Faith placed parenting intervention
A R T I C L E
FAITH-PLACED PARENTING
INTERVENTION
Megan E. Patrick, Brittany L. Rhoades, Meg Small,
and J. Douglas Coatsworth
The Pennsylvania State University
Collaboration with religious institutions is recommended as a frontier for
prevention science. Little is known about the effectiveness of programs
currently disseminated by churches. This pilot program investigated
potential advantages and disadvantages of university collaborations in
faith settings, by implementing the Staying Connected with Your Teen
parenting program (N 5 13 parents) in a single congregation. The
mixed-method assessment included surveys, a focus group, and
observation to gather information about implementation. Meeting time,
location, parallel youth programming, endorsement by trusted leaders,
and use of existing social networks were indicated by past research
and described by participants as potential advantages to an evidencebased program implementation in faith communities. & 2007 Wiley
Periodicals, Inc.
Contemporary families are increasingly challenged by changing social forces (e.g., the
economy, the media, social networks), leading parents from high-risk and low-risk
families to seek assistance with becoming more effective parents (Cowan, Powell, &
Cowan, 1998). Despite the positive effects parenting programs have shown (e.g., Spoth,
Kavanagh, & Dishion, 2002), significant challenges to effective implementation remain.
The greatest overall challenge may be the recruitment and retention of participants
(Haggerty, Kosterman, Catalano, & Hawkins, 1999; Spoth & Redmond, 2000). Despite
the widely accepted ecological perspective (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1997), current
intervention programs often ignore community resources (Kotchick & Forehand, 2002),
which may be useful in supporting positive development and engaging community
members. Faith communities, in particular, have a rich history in social services and may
provide effective settings for the delivery of empirically validated programs.
Support for this research was provided by a NIDA training grant, M. Greenberg, PI, with fellowships
awarded to M. Patrick and B. Rhoades (DA 017629).
Correspondence to: Megan E. Patrick, The Pennsylvania State University, S110 Henderson Building
University Park, PA 16802. E-mail: mep202@psu.edu
JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY, VOL. 36, NO. 1, 74–80 (2008)
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).
& 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/jcop.20218
Faith-Placed Intervention
75
INTERVENTION IN FAITH COMMUNITIES
Religious institutions may be relatively untapped resources for promoting healthy
child development. Two thirds of Americans attend religious services at least once per
year (Chaves, Konieczny, Beyerlein, & Barman, 1999) and 60% believe religion is
relevant for social problems (Puffer & Miller, 2001). Furthermore, the majority of
congregations (57%–78%) are already providing social services (DeHaven, Huner,
Wilder, Walton, & Berry, 2004). However, as with many community initiatives, the
programs churches use are not often empirically based (Spoth et al., 2002), and little is
known about their effectiveness (DeHaven et al., 2004; Voorhees et al., 1996).
Despite the lack of available empirical evidence or outcome measures regarding faithbased initiatives, greater attention has recently been paid to faith-based programs. The
current presidential administration’s endorsement of such approaches has led to the
availability of federal funds to religious groups (Glazer, 2001). The little research available
suggests that effect sizes are smaller when programs are implemented by practitioners
(Kumpfer & Alvarado, 2003), which would include clergy and staff members. One solution
is for churches to partner with professionals to implement faith-placed programs, creating
potentially powerful collaborations between prevention scientists and faith communities.
To differentiate various types of programs implemented by religious groups, the
semantics of DeHaven and colleagues (2004) are useful. Faith-placed programs describe
collaboration where professionals implement interventions in church settings. Faithbased programs are those that are part of the church’s ministry and are likely to have
no evidence supporting their efficacy. This pilot implementation was designed to
gather information about implementation advantages and disadvantages in faith
communities and to investigate whether religious congregations may serve as
important resources in the scientific dissemination of prevention programming.
Adaptation
The importance of designing and implementing programs that are responsive to
cultural needs of local communities is increasingly recognized (Kotchick & Forehand,
2002; Spoth et al., 2002), although definitions of culture have been generally limited to
impacts of race and ethnicity (e.g., Castro, Barrera, & Martinez, 2004). Faith
communities provide a context for a different type of cultural adaptation, one focused
on the relevance of programs to the religious lives of families. Surface structure
changes, such as those made by changing the racial and ethnic appearance of models on
program materials, may include providing an evidence-based program in a religious
setting with endorsement by trusted congregation leadership, as in the present pilot
study. Deep structure changes, addressing ‘‘the core values, beliefs, norms, and other
more significant aspects of the cultural group’s world views and lifestyle’’ (Castro et al.,
2004, p. 43), are also possible and may be a fruitful research frontier. The current
review is meant as a beginning to the conversation of faith community adaptation, and
therefore focuses on potential advantages associated with surface structure changes of
implementing evidence-based programming in religious settings.
Implementation Advantages and Limitations
Most pertinent for prevention scientists is that faith communities offer potential
implementation advantages. Public health initiatives have utilized faith communities
with some success (DeHaven et al., 2004; Moss, Gallaread, Siller, & Klausner, 2004;
Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop
76
Journal of Community Psychology, January 2008
Voorhees et al., 1996). Delivery of empirically validated programs through churches
may yield benefits often overlooked by social scientists, including a familiar time and
location for meetings, available child and youth programs, the endorsement of
respected leaders, and the utilization of established social networks.
Two of the top five barriers to program involvement among parents are meeting
time and location (Spoth & Redmond, 2000). For individuals involved in a church
body, these two issues could become substantially less problematic if participation were
integrated into church life. For example, prevention programs can utilize a familiar
education hour on Sunday mornings or Wednesday evenings, which are times that
may already be set aside for church-related activities, making involvement much more
convenient. In addition, childcare and youth programs are often already available
during such times, addressing a suggestion by Haggerty and colleagues (1999) to offer
these services during parent prevention programming.
Another major concern of parent involvement is facilitator background (Spoth &
Redmond, 2000). DeHaven and colleagues (2004) suggest that because churches are
familiar community organizations, they may succeed where less familiar agencies
cannot. Given the importance of involving respected community members (Ammerman et al., 2003; Haggerty et al., 1999; Moss et al., 2004), the endorsement
of clergy and other respected leaders is likely an important advantage to
implementation in churches. A final implementation benefit may come from tapping
into existing social networks. Forming positive alliances with other group members is
related to retention in family interventions (Coatsworth, Duncan, Pantin, &
Szapocznik, 2006). Using existing social networks may also help with one of the
primary goals of parent interventions by creating a social support network among a
group of parents (Coatsworth, Pantin, & Szapocznik, 2002; McKay, Gonzalez, Stone,
Ryland, & Kohner, 1995). Parents who come from an existing social network may have
initial commonalities that lead to greater comfort in sharing important information,
compared to parents who are randomly assigned to an intervention group.
There are also potential limitations and unique obstacles associated with conducting
intervention research and programming in faith communities, including insufficient
funds, unmotivated lay leadership providing programs, and overworked staff or
pastors gaining additional responsibilities (Puffer & Miller, 2001). The majority of
these concerns are addressed by collaboration with universities; such partnerships
provide access to technical assistance, implementation resources (e.g., funding,
program coordinators), and prevention expertise (Spoth et al., 2002). At the same
time, the collaboration may induce a struggle between scientific integrity and the
community’s cultural values (Ammerman et al., 2003; Voorhees et al., 1996). However,
this challenge is not unique to collaboration with faith organizations, and these
adaptations are viewed as worthwhile and necessary to more fully engage potential
participants. We explore a collaborative approach between a faith congregation and a
university that disseminates research-based programming.
Pilot Study
The current study was initiated by the organic recognition of a need for programming
among church members. The middle- to upper-middle-class parents recognized that
even the most affluent adolescents are at specific risk for academic failure, substance
use, and anxiety (e.g., McMahon & Luthar, 2006). Church members approached the
Prevention Research Center at The Pennsylvania State University suggesting
Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop
Faith-Placed Intervention
77
collaboration. As recommended by Puffer and Miller (2001), graduate students were
recruited to lead the program as a complementary experience to coursework in
prevention science.
Participants in this pilot program were parents (N 5 4 men, 9 women) in a local
Episcopalian congregation (about 600 total members). A mixed-method assessment of
a pilot implementation of Staying Connected with Your Teen (SCT) as a faith-placed
program was conducted. Staying Connected with Your Teen (formerly known as
Parents Who Care; Hawkins & Catalano, 2004) is a 10-hour parenting intervention
program for parents of teenagers. Potential implementation benefits described above
were maximized; the program was provided on Sunday mornings during the
education hour directly following a worship service and youth programming was
offered during the same time. User reaction criteria were the main evaluative focus
(Segal, Chen, Gordon, Kacir, & Gylys, 2003) because learning and behavior criteria
cannot adequately be investigated on such a small scale.
Surveys were administered at the beginning and end of the program to assess parent
characteristics, feedback about content and delivery, and overall program satisfaction.
The results are descriptive rather than analytical. In addition, all parents were invited
to participate in a focus group approximately 2 months after the program was
completed. The focus group was held 2 months later, at the same time and place as the
SCT program; six parents participated (46% of total participants). The focus group was
led by a parent member of the intervention group who was not involved in theoretical
aspects of the study and program facilitators were not present. The focus group was
conducted in a nondirective style to allow participants to respond freely to questions.
RESULTS
Pretest data show that 70% of parents had never participated in a parenting program
of any kind, although the group felt that parent involvement in preventing youth
problems was extremely important (M 5 6.8, SD 5 .60, on a scale of 1 5 extremely
unimportant to 7 5 extremely important). Parents were concerned (M 5 3.0, SD 5 .63, on a
scale of 1 5 unconcerned to 4 5 extremely concerned) about their teen’s involvement in
common adolescent problem behaviors and reported spending quality time with their
teenagers about once each week (M 5 3.0, SD 5 1.00, on a scale of 1 5 less than once a
month to 5 5 every day).
In direct contradiction to the missing data patterns of many prevention programs,
SCT experienced an influx of new faces. This highlights the potential benefits of social
networks communicating their enjoyment of a well-received program. Average
attendance was 4.3 out of 9 sessions because parents were welcomed to begin
participation at any time. Those who began the program later (after the first week) had
lower attendance during the following sessions. Among those who attended the first
week, attendance was higher (M 5 5.7, SD 5 .60), with the majority attending over half
the program sessions.
Focus Group Feedback: Advantages
The focus group discussion mirrored the potential advantages to implementation of
evidence-based programs in faith communities reviewed above: meeting time,
location, endorsement by trusted leaders, parallel youth programming, and utilization
of existing social networks. When asked what ‘‘brought them to the table’’ to
Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop
78
Journal of Community Psychology, January 2008
participate in the program, participants spontaneously reported each of the items
listed above. First, meeting time and location were important. Participants reported
that they would not have been as likely to attend program sessions if they had been
held in the evenings or during the week. They found the scheduled Sunday morning
time and place convenient, and ‘‘as good a time as any.’’ Second, parents appreciated
the combination that it was both an evidence-based program and available in the
church: a program they valued came to a place they valued. Third, the professional
and research experience of one of the church members who was involved in securing
program implementation made them comfortable and assured them that the program
was credible. A fourth advantage was that all of the parents had teenagers participating
in the church’s youth programs, which were held concurrent to the SCT program.
Parents appreciated that ‘‘the kids are bonding and we [the parents] are bonding.’’
Finally, participants believed that they would ‘‘not have been as open if [the other
participants] were strangers.’’ Rather, they felt it was a safe group and were comforted
by familiar faces and shared values. Discomfort regarding meeting new people at a
new place to attend a parenting program was described as a reason the parents would
choose not to attend similar programming in an unfamiliar community setting. These
focus group comments provide preliminary evidence to support the theoretical claims
outlined above.
FOCUS GROUP FEEDBACK: DISADVANTAGES
The focus group also discussed potential disadvantages to the program, including
length of time, curriculum, and other concurrent church commitments. First, the
program was implemented over 10 weeks, with nine sessions between October and
January. Participants thought the program may have lasted too long, especially
straddling Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays. Second, some curriculum examples
were perceived as ‘‘too extreme,’’ not representing the particular problems the parents
were experiencing within their own families, although facilitator abilities to redirect
and reframe these issues reportedly made this less of a problem. This feedback
provides evidence of the important role that facilitators’ skills play in the
implementation of evidence-based curriculum (Hansen, 2001). Finally, church
members involved in the program at times had other commitments on Sunday
mornings that prevented them from complete attendance. However, Sunday morning
was still perceived to be the best option to meet for the majority of families.
CONCLUSIONS
The current study was the result of a church–university collaboration to disseminate an
evidence-based prevention program to parents in a faith community. A review of the
literature highlighted potential advantages of such an implementation and these
factors were also independently reported by program participants. Meeting time,
location, parallel youth programming, endorsement by trusted leaders, and use of
existing social networks were described as advantages to evidence-based program
implementation in faith communities. The current study illustrates the potential for
intervention implementation in faith contexts. Future work should further investigate
faith-placed collaborations, particularly in areas of higher risk (e.g., inner city African
American church communities). In addition, lessons learned here regarding utilization
Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop
Faith-Placed Intervention
79
of existing meeting schedules and familiar social networks as implementation
advantages may generalize to other settings. Creatively matching community-based
interventions with convenient times and locations to maximize participation for
additional targeted segments of the population (e.g., parents of athletes on a sports
team, office employees) may also be fruitful.
REFERENCES
Ammerman, A., Corbie-Smith, G., St. George, D.M.M., Washington, C., Weathers, B., &
Jackson-Christian, B. (2003). Research expectations among African American church
leaders in the PRAISE! Project: A randomized trial guided by community-based
participatory research. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1720–1727.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P.A. (1997). The ecology of developmental processes. In W.
Damon (Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology (5th ed., pp. 993–1028). New York: Wiley.
Castro, F.G., Barrera, M., & Martinez, C.R. (2004). The cultural adaptation of prevention
interventions: Resolving tensions between fidelity and fit. Prevention Science, 5, 41–45.
Chaves, M., Konieczny, M.E., Beyerlein, K., & Barman, E. (1999). The National Congregations
Study: Background, methods, and selected results. Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion, 38, 458–476.
Coatsworth, J.D., Duncan, L., Pantin, H., & Szapocznik, J. (2006). Classifying retention patterns
in a preventive intervention for ethnic minority families: The quality of group process. The
Journal of Primary Prevention, 27, 367–389.
Coatsworth, J.D., Pantin, H., & Szapocznik, J. (2002). Familias Unidas: A family-centered
ecodevelopmental intervention to reduce risk for conduct problems and substance use
among Hispanic adolescents. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 5, 113–132.
Cowan, P.A., Powell, D., & Cowan, C.P. (1998). Parenting interventions: A family-systems
perspective. In W. Damon, I.E. Siegel & A.K. Renninger (Eds.), Handbook of child
psychology: Child psychology in practice (5th ed., Vol. 4, pp. 3–72). New York: Wiley.
DeHaven, M.J., Hunter, I.B., Wilder, L., Walton, J.W., & Berry, J. (2004). Health programs in
faith-based organizations: Are they effective? American Journal of Public Health, 94,
1030–1036.
Glazer, S. (2001). Faith-based initiatives. The CQ Researcher, 11, 377–400.
Haggerty, K., Kosterman, R., Catalano, R.F., & Hawkins, J.D. (1999). Preparing for the drug
free years. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Hansen, W.B. (2001). Fidelity: Snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. In W.B. Hansen, S.M.
Giles, & M.D. Fearnow-Kenney (Eds.), Increasing prevention effectiveness (pp. 223–230).
Greensboro, NC: Tanglewood Research.
Hawkins, J.D., & Catalano, R.F. (2004). Staying connected with your teen: A program for
parents of teens. South Deerfield, MA: Channing Bete Co.
Kotchick, B.A., & Forehand, R. (2002). Putting parenting in perspective: A discussion of the
contextual factors that shape parenting practices. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 11,
255–269.
Kumpfer, K.L., & Alvarado, R. (2003). Family-strengthening approaches for the prevention of
youth problem behaviors. American Psychologist, 58, 457–465.
McKay, M.M., Gonzalez, J., Stone, S., Ryland, D., & Kohner, K. (1995). Multiple family therapy
groups: A responsive intervention model for inner city families. Social Work with Groups,
18, 41–56.
McMahon, T.J., & Luthar, S.S. (2006). Patterns and correlates of substance use among affluent,
suburban high school students. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 35,
72–89.
Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop
80
Journal of Community Psychology, January 2008
Moss, N.J., Gallaread, A., Siller, J., & Klausner, J.D. (2004). ‘‘Street medicine’’: Collaborating
with a faith-based organization to screen at-risk youths for sexually transmitted diseases.
American Journal of Public Health, 94, 1081–1084.
Puffer, K.A., & Miller, K.J. (2001). The church as an agent of help in the battle against late life
depression. Pastoral Psychology, 50, 125–136.
Segal, D., Chen, P.Y., Gordon, D.A., Kacir, C.D., & Gylys, J. (2003). Development and evaluation
of a parenting intervention program: Integration of scientific and practical approaches.
International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 15, 453–467.
Spoth, R.L., & Redmond, C. (2000). Research on family engagement in preventive
interventions: Toward improved use of scientific findings in primary prevention practice.
The Journal of Primary Prevention, 21, 267–284.
Spoth, R.L., Kavanagh, K.A., & Dishion, T.J. (2002). Family-centered preventive intervention
science: Toward benefits to larger populations of children, youth, and families. Prevention
Science, 3, 145–152.
Voorhees, C.C., Stillman, F.A., Swank, R.T., Heagerty, P.J., Levine, D.M., & Becker, D.M. (1996).
Heart, body, and soul: Impact of church-based smoking cessation interventions on readiness
to quit. Preventive Medicine, 25, 277–285.
Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop
FAITH-PLACED PARENTING
INTERVENTION
Megan E. Patrick, Brittany L. Rhoades, Meg Small,
and J. Douglas Coatsworth
The Pennsylvania State University
Collaboration with religious institutions is recommended as a frontier for
prevention science. Little is known about the effectiveness of programs
currently disseminated by churches. This pilot program investigated
potential advantages and disadvantages of university collaborations in
faith settings, by implementing the Staying Connected with Your Teen
parenting program (N 5 13 parents) in a single congregation. The
mixed-method assessment included surveys, a focus group, and
observation to gather information about implementation. Meeting time,
location, parallel youth programming, endorsement by trusted leaders,
and use of existing social networks were indicated by past research
and described by participants as potential advantages to an evidencebased program implementation in faith communities. & 2007 Wiley
Periodicals, Inc.
Contemporary families are increasingly challenged by changing social forces (e.g., the
economy, the media, social networks), leading parents from high-risk and low-risk
families to seek assistance with becoming more effective parents (Cowan, Powell, &
Cowan, 1998). Despite the positive effects parenting programs have shown (e.g., Spoth,
Kavanagh, & Dishion, 2002), significant challenges to effective implementation remain.
The greatest overall challenge may be the recruitment and retention of participants
(Haggerty, Kosterman, Catalano, & Hawkins, 1999; Spoth & Redmond, 2000). Despite
the widely accepted ecological perspective (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1997), current
intervention programs often ignore community resources (Kotchick & Forehand, 2002),
which may be useful in supporting positive development and engaging community
members. Faith communities, in particular, have a rich history in social services and may
provide effective settings for the delivery of empirically validated programs.
Support for this research was provided by a NIDA training grant, M. Greenberg, PI, with fellowships
awarded to M. Patrick and B. Rhoades (DA 017629).
Correspondence to: Megan E. Patrick, The Pennsylvania State University, S110 Henderson Building
University Park, PA 16802. E-mail: mep202@psu.edu
JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY, VOL. 36, NO. 1, 74–80 (2008)
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).
& 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/jcop.20218
Faith-Placed Intervention
75
INTERVENTION IN FAITH COMMUNITIES
Religious institutions may be relatively untapped resources for promoting healthy
child development. Two thirds of Americans attend religious services at least once per
year (Chaves, Konieczny, Beyerlein, & Barman, 1999) and 60% believe religion is
relevant for social problems (Puffer & Miller, 2001). Furthermore, the majority of
congregations (57%–78%) are already providing social services (DeHaven, Huner,
Wilder, Walton, & Berry, 2004). However, as with many community initiatives, the
programs churches use are not often empirically based (Spoth et al., 2002), and little is
known about their effectiveness (DeHaven et al., 2004; Voorhees et al., 1996).
Despite the lack of available empirical evidence or outcome measures regarding faithbased initiatives, greater attention has recently been paid to faith-based programs. The
current presidential administration’s endorsement of such approaches has led to the
availability of federal funds to religious groups (Glazer, 2001). The little research available
suggests that effect sizes are smaller when programs are implemented by practitioners
(Kumpfer & Alvarado, 2003), which would include clergy and staff members. One solution
is for churches to partner with professionals to implement faith-placed programs, creating
potentially powerful collaborations between prevention scientists and faith communities.
To differentiate various types of programs implemented by religious groups, the
semantics of DeHaven and colleagues (2004) are useful. Faith-placed programs describe
collaboration where professionals implement interventions in church settings. Faithbased programs are those that are part of the church’s ministry and are likely to have
no evidence supporting their efficacy. This pilot implementation was designed to
gather information about implementation advantages and disadvantages in faith
communities and to investigate whether religious congregations may serve as
important resources in the scientific dissemination of prevention programming.
Adaptation
The importance of designing and implementing programs that are responsive to
cultural needs of local communities is increasingly recognized (Kotchick & Forehand,
2002; Spoth et al., 2002), although definitions of culture have been generally limited to
impacts of race and ethnicity (e.g., Castro, Barrera, & Martinez, 2004). Faith
communities provide a context for a different type of cultural adaptation, one focused
on the relevance of programs to the religious lives of families. Surface structure
changes, such as those made by changing the racial and ethnic appearance of models on
program materials, may include providing an evidence-based program in a religious
setting with endorsement by trusted congregation leadership, as in the present pilot
study. Deep structure changes, addressing ‘‘the core values, beliefs, norms, and other
more significant aspects of the cultural group’s world views and lifestyle’’ (Castro et al.,
2004, p. 43), are also possible and may be a fruitful research frontier. The current
review is meant as a beginning to the conversation of faith community adaptation, and
therefore focuses on potential advantages associated with surface structure changes of
implementing evidence-based programming in religious settings.
Implementation Advantages and Limitations
Most pertinent for prevention scientists is that faith communities offer potential
implementation advantages. Public health initiatives have utilized faith communities
with some success (DeHaven et al., 2004; Moss, Gallaread, Siller, & Klausner, 2004;
Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop
76
Journal of Community Psychology, January 2008
Voorhees et al., 1996). Delivery of empirically validated programs through churches
may yield benefits often overlooked by social scientists, including a familiar time and
location for meetings, available child and youth programs, the endorsement of
respected leaders, and the utilization of established social networks.
Two of the top five barriers to program involvement among parents are meeting
time and location (Spoth & Redmond, 2000). For individuals involved in a church
body, these two issues could become substantially less problematic if participation were
integrated into church life. For example, prevention programs can utilize a familiar
education hour on Sunday mornings or Wednesday evenings, which are times that
may already be set aside for church-related activities, making involvement much more
convenient. In addition, childcare and youth programs are often already available
during such times, addressing a suggestion by Haggerty and colleagues (1999) to offer
these services during parent prevention programming.
Another major concern of parent involvement is facilitator background (Spoth &
Redmond, 2000). DeHaven and colleagues (2004) suggest that because churches are
familiar community organizations, they may succeed where less familiar agencies
cannot. Given the importance of involving respected community members (Ammerman et al., 2003; Haggerty et al., 1999; Moss et al., 2004), the endorsement
of clergy and other respected leaders is likely an important advantage to
implementation in churches. A final implementation benefit may come from tapping
into existing social networks. Forming positive alliances with other group members is
related to retention in family interventions (Coatsworth, Duncan, Pantin, &
Szapocznik, 2006). Using existing social networks may also help with one of the
primary goals of parent interventions by creating a social support network among a
group of parents (Coatsworth, Pantin, & Szapocznik, 2002; McKay, Gonzalez, Stone,
Ryland, & Kohner, 1995). Parents who come from an existing social network may have
initial commonalities that lead to greater comfort in sharing important information,
compared to parents who are randomly assigned to an intervention group.
There are also potential limitations and unique obstacles associated with conducting
intervention research and programming in faith communities, including insufficient
funds, unmotivated lay leadership providing programs, and overworked staff or
pastors gaining additional responsibilities (Puffer & Miller, 2001). The majority of
these concerns are addressed by collaboration with universities; such partnerships
provide access to technical assistance, implementation resources (e.g., funding,
program coordinators), and prevention expertise (Spoth et al., 2002). At the same
time, the collaboration may induce a struggle between scientific integrity and the
community’s cultural values (Ammerman et al., 2003; Voorhees et al., 1996). However,
this challenge is not unique to collaboration with faith organizations, and these
adaptations are viewed as worthwhile and necessary to more fully engage potential
participants. We explore a collaborative approach between a faith congregation and a
university that disseminates research-based programming.
Pilot Study
The current study was initiated by the organic recognition of a need for programming
among church members. The middle- to upper-middle-class parents recognized that
even the most affluent adolescents are at specific risk for academic failure, substance
use, and anxiety (e.g., McMahon & Luthar, 2006). Church members approached the
Prevention Research Center at The Pennsylvania State University suggesting
Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop
Faith-Placed Intervention
77
collaboration. As recommended by Puffer and Miller (2001), graduate students were
recruited to lead the program as a complementary experience to coursework in
prevention science.
Participants in this pilot program were parents (N 5 4 men, 9 women) in a local
Episcopalian congregation (about 600 total members). A mixed-method assessment of
a pilot implementation of Staying Connected with Your Teen (SCT) as a faith-placed
program was conducted. Staying Connected with Your Teen (formerly known as
Parents Who Care; Hawkins & Catalano, 2004) is a 10-hour parenting intervention
program for parents of teenagers. Potential implementation benefits described above
were maximized; the program was provided on Sunday mornings during the
education hour directly following a worship service and youth programming was
offered during the same time. User reaction criteria were the main evaluative focus
(Segal, Chen, Gordon, Kacir, & Gylys, 2003) because learning and behavior criteria
cannot adequately be investigated on such a small scale.
Surveys were administered at the beginning and end of the program to assess parent
characteristics, feedback about content and delivery, and overall program satisfaction.
The results are descriptive rather than analytical. In addition, all parents were invited
to participate in a focus group approximately 2 months after the program was
completed. The focus group was held 2 months later, at the same time and place as the
SCT program; six parents participated (46% of total participants). The focus group was
led by a parent member of the intervention group who was not involved in theoretical
aspects of the study and program facilitators were not present. The focus group was
conducted in a nondirective style to allow participants to respond freely to questions.
RESULTS
Pretest data show that 70% of parents had never participated in a parenting program
of any kind, although the group felt that parent involvement in preventing youth
problems was extremely important (M 5 6.8, SD 5 .60, on a scale of 1 5 extremely
unimportant to 7 5 extremely important). Parents were concerned (M 5 3.0, SD 5 .63, on a
scale of 1 5 unconcerned to 4 5 extremely concerned) about their teen’s involvement in
common adolescent problem behaviors and reported spending quality time with their
teenagers about once each week (M 5 3.0, SD 5 1.00, on a scale of 1 5 less than once a
month to 5 5 every day).
In direct contradiction to the missing data patterns of many prevention programs,
SCT experienced an influx of new faces. This highlights the potential benefits of social
networks communicating their enjoyment of a well-received program. Average
attendance was 4.3 out of 9 sessions because parents were welcomed to begin
participation at any time. Those who began the program later (after the first week) had
lower attendance during the following sessions. Among those who attended the first
week, attendance was higher (M 5 5.7, SD 5 .60), with the majority attending over half
the program sessions.
Focus Group Feedback: Advantages
The focus group discussion mirrored the potential advantages to implementation of
evidence-based programs in faith communities reviewed above: meeting time,
location, endorsement by trusted leaders, parallel youth programming, and utilization
of existing social networks. When asked what ‘‘brought them to the table’’ to
Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop
78
Journal of Community Psychology, January 2008
participate in the program, participants spontaneously reported each of the items
listed above. First, meeting time and location were important. Participants reported
that they would not have been as likely to attend program sessions if they had been
held in the evenings or during the week. They found the scheduled Sunday morning
time and place convenient, and ‘‘as good a time as any.’’ Second, parents appreciated
the combination that it was both an evidence-based program and available in the
church: a program they valued came to a place they valued. Third, the professional
and research experience of one of the church members who was involved in securing
program implementation made them comfortable and assured them that the program
was credible. A fourth advantage was that all of the parents had teenagers participating
in the church’s youth programs, which were held concurrent to the SCT program.
Parents appreciated that ‘‘the kids are bonding and we [the parents] are bonding.’’
Finally, participants believed that they would ‘‘not have been as open if [the other
participants] were strangers.’’ Rather, they felt it was a safe group and were comforted
by familiar faces and shared values. Discomfort regarding meeting new people at a
new place to attend a parenting program was described as a reason the parents would
choose not to attend similar programming in an unfamiliar community setting. These
focus group comments provide preliminary evidence to support the theoretical claims
outlined above.
FOCUS GROUP FEEDBACK: DISADVANTAGES
The focus group also discussed potential disadvantages to the program, including
length of time, curriculum, and other concurrent church commitments. First, the
program was implemented over 10 weeks, with nine sessions between October and
January. Participants thought the program may have lasted too long, especially
straddling Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays. Second, some curriculum examples
were perceived as ‘‘too extreme,’’ not representing the particular problems the parents
were experiencing within their own families, although facilitator abilities to redirect
and reframe these issues reportedly made this less of a problem. This feedback
provides evidence of the important role that facilitators’ skills play in the
implementation of evidence-based curriculum (Hansen, 2001). Finally, church
members involved in the program at times had other commitments on Sunday
mornings that prevented them from complete attendance. However, Sunday morning
was still perceived to be the best option to meet for the majority of families.
CONCLUSIONS
The current study was the result of a church–university collaboration to disseminate an
evidence-based prevention program to parents in a faith community. A review of the
literature highlighted potential advantages of such an implementation and these
factors were also independently reported by program participants. Meeting time,
location, parallel youth programming, endorsement by trusted leaders, and use of
existing social networks were described as advantages to evidence-based program
implementation in faith communities. The current study illustrates the potential for
intervention implementation in faith contexts. Future work should further investigate
faith-placed collaborations, particularly in areas of higher risk (e.g., inner city African
American church communities). In addition, lessons learned here regarding utilization
Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop
Faith-Placed Intervention
79
of existing meeting schedules and familiar social networks as implementation
advantages may generalize to other settings. Creatively matching community-based
interventions with convenient times and locations to maximize participation for
additional targeted segments of the population (e.g., parents of athletes on a sports
team, office employees) may also be fruitful.
REFERENCES
Ammerman, A., Corbie-Smith, G., St. George, D.M.M., Washington, C., Weathers, B., &
Jackson-Christian, B. (2003). Research expectations among African American church
leaders in the PRAISE! Project: A randomized trial guided by community-based
participatory research. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1720–1727.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P.A. (1997). The ecology of developmental processes. In W.
Damon (Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology (5th ed., pp. 993–1028). New York: Wiley.
Castro, F.G., Barrera, M., & Martinez, C.R. (2004). The cultural adaptation of prevention
interventions: Resolving tensions between fidelity and fit. Prevention Science, 5, 41–45.
Chaves, M., Konieczny, M.E., Beyerlein, K., & Barman, E. (1999). The National Congregations
Study: Background, methods, and selected results. Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion, 38, 458–476.
Coatsworth, J.D., Duncan, L., Pantin, H., & Szapocznik, J. (2006). Classifying retention patterns
in a preventive intervention for ethnic minority families: The quality of group process. The
Journal of Primary Prevention, 27, 367–389.
Coatsworth, J.D., Pantin, H., & Szapocznik, J. (2002). Familias Unidas: A family-centered
ecodevelopmental intervention to reduce risk for conduct problems and substance use
among Hispanic adolescents. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 5, 113–132.
Cowan, P.A., Powell, D., & Cowan, C.P. (1998). Parenting interventions: A family-systems
perspective. In W. Damon, I.E. Siegel & A.K. Renninger (Eds.), Handbook of child
psychology: Child psychology in practice (5th ed., Vol. 4, pp. 3–72). New York: Wiley.
DeHaven, M.J., Hunter, I.B., Wilder, L., Walton, J.W., & Berry, J. (2004). Health programs in
faith-based organizations: Are they effective? American Journal of Public Health, 94,
1030–1036.
Glazer, S. (2001). Faith-based initiatives. The CQ Researcher, 11, 377–400.
Haggerty, K., Kosterman, R., Catalano, R.F., & Hawkins, J.D. (1999). Preparing for the drug
free years. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Hansen, W.B. (2001). Fidelity: Snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. In W.B. Hansen, S.M.
Giles, & M.D. Fearnow-Kenney (Eds.), Increasing prevention effectiveness (pp. 223–230).
Greensboro, NC: Tanglewood Research.
Hawkins, J.D., & Catalano, R.F. (2004). Staying connected with your teen: A program for
parents of teens. South Deerfield, MA: Channing Bete Co.
Kotchick, B.A., & Forehand, R. (2002). Putting parenting in perspective: A discussion of the
contextual factors that shape parenting practices. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 11,
255–269.
Kumpfer, K.L., & Alvarado, R. (2003). Family-strengthening approaches for the prevention of
youth problem behaviors. American Psychologist, 58, 457–465.
McKay, M.M., Gonzalez, J., Stone, S., Ryland, D., & Kohner, K. (1995). Multiple family therapy
groups: A responsive intervention model for inner city families. Social Work with Groups,
18, 41–56.
McMahon, T.J., & Luthar, S.S. (2006). Patterns and correlates of substance use among affluent,
suburban high school students. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 35,
72–89.
Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop
80
Journal of Community Psychology, January 2008
Moss, N.J., Gallaread, A., Siller, J., & Klausner, J.D. (2004). ‘‘Street medicine’’: Collaborating
with a faith-based organization to screen at-risk youths for sexually transmitted diseases.
American Journal of Public Health, 94, 1081–1084.
Puffer, K.A., & Miller, K.J. (2001). The church as an agent of help in the battle against late life
depression. Pastoral Psychology, 50, 125–136.
Segal, D., Chen, P.Y., Gordon, D.A., Kacir, C.D., & Gylys, J. (2003). Development and evaluation
of a parenting intervention program: Integration of scientific and practical approaches.
International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 15, 453–467.
Spoth, R.L., & Redmond, C. (2000). Research on family engagement in preventive
interventions: Toward improved use of scientific findings in primary prevention practice.
The Journal of Primary Prevention, 21, 267–284.
Spoth, R.L., Kavanagh, K.A., & Dishion, T.J. (2002). Family-centered preventive intervention
science: Toward benefits to larger populations of children, youth, and families. Prevention
Science, 3, 145–152.
Voorhees, C.C., Stillman, F.A., Swank, R.T., Heagerty, P.J., Levine, D.M., & Becker, D.M. (1996).
Heart, body, and soul: Impact of church-based smoking cessation interventions on readiness
to quit. Preventive Medicine, 25, 277–285.
Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop