| by Risk Factor |  |
by Protective Factor | |
by Keyword | |
All Programs |
The Families in Action (FIA) program is a family-based alcohol-, tobacco-, and other drug abuse–prevention program that targets families with children entering middle (or junior high) school. The program was developed to provide youths with more than just information about the negative social and physical effects of substance abuse; rather it emphasizes teaching a combination of general life and social resistance skills as well as providing opportunities to practice these skills. The program includes modules on parent–child communication, positive behavior management, interpersonal relationships for adolescents, and the factors that promote school success. Using the risk and protective factor model, each of these components is designed to increase the attachment between a youth and his or her family, school, and peers.
The program uses a structured prevention curriculum that is taught in six 2½-hour sessions over 6 consecutive weeks. Sessions 1 and 2 concentrate on positive thinking and how to use positive rather than negative strategies to reach behavioral goals. Sessions 3 and 4 concentrate on positive communication skills and natural and logical consequences for one’s actions. Session 5 emphasizes school success. Session 6 deals with the avoidance of alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use by youths. Sessions are typically held in school classrooms on weekday evenings. Group size ranges from 5 to 12 families.
This program was evaluated with a quasi-experimental design featuring nonequivalent comparison groups. FIA was introduced into eight schools, with the evaluation centering on the four schools in which it was first implemented. The treatment group consisted of 58 students and 61 parents from these four schools who completed the program during the 1993–94 school year. The comparison group consisted of 510 students and 443 parents from the four schools that did not participate in the program. Both groups of students and parents completed a baseline and a 1-year follow-up survey. In addition to the baseline and 1-year follow-up, treatment group participants completed a pretest, a posttest, and a 10-week follow-up survey. Seventy-one percent of the participants who attended Session 1 graduated from the program. Pretest comparisons were made between parent and student program graduates and those who dropped out. The only significant difference was that parent dropouts reported fewer family activities. Most instruments were measured with multi-item scales that were assessed with Cronbach coefficient alphas. One-way analyses of variance were conducted to compare program graduates with nonparticipants. Limitations to the study include the lack of random assignment and the generalizability of the study.
Several curriculum content changes were made between the 1993–94 and 1994–95 school years, including adding more examples relevant to rural populations, adding more exercises relevant to girls, and eliminating some of the more theoretical material that was difficult for parents to understand. A quasi-experimental design with nonequivalent comparison groups produced 2nd year evaluation data. Twenty-nine students and 28 parents participated in the program and served as the treatment group, while 268 nonparticipating students and 134 nonparticipating parents acted as the control group. Both groups of students and parents completed a baseline and a 1-year follow-up survey. More mothers than fathers participated in the program (74 percent were mothers), and more mothers returned a baseline survey (64 percent were mothers). The majority of the parents had completed some college, had two or three children, and had a family income of at least $30,000 a year. Student respondents were fairly evenly distributed by gender (48 percent female) and age (median age=12 years). In terms of comparability of program participants and comparison group members at baseline, students did not significantly differ from one another on any of the outcome and demographic measures (family cohesion, family communication, family fighting, school attachment, peer support, self-esteem, age, grade point average, number of school absences, and attitudes in opposition to alcohol and tobacco use by minors). Parent participants had significantly lower scores at baseline on family cohesion, attitude toward tobacco, and attitude about age reported OK to drink alcohol and also had significantly higher rates of family fighting. Limitations to the study include the lack of random assignment and the generalizability of the study owing to its small sample size.
Evaluation results from the initial study suggest several positive program impacts for students and parents. Program participation was more beneficial for male participants than for girls. Controlling for baseline scores, compared with nonparticipants male program participants had higher school and peer attachment, had more appropriate attitudes toward alcohol, and believed alcohol should be consumed at an older age. These program effects were not significant for girls. Parent graduates reported more involvement in school activities and more involvement in family counseling than did nonparticipant parents.
For both parents and students a series of one-way analyses of covariance was conducted to examine a 2nd year of program effects. Results suggest that student participants, in comparison to their nonparticipant counterparts, had higher family cohesion, less family fighting, greater school attachment, and higher self-esteem and believed alcohol should be consumed at an older age (at 1-year follow-up when controlling for baseline scores). Conversely, there were fewer significant results for parent participants. Again when controlling for baseline scores, parent participants, when compared with nonparticipants, reported stronger attitudes in opposition to alcohol use by minors and in belief that alcohol should not be consumed until an older age, but no program effects were found for parents on the other outcome measures.
Abbey, A.; C. Pilgrim; P. Hendrickson; and S. Buresh. 2000. “Evaluation of a Family-Based Substance Abuse Prevention Program Targeted for the Middle School Years.” The Journal of Drug Education 30(2):213–28.
Pilgrim, C.; A. Abbey; P. Hendrickson; and S. Lorenz. 1998. “Implementation of a Family-Based Substance Abuse Prevention Program in Rural Communities.” The Journal of Primary Prevention 18(3):341–61.
Michael H. Popkin, Ph.D., or Peggy Hendrickson, M.A., M.S.W., ACSW
Active Parenting Publishers
1955 Vaughn Road NW, Suite 108
Kennesaw, GA 30144-7808
Phone: (800) 825-0060
Fax: (770) 429-0334
E-mail: cservice@activeparenting.com
Web site: http://www.activeparenting.com/xfia.htm
Michael H. Popkin, Ph.D., or Peggy Hendrickson, M.A., M.S.W., ACSW
Active Parenting Publishers
1955 Vaughn Road NW, Suite 108
Kennesaw, GA 30144-7808
Phone: (800) 825-0060
Fax: (770) 429-0334
E-mail: cservice@activeparenting.com
Web site: http://www.activeparenting.com/xfia.htm
