Best Practices in Family Life Education Program Evaluation

• Published date: 01 July 2020
• Author: Alan J. Hawkins,Tiffany L. Clyde,Jennifer L. Doty,Sarah Avellar
• Date: 01 July 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12420

A J. H  T L. CBrigham Young University

J L. DUniversity of Florida

S AMathematica Policy Research

Best Practices in Family Life Education

Program Evaluation

Program evaluation should be integral to family

life education (FLE), but program admin-

istrators face common barriers, including

expense, lack of evaluation expertise, and fear

of no-effects ndings. Thus, the purpose of

this article is to provide a primer on feasible

best-practice guidelines for the evaluation of

FLE programs. Specically,we explore four best

practices in FLE programevaluation research in

real-world eld conditions: (a) clarify upfront

the underlying program theory of change or

logic model and make research decisions based

on this model; (b) adopt a developmental per-

spective on program evaluation and a mentality

of continuous quality improvement; (c) when

ready, invest in rigorous impact evaluations

with random assignment; and (d) share and syn-

thesize evaluation work to strengthen the eld.

A theme woven throughout these best practices

is for program administrators to collaborate

with experienced evaluation researchers to

deal with challenging issues. Following these

best-practice guidelines will help program

administrators overcome common barriers and

conduct evaluation work that strengthens their

programs over time and enriches the lives of

families.

School of Family Life, Brigham Young University, 2086-B

JFSB, Provo, UT 84602 (hawkinsa@byu.edu).

Key Words: evaluation research, family life education, pro-

gram evaluation.

Family life education (FLE) seeks to strengthen

individual and family well-being through edu-

cational interventions that focus on “healthy

family functioning within a family systems per-

spective” (Walcheski & Reinke, 2015, p. ix).

Program evaluation should be integral to FLE.

An effective evaluation process over time helps

program administrators understand whether a

program achieves it goals of improving the lives

of individuals and families. An effective evalua-

tion process also can guide program administra-

tors to make continuous improvements to their

interventions, adapt them to different circum-

stances, and, importantly, justify the resources

needed to maintain or expand program services.

In this article, we briey highlight important

best practices in FLE program evaluation. Best

practices are principles that have consistently

proven valuable or effective. Our primary target

audiences are program administrators who face

the daily challenge of implementing and sustain-

ing effective FLE in the eld as well as students

training for eldwork evaluation. It follows that

we emphasize evaluation best practices with sen-

sitivity to real-world conditions rather than care-

fully controlled laboratory conditions.

In the limited space provided here, we have

chosen to focus on four best practices that are

crucial to an effective, ongoing evaluation pro-

cess: (a) clarify upfront the underlying pro-

gram theory of change or logic model; (b) adopt

an ongoing, developmental perspective on pro-

gram evaluation, including continuous quality

Family Relations 69 (July 2020): 479–496479

DOI:10.1111/fare.12420

480 Family Relations

improvement; (c) when ready, invest in rigor-

ous impact evaluations with random assignment;

and nally, (d) share and synthesize evaluation

work to strengthen the eld. (For readers who

desire more detail in the broad and complex eld

of program evaluation, we recommend Rossi,

Lipsey, & Henry, 2019.)

We do not break new ground here. We

selected these four best practices based on our

reading (and teaching) of leading evaluation

texts (e.g., Rossi etal., 2019). Also, we built

on the work of other FLE scholars who have

addressed general principles of effective pre-

vention FLE programs, including evaluation

principles. Nonetheless, we have extended their

work in several ways. For instance, Ballard

et al.(2016)providedaframeworkforbest

practices in FLE that included some evaluation

principles. We focus here exclusively on eval-

uation and give greater attention to the value

of logic models and the need for (eventual)

rigorous evaluation studies. Also, our review

echoes many of the 11 principles suggested by

Small, Cooney, and O’Conner (2009) as well

as the ve-tiered approach to evaluation sug-

gested by Jacobs (2003), especially the focus on

ongoing improvement and the need for rigorous

evaluation studies. However, again, we give

more attention to the importance of evaluation

guided by strong logic models, the need for

replication, and the role of meta-analysis in

evaluation work. Finally, ourprimary audience

is program administrators (and students headed

for evaluation careers) rather than scholars.

Adding to these textbook principles, we

bring more than 50 combined years of diverse

experience in program evaluation. One of

the coauthors has worked for a leading eval-

uation rm for more than 15years and has

headed government-funded evaluation efforts.

Other coauthors have evaluated their own

FLE programs and have helped community

organizations with their evaluation work. One

coauthor has published many meta-analytic

studies of FLE programs (e.g., relationship

education, responsible fatherhood education,

divorce education), which involved reading

and coding hundreds of evaluation studies. Our

experience in program evaluation work and pub-

lication shaped our selection of best practices to

emphasize.

Although the eld has been criticized in the

past for neglecting evaluation work (Small et al.,

2009), we believe the practice of FLE evaluation

is improving. On the basis of our work in the

eld and reading hundreds of published FLE

evaluations over the past 20years, we think

this critique is being answered, although there

remains plenty of room for improvement. Of

course, this also means that the bar is rising; solid

evaluation work is a growing expectation that

is reinforced now by federal laws, such as the

Foundations for Evidence-based Policymaking

Act of 2018 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/

115th-congress/house-bill/4174), which empha-

sizes evidence-based practice in government

programs and services.

One caveat before proceeding: Weare keenly

aware that many program administrators lack the

resources to implement fully all of these best

practices (Small et al., 2009). Even with limited

resources, however,we think the basic principles

behind the rst two best practices—getting clar-

ity about the intervention’s theory of change and

adopting a developmental perspective or con-

tinuous quality improvement mentality—can be

followed and accomplish much. More rigorous

evaluation work may only be feasible for those

with adequate resources.

C B  P E

Program administrators encounter several com-

mon barriers that impede high-quality program

evaluation work. First, it can be expensive (e.g.,

staff time diverted from program services). Our

experience has taught us that administrators face

a difcult decision to retask limited funds for

concrete program supports into the more abstract

work of evaluation. As difcult as it is, good

evaluation clearly supports effective programs;

policymakers and program funders increasingly

recognize the value of evidence-based prac-

tice. Program administrators need to nd cre-

ative ways to build in resources for continu-

ous evaluation work. One resource-saving alter-

native is to choose an evidence-based program

that already has been rigorously tested. For

instance, Blueprints for Healthy Youth Devel-

opment (http://www.blueprintsprograms.org) is

a registry of evidence-based programs for posi-

tive youth development that havebeen evaluated

using well-designed studies showing meaning-

ful effects. Also, the Administration for Chil-

dren and Families has assessed the evidence for

home visiting models for families with pregnant

women and young children (https://homvee.acf

.hhs.gov).