We in prevention science know that children in low-income, stressed and isolated families are at more risk for a host of problems: abuse and neglect, low academic achievement, future substance abuse, teen pregnancy, as well as higher rates of school delinquency and dropout.

We also know that any family under stress is more likely to avoid crises if it has a social support network and a sense of hope that it is not alone with its problems.

However, almost by definition, isolated and distressed families do not possess the networks they need for support.

Jenepher Lennox Terrion, from the University of Ottawa, Canada, in a study published in Youth & Society, argues that if social programs and policies are to improve children’s welfare, then they must build social capital for vulnerable families. For those new to prevention science, social capital means connections—meaningful connections between people.

She writes, “Intervention programs that help vulnerable families to develop social capital could hold a key to changing both their perception of their stressors and their capacity to manage them, thus reducing their family stress.

“Common to the most effective [school-based and community-based family support programs] is an emphasis on placing children and adolescents at the center of neighborhood and community life, where they can engage with caring adults inside and outside their families, develop a sense of security and personal identity, and learn rules of behavior, expectations, values, morals, and skills needed to move into healthy and productive adulthood.”

FAST is an evidence-based family support program that reflects these critical dimensions of effective interventions. It has been covered in previous articles in Prevention Action (See: Save the Children plans to give British children a FAST start and Liverpool quick off the mark in FAST parenting trials). When Family Service Canada (FSC) hosted a national conference for the FAST (Families and Schools Together), Terrion was there. She conducted semi-structured interviews with 12 participants, including parents, a social worker, teachers, a church minister and a librarian. They represented various geographic, ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds.

She identified six ‘success markers’ of the program from the resulting narratives.

The first, ‘building community’, means parents and families connect with other people and institutions and are able to use these connections to gain access to needed resources. It also means increased participation in the community, for example by attending functions or facilities, such as the library.

Second, ‘better family connection’ refers to either more ‘positive time’ with immediate family members or better communication or cohesiveness within the family.

Third is ‘better parent relationship with the school’, which is defined as getting on better with the teacher or principal and generally feeling more comfortable with the school and education.

‘Personal development of family and child’, the fourth success marker, refers to the child, parents or family feeling more confident and empowered, in some cases demonstrated by accomplishments in the community or family.

The fifth marker, children’s ‘positive relational development’, indicates that the child is improving existing relationships or developing positive new relationships with friends, family members or with adults outside the family.

Sixth, children’s ‘positive behavioral changes’ refers to an observable reduction in undesirable behaviors, such as getting in trouble at school.

According to Terrion, the results show that FAST developed social capital in all three of the recognized dimensions.

In terms of ‘bonding’ social capital, participants in FAST reported spending higher quality time together and more time together as a family.

Regarding ‘bridging’ social capital, parents and children formed relationships with other parents and children in the program.

As for ‘linking’ social capital, participants said that the major outcome of FAST was the development of social networks. “This is not just a network of neighbors who perceive that they are in the same boat of hopelessness and despair and who have in common their vulnerability. FAST also contributes to the establishment of linkages with people who can offer information and resources not currently available to these vulnerable families and that are critical to their emancipation.”

Terrion surmises that these improvements in social capital should lead to reduced family stress, which in turn should result in improved child behavior.

The study does have methodological drawbacks. The sample was small and biased (the participants were invited to the conference because they stood out in some way), and was based on FAST participants' conclusions rather than direct observation. But even so, the results still have important implications.

One, according to Terrion, is that participants in programs like FAST need to be enabled to develop and practise communicating. She writes, “If the development of interpersonal bonds is central to the construction of social connectedness and thus social capital, then attention must be paid to the communication skills of participants in intervention programs. Simple proximity to others does not constitute community.”

Another implication concerns the importance of building trust as part of programs. “Vulnerable people must trust that those with whom they engage, particularly those who present opportunities for linking social capital, will treat them decently, fairly, and honestly.”

Lastly, Terrion concludes that it is critical that any family intervention like FAST has to work on teambuilding. Teamwork is critical, she writes, “because it is possible that isolated individuals do not possess the skill necessary to deal with conflict and solve problems.”

Reference
Terrion, J. L. (2006) ‘Building social capital in vulnerable families: success markers of a school-based intervention program’, Youth & Society, 38, (2), 155-176.