Best Practices in Family Life Education Programming for Midlife and Older Adults

• Published date: 01 July 2020
• Author: Jacquelyn J. Benson,Allison K. Donehower
• Date: 01 July 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12461

J J. B  A K. DUniversity of Missouri

Best Practices in Family Life Education

Programming for Midlife and Older Adults

Due to dramatic changes in the U.S. popula-

tion’s aging demographic, family life educa-

tors have begun offering more programming for

midlife and older adults. This shift began in

the early 1990s, after several family scholars

and practicing professionals urged the National

Council of Family Relations to revise its Frame-

work for Life Span Family Life Education to

include “later adulthood” as a fourth age-group

categorization. Since this revision, family life

educators and family scholars alike have grad-

ually expanded their programming and scholar-

ship efforts to address the challenges and con-

cerns associated with midlife and older adult-

hood. In this article, we review best practices

in family life education (FLE) programming for

midlife and older adults, including program-

ming needs, program design preferences, and

contextual variation. To conclude, we suggest

future directionsfor research on best practices in

FLE for midlife and older audiences and recom-

mend using the life course perspective as a com-

plement to the Framework when planning and

designing FLE programming to meet the needs

of the heterogeneous aging population.

In recent decades, in the United States and glob-

ally, there has been a rapid growth in the midlife

and older adult populations. In the United States,

Department of Human Development and Family Science,

University of Missouri, 314 Gentry Hall, Columbia, MO,

65211 (bensonjj@missouri.edu).

Key Words: aging issues and families, family life education,

gerontology,life course perspective, older adults.

middle-aged adults—those approximately 45 to

64 yearsofage—alreadyoutnumberchildren,

and those 65years of age and older are pro-

jected to also outnumber children by 2035 (U.S.

Census Bureau, 2018; Vespa, 2018).Further, the

older adult population is projected to increase

from about 50 million now to 95 million by 2060

(Scommegna et al., 2018).

This notable shift in the nation’s age structure

is largely due to the aging of the baby boomers,

the last of whom will turn 65years of age in

2029(Heimlich, 2010).Althoughthisdemo-

graphic transformation is still underway, the

recent surge in the older adult population lays

bare several consequences for families, includ-

ing economic challenges, increased caregiving

obligations, shifting family roles, complex liv-

ing arrangements, and issues associated with

maintaining independence in later life (Ballard

& Morris, 2003). In response to these changes

and challenges, professionals spanning several

disciplines, including academic and industry

researchers, health care providers, educators,

lawmakers, and service delivery providers,

have gained awareness and appreciation for life

span issues and the diverse needs of families

from the perspective of middle-age and older

adults. Although the services offered to midlife

and older adults within each professional dis-

cipline have unique value, in this article, we

focus expressly on family life education (FLE).

Specically, we describe the extant, but lim-

ited, literature on best practices in selecting,

designing, and delivering FLE programming for

older populations—and do so in general terms

that will provide more enduring guidance than

Family Relations 69 (July 2020): 577–594577

DOI:10.1111/fare.12461

578 Family Relations

if we were to promote specic curriculum or

evidence-based programs given that they are

rapidly changing and evolving to keep pace with

innovation.

We begin by offering several denitions and

pertinent background information related to

FLE. First, we briey dene FLE and provide a

historical overview of the eld’s embracement

of a life span perspective that encompasses

midlife and older adults. Next, we dene best

practices in FLE, noting the subtle but important

differences between evidence-based programs

versus evidence-informed programs or best

practices. Finally, we discuss the relevance of

theory in FLE programming for midlife and

older adults as a precursor to our review of

current best practices in FLE programming for

midlife and older adults, considering program-

ming needs, program design preferences, and

contextual variation.

W I F L E

Denitions of FLE vary; however, strengthening

and enriching the well-being of individuals and

families is the overarching concern (Brubaker

& Roberto, 1993; Thomas & Arcus, 1992). The

National Council on Family Relations (NCFR),

which is the professional home for family life

educators, has stated that “family life education

focuses on healthy family functioning within a

family systems perspective and provides a pri-

marily preventive approach” (NCFR, n.d.). This

family systems perspective, although not specif-

ically emphasizing continuity and change across

the life span, assumes that all family members

are interconnected and mutually inuential and

that, as such, transitions that impact one family

member have an impact on the entire family unit

(Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993).

Although related in its focus on delivering

interventions to promote family well-being,

FLE is distinct from other family-related pro-

fessions in its focus on teaching and fostering

knowledge and skills using the family systems

approach. This differs both from the primary

focus of family therapy, where the focus is

to help families repair relationships and func-

tioning, and from family case management

efforts that focus on facilitating compliance

with legal and policy systems and locating

resources(Myers-Wallset al., 2011).Simply

put, FLE places an emphasis on providing edu-

cation to individuals and families about ways to

prevent problems from developing into crises,

rather than intervening after a serious problem,

trauma, or crisis has occurred. The family sys-

tems approach of FLE also differs from other

disciplines that provide education specic to

individual-level health outcomes and disease

prevention or management, such as public health

or health sciences education. These disciplines

have recently become more holistic in their

approach to delivering educational health inter-

ventions, for example, by referencing family

members (e.g., caregivers) as helpers in assist-

ing individuals with managing their symptoms

or preventing health emergencies. However,

education focused on ways to understand and

improve family dynamics—communication and

interaction styles, and family histories regard-

ing relational quality and conict—are rarely

addressed (Benson et al., 2019).

I  L S D

P

Although FLE is relevant to individuals and

families across the life span (Ballard & Tay-

lor,2016), not all denitions of FLE are overt

in this specication. For example, the aforemen-

tioned denition from NCFR includes the family

systems perspective but does not specify that a

life span developmental perspective applies to

the work of family life educators. The Frame-

work for Life Span Family Life Education (Bre-

dehoft & Walcheski,2011), which serves as a

guide for FLE program development, delivery,

and assessment, does articulate a life span focus.

However, “later adulthood” was not included as

a programming age group within the Framework

for Life Span Family LifeEducationuntil its sec-

ond revision in the late 1990s (Bredehoft, 1997).

Before this revision, the vast majority of pro-

gramming in FLE addressed topics germane to

earlier developmental periods and stages of fam-

ily development (Arcus, 1995). Indeed,the dis-

cipline of home economics fueled the move-

ment in its early years, with attention focused on

topics such as cooking, childrearing, and other

aspects of household management (Arcus, 1995;

Croake & Glover, 1977).

Today, multiple disciplines are represented

in FLE, including family science, sociol-

ogy, psychology, history, health sciences,

counseling, biology, anthropology, medicine,

social work, economics, and law. Topical

areas of interest have also expanded to