Program Profile: Families And Schools Together (FAST)

This is a multifamily group program designed to empower parents to act as their children’s primary agents and to build helpful parent-to-parent groups with the help of schools. The program is rated Effective. The treatment group had statistically significant reductions in problem behaviors (such as aggression), increases in academic performance, and improvements in family adaptability, compared with the comparison group. However, there were mixed findings on other measures such as social skills.

An Effective rating implies that implementing the program is likely to result in the intended outcome(s).

An Effective rating implies that implementing the program is likely to result in the intended outcome(s).

Program Goals/Target Population

Families And Schools Together (FAST) is a multifamily group intervention program designed to build protective factors for children and youth, to empower parents to be the primary prevention agents for their own children, and to build supportive parent-to-parent groups. The overall goal of the FAST program is to intervene early to help at-risk youth succeed in the community, at home, and in school and thus avoid problems such as adolescent delinquency, violence, addiction, and dropping out of school. The FAST program achieves its goals by respecting and supporting parents and by using the existing strengths of families, schools, and communities in creative partnerships. The program is geared to at-risk children and youth ages 4 to 12 and their families.

Program Theory

FAST is based on research in several areas, including social ecology of child development, social capital, brain research, child psychiatry, family stress, family systems, social support, family therapy, parent-led play therapy, group work, adult education, and community development (Kratchowill et al. 2004). FAST offers youth structured opportunities for involvement in repeated relationship-building interactions with the primary caretaking parent, other family members, other families, peers, school representatives, and community representatives.

Program Components

The program uses two processes for recruitment. In the Universal Recruitment process, the school principal identifies a grade level and a particular classroom. General invitations are sent to families, which are then followed by a home visit to each participating family. In the Targeted Recruitment process, a teacher or other school professional identifies a child with problem behaviors who is at risk for serious future academic and social problems. The professional refers the family for participation in the program, and trained recruiters—often FAST graduates—visit the parents at home to discuss the school’s concerns and invite them to participate in the program.

The family then gathers with 14 to 20 other families for 8 weekly meetings, usually held in the school. The meetings, which typically last 2½ hours, include planned opening and closing routines, a family meal, structured family activities and communications, parent mutual-support time, and parent–child play therapy. These group activities support parents to help teach their child to connect to the cultures of work and school. A trained team consisting of a parent, a school professional, a clinical social worker, and a substance abuse counselor facilitates the meetings. Team members represent the ethnic or cultural background of the families participating in the program. Families participate in a graduation ceremony at the end of 8 weeks and then continue to participate in monthly follow-up meetings, run by the families, for 2 years.

Study

In a quasi experimental research study, Kratchowill and colleagues (2004) used universal recruitment of 100 Native American children in grades K–2 from three reservation schools in a generally low-income, rural area. Over 3 years, seven multifamily group cycles of Families And Schools Together (FAST) were implemented, each lasting 8 weeks. All children were assessed and then matched into 50 pairs, based on five variables: age, gender, grade, Tribe, and teacher assessment of high versus low classroom aggression on the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL). The matched pairs were then randomly assigned to FAST treatment group or non–FAST comparison group. The groups were comparable at entry, with no significant differences on participant characteristics. Researchers worked to keep teachers, observers, and testers “blind” concerning participants’ group status. Among the families who participated, 100 percent participated in at least one session, and 80 percent returned for at least five sessions.

The study used two widely recognized outcome measures of child behavior: the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS) and the CBCL. These measures, completed by teachers and parents, have established reliability and validity and include subscales for social skills, aggression, and academic performance. Pretest and immediate posttest data, as well as 9- to 12-month follow-up data, was collected and analyzed. Student-level and “cycle-level” analyses were used. No subgroup analysis was conducted.

Study

McDonald and colleagues (2006) used a quasi-experimental research design that involved 10 urban elementary schools that were randomly assigned to either the FAST treatment group or a comparison group. The intervention consisted of an afterschool, multifamily FAST support group; the comparison group received eight behavioral parenting pamphlets weekly with active follow-up and an invitation to a formal lecture on parenting (Family Education, or FAME). A universal treatment strategy was used, in which all families with children in the treatment or comparison condition classrooms were recruited for the study. The study included a 2-year follow-up. This study concentrated on a subsample of 130 Latino families (80 assigned to FAST and 50 assigned to FAME) who agreed to participate in the research and the 2-year follow-up teacher data collection. Among those who agreed to join the study, 89 percent participated in at least one session, and 78 percent participated in at least five sessions. The overall completion rate was 69 percent. Among the comparison group, all families were mailed the eight pamphlets, but only 4 percent attended parent sessions.

Groups differed at entry on gender (boys comprised 54 percent of FAST and 28 percent of FAME) and grade level (third graders comprised 51 percent of FAST and 38 percent of FAME). Measures included the CBCL and the SSRS, both of which were completed by teachers of the participants. For analysis, an intent-to-treat model was used, and hierarchical repeated measures regression models were used to estimate the net effects of the FAST program after 2 years. The regression models were used to group families within the various intervention cycles. No subgroup analysis was conducted.

Study

Kratchowill and colleagues (2009) used a quasi-experimental design that involved 134 kindergarten through second-grade children identified as having behavioral problems. The children attended eight schools in an ethnically diverse school district that served at-risk, low-income communities. Letters were sent to the parents of all identified children, inviting them to participate and informing them they would have a 50 percent chance of being included in the multifamily group FAST program and a 50 percent chance of being in the “services as usual” comparison group.

The children were initially matched into 67 pairs, based on five variables: age, gender, grade, race, and teacher assessment of high versus low classroom aggression on the CBCL. Participants were 40 percent white, 35 percent African American, 13 percent Asian, and 12 percent Hispanic. The matched pairs were then randomly assigned to the FAST intervention group or the “services as usual” control group. Among FAST families, 100 percent participated in at least one session, and 90 percent returned for at least five sessions.

Measures included the parent and teacher forms of the CBCL and the parent and teacher versions of the SSRS. The Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales and the Family Support Scale were used to assess family functioning and social support. Teachers completing the follow-up measures were “blind” to group membership. Eight “cycles” of the FAST 8-week intervention were conducted. Posttests, conducted immediately following the 8-week FAST intervention for each cycle, and 1-year follow-up data were collected. Both student-level and cycle-level analyses of changes in scores were used. No subgroup analysis was conducted.

Families and Schools Together, Inc. has a guidebook available to prospective and current clients that describes the program and helps promote an understanding of the Families and Schools Together (FAST) family of programs.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Layzer, Jean I., Barbara D. Goodson, Lawrence Bernstein, and Cristofer Price. 2001. National Evaluation of Family Support Programs: Volume B. Research Studies: Final Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children, Youth, and Families.

McDonald, Lynn.1998. “A Multi-Family Approach: Families and Schools Together (FAST) Builds Protective Factors in Potentially Neglectful Families.” In Proceedings From Parenthood in America. Parenthood in America Conference, Madison, Wisc., April 19–21.

McDonald, Lynn, and Heather Frey. 1999. “Families and Schools Together: Building Relationships.” OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin. November 1999.

McDonald, Lynn, and Thomas V. Sayger. 1998. “Impact of a Family and School Based Prevention Program on Protective Factors for High Risk Youth.” In Jeanette Valentine, Judith De Jong, and Nancy Kennedy (eds.). Substance Abuse Prevention in Multicultural Communities. New York, N.Y.: The Haworth Press, Inc., 61–85.

McDonald, Lynn, Debra Coe Bradish, Stephen Billingham, Nic Dibble, and Celeste Rice. 1991. “Families and Schools Together: An Innovative Substance Abuse Prevention Program.” Social Work in Education 13(2):118–28.

McDonald, Lynn, Stephe Billingham, Tammy Conrad, Arthur Morgan, Nancy O, and Estella Payton. 1997. “Families and Schools Together (FAST): Integrating Community Development With Clinical Strategies.” Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services 78(2):140–55.

McDonald, Lynn. 1996. “FAST. Families and Schools Together.” Wisconsin Counties 60(4):21–26.

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Psychosocial Interventions for Antisocial Behavior of Juveniles

This practice involves the use of psychosocial interventions to reduce antisocial behavior in juveniles. Psychosocial interventions consist of both preventive and therapeutic interventions but share the common goal of improving psychosocial functioning. The practice is rated Effective for the reduction of antisocial behavior.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Juvenile Problem & At-Risk Behaviors - Antisocial behaviors

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?