Making the Connection: A Collaborative Community-based Research Project

 Community Affiliations and University Partner: 

East District Families First
Virginia Union University
University of Richmond LINCS program 
VCU Survey & Evaluation Research Lab, Center for Public Policy, Audrey Jordan, Ph.D., Senior Research Associate

Abstract

We examined the effects that a culturally based parenting education program had on parents who reside in the East End of Richmond, Virginia in the areas of parental competence and parent-child relationships. The goal of the program is to assist parents in “making the connection” between what they do as parents and how their children behave. A multi-method participatory design was used. African American American students functioned as research assistants. Although sample size due to attrition was small, quantitative results suggest that parents learned that they had more responsibility in the children’s up-bringing than they had recognized, and that fate or chance are not agents of change in their lives as they apparently had believed. Qualitative results suggest that increased learning about parenting and child development occurred, that changes in parents, children, and relationships occurred, and that the support felt from other parents and the opportunity to be heard were valuable.

Please click here to view the Power Point presentation

 Background and Questions

We examined the effects that a culturally based parenting program designed for low-income East End parents has on improving parenting skills. The basic premise of the parenting program is that assisting parents in understanding how their behavior (words and actions) impact their children’s development will motivate them in improving their parental competence and parent-child relationships. The goal of the program is to assist parents in “making the connection” between what they do as parents and how their children behave. 

The East District Families First (EDFF) program staff recruited approximately 30 participants who reside in the East End of Richmond. Half were randomly assigned to the intervention group, and half to a comparison group who would receive the intervention after the completion of the study. After attrition, the intervention and comparison groups included 9 and 5, respectively; post-tests were completed for 7 and 4 participants, respectively. Participants from whom we have both pre and post-program data consists of 13 African American females and one African American male, all between 20 to 30 years of age and all living below the poverty level.

A multi-method participatory design was used. The program developer, East District Families First, was involved in the decision about methods and instruments. Quantitative data were used to assess the extent to which the program changed the knowledge, attitude and behavior of participants. The Parental Locus of Control (PLOC by Robert Lyman) was used to obtain a quantitative pre-post assessment of a primary target of the program, namely, increased parents’ perceived responsibility for their own children’s behavior. EDFF staff administered the PLOC to the intervention and comparison groups at the EDFF office.  SERL scored the instruments, did data entry, and conducted data analyses.

Qualitative data obtained through a structured interview were used to assess program participants’ experiences of the program. Three main questions were addressed: 1) What parents got from the program; 2) How the program affected the parents and their parent-child relationship; 3) What the parents thought of the program in terms of its value and help. Structured questions were developed in collaboration with the EDFF staff and trained interviewers using the guidelines for data reporting.

Another goal of the collaborative project was to provide minority students community-based research experience. Three students from Virginia Union University carried out structured interviews with participants. Some interviews took place at the participants’ homes and others at the EDFF office. A VUU faculty advisor and SERL staff provided training in qualitative data collection and relevant cultural competence skills. The SERL project director did the preparation and analysis of the data, using basic qualitative content analysis procedures. 

Site Description

East District Families First (EDFF) was developed in 1996 as a result of the city’s desire for a new approach to service delivery. The unit consists of eight service providers, three of whom were directly involved in the project (the program manager and two family managers). EDFF is a family focused intensive home visitation program which has provided a mix of services including home visitations, parenting education, counseling, advocacy, employment assistance, prenatal and infant health care. It is located in Richmond’s East District and services only East District families. The East End is composed of nine neighborhoods including four public housing developments, with a population of 28,000 residents. This area has been identified as one of the city’s major crisis areas. The East District, which is 95% African American, is plagued with high-risk factors: poverty, an over-representation of single female head of households, criminal activity and male unemployment.

Project Development Background

Parenting classes have been offered in the past by EDFF in the area of juvenile delinquency interventions and treatment. However, a modified version was crafted for the purpose of working with parents of children 18 months to 3 years old. The program provides six weeks of training designed for African American parents and is designed to take place in a stress-free informal dinner environment.  The topics include male/female relationships, brain development, discipline with love and logic, nurturing and child potential, the importance of fathers, and leading a child to independence.

Analyses and Results

1.        Quantitative Results. The PLOC has five sub-scales: parental efficacy, parental responsibility, child control of parent’s life, parental belief in fate/chance, and parental control of child’s life. PLOC results suggest that participants’ but not comparison group members’ belief in fate or chance and their perceptions of parental responsibility shifted in the appropriate direction after program participation. In Table 1, average change scores from pre- to post-program for intervention and control groups are listed. In Table 2, T-test results testing the significance of difference scores are listed. Lower sub-scale scores are better. For the Intervention group, on average, scores got lower for post- compared to pre-test at a greater rate.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Table 1: Change Score

(* T-test significant at p= .021) 

 Table 2: Paired T-Test of Intervention and Comparison Groups

a.       The average change score for Child control of parent’s life was significantly different for the intervention group compared to the comparison group .  The comparison group difference between pre- and post-test was significantly greater than the intervention group difference between pre-and post-test (t = -2.79, p = .021).

b.       The paired t-tests reveals that the change in the Parental Belief in Fate/Chance sub-scale score is nearly  significant at the p=.06 level for the Intervention group only; it is in the appropriate direction, with the post-test score lower than the pre-test. If the p level is set at p=.10, then Parental Responsibility is also significant and in the right direction.  Participants apparently learned that 1) fate or chance are not the agents of change in their lives as much as they might have previously thought; 2) they had more responsibility in their children’s up-bringing than they might have previously thought.

2.        Qualitative Results. 

a.        Knowledge and Attitude Change: Participants’ open ended responses in the interviews suggest increased learning in the following areas: child development knowledge, what parents can do to facilitate positive development, the trouble with inconsistent discipline, the importance of nurturing for boys, the effects of parental actions and words on their children, and ways parents can support independence.

b.       Perceived Effect on Participants, Children, and Relationship with Children: All parents reported that they changed in some way as a result of their participation.  Participants reported changes in knowledge about child development which help with understanding their children better, changes in their attitudes toward parenting and their parenting behavior – particularly the importance of spending time and consistent discipline – and changes in the way they view themselves as parents. Most parents also reported changes in their children, especially in their children’s understanding of what’s expected of them, and “minding” them more.  A few parents reported that children are doing better in school than they had been doing. The link to the program, however, is not clear from the responses. Parents also reported changes in their parent-child relationships.  Generally, they are spending more time with their children and they are doing more things together like having discussions, playing, going-out, and understanding each other better.

c.        Perceived Value of the Program: Participants saw much value in the parenting knowledge and the child development knowledge provided by the program. They felt support from other parents and enjoyed  having a place to be heard.  Parents appeared to get help and support in learning how better to interact with their children – from just spending more quality time with them, to being sure that discipline is consistent and understood as a consequence for actions. Their comments suggest they would like to see the program more broadly offered.  Parents want to see special outreach to male participants – there was only one male among the participants.

3.       Student Researchers:  In a “de-brief” session, students valued the learning opportunity provided by participating as researchers in a study carried out in a real world community-setting following their more traditional research course training. While initially nervous about conducting the interviews and doing them correctly, all three felt competent and enjoyed the experience. The training they received beforehand was helpful and much appreciated. They would have appreciated more time to learn about the actual data analyses, which was not possible due to time constraints. They would also like the opportunity to present the results not only to their college classes, but also to the participants in the study (under consideration) All would be very interested in participating in a similar experience again.

 Implications for Program Planners:

1.   Belief in fate/chance: Parenting programs should directly address “parental influence” as change agents. When planning parenting programs for low-income parents, issues like control over ones life have to be taught.  Do not assume that parents understand that fate and chance are not always the agents of change in their lives to the degree that they might perceive them to be.

2.      Parental Responsibility: Typical parenting programs assume parents understand their level of responsibility in rearing their own children.  This study implies that this is not always true.  Low-income parents may view that children’s up-bringing is everybody’s responsibility especially rules and regulations outside of the home such as schools, police and courts The application of these rules are viewed by them as mostly out of their hands.

3.       Culturally based Parent Programming: Parenting programs must take on the worldview of its participants. While typical parenting programs have valid lessons, many low-income parents do not readily see that value.  Curriculum planners should assume that the parents have not made the connection between their behaviors or parenting activities and their children’s behavior. Also, topics included in the program should provide practical and realistic applications to participants’ lives and be approached with sensitivity to the cultural group. For instance, in discussing discipline, Black parents tend to take offense with programs that suggest spanking is wrong because physical punishment is typically their primary method of discipline.  So if one says that spanking is bad, the interpretation may be that the participants are bad parents.  The Making the Connection program never put down spanking but instead gave explanation as to why children do what they do and therefore helped parents to understand how to respond to their children’s behavior.  Spanking remained an option although it was not viewed as the first line of defense or response.

Finally, recruitment of male participants should be given special attention in offering parenting classes. Where the community is made up of 70% single female head of households, having males in the group offers a dimension often missing in typical parenting classes.

4.        Practical Programming Points:

A full dinner, which was used as an incentive for the participants, took up too much time. Finger food is recommended instead. On site babysitting caused split attention for the participants since children were in distant view of the parents.  Perhaps babysitting stipends for at-home sitters would have been preferable.

Contact Information:

Jane Talley, East District Families First
talleyjc@ci.richmond.va.us

Back to Ujima Home