the neighbor-hood, they also have the opportunity toinfluence neighborhood conditions. Al-though they cannot by themselves curethe problems of deprived, inner-cityneighborhoods, they can begin to make adifference (Weiss 1987).

The following example shows how a com-munity program improved the neigh-borhood as an environment for familiesand children (Chappelle & Robinson1993). The Family Resource Partnership,located in Tucson, Arizona, was createdby the Tucson Urban League and theTucson Community Foundation, to helpresidents in one community meet theirgoals for neighborhood improvement.

The interviews found that a significantdegree of isolation and mistrust existswithin neighborhoods. People whodidn't know their neighbors expressedlonging for the "good old days" whenfamilies knew everyone on the blockand could count on their neighbors forsupport. The Partnership families havetried to recreate that feeling of commu-nity through Family Nights. Once eachmonth, on a Friday evening, familiesgather at the Family Resource Partner-ship Center to share food, play games,and make friends. Parents and chil-dren play together. New neighbor-hood families are invited to join in.The positive consequences of thesegatherings are reflected in parents'comments. "I feel that my neighbor-hood is safer. My children know wherethe other Partnership families live andknow they can go there if they are introuble or if they need a safe place."These opportunities to relax are trea-sured. As one parent put it, "This is atime when we can come be together,and laugh. I can get away from myproblems."

Empowering Families andNeighborhoods

The term "empowerment" refers to aprocess of personal development inwhich individuals become increasingly

iiImmmemmomilmamTo a great extent,theabll-Ity of the parent to nur-ture a child effectively de-pends on the supportsavailable In the largercommunity.

12 5

IENThis mother frikes thepoint that the classes donot assume that there issomethingj wrong withthe parent, but ratherassume that it Is naturaland desirable that par-ents would want to learnmore about parenting.

6

aware of their strengths and abilities,build competency and self-esteem, andtake steps to make positive changes intheir family relationships and other im-mediate environments. Neighborhood-based family support programs use theconcept of empowerment as a guidingphilosophy for the way that services willbe delivered and structured, al also asa desirable outcome for families partici-pating in the programs. Through theprocess of helping parents identify theirstrengths and develop ways to build onthose strengths, programs hope that par-ents will become more self-confident andbetter able to control the forces that in-fluence their lives.

Programs with an empowerment per-spective hold the fundamental idea thatall persons have strengths but may needa supportive environment to unlockthem. These programs differentiatethemselves from deficit models of help-ing, in which the deficiencies of clientsare first identified and then a treatment,therapy, or educational program is sup-plied to address the defined area of weak-ness in the client's functioning(Bronfenbrenner 1979). Empowermentmodels start by helping persons recog-nize the strengths and resources theyalready have. These models assume thatpersons can define their own needs andalso devise strategies for overcomingproblems. The professional gives up thepower of the "expert" role and takes ona role defined by mutual respect, as afacilitator or consultant to help peoplefind resources they need to function moreeffectively (Cochran 1993).

The empowerment perspective is exem-plified in the following statement madeby a mother in a parent education pro-gram. She stated that initially she ex-pected a strict classroom setting in whicheveryone would sit and write down whatthe teacher said (Pettinari 1994):

But it wasn't like that at all. Theydidn't make you feel like "we herebecause you're a problem family" etc.It was like you came and because youdid come you can help others to learnand maybe you can pick up somethingand it didn't make yca feel like we'rehere because you have difficulties,you're dysfunctional, whatever. Itmakes you feel like you might havepr-I)lernsand you might have obstaclesto overcome, things you don't under-stand, but if you come and you're ac-cepting to what is being discussed andknow that there are other programsthat they have to offer and you knowthat they' 2 there, and you're not stu-pid or bad for being there. Now myfriends want to come because it soundslike fun. They see the arts and craftsthat they make. It's not the kind ofprogram where they make you feelyou're here because you're special so Ilike it because of that. If you are therebecause you're special it's becauseyou're special in a good way, not you'reweird.

This mother makes the point that theclasses do not assume that there is some-thing wrong with the parent, but ratherassume that it is natural and desirablethat parents would want to learn moreabout parenting. These classes also al-low plenty of time for sharing and dis-cussion among the parents, on the as-sumption that parents already have goodideas and that other parents can learnfrom them. Through the empowermentapproach, the goal of the classes is thatparents will develop confidence and skillin managing family lifein other words,that they will become "empowered."

Empowerment is also used as a principlefor helping neighborhood residents or-ganize to make positive changes in theneighborhood and in the organizationsthat are intended to serve them. Thefollowing example shows how the par-ents associated with a preschool for dis-advantaged children have learned to as-sert their views on the policies and con-tent of the preschool and to function as asupport group for one another.

13

Escuelita Alegre preschool was es-tablished in a New Mexico neighbor-hood defined by drug dependency,racial tension, unemployment and vio-lence. The preschool is supported bystrong parent involvement, home vis-its, and parent group meetings ...

From statistical tests it is evident thatchildren at Escuelita Alegre are doingbetter than those at an academicallysimilar program without parent in-volvement. Changes in parents arevery obvious. At the beginning of theschool year, most new parents aretimid and passive. By the end of theschool year, in parent meetings staffask the parents for permission to speak.Parents have developed their ownagendas, and initiate and carry outtheir own tasks. They create and cir-culate the project newsletter, and as-sume the critical role of decision mak-ing. Clearly these parents are workingto gain access to those structures ofpower, influence and finance that areessential factors in getting anythingaccomplished in this modern world(Cochran 1993, abstracted fromChavez 1989).

Preventing Problems andPromoting Healthy Families

Neighborhood-based family supportprograms operate on the belief that it ispossible to forestall serious problemsfrom developing by timely, early inter-vention. They are oriented toward help-ing families develop skills and under-standing to prevent problems from oc-curring rather than toward treating prob-lems after they emerge. This early inter-vention approach is called "primary pre-vention." The rationale for interveningbefore problems occur is that it is cheaper,more humane, and also more effective tohelp families maintain or improve theirlevel of functioning than to wait to offerhelp after families have started to expe-rience the pain and turmoil of seriousstressors to family life. Although re-search studies are scant on the long-term effects of primary prevention pro-

grams, the limited evidence to date sug-gests that supportive interventions withparents, especially with families in whichthe mother is pregnant and those withinfants or preschoolers, can contribute topreventing such problems as child ne-glect and abuse (Wolfe 1993; Gaudin etal. 1991) and juvenile delinquency (Zigler,Tausig & Black 1992).

Family support programs are interestednot only in preventing negative outcomes,but also in enhancing or "optimalizing"the quality of life for participants(Weissbourd & Kagan 1989). Thisoptimalizing approach often combinesprogram elements that promote the de-velopment of family members of varyingages. Developmentally-enriched pre-school programs for children, recreationaland tutorial programs for school agedchildren and adolescents, and adult edu-cation and other personal developmentprograms for adults, can improve thequality of life for all family members.

Neighborhood-based family support pro-grams share a belief in the principle thatservices should be universally available.Since it is impossible to know in advancewhich families may experience problemslater on, these preventive, optimalizingservices should be available to all. Theyshould also be available to families at anypoint in the family developmental course.Young children and their families need achance to get a good start developmen-tally, and families with older childrenoften need help in maintaining positivefamily interaction while teenagers are inthe developmental process of separatingfrom home.

Family support programs are part of alarger array of preventive services to fami-lies that should be available in the com-munity. They are a first line of defense,available on a voluntary basis to all fami-lies in the area. Families in crisis or withserious problems in functioning mayneed more intensive family preservation

14

Neighborhood-basedfamily support programsshare a belief in the prin-ciple that servicesshould be universallyavailable.

AlmThey should also beavailable to families atany point In the familydevelopmental course.

7

Neighborhood-basedfamily support programscan be linked with moreintensive services forfamilies In a number ofways.

programs in order to keep the childrenfrom being placed in foster care. Thoughfamily support and intensive family pres-ervation programs share some of thesame principles and program ap-proaches, they differ in that family sup-port programs are voluntary, less inten-sive, and focused on enhancing devel-opment and preventing problems ratherthan treating families already in trouble(Family Support 1993).

Neighborhood-based family supportprograms can be linked with more inten-sive services for families in a number ofways. By making them available to allfamilies, support programs can preventserious problems from developing sofamilies will not need more intensiveservices. They can also be used in tan-

8 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

dem with more intensive services. Forexample, families receiving intensivefamily preservation services or thosewhose children are already in foster caremay benefit from the normalizing expe-riences of participating in family supportprograms with families who are havingless difficulty (Downs & Nahan 1987).Family support programs can providestep-down services for families who needfollow-on support after having success-fully completed intensive family preser-vation intervention (Family Support1993).

The following figure, produced by theChildren's Defense Fund, shows howfamily support programs fit into a com-prehensive array of community servicesto support families and protect children:

Building a Pyramid of Services

a`4 Resi-dential

treatmentcocz'

centers

-c Therapeuticcrs'i group homes

Foster familyhomes

Familieswhose childrfcannot be prtitectedOT treated at home

Intensive familypreservation services

Child protective services$11 a 1111111.Comprehensive substance

abuse treatment

Respite child care

Family-based services

Special her and education sorvices

FamiliesIn crisis

1111M111MI

Familiesneedingspecializedassistance

=MBE IMINI

Home visiting programs

Family support centers

Parent education programs

1111

Adequate Income, housing, health care, child care,education, and recreational services

Familiesneedingsome extrasupport

Source: "Family Support", CDF Reports 15 (December): 7.

15

Allfamilies

B. Need for a NewApproach

Neighborhood-based family supportprograms are both old and new: old,because they have antecedents in thehistory of social services, education, andhealth and mental health services; new,because they are influenced strongly bycurrent conditions of American life, newresearch findings on child and familydevelopment, and recent changes infunding patterns for social services tofamilies. These programs look familiarto those who have worked for manyyears in the human services, but theyhave special features which need to beidentified and understood. They havegrown up independently in communi-ties across the country, particularly dur-ing the 1980s, as local groups identifiedthe need to offer more supports to fami-lies and help restore neighborhoods. Anumber of factors have influenced thedevelopment of the family supportmovement, including changes in Ameri-can families, changes in governmentpolicy, and new knowledge on the im-portance of families to children's devel-opment.

Changing Conditions in AmericanFamily Life

The circumstances of family life arechanging and in some respects are be-coming more stressful, as families try tojuggle child rearing, jobs, and participa-tion in their community, often withoutthe support of nearby family and friendswhich helped previous generations offamilies. More mothers are working thanever before, with over half of all motherswith children under six in the work force.In spite of the increase in maternal em-ployment, the income of families withchildren has declined. Today about afourth of all children are living in pov-erty. The teen birth rate is rising, and

about two-thirds of the teenagers givingbirth are not married. Many childrenhave little access to regular, preventive,health care, and their mothers may nothave received prenatal care.

Other indicators of the plight of someAmerican families are the large numberof women of child-bearing age who arecurrent users of illegal drugs (4.5 millionwomen); the 2.7 million children who arereported to be abused or neglected; andthe 400,000 children in foster care. All ofthese conditions worsened during the1980s. The reality behind these statisticsis that many families engaged in the criti-cally important work of bringing up chil-dren are in difficulty. They are not doingas well in raising their children as theywould like to do and have the potential todo, and they could use some help (Allen,Brown & Finlay 1992)..

Federal Funding for FamilyPrograms Reduced

At the same time that the needs of fami-lies for support have increased, the fed-eral role in providing such help has de-clined until the recent passage of theFamily Support and Family PreservationAct of 1993. Unemployment insurance,food stamps, Medicaid, the SpecialSupplemental Food Program for Women,Infants, and Children, and Aid to Fami-lies with Dependent Children, the majorfederal programs to support families withchildren, are less than half as effectivenow in pulling families out of poverty asthey were in 1979. This failure at thefederal level has increased pressure onstate and local governments and chari-table organizations to offer more sup-port for families (Allen, Brown & Finlay1992).

169

The spontaneity of themovement in the early1980s accounts for thegreat variety of forms,auspices, and staffingpatterns of these pro-grams.

10

Disillusionment with GreatSociety Social Welfare Policies

The 1960s and 1970s were a time of opti-mism about the ability of government tosolve such social problems as poverty,crime, and school failure. LyndonJohnson's War on Poverty to producethe "Great Society" was based on theview that government could combat so-cial problems effectively. Unfortunately,with a few notable exceptions, such asHead Start, the social programs did notsucceed in ameliorating the problems atwhich they were addressed(Bronfenbrenner 1987; Edelman & Radin1991). In fact, changing economic andsocial conditions exacerbated these prob-lems. Heavy spending coupled with anapparent deterioration of the social fab-ric led to disillusionment with govern-ment's ability to solve social problems.Reagan's election in 1980 initiated a pe-riod of cutbacks in federal spending forsocial programs.

Human Services Are Fragmentedand Overly Bureaucratic

Problems, as they are experienced byfamilies, are often not well matched tothe services provided by social services,particularly those in the public sectoravailable to poor families. Inflexible eli-gibility requirements leave out somefamilies who desperately need the help.Application procedures can be demean-ing and intrusive and require extensivetransportation and long waits in crowdedwaiting rooms with fussy children. Fami-lies may feel they are getting the run-around as they are referred to variousservices but do not receive help withtheir problems. Gaps in services mayrender ineffective the help that is avail-able. For example, help with job findingwill not be beneficial to a young motherunless day care is also available. Fami-lies with multiple needs may find them-selves dealing with several different help-ing professionals whose work is not co-

ordinated and who may be making con-flicting demands on the family. A majorgap has been in services offered to fami-lies on a voluntary basis to help themaddress problems that they themselveshave identified. At best, large servicebureaucracies are not well matched inscale to deal responsively and sensitivelyto the needs of families, and the frustra-tion and feelings of impotency whichworking with them may evoke, can leavefamilies more vulnerable and disorga-nized than when they first started to seekhelp (Bruner 1991).

The Community Response

Given the increasing needs of familiesand the absence or inadequacy of thesocial safety net, groups; communities,and local efforts were thrown back onthemselves to respond to the needs offamilies. The result has been a real grassroots movement; family support pro-grams have emerged all over the coun-try, in cities and in rural areas, and amongmany different ethnic groups and socio-economic levels. Although they sharesome generic characteristics, they eachare shaped by the local forces that firstbrought them into being and continue tosupport them. The spontaneity of themovement in the early 1980s accounts forthe great variety of forms, auspices, andstaffing patterns of these programs.

C. ProgramCharacteristics

Neighborhood-based family support pro-grams attempt to create some connec-tions in the impoverished social environ-ments in which some families live, thushelping parents to create a positive homeenvironment for their children and them-selves. The programs are accessible, wel-coming, and informal. They offer sup-portive services on- site and help connectfamilies with other services they mayneed. The referral process is personal,

17

based on a thorough understanding ofthe family's needs and on good workingalliances with staff of other communityresources. Staff are especially attentiveto establishing the trust between fami-lies and themselves that is the necessaryprecondition of forming strong helpingrelationships.

Professional roles involve consultationwith families and groups, developmentof paraprofessional sta ff,community out-reach, and building strong linkages withfunding sources, other community agen-cies, and various levels of governmentwhich have an impact on the neighbor-hood and its residents. The approachbuilds on family strengths, on thepremise that most parents want to dowell by their children and will use op-portunities to develop parenting kills,and that parents would like to be pro-ductive, self-supporting members oftheir communities. The staff's role is tohelp families define and meet their owngoals for development.

The approach takes the family as it findsit and as it defines itself. It may includegrandparents, significant friends andother relatives as well as parents andchildren. The needs of adults for devel-opmental opportunities and social en-richment are considered as important asenhancing the development of the chil-dren, because it is only possible to makea lasting difference in children's schoolperformance and ability to become pro-ductive members of society if the familyatmosphere and developmental needs ofparents are also addressed.

A recent publication from the Children'sDefense Fund compares the approach offamily support programs with that oftraditional services, in the chart repro-duced below:

The approach builds onfamily strengths, on thepremise that most par-ents want to do well bytheir children and will useopportunities to developparenting skills, and thatparents would like to beproductive, self-support-I n g members of theircommunities.

How Family Support Differs from Traditional Services

Family Support Services Traditional Services

Help to prevent crises by meeting needs earlyOffer help meeting basic needs, special

services, and referralsRespond flexibly to family and community needsFocus on familiesBuild on family strengthsReach out to familiesOften offer drop-in servicesRespond quickly to needsOffer services in family's home or in home-

like centers

Intervene after crises occur and needs intensifyOffer only specific services or treatmentsProgram and funding source dictate servicesFocus on individualsEmphasize family deficitsHave strict eligibility requirementsHave rigid office hoursOften have waiting listsServices are office-based

Source: Allen, MaryLee, Patricia Brown and Belva Finlay. Helping Children by Strengthening Families:A Look at Family Support Programs. (Washington, D.C.: Children's Defense Fund, 1992), 6.

1811

Settlement houseswereamong the first socialservice gams to rec-ognizethattheneighbor-hood influencedthewfamilies functioned inraisingtheirchildrenanddeveloped methods ofintervention atthe neigh-borhood level.

12

In summary, neighborhood. based fam-ily support programs are intended to be"family-friendly" human service agen-cies, organizing services around fami-lies' needs rather than making familiessegment themselves and otherwise adaptto use what is available. The services areaccessible, non-authoritarian, non-bu-reaucratic, relevant to the family's needsand condition, and offer parents a chanceto build on their strengths to developmore positive family relay onships andstronger neighborhood support net-works.-

D. Historical Antecedents

Neighborhood-based family supportprograms have a number of historicalantecedents including: the settlementhousemovement of the turn of the cen-tury, Head Start, the self-help movement,and parent education programs. To-gether, these antecedent programs havecontributed to program features com-mon to neighborhood-based family sup-port programs, including an emphasison making the community more condu-cive to supporting families in child-rear-ing, parent education to help familiesbetter support their children's develop-ment, and advocacy services to link fami-lies with other needed resources andservices.

Settlement Houses

Settlement houses were founded at theturn of the century to address an emerg-ing problem, the dislocation and lack ofsupport felt by families who had re-cently immigrated to U.S. cities fromtheir rural homes in America or Europe.These families lacked the extended fam-ily and neighborly supports that hadbeen available to guide and assist infamily life in their previous communi-ties. Many recent immigrants felt alien-ated, isolated, and powerless to cope

with the difficult and confusing condi-tions of urban life. Settlement houseswere a type of social service organizationdesigned specifically to ameliorate con-ditions of these poor urban families.

A major function of the settlement houseswas to advocate for better living condi-tions for poor urban slum dwellers,through political activities at the city,state, and federal levels. Mother's pen-sions, health services for woman andchildren, child labor protection, publiceducation, juvenile courts, and other re-form initiatives benefited from the lead-ership and advocacy of settlerrient houseleaders. At a more local level, settlementhouse workers were effective in advocat-ing for better street lighting, garbage pick-up, and police protection to improve theimmediate environment of residents.Settlement houses offered a range of pro-grams to help children, adults and fami-lies adapt to their new life situation andto create a sense of community and mu-tual support among residents who feltuprooted from their previous supportnetworks.

The settlement house model has contrib-uted substantially to the development ofneighborhood-based family support pro-grams. Settlement houses were amongthe first social service programs to recog-nize that the neighborhood influencedthe way families functioned in raisingtheir children and developed methods ofintervention at the neighborhood level.Settlement houses were also a model fororganizing and delivering services to allmembers of a community, not targetingservices only to those previously identi-fied as needing special help. In this way,they pioneered in putting into action thetheoretical rationale of preventive ser-vices, that all families need external sup-ports from time to time, and that offeringthese services to families on a voluntarybasis may preclude the need for moreserious interventions later (Husock 1992).

19

Head Start

Head Start, a part of the War on Povertyof the 1960s, was founded on the ideathat advances in civil rights in openingup educational and economic opportu-nities for those who had been discrimi-nated against needed to be matched withefforts to help children develop theirpotential so that they could take advan-tage of these opportunities. In the 1960s,the focus of Head Start was on the child,providing a rich environment to makeup for the deprivations thought to existin the home. Gradually, the notion thatparent education was a necessary ad-junct to child development programsled to the establishment of the Parent-Child Development Centers of the 1970s.Other programs also emerged which tar-geted services to parents as well as theirpreschool children including the Childand Family Resource Programs andHome Start, both linked to Head Start.These programs pioneered in workingout ways to offer services to familiesrather than only to the children, andbegan to identify themselves as "familysupport" programs (Weiss & Halpern1991).

Self-Help Movement

While the federal government was atwork modifying and expanding the HeadStart model, people began to form asso-ciations focused on a particular problemor life issue, such as having a severelymentally retarded or mentally ill familymember at home or personal problemssuch as divorce. These associationstended to exclude professionals, relyinginstead on the support and advice of oneanother to help members of the groupcope with difficult life situations. Theself-help movement provided a modelof programs which could grow locally,on shoe-string budgets and without gov-ernment involvement, relying on the in-terest and capability of local citizens.

These groups had an "empowerment"orientation, looking to themselves forthe answers to their problems rather thanto professionals, and turning their atten-tion to advocating with government andother larger systems for policy changesto ameliorate their situations as well aslearning how to adapt at an individualand family level (Weissbourd 1987).

Parent Education

Through the early 1960s, parent educa-tion programs served the middle classalmost exclusively. They offered an early-model of a preventive, voluntary pro-gram for families who may not be ?xpe-riencing great difficulty in child rearingbut wish to parent more competentlyand perhaps with less anxiety. Researchon these programs in the 1970s and early1980s pointed to modest but measurableprogram effects on children's develop-ment, parental competency, and paren-tal attitude (Powell 1986). Adaptingparent education approaches to makethem effective with working class, rural,and minority families has been a majorthrust of the family support movement.

Summary

These earlier forms of service deliverysettlement houses, Head Start, the self-help movement, and parent educationprogramswere available as models forgrass roots organizations who began tocreate new services for families in the1980s. The legacies of these antecedentprograms to the neighborhood-basedfamily support movement include theknowledge that:

preventive and "optimalizing" ser-vices can be delivered at the locallevel;people who have not had the oppor-tunity to exercise power on their ownbehalf or that of their neighbors canbe mobilized as change agents in theirown families and communities; and

20

Adapting parent educa-tion approaches to makethem effective withwork-Ing class, rural, and mi-nority families has beena majorthrust of the lam-Hy support movement.

13

imminsThe development of thisarea of practice has notbeen guided or Informedto any great extent by re-sults of evaluations.

14

people can learn new ways of inter-acting with their children and sup-porting their development that canmake a difference in how parentsfeel about their children and in theirchildren's growth and achievements.

E. Expected Outcomes

Funding for program evaluation laggedbehind the development of programsduring the 1970s and 1980s, so evidenceof program effectiveness based on rigor-ous research methods is scarce (Powell1993). Another barrier to research is thecomplexity and diversity of programs,which pose challenges to traditionalevaluation methodology. This point willbe discussed in more detail in the thirdpart of this monograph. The develop-ment of this area of practice has not beenguided or informed to any great extentby results of evaluations. However, inspite of these difficulties, some empiri-cally-based information is beginning toemerge. Various well-established pro-grams have received fairly rigorousevaluations. Because there is so muchvariation in programs and in character-istics of participants, it is important toremember that findings of positive ef-fects are related to the specific param-eters of the program evaluated and maynot be generalizable to other programs.The findings presented here show whatcan be achieved, though not every pro-gram type is likely to achieve them. In-formation on the relationship of pro-gram characteristics to outcome will bepresented in the second part of the mono-graph in the section entitled "CriticalElements."

Changes In Parents

Parents who have needed and receivedsocial support in their program can beexpected to benefit in a number of ways.Parents are seen to "soften" appreciably

in their interactions with their children.They are more relaxed, seem to enjoytheir children more, and speak of themmore positively. They make more sensi-tive responses to their children. Theseresults have been observed in differenttypes of families, including those at riskfor child maltreatment and low-incomefamilies (Tracy & Whitaker 1987; Powell1986; Olds et al. 1986). Parents are alsoseen to improve their parenting skills,knowledge of child development, andunderstanding of the parental role (Cooke1992).

Social support programs can benefit theparents themselves by alleviating stressand increasing their self-esteem. Socialsupport interventions can expand par-ticipants' social networks, increase theirsocial skills and confidence in dealingwith social situations, and broaden theirexperiences (Talleen, Herzog & Kilbane1989).

Changes in Children

Studies of parent education and familysupport programs have found effects onchildren. IQ has been found to increaseapparently as a result of parent partici-pation (Powell 1987). Infants may be-come more responsive, and older chil-dren may become better prepared to startschool (Powell 1987; Lamer, Halpern &Harkavy 1992). School aged childrenmay have fewer problems with aggres-sion, impulsivity, and acting out (Seitz1990).

Programs for Specific Populations

A quasi-experimental design studied theeffects of the Effective Black ParentingCurriculum on two cohorts of inner-cityAfrican-American families with primarygrade children. The participants weremainly young, single mothers, most ofwhom were receiving public assistance.The study found improvements in pa-

21

rental rejection of the child, in the qualityof family relationships, and in child be-havior outcomes. These gains were main-tained in a one year follow-up (Meyerset al. 1992).

A recent outcome evaluation completedon Avance, a parent education and fam-ily support program for Mexican-Ameri-can families with preschool aged chil-dren, found that the mothers showedreductions in stress, increases in socialskills, and improved parenting skills.However, gains in the children's devel-opment, in comparison to those who didnot receive the program, were not found,suggesting that additional attentionneeded to be given to the childrenthrough direct program intervention(Johnson & Walker 1991).

Teenaged parents are of concern becausetheir children are at increased risk forvarious developmental difficulties,school failure, juvenile delinquency, andother maladaptive social behavior(Furstenberg, Brooks-Gunn & Chase-Lanscale 1989). Programs for teenagedmothers which include a parent educa-tion component have found that the in-tervention can improve the developmentof infants and the mothers' knowledgeof parenting and child development(Clewell, Brooks-Gunn & Benasich 1989).

In summary, there is enough evidencefrom research to conclude that familysupport programs can have a positiveimpact on parents, children, and on thequality of family life. Guidance fromresearch on specific program design is-sues will be presented later in the mono-graph.

22

In summary, there isenough evidence fromresearch to concludethat family support pro-grams can have a posi-tive impact on parents,children, and on the qual-ity of family life.

15

PART Two:APPLICATIONS OF CONCEPTS TO

PROGRAM DESIGN

The field of family support hasgrown enormously in a very shorttime. There has been substantial

growth in the number of programs over-all, in the size and strength of individualprograms, and in the nurnider that arenow linked to stable sources of fundingat various levels of government. Withtheir diversity and dynamic growth, theydefy easy categorization (Weissbourd,Carter & Pooley 1992). From the largenumber of excellent programs and pro-gram ideas, several have been selectedas models of "best practices." They arepresented in the following section. Theprogram examples are followed by adiscussion of Administrative Issues,which draws on the experiences of alarge number of programs. Taken to-gether, the material in Part Two, "Appli-cation of Concepts to Program Design,"is intended to familiarize the reader withcurrent developments in the field and toidentify innovative and successful pro-gram ideas.

A. Four ProgramExamples

Four different neighborhood-based fam-ily support programs are described be-low. They are presented here as an aid toprogram planners and administratorswho are interested in what has beendone in this field. Specifically, the ex-amples will:

show neighborhood-based familysupport programs "in action." Theygive a holistic view of the neighbor-hoods, families, services, staff, andevaluation efforts. Since each pro-gram has been molded by its neigh-

borhood environment, it is impor-tant to show each program in its con-text.offer innovative and successful pro-gram ideas, which may be useful toothers planning such programs.show the diversity of programs whichattempt to support families in a neigh-borhood setting.provide a basis for identifying com-mon program features. These will bediscussed after the four programshave been described.

Sources of Information

The number of neighborhood-based fam-ily support programs is increasing rap-idly. As new programs are being estab-lished and old ones are evolving in lightof changing conditions or the lessons ofexperience, evaluations have had diffi-culty keeping up with new developments(Weissbourd Sr. Kagan 1989). Few out-come evaluations have been attempted,and some that have been limited by inad-equate methodologies or confounded byprograms that defied standard evalua-tion designs (Unger & Nelson 1990). Withthese dynamic conditions, the best avail-able sources of information are programreports, case studies, process evaluations,and other data which provide the consid-ered opinions of skilled and knowledge-able program observers. Therefore, theprogram analyses which follow are basedon these data sources, using outcomeevaluation data where it is available.

The criteria for selecting the exampleswere that the program:

serve neighborhoods with popula-tions similar to those found in metro-politan Detroit;

23

With these dynamic con-ditions, the best avail-able sources of Informa-tion are program reports,case studies, processevaluations, and otherdata which provide theconsidered opinions ofskilled and knowledge-able program observers.

17

A universal conclusionof observers of theseprograms Is that theymust adapt and be re-sponsive to the condi-tions of specific commu-nities and populations,making It all the moreImportant to Identify pro-grams that appearedpromising in communi-ties resembling low-In-come areas in metropoli-tan Detroit.

18

be involved with the local commu-nity;have an established track record; andhave an innovative program.

Selection Criteria

The main criterion for selecting programmodels was that they serve urban, low-income communities with diverse eth-nic and cultural populations, as the mis-sion of the Skillman Center for Childrenfocuses on urban children and their fami-lies and as urban areas in metropolitanDetroit are largely poor with significantAfrican American, Mexican American,and other minority ethnic groups. Auniversal conclusion of observers of theseprograms is that they must adapt and beresponsive to the conditions of specificcommunities and populations, makingit all the more important to identify pro-grams that appeared promising in com-munities resembling low-income areasin metropolitan Detroit. Two of the pro-grams selected, the Beethoven Projectand Project Match,. serve low-income,urban neighborhoods which have a ma-jority population of African Americans.One program, Avance, serves primarilyMexican-Americans in an urban envi-ronment. The fourth program, The Cen-ter for Family Life, is part of a culturallyand ethnically diverse community, in-cluding Puerto Rican, Asian, white, andAfrican-American groups.

It was also important to select programsthat were neighborhood based. Thismeans that they were not simply locatedin a neighborhood, but that they wereinvolved in the neighborhood in variousways, receiving information and guid-ance from the community as well asproviding services to it, and maintain-ing communication with kcal agenciesand neighborhood groups. This require-ment tended to eliminate programswhich were mainly parent educationmodels, using a standard format though

delivering the service in neighborhoodlocations.

Each of the programs has an establishedtrack record. One, Avance, has receiveda comprehensive outcome evaluation.Two others, the Center for Family Lifeand the Beethoven Project, have receivedfunding from the Annie E. Casey Foun-dation to undertake major evaluations.The fourth, Project Match, is affiliatedwith a major university and is receivingongoing evaluation.

A final criterion was that the programsbe innovative and different from oneanother, in order to offer a range of ex-amples and to show the diversity of neigh-borhood-based programs. The programsselected as offering useful examples ofhow neighborhood-based family supportprograms can work are:

The Center For Family Life in Sun-set Park, Brooklyn, New York - acomprehensive program in a work-ing class community;The Beethoven Project, Robert Tay-lor Homes, Chicago, Illinois - amulti-service program for familieswith young children in a challeng-ing environment;Project Match, Chicago, Illinois - aproject emphasizing adult develop-ment in a community framework;andAvance, San Antonio, Texas - ahighly structured program for youngfamilies in several Mexican-Ameri-can communities.

Each of these programs has been in exist-ence long enough to become esta hlishedin their neighborhood and to adapt theoriginal program plan as needed. Theyare well regarded by staff, participants,and the communities in which they re-side. All have learned lessons that will bevaluable to other programs which wishto offer comprehensive, family-focused,supportive programs in low-income, ur-

24

ban communities. They have -,_ceivednational attention as exemplars of neigh-borhood-based family support programsin low-income, urban neighborhoodswith high levels of minority and immi-grant populations.

Format of Project Descriptions

The programs are described using thefollowing outline:

Neighborhoods and Families. Abrief description of the community,neighborhood or housing project inwhich the program is located.Goals and Assumptions. The un-derlying philosophy on which theprogram is based and the goals of theprogram.Staff. Characteristics of staff, roles,training and staff development, is-sues with local residents as staff.Program Components. A brief de-scription of the services offered bythe program.Community Relationships. Howthe program relates to and interactswith the community.Eyaluation. A summary of evalua-tions of the program, including ret-rospective analyses, process and out-come evaluations. Also included inthis section are any plans to makechanges in program services.Comment. A brief assessment ofwhat seems to make the programwork, and issues in adapting the pro-gram to other settings.

Following the four program descriptions,a concluding section will identify anddiscuss the major implications for otherprograms of the experiences of thesefour exemplary programs.

1. The Center for Family Life in Sun-set Part, Brooklyn, New York

The Center for Family Life, establishedin 1978, offers a comprehensive array ofservices to families in Sunset Park, a low-

income, working class neighborhood inBrooklyn. The Center is open seven daysa week, from 8 a.m. to 11 p.m., and isdirected by two dedicated members ofthe order of the Sisters of the Good Shep-herd, who live on the premises. It is well-known in New York and nationally as amodel of a comprehensive program forfamilies with strong linkages to the localcommunity (Sheffer 1992). The Center'sbudget for the 1992-93 fiscal yew, was$1.8 million with funding from variousfederal and local government sources. Inaddition, the Center receives free admin-istrative support from its parent agency,St. Christopher-Ottilie. The Center's pro-gram shows how a comprehensive pro-gram can work in a low-income, "at risk"community.

Neighborhood and Families

Sunset Park has been traditionally a work-ing class neighborhood housing immi-grants, originally from Ireland and south-ern Europe, and more recently fromPuerto Rico Palestine, Asia, and Southand Central America. In 1991, the popu-lation of Sunset Park was about 100,000,a four percent increase from 1980.

When the program started in 1978, theneighborhood was undergoing a processof "disinvestment," losing population,and facing increases in abandoned build-ings, gang activity, street crime, a'id ille-gal drug use. The predominant popula-tion group, recent immigrants fromPuerto Rico, tended to be workers in lowskill jobs which were disappearing fromthe New York City economy. About 40%of these immigrants were unemployed.About a quarter of the residents were onpublic assistance, and nearly 30% fellbelow the poverty level. Over a quarterof the families were headed by a singlemother.

However, the neighborhood also hadigns of vitality. A large hospital had

recently relocated to the area, offering

25

The programs are de-scribed using thefollow-ing outline:

Neighborhoods andFamiliesGoalsand Assump-tionsStaffProgram Compo-nentsCommunity Rela-tionshipsEvaluationComment

19

The organizing prin-ciples of the Center arethat the individual mustbe understood in an en-vironmental context,that the unit for serviceIs the family, and thatthe Center must interactand form linkages withthe whole community.

20

employment and also a health programfor low-income families. The hospitalwas instrumental in establishing the Sun-set Park Redevelopment Committee,which has tried to stem abandonment ofhousing and neighborhood decay. Vari-ous neighborhood and Hispanic orgard-zations and local churches were evidenceof the interest in community of resi-dents. The Sisters who started the Cen-ter saw the area as "a threatened com-munity, and one with major needs, butalso as a neighborhood with a history ofworking-class stability" (Sheffer 1992).

Goals And Assumptions

The organizing principles of the Centerare that the individual must be under-stood in an environmental context, thatthe unit for service is the family, and thatthe Center must interact and form link-ages with the whole community. Theatmosphere is very much in the settle-ment house tradition, as the Center is afulcrum for community activity of allkinds, and provides a common groundfor staff and participants of various back:-grounds and economic levels to meet.

With these principles, the Center hastaken the unusual stand not to acceptfunding directed at specific populations.For example, they do not run programsin "substance abuse prevention" becausethey believe that all their programs workto reduce substance abuse along withother negative outcomes, and they donot wish to channel their programs tospecific population groups. The Centeris also somewhat unusual among familyresource programs in the emphasis itgives to counseling and psychotherapyas important services for families. Manyprograms serving low-income familiesfocus mainly or exclusively on concreteassistance for day-to-day problems, butthe Center takes the view that both coun-seling and concrete services need to bereadily available and places equal em-

phasis on both. The Center is also com-mitted to a service delivery system at theneighborhood level, believing that ser-vice organizations geared to serve a com-munity are more effective and efficientthan large bureaucracies that operate city-wide (McMahon, Mary Geraldine & MaryPaul 1993).

Staff

The co-directors of the Center are profes-sional social workers with extensive clini-cal and program experience. They aremembers of the Order of The Sisters ofthe Good Shepherd and live on site.Other staff include 24 full-time and onehalf-time social workers (MSWs), andseven full-time social workers and coun-selors with bachelor's degrees and manyyears of experience. Of these, 12 arebilingual in English and Spanish, andone is bilingual in English and Chinese.A bilingual (English-Spanish) psychia-trist and psychologist are consultants.The full-time staff of 52 includes 28 white,21 Hispanic, two black and one Asianpersons. The total part-time staff of 47includes 38 persons of Hispanic origin.The Center also has a large number ofvolunteers, including many parents, andyouth volunteers from the community.Other volunteers come from area col-leges and the City's volunteer corps.

Services

The Center offers wide array of servicesto families and individual family mem-bers. These include counseling, and edu-cational programs for families, housingand emergency assistance, referrals forday care, a large employment program,well-developed and stable after schooland summer programs for children andyouth, and a small, neighborhood-basedfoster care program (McMahon, MaryGeraldine & Mary Paul 1993).

26

The counseling and education programis well-developed, consisting of indi-vidual and group programs for parents,infants and toddlers, and adolescents.Parent education is offered in single ses-sion and series formats. A number ofdevelopmental programs are availablefor infants and preschool age children,including parent-child play groupswhere parents can practice interactionskills and learn new ways of promotingtheir children's development.

Counseling occurs at the Center or in thefamily's home, on evenings and week-ends as well as weekdays. Referralscome from the schools, the public childwelfare agency, and word-of-mouth.Sister Mary Paul does most of the intakesherself, and then assigns the case to asocial worker who handles interpersonalissues as well as concrete services thefamily may need, such as advocacy in adispute with the landlord.

Families seek help for a number of rea-sons, including abuse and neglect, men-tal health problems, and drug abuse.The range of problems which bring fami-lies to the Center is suggested by thefollowing sampling of replies to a ques-tion about their reasons for coming(Sheffer 1992):

Because when my husband went topick me up from work, two of mychildren went to the store to buy some-thing and stole something too. Theowner called the police. For this rea-son I went to the center.

For help with how to raise my child ina house with a new stepfather.

I didn't know what to do. I was des-perate. I was reported the CWA (theChild Welfare Administration) andwas ordered by it to go to counseling.

I had problems disciplining my ado-lescent son.

Concrete services include help with hous-ing, emergen :y food and clothing, advo-cacy on behalf of residents with land-lords, the immigration service, welfare,and other bureaucracies, and referrals today care providers. A key feature of thisaspect of the Center's work is its highlypersonal and individualized nature. Forexample, Sister Mary Paul's' extensiveknowledge of city bureaucracies makesher an effective advocate for residentsneeding flexibility in how policies areadministered. Another example of indi-vidualized assistance tailored to specificfamily situations is the Center's $20,000revolving fund which is available to com-munity residents needing security de-posits, furniture, or rent supplements.The loa as are made to families whom theCenter staff knows will repay them, sothe fund is not depleted.

The Center has a contract with the De-partment of Employment to provideemployment counseling. This programmaintains an extensive network withprospective employers, primarily inmanufacturing, wholesale distribution,and social service and child care agen-cies. During the last two years, the Cen-ter has made over 400 placements, abouthalf of which are in the Sunset Park area;almost all are above the minimum wage.The participants are mainly Hispanic,with limited reading skills. About halfhave a high-school diploma. The focusof the program is not on training forspecific job skills, but on helping partici-pants resolve personal and family- issuesthat interfere with working and to helpthem make the transition to the world ofwork. Participants receive considerableindividualized attention and extensivefollow-up.

The Center runs extensive after-schooland teen recreation programs at threeelementary schools and one junior highschool. This program has the goals ofproviding a safe place for children to be

27

immlammumFamilies seek help for anumber of reasons, in-cluding abuse and ne-glect, mental health prob-lems, and drug abuse.

21

The Center has a small,innovative foster careprogram, in which chil-dren needing out ofhome care are placedwith foster families In theneighborhood.

22

after school while their parents work,and of offering supplementary, devel-opmental opportunities for children out-side their normal school experiences.Program elements include efforts to in-volve parents in helping their childrendo homework, group activities, art, mu-sic and theater activities, newsletters,and youth leadership programs. Thesuccess of these programs has dependedon staff forming close working allianceswith the principals of the school and theschool bureaucracy, a task which requiresongoing effort. Close alliances of staffwith school social workers and guid-ance personnel has helped the programprovide individualized assistance to chil-dren with special needs.

With funding from the Department ofYouth Services and private money, theCenter has a number of programs foryouth, including day camps, teen camps,and Camp Liberty, provides sum-mer activities to disadvantaged youth toprepare them for entry into a university.It has city funding to run a summeryouth employment program, throughwhich older youth work as counselors inthe Center's summer programs for chil-dren. Over 400 youth were served in thisprogram during the last year.

The Center has a small, innovative fostercare program, in which children need-ing out of home care are placed withfoster families in the neighborhood. Thisis a major departure from standard childwelfare practice, in which the parentshave little or no contact with the fosterfamily and may not even know wherethe family lives. The rationale for theCenter's program is that children shouldnot suffer the disruption and grief whichcomes from total separation from theirfamilies, school, and friends, and thatfamilies will be more quickly reunited ifthe parents are in close contact with thechild. Therefore, in the Center's pro-gram, parents and foster parents arehelped to form a working relationship in

,17'777-7",-:.

which the parent retains some parentalfunctions, such as walking the child toschool, while working with Center coun-seling staff to address problems at home.

Community Linkages

The Center benefits from having a large,stable, parent agency, St. Christopher-Ottilie, which provides some financialsupport and does critical administrativefunctions, such as disbursements, bill-ing, purchasing, auditing, and so forth.The Center does not have its own boardof directors, but works with an advisoryboard, made up of members of the com-munity, heads of local social service agen-cies, and other organizations which havecollaborative relationships with the Cen-ter. The Center helped organize andparticipates in a Community HumanServices Cabinet, which holds monthlymeetings of neighborhood service pro-viders. The meetings help to identifycommunity problems and to strengthenlinkages for referrals and other network-ing activities.

The directors of the Center are carefulabout expansion. They think it is pos-sible for the Center to get too large forthem to keep close control over the con-tent and funding of programs. They donot take up every opportunity for growth.For example, they have refused to be-come direct providers of day care or ofspecialized mental health services, and,in contrast to some other social agencies,do not restore and maintain housing. Inthese areas, they prefer to work withproviders to develop resources for fami-lies. On the other hand, the center hasexpanded quickly and widely in the areaof arts and recreation, capitalizing onresources to enrich their programs.

Evaluation

The program has received no formal ou t-come evaluation, though an extensiveevaluation, funded by the Annie E. Casey

28

Foundation, is now in progress. Withdiffuse goals, voluntary attendance pat-terns, and constantly evolving programs,the program has not provided condi-tions conducive to an experimental orquasi-experimental evaluation design.

Sheffer (1992) recently completed a studyon how the community perceives TheCenter for Family Life. She points outthat the Center has been a unifying forcein a community somewhat factionalizedby ethnic and organizational rivalries.The Center's programs have helped toassimilate new immigrant groups, suchas the Asians, into the existing socialstructure. Residents whom Sheffer in-terviewed were unanimous in praisingthe Center; they pointed out particularlythe way that the program filled gaps byserving entire families, and the exten-sive after school and youth programs.Sister Mary Paul and Sister Geraldineare widely respected for their commit-ment to the community, political skills,administrative ability, and general ef-fectiveness.

Administrators of other agencies andpublic bureaucracies also were unani-mous in endorsing the Center. Theynoted its easy accessibility combined witha high level of professionalism in follow-ing through on referrals. The commis-sioner of the city's Human ResourcesAdministration has written: "The Cen-ter for Family Life personifies the goalsof Mayor Dinkins' neighborhood-basedservices strategy, and if I could have onewish granted would be to clone yourcenter in neighborhoods throughout thecity" (65).

Sister Mary Paul and Sister Geraldinebelieve that "long-range, developmen-tal preventive services in a community,combined with many different kinds ofinformal practical assistance, are the bestprescription for the long-term health ofthe community. Their resistance to 'cat-egorical' funding and specialized pro-

grams is explained also by their skepti-cism about the effectiveness of such ef-forts in the absence of a community pro-cess" (Sheffer 1992, 66).

Comment

Can the program be replicated? Replica-tion has not yet been attempted. It seemslikely that two prerequisites to success-ful replication would be:

the quality of the leadership, andthe characteristics of the neighbor-hood.

The co-directors have a rare combina-tion of talents and life dedication thatneeds to be considered in any replica-tion effort. Regarding the neighborhood,it should be noted that Sunset Park was acongested, transient area with few re-sources, but where the people valuedcommunity life and had a sense of neigh-borliness. Some minimum level of neigh-borhood cohesiveness may be a neces-sary precondition for such a program toflouri3h. Although it seems unlikely thatthe model could be replicated exactly,the Center's experiences give guidanceon establishing or strengthening com-prehensive family service programs thatare highly integrated into the fabric ofneighborhood life.

2. The Beethoven Project

The Center for Successful Child Devel-opment began in 1986, to demonstratethat intensive, high-quality family andhealth supports offered to families livingin a very deprived community setting,could help them better prepare theiryoung children to enter grade schoolready to learn and at a developmentallyappropriate level. Founded by the Ounceof Prevention Fund, in a joint effort withthe Chicago Urban League, the project isfunded by the Ounce of Prevention andby the U.S. Department of Health andHuman Services. It is located in theRobert Taylor Homes, a public housing

29

mowSister Mary Paul and Sis-ter Geraldine believethat "long-range, devel-opmental preventiveservices in a commu-nity, combined withmany different kinds ofInformal practical assis-tance, are the best pre-scription for the long-term health of the com-munity. Their resistanceto 'categorical' fundingand specialized pro-grams Is explained alsoby their skepticismabout the effectivenessof such efforts in the ab-sence of a communityprocess" (Sheffer 1992,66).

23

The project planners ex-pected to face many dif-ficulties in helping framl-lies create and maintaina home environmentconducive to children'sdevelopment, but thechallenges turned out tobe much greater eventhan expected.

24

project in Chicago notorious for crime,drug cbuse, and social decay. The origi-nal plan was that the project, after fiveyears, would have successfully helpedfamilies prepare a cohort of children toenter kindergarten at the local publicschool. The school, the Beethoven PublicSchool, gave the program its nickname,the Beethoven Project. The project plan-ners expected to face many difficulties inhelping families create and maintain ahome environment conducive tochildren's development, but the chal-lenges turned out to be much greatereven than expected. The original goal ofhaving a cohort of children ready forkindergarten after receiving several yearsof family support and child develop-ment services has had. to be modified.The experiences of this project shed lighton the obstacles and also the successfulstrategies in establishing a neighbor-hood-based family support program ina hostile environment (Beethoven's Fifth1993).

Neighborhood and Families

The Robert Taylor Homes, located sev-eral miles south of Chicago's city center,extend about two miles along a majorexpressway. The twenty-eight high risebuildings were completed in 1962, andtoday house about 13,000 people, almostall of them African-American. Built origi-nally to provide decent housing to low-income families, the buildings are nowdecaying rapidly. Crime and violenceare rampant. Occupancy fluctuates, aspeople move frequently both within theproject and to and from other areas. Thelocal police district had the highest over-all crime rate in Chicago in 1990, rankinghighest for murder, criminal sexual as-sault, robbery, and aggravated assault.

Family income averages less than $5,000.Almost all of the families receive publicassistance; 75 percent of the families arefemale-headed. The children are oftenbehind in their development. Many start

first grade without immunizations andwith untreated health problems. Thedrop-out rate in the nearby high school isabout 60 percent.

In spite of these substantial problems,families here, as elsewhere, wish to carefor their children and help them succeed.Fathers as well as mothers are concernedabout their children and involved in theirday to day care.

The Beethoven. Project, after two yearsnegotiating for space, occupies the entiresecond floor of one of the six buildingsincluded in the project. Locating theprogram in the housing project has cre-ated difficulty, in that enormous efforthad to be expended early on to secure thepremises and provide support to stafftrying to work in a very hazardous envi-ronment. However, its location is conve-nient for parents and their young chil-dren, and makes visible the program'sintent to be part of the community and itscommitment to stay when so many otherprograms have left.

Goals and Assumptions

The goals of the program are to providedevelopmental services to children fromthe earliest possible moment so that theywill be prepared to enter preschool andkindergarten; to improve family interac-tions through helping parents learn abouttheir children and ways to promote theirdevelopment, and by helping parentsdevelop as parents and as adults; and topromote health in women and childrenby providing health care and health edu-cation (Beethoven's Fifth, 2).

Staff

An important element in the original planwas to hire community residents to staffthe program, in order to build expertiseand leadership within the projects and toprovide employment to residents. Inhiring staff, the program looked for

30

people with warmth, concern for othersin the community, and an ability to relayinformation and provide support to fami-lies. Lay staff have helped the programgain trust and credibility in the commu-nity, and have provided valuable in-sights and information to the programabout the community. Also, they be-come aware of dangerous situations andalert other staff of them. About half thestaff are community residents; manybegan as program participants.

The hiring of lay staff to do outreach andjobs also Presented challenges. For manycommunity residents, the program wastheir first work experience. They neededintensive and continuous training in suchareas as child development, social ser-vice delivery, record-keeping, and basicsocialization to the world of work. Theyhave also needed support in separatingtheir work lives from their personal lives,a task made more complicated becausethey are relatives and neighbors of thep