he family strengthening component is intended to support planning and programming that facilitate positive family interactions and support families in crisis.

Family strengthening and support programs focus on addressing gaps in the community’s continuum of family-focused services. Specifically, this component is intended to support planning and programming that facilitate positive family interactions and support families in crisis (especially those with children involved in the juvenile justice system). Such efforts may include the establishment of an intensive family case management system that is integrated with family-oriented programs and other SafeFutures components, the introduction of gap-filling family services, or the development of a resource guide of existing programs that provide family strengthening and support services. For this component, a maximum of $200,000 per year in funding is provided to each SafeFutures site under Title II, Part C, of the JJDP Act of 1974, as amended.

Although there is often debate about the relative importance of specific factors in youth development, the literature leaves little doubt that family life plays a critical role in social functioning. Damon (1988), for example, underscored the importance of parents’ role in the moral development of children. Smith and Paternoster (1987), Paternoster and Triplett (1988), and Arbuthnot, Gordon, and Jurkovic (1987) note that empathy, altruism, and compassion are key protective factors in preventing delinquency and that the inability to see others’ perspectives and a resulting lack of empathy is a key risk factor. Hawkins et al. (1988) found that parenting practices were directly related to adolescent drug use. In addition, all of the following have been demonstrated to have significant associations (either positive or negative) with delinquency: parental supervision, parental rejection, and parent-child involvement (Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986); parental monitoring, discipline, and positive parenting techniques (including consistent application of discipline and democratic decisionmaking) (Snyder and Patterson, 1987); antisocial behavior of parents (Slavin and Rainer, 1990; Henggeler, 1989; Goodwin, 1985; Bohman, 1978); and physical and emotional abuse (Doerner, 1987).

arental monitoring of children is a key component of positive parenting, both as a predictor of delinquency and as a protective measure.

Many researchers have found relationships between delinquency and parental supervision (Campbell, 1987; Cernkovich and Giordano, 1987; Wells and Rankin, 1986). Parental monitoring of children is a key component of positive parenting, both as a predictor of delinquency (Fischer, 1984; Wilson, 1987; McCord, 1979) and as a protective measure (Snyder and Patterson, 1987). Higher levels of monitoring are associated with lower rates of sexual activity, drug and alcohol use (Small, 1990), truancy, running away, and delinquency (Dornbusch et al., 1985). Steinberg (1990) found that 10- to 16-year-olds whose parents could not account for their children’s whereabouts were more susceptible to peer pressure.

Family dysfunction is an equally important predictor of delinquency. The delinquency that results from dysfunctional family functioning often begins a vicious cycle in which a youth’s delinquent behavior leads to negative parental reactions, thus exacerbating the child’s misbehavior (Patterson, 1982) and introducing a cycle that is both cause and effect (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1995). Hirschi’s (1969) social control theory posits that a lack of attachment to societal norms, especially those developed through the parent-child relationship, breaks the bond with society and leaves individuals free to be criminal. Parental rejection of a child has been cited as one of the strongest predictors of delinquency (McCord, 1983; Pfouts, Scholper, and Henley, 1981; Loeber and Dishion, 1984; Kroupa, 1988; Nye, 1958). Similarly, physical maltreatment of children is significantly related to delinquency (Thornberry, 1994).

Effective family functioning that includes clear expectations for behavior and monitoring and enforcement of those standards presumably provides protective factors in developing a child’s notions of social responsibility (Baumrind, 1967, 1971). For example, in a survey of 10,000 high school seniors, Steinberg (1990) found that (1) adolescents who rated their parents as firm, democratic, and accepting were more self-reliant, reported less anxiety and depression, and had a lower risk of delinquent behavior and (2) ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and family structure had no moderating effects. Poor discipline, defined as discipline that is both excessive and inconsistent, is often identified as a significant indicator of future antisocial, self-destructive, and criminal behavior (Peterson et al., 1994; Thornberry, 1994; McCord, 1988; Widom, 1989; Elder, Caspi, and Downey, 1983; Huesmann et al., 1984; Yesavage and Widrow, 1985).

This section describes programs or services specifically identified by sites as falling under the family strengthening and support component and also family strengthening services provided under other components. In most SafeFutures communities, family strengthening services were offered as part of programs providing youth services funded though other SafeFutures components, such as the delinquency prevention program or services for at-risk and delinquent girls components. The Family-School-Community (FSC) program in Contra Costa County and the Family Resource Centers (FRC’s) in Imperial County and St. Louis are examples of such arrangements. Although those programs, and others, made efforts to engage and provide services to parents, their primary focus for the most part was youth services. Family strengthening generally represented a relatively small share of the services provided in multiservice programs.

ase management/referrals and counseling were the most common SafeFutures family strengthening activities.

Case management/referrals and counseling (often provided more or less concurrently) were the most common SafeFutures family strengthening activities. Case management and counseling for parents or siblings were typically provided in conjunction with similar services for SafeFutures youth. Case management and counseling appeared relatively informal in some programs, and some used paraprofessional staff who lacked training to provide counseling of a more clinical nature. However, these staff often had access to clinically trained staff, either to advise them or to work with parents or youth with more serious problems. Parenting skills classes or workshops were provided through SafeFutures in some sites.

Imperial County, CA. Imperial County’s Probation Department has a long-standing parenting skills program focused on changing destructive adolescent behavior. Two members of the SafeFutures law enforcement team (described in a later section) were trained as class facilitators, enabling provision of additional classes and expansion to target area communities not previously served. A support group for troubled teens has been developed to complement the parenting skills classes.

The programs providing family strengthening services along with a range of youth services in Contra Costa County, Imperial County, and St. Louis can be viewed as examples of systems reform and interagency collaboration. All three involved establishing school-based programs to deliver services to youth and family members at one or more sites. This approach requires bringing nonschool staff into schools to provide youth and families with services not typically offered by schools. Service delivery staff may be SafeFutures staff, as in Contra Costa, or may include staff from a variety of social service agencies who are assigned to the school site (on a part- or full-time basis), as in Imperial County. The schools provide space and, sometimes, other resources to support these programs. School staff and the staff of these “centers” develop working relationships that transcend their usual professional boundaries. School staff may play a role in shaping the services or programmatic offerings of the centers. The main source of youth referrals—primarily youth who exhibit behavioral or academic problems in school—is typically school staff. The following examples briefly describe the different school-based configurations and the family strengthening aspects of their programs.

Contra Costa County, CA. School-based resource specialists (paraprofessionals) in Contra Costa provide case management and informal counseling to parents and youth, in addition to providing afterschool and in-school activities for youth. Specialists conduct home visits to provide support and assistance (which may be crisis support in some cases), particularly when there are difficulties. Some specialists help parents by providing transportation to appointments at school, court, service agencies, and other locations. Specialists in two elementary schools initiated or enhanced “parent rooms” that serve as drop-in centers where parents can interact with teachers and other school staff, thus strengthening parent-school bonds. Youth or parents with more serious problems are referred to the counselor of the agency that employs the specialists.

Imperial County, CA. Imperial County SafeFutures established an FRC in Brawley High School to function as a “one-stop shop” for services, with collocated staff from a variety of agencies. Youth or families referred to three or more services are placed on the FRC’s case management caseload, although others may receive referrals to services or receive services provided by the FRC. Parents of all youth referred to the FRC are routinely involved in initial intake interviews for their children (even for those not on the case management caseload) and are referred to other services as needed. Two FRC staff provide services that can be viewed as primarily focused on parents/family strengthening: a repositioned social service eligibility worker helps parents access various services and an FRC guidance technician advises parents about school procedures related to expulsion and reinstatement. Mental health and substance abuse counselors also have been assigned to the FRC to provide counseling for those who need it.

St. Louis, MO. St. Louis initially established FRC’s in three school sites, staffed by teams composed of a family therapist and a community outreach worker (the latter are certified parent educators). The teams provided case management, individual counseling, and family counseling and worked with parents on an individual or small group basis to provide parenting skills education and support. The FRC’s, which are no longer operational, were intended to address the specific needs of the Community Education Centers in which they were located; thus some provided other services targeted to parents or participated in family strengthening services offered through their CEC. For example, one CEC held a monthly “family night” activity for parents and their children. These get-togethers emphasized literacy and language skills and typically included an activity parents and children performed together to reinforce the literacy message and promote bonding.

eattle incorporated family strengthening into a variety of its programs.

Seattle incorporated family strengthening into a variety of its programs. This action also enabled provision of culturally appropriate services.

Seattle, WA. The Asian/Pacific Islander Diversion and Family Support Program, an alternative dispositional program for first-time nonserious juvenile offenders, provides services for families and youth. A counselor serves as interpreter and advocate for parents in the court process. SafeFutures began funding this program in year 2 to support activities such as reaching out to families prior to the initial hearing (including visiting families in their homes), informing youth and families about what to expect during the upcoming proceedings, linking families to needed services in their own community, providing quarterly community education classes on the American juvenile justice system and available services, and networking with the community to increase culturally sensitive services.

Seattle, WA. Seattle’s Cambodian Girls Group (CGG), renamed Help Each Other Reach the Sky (HERS) in year 3, incorporates a number of parent support services in conjunction with its at-risk and delinquent girls programming. Parents are required to participate in the CGG parenting class in order for girls to participate in the at-risk and delinquent girls/job training program. Girls receive stipends for these jobs, but their stipends are reduced if parents do not participate in all sessions. The parenting classes are cofacilitated by an English-speaking teacher and a Cambodian counselor. They address parenting skills and skills to help the immigrant/refugee parents function in their new environment, such as opening a bank account to save for their children’s college education, understanding police and court procedures, reading a report card, and interacting with school staff. The classes also are intended to create a support structure for parents. CGG staff have adopted culturally appropriate teaching styles (e.g., use of proverbs and drama, which are traditional teaching/learning methods for this population, but not role-playing, which is considered embarrassing) to reach this audience. CGG also arranges for counseling services for parents, including crisis intervention, mental health services to parents with posttraumatic stress or other mental health needs, and family therapy sessions with parents and their daughters. Home visits are conducted by a Cambodian case manager and a Caucasian therapist. These visits enable followup regarding issues raised in the parenting classes and therapy sessions.

any family strengthening programs focus on populations that can be viewed as particularly high risk.

Relatively few family strengthening services emphasized services to siblings, although in many cases siblings might be enrolled in SafeFutures programs targeted directly to them or referred to other youth programs. Seattle’s Sibling Support Program, discussed in the section “Mental Health Services for At-Risk and Adjudicated Youth,” is an exception.

Participants in family strengthening services generally are identified through a combination of self-referral and referral from other sources, including staff in the same program or other SafeFutures programs or, sometimes, the juvenile court. Several programs, including the FRC’s in St. Louis and Imperial County and the FSC programs in Contra Costa, actively conduct outreach activities in the community and otherwise publicize the services available. Many family strengthening programs focus on populations that can be viewed as particularly high risk. For example, referrals to the parenting skills classes in Imperial County historically came from juvenile justice agencies. Court referrals also were common for Fort Belknap’s Positive Indian Parenting classes. Seattle’s Cambodian Girls Group and the SafeFutures Youth Center served immigrant/refugee families (the latter focused on gang-involved youth), while the Asian/Pacific Islander Diversion program and Sisters in Common served families of girls involved in the juvenile justice system. Sisters in Common provides case management for girls involved in the juvenile justice system and family strengthening services and case management for their parents.

Comprehensive Responses to Youth At Risk: Interim Findings From the SafeFutures Initiative

OJJDP Summary • November 2000