Ncfr the National Council on Family Relations

NCFR

The National Council on Family Relations places a high degree of emphasis on the development of quality policy and programs. Methodical and research-based program development in particularly important, evidenced by the tenth major content area on Family Life Education Methodology (NCFR, 2011). This content area refers to program effectiveness, measured by various established qualitative and quantitative means. It also refers to program progress and effectiveness specific to target populations. Education techniques, ongoing assessments, and sensitivity training needs are also taken into account by this provision of the NCFR (2011). Finally, public relations are becoming increasingly important to the practice of family research, family counseling, and family law. Policy and program development are core applications. Therefore, this content area is of the utmost importance. Recent research validates the NCFR (2011) provision as follows.

Fawsett, E.B., Hawkins, A.J. Blanchard, V.L. & Carroll, J.S. (2010). Do premarital education programs really work? A meta-analytic study. Family Relations 59(3): 232-239.

Pre-marital counseling has been suggested as a program to be more widely implemented in the interests of family and community health. This article provides a systematic review and meta-analysis of premarital education programs. The problem with the research is that it does not take ethnic, religious, and cultural variables enough into account. The strength of the research, however, is that it reflects the NCFR (2011) content area emphasis on the development of effective programs and public policies related to family practice.

The meta-analysis shows that results of pre-marital counseling are mixed, showing that there may be no need to promote such programs in the future. Program development is costly, making the decision of whether or not to implement a program a valuable one. More importantly, program development needs to be based on evidence and research, and that is why the Fawsett, et al. (2010) study is of particular note for researchers and program developers. If there is no clear reason to implement widespread pre-marital counseling programs, then those programs will remain part of the optional guides for practitioners. Yet these programs might have specific benefits on target populations. This is why more research should clarify which programs improve which families and whether ethnic and other cultural variables are important factors in the success rates.

Furthermore, it is important to have reliable measures of success. The meta-analysis must involve different types of programs and measures of their success. Future research should be more focused and specific to provide tangible evidence that program development and public policy should follow from research. Premarital education is a good idea in theory, but unless the programs are made available to a broad population via free or inexpensive counseling, the implementation issues will outweigh the potential benefits of intervention.

2. Blanchard, V.L., Hawkins, A.J.; Baldwin, S.A. & Fawcett, E.B. (2009). Investigating the effects of marriage and relationship education on couples' communication skills: A meta-analytic study. Journal of Family Psychology 23(2), Apr 2009, 203-214

This research is a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of various types of marital and relationship counseling programs. The researchers focus on one dependent variable, which is communications skills. However, the researchers do not focus on one specific independent variable and include multiple forms of marital and relationship counseling. This harms both internal and external validity, but still provides a framework for discussing effective program development in accordance with the NCFR (2011) guidelines. The NCFR (2011) advocates research-based programs and public policy. The tenth content area listed by the NCFR (2011) especially addresses the need for effective program development to promote healthy families in the United States. The Blanchard et al. (2009) research is therefore relevant, even as it is flawed in its research design and has questionable external validity.

The researchers highlight the depth of uncertainty and turpitude related to bureaucratic public health interventions. Yet it is ironic that health interventions could be discussed in any other framework other than a bureaucratic one. The research reviews 97 reports on nebulous counseling intervention programs, focusing on relationship and marriage counseling. The studies were not necessarily Christian in their approach, although they might have been given the authors do not address the specific target populations with any depth. Follow-up assessments and other issues are discussed in the course of the research.

3. Ghysels, J. (2011). The unequal benefits of activation: an analysis of the social distribution of family policy among families with young children. Journal of European Social Policy 21(5): 472-485.

This research is conducted in Flanders, but the findings can be generalized and applied to the United States of America. The NCFR (2011) does not openly acknowledge the need to apply family counseling principles to the needs of reforming programs and policies. However, policy reform and program development are implied in the NCFR (2011) guidelines and content areas. The researchers in this article highlight the importance of program and policy development within a welfare state. Although the United States is not a welfare state, the issues described in this paper do pertain to some of the same topics of concern to American practitioners. Issues related to dual-income families and the economic implications of program management are taken into consideration by the authors.

There are serious problems with self-report data and other methods of data collection. This research is important in that it can help program and policy developers understand how ridiculous some of their work might be, and might awaken some practitioners to the need to shift their perspectives and paradigms away from rigid modes of thinking.