Home  «  Program  «  Teaching Family Model  « 

Teaching-Family Model (TFM)

Scientific Rating:
3
Promising Research Evidence
See scale of 1-5
Child Welfare Relevance Level:
Medium

See descriptions of 3 levels

Brief Description

The information in this program outline is provided by the program representative and edited by the CEBC staff. The Teaching-Family Model (TFM) program has been rated by the CEBC in the areas of: Higher Level of Placement, Parent Training and Behavioral Management for Adolescents in Child Welfare.

  • Types of Maltreatment: Does not target any specific kind of maltreatment
  • Target Population: Youth who are at-risk , juvenile delinquents, in foster care, mentally retarded/developmentally disabled, or severely emotionally disturbed. Families at risk of having children removed.

TFM is a unique approach to human services characterized by clearly defined goals, integrated support systems, and a set of essential elements. TFM has been applied in residential group homes, home-based services, foster care and treatment foster care, schools, and psychiatric institutions. The model uses a married couple or other “teaching parents” to offer a family-like environment in the residence. The teaching parents help with learning living skills and positive interpersonal interaction skills. They are also involved with children’s parents, teachers, and other support network to help maintain progress.

Essential Components

There are 4 critical delivery systems:

  • Staff selection & training
  • Competency-based management (consultation/supervision)
  • Quality assurance (evaluation)
  • Facilitative administration

There are 7 essential elements:

  • Teaching systems
  • Self-determination
  • Client advocacy
  • Relationships
  • Family-sensitive approach
  • Diversity
  • Professionalism

Each delivery system and element is supported by standards and competencies measuring attainment of those standards through the certification process supported by the Teaching-Family Association.

Child Component

Teaching-Family Model (TFM) was designed with a child component that addresses the following presenting problems and symptoms:

  • Any behaviors resulting in problems.

Age range: 0 – 17

Developmental Delays:

This program was not developed for children with developmental delays, and has not been tested for children with developmental delays.

Parent / Caregiver Component

Teaching-Family Model (TFM) was designed with a parent/caregiver component that addresses the following presenting problems and symptoms:

  • All problems — it was designed to address behaviors with the client as well as the family.

Group Format

Teaching-Family Model (TFM) was not designed to be conducted in a group setting, and has not been tested for use in a group setting.

Delivery Settings

This program is typically conducted in a(n):

  • Birth Family Home
  • Community Agency
  • Foster Home
  • Hospital
  • Outpatient Clinic
  • Residential Care Facility
  • School

Homework

This program does not include a homework component.

Languages

Teaching-Family Model (TFM) does not have materials available in a language other than English.

Resources Needed to Run Program

The typical resources for implementing the program are:

Meeting room and video equipment for implementation training.

Minimum Provider Qualifications

The qualifications vary from agency to agency as their selection criteria are often based on state requirements in addition to the program's selection components. Minimum is a Bachelor's degree for practitioners, usually in social work or psychology.

Education and Training Resources

There is a manual that describes how to implement this program, and there is training available for this program.

Training Contact:
Training is obtained:

Provided by regional sponsoring agency.

Number of days/hours:

Pre-Service is roughly 1 week — 40 hours. Ongoing consultation after placement with individual certification typically occurring after one year of practice.

Relevant Published, Peer-Reviewed Research

This program is rated a "3 - Promising Research Evidence" on the Scientific Rating Scale based on the published, peer-reviewed research available. The practice must have at least one study utilizing some form of control (e.g., untreated group, placebo group, matched wait list study) establishing the practice's benefit over the placebo, or found it to be comparable to or better than an appropriate comparison practice. Please see the Scientific Rating Scale for more information.

Child Welfare Outcome: Child/Family Well-Being

Show relevant research...

Kirigin, K. A., Braukman, C. J., Atwater, J. D., & Wolf, M. M. (1982). An evaluation of Teaching-Family (Achievement Place) group homes for juvenile offenders. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15, 1-16.

Type of Study: Non-matched comparison group
Number of Participants: Treatment: 140 Comparison: 52

Population:

  • Age range — 14 to 15 at treatment entry
  • Race/Ethnicity — Girls/Treatment: 82% White, 7% Non-white. Girls/Comparison: 83% White, 5% Non-white. Boys/Treatment: 78% White, 24% Non-white. Boys/Comparison: 77% White, 5% Non-white.
  • Gender — Not Specified
  • Status — Youths assigned to residential programs by the court.

Location / Institution: Kansas

Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations)
Youths in group homes using the Teaching-Family Model were compared to youths in group homes chosen by state agencies to be representative residential programs. Comparison group homes were similar to treatment homes in terms of youths served, size, and staffing by a live-in married couple. Data was collected prior to treatment entry, during treatment, and at 1 year following treatment. Court and police records provided information on offenses, alleged offenses, and institutional confinements. For girls, a higher percentage of Teaching-Family participants had offenses pre-treatment, but a significantly lower percentage had offenses during treatment. During the post-treatment year a lower percentage of both boys and girls in the program had offenses, but this was not statistically significant. Looking at rate of offences, Teaching-Family boys significantly decreased their number of offences during treatment, while the rate for non-Teaching-Family boys increased. For girls, the number of offenses was significantly reduced during treatment, but they did not differ significantly from the comparison group during that time. For both boys and girls, groups did not differ in rate of offenses during the follow-up period.

Length of post-intervention follow-up: 1 year.

Bedlington, M. M., Braukman, C. J., Ramp, K. A., & Wolfe, M. M. (1988). A comparison of treatment environments in community-based group homes for adolescent offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 15(3), 349-363.

Type of Study: Non-equivalent comparison group
Number of Participants: 82 Teaching-Family, 103 Comparison

Population:

  • Age range — 11 to 17
  • Race/Ethnicity — Teaching Family, 77% Caucasian; Comparison, 71% Caucasian
  • Gender — Not Specified
  • Status — Court-adjudicated youth assigned to group homes.

Location / Institution: Kansas

Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations)
Teaching-Family group homes were compared to non-Teaching-Family homes. Researchers created observer protocols to measure adult/youth interactions, teaching, intolerance of deviance, youth social behavior, pleasantness of the environment, and family-likeness. Youth in the homes also self-rated likelihood of detection of delinquent acts, staff approval/disapproval of those acts, and importance of staff reaction. They also filled out the Self-Reported Delinquency (SRD) questionnaire. Teaching-Family homes were rated as having significantly higher levels of adult/youth communication and instances of adults teaching youth.

Length of post-intervention follow-up: None.

Slot, N. W., Jagers, H. D., & Dangel, R. F. (1992). Cross-cultural replication and evaluation of the Teaching Family Model of community-based residential treatment. Behavioral Residential Treatment, 7(5), 341-354.

Type of Study: Three samples: one pretest/posttest, two non-matched, non-randomized comparison groups
Number of Participants: Study 1, 58; Study 2, 50 treatment, 470 comparison; Study 3, 57 treatment, 57 comparison matched by age only.

Population:

  • Age range — Study 1, 14.2-19.1; Study 2, not available; Study 3, 14 to 18.3 years
  • Race/Ethnicity — Not Specified
  • Gender — Not Specified
  • Status — Youth in a Dutch residential facility.

Location / Institution: The Netherlands. Note: Comparison group in Study 2 was Canadian youth.

Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations)
Study 1: Scores for youth on the Youth Evaluation List (YEL), which measures three dimensions of anti-social behavior and social competence were taken at baseline and 6 months after completing a program using the Teaching-Family Model. On the first dimension, significant improvements were shown in overall adjustment, family adjustment, relationship with parents, number of offences, social competence, and number of problems at home. Academic/vocational aspirations did not show significant change. On the second dimension, ability for relationships outside the family, all factors showed significant improvement. On the final dimension, abilities for community participation, and academic and vocational factors did not improve. There was also a significant increase in drinking post-treatment, but not to levels considered problematic in the Netherlands.Study 2: This study measured levels of juvenile delinquency in youth experiencing the Teaching Family Program (TFP) to a cohort of Canadian youth in the same age range. The number of youth staying at the same offending level was lower for the TFP group than the comparison group (24% vs. 48%). The number moving toward a less serious offending level was higher for the TFP group (73% versus 20%). The number of youth moving toward a more serious offending level was lower for the TFP group (3% versus 24%).Study 3: This study compared TFP participants with youth in the traditional Dutch state institute on factors measured by the YEL. There were no differences between groups on scores for overall problems and abilities for relationships outside the family: both groups improved. However, state institute youth improved on abilities for community participation, while TFP youth did not. The authors attributed this to greater access to and use of alcohol for TFP youth.In a final analysis, the authors also report that length of stay for TFP youth was an average of 240 days versus 573 days for state institute youth.

Length of post-intervention follow-up: Study 1 and 2, 6 months, Study 3, unknown.

Thompson, R. W., Smith, G. L., Osgood, D. W., Dowd, T. P., Friman, P. C., & Daly, D. L. (1996). Residential care: A study of short- and long-term educational effects. Children and Youth Services Review, 18(3), 221-242.

Type of Study: Non-randomized comparison group
Number of Participants: 497 Treatment; 84 Comparison

Population:

  • Age range — Treatment Average: 14.7; Comparison Average: 14.4
  • Race/Ethnicity — Treatment: 68% Caucasian, 21% Black, 7% Hispanic, 4% Other; Comparison: 71% Caucasian, 20% Black, 6% Hispanic, 3% Other
  • Gender — Not Specified
  • Status — Treatment: Youth admitted to the residential treatment program on referral by social services. Comparison: Youth who applied but were not admitted to the residential treatment program.

Location / Institution: Boy’s Town home campus, Nebraska

Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations)
Participants were recruited from children who applied for admission to the Boy’s Town residential program. Those admitted formed the treatment group. Those who were admitted, but did not ultimately enter the program, and those denied admission for space limitations comprised the control group. The authors note that virtually all of the comparison groups did receive counseling or other treatment. An analysis of demographics and measures taken at an initial interview revealed no significant differences between groups. Participants were interviewed at baseline and every 3 months. After 10 interviews, three more were conducted at 6-month intervals. Measures included self-reported grade point average (GPA), highest level of school completed, and completion of diploma or GED. They also indicated their opinion on the importance of education and how much help they received with homework. The analysis used a statistical method that included controls for age, white versus non-white race, attrition, and likelihood of assignment to the treatment versus comparison groups. Results showed an increase in GPA for the treatment group while they were in residence. It decreased after leaving the program, but remained significantly higher than the comparison group’s GPA. The treatment youth completed years of school at a faster rate than comparison students, but this rate decreased significantly after leaving treatment. Adjusting for gender, race, age, IQ, and achievement scores at baseline, analysis revealed higher rates of graduation and GED completion for treatment youth, although this was not statistically significant. Ratings on importance of education increased for the treatment group, but decreased for the comparison group. This difference remained after departure. Treatment youth had more help with homework both during and after the program than did comparison youth. The authors note that youth in the current study attended special schools, which has not been the case in other evaluations of the Teaching-Family Model.

Length of post-intervention follow-up: Approximately 4 years.

Jones, R. J., & Timbers, G. D. (2003). Minimizing the need for physical restraint and seclusion in residential youth care through skill-based treatment programming. Families in Society, 84(1), 21-29.

Type of Study: Pretest/Postest with archival data
Number of Participants: Average of 26.5 per month at Barium Springs, average of 8.8 per month at Bridgehouse.

Population:

  • Age range — 8 to 18
  • Race/Ethnicity — Not Specified
  • Gender — Not Specified
  • Status — Youth in two residential programs for behavioral and emotional problems.

Location / Institution: Barium Springs Home for Children, NC; Bridgehouse Program, IA.

Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations)
This article details an analysis of data kept by two residential programs for youth on the use of physical restraint or other coercive measures such as seclusion per client prior to and following the implementation of the Teaching-Family Program (TFP). For the Barium Springs program, restraints were reduced by 40% and significant negative incident reports were reduced by 80% after the introduction of the TFP. At the Bridgehouse program, there was a 75% reduction in restraints, a similar decline in secluding clients in a locked, quiet room, and close to elimination of the use of the time out room. With the exception of the Barium Springs restraint level, all of these reductions reached statistical significance.

Length of post-intervention follow-up: None.

Larzelere, R. E., Daly, D. L., Davis, J. L., Chmelka, M. B. & Handwerk, M. L. (2004). Outcome evaluation of Girls and Boys Town’s Family Home Program. Education and Treatment of Children, 27(2), 130-149.

Type of Study: Pre-test/post-test
Number of Participants: 440 youth

Population:

  • Age range — 8.6 to 18.6 at program admission.
  • Race/Ethnicity — 60% Caucasian, 20% African American, 10% Hispanic, 3% Native American, 6% Multiethnic.
  • Gender — Not Specified
  • Status — Referred to program by juvenile justice, social or mental health services, family, or self.

Location / Institution: Girls and Boys Town

Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations)
Youth were assessed at baseline and follow-up using the Restrictiveness of Living Environments Scale (ROLES), the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), completed by the parent or other caregiver at intake and by the Family Teacher at discharge, and the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (DISC). The last measure assesses mental health issues. Other non-standardized outcome measures included ratings of departure success, percentage of problems improved, and follow-up functioning. Both boys and girls were found to have improved on all outcome variables. They were discharged to less restrictive environments than they were in before the program. For girls, 84% went to their own home or to independent living; for boys, the rate was 78%. On the CBCL, boys and girls improved on all scales, except for Social Problems for boys. Finally, boys and girls had significantly fewer DISC diagnoses at 12 months than at intake. On the non-standardized measures, departure success averaged at “somewhat successful” on the scale, and 87% of presenting problems were rated as improved. Results also showed that youth who completed the program were functioning better at follow-up than those who did not and the percentage of youth who had been arrested was significantly lower at follow-up than it had been prior to intake.

Length of post-intervention follow-up: 3 months.

Lewis, R. E. (2005). The effectiveness of Families First services: An experimental study. Children and Youth Services Review, 27, 499-509.

Type of Study: Randomized controlled trial
Number of Participants: 150 families

Population:

  • Age range — 3.9 to 17.3 years
  • Race/Ethnicity — Not Specified
  • Gender — Not Specified
  • Status — Families referred by school or juvenile court due to a child with serious problems in functioning.

Location / Institution: Utah Youth Village

Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations)
Note: This study assessed a version of the Teaching-Family Model which had been adapted for use in the family’s home, and so will not be included in the Scientific Rating for Higher Level of Placement. Families were randomly assigned to treatment or control groups. Control groups families had access to services normally available to schools, courts and the community. Parents were interviewed at baseline, at completion of treatment (about 5 months), and 3 months after completion. The questionnaire assessed concrete services/physical care and resources, parent effectiveness/parent-child relationships, and child behavior problems. A composite score of the 63 questionnaire items showed a significant positive overall effect of the intervention and both post-tests. For the subscales, concrete services/physical care and resources showed improvements, as did child behavior problems. There was no significant difference across groups for parent effectiveness/parent-child relationships, due to improvement in the control group’s score over time. The authors note that all group differences narrowed over time, largely due to the control group having received some traditional services.

Length of post-intervention follow-up: 3 months.

Lee, B. R., & Thompson, R. (2008). Comparing outcomes for youth in treatment foster care and family-style group care. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 746-757.

Type of Study: Retrospective study using propensity matching
Number of Participants: 828

Population:

  • Age range — Mean age 13 years
  • Race/Ethnicity — 56% Caucasian, remainder not specified
  • Gender — 50% Male and 50% Female
  • Status — Participants were youth with presenting problem behaviors in residential care for at least 30 days at Girls and Boys Town locations.

Location / Institution: Omaha, Nebraska, North Florida, Louisiana, Washington, DC, Philadelphia, Western Iowa/Nebraska, and New England

Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations)
Using propensity matching on 18 background variables, this study evaluated the effectiveness of Teaching-Family Model-based group home services with treatment foster care services in a sample of youth with problem behaviors in residential care. Administrative data was evaluated for youth outcomes, such as favorable discharge, returning home, legal involvement, formal placements, and homelike setting. Results indicated that group care youth were more likely to be favorably discharged, more likely to return home, and less likely to experience subsequent placement in the first 6 months after discharge. Legal involvement and residing in a home-like environment at follow-up did not differ. Limitations included the lack of randomization and the lack of standardized measures of youth behavior problems and mental health need.

Length of post-intervention follow-up: 6 months.

References

Blase, K. A., Fixsen, D. L., Freeborn, K., & Jaeger, D. (1989). The Behavioral Model. In R.D. Lyman, S. Prentice-Dunn, & S. Gabel (Eds.), Residential and inpatient treatment of children and adolescents (pp. 43-59). New York: Plenum Publishing Corp.

Kirigin, K. A. (1996). Teaching-Family Model of group home treatment of children with severe behavior problems. In M. C. Roberts (Ed.), Model programs in child and family mental health (pp. 231-247). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wolf, M. M., Kirigin, K. A., Fixsen, D. L., Blase, K. A., & Braukmann, C. J. (1995). The Teaching-Family Model: A case study in data-based program development and refinement (and dragon wrestling). Journal of Organizational Management and Behavior, 15, 11-68.

Contact Information

Name: Peggy McElgunn
Title: Esq. (Juris Doctorate)
Agency/Affiliation: Teaching-Family Association
Website: www.teaching-family.org
Email:
Phone: (804) 639-9213
Fax: (804) 639-9212

Date Reviewed: June 2011 (originally reviewed in June 2008)