The Family Engagement Practice Framework: A Comprehensive Framework Developed From the Voices of School‐Based Practitioners

• Published date: 01 October 2021
• Author: Annahita Ball,Candra Skrzypek,Michael Lynch
• Date: 01 October 2021
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12513

A B, C S,  M L University at Buffalo

The Family Engagement Practice Framework:

A Comprehensive Framework Developed From

the Voices of School-Based Practitioners

Objective: This study developed a practice

framework to identify and explain family

engagement practice for school-based service

delivery.

Background: School–family–community part-

nerships expand the possibilities for family

engagement by providing comprehensive ser-

vices to families and children. No research to

date has explored practitioners’ perspectives of

family engagement practice, and few practice

frameworks exist to guide family engagement

efforts.

Method: In this grounded theory study, we

used qualitative interview data from 18 family

engagement professionals (FEP) within one

district-wide, school-based agency to identify

the practices FEPs used to engage families in

services.

Results: Analyses revealed that FEPs used a

specic set of engagement practice strategies

that included providing immediate and ongoing

support, establishing rapport, establishing trust,

and empowering families. These strategies were

situated within a broader paradigmatic context

and rooted in a set of core personal dispositions

that were reected in the framework.

Implications: This framework may be used to

guide professional development activities, rene

School of Social Work, University at Buffalo, 685 Baldy

Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260 (annahita@buffalo.edu).

Key Words: family engagement, grounded theory, school–

family-community collaboration.

existing practice, and inform programmaticpoli-

cies shaping school-based family engagement

initiatives.

School–family–community partnerships offer

comprehensive services to promote children’s

well-being and academic success by leveraging

community and family resources to address

nonacademic barriers to learning, such as

poverty, health and mental health concerns,

and family stress (Adelman & Taylor, 2005;

Epstein et al., 2018). These partnerships connect

three inuential spheres of children’s lives—the

family, school, and community—to create a

continuum of services that meet children’s

developmental needs while supporting fami-

lies (Epstein et al., 2018). Such partnerships

are dynamic and intentional, with school-

and community-based professionals working

alongside children and families.

Most families want their children to succeed

and want to invest in their relationships with

schools. However, families often experience

signicant barriers that prevent them from

engaging with schools in the ways schools

expect. Barriers can include limited trans-

portation, conicting work demands, lack of

affordable childcare, or negative perceptions of

the school (Alameda-Lawson, 2014). Further,

families often experience competing priori-

ties and demands on their time, many parents

have had negative experiences with schools in

the past, and schools often are not attuned to

1190 Family Relations 70 (October 2021): 1190–1205

DOI:10.1111/fare.12513

Family Engagement Practice Framework 1191

families’ needs (Henderson et al., 2007). To

promote family engagement, schools are more

readily employing family engagement profes-

sionals (FEP). FEPs are providers charged with

engaging families in social services. Yet there

are no explicit examinations of effective family

engagement practices at the practitioner level.

Although school communities commonly

employ FEPs to support family–school engage-

ment, it is not uncommon for the titles given

to and responsibilities expected of this role to

vary; an FEP’s job description may encompass

the roles and responsibilities of school social

workers, family resource coordinators, family

life educators, caseworkers, or family engage-

ment practitioners. Given this variability, it is

likely that FEPs are rooted in multiple pro-

fessional homes (e.g., social work, education,

social services, family science) but that they

have more in common with each other than they

do with other providers in their own profession.

For example, school mental health providers

have shared practice competencies despite their

professional identities (Ball et al., 2010). Thus,

a framework for direct practice must not be

based on title or discipline but on shared respon-

sibilities. Healey (2014) noted that the contexts

in which we work construct direct practice;

thus, practice frameworks must be contextually

rooted. A framework for practice, as dened

by Healey (2014), “includes formal theoretical

and substantive knowledge as well as tacit or

difcult to articulate, knowledge that can be

built up through repeated exposure to practice

situations” (p. 17). This study used a grounded

theory approach to understand FEPs’ practices

to engage families in services and develop a

framework for family engagement practice in a

school-based context.

L R

Current conceptualizations and studies of fam-

ily engagement practice are siloed within prac-

tice settings or professional practice literature.

Given the aforementioned barriers and the need

for families to engage in school-based services,

it is of particular importance to consider fam-

ily engagement research within both the edu-

cation and child welfare domains. Additionally,

although the extant research in education focuses

on broad approaches to family engagement in

schools, the child welfare literature hones in

on practitioner-level practices. Thus, the current

literature review focuses on both these practice

settings, which were used to inform the current

study.

Family Engagement in Education

The existing literature on family engage-

ment in education is focused predominantly

on systemic approaches to creating schools

that are welcoming for families (see Hen-

derson et al., 2007). Community schools,

for example, are a whole-school approach

in which schools, families, and communities

partner to provide a holistic environment for

optimal youth development (Dryfoos, 2005).

Collaborative school–family relationships are a

cornerstone of the community schools model,

requiring that families are active participants

in decision-making and contributors to their

children’s development (Blank et al., 2003).

Nevertheless, the community school literature

does not offer explicit guidance for devel-

oping strong collaborative relationships with

parents. Researchers also have examined the

underlying mechanisms of family engagement,

highlighting the importance of partnership, an

awareness of power differentials, and trust in

school–family–community relationships (Chen

et al., 2016; Gaitan, 2012; Nzinga-Johnson

et al., 2009). These studies, however, do not

examine the micro-level practices of profession-

als who routinely work closely with families to

engage them in their children’s schooling.

Earlier studies explored more micro-level fac-

tors related to family engagement in schools.

Perhaps most notably, Hoover-Dempsey and

Sandler’s model (1997; Walker et al., 2005)

describes the various factors involved in a par-

ent’s decision to become involved in their chil-

dren’s schooling. The rst level includes factors

that may inuence a parent’s initial decision to

become engaged, such as motivational beliefs,

the invitation for involvement, and life contexts.

This level of factors is relevant for FEPs con-

sidering their roles at the early stages of family

engagement, often initiating relationships with

families. Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s model

suggests that FEPs’ focus on parents’ motiva-

tional factors (e.g., self-efcacy) or invitation

for involvement (e.g., school outreach activi-

ties) may have a signicant impact on whether

families engage with the school. Other studies

conrm the importance of the factors identi-

ed in this model (e.g., Grolnick et al., 1997;