Invest in Parenting Now! Babies Can’t Wait!

According to Kalil,

Parents are children’s first teachers and, to equalize the playing field, governments need to invest in parents so that they can better invest in their children. Gaps in children’s skills could be narrowed if less-advantaged parents adopted the parenting practices of their more-advantaged peers, and many parenting interventions aim to do just that. Unfortunately, large-scale parenting interventions in the United States yield modest results at best and do not often change children’s cognitive or behavioral skills in the long run (Furstenberg 2011). An evidence and innovation agenda that helps policymakers identify and invest in what works is crucial for supporting parents’ engagement with their children. – Addressing the Parenting Divide, 2014, page 2.

To address the challenges that limit the impact of current large-scale parenting interventions, the Brookings proposal recommends that the federal government creates an Early Years Family Policy, accompanied by a new funding stream.  The intent is to build a national culture of investment in parenting.  As we’ve discussed in previous posts, parenting is a consistent evidence-based predictor of children’s health, school achievement, and social-emotional behavior.  This proposal calls for the federal Administration for Children and Families (ACF) to lead the way by investing in new approaches to parenting through innovation research grants to adapt existing models or create new models for intervening with parents to: 1) increase family engagement and retention, 2) develop new technology-based parenting interventions, and 3) develop more cost-effective parenting interventions that match families’ needs.  

The proposal recommends building upon the latest behavioral and neuroscience research to create new strategies for reaching families and serving them effectively and affordably at large scale with low-cost technology-based strategies.  Several examples of innovative interventions are offered:

• enhance home-visiting programs with educational apps on electronic tablets

• complement preschool classrooms with home learning kits/activities embedded with interactive prompts

• deliver web-based information and remote parent coaching.

I agree with the call for investment in innovative evidence-based parenting interventions to achieve successful child outcomes; there is always value in the proposed further well-targeted research. However, waiting for the results of an additional 5-year federal research program to guide scaling and improvement of interventions troubles me.  Babies Can’t Wait!  I believe the problem at present is not so much the lack of research, but rather the lacking use of the existing research to guide local program improvement.   

I don’t believe Kalil has given the ACF credit for the ongoing research it currently supports.  During the past decade, ACF has sponsored a number of rigorous research grants aimed at strengthening families and promoting children’s optimal development. I can think of several relevant examples:

1) The proposed Early Years funding stream sounds remarkably similar to the Early Head Start University Partnership research program (2011-2016) designed to Buffer Toxic Stress funded in 2011-2016 by the ACF, Office of Planning, Research & Evaluation (OPRE).  One of three goals of these grants is “to augment Early Head Start services with parenting interventions aimed at ameliorating the effects of chronic stress on children’s development”.  The results of the 6 research projects funded by OPRE are not yet available.

2) In addition, another ACF program administered by the National Quality Improvement Center on Early Childhood (2008-2013) included 4 grants that involved parenting interventions and rigorous evaluations to document evidence-based strategies for preventing child maltreatment and promote optimal child development.

3) Yet another ACF funding stream (2008-2014) was aimed at gaining knowledge about implementing, scaling up, and sustaining effective evidence-based home visiting programs.

Since developing, funding, and reporting of large scale research programs takes a long time, we should do a thorough review of the results of the above and other ongoing research projects before putting out another federal request for proposals.  After this information is digested, ACF would be in a better position to plan the next research agenda.  

Furthermore, change at the nationwide level seems to move slowly.  Nationwide programs are slow to change their practices when research evidence clearly points to opportunities for improvement.  Which is why we are so pleased to see a few leading family service models actively studying enhancements, while maintaining fidelity to their models.  Here are a few examples. The Nurse Family Partnership is studying the impact of incorporating a new parenting assessment into their program.  SafeCare is exploring 1) a braided version of Parents as Teachers/SafeCare, and 2) the addition of motivational interviewing to SafeCare with fathers, delivered with computer-assisted technology.  Parents as Teachers is studying the combination of the PAT model with the Imagination Library program. 

What Does This Mean for Local Programs?

It behooves us to evaluate at multiple levels, at the national, state/regional and local levels to be certain that our interventions are working effectively for the particular families and communities we serve.  Kalil does briefly allude to a very fruitful program level avenue.

Local programs are often more nimble and flexible and thus could potentially more easily move toward the behavioral science–informed experimentation approach . . . .  Owing to this flexibility, community organizations may also be well positioned to adopt a framework of continuous quality improvement. In addition, experimentation at the local level is critical for understanding how program innovations interact with local contexts, specific populations, and different types of practitioners.– Addressing the Parenting Divide,page 8.

I agree with Kalil’s assertion that local innovation is valuable.  I wish she had also called for funding to support these kinds of initiatives.  Community-based programs can learn lessons from current and future research findings to build innovations into their local parenting services and evaluations, with an eye toward continuous quality improvement.  For example, one innovation might involve introducing an observational parenting assessment, like KIPS, to identify parents’ strengths and areas for growth, and to guide goal setting and service planning customized to each family’s needs.  As families and parenting practitioners work together, developing parent-child goals, modeling and coaching parent-child activities, they can build nurturing parenting skills that promote their children’s development.  As families receive services tailored to the individual needs of both parents and children, they will become more engaged and remain enrolled longer in programs, thereby increasing the opportunity for achieving positive parent and child outcomes.

I think Nancy Seibel put it well in her comment to last week’s blog. “As a society are we ready to provide what is truly needed to make a difference for babies and families?”  Yes, we need more research to guide our work.  Yet, we have ample current evidence to provide more effective interventions now.  We have proven effective models; we have proven assessment tools to guide the services and document their outcomes.  We need to focus services on those core elements that research tells us makes a difference. We need to provide sufficient funding so quality services can be sustained, and document the results using validated tools and quality evaluation designs.  I agree with Nancy.  It is more of a matter of Will than lack of information