Families and Schools Together® – Elementary School Level
Families and Schools Together® (FAST®) – Elementary School Level is a prevention and early intervention parent engagement program designed to serve families with children ages 4–10. FAST – Elementary School Level aims to strengthen parent-child and family relationships, promote children’s social and emotional development and school success, and build supportive connections between parents, schools, and communities.
FAST – Elementary School Level consists of weekly structured multi-family group sessions followed by monthly unstructured parent review sessions. Each multi-family group session contains three components: Family Table Time with opening activities, Parent(s) and Kids Separate Time, and Family Table Time with closing activities. (1) During Family Table Time, families and FAST team members have a sit-down meal together and complete group activities designed to encourage sharing feelings and ideas and listening to each other. (2) During Parent(s) and Kids Separate Time, children participate in age-appropriate activities facilitated by a FAST team member, such as literacy, arts and crafts, and motor activities (Kids Time). Parents participate in one-on-one conversations with other parents (Buddy Time), followed by unstructured discussions about parenting (Parent Group) intended to develop supportive relationships among parents. After meeting separately, each parent-child pair participates in child-led unstructured play (Special Play) and parent-led reading (Special Reading Time). (3) Family Table Time closes each session with announcements and a whole-group circle activity. Additionally, parents are asked to practice Special Play Time with their children in between group sessions.
After families graduate from the weekly multi-family group sessions, parents attend monthly FASTWORKS® meetings to review material and socialize with other parents.
FAST – Elementary School Level is rated as a promising practice because at least one study achieved a rating of moderate or high on study design and execution and demonstrated a favorable effect on a target outcome.
Date Research Evidence Last Reviewed: Mar 2022
Sources
The program or service description, target population, and program or service delivery and implementation information were informed by the following sources: the program or service manual, the program or service developer’s website, the California Evidence Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare, and the studies reviewed.
This information does not necessarily represent the views of the program or service developers. For more information on how this program or service was reviewed, visit the download the Handbook of Standards and Procedures, Version 1.0
Target Population
FAST – Elementary School Level is designed to serve families with children ages 4–10. Additional family members, including siblings and grandparents, are invited to attend multi-family group sessions.
Dosage
FAST – Elementary School Level is delivered over 8 weekly multi-family group sessions of 10–15 families. Each session lasts 2.5 hours. Families must attend at least six sessions to graduate. After graduating FAST, parents can attend monthly FASTWORKS sessions. FASTWORKS sessions are typically offered for 24 months.
Location/Delivery Setting
Recommended Locations/Delivery Settings
FAST – Elementary School Level is delivered in after-school settings or in community settings. Typically, groups are made up of families whose children are in the same classroom, grade level, or school.
Location/Delivery Settings Observed in the Research
- School
Education, Certifications and Training
FAST – Elementary School Level is initiated by a lead agency, which is typically a school or community-based organization, that is responsible for coordinating team members. It is delivered by at least four team members. The team includes one or two parent partners who are graduates of the program or have children attending the school; one school partner, such as a classroom teacher, school psychologist, school administrator, or librarian; and two community partners with expertise in mental health, substance abuse, or other challenges families in the community may experience. Teams can also include a recreational coordinator to facilitate Kids Time and additional parent partners. Teams must be representative of participating families in terms of race, ethnicity, culture, and language. FASTWORKS is led by parent partners who have graduated from the program.
All team members participate in an initial 2-day training with a certified trainer. Following training, the trainer supports the team as they implement their first 8-week FAST cycle, including direct observation of three sessions. Following the 8-week cycle, the team participates in a final 1-day training with the trainer.
FAST team members who wish to become certified FAST Trainers can participate in a 5-day training and complete a training internship over the course of an 8-week FAST multi-family group session. Trainers are required to re-certify every 3 years.
Program or Service Documentation
Book/Manual/Available documentation used for review
McDonald, L. (2018). FAST® team member handbook: Elementary school level. Families and Schools Together, Inc.
Available languages
FAST – Elementary School Level materials are available in English and Spanish.
Other supporting materials
FAST – Elementary School Level Overview
For More Information
Website: www.familiesandschools.org
Phone: (888) 629-2481
Email: answers@familiesandschools.org
Note: The details on Dosage; Location; Education, Certifications, and Training; Other Supporting Materials; and For More Information sections above are provided to website users for informational purposes only. This information is not exhaustive and may be subject to change.
| Results of Search and Review | Number of Studies Identified and Reviewed for Families and Schools Together® – Elementary School Level |
|---|---|
| Identified in Search | 27 |
| Eligible for Review | 10 |
| Rated High | 3 |
| Rated Moderate | 3 |
| Rated Low | 4 |
| Reviewed Only for Risk of Harm | 0 |
| Outcome | Effect Size
 and Implied Percentile Effect
|
N of Studies (Findings) | N of Participants | Summary of Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Child well-being: Behavioral and emotional functioning |
-0.07
-2 |
4 (72) | 805 |
Favorable:
8 No Effect: 60 Unfavorable: 4 |
| Child well-being: Social functioning |
0.00
0 |
4 (21) | 1643 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 21 Unfavorable: 0 |
| Child well-being: Cognitive functions and abilities |
0.11
4 |
2 (15) | 1222 |
Favorable:
2 No Effect: 11 Unfavorable: 2 |
| Child well-being: Delinquent behavior |
-0.15
-5 |
1 (1) | 473 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 1 Unfavorable: 0 |
| Child well-being: Educational achievement and attainment |
0.19
7 |
3 (13) | 549 |
Favorable:
1 No Effect: 12 Unfavorable: 0 |
| Adult well-being: Positive parenting practices |
0.03
1 |
2 (7) | 996 |
Favorable:
1 No Effect: 5 Unfavorable: 1 |
| Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver mental or emotional health |
-0.16
-6 |
2 (4) | 585 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 2 Unfavorable: 2 |
| Adult well-being: Family functioning |
0.07
2 |
4 (23) | 1845 |
Favorable:
3 No Effect: 19 Unfavorable: 1 |
Note: For the effect sizes and implied percentile effects reported in the table, a positive number favors the intervention group and a negative number favors the comparison group. Effect sizes for some outcomes were not able to be calculated by the Prevention Services Clearinghouse.
| Outcome | Effect Size
and Implied Percentile Effect
|
N of Studies (Findings) | N of Participants | Summary of Findings |
Months after treatment when outcome measured
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Child well-being: Behavioral and emotional functioning |
-0.07
-2 |
4 (72) | 805 |
Favorable:
8 No Effect: 60 Unfavorable: 4 |
- |
| Study 12078 - FAST vs. No Treatment Control Group (Kratochwill, 2004) | |||||
| Child Behavior Checklist: Internalizing (Teacher Report – Post 1) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 100 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Internalizing (Teacher Report – Post 2) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 52 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Externalizing (Teacher Report – Post 1) |
Favorable
*
not calculated |
- | 100 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Externalizing (Teacher Report – Post 2) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 52 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Withdrawn (Teacher Report – Post 1) |
Unfavorable
*
not calculated |
- | 100 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Withdrawn (Teacher Report – Post 2) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 52 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Anxious/Depressed (Teacher Report – Post 1) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 100 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Anxious/Depressed (Teacher Report – Post 2) |
Favorable
*
not calculated |
- | 52 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Attention Problems (Teacher Report – Post 1) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 100 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Attention Problems (Teacher Report – Post 2) |
Favorable
*
not calculated |
- | 52 | - | 0 |
| Social Skills Rating System: Problem Behavior (Teacher Report – Post 1) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 98 | - | 0 |
| Social Skills Rating System: Problem Behavior (Teacher Report – Post 2) |
Favorable
*
not calculated |
- | 52 | - | 0 |
| Social Skills Rating System: Problem Behavior (Parent Report – Post 1) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 46 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Somatic Complaints (Teacher Report – Post 1) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 100 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Somatic Complaints (Teacher Report – Post 2) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 52 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Thought Problems (Teacher Report – Post 1) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 100 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Thought Problems (Teacher Report – Post 2) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 52 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Delinquent Behavior (Teacher Report – Post 1) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 100 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Delinquent Behavior (Teacher Report – Post 2) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 52 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Aggressive Behavior (Teacher Report – Post 1) |
Favorable
*
not calculated |
- | 100 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Aggressive Behavior (Teacher Report – Post 2) |
Favorable
*
not calculated |
- | 52 | - | 0 |
| Study 12079 - FAST vs. Matched No Treatment Control Group (Kratochwill, 2009) | |||||
| Child Behavior Checklist: Internalizing (Teacher Report – Post 1) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 120 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Externalizing (Teacher Report – Post 1) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 120 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Withdrawn (Teacher Report – Post 1) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 120 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Somatic Complaints (Teacher Report – Post 1) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 120 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Anxious/Depressed (Teacher Report – Post 1) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 120 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Thought Problems (Teacher Report – Post 1) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 120 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Attention Problems (Teacher Report – Post 1) |
Unfavorable
*
not calculated |
- | 120 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Delinquent Behavior (Teacher Report – Post 1) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 120 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Aggressive Behavior (Teacher Report – Post 1) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 120 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Internalizing (Parent Report – Post 1) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 106 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Externalizing (Parent Report – Post 1) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 106 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Withdrawn (Parent Report – Post 1) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 106 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Somatic Complaints (Parent Report – Post 1) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 106 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Anxious/Depressed (Parent Report – Post 1) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 106 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Thought Problems (Parent Report – Post 1) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 106 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Attention Problems (Parent Report – Post 1) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 106 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Delinquent Behavior (Parent Report – Post 1) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 106 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Aggressive Behavior (Parent Report – Post 1) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 106 | - | 0 |
| Social Skills Rating System: Problem Behavior (Teacher Report – Post 1) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 118 | - | 0 |
| Social Skills Rating System: Problem Behavior (Parent Report – Post 1) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 108 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Internalizing (Teacher Report – Post 2) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 78 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Externalizing (Teacher Report – Post 2) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 78 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Withdrawn (Teacher Report – Post 2) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 78 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Somatic Complaints (Teacher Report – Post 2) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 78 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Anxious/Depressed (Teacher Report – Post 2) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 78 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Thought Problems (Teacher Report – Post 2) |
Unfavorable
*
not calculated |
- | 78 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Attention Problems (Teacher Report – Post 2) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 78 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Delinquent Behavior (Teacher Report – Post 2) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 78 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Aggressive Behavior (Teacher Report – Post 2) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 78 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Internalizing (Parent Report – Post 2) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 62 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Externalizing (Parent Report – Post 2) |
Favorable
*
not calculated |
- | 62 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Withdrawn (Parent Report – Post 2) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 62 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Somatic Complaints (Parent Report – Post 2) |
Favorable
*
not calculated |
- | 62 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Anxious/Depressed (Parent Report – Post 2) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 62 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Thought Problems (Parent Report – Post 2) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 62 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Attention Problems (Parent Report – Post 2) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 62 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Delinquent Behavior (Parent Report – Post 2) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 62 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Aggressive Behavior (Parent Report – Post 2) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 62 | - | 0 |
| Social Skills Rating System: Problem Behavior (Teacher Report – Post 2) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 76 | - | 0 |
| Social Skills Rating System: Problem Behavior (Parent Report – Post 2) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 62 | - | 0 |
| Study 12730 - FAST vs. Family Education Control Group (QED Results) (Moberg, 2007) | |||||
| Social Skills Rating System (Post 1) |
0.01
0 |
- | 122 | - | 0 |
| Study 12094 - FAST vs. Placebo Comparison Group (RCT Results) (Moberg, 2007) | |||||
| Child Behavior Checklist: Internalizing (Parent Report – Post 1) |
-0.04
-1 |
- | 463 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Internalizing (Teacher Report – Post 1) |
-0.01
0 |
- | 463 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Externalizing (Parent Report – Post 1) |
-0.06
-2 |
- | 463 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Externalizing (Teacher Report – Post 1) |
-0.03
-1 |
- | 463 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Internalizing (Parent Report – Post 2) |
-0.12
-4 |
- | 436 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Externalizing (Parent Report – Post 2) |
-0.11
-4 |
- | 436 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Internalizing (Parent Report – Post 3) |
-0.13
-5 |
- | 359 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Internalizing (Teacher Report – Post 3) |
-0.40
*
-15 |
- | 359 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Externalizing (Parent Report – Post 3) |
-0.12
-4 |
- | 359 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Externalizing (Teacher Report – Post 3) |
-0.12
-4 |
- | 359 | - | 0 |
| Child well-being: Social functioning |
0.00
0 |
4 (21) | 1643 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 21 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 12070 - FAST vs. No FAST Group (Cohort 1) (Bos, 2018) | |||||
| Social and Behavioral Skills (Cohort 1 – End of 1st Grade) |
-0.04
-1 |
- | 497 | - | 0 |
| Social and Behavioral Skills (Cohort 1 – End of 2nd Grade) |
0.01
0 |
- | 378 | - | 0 |
| Study 12070 - FAST vs. No FAST Group (Cohort 2) (Bos, 2018) | |||||
| Social and Behavioral Skills (Cohort 2 – End of 1st Grade) |
0.00
0 |
- | 463 | - | 0 |
| Study 12078 - FAST vs. No Treatment Control Group (Kratochwill, 2004) | |||||
| Child Behavior Checklist: Social Problems (Teacher Report – Post 1) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 100 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Social Problems (Teacher Report – Post 2) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 52 | - | 0 |
| Social Skills Rating System: Social Skills (Teacher Report – Post 1) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 98 | - | 0 |
| Social Skills Rating System: Social Skills (Teacher Report – Post 2) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 52 | - | 0 |
| Social Skills Rating System: Social Skills (Parent Report – Post 1) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 46 | - | 0 |
| Study 12079 - FAST vs. Matched No Treatment Control Group (Kratochwill, 2009) | |||||
| Child Behavior Checklist: Social Problems (Teacher Report – Post 1) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 120 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Social Problems (Parent Report – Post 1) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 106 | - | 0 |
| Social Skills Rating System: Social Skills (Teacher Report – Post 1) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 118 | - | 0 |
| Social Skills Rating System: Social Skills (Parent Report – Post 1) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 108 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Social Problems (Teacher Report – Post 2) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 78 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Social Problems (Parent Report – Post 2) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 62 | - | 0 |
| Social Skills Rating System: Social Skills (Teacher Report – Post 2) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 76 | - | 0 |
| Social Skills Rating System: Social Skills (Parent Report – Post 2) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 62 | - | 0 |
| Study 12094 - FAST vs. Placebo Comparison Group (RCT Results) (Moberg, 2007) | |||||
| Social Skills Rating System (Parent Report – Post 1) |
0.03
1 |
- | 463 | - | 0 |
| Social Skills Rating System (Teacher Report – Post 1) |
0.06
2 |
- | 463 | - | 0 |
| Social Skills Rating System (Parent Report – Post 2) |
-0.04
-1 |
- | 436 | - | 0 |
| Social Skills Rating System (Parent Report – Post 3) |
-0.06
-2 |
- | 359 | - | 0 |
| Social Skills Rating System (Teacher Report – Post 3) |
0.04
1 |
- | 359 | - | 0 |
| Child well-being: Cognitive functions and abilities |
0.11
4 |
2 (15) | 1222 |
Favorable:
2 No Effect: 11 Unfavorable: 2 |
- |
| Study 12070 - FAST vs. No FAST Group (Cohort 1) (Bos, 2018) | |||||
| Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Fourth Edition (Cohort 1 – End of 1st Grade) |
-0.09
-3 |
- | 520 | - | 0 |
| Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Fourth Edition (Cohort 1 – End of 2nd Grade) |
-0.71
*
-26 |
- | 458 | - | 0 |
| Woodcock Johnson Third Edition: Broad Reading (Cohort 1 – End of 1st Grade) |
-0.01
0 |
- | 519 | - | 0 |
| Woodcock Johnson Third Edition: Broad Reading (Cohort 1 – End of 2nd Grade) |
0.03
1 |
- | 458 | - | 0 |
| Woodcock Johnson Third Edition: Broad Mathematics (Cohort 1 – End of 1st Grade) |
-0.75
*
-27 |
- | 519 | - | 0 |
| Woodcock Johnson Third Edition: Broad Mathematics (Cohort 1 – End of 2nd Grade) |
0.06
2 |
- | 458 | - | 0 |
| Study 12070 - FAST vs. Matched Control (QED Sample) (Bos, 2018) | |||||
| Woodcock Johnson Third Edition: Broad Reading (High-uptake Sample – End of 1st Grade) |
0.59
*
22 |
- | 97 | - | 0 |
| Woodcock Johnson Third Edition: Broad Mathematics (High-uptake Sample – End of 1st Grade) |
0.17
6 |
- | 97 | - | 0 |
| Study 12070 - FAST vs. No FAST Group (Cohort 2) (Bos, 2018) | |||||
| Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Fourth Edition (Cohort 2 – End of 1st Grade) |
1.32
*
40 |
- | 519 | - | 0 |
| Woodcock Johnson Third Edition: Broad Reading (Cohort 2 – End of 1st Grade) |
-0.09
-3 |
- | 513 | - | 0 |
| Woodcock Johnson Third Edition: Broad Mathematics (Cohort 2 – End of 1st Grade) |
0.00
0 |
- | 512 | - | 0 |
| Study 12078 - FAST vs. No Treatment Control Group (Kratochwill, 2004) | |||||
| Ecobehavorial Assessment System: Task Management Responses (Mid-Treatment) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 86 | - | 0 |
| Ecobehavorial Assessment System: Competing Behaviors Responses (Mid-Treatment) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 86 | - | 0 |
| Ecobehavorial Assessment System: Task Management Responses (Post 1) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 80 | - | 0 |
| Ecobehavorial Assessment System: Competing Behaviors Responses (Post 1) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 80 | - | 0 |
| Child well-being: Delinquent behavior |
-0.15
-5 |
1 (1) | 473 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 1 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 12094 - FAST vs. Placebo Comparison Group (RCT Results) (Moberg, 2007) | |||||
| Court Contacts |
-0.15
-5 |
- | 473 | - | 0 |
| Child well-being: Educational achievement and attainment |
0.19
7 |
3 (13) | 549 |
Favorable:
1 No Effect: 12 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 12078 - FAST vs. No Treatment Control Group (Kratochwill, 2004) | |||||
| The Ecobehavioral Assessment System: Academic Responses (Mid-Treatment) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 86 | - | 0 |
| The Ecobehavioral Assessment System: Academic Responses (Post 1) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 80 | - | 0 |
| Curriculum-Based Measurement: Reading (Post 1) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 80 | - | 0 |
| Curriculum-Based Measurement: Reading (Post 2) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 48 | - | 0 |
| Curriculum-Based Measurement: Math (Post 1) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 80 | - | 0 |
| Curriculum-Based Measurement: Math (Post 2) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 48 | - | 0 |
| Study 12082 - FAST vs. No Treatment Control Group (Lord, 2018) | |||||
| Key Stage 1 Assessment: Reading and Arithmetic (Age-Related Expectations) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 0 | - | 0 |
| Key Stage 1 Assessment: Reading (Age-Related Expectations) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 0 | - | 0 |
| Key Stage 1 Assessment: Arithmetic (Age-Related Expectations) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 0 | - | 0 |
| Study 12094 - FAST vs. Placebo Comparison Group (RCT Results) (Moberg, 2007) | |||||
| Academic Performance (Post 1) |
0.09
3 |
- | 463 | - | 0 |
| Academic Competence (Post 1) |
0.13
5 |
- | 463 | - | 0 |
| Academic Performance (Post 3) |
0.39
*
15 |
- | 359 | - | 0 |
| Academic Competence (Post 3) |
0.15
6 |
- | 359 | - | 0 |
| Adult well-being: Positive parenting practices |
0.03
1 |
2 (7) | 996 |
Favorable:
1 No Effect: 5 Unfavorable: 1 |
- |
| Study 12070 - FAST vs. No FAST Group (Cohort 1) (Bos, 2018) | |||||
| Family Involvement Questionnaire: School-Based Involvement Scale (Cohort 1 – End of Kindergarten) |
0.15
5 |
- | 533 | - | 0 |
| Family Involvement Questionnaire: School-Based Involvement Scale (Cohort 1 – End of 1st Grade) |
-0.01
0 |
- | 426 | - | 0 |
| Family Involvement Questionnaire: School-Based Involvement Scale (Cohort 1 – End of 2nd Grade) |
0.03
1 |
- | 356 | - | 0 |
| Family Involvement Questionnaire: School-Based Involvement Scale (Cohort 2 – End of Kindergarten) |
0.24
9 |
- | 517 | - | 0 |
| Study 12094 - FAST vs. Placebo Comparison Group (RCT Results) (Moberg, 2007) | |||||
| Parent School Involvement (Post 1) |
0.27
*
10 |
- | 463 | - | 0 |
| Parent School Involvement (Post 2) |
-0.21
*
-8 |
- | 436 | - | 0 |
| Parent School Involvement (Post 3) |
-0.19
-7 |
- | 359 | - | 0 |
| Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver mental or emotional health |
-0.16
-6 |
2 (4) | 585 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 2 Unfavorable: 2 |
- |
| Study 12730 - FAST vs. Family Education Control Group (QED Results) (Moberg, 2007) | |||||
| Generalized Expectancy of Success (Post 1) |
0.00
0 |
- | 122 | - | 0 |
| Study 12094 - FAST vs. Placebo Comparison Group (RCT Results) (Moberg, 2007) | |||||
| Parent Self Efficacy (Post 1) |
-0.09
-3 |
- | 463 | - | 0 |
| Parent Self Efficacy (Post 2) |
-0.28
*
-10 |
- | 436 | - | 0 |
| Parent Self Efficacy (Post 3) |
-0.23
*
-9 |
- | 359 | - | 0 |
| Adult well-being: Family functioning |
0.07
2 |
4 (23) | 1845 |
Favorable:
3 No Effect: 19 Unfavorable: 1 |
- |
| Study 12070 - FAST vs. No FAST Group (Cohort 1) (Bos, 2018) | |||||
| The Child-Parent Relationship Scale: Conflict (Cohort 1 – End of Kindergarten) |
0.06
2 |
- | 534 | - | 0 |
| The Child-Parent Relationship Scale: Conflict (Cohort 1 – End of 1st Grade) |
0.20
7 |
- | 426 | - | 0 |
| The Child-Parent Relationship Scale: Conflict (Cohort 1 – End of 2nd Grade) |
0.18
7 |
- | 356 | - | 0 |
| The Family Involvement Questionnaire: Home-Based Involvement Scale (Cohort 1 – End of 2nd Grade) |
0.03
1 |
- | 356 | - | 0 |
| Study 12070 - FAST vs. Matched Control (QED Sample) (Bos, 2018) | |||||
| The Child-Parent Relationship Scale: Conflict (High-uptake Sample – End of Kindergarten) |
0.53
*
20 |
- | 101 | - | 0 |
| The Child-Parent Relationship Scale: Conflict (High-uptake Sample – End of 1st Grade) |
0.62
*
23 |
- | 83 | - | 0 |
| Study 12070 - FAST vs. No FAST Group (Cohort 2) (Bos, 2018) | |||||
| The Child-Parent Relationship Scale: Conflict (Cohort 2 – End of Kindergarten) |
0.09
3 |
- | 519 | - | 0 |
| Study 12079 - FAST vs. Matched No Treatment Control Group (Kratochwill, 2009) | |||||
| Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales: Cohesion (Post 1) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 106 | - | 0 |
| Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales: Adaptability (Post 1) |
Favorable
*
not calculated |
- | 106 | - | 0 |
| Family Support Scale (Post 1) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 106 | - | 0 |
| Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales: Cohesion (Post 2) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 60 | - | 0 |
| Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales: Adaptability (Post 2) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 60 | - | 0 |
| Family Support Scale (Post 2) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 60 | - | 0 |
| Study 12730 - FAST vs. Family Education Control Group (QED Results) (Moberg, 2007) | |||||
| Social Support Index (Post 1) |
0.26
10 |
- | 122 | - | 0 |
| Social Support Index (Post 2) |
-0.04
-1 |
- | 111 | - | 0 |
| Family Attachment and Changeability Index (Post 1) |
-0.02
0 |
- | 122 | - | 0 |
| Family Attachment and Changeability Index (Post 2) |
-0.36
-14 |
- | 111 | - | 0 |
| Study 12094 - FAST vs. Placebo Comparison Group (RCT Results) (Moberg, 2007) | |||||
| Family Attachment (Post 1) |
-0.12
-4 |
- | 463 | - | 0 |
| Family Social Support (Post 1) |
0.00
0 |
- | 463 | - | 0 |
| Family Attachment (Post 2) |
-0.11
-4 |
- | 436 | - | 0 |
| Family Social Support (Post 2) |
-0.14
-5 |
- | 436 | - | 0 |
| Family Attachment (Post 3) |
-0.01
0 |
- | 359 | - | 0 |
| Family Social Support (Post 3) |
-0.24
*
-9 |
- | 359 | - | 0 |
*p <.05
Note: For the effect sizes and implied percentile effects reported in the table, a positive number favors the intervention group and a negative number favors the comparison group. Effect sizes and implied percentile effects were calculated by the Prevention Services Clearinghouse as described in the Handbook of Standards and Procedures, Section 5.10.4 and may not align with effect sizes reported in individual publications. Effect sizes for some outcomes were not able to be calculated by the Prevention Services Clearinghouse.
Only publications with eligible contrasts that met design and execution standards are included in the individual study findings table.
Full citations for the studies shown in the table are available in the "Studies Reviewed" section.
The participant characteristics display is an initial version. We encourage those interested in providing feedback to send suggestions to preventionservices@abtglobal.com.
The table below displays locations, the year, and participant demographics for studies that received moderate or high ratings on design and execution and that reported the information. Participant characteristics for studies with more than one intervention versus comparison group pair that received moderate or high ratings are shown separately in the table. Please note, the information presented here uses terminology directly from the study documents, when available. Studies that received moderate or high ratings on design and execution that did not include relevant participant demographic information would not be represented in this table.
For more information on how Clearinghouse reviewers record the information in the table, please see our Resource Guide on Study Participant Characteristics and Settings.
| Characteristics of the Participants in the Studies with Moderate or High Ratings | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Study Location
|
Study Year
|
Age or Grade-level
|
Race, Ethnicity, Nationality
|
Gender
|
Populations of Interest*
|
Household Socioeconomic Status
|
| Study 12078 - FAST vs. No Treatment Control Group | ||||||
| Characteristics of the Children and Youth | ||||||
| Wisconsin, USA | -- | Grade level: 37% Kindergarten, 22% First grade, 20% Second grade, 21% Third grade | 100% American Indian |
57% Female 43% Male |
-- | -- |
| Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers | ||||||
| Wisconsin, USA | -- | -- | -- | -- | 100% Parents | -- |
| Study 12079 - FAST vs. Matched No Treatment Control Group | ||||||
| Characteristics of the Children and Youth | ||||||
| Midwest, USA | -- | Grade level: 36% Kindergarten, 43% First grade, 19% Second grade, 1% Third grade |
40% European Caucasian 35% African American 13% Asian 12% Latino |
57% Female 43% Male |
-- | -- |
| Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers | ||||||
| Midwest, USA | -- | -- | -- | -- | 100% Parents | -- |
| Study 12730 - FAST vs. Family Education Control Group (QED Results) | ||||||
| Characteristics of the Children and Youth | ||||||
| Washington, DC, USA; Milwaukee, WI, USA | 1997 | Grade in school: 21% First, 34% Second, 39% Third, 6% Fourth | -- |
56% Female 44% Male |
-- | -- |
| Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers | ||||||
| Washington, DC, USA; Milwaukee, WI, USA | 1997 | -- |
47% African American 40% Latino 13% Other |
-- | 100% Parents |
12% Household income $30,000 or more 13% Household income $20,000 to less than $30,000 33% Household income $10,000 to less than $20,000 42% Household income under $10,000 |
| Study 12094 - FAST vs. Placebo Comparison Group (RCT Results) | ||||||
| Characteristics of the Children and Youth | ||||||
| Milwaukee, WI, USA | 1997 | Grade: 21% First, 34% Second, 39% Third, 6% Fourth |
40% Latino 13% Other |
56% Female 44% Male |
-- | -- |
| Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers | ||||||
| Milwaukee, WI, USA | 1997 | -- | 47% African American | -- | 100% Parents |
15% Household income $30,000 or more 18% Household income $20,000 to less than $30,000 31% Household income $10,000 to less than $20,000 36% Household income under $10,000 |
| Study 12070 - FAST vs. No FAST Group (Cohort 1) | ||||||
| Characteristics of the Children and Youth | ||||||
| Philadelphia, PA, USA | 2013 | Grade level: 100% Kindergarten | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers | ||||||
| Philadelphia, PA, USA | 2013 | -- | -- | -- | 100% Parents | -- |
| Study 12070 - FAST vs. No FAST Group (Cohort 2) | ||||||
| Characteristics of the Children and Youth | ||||||
| Philadelphia, PA, USA | 2014 | Grade level: 100% Kindergarten | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers | ||||||
| Philadelphia, PA, USA | 2014 | -- | -- | -- | 100% Parents | -- |
| Study 12070 - FAST vs. Matched Control (QED Sample) | ||||||
| Characteristics of the Children and Youth | ||||||
| Philadelphia, PA, USA | 2013 | Grade level: 100% Kindergarten | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers | ||||||
| Philadelphia, PA, USA | 2013 | -- | -- | -- | 100% Parents | -- |
| Study 12082 - FAST vs. No Treatment Control Group | ||||||
| Characteristics of the Children and Youth | ||||||
| England, UK | 2015 | 100% Year 1 in U.K. Primary Schools | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers | ||||||
| England, UK | 2015 | -- | -- | -- | 100% Parents | -- |
“--” indicates information not reported in the study.
* The information about disabilities is based on initial coding. For more information on how the Clearinghouse recorded disability information for the initial release, please see our Resource Guide on Study Participant Characteristics and Settings. The Clearinghouse is currently seeking consultation from experts, including those with lived experience, and input from the public to enhance and improve the display.
Note: Citations for the documents associated with each 5-digit study number shown in the table can be found in the “Studies Reviewed” section below. Study settings and participant demographics are recorded for all studies that received moderate or high ratings on design and execution and that reported the information. Studies that did not report any information about setting or participant demographics are not displayed. For more information on how participant characteristics are recorded, please see our Resource Guide on Study Participant Characteristics and Settings.
Studies Rated High
Study 12078Kratochwill, T. R., McDonald, L., Levin, J. R., Young Bear-Tibbetts, H., & Demaray, M. K. (2004). Families and Schools Together: An experimental analysis of a parent-mediated multi-family group program for American Indian children. Journal of School Psychology, 42(5), 359-383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2004.08.001
This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2)Study 12079
Kratochwill, T. R., McDonald, L., Levin, J. R., Scalia, P. A., & Coover, G. (2009). Families and Schools Together: An experimental study of multi-family support groups for children at risk. Journal of School Psychology, 47(4), 245-265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2009.03.001
This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2)Study 12070
Bos, J., Spier, E., Bandeira de Mello, V., Gonzalez, R., & Huang, F. (2018). Investing in Innovation (i3) validation study of Families and Schools Together (FAST): Final report. American Institutes for Research. Https://www.familiesandschools.org/app/uploads/2018/11/AIR_FASTi3.pdf
Gonzalez, R., Huang, F., Spier, E., Bos, J., & Holtzman, D. (2018). FAST in Philadelphia: Exploring the implementation of a family engagement program. American Institutes for Research.
This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2)Studies Rated Moderate
Study 12082Lord, P., Styles, B., Morrison, J., White, R., Andrade, J., Bamford, S., Lushey, C., Lucas, M., Smith R. (2018). Families and Schools Together (FAST) evaluation report and executive summary. Education Endowment Foundation. educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/public/files/Projects/Evaluation_Reports/FAST.pdf
Some contrasts that received a moderate or high design and execution rating in this study were not from research conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2) [see Individual Study Findings section above for additional information on contrasts that did or did not meet this criterion]Study 12730
Moberg, D.P., McDonald, L., Posner, J.K., Burke, M.L., & Brown, R.L. (2007). Randomized trial of Families and Schools Together (FAST): Final report on NIDA Grant R01-10067. University of Wisconsin Madison. [QED Results]
This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2)Study 12094
Moberg, D.P., McDonald, L., Posner, J.K., Burke, M.L., & Brown, R.L. (2007). Randomized trial of Families and Schools Together (FAST): Final report on NIDA Grant R01-10067. University of Wisconsin Madison. [RCT Results]
McDonald, L., Moberg, D. P., Brown, R., Rodriguez-Espiricueta, I., Flores, N. I., Burke, M. P., & Coover, G. (2006). After-school multifamily groups: A randomized controlled trial involving low-income, urban, Latino children. Children & Schools, 28(1), 25-34.
Warren, K., Moberg, D. P., & McDonald, L. (2006). FAST and the arms race: The interaction of group aggression and the families and schools together program in the aggressive and delinquent behaviors of inner-city elementary school students. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 27(1), 27-45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-005-0021-9
Warren, K., Schoppelrey, S., Moberg, D. P., & McDonald, M. (2005). A model of contagion through competition in the aggressive behaviors of elementary school students. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33(3), 283‐92. DOI: 10.1007/s10802‐005‐3565‐5
This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2)Studies Rated Low
Study 12080Layzer, J. I., Goodson, B., Creps, C., Werner, A., & Bernstein, L. (2001). National evaluation of family support programs final report, volume B: Research studies. Abt Associates. Retrieved from http://www.abtassoc.com/reports/NEFSP-VolB.pdf
This study received a low rating because baseline equivalence of the intervention and comparison groups was necessary and not demonstrated.Study 12086
McDonald, L. (1993). Families and Schools Together (FAST): Final report. Family Service.
This study received a low rating because baseline equivalence of the intervention and comparison groups was necessary and not demonstrated.Study 12838
McDonald, L. (1993). Families and Schools Together (FAST): Final report. Family Service.
This study received a low rating because baseline equivalence of the intervention and comparison groups was necessary and not demonstrated.Study 12073
Gamoran, A., Turley, R. N. L., Turner, A., & Fish, R. (2012). Differences between Hispanic and Non-Hispanic families in social capital and child development: First-year findings from an experimental study. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 30(1), 97-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2011.08.001
Fiel, J. E., Haskins, A. R., & López Turley, R. N. (2013). Reducing school mobility: A randomized trial of a relationship-building intervention. American Educational Research Journal, 50(6), 1188-1218. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831213499962
Valdez, C. R., Mills, M. T., Bohlig, A. J., & Kaplan, D. (2013). The role of parental language acculturation in the formation of social capital: Differential effects on high-risk children. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 44(2), 334-350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-012-0328-8
McDonald, L., Miller, H., & Sandler, J. (2015). A social ecological, relationship-based strategy for parent involvement: Families And Schools Together (FAST). Journal of Children's Services, 10(3), 218-230. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCS-07-2015-0025
Turley, R.N.L., Gamoran, A., McCarty, A.T., & Fish, R. (2017). Reducing children’s behavior problems through social capital: A causal assessment. Social Science Research, 61, 206-217. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.06.015
Park, S. & Kaplan, D. (2015). Bayesian causal mediation analysis for randomized designs with homogenous and heterogeneous effects: Simulation and case study. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50, 316-333. DOI: 10.1080/00273171.2014.1003770
Shoji, M. N., Haskins, A. R., Rangel, D. E., & Sorensen, K. N. (2014). The emergence of social capital in low-income Latino elementary schools. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29(4), 600-613.
Rangel, D. E., Shoji, M. N., & Gamoran, A. (2020). The development and sustainability of school-based parent networks in low-income Latinx communities: A mixed-methods investigation. American Educational Research Journal, 57(6), 2450-2484.
Gamoran, A., Miller, H. K., Fiel, J. E., & Valentine, J. L. (2021). Social capital and student achievement: An intervention-based test of theory. Sociology of Education, 1-22. DOI: 10.1177/00380407211040261
This study received a low rating because baseline equivalence of the intervention and comparison groups was necessary and not demonstrated.Studies Not Eligible for Review
Study 12069
Ackley, M. K., & Cullen, P. M. (2010). Strengthening families through community collaboration: Implementing the Families and Schools Together (FAST) program. Children & Schools, 32(3), 183–186. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.uconn.edu/10.1093/cs/32.3.183
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).
Study 12071
Crozier, M., Rokutani, L., Russett, J. L., Godwin, E., & Banks, G. E. (2010). A multisite program evaluation of Families and Schools Together (FAST): Continued evidence of a successful multifamily community-based prevention program. School Community Journal, 20(1), 187-207.
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).
Study 12072
Dumas, J. E., Prinz, R. J., Smith, E. P., & Laughlin, J. (1999). The EARLY ALLIANCE prevention trial: An integrated set of interventions to promote competence and reduce risk for conduct disorder, substance abuse, and school failure. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 2(1), 37-53. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1021815408272
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).
Study 12074
Fischer, R. L. (2003). School-based family support: Evidence from an exploratory field study. Families in Society, 84(3), 339-347. https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.113
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).
Study 12075
Fletcher, J., Fairtlough, A., & McDonald, L. (2013). Engaging young parents and their families in a multi-family group work intervention: Lessons from a pilot in England. Practice, 25(3), 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/09503153.2013.799647
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).
Study 12076
Inman, D. D., van Bakergem, K. M., LaRosa, A. C., & Garr, D. R. (2011). Evidence-based health promotion programs for schools and communities. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 40(2), 207–219. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.uconn.edu/10.1016/j.amepre.2010.10.031
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).
Study 12081
Lindsay, G., & Strand, S. (2013). Evaluation of the national roll-out of parenting programmes across England: The parenting early intervention programme (PEIP). BMC Public Health, 13, 972. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-972
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).
Study 12084
McDonald, L., Billingham, S., Conrad, T., Morgan, A., O, N., & Payton, E. (1997). Families and Schools Together (FAST): Integrating community development with clinical strategies. Families in Society, 78(2), 140-155. https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.754
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).
Study 12087
McDonald, L., & Doostgharin, T. (2013). UNODC Global Family Skills Initiative: Outcome evaluation in Central Asia of Families and Schools Together (FAST) multi-family groups. Social Work & Social Sciences Review, 16(2), 51-75. https://doi.org/10.1921/swssr.v16i2.529
Maalouf, W., & Campello, G. (2014). The influence of family skills programmes on violence indicators: Experience from a multi-site project of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime in low and middle income countries. Aggression & Violent Behavior, 19(6), 616-624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014.09.012
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).
Study 12088
McDonald, L. (1996.) FAST: Families and Schools Together. Wisconsin Counties, 60(4), 21–26.
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).
Study 12089
McDonald, L., & Fitzroy, S. (2010). Families and Schools Together (FAST) aggregate FASTUK evaluation report of 15 schools in 15 local education authorities (LEAs) across the UK. Families and School Together (FAST) UK.
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).
Study 12090
McDonald, L., & Sayger, T. V. (1998). Impact of a family and school based prevention program on protective factors for high risk youth. Drugs & Society, 12, 61-85. https://doi.org/10.1300/J023v12n01_06
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).
Study 12091
McDonald, L., Bradish, D. C., Billingham, S., Dibble, N., & Rice, C. (1991). Families and Schools Together: An innovative substance abuse prevention program. Social Work in Education, 13(2), 118–28. https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/13.2.118
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).
Study 12092
McDonald, L., Coover, G., Sandler, J., Thao, T., & Shalhoub, H. (2012). Cultural adaptation of an evidence‐based parenting programme with elders from South East Asia in the US: Co‐producing Families and Schools Together ‐ FAST. Journal of Children's Services, 7(2), 113‐27. https://doi.org/10.1108/17466661211238673
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).
Study 12093
McDonald, L., FitzRoy, S., Fuchs, I., Fooken, I., & Klasen, H. (2012). Strategies for high retention rates of low‐income families in FAST (Families and Schools Together): An evidence‐based parenting programme in the USA, UK, Holland and Germany. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(1), 75‐88. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2011.632134
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).
Study 12095
Morales, J. R., & Guerra, N. G. (2006). Effects of multiple context and cumulative stress on urban children's adjustment in elementary school development. Child Development, 77(4), 907–923. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00910.x
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).
Study 12098
Terrion, J. L., & Hogrebe, A. (2007). A Canadian experience with an intervention programme for vulnerable families: Lessons for German social work and policy. European Journal of Social Work, 10(3), 401-416. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691450701356796
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).