Guest Editorial: Community-Based Programs Serving Fathers

Fathering Pub Date : 2012-01-01 DOI:10.3149/FTH.1001.3
E. Holmes, S. Brotherson, K. Roy
{"title":"Guest Editorial: Community-Based Programs Serving Fathers","authors":"E. Holmes, S. Brotherson, K. Roy","doi":"10.3149/FTH.1001.3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Community-based programs have been an important vehicle for the promotion of father involvement in the lives of children over the past decade. There is little available research, however, on the effectiveness of these programs in promoting involvement, or on the experiences of men and staff in building such programs. Despite the emergence of a new generation of federally-funded, state-funded, and locally-funded programs for fathers and families, a lack of available research means researchers and practitioners run the risk of losing valuable insight to inform better practices for fathering. Devoting a special issue of Fathering to these efforts is our attempt to make already existing programs more visible, to enhance dialogue between researchers and practitioners on evaluation and curriculum issues, and to celebrate the efforts of many \"on the ground\" who continue to seek ways to improve their efforts with a diverse population of fathers and father figures. The development of community-based programs and services targeting men in family life has significantly outpaced the available research literature on such programs. Such programs have emerged as a response to concerns about poor fathering and its contribution to social problems, as well as due to a desire to assist men in meeting the significant challenges of contemporary parenting. Fagan and Hawkins (2001) commented on the need for \"improved clinical and educational strategies to better support and promote fatherhood\" and also encouraged \"collaborative relationships between practitioners, researchers, and policymakers on behalf of fathers and families\" (p. 15). This collection of articles presents a portrait of the diverse programs targeting fathers across different contexts and the lessons they provide for furthering the linkages between supportive policies, programmatic interventions, and well-designed research and evaluation efforts. In the issue that follows, we are pleased to present six papers dealing with different aspects of community services for fathers and father figures in regions throughout the United States and Canada. These include papers which address what really works in fathering programs based on the most rigorous randomized design evaluations, an evaluation of the impact of a fathering newsletter as a cost-effective education tool, a critical assessment of men's mental health concerns in responsible fathering programs, and a qualitative exploration of the social service organizations that offer assistance tailored to young fathers' needs or those responsible for child and youth protection. We also present a case study that explores the creation of collaborative community partnerships in Milwaukee, and a clinically informed case model focused on increasing outreach, connection, and services to low-income non-custodial fathers in Connecticut. Bronte-Tinkew, Burkhauser, and Metz review key findings from random assignment design fatherhood programs to answer questions about \"what works.\" We emphasize that while correlational research can suggest possibilities for increasing father involvement, investments in rigorous experimental research of programmatic interventions are needed. The gold standard for evaluation research is classical experimental design, which requires randomized assignment to a control group and at least one comparison treatment group. This gold standard is challenging and expensive to achieve, but to get answers strong enough to push policy forward and inform program development we need to invest in randomized control trials. This review of promising practices emerging from the most rigorous of the evaluations of fatherhood programs ought to improve the quality of our efforts. In their article, Brotherson, Holmes, and Bouwhuis evaluate the effectiveness of the Father Times newsletter for fathers and father figures of kindergarten children, and present preliminary results suggesting that regardless of father/father figure age, socio-economic status, or number of children, fathers perceive changes in their parenting attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors (including father-child relationship quality) as a result of reading the newsletter. …","PeriodicalId":88482,"journal":{"name":"Fathering","volume":"63 ","pages":"3-5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3149/FTH.1001.3","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fathering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3149/FTH.1001.3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Community-based programs have been an important vehicle for the promotion of father involvement in the lives of children over the past decade. There is little available research, however, on the effectiveness of these programs in promoting involvement, or on the experiences of men and staff in building such programs. Despite the emergence of a new generation of federally-funded, state-funded, and locally-funded programs for fathers and families, a lack of available research means researchers and practitioners run the risk of losing valuable insight to inform better practices for fathering. Devoting a special issue of Fathering to these efforts is our attempt to make already existing programs more visible, to enhance dialogue between researchers and practitioners on evaluation and curriculum issues, and to celebrate the efforts of many "on the ground" who continue to seek ways to improve their efforts with a diverse population of fathers and father figures. The development of community-based programs and services targeting men in family life has significantly outpaced the available research literature on such programs. Such programs have emerged as a response to concerns about poor fathering and its contribution to social problems, as well as due to a desire to assist men in meeting the significant challenges of contemporary parenting. Fagan and Hawkins (2001) commented on the need for "improved clinical and educational strategies to better support and promote fatherhood" and also encouraged "collaborative relationships between practitioners, researchers, and policymakers on behalf of fathers and families" (p. 15). This collection of articles presents a portrait of the diverse programs targeting fathers across different contexts and the lessons they provide for furthering the linkages between supportive policies, programmatic interventions, and well-designed research and evaluation efforts. In the issue that follows, we are pleased to present six papers dealing with different aspects of community services for fathers and father figures in regions throughout the United States and Canada. These include papers which address what really works in fathering programs based on the most rigorous randomized design evaluations, an evaluation of the impact of a fathering newsletter as a cost-effective education tool, a critical assessment of men's mental health concerns in responsible fathering programs, and a qualitative exploration of the social service organizations that offer assistance tailored to young fathers' needs or those responsible for child and youth protection. We also present a case study that explores the creation of collaborative community partnerships in Milwaukee, and a clinically informed case model focused on increasing outreach, connection, and services to low-income non-custodial fathers in Connecticut. Bronte-Tinkew, Burkhauser, and Metz review key findings from random assignment design fatherhood programs to answer questions about "what works." We emphasize that while correlational research can suggest possibilities for increasing father involvement, investments in rigorous experimental research of programmatic interventions are needed. The gold standard for evaluation research is classical experimental design, which requires randomized assignment to a control group and at least one comparison treatment group. This gold standard is challenging and expensive to achieve, but to get answers strong enough to push policy forward and inform program development we need to invest in randomized control trials. This review of promising practices emerging from the most rigorous of the evaluations of fatherhood programs ought to improve the quality of our efforts. In their article, Brotherson, Holmes, and Bouwhuis evaluate the effectiveness of the Father Times newsletter for fathers and father figures of kindergarten children, and present preliminary results suggesting that regardless of father/father figure age, socio-economic status, or number of children, fathers perceive changes in their parenting attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors (including father-child relationship quality) as a result of reading the newsletter. …
嘉宾评论:为父亲服务的社区项目
在过去十年中,以社区为基础的项目一直是促进父亲参与儿童生活的重要手段。然而,关于这些项目在促进参与方面的有效性,或者关于男人和工作人员在建立这些项目方面的经验,几乎没有可用的研究。尽管出现了新一代由联邦政府、州政府和地方政府资助的针对父亲和家庭的项目,但由于缺乏可用的研究,研究人员和实践者有可能失去宝贵的见解,从而为更好的父亲实践提供信息。我们为这些努力专门制作了一期《父亲》杂志,目的是让已经存在的项目更加引人注目,加强研究人员和实践者在评估和课程问题上的对话,并庆祝许多“在实地”的人所做的努力,他们继续寻求方法,与不同的父亲和父亲形象一起改进他们的努力。以社区为基础的以家庭生活中的男性为目标的项目和服务的发展已经大大超过了现有的研究文献。这类项目的出现是为了回应人们对不称职的父亲及其对社会问题的影响的担忧,也是为了帮助男性应对当代养育子女的重大挑战。费根和霍金斯(2001)评论说需要“改进临床和教育策略,以更好地支持和促进父亲”,并鼓励“代表父亲和家庭的从业者、研究人员和政策制定者之间的合作关系”(第15页)。这组文章介绍了针对不同背景下父亲的各种项目的概况,以及它们为进一步加强支持性政策、程序性干预和精心设计的研究和评估工作之间的联系提供的经验教训。在下一期中,我们很高兴提供六篇论文,讨论美国和加拿大各地区为父亲和父亲角色提供的社区服务的不同方面。这些论文包括:基于最严格的随机设计评估,论述了什么才是真正有效的父亲计划;评估了父亲通讯作为一种具有成本效益的教育工具的影响;对负责任的父亲计划中男性心理健康问题的批判性评估;以及对社会服务组织的定性探索,这些社会服务组织为年轻父亲的需求提供量身定制的援助,或负责儿童和青少年保护的组织。我们还提出了一个案例研究,探讨了密尔沃基合作社区伙伴关系的创建,以及一个临床知情案例模型,重点是增加对康涅狄格州低收入无监护权父亲的推广、联系和服务。Bronte-Tinkew、Burkhauser和Metz回顾了随机分配设计父亲项目的主要发现,以回答“什么有效”的问题。我们强调,虽然相关研究可以提出增加父亲参与的可能性,但需要对程序性干预的严格实验研究进行投资。评价研究的黄金标准是经典的实验设计,这需要随机分配到一个对照组和至少一个比较治疗组。这一黄金标准具有挑战性,实现起来代价高昂,但为了得到足够有力的答案,推动政策向前发展,并为项目发展提供信息,我们需要投资于随机对照试验。从最严格的父亲项目评估中产生的有希望的实践回顾应该提高我们努力的质量。在他们的文章中,Brotherson, Holmes和bouwhis评估了父亲时代通讯对幼儿园孩子的父亲和父亲形象的有效性,并提出了初步结果,表明无论父亲/父亲形象的年龄,社会经济地位或孩子的数量如何,父亲都认为阅读通讯会改变他们的育儿态度,知识和行为(包括父子关系质量)。…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信