This document was printed from the website of the California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare (CEBC), which you can access at http://www.cachildwelfareclearinghouse.org/
This document was printed from the website of the California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare (CEBC), which you can access at http://www.cachildwelfareclearinghouse.org/
Child Welfare Outcomes: Child/family well-being
Type of Maltreatment: Not specified
Target Population: Youth who are at-risk , juvenile delinquents, in foster care, mentally retarded/developmentally disabled, or severely emotionally disturbed. Families at risk of having children removed.
Brief Description:
The Teaching-Family Model (TFM) has been rated by the CEBC in the areas of Higher Level of Placement and Parent Training. TFM is a unique approach to human services characterized by clearly defined goals, integrated support systems, and a set of essential elements. TFM has been applied in residential group homes, home-based services, foster care and treatment foster care, schools, and psychiatric institutions. The model uses a married couple or other “teaching parents” to offer a family-like environment in the residence. The teaching parents help with learning living skills and positive interpersonal interaction skills. They are also involved with children’s parents, teachers, and other support network to help maintain progress.
Provisional feedback form not available in printout. Please access the website to use the form.
There are 4 critical delivery systems:
There are 7 essential elements:
Each delivery system and element is supported by standards and competencies measuring attainment of those standards through the certification process supported by the Teaching-Family Association.
Teaching-Family Model was not designed to be conducted in a group.
Teaching-Family Model has not been tested for use in a group setting.
Recommended intensity: For all residential settings, it is a 24/7 arrangement. For home-based interventions, it is a 10-15 sessions per week arrangement.
Recommended duration: Ideally, 9 months, however, program has been applied in emergency care settings, as well. Duration for home-based is typically 6-10 weeks.
Teaching-Family Model does not include a homework component.
Teaching-Family Model is typically conducted in a(n): Birth Family Home, Community Agency, Foster Home, Hospital, Outpatient Clinic, Residential Care Facility, and School.
Teaching-Family Model was designed with a Parent Component.
Teaching-Family Model addresses the following presenting problems and symptoms: All problems – it was designed to address behaviors with the client as well as the family.
Teaching-Family Model was designed with a Child Component.
Teaching-Family Model addresses the following presenting problems and symptoms: Any behaviors resulting in problems.
Age range(s): 0-17
Teaching-Family Model was not developed for children with developmental delays.
Teaching-Family Model has not been tested for children with developmental delays.
Teaching-Family Model was not designed for specific racial/ethnic/cultural groups.
Teaching-Family Model was not tested in specific racial/ethnic/cultural groups.
There is a manual that describes how to implement this program.
There is training available for Teaching-Family Model.
Training contact: Peggy McElgunn, Esq., peggymcelgunn@comcast.net, 804-639-9213
Number of days/hours: Pre-Service is roughly 1 week – 40 hours. Ongoing consultation after placement with individual certification typically occurring after one year of practice.
Training is obtained: Provided by regional sponsoring agency.
There currently are not additional qualified resources for training.
The typical resources for implementing Teaching-Family Model are: Meeting room and video equipment for implementation training.
The qualifications vary from agency to agency as their selection criteria are often based on state requirements in addition to the program’s selection components. Minimum is a Bachelor’s degree for practitioners, usually in social work or psychology.
Jones, R.J., & Timbers, G.D. (2003). Minimizing the need for physical restraint and seclusion in residential youth care through skill-based treatment programming. Families in Society, 84(1), 21-29.
Type of Study: Pretest/Postest with archival data
Number of participants: Average of 26.5 per month at Barium Springs, average of 8.8 per month at Bridgehouse.
Population:
Location/Institution: Barium Springs Home for Children, NC; Bridgehouse Program, IA.
Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations) This article details an analysis of data kept by two residential programs for youth on the use of physical restraint or other coercive measures such as seclusion per client prior to and following the implementation of the Teaching Family Program (TFP). For the Barium Springs program, restraints were reduced by 40% and significant negative incident reports were reduced by 80% after the introduction of the TFP. At the Bridgehouse program, there was a 75% reduction in restraints, a similar decline in secluding clients in a locked, quiet room, and close to elimination of the use of the time out room. With the exception of the Barium Springs restraint level, all of these reductions reached statistical significance.
Length of post-intervention follow-up: None
Slot, N.W., Jagers, H.D., & Dangel, R.F. (1992). Cross-cultural replication and evaluation of the Teaching Family Model of community-based residential treatment. Behavioral Residential Treatment, 7(5), 341-354.
Type of Study: Three samples: one pretest/posttest, two non-matched, non-randomized comparison groups
Number of participants: Study 1, 58; Study 2, 50 treatment, 470 comparison; Study 3, 57 treatment, 57 comparison matched by age only.
Population:
Location/Institution: The Netherlands. Note: Comparison group in Study 2 was Canadian youth.
Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations) Study 1: Scores for youth on the Youth Evaluation List (YEL), which measures three dimensions of anti-social behavior and social competence were taken at baseline and 6 months after completing a program using the Teaching Family Model. On the first dimension, significant improvements were shown in overall adjustment, family adjustment, relationship with parents, number of offences, social competence, and number of problems at home. Academic/vocational aspirations did not show significant change. On the second dimension, ability for relationships outside the family, all factors showed significant improvement. On the final dimension, abilities for community participation, and academic and vocational factors did not improve. There was also a significant increase in drinking post-treatment, but not to levels considered problematic in the Netherlands.
Study 2: This study measured levels of juvenile delinquency in youth experiencing the Teaching Family Program (TFP) to a cohort of Canadian youth in the same age range. The number of youth staying at the same offending level was lower for the TFP group than the comparison group (24% vs. 48%). The number moving toward a less serious offending level was higher for the TFP group (73% versus 20%). The number of youth moving toward a more serious offending level was lower for the TFP group (3% versus 24%).
Study 3: This study compared TFP participants with youth in the traditional Dutch state institute on factors measured by the YEL. There were no differences between groups on scores for overall problems and abilities for relationships outside the family: both groups improved. However, state institute youth improved on abilities for community participation, while TFP youth did not. The authors attributed this to greater access to and use of alcohol for TFP youth.
In a final analysis, the authors also report that length of stay for TFP youth was an average of 240 days versus 573 days for state institute youth.
Length of post-intervention follow-up: Study 1 and 2, 6 months, Study 3, unknown.
Larzelere, R.E., Daly, D.L., Davis, J.L., Chmelka, M.B. & Handwerk, M.L. (2004). Outcome evaluation of Girls and Boys Town’s Family Home Program. Education and Treatment of Children, 27(2), 130-149
Type of Study: Pre-test post-test
Number of participants: 440 youth
Population:
Location/Institution: Girls and Boys Town
Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations) Youth were assessed at baseline and follow-up using the Restrictiveness of Living Environments Scale (ROLES), the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), completed by the parent or other caregiver at intake and by the Family Teacher at discharge, and the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (DISC). The last measure assesses mental health issues. Other non-standardized outcome measures included ratings of departure success, percentage of problems improved, and follow-up functioning. Both boys and girls were found to have improved on all outcome variables. They were discharged to less restrictive environments than they were in before the program. For girls, 84% went to their own home or to independent living; for boys, the rate was 78%. On the CBCL, boys and girls improved on all scales, except for Social Problems for boys. Finally, boys and girls had significantly fewer DISC diagnoses at 12 months than at intake. On the non-standardized measures, departure success averaged at “somewhat successful” on the scale, and 87% of presenting problems were rated as improved. Results also showed that youth who completed the program were functioning better at follow-up than those who did not and the percentage of youth who had been arrested was significantly lower at follow-up than it had been prior to intake.
Length of post-intervention follow-up: 3 months
Bedlington, M.M., Braukman, C.J., Ramp, K.A., & Wolfe, M.M. (1988). A comparison of treatment environments in community-based group homes for adolescent offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 15(3), 349-363.
Type of Study: Non-equivalent comparison group
Number of participants: 82 Teaching-Family, 103 Comparison
Population:
Location/Institution: Kansas
Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations) Teaching-Family group homes were compared to non-Teaching-Family homes. Researchers created observer protocols to measure adult/youth interactions, teaching, intolerance of deviance, youth social behavior, pleasantness of the environment, and family-likeness. Youth in the homes also self-rated likelihood of detection of delinquent acts, staff approval/disapproval of those acts, and importance of staff reaction. They also filled out the Self-Reported Delinquency (SRD) questionnaire. Teaching-Family homes were rated as having significantly higher levels of adult/youth communication and instances of adults teaching youth.
Length of post-intervention follow-up: None
Kirigin, K.A., Braukman, C.J., Atwater, J.D., & Wolf, M.M. (1982). An evaluation of Teaching-Family (Achievement Place) group homes for juvenile offenders. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15, 1-16.
Type of Study: Non-matched comparison group
Number of participants: Treatment: 140 Comparison: 52
Population:
Location/Institution: Kansas
Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations) Youths in group homes using the Teaching Family Model were compared to youths in group homes chosen by state agencies to be representative residential programs. Comparison group homes were similar to treatment homes in terms of youths served, size, and staffing by a live-in married couple. Data was collected prior to treatment entry, during treatment, and at 1 year following treatment. Court and police records provided information on offenses, alleged offenses, and institutional confinements. For girls, a higher percentage of Teaching-Family participants had offenses pre-treatment, but a significantly lower percentage had offenses during treatment. During the post-treatment year a lower percentage of both boys and girls in the program had offenses, but this was not statistically significant. Looking at rate of offences, Teaching-Family boys significantly decreased their number of offences during treatment, while the rate for non-Teaching-Family boys increased. For girls, the number of offenses was significantly reduced during treatment, but they did not differ significantly from the comparison group during that time. For both boys and girls, groups did not differ in rate of offenses during the follow-up period.
Length of post-intervention follow-up: 1 year
Thompson, R.W., Smith, G.L., Osgood, D.W., Dowd, T.P., Friman, P.C., & Daly, D.L. (1996). Residential care: A study of short- and long-term educational effects. Children and Youth Services Review, 18(3), 221-242.
Type of Study: Non-randomized comparison group
Number of participants: 497 Treatment; 84 Comparison
Population:
Location/Institution: Boy’s Town home campus, Nebraska
Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations) Participants were recruited from children who applied for admission to the Boy’s Town residential program. Those admitted formed the treatment group. Those who were admitted, but did not ultimately enter the program, and those denied admission for space limitations comprised the control group. The authors note that virtually all of the comparison groups did receive counseling or other treatment. An analysis of demographics and measures taken at an initial interview revealed no significant differences between groups. Participants were interviewed at baseline and every 3 months. After 10 interviews, three more were conducted at 6-month intervals. Measures included self-reported grade point average (GPA), highest level of school completed, and completion of diploma or GED. They also indicated their opinion on the importance of education and how much help they received with homework. The analysis used a statistical method that included controls for age, white versus non-white race, attrition, and likelihood of assignment to the treatment versus comparison groups. Results showed an increase in GPA for the treatment group while they were in residence. It decreased after leaving the program, but remained significantly higher than the comparison group’s GPA. The treatment youth completed years of school at a faster rate than comparison students, but this rate decreased significantly after leaving treatment. Adjusting for gender, race, age, IQ, and achievement scores at baseline, analysis revealed higher rates of graduation and GED completion for treatment youth, although this was not statistically significant. Ratings on importance of education increased for the treatment group, but decreased for the comparison group. This difference remained after departure. Treatment youth had more help with homework both during and after the program than did comparison youth. The authors note that youth in the current study attended special schools, which has not been the case in other evaluations of the Teaching Family Model.
Length of post-intervention follow-up: Approximately 4 years.
Lewis, R.E. (2005). The effectiveness of Families First services: An experimental study. Children and Youth Services Review, 27, 499-509.
Type of Study: Randomized controlled trial
Number of participants: 150 families
Population:
Location/Institution: Utah Youth Village
Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations) Note: This study assessed a version of the Teaching Family Model which had been adapted for use in the family’s home, and so will not be included in the Scientific Rating for Higher Level of Placement. Families were randomly assigned to treatment or control groups. Control groups families had access to services normally available to schools, courts and the community. Parents were interviewed at baseline, at completion of treatment (about 5 months), and 3 months after completion. The questionnaire assessed concrete services/physical care and resources, parent effectiveness/parent-child relationships, and child behavior problems. A composite score of the 63 questionnaire items showed a significant positive overall effect of the intervention and both post-tests. For the subscales, concrete services/physical care and resources showed improvements, as did child behavior problems. There was no significant difference across groups for parent effectiveness/parent-child relationships, due to improvement in the control group’s score over time. The authors note that all group differences narrowed over time, largely due to the control group having received some traditional services.
Length of post-intervention follow-up: 3 months
Blase, K.A., Fixsen, D.L., Freeborn, K., & Jaeger, D. (1989). The Behavioral Model. In R.D. Lyman, S. Prentice-Dunn, & S. Gabel (Eds.), Residential and inpatient treatment of children and adolescents (pp. 43-59). New York: Plenum Publishing Corp.
Kirigin, K. A. (1996). Teaching-Family Model of group home treatment of children with severe behavior problems. In M. C. Roberts (Ed.), Model programs in child and family mental health (pp. 231-247). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wolf, M.M., Kirigin, K.A., Fixsen, D.L., Blase, K.A., & Braukmann, C.J. (1995). The Teaching-Family Model: A case study in data-based program development and refinement (and dragon wrestling). Journal of Organizational Management and Behavior, 15, 11-68.
Contact name: Peggy McElgunn, Esq. (Juris Doctorate)
Affiliation/Agency: Teaching-Family Association
Email: peggymcelgunn@comcast.net
Phone: 804-639-9213
Fax: 804-639-9212