Does Family Support Improve Child Outcomes? the Impact of the Pathways to Prevention Project in the Primary School Years

Introduction: Little is known internationally about the medium to long-term effects of family support on child outcomes. Pathways to Prevention was from 2002 to 2011 a comprehensive early prevention initiative with family support at its core. It was a partnership between national community agency Mission Australia, Griffith University, and seven primary schools (age 4-11, preschool to Grade 7) in an ethnically diverse, socially disadvantaged region of Brisbane, Australia. We report the effects of Pathways on child wellbeing and classroom behavior between Grades 1 and 7, moderated by parent efficacy.

Methods: Classroom behavior was measured by teachers using the Rowe Behavioral Rating Inventory, and child wellbeing using a validated scale (Clowning Around) derived from an interactive computer game developed for this project. Sub-factors include positive social relations, school attachment, and regulation of negative emotions. The Parent Efficacy and Empowerment Measure (PEEM) is a validated scale also developed for this project. 123 children whose parent(s) received Pathways support between preschool and Grade 7 were matched one-on-one with 123 non-Pathways children on: classroom behavior at the beginning of preschool; age; gender; ethnicity; and the number of bad things the child reported in their life (‘adversity’). All 246 children attended preschool (age 4) in Stage 1 of the project (2002-3). Changes in classroom behavior and child wellbeing between Grade 1 and 7 were compared across intervention and control groups using multilevel modeling with the baseline score on the dependent variable as a covariate.

Results: Any Pathways involvement improved PEEM scores (E.S.=.38; p=.002). Only light involvement (1-5 contacts) combined with a low initial PEEM score improved child behavior, but the effect was large (E.S.=1.6; p<.001). Adversity was strongly negatively correlated with wellbeing scores (E.S.=1.5 for no bad things vs. 3+). Once again only light contact improved wellbeing, especially child social relations (E.S.=.71; p<.05) and emotion regulation (E.S.=.59; p<.05).

Conclusions: Family support with relatively low levels of contact in disadvantaged contexts can improve child and parent outcomes across the primary years, with parent efficacy as a key moderating or mediating factor. However, the effects of more intensive involvement need to be analyzed further, controlling for other aspects of family adversity and exploring other outcomes including school achievement. These results are important for policy since family support is a ‘generic’ response to need in deprived communities.