The Strengthening Washington DC Families Project (SWFP) examined implementation fidelity and effectiveness when a selective, evidence-based prevention program was implemented with a sample of 715 predominantly African American families across multiple settings in an urban area. Using a true experimental design, this study reports on the differential effectiveness of four conditions (child skills training only, parent skills training only, parent and child skills training plus family skills training, and minimal treatment controls) in reducing child antisocial behavior and its precursors. Major challenges with recruitment and retention of participants and uneven program coverage were documented. No statistically significant positive effects for any of the program conditions were observed, and a statistically significant negative effect on child reports of Negative Peer Associations was observed for children of families assigned to the family skills training condition. Two marginally significant findings were observed: Child's positive adjustment favored families assigned to family skills training condition relative to minimal treatment and child training only, and family supervision and bonding was lower for children in family skills training than in the other three conditions. Hypotheses about potential explanations for the weaker than expected effects of this program are offered, as are thoughts about the infrastructure necessary to successfully implement family strengthening programs and the future of prevention science.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Over time, this site began to recruit families from the surrounding neighborhood as well as the center residents.
Data were not collected on the families who did not enroll. It is therefore not possible to determine how the recruitment process influenced the characteristics of the sample.
The program was designed to be delivered once per week over a 14-week period. In SWFP, 16 of the 35 classes were run using twice per week sessions over a 7-week period. This local adaptation was approved by the program developer.
Each FT condition included a child and a parent training class as well as a family training class, so the total number of each parent and child training class delivered was 35 (17 plus 18).
Two follow-up surveys were also conducted at 6 and 18 months following the completion of the intervention. Data from these surveys were examined using latent growth curve analyses to assess the extent to which any of the four experimental conditions resulted in longer term changes in the same outcome measures examined in this report. The results of this exploration are reported in a separate report (Wilson, 2004). No long-term effects of any of the experimental conditions were found. Because Wilson's report uses a different method of analysis and a different sample (e.g., only those families include in the follow-up surveys), page limitations do not allow us to include the details of the analysis in this report. It will be submitted for publication separately.
Items measuring parental substance use, child lifetime use, and parental depression were also included in the surveys. The variability in parent and child self-reports of substance use was low, and these measures did not converge with other scales that should have been related. In addition, several youths reported a decrease in lifetime drug use from pre to post, possibly indicating low validity in these measures. These scales and items were not analyzed for this report.
Several of the original scales were not normally distributed and their response formats differed from other scales with which they were to be combined. To resolve both problems, square root transformations were taken for the non-normally distributed scales prior to combining them with the other scales. Specifically, to create the family supervision and bonding factor, the scale representing closeness to parents (which was skewed and had a range of 1–4) was transformed by taking the square root in order to average it with the parental supervision scale (which had a range of 1–2). To create the parenting skills factor, confidence in parenting and consistency in discipline (both of which were measured on 1–5 scales and were skewed) were also transformed by taking the square root before combining them with the other parenting skills scales that had 1–2 ranges. For these two scales, a small number of cases (2–4) were also trimmed to pull the small number of square root transformed scores that were greater than 2 into the required 1–2 range. After these original scales were combined into higher order scales, the distributions of the resulting scales were again checked. The distributions of these higher order scales were closer to normal than were the original scales. Nevertheless, for the three higher order scales whose distributions contained more than a minimal amount of skew (rebellious behavior, family supervision and bonding, and parenting skills), analyses were conducted using both untransformed and transformed variables. These analyses produced essentially the same results, so the untransformed results are presented.
A manual (Cowan & Gottfredson, 2000) containing the wording of all items, their response formats, their sources, and instructions for recoding items to obtain a common metric among items in each original scale is available from the first author.
Child and parent reports of problem behavior did not load on a single factor, as anticipated. The correlations between child and parent reports of similar behaviors were modest. The correlation between child reports of rebellious behavior and parent reports of antisocial behavior, for example, was .25. An extensive analysis of the validity of the child and parent reports utilizing measures available from school records for a subset of the sample indicated that neither could be rejected as obviously invalid. Correlations of child reports of child characteristics generally had slightly higher correlations with measures of school performance taken from school records than parent reports of child characteristics, but both were correlated in the expected direction. Therefore, the two sets of measures of problem behavior were retained for analysis but were kept as separate factors.
The numbers of observations differ by type of session because each observation of a family skills training condition generated three distinct class observations—one for each of the child, parent, and family training sessions. The observations of classes in the CT and PT skills training conditions generated only one observation each.
Each family was coded as having attended at least one session if any family member attended any of the 14 sessions. The total sessions attended for each family was the number of sessions attended by any family member.
The percentage correct can be calculated either by assuming all unanswered questions are incorrect (as is reported above) or by calculating the percentage correct only on the basis of those items with valid responses. The percentage correct based on this latter method produces similar results: 89% versus 77% correct, p < .01.
Trainer turnover generally occurred between classes so that minimal disruption of ongoing classes took place.
That is, 70% of the parents who completed a pre-test also completed a post-test.
These parent baseline measures included all five of the parenting skills scales used in this study; parent reports of their target child's antisocial behavior and school progress; parent reports of their own alcohol problems and illicit drug use; race; age; income; and number of children.
Regression would be expected given the high-risk nature of the population and participant self-selection for child problem behavior. As a further check, we examined gain scores for participants at different ranges of the pre-test distributions. This analysis revealed that families who tested at the more negative end of the distribution at the time of the pre-test improved the most between pre- and post-test. The association of gain score with pre-test was highly significant and did not differ by experimental condition.
In analyses that examined each of the original scales separately, the F-test for parent reports of social skills reached statistical significance (F = 5.62; p = .05).
That the content of the program is less important than other aspects of the program, such as the opportunity it affords to make social connections, is underscored by the fact that the parents assigned to the MT and CT groups were able to answer 76% of the content items correctly without benefit of the parent sessions. Knowledge of the parenting skills covered in the training session is probably not the most important active ingredient. This finding corresponds to findings from drug prevention research indicating that increasing knowledge about substances and their effects does not reduce substance use (Botvin, 1990).
REFERENCES
Aktan, G. (1995). Organizational framework for a substance use prevention program. International Journal of Addictions, 30, 185–201.
Aktan, G., Kumpfer, K. L., & Turner, C. (1996). Effectiveness of a family skills training program for substance abuse prevention with inner city African-American families. International Journal of the Addictions, 31, 158–175.
Alper, J. (2002). The nurse home visitation program. In S. L. Isaacs & J. R. Knickman (Eds.), To improve health and health care. Volume V. The Robert Wood Johnson Anthology (pp. 3–22). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Arthur, M. W., Hawkins, J. D., Pollard, J. A., Catalano, R. F., & Baglioni, A. J. (2002). Measuring risk and protective factors for substance use, delinquency, and other problem behaviors: The Communities That Care Youth Survey. Evaluation Review, 26, 576–601.
Botvin, G. J. (1990). Substance abuse prevention: Theory, practice, and effectiveness. In M. Tonry & J. Q. Wilson (Eds.), Drugs and crime (pp. 461–520). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Botvin, G. J. (2003). From research to policy: Advancing prevention science and practice. Presidential Address presented at the 11th Annual Meeting of the Society of Prevention Research, Washington, DC.
Brook, J. S., Brook, D. W., Gordon, A. N., Whiteman, M., & Cohen, P. (1990). The psychosocial etiology of adolescent drug use: A family interactional approach. Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, 116, 111–267.
Cho, H., Hallfors, D., & Sanchez, V. (2005). Evaluation of a high school peer group intervention for at-risk youth. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33,. 363–374.
Cowan, D., & Gottfredson, D. C. (2000). The strengthening Washington, DC families program: Development of scales to measure SFP goals and objectives. College Park., MD: Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice. Technical report available from authors.
Dembo, R., Williams, L., Wish, E., Dertke, M., Berry, E., Getreu, A., Washburn, M., & Schmeidler, J. (1988). The relationship between physical and sexual abuse and illicit drug use: A replication among a new sample of youths entering a juvenile detention center. International Journal of the Addictions, 23, 1101–1123.
Dishion, T. J., McCord, J., & Poulon, F. (1999). When interventions harm: Peer groups and problem behavior. American Psychologist, 54(9), 755–764.
Gottfredson, D. C. (2001). Schools and delinquency. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gottfredson, D. C., Kumpfer, K., Fox, D., Beatty, P., & Wilson, D. (2004). The Strengthening Washington D.C. Families Project: Relating implementation to program outcomes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Prevention Research, Quebec City.
Gottfredson, G. D., & Gottfredson, D. C. (1999). What about you? Ellicott City, MD: Gottfredson Associates, Inc.
Gottfredson, D. C., Harmon, M. A., Gottfredson, G. D., Jones, E. M., & Celestin, J. A. (1996). Compendium of prevention program outcomes and instrument locator. Ellicott City, MD: Gottfredson Associates, Inc.
Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social skills rating system manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Gutman, M. A., Foltz, C., Mittal, R., & Kaltenbach, K. (2004). Outcomes of a family-based prevention model with women in substance abuse treatment and their children: The Philadelphia Strengthening Families Project. Philadelphia: Treatment Research Institute (submitted for publication).
Harrison, S., Proskauer, S., & Kumpfer, K. L. (1995). Final evaluation report on Utah CSAP/CYAP project. Submitted to the Utah State Division of Substance Abuse. University of Utah, Social Research Institute.
Henggeler, S. W., Melton, G. B., Brondino, M. J., & Schere, D. G. (1997). Multisystematic therapy with violent and chronic juvenile offenders and their families: The role of treatment fidelity in successful dissemination. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 821–833.
Kameoka, V. A. (1996). The effects of a family-focused intervention on reducing risk for substance abuse among Asian and Pacific-Island youths and families: Evaluation of the Strengthening Hawaii's Families Project. Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Social Welfare Evaluation and Research Unit.
Kandel, D. B., & Andrews, K. (1987). Processes of adolescent socialization by parents and peers. International Journal of the Addictions, 22, 319–342.
Kellam, S. G. (1990). Developmental epidemiological framework for family research on depression and aggression. In G. R. Patterson (Ed.), Depression and aggression in family interaction (pp. 11–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kumpfer, K. L., & Alvarado, R. (2003). Family interventions for the prevention of drug abuse. In R. Weissberg & K. L. Kumpfer (Guest Eds.), American Psychologist, 58, 457–465.
Kumpfer, K. L., & DeMarsh, J. P. (1985). Prevention of chemical dependency in children of alcohol and drug abusers. NIDA Notes, 5, 2–3.
Kumpfer, K. L., DeMarsh, J. P., & Child, W. (1989). Strengthening Families Program: Children's skill training curriculum manual (prevention services to children of substance-abusing parents). Salt Lake City, UT: Department of Health, Alcohol and Drug Research Center.
Kumpfer, K. L., Alvarado, R., Smith, P., & Bellamy, N. (2002). Cultural sensitivity in universal family-based prevention interventions. In K. Kavanaugh, R. Spoth, & T. Dishion (Special Edition Eds.), Prevention Science, 3, 241–244.
Kumpfer, K. L., Alvarado, R., Tait, C., & Turner, C. (2002). Effectiveness of school-based family and children's skills training for substance abuse prevention among 6–8 year old rural children. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 16(4S), 65–71.
Kumpfer, K. L., Alvarado, R., Whiteside, H. O., & Tait, C. (2004). The strengthening families program (SFP): An evidence based, multi-cultural family skills training program. In J. Szapocznik, P. Tolan, & S. Sambrano (Eds.), Preventing substance abuse (pp. 3–14). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1998). Effective intervention for serious juvenile offenders: A synthesis of research. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful intervention (pp. 313–345). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1986). Family factors as correlates and predictors of juvenile conduct problems and delinquency. In N. Morris & M. Tonry (Eds.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research (pp. 29–149). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McMahon, R. J. (1999). Parent training. In S. Russ & T. H. Ollendick (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapies with children and families (pp. 133–180). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Mooney, S. (1995). Parent training: A review of adlerian, parent effectiveness training, and behavioral research. Family Journal, 3, 218–230.
Moos, R. D., & Moos, B. S. (1986). Family environment scales manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (1997). Preventing drug use among children and adolescents: A research-based guide (DHHS, Publication No. ADM: NIH Publication No. 97-4212). Rockville, MD: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Olds, D. L., Henderson, C. R., Cole, R., Eckenrode, J., Kitzman, H., Luckey, D., Pettitt, L., Sidora, K., Morris, P., & Powers, J. (1998). Long-term effects of nurse home visitation on children's criminal and antisocial behavior. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 1238–1244.
Fox, D. P., & Gottfredson, D. C. (2003). Differentiating completers from non-completers of a family-based prevention program. Journal of Primary Prevention, 24(2), 111–124.
Fox, D. P., Gottfredson, D. C., Kumpfer, K. K., & Beatty, P. D. (2004). Challenges in disseminating model programs: A qualitative analysis of the Strengthening Washington, DC Families Program. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 7(3), 165–176.
Prinz, R. J., & Miller, G. E. (1996). Parental engagement in interventions for children at risk of conduct disorder. In R. D. Peters & R. J. McMahon (Eds.), Preventing childhood disorders, substance abuse, and delinquency (pp. 161–183). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rotheram-Borus, M. J., & Duan, N. (2003). Next generation of preventive interventions. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 42, 518–526.
Sanders, M. R. (1996). New directions in behavioral family interventions with children. In T. H. Ollendick & R. J. Prinz, et al. (Eds.), Advances in clinical child psychology: Vol. 18 (pp. 283–330). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Sanders, M. R., Turner, K. M. T., & Markie-Dadds, C. (2002). The development and dissemination of the Triple P—Positive Parenting Program: A multi-level, evidence-based system of parenting and family support. Prevention Science, 3, 173–198.
Serketich, W. J., & Dumas, J. E. (1996). The effectiveness of behavioral parent training to modify antisocial behavior in children: A meta-analysis. Behavior Therapy, 27, 171–186.
Simcha-Fagan, O., Gersten, J. C., & Langner, T. S. (1986). Early precursors and concurrent correlates of patterns of illicit drug use in adolescence. Journal of Drug Issues, 16, 7–28.
Vicary, J. R., & Lerner, J. V. (1986). Parental attributes and adolescent drug use. Journal of Adolescence, 9, 115–122.
Vilmenay, M. (2002). Exploring barriers to at-risk family participation in the Washington, DC Strengthening Families Prevention Program. Unpublished Master's thesis. College Park, Maryland: University of Maryland.
Webster-Stratton, C., & Taylor, T. (2001). Nipping early risk factors in the bud: Preventing substance abuse, delinquency, and violence in adolescence through interventions targeted at young children (0–8 years old). Prevention Science, 2(3), 165–192.
Whitbeck, L., & Smith, J. (2001). Outcomes of a culturally-modified family program for Ojibway Indian families. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Prevention Research, Washington, DC.
Wilson, D. B. (2004). Technical report: D.C. Strengthening Families Project: Growth curve analysis. Technical report available from the author.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We wish to thank Suzie Johnson and Carol Small of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Government and the many directors, site coordinators, and trainers in the five implementation sites in the metropolitan area of Washington, DC for their assistance with this research. Allison Payne, Bianca McClenny, and Amanda Hall also helped with the research, and Charles Turner, Richard Catalano, Gary Gottfredson, Carol Metzler, and two anonymous reviewers provided useful feedback. Support for this research was provided by the National Institute on Drug Abuse through a grant to the University of Utah.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gottfredson, D., Kumpfer, K., Polizzi-Fox, D. et al. The Strengthening Washington D.C. Families Project: A Randomized Effectiveness Trial of Family-Based Prevention. Prev Sci 7, 57–74 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-005-0017-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-005-0017-y