Family Support

Evidence Rating for this Practice

Insufficient Research

In the study reviewed, the methodology used for assessing effects of the practice did not meet relevant criteria for rigor. As a result, the study was designated as Insufficient Evidence and the practice as a whole is designated as Insufficient Research.

Description of Practice

Family support involves systematic efforts to provide services and opportunities to the families of mentees. Family support often may be directed toward not the mentee’s parent(s)/caregiver(s). However, it also may be oriented toward supporting other family members (e.g., siblings, extended kin) as well as the mentee’s family as a whole. Potential forms of family support include direct service or training (e.g., parenting classes) as well as brokering of community resources (e.g., referral systems). Such support may be provided by professional staff, by mentors, or a combination of the two. The timing, intensity, and duration of family support activities can vary and may be tailored to the assessed needs and preferences of individual families. Family support is distinguished from other family involvement practices that are geared primarily toward strengthening the mentor-mentee relationship (e.g., parent orientation to the mentoring program, match support, partnering with parents). It is also distinct from approaches that are focused on mentoring entire families rather than individual youth within families.

Goals

The primary goal of the practice is to enhance mentee outcomes by providing support to the mentee’s family; strengthening and enhancing outcomes within the mentee’s family as a whole may also be a goal.

Target Population/Eligibility of Target Sites

This practice is potentially applicable to all forms of mentoring so long as the youth being served retain relationships with their families.

Theory and Evidence-Informed Principles

Family support is not guided by a particular theoretical perspective. However, the focus of this practice is consistent with emphasis accorded to family influences within ecological models of development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). These perspectives call attention to the influence that familial relationships and circumstances may have on the youth’s experiences in his or her broader social network (which would include a young person’s relationship with a mentor) as well as the significance that such experiences can end up having for developmental outcomes (Bronfenbrenner, 1986). The practice of seeking to support or strengthen the mentee’s family is also consistent with extensive research that has established the importance and influence of parents and families on youth development (Youngblade et al., 2007).

Corresponding Elements of Effective Practice

This practice is most relevant to the area of Monitoring and Support within the Elements of Effective Practice.

Key Personnel

The successful implementation of this practice is likely to require staff to have experience with family engagement, strategies for effective family-centered programming, and knowledge of referral systems and services for families in the community. Additionally, staff may need to be culturally competent to engage families of various cultural and linguistic backgrounds.

Additional Information

None.

Evaluation Methodology

Barron-McKeagney et al (2002) examined the practice of family support as part of an evaluation of the Family Mentoring Program (FMP). The FMP was a community-based mentoring program that served 8 to 12 year old, predominately Latino children and their parents who were living in a community considered high risk and underserved. As part of the program, which lasted 18 months, parents were provided with educational programs on gang prevention, parenting skills, health, AIDS prevention, and community resources. Parents were also invited to all social/recreational activities organized for mentor-mentee pairs.

Forty-nine children were recruited for the mentoring program. The study focused on the mothers of these children largely because their fathers were not as readily available. Thirty-four mothers completed both pre and post-intervention surveys and thus comprised the study sample. Seventy-four percent of the mothers were Latino, only 25 percent had finished high school, 55 percent worked outside the home, 14 percent received aid to dependent children, and 61 percent were married, while 22 percent were divorced and 14 percent were single.

The Parent-Child Relationship Inventory (PCRI) was completed by mothers. The PCRI measures each of the following different aspects of the parent-child relationship: parental support, satisfaction with parenting, involvement with child, communication, limit setting, autonomy, and role orientation. Additionally, the Family Hardiness Index (FHI) was used to measure family strength, also as reported by mothers. These measures were completed both pre-intervention and at the end of the 18 month intervention period (i.e., post-intervention).

Staff logs of parent participation in the educational program offerings were used to determine the number of hours mothers spent in these activities. Stepwise linear regression analyses were conducted to predict post-intervention scores on each subscale of the PCRI as well as the total score on the FHI. Candidate measures for entry as predictors in each regression included the mother’s level of participation in the parent education offerings, the child’s combined hours of participation in individual mentoring and group education programs, and the mother’s pre-intervention rating of the child’s level problematic behavior as assessed by the Social Skills Rating Scale. Probability required for predictors to earn entry was p < .05; the criterion for removal was p > .10.

Evaluation Outcomes

Support
Barron-McKeagney et al (2002) found that mother’s hours in parent education programs was a significant predictor of the mothers’ post-intervention scores on the Support subscale of the PCRI. Greater participation in the parent education program predicted higher reported levels of support.

Satisfaction
Barron-McKeagney et al. (2002) found that mother’s hours in parent education programs was not significantly associated with mothers’ post-intervention scores for the Satisfaction subscale of the PCRI.

Involvement
Barron-McKeagney et al. (2002) found that mother’s hours in parent education program was not significantly associated with changes in mothers’ scores for the Involvement subscale of the PCRI.

Communication
Barron-McKeagney et al. (2002) found that mother’s hours in parent education program was significantly associated with changes in mothers’ scores for the Communication subscale of the PCRI. Greater participation in the parent education program predicted higher score on Communication.

Limit Setting
Barron-McKeagney et al. (2002) found that mother’s hours in parent education program was not significantly associated with changes in mothers’ scores for the Limit Setting subscale of the PCRI.

Autonomy
Barron-McKeagney et al. (2002) found that mother’s hours in parent education program was not significantly associated with changes in mothers’ scores for the Autonomy subscale of the PCRI.

Role Orientation
Barron-McKeagney et al. (2002) found that mother’s hours in parent education program was not significantly associated with changes in mothers’ scores for the Role Orientation subscale of the PCRI.

Family Hardiness Index (FHI)
Barron-McKeagney et al. (2002) also found that mother’s hours in parent education program was not significantly associated with changes in mothers’ scores for family strength (as measured by the FHI).

Additional Findings
Scores for mothers of children in the Family Mentoring Program (FMP) on the PCRI and FHI were also compared with those for parents in the standardized samples used in the development of the PCRI and FHI measures. At pre-test, FMP mothers scored significantly lower than parents in the standardized samples on six of the seven PCRI subscales (support, satisfaction, involvement, communication, limit setting, and autonomy) and on the FHI. At posttest, the FMP mothers’ scores were significantly lower than those of the standardized samples for only four of the seven PCRI subscales (satisfaction, involvement, communication, and autonomy).

External Validity Evidence

Variations in the Practice
There was only one study reviewed for this practice and it considered only one form of potential family support (i.e., parent education). Information is thus lacking on either the overall or relative effective of other forms of support for families (e.g., community referral systems).

Youth
Participating youth, in the single available study, were from a multiethnic community with high crime rates and youth violence. Most program participants were Latino, almost half were female, and their ages ranged between 8 and 12 years. The study did not test for possible differences in the consequences of family support in relation to youth characteristics.

Mentors
In the single available study, mentors were recruited primarily from churches in the community and from local colleges and universities. Two-thirds of the mentors were female, 50 percent were Caucasian, 42 percent were Hispanic, and 8 percent were African American. Approximately one-fourth were college students and two-thirds worked in clerical or higher level positions. Twelve of the mentors spoke both English and Spanish. The study did not test for possible differences in the consequences of family support in relation to mentor characteristics.

Program Settings/Structures
The single available study was conducted within a program that used a 1-to-1 mentoring format delivered in a community setting. In addition to the one-on-one interactions, mentor-mentee pairs participated in group social activities and events that were arranged by the program.

Outcomes
The single available study focused on parental reports regarding the parent-child relationship as well as overall family hardiness. This study does not report outcomes related to the mentoring relationships of youth, the relationships of parents with their children’s mentors, or youth outcomes (such as grades).

Resources Available to Support Implementation

Resources are currently not available.

Evidence Base

Barron-McKeagney, T., Woody, J. D., & D’Souza H. J. (2002). Mentoring at-risk Latino children and their parents: Analysis of the parent-child relationship and family strength. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 83, 285-292. doi: 10.1023/A:1007698728775

Additional References

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723-742. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.22.6.723

Youngblade, L., Theokas, C., Schulenberg, J., Curry, L., Huang, I., & Novak, M. (2007). Risk and promotive factors in families, schools, and communities: A contextual model of positive youth development in adolescence. Pediatrics, 119(Suppl. 1), S47-S53. doi: 10.1542/peds.2006-2089H

One of the more common trends in mentoring over recent years is the integration of mentoring services for youth with other forms of support, both for the mentee and their parents and siblings. Programs often approach this from different perspectives and motivations. For some, offering additional services or supports to parents is a way to deepen their engagement in their child’s mentoring relationship and improve their relationship with program staff. For other service providers, offering supports to parents and siblings is just the manifestation of an inherently broader scopethe services offered parents or siblings are of equal importance to the mentoring that is being provided to the child.

So should practitioners keep in mind if they are going to be offering support to families in addition to just mentoring the child?

Note the characteristics referenced in the “Key Personnel” section of the review.The review of the literature on family support suggests several competencies that staff must possess to be effective in this work, including:

• Family engagement strategies – Does staff have experience communicating effectively with families and getting them to attend meetings, classes, and other opportunities for support? Can they get parents or siblings excited about being more involved with the program? Do they know what will motivate families? Many mentoring programs struggle to get families engaged in just the match, let alone to start being recipients of services themselves.
• Family-centered programming – Does the staff know how to assess a family’s needs and strengths and provide appropriate, comprehensive support? Can they design services in a way that makes it easy for whole families to participate?
• Referral services and networks of providers – Does the staff know who else in the community can offer specific services? Have they established partnerships or agreements with other service providers to refer parents or siblings? Do they know the eligibility requirements of getting other forms of support from external organizations? Do they have a process for following up on referrals and ensuring that families get promised services? Program may find themselves having to build a lot of connections to community organizations or even generating memoranda of understanding around referrals in order for this practice to work well.
• Cultural competency and responsiveness – This is perhaps the most critical of all: Can staff communicate effectively with families across cultures, languages, and socio-economic status. Much has been written in recent years about the ability of the average mentor to serve diverse populations of mentees. The same can be said of program staff, especially if they are going to be not just engaging parents in supporting the match, but working with them as clients and recipients of services directly. Any program wishing to offer support to families beyond just the mentoring relationship should think about how well their staff can fill these roles and what internal capacities would need to be developed to make this work.

Make sure that this type of support to families makes sense in relation to your theory of change.

There are many multi-service, wrap-around community organizations that come to mentoring late: they already offer a wealth of supports to families and have added mentoring as yet another offering. There are also, as noted previously, dedicated mentoring programs that add a family support piece as a way of strengthening mentoring relationships and improving youth outcomes, while also helping the whole family.

Programs in both camps should think about what they hope to achieve by providing this type of integrated mentoring and family support. Would providing support to parents or siblings help create an improved home environment that would enhance the gains made from the mentoring relationship? Are there critical needs inside the home that would need to be addressed for the work of the mentor to have meaning? Would helping the whole family with a challenge or issue lead to longer matches, more mentoring sessions, or better communication between the program and the family? And would serving whole families radically change the mentoring piece, changing the role, training, and support of mentors in fundamental ways?

Adding services to families, even if it’s just light referrals to other providers in the community, can be a lot of extra work. So before embarking on this, programs should really articulate how this practice makes sense within the context of their mentoring relationships and their organizational mission and vision. They may find that their reasons for considering this practice don’t make sense from a cost-benefit perspective. Or, they may find that they have unlocked a critical piece of their theory of change and that serving families in this way makes the whole program more effective.

If you can, test this practice in an evaluation!

As noted in the review of this practice, there is not a lot of research directly testing whether this kind of family support makes a difference in terms of mentee participation, match length or meeting frequency, or youth outcomes. Programs that are new to this practice may want to pilot this type of support for a subgroup of mentees and their families. Taking a group of mentees, and offering family support to a randomly selected portion of them, may allow you to test whether those additional services make a difference in terms of mentoring outcomes.

For more information on research-informed program practices and tools for implementation, be sure to consult the Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring™ and the “Resources for Mentoring Programs” section of the National Mentoring Resource Center site.