Positive Family Support (PFS) in the Context of Public Middle Schools: Economic and Systemic Factors Associated with Variation in Implementation Fidelity

Introduction: Two randomized trials conducted in public middle schools found the Family Check-Up model to be effective for reducing multiple forms of problem behavior, including substance use, antisocial behavior, and academic engagement and grades. These studies reflected a hybrid between an efficacy and an effectiveness study, in that the trials involved real-world middle schools and constituent students and families, yet the developer’s research group hired and supervised the parent consultants working within the public school context.

The Family Check-Up model was then revised as the Positive Family Support (PFS) system, which was designed specifically to fit within public school contexts and to dovetail with the goals and strategies of PBIS. The PFS model was revised to ensure that existing school staff could deliver the universal, selected, and indicated levels of family support in the school context. We have conducted an IES-funded Goal 4 trial with 42 public middle schools, in which half were randomized to receive consultation to implement the PFS model.

Method and Results: The PFS model was implemented in 21 intervention middle schools across the state of Oregon. Schools varied in terms of size and other demographics, averaging 500 students per school, with 30% ethnically diverse students. School personnel were trained in the PFS model and received consultation and support during 2 years of implementation. An independent research team assessed fidelity of implementation by using the FAM-SET observational measure.

In general, schools randomized to the PFS model were found to increase their levels of specific family and parenting supports in the 2 years of active engagement with the PFS consultant team. There was considerable variability, however, in the quality of implementation. Very few public schools implemented, for example, the Family Check-Up with high-risk students and families. Parent consultant ratings and systemic factors associated with school staffing were associated with the high- and low-implementation schools. We generally found that staffing resources allocated specifically to serving parents and lower levels of administrative turnover and leadership were critical for high-level implementation of the model.

Discussion: These findings point clearly to the need for a “readiness assessment” process that would serve as the foundation for supporting public schools in the implementation of evidence-based parenting supports, especially to high-risk students.