U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

John J. Wilson, Acting Administrator

From the Administrator

Families are important sources ofsupport and guidance for children.Because the welfare of children isoften tied to the strength of theirfamilies, OJJDP is committed tohelping parents help their children.

This Bulletin, one in OJJDP’s FamilyStrengthening Series, features theStrengthening Families Program: ForParents and Youth 10–14, a programdesigned to build stronger familiesand, in the process, reduce juvenilesubstance abuse and other delin-quent acts. The Bulletin provides ahistory of the original StrengtheningFamilies Program, from which today’sprogram was developed.

The Bulletin details the specific riskand protective factors that are targetedin each of the program’s sessionsand summarizes the content, me-chanics, and implementation of theprogram. It also describes the findingsof the program’s evaluation and itsreplication.

The Strengthening Families Program:For Parents and Youth 10–14 hasproven effective in reducing adoles-cent substance abuse and otherproblem behaviors and in improvingparenting skills and enhancing child-parent relations. This Bulletin servesas an important resource for educa-tors, policymakers, researchers, andcommunity organizations in theirefforts to improve the outlook forchildren and families.

John J. WilsonActing Administrator

August 2000

participated in the study had less sub-stance use, fewer conduct problems, andbetter resistance to peer pressure. Thesepositive changes were indicated by bothdelayed onset of problem behaviors andrelatively more gradual increases in thesebehaviors compared with the controlgroup during the 4 years following thestudy pretest. Results indicated that pro-gram parents were better able to showaffection and support and set appropriatelimits for their children. According to pro-gram theory, these parenting skills helpparents protect youth from becominginvolved in substance abuse and otherproblem behaviors.

Background and HistoryThe SFP 10–14 was the result of a majorrevision of the Strengthening FamiliesProgram (SFP) originally developed in1983 by Kumpfer, DeMarsh, and Child(1989) as part of a 3-year preventionresearch project funded by the NationalInstitute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). The origi-nal SFP was designed to reduce vulner-ability to drug abuse in 6- to 12-year-oldchildren of methadone maintenance pa-tients and substance-abusing outpatients.The curriculum included separate 1-hoursessions for parents and children fol-lowed by a family session. One sessionwas scheduled per week, typically for 12

Virginia K. Molgaard, Richard L. Spoth, and Cleve Redmond

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention (OJJDP) is dedicated topreventing and reversing trends of increaseddelinquency and violence among adoles-cents. These trends have alarmed the publicduring the past decade and challenged thejuvenile justice system. It is widely acceptedthat increases in delinquency and violenceover the past decade are rooted in a num-ber of interrelated social problems—childabuse and neglect, alcohol and drug abuse,youth conflict and aggression, and earlysexual involvement—that may originatewithin the family structure. The focus ofOJJDP’s Family Strengthening Series is toprovide assistance to ongoing efforts acrossthe country to strengthen the family unit bydiscussing the effectiveness of family inter-vention programs and providing resourcesto families and communities.

The Strengthening Families Program: ForParents and Youth 10–14 (SFP 10–14) is a7-week curriculum designed to bring par-ents together with their 10- to 14-year-oldchildren, with the goal of reducing sub-stance abuse and other problem behav-iors in youth. Bringing parents and youthtogether in such a program has been par-ticularly effective in building skills andchanging behavior. A controlled studydemonstrated that both parents andyouth who attended the program showedsignificant positive changes. Youth who

Fam

ilyStrengthening Series

Competency TrainingThe StrengtheningFamilies Program: ForParents and Youth 10–14

2

This curriculum, the Iowa StrengtheningFamilies Program (ISFP), was an earlyversion of the SFP 10–14. The ISFP wastested through Project Family with 446midwestern families who live in economi-cally stressed areas. The participants inthe study were from 22 rural school dis-tricts randomly assigned to interventionand control conditions. The positive find-ings yielded by the data analyzed in thisstudy earned the program recognition byOJJDP’s Strengthening America’s Fami-lies Initiative1 and by two other Federalagencies: NIDA (National Institute onDrug Abuse, 1997) and the U.S. Depart-ment of Education. Subsequently, theISFP was revised to make it appropriatefor ethnically diverse families and wasrenamed the Strengthening FamiliesProgram: For Parents and Youth 10–14.African American, Hispanic, and whitefamilies have participated in the program.

Risk and ProtectiveFactors AddressedThe long-range goal of the SFP 10–14 isreduced substance use and behavior prob-lems during adolescence. Intermediate ob-jectives include improved parental nur-turing and limit-setting skills, improvedcommunication skills for both parentsand youth, and youth prosocial skillsdevelopment. The risk and protectivefactors for parents and youth that areaddressed in each session are shown intable 1.

to 14 consecutive weeks. In a study designthat compared sessions for parents only,youth only, and parents, youth, and fami-lies combined, the group that includeda combination of sessions for parents,youth, and family showed the most prom-ising results. The original SFP (Kumpfer,DeMarsh, and Child, 1989), recognized byNIDA as a research-based, family-focusedprevention program, was tested exten-sively with high-risk ethnic families. Theresults of these studies mirror the gener-ally positive findings of the original NIDAresearch results.

In 1992, the Social and Behavioral ResearchCenter for Rural Health at Iowa State Uni-versity (ISU) received a grant from the Na-tional Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) totest the SFP in a general population of ruralfamilies with young adolescent children.This grant, along with a similar grant fromNIDA to test another prevention program,became a part of Project Family, a series ofinvestigations on family-focused preventiveinterventions. The Project Family investi-gators, including Dr. Richard Spoth (princi-pal investigator) and Dr. Karol Kumpfer(coprincipal investigator), agreed thatthe SFP needed substantial revision tomeet the needs of a general populationof families with young adolescents ina midwestern rural area. In part, thisconclusion was based on the results ofconsumer research with families similarto those targeted by the NIMH study. Dr.Virginia Molgaard, a coprincipal investi-gator at ISU, worked with Dr. Kumpfer torevise the SFP. They developed a 7-weekcurriculum identical in format to theoriginal program (i.e., the revised SFPalso has separate sessions for parentsand youth, plus sessions in which familyunits practice skills together).

Content and ProgramMechanicsThe SFP 10–14 is a universal program de-signed to reach the general populationand is culturally sensitive to multiethnicfamilies with young adolescents who livein urban and rural areas. It is appropriatefor parents of all educational levels.

FormatThe SFP 10–14 consists of seven sessionsplus four booster sessions. Parents andyouth attend separate skill-building ses-sions for the first hour and spend the sec-ond hour together in supervised familyactivities. The program is designed for8 to 13 families and is typically held in apublic school, church, or community cen-ter. At least two rooms (one for youth andone for parents) are required for each ses-sion, with family sessions taking place inthe larger of the two rooms. Three facilita-tors (one for parents and two for youth)are needed for each session. All of thefacilitators offer assistance to familiesand model appropriate skills during thefamily session.

ContentYouth and parent sessions contain paral-lel content; the family session providesreinforcement and skills practice (seetable 2 on page 5). For example, while theparents are learning how to use conse-quences when youth break rules, youthare learning about the importance of fol-lowing rules. In the family session thatfollows, youth and parents practice prob-lem solving as a family for situationswhen rules are broken.

Youth sessions focus on strengtheningprosocial goals for the future, dealingwith stress and strong emotions, appreci-ating parents and other elders, increasingthe desire to be responsible, and buildingskills to deal with peer pressure. Parentsessions include discussions of parents’potential positive influence on young teens.These discussions focus on understand-ing the developmental characteristics ofyouth, providing nurturing support, deal-ing effectively with children in everydayinteractions, setting appropriate limitsand following through with reasonableand respectful consequences, and sharingbeliefs and expectations regarding alco-hol and drug use. During family sessions,parents and youth practice listening andcommunicating with respect, identifyfamily strengths and family values, learn

1 For additional information, see Kumpfer and Alvarado(1998), the introductory Bulletin in OJJDP’s FamilyStrengthening Series.

3

how to use family meetings to teach re-sponsibility and solve problems, andlearn how to plan enjoyable family activi-ties. Youth, parent, and family sessionsinclude discussions, skill-building activities,videotapes that model positive behavior,and games designed to build skills andstrengthen positive interactions amongfamily members.

ProcessesParent sessions include didactic presenta-tions, role-plays, group discussions, andother skill-building activities. Videotapesare used for all parent sessions; this stan-dardizes the program and visually dem-onstrates effective parent-child interac-tions. Because videotapes are used, onlyone parent workshop leader/instructor isrequired. The videotapes include timedcountdowns for group discussion andactivities—the facilitator starts the videoat the beginning of the session and lets itrun for the entire hour-long parent session.This ensures that the group remains onschedule and is ready for the subsequentfamily session. The videotapes includedidactic presentations by an AfricanAmerican narrator and a white narratorand numerous vignettes of typical familysituations and interactions (both positiveand negative). Adults and youth in thevignettes include African American, His-panic, and non-Hispanic white actors.2

Approximately one-fourth to one-third ofeach parent session consists of didacticpresentations and observations of video-taped family vignettes; the remaining timeis spent in skill practice, open discussion,and group support.

The majority of each youth session is spentin small and large group discussions, groupskill practice, and social bonding activi-ties. Youth topics are presented in gamelikeactivities in order to engage youth andkeep their interest while they are learning.In sessions 5 and 6, the videotape KeepingOut of Trouble and Keeping Your Friends:A Road Map is shown to motivate youthto resist peer pressure and to teach spe-cific steps in resistance.

Family sessions help parents and youthpractice skills learned in the separate par-ent and youth sessions. Activities includecommunication exercises and poster-making projects in which family members

Table 1: Risk and Protective Factors

Factors Addressed

Session Protective Risk

Session 1 Positive future orientation, Demanding/rejectinggoal setting and planning, behavior, poor communi-supportive family involvement. cation skills.

Session 2 Age-appropriate parental Harsh and inappropriateexpectations, positive discipline, poor child-parent-child affect, empathy parent relationship.with parents.

Session 3 Emotional management skills, Harsh, inconsistent, orfamily cohesiveness. inappropriate discipline;

poor communication ofrules; child aggressiveor withdrawn behavior.

Session 4 Youth reflective skills, Poor parental monitoring;empathy with parents, poor, harsh, inconsistent,prosocial family values. or inappropriate discipline;

youth antisocial behaviors.

Session 5 Cohesive, supportive family Indulgent or harshenvironment; consistent parenting style, familydiscipline; meaningful family conflict, negative peerinvolvement; empathetic influence.family communication; socialskills; peer refusal skills.

Session 6 Positive parent-child affect, Poor school performance,clear parental expectations negative peer influence.regarding substance use,interpersonal social skills,peer refusal skills.

Session 7 Positive parent-child affect, Poorly managed adultreinforcement of risk reduc- stress, poor social skillstion skills addressed in in youth.the program, reinforcementof protective factors andyouth assets.

Booster Session 1 Prosocial peer interaction Ineffective conflictskills, effective stress and management skills, poorlycoping skills. managed adult stress.

Booster Session 2 Conflict resolution skills, Peer conflict andpositive marital interaction. aggression, hostile

family interactions.

Booster Session 3 Cohesive, supportive family Harsh and inappropriateenvironment; empathy with discipline, poor child-parents; consistent discipline. parent relationship, poor

communication of rules.

Booster Session 4 Positive marital interaction, Ineffective conflictfamily cohesiveness, peer management skills,refusal skills. negative peer influence,

inappropriate parentalexpectations. 2 For information about adaptations of the program for

other ethnic groups, contact Dr. Molgaard.

4

visually express concepts such as appre-ciating each other’s strengths and identi-fying family values. Teaching games helpparents and youth empathize with eachother and learn skills in family problemsolving. Two of the family sessions useinstructional videotapes to demonstratehow to institutionalize positive familychange and maintain SFP 10–14 programbenefits by holding regular family meet-ings and working together to help youthdeal with peer pressure. The leaders fa-cilitate discussions and group activitiesbetween videotape segments. Two-thirdsof each family session is spent within indi-vidual family units in which parents andyouth participate in discussions or proj-ects. The remaining time is spent in large-group skill-building activities and games.Each family session ends with a closingcircle in which all youth and parents

stand together in a circle and respond toan open-ended statement based on ses-sion content, such as “One thing we liketo do as a family is . . . .”

The following methods are used to en-courage participants to maintain the skillsthey learned through the program. Duringthe final family session, group leadersshow slides of the youth, parent, and fam-ily sessions taken during the course of theprogram. This slide show serves as a re-view of program content in a format thatis attractive to both young people andadults. During the final review session, aframed certificate with a photograph ofparent(s) and child(ren) taken during pro-gram sessions is given to each participat-ing family. The families are asked to displaythe certificates in their homes to serve asa reminder of concepts and skills learned

in the program. In addition, during the lastsession, parents and youth write struc-tured letters to each other related to thecontent of the program (see page 6). Theletters are collected by program facilita-tors and mailed to the families 1 monthafter the last session. In addition, severalfamily activities result in posters that par-ticipants display in their homes.

MaterialsA 415-page instructor manual contains ateaching outline, a script for the video-tapes, and detailed instructions for all ac-tivities. The “Overview” section includesbackground information and practicalconsiderations for implementing the SFP10–14, such as recruitment, facilitator jobdescriptions, and suggested processes forregistration, meals and snacks, incentives,and childcare. A detailed timeline for orga-nizing and implementing the SFP 10–14 anda list of needed equipment and materialsare also included. Master copies of eachparent, youth, and family worksheet andhomework assignment are provided at theend of each session. Materials for the firstseven sessions also include the nine video-tapes described above—six for parent ses-sions, one for youth sessions 5 and 6, andtwo for family sessions. The manual alsoincludes master copies of a program flier,ordering information, and evaluation in-struments. A separate 215-page manualcontains the four booster sessions for par-ents, youth, and families. Two additionalvideotapes are required for the boostersessions.

ProgramImplementation

FacilitatorsGroup leaders. Three group leaders areneeded—one for the parent session andtwo for the youth session. The roles ofthe group leaders change from teacherto facilitator during the family sessions.Each group leader is responsible for threeor four families and works with the samegroup of families for the duration of theprogram. The group leader spends timewith each family during the session andoffers help when needed.

Group leaders must have strong presen-tation and facilitation skills, experienceworking with parents and/or youth, enthu-siasm for family skill-building programs,and the ability to be flexible with individu-als and activities within the confines of the

Theoretical Assumptions

Several etiological and interventionmodels influenced the development ofthe SFP 10–14: the biopsychosocialvulnerability model, a resiliency model,and a family process model linkingeconomic stress and adolescent ad-justment. The following paragraphsdescribe each of these models.

The biopsychosocial vulnerability modelwas the basis for the original SFP. Itoffers a framework that suggests thatfamily coping skills and resources (suchas effective family management, conflictresolution/problem-solving skills, andcommunication skills) buffer familystressors (such as family conflicts andfinancial stress). This approach as-sumes a developmental perspective,with the family exerting relatively moreinfluence on young adolescents thanon older adolescents.

The curriculum was adapted for youngadolescents and their parents (SFP 10–14), guided by the resiliency model ofKumpfer (1994, 1996) and Richardsonet al. (1990). The model includesgreater focus in families on protectiveprocesses that are associated withbasic resiliency characteristics in youth.Thus, the program includes instructionin seven associated coping or lifeskills—emotional management skills,interpersonal social skills, reflectiveskills, academic and job skills, ability to

restore self-esteem, planning skills, andproblem-solving ability.

The family process model is based onresearch conducted at Iowa State Uni-versity and supported by data from theIowa Youth and Families Project. It pro-vides support for risk variables targetedby the SFP 10–14, linking economicstress to problematic adolescent adjust-ment. In this model, objective economicstress was related to parents’ percep-tions of increased economic pressure.This perceived pressure, in turn, waslinked to increased parental depressionand demoralization, leading to greatermarital discord and more frequent dis-ruptions in skillful parenting. Finally,the model indicates that this disruptedparenting adversely affects adolescentadjustment (Conger et al., 1991).

These models support family-risk-focusedand youth resiliency approaches to pre-vention using strategies to reduce orbuffer the known, overlapping precursorsof conduct and substance use problemsin adolescents that originate in the family.The strategies also help youth build pro-tective coping skills through positiverather than negative behaviors. The SFP10–14 authors (Molgaard, Kumpfer, andFleming, 1997) have incorporated empiri-cally supported techniques for improvingfamily management practices and youthskill enhancement to address selectedrisk and resiliency factors in the models.

5

Additional staff. In addition to the threegroup leaders, local coordinators canhelp recruit families; arrange for, locate,and oversee childcare workers and trans-portation; and make arrangements forbuilding access and equipment. Theselocal coordinators can be recruited by thesponsoring agencies, which may includethe local Cooperative Extension Service,

churches, schools, the YMCA and YWCA,and other youth- and family-serving agen-cies and groups. Coordinators can be ei-ther community volunteers or paid fromsmall local or State grants.

Training. Facilitators receive at least 2days of training to learn about the back-ground, evaluation, goals, and content ofthe program and to take part in sessionactivities. Training also includes informa-tion on practical considerations for imple-menting the SFP 10–14, such as recruitingfamilies and handling challenging parentsand youth during program sessions. Onsitetrainings by a team of experienced train-ers can be scheduled. Consultation andtechnical assistance for facilitators areavailable after the training at no cost.

RecruitmentRecruitment is carried out by a local family-serving agency such as a substance abuseprevention agency, the Cooperative Exten-sion Service, a church, a school, the YMCAor YWCA, or another community group. Anactive coalition of such groups has beenshown to provide the most effective re-cruitment. The suggested procedure forrecruiting begins by identifying a coregroup of parents in the targeted group,meeting together to motivate them to re-cruit other families, and then asking themto invite other families to the program.Recruitment materials include programbrochures and a short motivational video-tape with footage from an actual programthat illustrates program features and in-cludes positive comments from parentswho have participated.

When grant money from State and localfunds is available, families are given in-centives such as $5 grocery certificates

standardized program. They must havegood organizational skills and a strongsense of responsibility for carrying outthe program as designed. Their responsi-bilities include attending at least 2 daysof training in which they learn about theprogram and gain practical experiencewith the teaching activities, preparing foreach session by reviewing the activitiesand assembling needed materials, teach-ing youth or parent sessions for 7 weeks(plus four booster sessions), and helpingto facilitate the family session. Effectivegroup leaders can be drawn from the fol-lowing: family and youth service workers,mental health staff, teachers, school coun-selors, ministers, church youth staff, skilledparents who have previously attended theprogram, and staff from the CooperativeExtension Service. Affiliated with the U.S.Department of Agriculture, the CooperativeExtension Service is administered througheach State’s land-grant university. As itrelates to youth and families, the missionof the Cooperative Extension Service isto provide preventive education throughcounty-based services throughout theUnited States.

Table 2: Session Topics

Primary Sessions Booster Sessions

Parent

Using Love and Limits Handling StressMaking House Rules Communicating When YouEncouraging Good Behavior Don’t AgreeUsing Consequences Reviewing Love and Limits SkillsBuilding Bridges Reviewing How To Help WithProtecting Against Substance Peer Pressure

AbuseGetting Help for Special

Family Needs

Youth

Having Goals and Dreams Handling ConflictAppreciating Parents Making Good FriendsDealing With Stress Getting the Message AcrossFollowing Rules Practicing Our SkillsHandling Peer Pressure IHandling Peer Pressure IIReaching Out to Others

Family

Supporting Goals and Dreams Understanding Each OtherAppreciating Family Members Listening to Each OtherUsing Family Meetings Understanding Family RolesUnderstanding Family Values Using Family StrengthsBuilding Family CommunicationReaching GoalsPutting It All Together and Graduation

6

for parents and $2 or $3 fast-food couponsfor youth. In addition, a weekly drawingmay be held for a gift that includes snacksand a family game to encourage familiesto spend time together at home. Grantmoney can also be used for family mealsduring program sessions and for childcare.The program has also been carried outsuccessfully without incentives. If grantfunds are not available, families can taketurns bringing snacks for program sessions.

Location and EquipmentA school, church, or community centerwith at least two separate rooms is appro-priate. Parents and youth meet in separaterooms during the first hour. The familysession that follows requires a room largeenough to hold both groups, preferably

one with tables for family activities. OneTV and one VCR are needed for parent ses-sions 1–6. The same units can be used forfamily sessions 3 and 6. An additional TVand VCR are needed for youth sessions 5and 6. Flipcharts or an erasable board areneeded for all sessions. A slide projector isneeded for session 7. Program materials,including flipcharts, markers, and othersupplies, cost about $15 per family.

SchedulingMany group leaders who have taught theprogram have found that it is best to sche-dule the sessions in October and Novemberor from January to March. This timingavoids competition with either spring andsummer activities or busy holiday sched-ules. Others have adapted the lessons to

a 13-week format suitable for a Sundaymorning education hour. In this format,the 1-hour parent and youth sessions arefollowed by the family session a weeklater. Booster sessions may be held 3 to12 months after session 7.

Meals or SnacksA meal or snack before or during the pro-gram session can be a powerful incentivefor attendance if grant money is availableor if the food can be donated and preparedby volunteers. Meals should begin at about6 p.m., and the program sessions shouldbegin at about 6:30 p.m. Group leaders forgroups that do not have funds for meals orvolunteers to prepare them should arrangefor snacks to be served during the last 20minutes of the family session or between

7

the youth and parent sessions and thefamily session. Group leaders can bringsnacks for the first and last sessions andcan ask participating families to bring andserve snacks for the other sessions. Insome cases, local restaurants have pro-vided food for one or more sessions.

Childcare andTransportationThe availability of childcare for youngerchildren will allow some families to partici-pate in the program and attend regularly.If funds are not available for childcareworkers, the support of a church, 4–HClub, or other group can be enlisted. Child-care providers should be encouraged tobring games, books, and craft materials.

Transportation can also be an importantfactor for some families. Depending onlocal program resources, one of the fol-lowing options may be chosen. If severalfamilies need transportation, it may bepossible to borrow or rent a van from alocal family-serving agency. If grant fundsallow, families can be given money for abus or taxi. As an alternative, group lead-ers can ask about transportation needs atthe first session, and some families maybe able to offer rides to other families.

Scientific EvaluationFollowing the content revisions to the ori-ginal SFP and the subsequent feasibilitystudies (Kumpfer, Molgaard, and Spoth,1996), a large-scale prevention trial of theISFP, including long-term followup evalua-tions, was conducted in public schoolsin the rural Midwest. In addition to aposttest, followup data collections were

completed approximately 11/2, 21/2, and4 years after pretesting. Selected schoolswere located in rural communities withpopulations of less than 8,500; these com-munities had a relatively high percentageof low-income families participating in theschool lunch program.

The experimental design entailed ran-dom assignment of 33 schools to 1 of 3conditions: (1) the ISFP; (2) Preparing forthe Drug Free Years (PDFY) (Catalanoand Hawkins, 1996), a 5-session youthand family program; or (3) a minimal-contact control condition, with a total of22 schools in the ISFP and control condi-tions. Families in the control conditionreceived a set of four parenting guide-lines written by Cooperative ExtensionService personnel; the guidelines pro-vided information on developmentalchanges of preteens and teens in physi-cal, emotional, cognitive, and relationaldomains. (See Spoth, Redmond, andShin, 1998, for further information onevaluation design and methods.) Theresults that follow include those fromISFP families and control families.3

Measures and DataCollectionOutcome evaluations entailed the use ofmulti-informant, multimethod measure-ment procedures at pretest, posttest, andfollowup data collection points (Spothand Redmond, 1996; Redmond et al., 1999;Spoth, Redmond, and Shin, 1998). Assess-ments included in-home videotapes offamilies in structured family interaction

tasks, in-home interviews that includedscales from standardized instrumentssuch as the SCL–90–R (Derogatis, 1983),and commonly used measures such as theNational Survey of Delinquency and DrugUse (Elliott, Huizinga, and Ageton, 1982).

A total of 161 families participated in 21ISFP groups at 11 different schools. Groupsranged in size from 3 to 15 families; the av-erage group consisted of 8 families, withan average of 12 adults and 8 youth. Bothsingle-parent and two-parent families par-ticipated. Participation rates were highamong pretested families. Among morethan half of the two-parent families, bothparents attended at least some of the ses-sions. Ninety-four percent of attending

Participating parents say:

“It was fun and moved along quickly.”

“I liked listening to what has workedwith other families.”

“Outstanding! Has been very helpfulto us as a family unit.”

“I wish I could have attended whenmy two older kids were this age. Webenefited very much.”

“I learned that I have to followthrough with what I say and not backdown on the rules we have set.”

“I learned that I’m not alone with myfears of raising my children. I havethe same questions and fears that allthe other parents have.”

Participating youth say:

“I didn’t realize how much my momcared about me.”

“I learned that my parents are fun tobe with.”

“I learned to respect your parentsand realize money doesn’t grow ontrees.”

“I learned what to say if someone istrying to get you in trouble.”

“I liked to hear about what my dadwas like when he was my age.”

“I liked the activities with my parentsin the family session.”

“I found out how to handle stresswhen I’m all frustrated.”

3 For results from PDFY, see Haggerty et al. (1999).

8

thesized effect paths at posttesting weresignificant at the 0.01 level. The effect sizeof the intervention on the ITPB’s was mod-erate, and the indirect effects of the inter-vention on the global parenting constructswere statistically significant (Russell et al.,1998; Spoth, Redmond, and Shin, 1998).Similar results were obtained when themodel was evaluated with 11/2-yearfollowup data (Redmond et al., 1999).

The two general parenting constructs em-ployed in the structural equation model(general child management and parent-child affective quality) were also assessedindividually through multilevel analysisof covariance (ANCOVA), employing 11/2 -and 21/2-year postbaseline followup assess-ment data. Reports from the target child,mother, and father, along with observerratings, were standardized and combinedto construct the measures for the 11/2 -yearfollowup analyses; all except observerratings were also available for the 21/2 -yearfollowup analyses. Results indicated signifi-cant parenting outcome differences be-tween the intervention and control groupsat both the 11/2 - year followup (on ITPB’sand parent-child affective quality) and the21/2 - year followup (parent-child affectivequality) (Spoth, Redmond, and ProjectFamily Research Group, 1997).

Because of the young age of children in thestudy, significant intervention-control dif-ferences in problem behavior outcomeswere expected to be initially detectable atthe 11/2 - year postbaseline followup and insubsequent assessments. Consistent withthis expectation, multilevel ANCOVA’sshowed significant intervention-controldifferences in substance use, conduct prob-

lems (e.g., physical aggression, minor theft,property damage), school-related problembehaviors (e.g., truancy, cheating), peerresistance, and affiliation with antisocialpeers at 11/2 and 21/2 years following pre-testing (Spoth, Redmond, and ProjectFamily Research Group, 1997, 1998). De-tailed analyses of individual substanceuse behaviors showed noteworthy differ-ences between the intervention and con-trol groups. For example, at the 11/2-yearfollowup, there was a 60-percent relativereduction in the first-time use of alcoholwithout parental permission in the inter-vention group (Spoth, Redmond, andLepper, 1999). Continued divergence ofthe intervention group and the controlgroup on this outcome variable has beenobserved at the 21/2 -year postbaselinefollowup and beyond (see figure 1).

In addition, the probability of transition-ing from nonuse of tobacco, alcohol, orother drugs was examined. This exami-nation focused on a five-status, stage-sequential model of substance use initia-tion and progression, adapted from amodel previously tested by Graham andcolleagues (1991). Findings suggestedthat ISFP group children who had notinitiated substance use at the 11/2-yearfollowup assessment were significantlyless likely to initiate use by the 21/2-yearfollowup assessment than were controlgroup children (Spoth et al., 1999). Finally,recent analyses of substance use initia-tion and levels of use (alcohol, tobacco,and marijuana) and other problem behav-iors (hostile and aggressive behaviors)at 4 years postbaseline have also shownpositive results. Specifically, as comparedwith youth in the control group, those in

pretested families were represented by afamily member in five or more sessions.4

Unannounced observations of the programimplementation procedures of each teamof group leaders confirmed that the teamscovered all of the key program concepts.

ResultsAn analysis of data collected in the longi-tudinal, controlled study demonstratedpositive results for both parents and youth.Comparisons between the intervention andcontrol groups showed significantly im-proved parenting behaviors directly tar-geted by the intervention (e.g., clarificationof substance use rules and consequences,increased level of positive parent-childinvolvements). These behaviors, in turn,were strongly associated with general childmanagement (e.g., standard setting, moni-toring, effective discipline) and parent-childaffective quality (e.g., expressions of posi-tive affect). Analyses of youth substanceuse and use-related child outcomes (e.g.,gateway substance use, conduct problems,school-related problem behaviors, affilia-tion with antisocial peers, peer resistance)have demonstrated positive outcomes atfollowup assessments.

Following confirmation that randomiza-tion resulted in equivalent groups at pre-test, differential attrition was assessedand found to be nonsignificant. Subse-quent posttest analyses of parenting out-comes included indicators for three con-structs: intervention-targeted parentingbehaviors (ITPB’s), general child manage-ment, and parent-child affective quality.A latent variable measurement model in-corporating multiple self-report and ob-servational indicators of the parentingoutcomes was developed. This measure-ment model was then employed in a testof a theory-based structural model exam-ining a sequence of direct and indirectintervention effects. According to thismodel, ITPB’s were expected to be directlyaffected by the intervention, whereasparent-child affective quality and generalchild management were expected to beprimarily indirectly influenced by the in-tervention through effects on ITPB’s. Re-sults supported the hypothesized model.When controlling for pretest levels andmeasurement method effects, all hypo-

4 Other findings concerning participation in ISFP canbe found in Spoth, Goldberg, and Redmond (1999);Spoth et al. (1996, 1997); and Spoth (1999).

9

the ISFP group showed significantly de-layed initiation of alcohol, tobacco, andmarijuana use (Spoth, Redmond, and Shin,2000a); lower frequency of alcohol and to-bacco use (Spoth, Redmond, and Shin,2000a); and lower levels of overt and co-vert aggressive behaviors and hostility ininteractions with parents (Spoth, Redmond,and Shin, 2000b). (See figure 1 for a com-parison of intervention and control groupalcohol use initiation rates across datacollection points.)

ReplicationsIn addition to its implementation in theProject Family study described previously,the curriculum has been effectively carriedout by local communities without externalfunding. Most of these programs have beenimplemented by schools, churches, sub-stance abuse prevention agencies, and theCooperative Extension Service. In addition,a controlled study with 110 African Ameri-can families is being conducted with fundingfrom the National Institute on Alcohol Abuseand Alcoholism. It is part of the Familiesand Communities Health Study funded byNIMH through the ISU Institute for Socialand Behavioral Research. Another longi-tudinal, controlled Project Family study,funded by NIDA, is designed in part to

and their parents. The program seeks toreduce adolescent substance abuse andother problem behaviors, enhance paren-ting skills, and build stronger families. Thecurriculum has seven 2-hour sessions andfour booster sessions (to be delivered 3months to 1 year after the first seven ses-sions). In each session, youth and parentsmeet separately for the first hour to in-crease understanding and learn skills. Dur-ing the second hour, they meet togetherin a family session to practice these skills.All session topics are based on risk andprotective factors identified by relevantresearch with youth and families.

The early version of SFP 10–14 (the IowaStrengthening Families Program) hasbeen scientifically tested in a random-ized, controlled study of 446 familiesthrough Project Family at the Institutefor Social and Behavioral Research atISU. Results of the multimethod, multi-informant longitudinal study have shownthat the program is effective in reducingadolescent substance abuse and otherproblems, improving parent-child rela-tionships, and building parenting skills.The program also has been successfullyconducted in multiple community set-tings in the Midwest and in other areas.Although findings from studies with ur-ban and ethnically diverse families arenot yet available, the current version ofthe video-based curriculum is appropri-ate for diverse audiences and has beenused in both urban and rural settings.Trainings may be scheduled at local sitesby contacting Dr. Molgaard. More infor-mation about the program is available atwww.exnet.iastate.edu/Pages/families/sfp.html.

determine whether involving families inthe SFP 10–14 in addition to a school-basedsubstance abuse prevention program(Botvin, 1996) is more effective than theschool-based training alone.

Summary andConclusionThe SFP 10–14 is an adaptation of the origi-nal SFP by Kumpfer and colleagues for ageneral population of young adolescents

Figure 1: Alcohol Use Without Parental Permission*

*ISFP youth compared with youth who did not attend the program.Source: Spoth, Redmond, and Shin, 2000a.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0 6 18 30 48

Months

(6th grade,pretest)

(6th grade,posttest)

(7th grade) (8th grade) (10th grade)

Pro

po

rtio

n I

niti

atin

g

Control group

ISFP

10

For FurtherInformationFor more information about the Strength-ening Families Program: For Parents andYouth 10–14, contact Virginia K. Molgaard,Ph.D., Iowa State University, Institute forSocial and Behavioral Research, 2625North Loop Drive, Suite 500, Ames, IA50010; 515–294–8762 (phone), 515–294–3613 (fax); vmolgaar@iastate.edu (e-mail).

ReferencesBotvin, G.J. 1996. Life Skills Training: Pro-moting Health and Personal Development.Princeton, NJ: Princeton Health Press.

Catalano, R.F., and Hawkins, J.D. 1996. Thesocial development model: A theory of anti-social behavior. In Delinquency and Crime:Current Theories, edited by J.D. Hawkins.New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Conger, R., Lorenz, F.O., Elder, G.H., Melby,J.N., Simons, R.L., and Conger, K.J. 1991.A process model of family economic pres-sure and early adolescent alcohol use.Journal of Early Adolescence 11(4):430–449.

Derogatis, L.R. 1983. SCL–90–R: Adminis-tration Scoring and Procedures Manual II.Towson, MD: Clinical PsychometricResearch.

Elliott, D.S., Huizinga, D., and Ageton, S.S.1982. Explaining Delinquency and Drug Use.Report No. 21. Boulder, CO: BehavioralResearch Institute.

Graham, J.W., Collins, L.M., Wugalter, S.E.,Chung, N.K., and Hanson, W.B. 1991. Mod-eling transitions in latent stage-sequentialprocesses: A substance use preventionexample. Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology 59(1):48–57.

Haggerty, K., Kosterman, R., Catalano,R.F., and Hawkins, J.D. 1999. Preparing forthe Drug Free Years. Bulletin. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office ofJustice Programs, Office of Juvenile Jus-tice and Delinquency Prevention.

Kumpfer, K.L. 1994 (December). Predictivevalidity of resilience for positive life adap-tations. Paper presented at National Insti-tute of Drug Abuse Resiliency Symposium,Washington, DC.

Kumpfer, K.L. 1996. Factors and processescontributing to resilience: The resiliency

framework. In Resiliency and Development:Positive Life Adaptations, edited by M.Glantz, J. Johnson, and L. Huffman. NewYork, NY: Plenum.

Kumpfer, K.L., and Alvarado, R. 1998. Ef-fective Family Strengthening Interventions.Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Of-fice of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention.

Kumpfer, K.L., DeMarsh, J.P., and Child, W.1989. Strengthening Families Program:Children’s Skills Training CurriculumManual, Parent Training Manual, Children’sSkills Training Manual, and Family SkillsTraining Manual. Salt Lake City, UT: Uni-versity of Utah, Social Research Institute,Graduate School of Social Work.

Kumpfer, K.L., Molgaard, V., and Spoth, R.1996. The Strengthening Families Programfor the prevention of delinquency anddrug use. In Preventing Childhood Disorders,Substance Abuse, and Delinquency, editedby R.D. Peters and R.J. McMahon. Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp.241–267.

Molgaard, V., Kumpfer, K., and Fleming, E.1997 (Revised). The Strengthening FamiliesProgram: For Parents and Youth 10–14.Ames, IA: Iowa State University Extension.

National Institute on Drug Abuse. 1997.Preventing Drug Use Among Children andAdolescents: A Research-Based Guide. NIHPublication No. 97–4212. Rockville, MD:National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Redmond, C., Spoth, R., Shin, C., andLepper, H. 1999. Modeling long-term parentoutcomes of two universal family-focusedpreventive interventions: One year follow-up results. Journal of Consulting and Clini-cal Psychology 67(6):975–984.

Richardson, G.E., Neiger, B.L., Jensen, S.,and Kumpfer, K.L. 1990. The resiliencymodel. Health Education 21(6):33–39.

Russell, D.W., Kahn, J., Spoth, R., andAltmaier, E.M. 1998. Analyzing data fromexperimental studies: A latent variablestructural equation modeling approach.Journal of Counseling Psychology 45(1):18–29.

Spoth, R. 1999. Family-focused preventiveintervention research: A pragmatic per-spective on issues and future directions.In NIDA Research Monograph on Drug

Abuse Prevention Through Family Interven-tions, edited by R. Ashery, E. Robertson,and K. Kumpfer. Rockville, MD: NationalInstitute on Drug Abuse, pp. 459–510.

Spoth, R., Goldberg, C., and Redmond, C.1999. Engaging families in longitudinal pre-ventive intervention research: Discrete-time survival analysis of socioeconomicand social-emotional risk factors. Journalof Consulting and Clinical Psychology67(1):157–163.

Spoth, R., and Redmond, C. 1996. Illustrat-ing a framework for rural prevention re-search: Project Family studies of ruralfamily participation and outcomes. InPreventing Childhood Disorders, SubstanceAbuse, and Delinquency, edited by R.D.Peters and R.J. McMahon. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage Publications, pp. 299–328.

Spoth, R., Redmond, C., Hockaday, C., andShin, C. 1996. Barriers to participation infamily skills preventive interventions andtheir evaluations: A replication and exten-sion. Family Relations 45:247–254.

Spoth, R., Redmond, C., Kahn, J., and Shin,C. 1997. A prospective validation study ofinclination, belief, and context predictorsof family-focused prevention involvement.Family Process 36:403–429.

Spoth, R., Redmond, C., and Lepper, H.1999. Alcohol initiation outcomes of uni-versal family-focused preventive interven-tions: One- and two-year follow-ups of acontrolled study. Journal of Studies onAlcohol (Supplement 13):103–111.

Spoth, R., Redmond, C., and Project Fam-ily Research Group. 1997. Rural youth atrisk: Extension-based prevention efficacy.Unpublished manuscript (proposal forgrant funded by the National Institute ofMental Health).

Spoth, R., Redmond, C., and Project Fam-ily Research Group. 1998. Rural family andcommunity drug abuse prevention project.Unpublished manuscript (proposal forgrant funded by the National Institute onDrug Abuse).

Spoth, R., Redmond, C., and Shin, C. 1998.Direct and indirect latent variable parent-ing outcomes of two universal family-focused preventive interventions: Extend-ing a public health-oriented research base.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology66(2):385–399.

11

Acknowledgments

The research reported in this Bulletin was supported by grant DA 070 29–01A1from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and by grant MH 49217–01A1 from theNational Institute of Mental Health (R. Spoth, Principal Investigator). Developmentof the revised program materials was supported by gifts from Pioneer Hi-BredInternational, Inc.; Polk County Decategorization; State of Iowa Family Preserva-tion Services and Support; and the Wellmark Foundation (V. Molgaard, ProgramDirector). All grants and gifts were awarded to Project Family at the Institute forSocial and Behavioral Research, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.

Virginia K. Molgaard, Ph.D., is Director of Prevention Program Development andImplementation at the Institute for Social and Behavioral Research at Iowa StateUniversity. She is first author of the Strengthening Families Program: For Parentsand Youth 10–14. She is also the State Family Life Specialist for the CooperativeExtension Service at Iowa State University, and she oversees parent educationefforts by the Cooperative Extension Service in Iowa.

Richard L. Spoth, Ph.D., is a Senior Research Scientist in Prevention at theInstitute for Social and Behavior Research at Iowa State University. He also directsProject Family, an interrelated series of studies designed to assess needs forfamily-focused preventive interventions, factors influencing participation in theseinterventions, intervention efficacy, and strategies for dissemination. He recentlyreceived a MERIT Award from the National Institute on Drug Abuse for a ProjectFamily study.

Cleve Redmond, Ph.D., is an Associate Research Scientist at the Institute forSocial and Behavioral Research at Iowa State University. He is currently acoinvestigator on two large-scale longitudinal efficacy studies of interventionsdesigned to prevent substance use and other problem behaviors among ruraladolescents.

All photos courtesy of Dr. Molgaard.

Spoth, R., Redmond, C., and Shin, C. 2000a.Randomized trial of brief family interven-tions for general populations: Reductionsin adolescent substance use four yearsfollowing baseline. Manuscript under review.

Spoth, R., Redmond, C., and Shin, C. 2000b.Reducing adolescents’ hostile and aggres-sive behaviors: Randomized trial effectsof a brief family intervention four yearspast baseline. Manuscript under review.

Spoth, R., Reyes, M.L., Redmond, C., andShin, C. 1999. Assessing a public healthapproach to delay onset and progressionof adolescent substance use: Latent tran-sition and loglinear analyses of longitudi-nal family preventive intervention out-comes. Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology 67(5):619–630.

Share With Your Colleagues

Unless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications are not copyright protected. Weencourage you to reproduce this document, share it with your colleagues, andreprint it in your newsletter or journal. However, if you reprint, please cite OJJDPand the authors of this Bulletin. We are also interested in your feedback, such ashow you received a copy, how you intend to use the information, and how OJJDPmaterials meet your individual or agency needs. Please direct your comments andquestions to:

Juvenile Justice ClearinghousePublication Reprint/FeedbackP.O. Box 6000Rockville, MD 20849–6000800–638–8736301–519–5600 (fax)E-Mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org

Points of view or opinions expressed in thisdocument are those of the authors and do notnecessarily represent the official position orpolicies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department ofJustice.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention is a component of the Of-fice of Justice Programs, which also includesthe Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureauof Justice Statistics, the National Institute ofJustice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

PRESORTED STANDARDPOSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDPPERMIT NO. G–91

NCJ 182208Bulletin

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use $300