Parent Involvement in Family Support Programs: An Integrated Theory*

By K. McCurdy, D. Daro. 2001

291 citations recorded by the source corpus.

FEATURE ARTICLE Parent Involvement in Family Support Programs: An Integrated Theory* This article outlines a conceptual model of parental involvement in family support programs, anchored in ecological and family systems frameworks. After summarizing the current attrition literature, the article proposes that parental decisions to enroll and remain in support programs are shaped by a variety of factors at different "levels" of influence: individual characteristics of the parent and family, provider attributes, program characteristics, and neighborhood characteristics. The conclusion discusses the implications of this line of study for research, practice, and policy. Key Words: attrition theory, family support programs, parent involvement. Many can agree on the need to cast a broad net in examining how a vulnerable infant becomes a responsible adult. Few can agree on the most salient factors, however, and, most important for our purpose, how to manipulate these factors so as to increase the likelihood that parents will seek out and effectively utilize the supports they need to better care for their children. Family support programs now abound to help parents with their daily struggles, yet providers often cannot fill all program slots nor keep parents consistently involved for any length of time. Because the dual issues of low enrollment and retention in voluntary, family support programs are endemic to the family support field (Clinton, 1992; Lyons-Ruth, Connell, Grunebaum, & Botein, 1990, Marcenko & Spence, 1994; McCurdy & Jones, 2000; Olds & Kitzman, 1993; Ramey et al., 1992; Seigel, Bauman, Schaefer, Saunders, & Ingram, 1980; Seitz, Rosenbaum, & Apfel, 1985), the need to establish a strong, theoretically driven research base to explain these outcomes is urgent. Attrition, broadly defined here as premature departure from services, has been examined across a variety of family-related contexts, including the home, school, and community. Most studies examine correlates of attrition (i.e., factors observed to have some type of relationship to dropping out; Bean, 1982; Harris, 1998). This approach produces a laundry list of factors that may influence parent involvement but relatively little direction about the individual determinants or cluster of factors that play the most prominent role. In the family support field, literature reviews note several attrition correlates at both the provider and parent level (Clark & Winje, 1998; McCurdy, Hurvis, & Clark, 1996). To date, these studies have failed to integrate these factors into a coherent and testable theory. Although the absence of a theory to explain attrition is not specific to the family support field (cf., Harris), it has hindered the ability of voluntary support programs to develop the types of programmatic and policy reforms necessary for enhancing their enrollment and retention rates. If we know why and how individuals make decisions to use voluntary services, we can begin to form new approaches to service delivery that increase retention rates and the effectiveness of parenting programs. This article addresses the need for a conceptual framework by proposing a theory of parent involvement in family support programs. We begin by reviewing the current attrition literature to identify the multiple influences on enrollment and retention. Borrowing from the work of health behavior theorists, we next develop an ecological theory that integrates relevant factors within four distinct domains--individual, program, provider, and neighborhood. The conclusion discusses the implications of this line of study for research, practice, and policy. The Empirical Context Despite growing interest in understanding the wide range of domains that influence human behavior, current efforts to investigate attrition have suffered from a restricted conceptual framework both in terms of the areas explored and in the definition of the engagement process. …

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, General Health Professions, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/554bdf2b767b5bffe582bec1aaafd91992b28ac9

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

  1. Mary M. Wagner
  2. D. Spiker

In Sociology and Political Science

  1. R. Mccall
  2. B. Green

Citations in the corpus