Strengthening Families 10–14 (SF 10–14) is for any family with a child between 10 and 14 years old. It is delivered by three trained facilitators (one lead practitioner and two co-practitioners) to groups of between 8 and 12 families through seven weekly sessions lasting two hours each.
The information above is as offered/supported by the intervention provider.
11 to 12 years old
Group
Child outcomes:
UK available
UK tested
Strengthening Families 10–14 (SF 10–14) is for any family with a young person aged between 10 and 14 years. The parents and young person attend seven two-hour sessions where they learn how to communicate effectively, agree appropriate limits, and resist peer pressure to use drugs and alcohol.
SFP 10-14 is delivered by three practitioners to groups of eight to 12 parents. Because parents attend with their children, up to 36 people may be present in a group session. Ideally, two practitioners co-deliver the parenting sessions and one practitioner delivers the young person sessions.
During the first hour, the parents and young people attend separate skill-building groups. These sessions make use of an instructional video that provides the basis for a group discussion and practice activities.
The parents and child then come together for the second hour for supervised family activities. The topics for each session are provided in Table 1.
| Table 1: SF 10-14 topics for weeks 1 to 7 | |||
| Parent sessions | Youth sessions | Family sessions | |
| 1. | Using love and limits | Having goals and dreams | Supporting goals and dreams |
| 2. | Making house rules | Appreciating parents | Appreciating family members |
| 3. | Encouraging good behaviour | Dealing with stress | Using family meetings |
| 4. | Using consequences | Following rules | Understanding family values |
| 5. | Building bridges | Handling peer pressure 1 | Building family communication |
| 6. | Protecting against substance misuse | Handling peer pressure 2 | Reaching our goals |
| 7. | Using community resources | Reaching out to others | Putting it all together and graduating |
Youth sessions focus on setting and strengthening goals, dealing with stress and strong emotions, communication skills, increasing responsible behaviour and improving skills to deal with peer pressure.
Parents discuss the importance of both nurturing their youth while, at the same time, setting rules, monitoring compliance, and applying appropriate discipline. Topics include: making house rules, encouraging good behaviour, using consequences, building bridges, and protecting against alcohol and substance misuse.
Between 6 and 12 months after the seventh session, the parents and young people return for four more booster sessions that occur at regular intervals. During these sessions, parents discuss methods for handling parental stress, communicating when partners don’t agree, and reinforcing their earlier skills training. Young people focus on making good friends, handling conflict, and reinforcing skills learned in the first seven sessions. The topics for the booster sessions are provided in Table 2.
| Table 2: SF 10-14 topics for booster sessions | |||
| Parent sessions | Youth sessions | Family sessions | |
| 1. | Handling stress | Handling conflict | Understanding each other |
| 2. | Communicating when you don’t agree | Making good friends | Listing to each other |
| 3. | Reviewing love and limit- settings skills | Getting the message across | Understanding family rules |
| 4. | Reviewing how to help with peer pressure | Practising skills | Using family strengths |
10 to 14 years
This intervention targets the general population of school-aged children
Disclaimer: The information in this section is as offered/supported by the intervention provider.
Science-based assumption
Increasing levels of autonomy in adolescence increases the risks associated with substance misuse and antisocial behaviour.
Science-based assumption
Effective parenting practices and positive family relationships can decrease the risks associated with the adolescent years.
Science-based assumption
All families with a young person can benefit from knowledge about the risks associated with adolescence autonomy and substance misuse and strategies for managing these risks.
Intervention
Parents and young people learn:
How to communicate effectively
Agree age-appropriate autonomy for the young person
Agree age-appropriate limits
Manage family conflict
Enforce age-appropriate consequences
Manage and resist negative peer pressure.
Short-term
The relationship between the parents and the young person improves
Family conflict decreases
Parents provide age-appropriate autonomy and limits.
Medium-term
The young person is at less risk of behavioural problems
The young person makes responsible decisions and can better manage their autonomy.
Long-term
The young person is at reduced risk of substance misuse and antisocial behaviour problems
The young person is better prepared to make a successful transition into adulthood.
All parents with a young person between 10 and 14 years.
Strengthening Families (10-14) is delivered in seven sessions of two hours’ duration each by three trained practitioners (one lead practitioner and two co-practitioners), to groups of between 8 and 12 families.
The practitioner who delivers SF 10 – 14 typically has a qualification and experience in education or youth work.
The practitioners have three full days of intervention training. Booster training of practitioners is recommended.
It is recommended that practitioners are supervised by one host-agency supervisor
Intervention fidelity is maintained through the following processes:
Contact person: Cathy Hockaday
Organisation: Strengthening Families 10-14
Email address: hockaday@iastate.edu
Website: www.extension.iastate.edu/sfp10-14
*Please note that this information may not be up to date. In this case, please visit the listed intervention website for up to date contact details.
SF 10-14’s most rigorous evidence comes from a single RCT conducted in the United States consistent with Foundations’ Level 3 evidence strength criteria.
This study observed a wide variety of benefits for SF 10-14 parents and children compared to families who did not attend the intervention, including a number of long-term benefits.
SF 10-14 can be described as evidence-based: it has evidence from at least one rigorously conducted RCT or QED demonstrating a statistically significant positive impact on at least one child outcome.
While this intervention has robust evidence from the United States suggesting positive impact, the findings from recent European trials have been more equivocal, showing less positive results. However, these more recent trials have not been as methodologically robust as the US evidence, therefore we cannot draw strong conclusions from them. Please see reference list for details of all trials identified. The study contributing towards the rating tested the ‘Iowa Strengthening Families Program’, which Strengthening Families 10-14 was formerly known as. It is based on the same seven-session model.
Improved academic success
long term, 6 years later
Improvement index
Interpretation
Study
Reduced internalising symptoms
long term, between 1 and 6 years later
Improvement index
Interpretation
Study
Reduced substance use during sex
long term, 10 years later
Improvement index
Interpretation
Study
Reduced number of sexual partners in past year
long term, 10 years later
Improvement index
Interpretation
Study
Reduced sexually transmitted diseases
long term, 10 years later
Improvement index
Interpretation
Study
Reduced aggression and hostility
long term, 4 years later
Improvement index
Interpretation
Study
Reduced aggressive and destructive conduct
long term, 4 years later
Improvement index
Interpretation
Study
Reduced alcohol initiation
long term, 1 year later, long term, 2 years later
Improvement index
Interpretation
Study
Reduced monthly polysubstance use
long term, between 1 and 6 years later
Improvement index
Interpretation
Study
| Identified in search | 10 |
| Studies reviewed | 1 |
| Meeting the L2 threshold | 0 |
| Meeting the L3 threshold | 1 |
| Contributing to the L4 threshold | 0 |
| Ineligible | 9 |
| Study design | RCT |
| Country | United States |
| Sample characteristics | This study involved a sample of 446 families of sixth-graders (mean age 11.3 years) from 22 rural school districts in the United States |
| Race, ethnicities, and nationalities | 98% White |
| Population risk factors | None reported |
| Timing |
|
| Child outcomes |
|
| Other outcomes | None |
| Study rating | 3 |
| Citations | Study 1a: Spoth, R., Redmond, C. & Lepper, H. (1999) Alcohol initiation outcomes of universal family-focused preventive interventions: One- and two-year follow-ups of a controlled study. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 13, 103–111. Study 1b: Spoth, R. L., Redmond, C. & Shin, C. (2000) Reducing adolescents’ aggressive and hostile behaviors. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine. 154, 1248–1257. Study 1c: Spoth, R., Randall, G. K. & Shin, C. (2008) Increasing school success through partnership-based family competency training: Experimental study of long-term outcomes. School Psychology Quarterly. 23 (1), 70. Study 1d: Trudeau, L., Spoth, R., Randall, G. K. & Azevedo, K. (2007) Longitudinal effects of a universal family-focused intervention on growth patterns of adolescent internalizing symptoms and polysubstance use: Gender comparisons. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 36, 725–740. Study 1e: Spoth, R., Clair, S. & Trudeau, L. (2014) Universal family-focused intervention with young adolescents: Effects on health-risking sexual behaviors and STDs among young adults. Prevention Science. 15 (Supplement 1), S47–S58. |
The following studies were identified for this intervention but did not count towards the intervention’s overall evidence rating. An intervention receives the same rating as its most robust study or studies.
Allen, D., Coombes, L. & Foxcroft, D. R. (2006) Cultural accommodation of the strengthening families programme 10–14: UK Phase I study. Health Education Research. 22 (4), 547–560.
Baldus, C., Thomsen, M., Sack, P. M., et al. (2016) Evaluation of a German version of the Strengthening Families Programme 10-14: A randomised controlled trial. European Journal of Public Health. 26 (6), 953–959.
Coatsworth, J. D., Duncan, L. G., Nix, R. L., Greenberg, M. G., Gayles, J. G., Bamberger, …, Demi, M. A. (2015) Integrating mindfulness with parent training: Effects of the Mindfulness-enhanced Strengthening Families Program. Developmental Psychology. 51 (1), 26–35.
Coombes, L., Allen, D. & Foxcroft, D. (2012) An exploratory pilot study of the Strengthening Families Programme 10-14 (UK). Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy. 19 (5), 387–396.
Coombes, L., Allen, D., Marsh, M. & Foxcroft, D. (2009) The Strengthening Families Programme (SFP) 10‐14 and substance misuse in Barnsley: The perspectives of facilitators and families. Child Abuse Review. 18 (1), 41–59.
Crowley, D. M., Jones, D. E., Coffman, D. L. & Greenberg, M. T. (2014) Can we build an efficient response to the prescription drug abuse epidemic? Assessing the cost-effectiveness of universal prevention in the PROSPER trial. Preventive Medicine. 62, 71–77.
Foxcroft, D.R ., Callen, H., Davies, E. L. & Okulicz-Kozaryn, K. (2016) Effectiveness of the Strengthening Families Programme 10–14 in Poland: Cluster randomized controlled trial. The European Journal of Public Health. 27 (3), 494–500.
Ragan, D. T. (2016) Peer beliefs and smoking in adolescence: A longitudinal social network analysis. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse. 42 (2), 222–230.
Riesch, S. K., Brown, R. L., Anderson, L. S., Wang, K., Canty-Mitchell, J. & Johnson, D. L. (2012) Strengthening Families Program (10-14) effects on the family environment. Western Journal of Nursing Research. 34 (3), 340–376.
Rulison, K. L., Feinberg, M. E., Gest, S. D. & Osgood, D. W. (2015) Diffusion of intervention effects: The impact of a family-based substance use prevention program on friends of participants. Journal of Adolescent Health. 57 (4), 433–440.
Russell, M. A., Schlomer, G. L., Cleveland, H. H., Feinberg, M. E., Greenberg, M. T. & Spoth, R. L., et al. (2017) PROSPER intervention effects on adolescents’ alcohol misuse vary by GABRA2. Prevention Science. 19 (1), 27–37.
Schlomer, G. L., Cleveland, H. H., Vandenbergh, D. J., Feinberg, M. E., Neiderhiser, J. M., Greenberg, M. T., et al. (2015) Developmental differences in early adolescent aggression: A gene × environment × intervention analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 44 (3), 581–597.
Siennick, S. E., Widdowson, A. O., Woessner, M. K., Feinberg, M. E. & Spoth, R. L. (2017) Risk factors for substance use and adolescents’ symptoms of depression. Journal of Adolescent Health. 60 (1), 50–56.
Spoth, R. L., Redmond, C., Trudeau, L. & Shin, C. (2002) Longitudinal substance initiation outcomes for a universal preventive intervention combining family and school programs. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2, 129–134.
Spoth, R., Randall, G. K., Shin, C. & Redmond, C. (2005) Randomized study of combined universal family and school preventive interventions: Patterns of long-term effects on initiation, regular use, and weekly drunkenness. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 19 (4), 372.
Spoth, R., Redmond, C., Shin, C., Greenberg, M., Clair, S. & Feinberg, M. (2007) Substance-use outcomes at 18 months past baseline: The PROSPER community–university partnership trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 32 (5), 395–402.
Spoth, R., Trudeau, L., Redmond, C., Shin, C., Greenberg, M. T., Feinberg, M. E. & Hyun, G. H. (2015) PROSPER partnership delivery system: Effects on adolescent conduct problem behavior outcomes through 6.5 years past baseline. Journal of Adolescence. 45, 44–55.
Spoth, R., Redmond, C., Shin, C., Greenberg, M. T., Feinberg, M. E. & Trudeau, L. (2017) PROSPER delivery of universal preventive interventions with young adolescents: Long-term effects on emerging adult substance misuse and associated risk behaviors. Psychological Medicine. 47 (13), 2246–2259.
Trudeau, L., Spoth, R., Mason, W. A., Randall, G. K., Redmond, C. & Schainker, L. M. (2016) Effects of adolescent universal substance misuse preventive interventions on young adult depression symptoms: Mediational modeling. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 44 (2), 257–268.
Note on provider involvement: This provider has agreed to Foundations’ terms of reference (or the Early Intervention Foundation's terms of reference), and the assessment has been conducted and published with the full cooperation of the intervention provider.
Rated 1: Set up and delivery is low cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of less than £100.
Rated 2: Set up and delivery is medium-low cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £100–£499.
Rated 3: Set up and delivery is medium cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £500–£999.
Rated 4: Set up and delivery is medium-high cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £1,000–£2,000.
Rating 5: Set up and delivery is high cost. Equivalent to an estimated unit cost of more than £2,000.
Set up and delivery cost is not applicable, not available, or has not been calculated.
Click here for more information.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.
Supporting children’s mental health and wellbeing: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing child maltreatment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Enhancing school achievement & employment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing crime, violence and antisocial behaviour: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing substance abuse: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing risky sexual behaviour & teen pregnancy: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing obesity and promoting healthy physical development: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Rated 2: Has preliminary evidence of improving a child outcome from a quantitative impact study, but there is not yet evidence of causal impact.
Rated 2+: Meets the level 2 rating and the best available evidence is based on a study which is more rigorous than a level 2 standard but does not meet the level 3 standard.
Rated 3: Has evidence of a short-term positive impact from at least one rigorous study.
Rated 3+: Meets the level 3 rating and has evidence from other studies with a comparison group at level 2 or higher.
Rated 4: Has evidence of a long-term positive impact through at least two rigorous studies.
Rated 4+: Meets the level 4 rating and has at least a third study contributing to the Level 4 rating, with at least one of the studies conducted independently of the intervention provider.
Rating has a *: The evidence base includes mixed findings i.e., studies suggesting positive impact alongside studies, which on balance, indicate no effect or negative impact.
Click here for more information.