Your browser does not support JavaScript!
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs, Innovation - Partnerships – Safer Neighborhoods
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Serving Children, Families and Communities
OJJDP Model Programs Guide
top navigation spacer top background spacer top background spacer top background spacer spacer spacer

Syracuse Family Development Research Program

OJJDP
 Back to Prevention Search
Intervention:
The Syracuse Family Development Research Program (FDRP) was a comprehensive early childhood program that aimed to develop child and family functioning through home visitation, parent training, and individualized day care. FDRP targeted economically disadvantaged families and sought to improve children’s cognitive and emotional functioning, reduce behavioral problems, and prevent juvenile delinquency. The program intended to support child and family functioning to sustain growth and development in a more permanent environment after the intervention ceased. Efforts included providing education, nutrition, health, safety, and human service resources to parents and children.

The FDRP population targeted predominantly young, African-American, single-parent, low-income, and low-education families. Specifically, program services were provided to 108 families in the 1970s, of which 85% were single parent heads of households with a mean age of 18 years. Mothers in the last trimester of their first or second pregnancy were also targeted for inclusion in the program.

The FDRP strategies focused on parent contact as the primary intervention, with child care as supplementary, based on the notion that supporting parent strategies would have long-term impacts on children’s development and assist families to meet life challenges. According to Lally and colleagues (1988), these objectives were shaped by the following five theoretical rationales:
  1. Piagetian equilibration theory. Piaget’s theory stresses the importance of active child participation in the construction of knowledge and the development of children’s abilities through the use of toys, materials, and human interactions.
  2. Language development theories. Child language abilities can be enhanced and developed through parent modeling, frequent book reading, responsiveness to infant babbles, and interactive turn-taking talk.
  3. Childhood development theories. Child development stages reflect a succession of positive emotional conflict resolution experiences. Some theories include a focused program concern on developing children’s learning, trust, and autonomy (Erikson, 1950).
  4. Theory of community organization. The theory of community organization incorporates parent feedback and interaction to empower community members. It is based on the idea that how FDRP personnel perceive their role in the intervention community is critical to the effectiveness of the program (Alinsky, 1979).
  5. Freedom of choice for children. Drawing from the British Infant School movement, FDRP drew on the notion that providing children with freedom of choice and a creative, spatial environment would support programmatic goals.
FDRP participants received individualized training and support from paraprofessional Child Development Trainers (CDTs) who made weekly home visits to each family before childbirth and until the child was five years old. Families were provided with child care for 50 weeks a year for the first five years of the children’s lives. Child care consisted of (a) one-half day care, five days a week from six months until 15 months; and (b) full day care, five days a week from 15 months of age until 60 months of age.

Day care services provided daily at the Syracuse University Children’s Center were designed to foster: freedom of choice, awareness of responsibility, confidence in the fairness and consistency of the environment, an emphasis on creativity, excitement and exploration in learning, expectations of internal motivation, and a safe, cheerful space.

Major program components included parent involvement, parent organization, Children’s Center activities, infant/caregiver interactions (infant-fold), family style education, and assessment.
  1. Parent involvement. The FDRP program viewed parents as the primary teachers and sustaining caregivers in their children’s lives. Home visits by CDTs focused on increasing family interaction, cohesiveness, and nurturing. Family problems (financial, emotional, social, and nutritional) were dealt with as they arose. CDTs provided language interactions and learning tasks appropriate to each child’s developmental level. They facilitated active family roles and observations to teach behavior modification, and provided positive reinforcement to enhance parental self-confidence and self-competence. CDTs also assisted families by providing neighborhood resource and nutrition information, transportation to and from meetings, and creating toy and book lending kits for parents to borrow.
  2. Parent organization. As the project progressed, parents met and formed formal and informal associations. The formal parent organization met monthly, elected officers, engaged in program advocacy, and reviewed project plans and events. Informally, many parents met to purchase food and supplies in bulk at reduced prices.
  3. Children’s Center Component. In the Children’s Center (for day care), infants were assigned to a caregiver for attention, cognitive and social games, sensorimotor activities, and language stimulation. The preschool program supported child-chosen opportunities for learning and peer interaction in a space-oriented framework, i.e., specific areas of the Center were designated for specific types of activities. Extensive staff and personnel training were also provided.
  4. Infant-Fold. Infants were assigned to a caregiver for attention, cognitive and social-interactive games, sensorimotor activities, and language stimulation. Caregivers worked in pairs with groups of no more than eight infants. Play materials were used to help children develop means-ends relationships, object permanence, causality, spatial concepts, and language. Caregivers used techniques such as praise and positive reinforcement. Children were encouraged to embed creativity in daily activities. Babies from 15 to 18 months were in a special transition group that offered a more varied program of sensorimotor activities.
  5. Family style education. Children from 18 months to five years of age were together daily in an environment structured into the following activities modules: (a) large-muscle area, (b) small-muscle area, (c) sense-perception area, and (d) creative expression and snack area. The idea was to support child-chosen opportunities for learning and peer interaction in a spatially-oriented structure, rather than time-oriented framework.
  6. Assessment. The FDRP program goals, activities, and staff roles were designed to permit evaluation of short and long term impacts of the intervention.
Key personnel included caregivers, child development trainers (CDTs), and supervisory staff (e.g. Project Director and Program Director).
Evaluation Methodology:
Study 1
Lally, Mangione, and Honig (1988) evaluated the Syracuse Family Development Research Program (FDRP) with longitudinal data from a 10-year follow-up study. Between 1969 and 1971, a team of researchers recruited 108 families with incomes of less than $24,000 per year to participate in the FDRP in Syracuse, New York and matched them to 108 control families (Lally and Honig, 1977a and 1977b). In 1988, the researchers conducted a follow-up study of the original sample of 216 families; their evaluation used a matched sample comparison quasi-experimental design with pretest and posttest measures. The follow-up evaluation sample included 65 program families and 54 control families.

Data was collected at several points from school records, court records, and probation department records. Open-ended interviews were conducted with the children in the study and with their parents. Participants completed questionnaires and responded to interview questions about functioning in school, social attitudes and behavior, family life, and aspirations. Parents also completed demographic data forms; demographic profiles were produced based on the social and economic background of the families.

Interviews were conducted separately with children and parents in the families’ homes and lasted approximately 2 to 2.5 hours. Interviewers were advanced students in one of the helping profession fields and were unaware of the family’s study status (program or control group). Parent interviews were conducted with 51 of the 65 follow-up program families and 42 of the 54 control group families. Child interviews were conducted for 49 of the 65 follow-up program families and 39 of the possible 54 control group families. A content analysis was applied to interview responses to identify classification categories.

Teachers filled out questionnaires rating the academic and social functioning of the children. At least one completed teacher rating questionnaire for 101 follow-up children was collected. Teacher rating questionnaire items were assessed using facet theory analysis to produce categories of results. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to interpret the results and possible interaction effects.

School performance was assessed in each group by the number of failing grade-point averages, the number of students performing at a C average grade or better, and the rates of school attendance for each of four school years (1981-1985). Results were examined separately for male and female students. Rates of placement in special education programs for both program and control groups for the school years 1980-1985 were also documented. Results were examined separately for male and female students.

Juvenile delinquency was determined by the number of children processed as probation cases by the County Probation Department and the severity of delinquent acts committed by offenders. Data was also collected to assess the costs of program participation.
Evaluation Outcome:
Study 1
The follow-up longitudinal study by Lally, Mangione, and Honig(1988) followed the Syracuse Family Development Research Program (FDRP) students into their teen years to assess the program’s effects on school performance and juvenile delinquency.

Grade Report
The follow-up analysis of grade report data indicated that females in the program were significantly less likely than those in the control group to fail courses in school. By the eighth grade, 0 percent of the FDRP females had a failing average in school compared with 16 percent of control group females. By the eighth grade, 76 percent of the FDRP females versus 47 percent of control group females were performing at a C average or better. However, males in the program group continued to perform at a comparable level to males in the program group.

School Attendance
Poor school attendance was defined as having 20 or more absences from school. School attendance data over four years showed no statistically significant differences between treatment and control group females for the first two years. However, by year three, 14 percent of the FDRP females versus 50 percent of the control group females had more than 20 school absences during the previous year. By year four, 0 percent of the FDRP females versus 31 percent of the control group females had more than 20 school absences, which was significant. No significant differences were reported for males in the program and control groups.

Prosocial Attitudes and Behavior (Parent Report)
Substantially more FDRP program parents described their children as having prosocial attitudes (28 percent of program parents verses 10 percent of control group parents), although no significance test is reported.

Probation Incidences
Program youth were less likely to have records of delinquency or receive probation (6 percent of the program children versus 22 percent of the control children), although no significance test is reported. Offense severity, degree of chronicity, and cost of cases were also higher in the control group.
Other Information:
Implementation: A two-week intensive training session was provided every fall for all staff, including caregivers, child development trainers, researchers, testers, secretarial staff, the cook, bus drivers, and driver aides. These sessions were used for staff motivation, for refining the staff's child-observation skills, and to teach staff about child development processes.

Throughout the year, weekly staff meetings were held to discuss the progress, problems, and strengths of a particular child. In addition, daily learning sessions for staff were scheduled during children's naptime. Weekly case conferences were held among caregivers, child development trainers, and supervisory staff to report on and discuss work with participating families.

The caregivers also worked to maintain positive relationships with parents. For example, caregivers prepared a daily "Memo to Mommy" that was safety-pinned to each child's clothing and contained messages highlighting the child's newly formed skills or other such positive developments.

Costs: Cost data was collected from fiscal officers at various agencies to determine spending related to juvenile delinquency. Estimated costs were produced to include the cost of court processing, probation supervision, placement in foster care, non-secure detention, and secure detention. According to Lally and colleagues (1988), the total criminal justice system costs for the Family Development Research Program (FDRP) delinquency cases was $12,111 (n=65) versus $107,192 for the control group children (n=54). A cost-benefit analysis (in 1997 dollars) of the FDRP by Aos, Barnoski, and Lieb (1998) calculated the following program costs: the cost of the program per participant was $18,037; the total criminal justice costs avoided per participant was $3,953; the total crime victim costs avoided was $3,842; and the total net cost to taxpayers per FDRP participant was ($18,037 - $3,953 - $3,842) = $10,242.
References:
Aos, Steve, Robert Barnoski, and Roxanne Lieb. 1998. Watching the Bottom Line: Cost-Effective Interventions for Reducing Crime in Washington. Olympia, Wash.: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

Alinsky, Saul D. 1971. Rules for Radicals. New York, NY: Random House.

Besharov, Douglas J., Peter Germanis, Caeli A. Higney, and Douglas M. Call. 2011. “Syracuse Family Development Research Program.” In D.J. Besharov et al. (eds.) Assessments of Twenty-Six Early Childhood Evaluations. College Park, MD: University of Maryland School of Public Policy Welfare Reform Academy, 1-12.

Erikson, Erik H. 1950. Childhood and Society. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

Honig, Alice Sterling. 2007. “Longitudinal outcomes from the Family Development Research Program.” Early Child Development and Care 174(2):125-130.

Lally, J. Ronald, and Alice Sterling Honig. 1977a. “The Family Development Research Program: A Program for Prenatal Infant and Early Childhood Enrichment.” In M.D. Day and R.D. Parker (eds.), The Preschool in Action: Exploring Early Childhood Programs. Boston, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon, 147–94.

———. 1977b. The Family Development Research Program: A Program for Prenatal Infant and Early Childhood Enrichment. Final Report. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University.

Lally, J. Ronald, Peter L. Mangione, Alice Sterling Honig, and Donna S.Wittner. 1988. “More Pride, Less Delinquency: Findings From the 10-Year Follow-Up Study of the Syracuse University Family Development Research Program.” Zero to Three 8(4):13–18.

Lally, J. Ronald, Peter L. Mangione, and Alice Sterling Honig. 1988. “The Syracuse University Family Development Research Program: Long-Range Impact on an Early Intervention with Low-Income Children and Their Families.” In Douglas R. Powell and Irving E. Sigel (eds.) Parent Education as Early Childhood Intervention: Emerging Directions in Theory, Research, and Practice: Annual Advances in Applied Developmental Psychology, Vol. 3. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Zigler, Edward, Cara Taussig, and Kathryn Black. 1992. “Early Childhood Intervention: A Promising Preventative for Juvenile Delinquency.” American Psychologist 47(8):997-1006.
 
Program Specification:
New Rating:
Promising
Re-reviewed Date: April 2013
Program Type:
Conflict Resolution / Interpersonal Skills
Leadership and Youth Development
Parent Training
School/Classroom Environment
Truancy Prevention
Wraparound / Case Management
Ethnicity:
African American
Gender:
Both
Age:
0 - 5
Target Settings:
Urban
Problem Behaviors:
Academic Problems
Aggression/Violence
Delinquency
Family Functioning
Risk & Protective Factors:  
Risk
Community
Economic deprivation / Poverty / Residence in a disadvantaged neighborhood
Family
Broken home
Child victimization and maltreatment
Family management problems / Poor parental supervision and/or monitoring
Having a young mother
Low parent education level / Literacy
Parental use of physical punishment / Harsh and/or erratic discipline practices
Poor family attachment / Bonding
School
Low academic achievement
Negative attitude toward school / Low bonding / Low school attachment / Commitment to school
Protective
Community
Presence and involvement of caring, supportive adults in the community
Rewards for prosocial community involvement
Family
Effective parenting
Good relationship with parents / Bonding or attachment to family
Having a stable family
High family expectations
Opportunities for prosocial family involvement
Rewards for prosocial family involvement
Individual
Healthy / Conventional beliefs and clear standards
High individual expectations
Perception of social support from adults and peers
Positive / Resilient temperament
Positive expectations / Optimism for the future
Self-efficacy
Social competencies and problem solving skills
Peer
Involvement with positive peer group activities
School
Above average academic achievment / Reading and math skills
Opportunities for prosocial school involvement
Strong school motivation / Positive attitude toward school
Student bonding (attachment to teachers, belief, commitment)
Additional Information:
    Promising Practices Network "Programs That Work"
Status:

Program is NOT in operation at this time.

Performance Measures:
Suggested OJJDP Performance Measures for the Program Types(s):

Delinquency Prevention
Leadership and Youth Development
Logic Model: PDF
Performance Matrix:PDF
Delinquency Prevention
Parent Training
Logic Model: PDF
Performance Matrix:PDF
Mental Health Services
Parent Training
Logic Model: PDF
Performance Matrix:PDF
School Programs
Truancy Prevention
Logic Model: PDF
Performance Matrix:PDF
School Programs
School/Classroom Environment
Logic Model: PDF
Performance Matrix:PDF

Contact Information:
Program Developer:
Dr. Alice Sterling Honig
 Professor Emerita of Child Development Child and Family Studies, Syracuse University
 304G Lyman Hall
 Syracuse, NY 13244
 Phone: 315.443.4296
 Fax: 315.443.2735
 Email: Click Here

Back to Prevention Search

 

OJJDP Home | About OJJDP | E-News | Topics | Funding | Programs
State Contacts |Publications | Statistics | Events | Search | FAQs | Contact Us