how can research help your family and community

• About the Project

• Evidence-Based Strategies for Supporting and Enhancing Family Engagement

Priscilla Little

• Read more about Priscilla Little

Family engagement should be a vital component of any strategy to expand learning opportunities for children and youth after school and during the summertime—whether at the organizational, community, state, or national level. Under current federal guidelines for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers initiative, “family engagement” takes the form of activities to support parental involvement and family literacy. All centers are required to track and report the number of family members who participate as part of the annual Profile and Performance Information Collection System (PPICS). Consistently those data indicate that the majority of centers do, indeed, provide these important activities for families.


[21st Century Community Learning Centers] are supporting some of the most economically needy families in the country.

In 2010 alone, 9,139 centers (approximately 85% of all centers funded) served over 250,000 family members; the average adult attendance at adult activities was almost 28 family members. Further, data indicate that of the centers funded in 2010, over 60% served students eligible for free and reduced lunch, indicating that these centers are supporting some of the most economically needy families in the country. Summary data from the past 5 years of reporting indicate that the centers have cumulatively served over one million family members, with the average adult attendance per center rising each year. 1

Figure 1. 21st Century Community Learning Centers adult family member participation, 2006–2010.


Despite impressive numbers of families served, however, many 21st Century Community Learning Centers and other afterschool and summer programs struggle with more fully engaging families. This article presents six research-derived strategies that afterschool programs can and do use to engage families. A set of additional resources for educators and program managers is also included, along with examples drawn from several programs that have experienced noteworthy success in engaging families.


What can afterschool and summer learning programs including 21st Century Community Learning Centers do to support and improve family engagement? The following are six research-based strategies that 21st Century Community Learning Centers and other similar programs can use to improve their family engagement efforts (Bouffard, Westmoreland, O’Carroll & Little, 2011; Little, 2011). 


Frequent and positive communication with family members is critical to effective family engagement.

• Have adequate and welcoming space to engage families. Helping families feel welcome is an important first step on the road to building trusting relationships with families. 21st Century Community Learning Centers and other similar afterschool and summer programs can help families feel welcome by establishing a “family corner” in which family members can find resources about the program and services in the community. They can also make sure the signage at the center is welcoming and accessible in the languages spoken by the families served.

• Establish policies and procedures to promote family engagement. To ensure that family engagement is a priority, afterschool and summer programs should include a section on family engagement in their operations manuals, laying out their strategies for engaging families; they should also consider including family engagement as part of their program quality standards. At minimum, this should include conducting at least one family open house per year. Many programs also have created a Family Handbook that helps family members understand the goals and purposes of the center. 

• Communicate and build trusting relationships. Frequent and positive communication with family members is critical to effective family engagement. This means treating family members with respect; asking them about their own lives and interests, as well as those of the students in the program; and ensuring that interactions with family members are not solely in response to negative student behaviors or performance. Some programs use a communications log to monitor the frequency and nature of communications with family members.

• Be intentional about staff hiring and training to promote effective staff-family interactions. At the heart of quality afterschool programs are the staff who run them. Core components of effective staff-family interactions include hiring staff who reflect the demographics of the families served and who are trained in respect for cultural differences, including an examination of their own biases. Once hired, it is important to provide ongoing training and support to ensure that family engagement is part of a staff member’s daily duties. In addition to external training, programs can set aside a time at staff meetings to reflect on and improve their family engagement strategies.

• Connect families to each other, to the program staff, to schools, and to other community institutions. Afterschool and summer programs can play a vital role in facilitating connections, both within the program to other families and outside the program to schools and other community institutions. This role is emerging as particularly important for 21st Century Community Learning Centers, which have the opportunity to support a more holistic approach to education—one that requires afterschool programs, schools, and families to partner to provide expanded opportunities for learning throughout a longer learning day and across the entire calendar year.

• Help support families and their basic needs. Support for families and their basic needs runs the gamut from providing access to community resources to hosting forums and discussion nights to address topics of concern to families to providing training on leadership and advocacy. At minimum, afterschool programs need to help families overcome logistical challenges, such as transportation, that may affect their children’s participation. Many programs have community school partnerships. These partnerships can be enhanced in order to provide families with information about community resources to address particular social service needs.


While each of these strategies can serve to engage families, some research indicates that it is the constellation of many strategies that may best support participants. In a recent study of engaging older youth in afterschool, summer, and other out-of-school-time programs researchers found that programs for older youth that were successful in retaining at least 50% of the participants for 12 months or more utilized, on average, eight different family engagement strategies (Deschenes et al., 2010). 


Also from the research we know that engaging families is a win-win for programs, families, and afterschool and summer learning program participants. Moving forward, as the 21st Century Community Learning Centers initiative and other efforts to expand learning beyond the school day continue to grow, it is imperative that the spotlight on family engagement, so evident in the 21st Century Community Learning Centers initiative, continues to shine throughout the expanded learning movement.


Find Out What Families Think and Need


New Settlement’s afterschool program at CES 64 in the Bronx decided that parent focus groups would be a good way to elicit information and initiate a strong platform for parent decision making in the afterschool program. To attract participants, flyers in Spanish and English were posted around the school and community. When the response was minimal, the site coordinator realized that this was not reaching her families. Since many parents had a history of feeling unwelcome, she had to take a different approach. She began direct outreach with a few parents, who in turn, gave her the names of others who may want to participate. She spoke to them individually, explaining the mission of her program and the need for parental input. In the end, 15 parents signed on to participate in the focus group sessions (The After School Corporation, 2006).


Case Management to Support Families’ Basic Needs


The 21st Century Community Learning Centers funds a Boys and Girls Club in Buffalo, New York, that recognizes the critical role it can play in helping its participants attend the program and school healthy and ready to learn by supporting families’ basic needs. It has created a full-time, salaried staff position at each clubhouse to help families deal with social issues, providing triage, case management, and referral services. It has also leveraged other resources to build an on-site kitchen that provides free meals and snacks to the program participants as well as deliberately cooks a surplus of meals and offers them to caretakers in “to go” boxes when they come to pick up their children (Manhattan Strategy Group, 2011).

For More Information 


Family Engagement in Afterschool Programs Resources


Several research-based toolkits and resources have been developed to help educators both in schools and in afterschool programs work more effectively with families. 


• Family Engagement in After School Inventory 
 Developed for 21st Century Community Learning Centers in Texas, this research-based inventory can be used as a self-assessment tool to help programs gauge their current and future capacities to engage families. (see Appendix 11)

• Focus on Families: How to Build and Support Family-Centered 
Practices in After School 
 A joint publication of United Way of Massachusetts Bay, Harvard Family Research Project, and BOSTNet, this resource provides four overarching strategies that programs can implement to engage families.

• BOSTNet Engaging Families in Out-of-School Time Tool Kit 
 The Engaging Families Toolkit is aimed at afterschool programs and provides templates for assessing family engagement practices, developing an action plan, and designing a family engagement program.
• Increasing Family and Parent Engagement in After-School 
 In this document TASC provides a guide for engaging parents in afterschool programs. TASC explains the importance of engaging families, offers advice and materials for effective outreach to parents, and highlights examples of successful family engagement methods.

• Beyond the Bake Sale: The Essential Guide to Family-School Partnerships 
 This comprehensive family engagement resource examines, among other things, how to know whether a school or afterschool program is really open to partnerships and how to develop trusting relationships with families.

• For two examples of this in action see www.bigthought.org/BigThought/SubNavPages/ThrivingMinds and www.citizenschools.org . ↩

References


After School Corporation. (2006). Increasing parent and family engagement after school . Retrieved from http://www.tascorp.org/content/document/detail/1455/ 


Bouffard, S., Westmoreland, H., O’Carroll, K., & Little, P. (2011). Engaging families in out-of-school time programs. In H. Kreider & H. Westmoreland (Eds.), Promising practices for engaging families in out-of-school time (pp. 3–19). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.


Deschenes, S. N., Arbreton, A., Little, P. L., Herrera, C., Grossman, J. B., & Weiss, H. B. (with Lee, D.). (2010). Engaging older youth: Program and city-level strategies to support sustained participation in out-of-school time . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project.


Little, P. (2011). Family engagement needs inventory . San Antonio, TX: Edvance Research.


Manhattan Strategy Group. (2011). High school promising practices project for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program: Final report, addendum 2 . Washington, DC: US Department of Education.

About the Compendium

• Introduction
• I. A Focus on Student Success
• II. Expanding Skills and Horizons
• III. Recent Evidence of Impact
• IV. The Power of Community-School Partnerships in Expanding Learning
• Building Powerful Partnerships With Parents and Communities: Integrating 21st Century Community Learning Centers With Education Change and Reform
• Family Involvement as a Critical Element of Quality Expanded Learning Opportunities
• Effective Strategies for Engaging Parents: Real-Life Experiences that Make a Difference
• Engaging Families in Afterschool and Summer Learning Programs for Middle School Youth
• Family Involvement in Expanded Learning Programs for High School Students
• VI. A Growing Nationwide Infrastructure for Quality, Expansion and Partnerships
• Find Articles
• Share the Compendium

The Importance of Cultivating Community

Why we need each other..

Posted August 20, 2021 | Reviewed by Davia Sills

• Living in a community promotes our health and well-being.
• Our minds are relational and affected by the quality of our social connections.
• Community is built through acts of intentionality, vulnerability, and creativity.

Our relationships, more than anything else, set the stage for our health, happiness , and well-being. Research indicates that the quality of our social relationships affects a range of health outcomes, such as our mental health, physical health, and mortality risk (Umberson & Montez, 2010). These relational effects start in early childhood and lead to cascading effects throughout life, which can either positively or negatively impact our health and development.

We are relational beings in nature, and when we’re isolated or detached from a community, our health and mental health can quickly take a toll. Life is hard enough on its own. We’re not meant to go about it alone.

Research within the field of interpersonal neurobiology sheds light on our biological need for community. Thanks to the work of Dan Siegel and others, we learn the degree to which our minds themselves are both embodied and relational . In other words, what we experience in our minds is highly influenced by our relationships and shared connections with others. Our network of social supports serves as the most profound predictor of our health and well-being.

In other words, our diet , how often we journal, or the number of daily positive affirmations we repeat isn't nearly as important as the community we surround ourselves in. The social connections we have (or don’t have) can literally shape the physical structure and development of our brains, leading to integrated or disintegrated mental states. As Siegel notes in Aware , “Relationships are not icing on the cake; they are the cake. In fact, they are the main course as well as the dessert."

Here are some tips on ways to cultivate a community:

In order to benefit from a community, we have to be intentional about creating and maintaining one. This includes all of us introverts , too. For even we need regular social interaction with others. This means stepping out and starting new conversations, joining a new group, going out to lunch with co-workers, or re-connecting with old acquaintances. Although COVID-19 precautions can make this challenging, we can still further our connections virtually.

One of the best ways to do this, it seems, is through the phone. According to a study with the University of Texas at Austin, phone calls produced feelings of connectedness between two people, more so than emails or texts. Try calling an old friend or family member who lives far away. Our community doesn't have physical limits; distance doesn't need to separate us.

Embrace vulnerability.

In addition, the quality of our relationships often depends on how willing we are to be vulnerable with others and the degree to which we can respect others' vulnerabilities. According to Brene Brown, vulnerability refers to the feeling we experience during times of uncertainty, risk, or emotional exposure. And genuine, authentic friendships and relationships often require these emotional risks.

If we want to experience deeper relationships and shared connections with others, we have to be willing to share our struggles, hopes, and needs with those we come to know and trust. The vulnerability arises when we let our most authentic selves be truly seen and known by others, which is both the antidote to shame and bedrock for trust and connection.

Take the small steps.

Building a community doesn't mean we have to befriend every new person we see or fill up all our weekends with social encounters. A sense of community can be nurtured by taking small steps, like starting a conversation with your neighbor, checking in on a new co-worker, or stopping to say "hi" to a custodian. Building a sense of community starts with small, intentional acts of kindness and acknowledgment.

With feelings of isolation and mental health problems on the rise, now, more than ever, it's important to be intentional about connecting with our community. If indeed our relationships serve as the foundation for our health, happiness, and well-being, they deserve the time, energy, creativity , and sacrifice needed to strengthen and maintain them.

Umberson, D., & Montez, J. K. (2010). Social relationships and health: a flashpoint for health policy. Journal of health and social behavior, 51 Suppl(Suppl), S54–S66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146510383501

Elizabeth Dixon is a clinical social worker supporting child, family, and community resilience and well-being.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Positive Family and Community Relationships

What are they.

Researchers have found that the key to making the family-community-school relationship a success is by considering it a partnership of equals . In other words, educators and families from all backgrounds are seen and valued as experts in a child’s education. And community members are viewed as helpful contributors and supporters of schools.

This partnership is built on shared values and emphasizes the strengths that all stakeholders bring to the table. The trust and respect that is fostered helps to cultivate a sense of belonging in the school community among students and their families, which in turn creates a caring school climate.

A school dedicated to building strong partnerships with families and communities asks families at every parent-teacher conference about their expectations for their child’s education. In addition, they honor the cultural backgrounds of families through potluck dinners, whole school celebrations, and by providing opportunities for families to share their stories about their own educational experiences with teachers, students, and the whole school community. Schools welcome community organizations to these events and invite them to participate and share their knowledge and resources about things like after-school programs, arts and athletic events, and volunteering opportunities.

Positive school-family partnerships can also help cultivate students’ social and emotional well-being through methods that build relationships and through practical hands-on ways for families to become involved in their child’s education.

Relationally, schools can build strong partnerships with parents through two-way communication, by collaborating on what’s best for each student, and cultivating positive relationships between teachers and parents.

A middle school encourages school-family relationships by asking parents at the beginning of the year for their preferred method of communication, e.g., text, email, phone, paper. Teachers then use those preferences to create personal and classroom protocols for communicating with parents.

Practically, offering families methods for reinforcing social and emotional skills at home and suggesting ways for caregivers to partner with teachers can improve students’ well-being.

An elementary school that is interested in adopting an SEL program forms a committee that includes family members of students from a variety of cultural backgrounds, and they provide input on the relevance and/or cultural responsiveness of particular SEL skills. After choosing a curriculum, the school regularly texts or emails SEL tips to families so that they may reinforce the SEL skills at home. Schools also invite all families to give feedback to the teachers about the effectiveness of the skill and the relevance to their families’ background.

Schools can also engage community-based organizations such as businesses, colleges, religious organizations, libraries, and social agencies, to offer programs that develop students’ strengths and social-emotional skills.

To cultivate students’ civic engagement, a high school partners with local businesses, the city council, and libraries to create opportunities for students to get more involved in their communities. During students’ advisory meetings every week, they discuss the partnership challenges that come up for them and learn valuable social and emotional skills to help them handle these challenges.

Why Are They Important?

It takes a village to raise a child, and science is proving this. Here are a few findings:

Students do better in school when their families are involved in their education.

• Students whose families participate in their education have higher levels of attendance, homework completion, academic outcomes , and graduation rates .
• Students’ attitudes towards school , self-esteem, and behavior all improve when their families participate in their education.
• When schools suggest practical ways that families can support their children’s learning at home, students do better.
• Families from all cultural backgrounds, education, and income levels can positively influence student success.

Family-school partnerships improve students’ well-being.

• A meta-analysis of 117 studies found that when families are invited to participate and partner with schools in their children’s education, students’ mental health and social-emotional outcomes improve.

Family-community-school partnerships that focus on building relationships, especially with diverse families, create the conditions that support student achievement.

• School factors that cultivate these strong relationships include a welcoming attitude that encourages involvement and a focus on the specific needs of families and the community.
• Effective partnerships are strengths-based and power is shared among all stakeholders.

Practice Collections

Take-Home Skill: Nurture Conversation Skills to Bridge Differences for Teens

Take-Home Skill: Teens and Adults Collaborating to Uplift the Community

Take-Home Skill: Nurture a Value Diversity Mindset in Teens

Take Home Skill: Growing Civic Empowerment

Courageous Connections that Challenge Your Biases

Take-Home Skill: Listening to Your Teen with Compassion

Take-Home Skill: Expanding What’s Culturally Familiar— Broadening Your Sense of “We”

Take-Home Skill: Helping Teens Recognize Our Potential for Change

Take-Home Skill: Navigating Emotions

Take-Home Skill: Create Trust with Respectful Communication Agreements

Take-Home Skill: Unpacking Identity for Teens

Take-Home Skill: Talk with Teens about Equity and Justice

Finding Wonder through Art in Community

Take-Home Skill: Savoring Moments of Connection With Kids

Take-Home Skill: Stories About Overcoming Bias for Kids

Take-Home Skill: Listening to Teens With Love

Literacy Book Bags to Encourage Courage

Take-Home Skill: Nurturing Children’s Wonder and Curiosity

GGIE Online Courses for Educators

Do you want to dive deeper into the science behind our GGIE practices? Enroll in one of our online courses for educators!

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Connectedness to family, school, peers, and community in socially vulnerable adolescents ☆

Cynthia ewell foster.

a The University of Michigan, Department of Psychiatry, 4250 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48104, United States

Adam Horwitz

Alvin thomas, kiel opperman, polly gipson, amanda burnside, deborah m. stone.

b Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, Division of Violence Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA 30329, United States

Cheryl A. King

Youth who feel connected to people and institutions in their communities may be buffered from other risk factors in their lives. As a result, increasing connectedness has been recommended as a prevention strategy. In this study, we examined connectedness among 224 youth (ages 12–15), recruited from an urban medical emergency department, who were at elevated risk due to bullying perpetration or victimization, or low social connectedness. Regression analyses examined multiple domains of connectedness (family, school, peer, community) in relation to adjustment. Youth who felt more connected to parents reported lower levels of depressive symptoms, suicidal ideation, non-suicidal self-injury, and conduct problems, higher self-esteem and more adaptive use of free time. Youth who felt more connected to their school reported lower levels of depressive symptoms, suicidal ideation, social anxiety, and sexual activity, as well as higher levels of self-esteem and more adaptive use of free time. Community connectedness was associated with less social anxiety but more sexual activity, and peer connectedness was not related to youth adjustment in this unique sample. Findings suggest that family and school connectedness may buffer youth on a trajectory of risk, and may therefore be important potential targets for early intervention services.

1. Introduction

Connectedness is defined as the degree to which individuals or groups are socially close, interrelated, or share resources ( CDC, 2013a ). Connectedness has the potential to be a target of interventions designed to increase protective factors for youth ( CDC, 2009 , 2013a ). Unfortunately, interventions that promote protective factors are under-utilized ( Prince Embury and Saklofske, 2014 ) and little is known about their use with high-risk youth ( Brownlee et al., 2013 ). With our nation’s youth experiencing an array of different types of risk factors, an improved understanding of how protective factors, like connectedness, might be of benefit for particular subgroups of youth is a research priority ( Tolan, 2014 ) with potential to improve services to high risk youth.

1.1. Connectedness/theoretical basis

The concept of connectedness is rooted in a wealth of previous theoretical and empirical work that has documented the importance of healthy supportive relationships to well-being across the lifespan. Concepts such as attachment ( Bowlby, 1969 ) and family warmth and cohesion ( Sturge-Apple, Davies, & Cummings, 2010 ) point to the importance of healthy connections between youth and their families. In addition, constructs such as social support ( Cobb, 1976 ; Cohen & Wills, 1985 ), social integration ( Durkheim, 1897 ), and social connection ( Barber & Schluterman, 2008 ) point to the benefits of healthy relationships outside the family. Connectedness can exist between individuals or between individuals and social institutions, such as schools and other organizations. Proponents of connectedness as a framework for prevention posit that connections may contribute to an enhanced sense of belonging, a sizeable social network, active engagement in one’s community, improved perceptions of closeness and support, the provision of tangible resources and health information, exposure to positive modeling, mentorship, and engagement in pro-social activities ( Cohen & Wills, 1985 ). While social connections inside and outside the family have been linked to well-being, the absence of such connections has also been linked to risk for negative outcomes. It stands to reason that enhancing youth connectedness to helping adults and social institutions should reduce risk and promote positive outcomes for youth.

Connectedness to parents and family is defined as feeling loved, cared for, valued and respected by one’s parents. Research suggests that youth who feel close to their parents are less likely to engage in violence ( Farrell et al., 2010 ), have lower risk for internalizing disorders ( Day & Padilla-Walker, 2009 ), and are less likely to attempt suicide ( Borowsky, Ireland, & Resnick, 2001 ). School connectedness is the extent to which youth feel that they are a valued part of a school community in which adults and peers genuinely care for their well-being as learners and as individuals ( Resnick et al., 1997 ; CDC, 2009 ). School connectedness has been found to be related to improved academic outcomes ( Booker, 2006 ) as well as reductions in youth risk behaviors ( Dornbusch et al., 2001 ). Youth who experience a sense of connection to their school exhibit fewer externalizing behaviors including violence and alcohol use ( Brookmeyer, Fanti, & Henrich, 2006 ) and less risky sexual behavior ( Catalano, 2004 ).

Peer connectedness is defined as perceptions of support, genuine caring, and trust in one’s peer group ( Bernat & Resnick, 2009 ). Research is clear that peers influence youth behaviors; for example, youth who affiliate with peers who engage in delinquent behaviors are more likely to engage in these behaviors themselves ( Pardini, Loeber, Farrington, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 2012 ) while youth who have relationships with more positive peers are less likely to engage in violence and delinquency ( Pardini et al., 2012 ). The quality of peer relationships is also linked to depression and suicidality (e.g., Prinstein et al., 2000 ). Finally, community connectedness is defined as youth’s perceptions of being cared for by adults in their community and being able to count on their community for support and assistance ( Bernat & Resnick, 2009 ). Borowsky et al. (1999) found that connections to the broader community were protective against suicidal ideation and attempts in a national sample of Native American Youth. Community connectedness was also found to promote social competence and health behaviors in the National Survey of Children’s Health ( Youngblade et al., 2007 ). Converging evidence from community samples suggests that adolescents’ perceptions of connectedness to parents, positive peers, schools, and community may reduce risk for maladaptive behaviors and increase adaptive behaviors in youth.

1.2. Vulnerable youth

High numbers of youth in the US are facing some type of adverse childhood circumstance ( Children’s Defense Fund, 2014 ) with many youth experiencing multiple risk factors. In this study, we examine youth who are vulnerable due to residence in an under-resourced urban area as well as due to social challenges such as peer victimization and/or isolation. Research is clear that growing up in poverty increases children’s risk for mental, emotional, and behavioral problems ( Samaan, 2000 ). Poverty has both a direct effect as well as a host of mediating impacts on children that may include marital and/or family distress, poor quality schools, limited access to health care, and unsafe neighborhoods ( Yoshikawa, Aber, & Beardslee, 2012 ). Children who are raised in communities with high levels of violence are also at risk for negative outcomes. A recent meta-analysis ( Fowler et al., 2009 ) suggests that exposure to community violence increases risk of trauma-related disorders, externalizing/aggressive behavior, as well as internalizing difficulties. Social circumstances, such as poverty, although known to influence children’s developmental outcomes, are difficult to alter, making the identification of modifiable factors that can protect children raised in under-resourced areas an especially high priority.

High numbers of youth also report facing social challenges with recent studies suggesting that 20.8% of youth in grades 6–12 have experienced bullying during the current school year (School Crime Survey, National Center for Education Statistics and Department of Justice Statistics, 2015). Bullying is defined as “any unwanted aggressive behavior(s) by another youth or group of youths who are not siblings or current dating partners, that involves an observed or perceived power imbalance and is repeated multiple times or is highly likely to be repeated. Bullying may inflict harm or distress on the targeted youth including physical, psychological, social, or educational harm” ( Gladden, Vivolo-Kantor, Hamburger, & Lumpkin, 2014 ). Three categories of bully-involved youth have been identified: those who perpetrate bullying (5–17% of school-aged youth), those who are victimized (4–12% of school-aged youth), and those who bully others and are victims themselves (4–13%; Jansen et al., 2012 ; Vaillancourt et al., 2010 ).

Youth who have been victimized are known to have an increased likelihood of depression, suicidal ideation, anxiety, school problems, and somatic complaints ( Arseneault, Bowes, & Shakoor, 2010 ; Smokowski and Kopasz, 2005 ) as well as behavioral problems such as delinquency, substance use, and early sexual behavior ( DeCamp & Newby, 2015 ). It is also well-established that youth who bully other children have increased risk for substance abuse, academic problems, and other forms of violent behavior ( Smokowski and Kopasz, 2005 ). Data from the 2007 National Survey of Children’s Health demonstrated a 3-fold increased risk of depression, anxiety, and ADHD among youth who bully ( Benedict, Vivier, & Gjelsvik, 2015 ). Youth who are both victims and perpetrators of bullying (called bully-victims from this point forward) appear to be at highest risk of negative outcomes. A recent study of 6th, 9th, and 12th grade youth found that 1.2% of youth with no bullying involvement made a suicide attempt, in contrast to 5% of bullies, 6.5% of victims, and 11% of bully-victims ( Borowsky et al., 2013 ). Popp&Peguero (2012) theorize that the experience of bullying (perpetration and victimization) may have a negative impact on social bonds, weakening a youth’s connection to peers and social structures and thereby creating additive risk for additional negative outcomes. Youth who are victims of bullying as well as youth who are both bullies and victims have been found to have poorer relationships with classmates and report higher levels of loneliness, with victims reporting more difficulty making friends ( Nansel et al., 2001 ). Bully-involved youth may have social skills difficulties, aggressive behavior, or other challenges that create difficulty developing secure interpersonal relationships.

In addition to being at risk for bullying, youth who report feeling lonely, isolated and disconnected from peers are at higher risk of mental health problems including ADHD, externalizing problems and internalizing problems ( Hymel, Rubin, Rowden, Lemare, 1990 ), with recent longitudinal data suggesting that social isolation may begin as early as age 5 among youth with behavior problems and tends to be stable or increase over time ( Matthews et al., 2015 ). It is unclear if socially isolated/lonely youth develop mental health problems due to their social difficulties or if their social challenges pre-date their peer rejection experiences; in either case, it is clear that youth with social challenges are at elevated risk for a variety of behavioral and emotional health conditions.

1.3. Connectedness in high-risk groups

If connectedness has potential to buffer youth from the effect of other risk factors in their lives, then studies should demonstrate relationships between connectedness and positive adjustment even in subgroups of at risk youth. Unfortunately, the majority of studies of connectedness have been conducted in large community samples of youth with little examination of the potential protective impact of connectedness within groups defined by specific risk factors. More research is needed to understand whether connectedness within particular contexts (family, school, peers, community) might be helpful (or harmful) for particular subgroups of youth ( Bernat & Resnick, 2009 ).

Loukas et al. (2010) conducted a longitudinal study of 476 adolescents over three years starting in the 6th grade. They found that school connectedness was especially protective for youth who had lower connectedness in other areas of their lives, reducing the likelihood of substance use. This study suggests that youth who are disconnected in some contexts (e.g., peers, family) may be especially impacted by connections to school. Ahrens et al. (2011) studied the impact of a close relationship with a non-parental adult on outcomes for youth in foster care, finding that youth with a close and supportive relationship at school, church, or elsewhere in their community were less likely to report suicide risk, aggression, or sexually transmitted infections and reported improved overall health. Logan et al. (2011) examined connectedness to parents, schools, and delinquent friends in a sample of youth recruited from a high poverty community. Findings suggested that youth suicidal ideation was negatively related to parent and school connectedness; however, friendships with delinquent youth increased risk for suicidal ideation even after controlling for connectedness, demographic and mental health risk factors. This study suggests that connections to peers may actually increase risk, depending on the types of behaviors engaged in by the peer group.

Examining connectedness within under-resourced communities is critical, as some previous research suggests that community affluence may impact connectedness. Several recent studies suggest that students from privileged backgrounds (with privilege being defined in these studies as two-parent households, owning their home, academic success, and extracurricular involvement) are more likely to report feeling connected to school ( McNeely, Nonnemaker, &Blum, 2002 ; Thompson, Iachan, Overpeck, Ross, & Gross, 2006 ). In their chapter on Connectedness in Adolescence, Bernat and Resnick (2009) suggest that research efforts explore the role of connectedness in communities that have fewer financial resources as well as those in which rates of violence and crime are higher, to better understand the probably nuanced relationships among connectedness and youth outcomes. Taken together, these studies highlight the idea that certain connections may act as a buffer against risk, while other types of connectedness may increase risk in certain youth. These findings point to the need to examine domains of connectedness in relation to youth adjustment in subgroups of youth with well-defined risk factors.

1.4. Hypotheses

In this study, we sought to understand whether and to what extent specific types of connectedness (to family, school, peers, community) were beneficial for youth characterized by two specific categories of risk factors: social challenges (peer bullying, victimization, social isolation) and residence in an underserved urban community with high rates of unemployment, poverty, and crime. Evidence is clear that social connections are important determinants of healthy adolescent development; what is unclear is to what extent connectedness-an interpersonal, social phenomenon-would be protective for youth who were all experiencing their own social challenges. Moreover, because few studies have examined connectedness (or reported their findings specifically for) impoverished urban communities, we know little about how connections to social institutions (like schools and the larger community) function in neighborhoods that are challenged by barriers such as lack of funding and resources, despite the fact that the most meaningful prevention targets may vary by community context ( Nation et al., 2003 ). In the hopes of documenting the potential of connectedness to buffer at risk youth from negative outcomes, we hypothesized that stronger connections to family, school, and community would be associated with lower levels of emotional (depressive symptoms, anxious symptoms, suicidal ideation) and behavioral problems (substance use, early sexual activity, non-suicidal self-injury, or conduct problems) and higher levels of positive adjustment (e.g., high self-esteem, prosocial behavior, and adaptive uses of leisure time) for the youth in our unique sample. Analyses examining peer connectedness were exploratory in nature given the social challenges in our sample as well as the inconsistency in previous research regarding peer influences.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. participants.

Adolescents, aged 12 to 15 years, who presented to a large, urban, pediatric emergency department or co-located urgent care clinic (January, 2010 to September, 2014) were eligible for participation ( N = 3900) in the effectiveness trial, Links to Enhancing Teens’ Connectedness ( Let’s Connect ) a community-based mentorship program from which the current study sample was drawn. Trained staff members approached adolescents and their parents/guardians for assent and consent. Adolescents were offered small gifts (e.g., dollar store items) as an incentive for participation. Inclusion criteria included residence within the target geographical area. Initial exclusion criteria included 1) having a life-threatening medical condition, 2) participation in another study, 3) a sibling participating in Let’s Connect, 4) severe cognitive impairment, 5) not understanding written or spoken English, or 6) in police custody, juvenile detention, or a residential facility. Because one intervention goal was to prevent the onset of suicidal behavior, youth with a suicide attempt history were also excluded.

As Fig. 1 demonstrates, 1485 adolescents (39.6%) were study eligible and, of these, parent/guardian consent and youth assent were obtained for 1018 (68.6%). Youth participated in a brief screen ( n = 1007) to assess interpersonal risk factors. The present study included the subset of participants from the larger study who indicated that they 1) had no history of prior suicide attempts ( n = 964), 2) were involved in bullying, either as a perpetrator and/or a victim, and/or were experiencing low levels of social connectedness ( n = 240), and 3) could provide a minimum of two verifiable telephone contacts for follow-up. Adolescents who met these criteria and who completed the 45 to 60-min evaluation, were remunerated with $25. Evaluations occurred in the emergency department/medical clinic with research assistants available to respond to youth or parent questions.

Subject flow diagram.

The final sample in this cross-sectional study included 224 adolescent-parent dyads who completed the initial LET’S CONNECT evaluation. Youth (66.5% female) ranged in age from 12 to 15 years, ( M = 13.9, SD = 1.1) and self-identified as African American (52.2%), Caucasian (29%), Multiracial (13.8%), and Other (2.7%). Only 2.2% of the sample reported Hispanic ethnicity. Parent participants were 83% biological mothers, 8% biological fathers, 7.1% legal guardians, and 1.8% step-parents. About 12% of participants had a mother or stepmother who had graduated from college; 6.7% of participants had a father who had graduated from college. Eighty-three percent of families were receiving public assistance. Participants were recruited from a midsize Midwestern city struggling with significant unemployment (15.8% at study initiation; ranked 355 out of 372 US metropolitan areas for employment opportunities; Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010), cuts to public services, and high rates of violent crime (ranked within top 5 most violent cities in America). The median household income in the region was less than $25,000 (based on 2010 census data). With respect to social vulnerability, 64% ( n = 144) of participants screened positive for bullying victimization, 18% ( n = 41) for bullying perpetration, and 58% ( n = 130) for low levels of perceived social connectedness. Another 12% ( n = 27) of participants screened positive for both victimization and perpetration.

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. demographics.

During screening, parent/guardians completed information about youth age, gender, race/ethnicity, year in school, family receipt of public assistance, parental education, and parental residence. All other measures were completed by youth unless noted.

2.2.2. Screening instruments

The following measures were used for screening. The Peer Experiences Questionnaire ( PEQ) is an 18-item self-report measure containing two 9-item subscales (ranges: 9–45) examining bullying perpetration and victimization. Each scale assesses overt/physical and relational aggression over the past 4 months on a scale from never, once or twice, a few times, about once a week, to several times a week ( Prinstein, Boergers, & Vernberg, 2001 ; Vernberg, Jacobs, & Hershberger, 1999 ). Good internal consistency has been reported for both scales; in this sample, α = 0.82 for perpetration and α = 0.79 for victimization. Based on a study of over 1000 7th–9th grade youth ( Vernberg, Jacobs, & Hershberger, 1999 ), a score approximately 1 standard deviation above the mean is considered an elevated score and was used for study eligibility. The UCLA Loneliness Scale -Revised ( Russell, Peplau, and Cutrona, 1980 ; Russell, Peplau, & Ferguson, 1978 ) is a widely used measure assessing subjective feelings of loneliness, low connectedness, and social isolation. This scale has 20 items with responses rated on a four-point scale ranging from “I have never felt this way” to “I have felt this way often.” The scale has been previously used in high-risk adolescent samples ( Prinstein, Boergers, Spirito, Little, & Grapentine, 2000 ). Internal consistency in this sample was α = 0.80. Sample items include: “I feel part of a group of friends [reverse coded],” and “I feel isolated from others.” A score of ≥ 44 (approximately 1 standard deviation above the mean) was considered an elevated score sufficient for study eligibility.

2.2.3. Connectedness

The following measures were used to assess connectedness within family, peer, school, and community contexts. Parent-Family Connectedness ( Resnick et al., 1997 ) was assessed with an 11-item self-report measure. Sample items included “How much do you think your mother (or father) cares about you?” and “How much do people in your family understand you.” Internal consistency was established among 7– 12th grade students, across gender and racial groups; and concurrent validity was established with other measures of school connectedness and self-esteem ( Sieving et al., 2001 ). Internal consistency in the current sample was excellent (α = 0.90). School Connectedness ( Resnick et al., 1997 ) was assessed with a 6-item measure. Higher scores indicate greater connectedness. Sample items include “You feel like you are a part of the school,” and “your teachers care about you,” rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” Internal consistency was good in the current sample (α = 0.84). Our measure of Peer Connectedness was adapted from Hemingway’s Adolescent Connectedness Scale ( Karcher & Sass, 2010 ) and assesses adolescents’ trust in and perceived support by friends. The scale demonstrates good internal consistency (α = 0.79) in this sample. Responses are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 5 (very true). Sample items include “I have friends I am really close to and trust completely” and “I spend as much time as I can with my friends. “ The Community Connectedness Scale (CCS) ( Fletcher & Shaw, 2000 ) was developed for a study of adolescent social integration and correlated significantly with middle schoolers’ community involvement. Responses are rated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging froml (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). We reduced this scale from 5 to 3 items because use of the 5 item scale yielded an unacceptable internal consistency coefficient (α = 0.35), whereas the final 3-item version had an acceptable internal consistency of α = 0.75. We suspect, based on observations by research staff, that two factors accounted for the low internal consistency: 1) the first was a question asking youth if they wanted to reside in their community when they got older with some youth indicating a preference to move to a safer community with more opportunities and 2) was a poorly worded item (“few adults in my neighborhood know who I am”) that youth seemed to interpret in multiple ways, with some believing the question meant “a few” and others thinking it meant “not many adults know who I am.” Retained items were 1) “I get along with some adults in my neighborhood”, 2) “I value the relationships I have made with adults in my neighborhood,” and 3) “There are adults in my neighborhood I can go to if I need help. “ As a result of these changes, it is likely that the scale assesses youth perceptions of connection to adults in their community rather than the community at large. Correlations between the 3-item community connectedness scale and the parent-family connectedness scale were 0.286, p < 0.01, suggesting that although related, the constructs are distinct.

2.2.4. Adolescent adjustment

The following measures were utilized to assess markers of youth adjustment in three main areas: emotional problems (depressive symptoms, suicidal ideation, anxiety symptoms, parent-rated emotional distress) behavioral problems (non suicidal self-injury, youth and parent/guardian-reported conduct problems, substance use, sexual behavior), and adaptive functioning (self-esteem, prosocial behaviors, free time activities). Adolescent depressive symptoms were assessed with The Reynolds Adolescent Depression Scale, Second Edition: Short Form (RADS 2:SF) which was developed for community-based screening, is brief (10 items), easy to read, has excellent psychometric properties, and has extensive grade- and gender norms ( Reynolds, 1987 ). Youth rate symptom frequency on a 4-point scale; raw scores > 23 suggest clinically significant symptoms. Internal consistency in this sample was α = 0.82. Current suicidal ideation (SI) was assessed with the Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire-Junior: SIQ-JR ( Reynolds, 1988 ), which was developed for community-based screening, is brief, and has grade- and gender-based norms. The SIQ-JR is a 15-item self-report questionnaire assessing the frequency (on a 7-point scale) of a wide range of suicidal thoughts. Total scores have excellent, well-documented psychometric properties ( Reynolds, 1988 , 1992 ). SIQ-JR total scores of psychiatrically hospitalized adolescents have been found to be significant predictors of suicidal thoughts and attempts 6-months post hospitalization ( King, Hovey, Brand, Wilson, and Ghaziuddin, 1997 ). Raw scores > 31 are of clinical concern; internal consistency in this sample was excellent (0.92). The Social Anxiety Disorder subscale is a 7-item measure that was adapted from the 41-item Screen for Child and Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders (SCARED; Birmaher et al., 1999 ). A 3-point rating scale is used, ranging from 0 (not/hardly ever true) to 2 (true/often true). Used previously as an independent measure of social anxiety in youth, a cut-off of six is suggested to distinguish youth with clinical anxiety ( Bailey, Chavira, Stein, & Stein, 2006 ). Internal consistency in this sample was α = 0.83.

Youth behavior problems included NSSI, substance use, age of first sexual intercourse, and conduct problems. The Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale ( Posner et al., 2011 ) was used to assess behaviors consistent with non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI). NSSI was measured with one item and scored as absent = 0 or present = 1. The first three items of the 10-item Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT-C) were used to assess alcohol consumption in the past year and presence of at-risk drinking ( Saunders, Aasland, Babor, de la Fuente, & Grant, 1993 ). The modified AUDIT has been validated for use with adolescents in the emergency department ( Chung, Colby, Barnett, & Monti, 2002 ); compared to other brief screening tools, it has shown superior discrimination in identifying adolescents with alcohol use disorders. Internal consistency in this sample was good (α = 0.78). Frequency of illicit drug use (marijuana, cocaine, inhalants, or other illegal drugs) was assessed with items from the Monitoring the Future (MTF) study ( Johnston, O’Malley, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2005 ). A standard question was repeated for each type of substance: On how many occasions (if any) have you used Drug X during the past month, and in your lifetime: 0 occasions, 1–2, 3–5, 6–9, 10–19, 20–39, and 40 or more occasions. Due to low rates of endorsement of alcohol and drug use in this sample of early adolescents, a categorical variable combining reports on the AUDIT and MTF questions representing endorsement of any substance use (1) and no use (0) was created. Age of onset of sexual activity was derived from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS; CDC, 2013b ); youth responses included “I have never had sexual intercourse” (76% of the sample), to age of first intercourse ranging from age 11 to age 15. YRBS data have been used in numerous studies (e.g., Martins & Alexandre, 2009 ) to assess youth engagement in risky activities. The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire-Parent Report version (SDQ; Goodman, 1999 ) was completed by parents/guardians regarding youth functioning over the past six months, using 25 items that are rated on a 3-point Likert scale ranging from “not true” to “certainly true.” The present study focused on three subscales of the SDQ: emotional distress (α = 0.72), conduct problems (α = 0.77), and prosocial behaviors (α = 0.81); higher scores reflect more of the construct.

In addition to parent ratings of pro-social behavior described above, measures of adaptive functioning also included self-esteem and adaptive use of free time. Self-esteem was assessed with the 10 item Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1965 ), one of the most widely used measures of global self-esteem. The RSES uses a 4-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree and has strong internal consistency in this sample (α = 0.86). The Social Adjustment Inventory for Children and Adolescents (SAICA; John, Gammon, Prusoff, & Warner, 1987 ) is a semi-structured parent-report interview developed to assess adaptive functioning. The SAICA has demonstrated good reliability in a sample of 124 youth, ages 6 to 18 years ( John et al., 1987 ) as well as concurrent validity with the Child Behavior Checklist scales and the Global Assessment of Functioning ( Biederman, Faraone, & Chen, 1993 ). The 6-item Free Time Problem scale was used for this study and assesses concerns such as boredom/indifference to activities, getting into trouble in free-time, or difficulty using spare time productively. Items are scored with a 4-point scale from “not at all a problem” to “severe problem;” in the current sample, internal consistency is adequate (α = 0.71).

3. Theory, calculations, and data analysis

Based on theory and previous research, we hypothesized that connectedness to family, school, and community would be associated with lower rates of emotional and behavioral problems and with higher rates of positive adjustment in youth; we did not offer a strong hypothesis regarding peer connectedness and considered these analyses to be exploratory due to inconsistencies in previous research regarding peers and the unique nature of our participants’ social challenges. Initial analyses explored associations between demographic factors (gender, race/ethnicity, age) and dependent variables using independent samples t -tests for continuous variables and chi-square analyses for categorical variables. Descriptive data were used to inform decisions about which variables to control for in subsequent analyses. Due to the variability in types of and extent of bullying experiences that characterized the sample, bully/perpetrator status was controlled for in subsequent analyses. The social connectedness measure used for screening was not included in subsequent analyses as it was strongly correlated with the more specific connectedness measures (e.g., r = 0.425 with parent-family connectedness, r = 0.356 with peer connectedness, 0.274 with school connectedness, and 0.203 with community connectedness) and would have limited power in examining differences between types of connectedness. Bivariate analyses examined relationships between connectedness and indicators of adolescent adjustment. Hierarchical linear and logistic regressions were used to examine the relative impact of 1) youth status as a bully perpetrator or victim and 2) the four connectedness domains on measures of youth emotional problems, behavioral problems, and positive adjustment. Gender and age were controlled and entered on Step 1 based on t -tests ( Table 1 ) demonstrating their relationship to dependent variables. Participant race was not a significant predictor in regression models and thus was excluded from final regression models. Experience as a perpetrator and/or victim was entered on Step 2 of each model in order to explore their relation to youth adjustment and to examine the relations between connectedness and each outcome with severity of bullying experiences controlled. All 4 connectedness domains were entered simultaneously on Step 3 to examine the unique contribution of types of connectedness to youth outcomes. Standardized betas for independent variables and adjusted R 2 values, and changes in R 2 by step can be seen in Tables 2 and ​ and3, 3 , with final full models in the Step 3 column. Log transformations were computed for several variables (depression, suicidal ideation, prosocial behaviors, free-time problems, conduct problems) for the regression analyses to meet assumptions of normality.

Mean, Standard deviations, and t -test comparison of continuous variables by sex.

Note: SX = Symptoms.

Regression analyses for emotional distress.

Note. R 2 = Adjusted R 2 .

P-F = Parent-Family; Comm = Community; Conn = Connectedness; SI = Suicidal Ideation; Anx = Anxiety.

Regression analyses for risky behaviors.

Note. R 2 = Adjusted R 2 . P-F = Parent-Family; Comm = Community; Conn = Connectedness; NSSI = Non-Suicidal Self Injury; SB = Suicidal behavior.

4.1. Descriptive results

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and ranges for participants’ scores on all four connectedness measures as well as continuous youth and parent report indices of adjustment for the full sample and by sex.

4.1.1. Emotional problems

Overall, the levels of depressive symptoms reported by both males and females in our sample were within normal limits relative to the measure’s standardization sample. Girls reported significantly higher levels of depressive symptoms, suicidal ideation, and social anxiety than boys. Older youth were more likely to endorse depressive symptoms ( r = 0.18, p < 0.01).

4.1.2. Behavior Problems

With respect to risky behaviors, 24.4% of the full sample reported engaging in some type of non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI), with girls reporting a significantly higher level of NSSI than boys (30.4% vs. 12.3% respectively; χ 2 (1) = 8.65, p < 0.01). In our sample of 12–15 year olds, 21.2% reported engaging in sexual intercourse in their lifetime; and 22.5% endorsed some lifetime use of alcohol or drugs. There were no gender differences in youth self-reports of these risky behaviors. Older youth age was strongly related to engagement in sexual activity, t (97.9) = 8.22, p < 0.001.

4.1.3. Adaptive functioning

There were no gender or age differences in use of free time, although White participants were reported to have more free time problems than Black participants, t (178) = 2.33, p < 0.05. With respect to self-esteem, there were significant gender differences, with males reporting significantly higher levels than females, t (220) = −4.04, p < 0.001. Table 1 also illustrates differences in perceptions of connectedness by gender; younger participants perceived stronger connections to family ( r = −0.18, p < 0.01) and Black participants reported stronger connections to school, t (220) = 2.06, p < 0.05.

4.2. Connectedness and youth adjustment

4.2.1. emotional problems.

Regression models examining youth depression, suicidal ideation (SI), anxiety, and parent-rated emotional distress are presented in Table 2 . In the model examining depression [ F (8208) = 20.70, p < 0.001], parent/family (β = −0.419, p < 0.001) and school (β = −0.293, p < 0.001) connectedness were significant independent predictors of lower depression scores. A similar pattern was found with respect to suicidal ideation [ F (8209) = 11.08, p < 0.001]; parent/family (β = −0.235, p < 0.01) and school (β = −0.220, p < 0.01) connectedness were both significantly and negatively associated with suicidal ideation. In the regression examining social anxiety [ F (8207) = 4.11, p < 0.001], school connectedness (β = −0.160, p < 0.05) and community connectedness (β = −0.233, p < 0.01) were significant independent factors, associated with lower anxiety scores. In the model examining parent-reported emotional problems [ F (8, 171) = 2.25; p < 0.05], only school connectedness was associated with lower levels of emotional problems (β = −0.188, p < 0.01).

4.2.2. Behavior problems

Binary logistic and linear regression models examined behavior problems and are presented in Table 3 . In the binary logistic regression examining history of NSSI [χ 2 (8) = 23.68; p < 0.01; R 2 = 0.154], only parent-family connectedness was associated with lower odds of NSSI (OR = 0.95). In the binary logistic regression examining history of sexual activity [χ 2 (8) = 67.22; p < 0.001; R 2 = 0.419], community connectedness (OR = 1.28) was associated with greater odds of sexual activity, whereas school connectedness (OR = 0.91) was associated with lower odds of sexual activity. Each additional year of age with associated with a 3.5-fold increase in odds of sexual activity. The logistic regression examining substance use [χ 2 (8) = 28.59; p < 0.01; R 2 = 0.193, Δ R 2 = 0.051] was not included in Table 3 , as none of the connectedness variables were significantly associated with substance use. In the linear regression examining parent- reported conduct problems [ F (8, 171) = 1.71; p = 0.100; R 2 = 0.031], only parent-family connectedness was associated with lower levels of conduct problems (β = −0.223, p < 0.05).

4.2.3. Adaptive functioning

A linear regression examined self-esteem [ F (8207) = 18.15; p < 0.001; R 2 = 0.390, Δ R 2 = 0.316], with parent-family connectedness (β = 0.335, p < 0.001) and school connectedness (β = 0.343, p < 0.001) both associated with more positive self-esteem. A linear regression model examined parent reports of prosocial behaviors [ F (8, 172) = −1.84; p = 0.072; R 2 = 0.036], and did not have any significant independent predictors. A linear regression examined free-time problems [ F (8, 207) = 5.28; p < 0.001; R 2 = 0.137, Δ R 2 = 0.131], with parent-family connectedness (β = −0.342, p < 0.001) and school connectedness (β = −0.187, p < 0.01) both associated with more adaptive uses of free time, and male gender (β = 0.167, p < 0.05) associated with less adaptive use of free time. Due to space limitations, these results are not included in Table form but are available by request.

5. Discussion

This study is unique in its examination of specific types of connectedness in a sample of youth selected due to their social vulnerability and residence in an urban area characterized by high rates of crime and unemployment. By examining specific types of connectedness, we were able to determine the pattern of associations between types of connectedness and youth emotional, behavioral, and adaptive functioning in this high-risk group. These findings are directly relevant to the development and implementation of prevention and intervention services for higher risk youth.

In keeping with our hypotheses, study findings revealed significant relations between youths’ levels of connectedness – especially to parents and schools- and their adjustment. More specifically, youth who reported strong connections to their parents were more likely to report lower levels of depressive symptoms, suicidal ideation, non-suicidal self-injury, and parent-reported conduct problems. These same youth were also more likely to report higher levels of self-esteem and more adaptive use of their free time. Youth who reported feeling connected to their schools reported fewer depressive symptoms, and less suicidal ideation, social anxiety, and sexual activity. These youth also reported higher levels of self-esteem and more adaptive uses of free time. Peer connectedness was unrelated to youth adjustment in this sample. Community connectedness was associated with lower levels of youth anxiety, but, contrary to expectation, was a risk factor for early engagement in sexual activity. To our knowledge, this is the first study of specific types of connectedness in such a sample. Study findings have the potential to inform the enhancement of targeted intervention and prevention services for youth.

Connectedness is a social and interpersonal phenomenon; the youth in our sample who were deliberately selected due to their social difficulties, reported significant benefits of their interpersonal connections to parents and the adults in their schools. Youth who experience bullying and who describe themselves as isolated and lonely may have a host of difficulties that can make connecting to others challenging. These may include features of temperament (e.g., shyness), social anxiety, Autism Spectrum Disorders, ADHD, communication/other developmental challenges that may result in social skills difficulties. Nevertheless, these youth appeared able to form strong and helpful bonds with adults and these connections-to parents and school especially- were associated with lower levels of a host of emotional and behavioral problems and higher levels of adaptive functioning. Our findings replicate studies conducted in larger community samples with differing characteristics ( Kaminski, Puddy, Hall, Cashman, Crosby, & Ortega, 2010 ; Loukas et al., 2010 ) supporting the benefits of parental and school connectedness and adding to evidence that connectedness to these primary contexts may be fundamental during adolescence.

Connectedness to parents appears particularly important in comparisons of four different types of connectedness. Consistent with a host of previous studies that link parent-child relationships to better outcomes for youth, (e.g., Sturge-Apple et al., 2010 ) our results are also meaningful when considering the contextual risk factors that characterized our sample (low income, high rates of crime and unemployment). Poverty and exposure to community crime are thought to create challenges such as higher parental stress and less ability to supervise and monitor youth ( McLoyd, Mistry, and Hardaway, 2014 ); our findings highlight the resilient nature of the families in our study whose parent-child connections appear to be benefiting youth despite community-level risk factors. Prior studies have also found that parenting practices can buffer the impact of bullying victimization on youth self-harm behaviors ( Hay & Meldrum, 2010 ) and that emotional support from caregivers can protect against depression in relationally victimized youth ( DesJardins and Leadbetter, 2011 ). Our results and these prior studies support parent-child connectedness as a vital protective factor for vulnerable youth.

School connectedness was also clearly linked to positive youth adjustment in our sample. These findings replicate prior studies in large community samples that continue to document the protective impact of schools on youth development ( Loukas et al., 2010 ). It seems particularly noteworthy that school connectedness was associated with positive outcomes even for youth who may not be experiencing positive peer relationships while at school. Our results link well to previous findings that suggest that school connectedness may serve a compensatory function (i.e., may “make up for” low levels of connection) in other areas of life ( Loukas et al., 2010 ). Previous studies ( McNeely et al., 2002 ; Thompson, et al., 2006 ) have suggested that students are more likely to feel connected to schools when the students themselves and the schools have more financial resources. In our sample, connectedness is present, important to youth adjustment, and does not appear dependent on school financial resources. Student connectedness may be more related to positive relationships with teachers, or to school climate.

We expected that community connectedness would be of greater importance in our sample, given previous findings regarding the importance of non-parental adults to youth resiliency ( Ahrens et al., 2011 ). In our sample, community connectedness was associated with reductions in anxiety but elevated rates of sexual activity. Our measure of community connectedness is noted as a possible study limitation below; future research is needed to further explore community connectedness, especially in under-resourced communities.

Due to inconsistencies in the literature, we did not advance a strong hypothesis about the function of peer connectedness in this unique sample. Interestingly, peer connectedness was unrelated to any of our outcome measures, suggesting that there is more to learn about peer relationships among youth with social challenges who reside in potentially risky neighborhood contexts. Previous research ( DesJardins and Leadbetter, 2011 ; Logan et al., 2011 ) has suggested possible iatrogenic effects of peer connectedness in higher risk samples (e.g., youth with histories of relational victimization, youth residing in under-resourced communities, youth associating with delinquent friend groups). For example, Desjardins and colleagues found that high levels of peer support were associated with increases in depression among youth with relational victimization. The authors posited that this may be due to co-rumination about negative thoughts or sharing too much personal information, which can increase risk for future victimization. The lack of association between peer connectedness and youth adjustment in this study may have been an artifact of variability in our sample in terms of the specific types of social challenges youth were experiencing. For example, youth who bully others may associate with peers whose presence is a negative influence; whereas youth who are victims may have felt their peer relationships to be helpful and supportive. Future research should continue to explore associations between peer connectedness and youth adjustment in more homogenous groups of socially vulnerable youth.

5.1. Limitations

There are several important limitations to this study. First, the youth in our study were selected based on residence within a catchment area that is over 55% African American with a median household income of < $25,000 (based on 2010 census data) as such they are not representative of all youth nor are they representative of all youth from under-resourced communities. Although previous research suggests that positive connections benefit adolescents across racial, ethnic, and economic groups, more research is needed to understand the ways in which community culture may impact associations between connectedness and youth adjustment ( Bernat & Resnick, 2009 ). We have more to learn about how best to measure positive community connectedness in neighborhoods that are challenged by poverty and crime. Some of these issues may have impacted our findings regarding peer and community connectedness. All data in this study were collected within one time point, limiting our ability to address temporality. Future research should examine whether connectedness measured at one time point might have lasting benefits. Finally, our study may have been under-powered to detect small effects, but was sufficiently powered to detect moderate or large effects.

5.2. Conclusion and implications

Our findings have important implications for interventions targeting high-risk groups. Vast numbers of youth are faced with structural-level risk factors that are difficult to alter, such as poverty, low-resourced neighborhoods and schools, and exposure to community violence (e.g., Robbins, Stagman, & Smith, 2012 ; Finkelhor, Turner, Shattuck, & Hamby, 2013 ). In addition, many youth struggle with social challenges for a variety of reasons, such as temperament, social skills challenges, and psychopathology. Many of these factors characterized our sample of youth. “Upstream” prevention approaches are designed to target modifiable factors that may have benefits across multiple areas of youth functioning and therefore may have more far-reaching impact (e.g., Wyman, 2014 ). Our findings suggest that connectedness, particularly to caregivers and schools, has the potential to protect against an array of emotional/behavioral problems even in youth with significant interpersonal problems (e.g., bullying victimization, perpetration, isolation) who are living in a low-income, high crime urban area.

From a clinical standpoint, our findings suggest the need to assess youth relationships and level of connectedness across multiple settings. Focusing on strengthening the parent-child bond and enhancing parenting skills (e.g., monitoring and specific communication) may also improve connectedness ( Caldwell et al., 2011 ; Thomas et al., 2012 ) and result in better youth outcomes. At a public health level, programming that provides access to parenting education and support, especially in under-resourced communities, may be an important component of upstream prevention programming. Clinicians working with youth with social challenges would also be advised to build relationships with school staff, given our findings that school connectedness could serve to buffer and support youth who are struggling socially. Providing teachers with the time and training they need to support youth with mental health challenges may provide ongoing benefits for higher risk youth. A recent qualitative study of systems involved youth in Australia points to the power of connectedness in building resilience and positive outcomes for vulnerable youth ( Noble-Carr, Barker, McArthur, & Woodman, 2014 ); these youth described the role of connections to caring others as critical to their recovery and as a vital contributor to the development of a positive identity. Once these youth experienced being “cared about” by someone, they described a cascade of positive impacts, including a sense of belonging, participation in meaningful activities, and a belief in their own abilities ( Noble-Carr et al., 2014 ).

Future research should determine the extent to which connectedness is a modifiable intervention target among high risk youth and how enhancements in connections would translate into longitudinal outcomes for youth in the near and long term.

Acknowledgements

Funding for this project was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “LINKS TO ENHANCING TEENS’ CONNECTEDNESS (LET’S CONNECT)” (Cooperative Agreement 5U01CE001940) to Cheryl King. We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of our participants, community advisory board, and research staff, especially Neera Ghaziuddin, MD, Tasha Kelly-Stiles, MSW, Bianca Burch, MSW, and Rachel Moore, MSW as well as our CDC Project Officer, Wendy LiKamWa McIntosh, MPH.

☆ Disclaimer: The conclusions and findings in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

• Ahrens KR, DuBois DL, Garrison M, Spencer R, Richardson LP, & Lozano P (2011). Qualitative exploration of relationships with important non-parental adults in the lives of youth in foster care . Children and Youth Services Review , 33 ( 6 ), 1012–1023. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arseneault L, Bowes L, & Shakoor S (2010). Bullying victimization in youths and mental health problems: ‘much ado about nothing’? Psychological Medicine , 40 ( 5 ), 717–729. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bailey KA, Chavira DA, Stein MT, & Stein MB (2006). Brief measures to screen for social phobia in primary care . Journal of Pediatric Psychology , 31 ( 5 ), 513–521. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barber BK, & Schluterman JM (2008). Connectedness in lives of children and adolescents: A call for greater conceptual clarity . Journal of Adolescent Health , 43 , 209–216. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Benedict FT, Vivier PM, & Gjelsvik A (2015). Mental health and bullying in the United States among children aged 6 to 17 . Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 30 ( 5 ), 782–795. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bernat DH, & Resnick MD (2009). Connectedness in the lives of adolescents In DiClemente RJ, Santelli JS, & Crosby RA (Eds.), Adolescent health: Understanding and preventing risk behaviors (pp. 375–389). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. [ Google Scholar ]
• Biederman J, Faraone SV, & Chen WJ (1993). Social adjustment inventory for children and adolescents: Concurrent validity in ADHD children . Journal Of The American Academy Of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry , 32 ( 5 ), 1059–1064. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Birmaher B, Brent DA, Chiappetta L, Bridge J, Monga S, & Baugher M (1999). Psychometric properties of the screen for child anxiety related emotional disorders (SCARED): A replication study . Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry , 33 ( 10 ), 1230–1236. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Booker KC (2006). School belonging and the African American adolescent: What do we know and where should we go? The High School Journal , 89 ( 4 ), 1–7. [ Google Scholar ]
• Borowsky IW, Ireland M, & Resnick MD (2001). Adolescent suicide attempts: Risks and protectors . Pediatrics , 107 ( 3 ), 485–493. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Borowsky IW, Taliaferro LA, & McMorris BJ (2013). Suicidal thinking and behavior among youth involved in verbal and social bullying: Risk and protective factors . Journal of Adolescent Health , S4–S12. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Borowsky IW, Resnick MD, Ireland M, & Blum RW (1999). Suicide attempts among American Indian and Alaska native youth: Risk and protective factors . Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine , 153 ( 6 ), 573–580. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowlby J (1969). Attachment Attachment and loss: Vol 1. Loss . New York: Basic Books. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brookmeyer KA, Fanti KA, & Henrich CC (2006). Schools, parents, and youth violence: A multilevel, ecological analysis . Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology , 35 ( 4 ), 504–514. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brownlee K, Rawana J, Franks J, Harper J, Bajwa J O’Brien E, & Clarkson A (2013). A systematic review of strengths and resilience outcome literature relevant to children and adolescents . Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal , 30 , 435–459. [ Google Scholar ]
• Caldwell CH, De Loney EH, Mincy R, Klempin S Brooks CL, & Rafferty J (2011). Strengthening bonds between nonresident African American fathers and sons as a way to reduce or prevent youth risky behaviors In Haen C (Vol. Ed.), Engaging boys in treatment: Creative approaches to the therapy process. Routledge Book Series on Counseling and Psychotherapy with Boys and Men. 9. Engaging boys in treatment: Creative approaches to the therapy process . Routledge Book Series on Counseling and Psychotherapy with Boys and Men (pp. 265–291). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. [ Google Scholar ]
• Catalano R,F, Berglund ML, Ryan JA, Lonczak HS, & Hawkins JD (2004). Positive youth development in the United States: Research findings on evaluations of positive youth development programs. Positive development: Realizing the potential of youth.. Vol. 591. The annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (pp. 98–124). Sage Publications, Inc. in association with the American Academy of Political and Social Science; (Jan., 2004). [ Google Scholar ]
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2009). School Connectedness: Strategies for increasing protective factors among youth . Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. [ Google Scholar ]
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2013a). Strategic direction for the prevention of suicidal behavior: Promoting individual, family, and community connectedness to prevent suicidal behavior (Available at) www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/Suicide_Strategic_Direction_Full_Version-a.pdf .
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2013b). Youth risk behavior survey (Available at:) www.cdc.gov/yrbs .
• Children’s Defense Fund (2014). State of America’s children (Available at) www.childrensdefensefund.org/state-of-americas-children/2014 .
• Chung T, Colby SM, Barnett NP, & Monti PM (2002). Alcohol use disorders identification test: Factor structure in an adolescent emergency department sample . Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research , 26 ( 2 ), 223–231. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cobb S (1976). Social support as a moderator of life stress . Psychosomatic Medicine , 38 ( 5 ), 300–314. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen S, & Wills TA (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis . Psychological Bulletin , 98 ( 2 ), 310–357. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Day RD, & Padilla-Walker LM (2009). Mother and father connectedness and involvement during early adolescence . Journal of Family Psychology , 23 ( 6 ), 900–904. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DeCamp W, & Newby B (2015). From bullied to deviant: The victim-offender overlap among bullying victims . Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice , 13 ( 1 ), 3–17. [ Google Scholar ]
• DesJardins TL, & Leadbetter BJ (2011). Relational victimization and depressive symptoms in adolescence: Moderating effects of mother, father, and peer emotional support . Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 40 , 531–544. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dornbusch SM, Erickson KG, Laird J, & Wong CA (2001). The relation of family and school attachment to adolescent deviance in diverse groups and communities . Journal of Adolescent Research , 16 ( 4 ), 396–422. [ Google Scholar ]
• Durkheim E (1897). Suicide: A study in sociology . New York, NY: Free Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Farrell AD, Mays S, Bettencourt A, Erwin EH, Vulin-Reynolds M, & Allison KW (2010). Environmental influences on fighting versus nonviolent behavior in peer situations: A qualitative study with urban African American adolescents . American Journal of Community Psychology , 46 ( 1–2 ), 19–35. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Finkelhor D, Turner HA, Shattuck A, & Hamby SL (2013). Violence, crime, and abuse exposure in a national sample of children and youth: An update . JAMA Pediatrics , 167 ( 7 ), 614–621. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fletcher AC, & Shaw R (2000). Sex differences in the effectiveness of parental strategies to encourage adolescent social integration . Social Development , 9 , 133–148. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fowler PJ, Tompsett CJ, Braciszewski JM, Jacques-Tiura A, & Baltes BB (2009). Community violence: A meta-analysis on the effect of exposure and mental health outcomes of children and adolescents . Development and Psychopathology , 21 ( 1 ), 227–259. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gladden RM, Vivolo-Kantor AM, Hamburger ME, & Lumpkin CD (2014). Bullying surveillance among youths: Uniform definitions for public health and recommended data elements, version 1.0 . Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and U.S. Department of Education. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodman R (1999). The extended version of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire as a guide to child psychiatric caseness and consequent burden . Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 40 , 791–801. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hay C, & Meldrum R (2010). Bullying victimization and adolescent self-harm: Testing hypotheses from general strain theory . Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 39 ( 5 ), 446–459. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hymel S, Rubin KH, Rowden L, & Lemare L (1990). Children’s peer relationships: Longitudinal prediction of internalizing and externalizing problems from middle to late childhood . Child Development , 61 , 2004–2021. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jansen PW, Verlinden M, Berkel AD, Mieloo C, Ende JV, Veenstra R, Tiemeier H (2012). Prevalence of bullying and victimization among children in early elementary school: Do family and school neighbourhood socioeconomic status matter? BMC Public Health , 12 ( 1 ). [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• John K, Gammon GD, Prusoff BA, & Warner V (1987). The social adjustment inventory for children and adolescents (SAICA): Testing of a new semistructured interview . Journal Of The American Academy Of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry , 26 ( 6 ), 898–911. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnston LD, O’Malley PM, Bachman JG, & Schulenberg JE (2005). Monitoring the future national survey results on drug use, 1975-2004. Volume I: Secondary school students . Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaminski J, Puddy R, Hall D, Cashman S, Crosby A, & Ortega I (2010). The relative influence of different domains of social connectedness on self-directed violence in adolescence . Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 39 , 460–473. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Karcher MJ, & Sass D (2010). A multicultural assessment of adolescent connectedness: Testing measurement invariance across gender and ethnicity . Journal of Counseling Psychology , 57 ( 3 ), 274–289. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• King CA, Hovey JP, Brand E, Wilson R, & Ghaziuddin N (1997). Suicidal adolescents after hospitalization: Parent and family impacts on treatment follow-through . Child and Adolescent Psychiatry , 36 ( 1 ), 85–93. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Logan JE, Crosby AE, & Hamburger ME (2011). Suicidal ideation, friendships with delinquents, social and parental connectedness, and differential associations by sex: Findings among high-risk pre/early adolescent population . Crisis , 32 , 299–309. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Loukas A, Roalson LA, & Herrera DE (2010). School connectedness buffers the effects of negative family relations and poor effortful control on early adolescent conduct problems . Journal of Research on Adolescence , 20 ( 1 ), 13–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Martins SS, & Alexandre PK (2009). The association of ecstasy use and academic achievement among adolescents in two U.S. surveys . Addictive Behaviors , 34 ( 1 ), 9–16. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Matthews T, Danese A, Wertz J, Ambler A, Kelly M, Diver A,... Arsenault (2015). Social solation and mental health at primary and secondary school entry: A longitudinal cohort study . Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry , 54 ( 3 ), 225–232. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McLoyd V, Mistry R, & Hardaway C (2014). Poverty and children’s development In Gersoff E,Mistry R, & Crosby D (Eds.), Societal contexts of child development: Pathways of influence and implications for practice and policy . Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• McNeely CA, Nonnemaker JM, & Blum RW (2002). Promoting school connectedness: Evidence from the national longitudinal study of adolescent health . Journal of School Health , 72 , 138–146. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nansel T, Overpeck M, Pilla R, Ruan J, Simons-Morton B, & Scheidt P (2001). Bullying behaviors among youth prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment . JAMA , 285 ( 16 ), 2094–2100. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nation M, Crusto C, Wandersman A, Kumpfer KL, Seybolt D, Morrissey-Kane E, & Davino K (2003). What works in prevention: Principles of effective prevention programs . American Psychologist , 58 ( 6–7 ), 449–456. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Noble-Carr D,Barker J, McArthur M, & Woodman E (2014). Improving practice: The importance of connections in establishing positive identity and meaning in the lives of vulnerable young people . Children and Youth Services Review , 47 , 389–396. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pardini DA, Loeber R, Farrington DP, & Stouthamer-Loeber M (2012). Identifying direct protective factors for nonviolence . American Journal of Preventive Medicine , 43 ( 2 ), S28–S40. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Popp AM, & Peguero AA (2012). Social bonds and the role of school-based victimization . Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 27 ( 17 ), 3366–3388. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Posner K, Brown GK, Stanley B, Brent DA, Yershova KV, Oquendo MA, & Mann JJ (2011). The Columbia-suicide severity rating scale: Initial validity and internal consistency findings from three multisite studies with adolescents and adults . The American Journal of Psychiatry , 168 ( 12 ), 1266–1277. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Prince Embury S, & Saklofske DH (Eds.), (2014). Resilience interventions for youth in diverse populations . New York: Springer. [ Google Scholar ]
• Prinstein MJ, Boergers J, Spirito A, Little TD, & Grapentine WL (2000). Peer functioning, family dysfunction, and psychological symptoms in a risk factor model for adolescent inpatients’ suicidal ideation severity . Journal of Clinical Child Psychology , 29 ( 3 ), 392–405. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Prinstein MJ, Boergers J, & Vernberg EM (2001). Overt and relational aggression in adolescents: Social-psychological adjustment of aggressors and victims . Journal of Clinical Child Psychology , 30 ( 4 ), 479–491. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Resnick MD, Bearman PS, & Blum RW (1997). Protecting adolescents from harm . JAMA , 278 ( 10 ). 823–832. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reynolds WM (1987). Reynolds adolescent depression scale: Professional manual . Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reynolds WM (1988). Suicidal ideation questionnaire: Professional manual . Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reynolds WM (1992). Measurement of suicidal ideation in adolescents . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Suicidology, Chicago, IL. [ Google Scholar ]
• Robbins T, Stagman S, & Smith S (2012). Young children at risk: National and state prevalence of risk factors . New York, NY: National Center for Children in Poverty, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenberg M (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Russell D, Peplau LA, & Cutrona CE (1980). The revised UCLA loneliness scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 39 ( 3 ), 472–480. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Russell D, Peplau LA, & Ferguson ML (1978). Developing a measure of loneliness . Journal of Personality Assessment , 42 ( 3 ), 290–294. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Samaan RA (2000). The influences of race, ethnicity, and poverty on the mental health of children . Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved , 11 ( 1 ), 100–110. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saunders JB, Aasland OG, Babor TF, de la Fuente JR, & Grant M (1993). Development of the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT): WHO collaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol consumption-II . Addiction , 88 ( 6 ), 791–804. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sieving RE, Beuhring T, Resnick MD, Bearinger LH, Shew M, Ireland M, & Blum RW (2001). Development of adolescent self-report measures from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health . Journal of Adolescent Health , 28 ( 1 ), 73–81. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smokowski PR, & Kopasz KH (2005). Bullying in school: An overview of types, effects, family characteristics, and intervention strategies . Children and Schools , 27 ( 2 ), 101–110. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sturge-Apple ML, Davies PT, & Cummings EM (2010). Typologies of family functioning and children’s adjustment during the early school years . Child Development , 81 ( 4 ), 1320–1335. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomas A, Caldwell CH, & De Loney EH (2012). Black like me: The race socialization of African American boys by nonresident fathers In Sullivan JM, & Esmail AM (Eds.), African American racial identity: A research exploration across disciplines (pp. 249–272). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books/Rowman & Littlefield. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson DR, Iachan R, Overpeck M, Ross JG, & Gross LA (2006). School connectedness in the health behavior in school-aged children study: The role of student, school, and school neighborhood characteristics . Journal of School Health , 76 , 379–386. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tolan P (2014). Future directions for positive development intervention research . Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology , 43 ( 4 ), 686–694. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2015). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2015 (NCES 2014-042), Indicator . 11 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Vaillancourt T, Brittain H, Bennett L, Arnocky S, & McDougall P (2010). Places to avoid: Population-based study of student reports of unsafe and high bullying areas at school . Canadian Journal of School Psychology , 25 ( 1 ), 40–54. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vernberg EM, Jacobs AK, & Hershberger SL (1999). Peer victimization and attitudes about violence during early adolescence . Journal of Clinical Child Psychology , 28 ( 3 ), 386–395. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wyman PA (2014). Developmental approach to prevent adolescent suicides: Research pathways to effective upstream preventive interventions . American Journal of Preventive Medicine , 47 ( 3 ), S251–S256. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yoshikawa H, Aber JL, & Beardslee WR (2012). The effects of poverty on the mental, emotional, and behavioral health of children. Implications for prevention . American Psychologist , 67 , 272–284. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Youngblade LM, Theokas C, Schulenberg J, Curry L, Huang IC, & Novak M (2007). Risk and promotive factors in families, schools, and communities: A contextual model of positive youth development in adolescence . Pediatrics , 119 ( Supplement 1 ), S47–S53. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Family engagement and student success: What the research says

By Trynia Kaufman, MS

Expert reviewed by Bob Cunningham, EdM

Of all the factors that determine student outcomes, family engagement is at the top of the list. Partnerships between schools and families can improve students’ grades, attendance, persistence, and motivation. Research shows that this is true regardless of a family’s race or income .

Although some families proactively engage in their child’s education, research shows that teachers can initiate and encourage engagement from all families with positive results.

Involving families of students who learn and think differently is especially important. Schools are required by federal law to seek input from a parent or guardian in the development of a student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP). Schools must also provide families with updates on their child’s progress toward their IEP goals.

In addition to these mandates, it has been shown that meaningful interactions between teachers and families of students who learn and think differently can build trust, inform instruction, and improve student outcomes.

Who do your students call family?

Before we talk about families, let’s consider who makes up a child’s family. No two families are the same: Some have more than one primary caregiver. Some don't. In two-adult households, sometimes the adults are married and sometimes they’re not. Other factors also influence home life, like multigenerational households and those that provide foster care.

In our resources, we use the term caregiver to refer to the primary adult or adults who are responsible for raising a child, such as parents, grandparents, and foster parents. When we talk about families, we mean the larger support system around a child, including siblings, grandparents, aunts, uncles, or anyone with a consistent presence in a child’s life.

The benefits of partnering with families

There are plenty of benefits to establishing relationships with a student’s family. Research and classroom experience support these five benefits, especially for students who learn and think differently:

Benefit 1: You can connect your lessons to a student’s background knowledge, interests, and culture.

You’ve seen it happen in your classroom before: When you tie a lesson to students’ experiences, their interest skyrockets and they connect more deeply with the material.

There’s plenty of brain research to explain why this happens. When students think about something they already know, neurons in their brain become active. These neurons make it easier for other neurons to fire and form new neural pathways. The pathways literally connect new information with old in the brain. In other words, “neurons that fire together, wire together.” By linking new learning with old learning, it’s easier for students to learn and retain the new information.

Families are valuable sources of information about what can make these neurons fire for children. Research indicates that some students who learn and think differently may have gaps in crucial background knowledge , which can make it harder for them to understand new content. In talking with families, you might learn about their child’s strengths and what piques that child’s interest — and you might also learn about gaps in that child’s background knowledge.

Benefit 2: You’ll be able to identify appropriate accommodations or supports.

Connecting with students’ families can help you identify the best ways to differentiate or personalize instruction for students who learn and think differently. Families can provide insight about supports that have worked well at home and in prior years at school — and those that have not. Conversations about these effective supports can help build consistency between home and school.

One easy way to get information about where a student needs support is to talk with families about how their child does during homework time. Based on their response, you can decide if you need to make changes to a student’s instruction or modify homework assignments.

Benefit 3: You can empower families to support academic goals at home.

Most families believe that school is important and want their child to do well. But they might not know how to effectively support their child’s education. Regular communication can help bridge that gap.

Some of the most effective communication you can share is advice about how families can reinforce skills at home. Whether by emails, phone calls, newsletters, or a class website, share with families the math skill you taught this week. Then provide just one or two ways they can practice that skill at home.

Students with IEPs have annual goals and may need to practice certain skills more than their peers do. Research also shows that students who learn and think differently typically have a much harder time completing homework .

Talk with those students’ families about how they can reinforce IEP goals over time, but keep in mind that many families find homework time very stressful. It’s unclear whether it is beneficial for families to help with homework , as the research is inconclusive. The benefits depend not only on the age and skill level of the student, but on the family dynamic.

For example, it’s been shown that if families are frustrated or unsure how to help , then their involvement during homework time can be ineffective or even counterproductive. Additionally, some family members might work in the evenings or might have learning and thinking differences themselves. Remember that every family, just like every student, has different strengths and needs.

So what can teachers do when it comes to homework?

Establish open lines of communication so that families can talk with you about any homework concerns.

Provide general homework tips in a class newsletter or website. For instance, you can provide information like this step-by-step guide for breaking down projects into manageable chunks.

Communicate with families about homework to help their children keep track of assignments and due dates. This is key for students with ADHD or challenges with executive function, who typically take longer to develop skills such as organization and time management.

Remind families that even if they are unable to help with homework, they are already doing the most important thing by loving and encouraging their child.

Benefit 4: You can develop effective and consistent methods for addressing behavior.

When it comes to behavior, a strong connection between school and home is crucial. Longitudinal data indicate that as schools offer more family partnership activities , fewer discipline problems arise. Open lines of communication will allow you to know if something is happening at home that might affect a student’s behavior in school. When you know the cause of a behavior, you’re more likely to find the best way to help.

Equally as important, families can share ideas for behavior strategies that work at home for you to try at school. Consensus and consistency between home and school can help the student know what to expect and to practice more positive behaviors.

Benefit 5: You can set the stage for high expectations.

This is perhaps the most important thing for you to emphasize in conversations with families. Helping families set high expectations for their child is hugely important. One large research study found that parental expectations had the greatest impact on students . In other words, of all the ways families can be involved in their child’s education, nothing matters more than how much they believe in their child’s ability to succeed.

Highlighting the importance of expectations can be especially powerful for families who aren’t sure how to help with academic goals. Reassure them that they can make a big impact by talking with their child about the importance of school and by providing encouragement.

The research is clear: Partnering with families can help you and your students find success. Use the resources below to help build an effective relationship with students' families.

Getting started in your classroom

Follow these eight tips to build positive relationships with your students’ families.

Send home questionnaires to learn more about your students and their families.

Ask your students to fill out a 3×3 card to help you learn more about their strengths, challenges, and effective strategies.

Explore related topics

• Solutions Corporate Market Analysis Customer Experience Product Lifecycle Brand Strategy Research & Insights Higher Education Enrollment Management Academic Program Development Student Success Operations & Finance Advancement Marketing Grants Research & Insights K-12 Education Curriculum and Instruction Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Academic Program Planning and Impact Strategic Planning Teacher Recruitment and Retention Operational Planning School Climate Research & Insights
• Data Analysis
• Qualitative Research
• Strategic Advising
• Benchmarking & Best Practices
• Market Modeling
• Research & Insights By Industry Corporate Higher Education K–12 Education By Type Insights Blog Reports & Briefs Case Studies Webinars All Research & Insights
• Client Testimonials
• Careers Overview
• Current Openings
• Recruitment Process
• Social Impact
• Careers in Research
• Careers in Sales and Account Management
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
• Client Login

Best Practices for Engaging Families and the Community

• Posted on: August 17, 2017
• Topic: K–12 Education

Despite a focus on equity in the American education system, persistent opportunity and achievement gaps continue to challenge district and school leaders.

Decades of research show that family involvement is a strong predictor of student success. To close the equity gap, districts and schools must institute family and community engagement strategies that ensure all families and community members feel welcome at school, know what students are learning, and how they can support student success.

This brief highlights

• How districts can create a welcoming environment for diverse families
• Which steps are critical to developing an equitable communication plan
• What strategies are proven to engage hard-to-reach families

Develop Equitable Engagement Strategies

This research brief describes how districts can move from “random acts of family involvement” to a coherent strategy that ensures that families and community members of all backgrounds feel welcome at school, know what students are learning, and how they can support student success.

Download this research brief to learn best practices and policies in family and community engagement in order to close the equity gap.

Research & Insights

Receive industry-leading insights directly in your inbox.

If you have difficulty accessing any part of this website or the products or services offered by Hanover Research, please contact us at [email protected] for support.

Become a client

Access the best custom research to help hit your organization’s goals . Request your custom consult below and a member of our team will be in touch.

Have questions? Please visit our contact page .

Let us come to you!

Receive industry insights directly in your inbox.

Our newsletters are packed with helpful tips, industry guides, best practices, case studies, and more. Enter your email address below to opt in:

Connected and Engaged

Nurturing Instructional Leadership

Family and Community Collaboration

Rationale for family and community collaboration, why family and community collaboration.

Years of research and practice demonstrate that when families and educators partner to support learning and development, children are more likely to have better attendance, succeed in school, graduate on time and stay on their path to college or a career. 1, 2 Families and schools also benefit from these partnerships. Meaningful collaboration improves family attitudes toward school; increases families’ understanding of their child(ren)’s educational needs and how they can help address those needs; and improve s standardized test scores, standards attainment , and school safety . 3

E vidence also shows that some strategies are especially effective at improving family and community collaboration (FCC) and influencing student outcomes. Below are a few e xamples of h igh – i mpact s trategies .    

• The transformative school-community collaboration framework, which emphasizes democratic and empowering structures within out-of-school programs, significantly reduced the likelihood of student absenteeism in one study. 4    
• A community school approach, where parents and community-based organizations were key partners with district staff, showed math and reading scores for a 3 rd grade cohort improved by 27 and 16 percentage points, respectively,  over a two-year period. 5
• A parent-teacher home visit program strengthened relationships between teachers and the families of high school students, resulting in a graduation rate that was 3.7 percentage points higher for students in the home-visit cohort compared to the entire graduating cohort. Chronic absenteeism for the home-visit cohort was 4 percentage points lower than the entire graduating cohort over a three-year period. 6 

Thus, school districts must not only see strengthening family, community, and school collaboration as essential to their work, they must select evidence-based strategies to ensure the greatest outcomes .  

A Path Forward: Why this Guide?

While there are good examples of what strong district-wide FCC looks like, these are exceptions rather than the norm. There are e ven fewer examples where d istricts forg e strong collaborative partnership s with marginalized families. While evidence-based family and community collaboration strategies exist , a myriad of challenges often get in the way of implementing sustainable approaches that improve student outcomes.   

O ur rationale for this guide is to better understand what concrete strategies districts are using to overcome challenges . Through this work, we aim to help build districts ’ capacity to create strong partnerships with families and communities that make everyone feel valued, respected, empowered , and included in the education process .   

1 Weiss HB, Lopez ME, Caspe M. Joining Together to Create a Bold Vision for Next Generation Family Engagement: Engaging Families to Transform Education. Global Family Research Project. 2018. 

2 Henderson AT,   Mapp K L.   A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement.   Austin: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.   2002 .   

3 Grant KB, Ray J. Home, school, and community collaboration: Culturally responsive family engagement 4th ed. SAGE Publications. 2019.  

4 Kim J,   Gentle‐Genitty C. (2020). Transformative school–community collaboration as a positive school climate to prevent school absenteeism. J Community Psychol. 2020;48(8):2678-2691. doi:10.1002/jcop.22444

5 Provinzano K T,  Sondergeld T A ,   Knaggs C M . Community schools as a sustainable comprehensive school reform strategy: A transformative mixed methods perspective . Midwest Educ Res , 2020; 32 (1)   3-30.    

6 Soule N E, Curtis HL . High school home visits: Parent-teacher relationships and student success. Sch Comm J , 2021; 31 (2), 131-153.  

Introduction

Leading Frameworks

Continue learning

Browse resources on this topic in the resource library.

Have feedback or a best practice to contribute?

We will regularly update the guide with strategies and resources that work best for remote and hybrid learning.

Check out the Resource Library

Our online library has hundreds of practitioner-friendly resources to support putting evidence into practice.

Connect families to community-based services and resources

Posted: April 13, 2017

Community-based services provide families and children with needed resources and information. Early care and education (ECE) professionals who learn about their community’s resources, and connect families with these resources, provide an important bridge to services for children and families.

Community-based services include a variety of supports and services for children and families. Services may focus on children's developmental needs, for example, early intervention services like screening children for speech and language delays, or physical delays. Other services may focus on families, like programs to support parent involvement in early literacy with their child, or services to help families find affordable housing. Community-based services include but are not limited to early intervention services, medical and dental care, early childhood mental health consultation, parent education programs, public library services, public housing assistance, and job assistance programs.

Build the community with family partnerships: Engage families

Family engagement means that families and their children's schools, learning programs, and ECE professionals are all involved in the child's learning and development. There is a partnership between the ECE professional and the family, and a connection to the community.

Research shows that when families are engaged and involved with their children's learning in and out of school, the families are in a better position to support their child's development and positive outcomes. (Understanding Family Engagement Outcomes: Research to Practice Series, Family Engagement and School Readiness 2014)

Children's interactions with the people who are in their lives affect how they learn and what they learn. Learning happens within the context of these interactions and relationships. Children's biology, and the experiences they have with others in their family, school, and community, influence their learning and development. Respecting and valuing families is integral to their children's development. This support includes building partnerships and including families as partners in their child's learning and development. The meaningful interactions ECE professionals have with families strengthen the whole child and the family.

Partnerships with families are key to supporting the best outcomes for children and families in the areas of social-emotional, cognitive, language and literacy, and physical well-being. When families feel supported, heard, and integral to their child's "team" in an early learning setting, they are more engaged in their child's learning and development. Research shows that when families are engaged in their children's learning, it supports better overall outcomes for children's school readiness. This partnership and engagement can translate to more supportive and open discussions when resources are requested, or when connecting families with services in the community.

Explore key community resources and build relationships

Learn about your community and the resources that are available. Think about programs, services, or resources that might benefit the families in your learning program. Make a list of resources families ask about, such as social service agencies, adult education programs, community mental health clinics, early intervention services, housing authorities, and the public library. Identify a few agencies or groups in your community who connect to broader services for families. Talk with these agencies or groups about the services they provide in the community. Some examples may be a local United Way Agency, your state's early childhood education office or early intervention program, and your public school district. Offer information to parents about programs in the community, like an open house night in your public school district for incoming kindergarteners and families.

Many state and national organizations focus on resources and services, at both the state and community level. State agencies and organizations are often an entry point to access local community services.

Involve families in discussions

Hold ongoing discussions with families about their child's overall development. Provide resources to parents to help them learn about concrete ways to encourage children's growth and wellness at home and in their community. Learn about local community health clinics, early intervention organizations, and early childhood mental health centers. Provide resources for families about the clinics or centers in the area. Learn about the immediate contacts in the community to support families in crisis.

Use a strengths-based approach

Learn about the strengths that families bring to your program and engage families around the strengths and successes they have with their child. Support families and have conversations with them to identify their strengths, and to connect those strengths to the interactions they have with their child. Build upon the parent's knowledge and skills. Offer resources or opportunities for families to connect with community organizations, like parent groups, parent diversity councils, or community action groups to share their knowledge and experiences.

Think about culture and language

Educators who share information in a collaborative way show that they value the partners in collaboration. Culturally and linguistically responsive educators strive to learn about and understand a family's culture. They value and strive to make children's learning and curricula, communication with children and families, and partnerships with families respectful, inclusive, and welcoming of each family's culture and language. Educators who actively learn about and seek understanding with the family are in a better position to help the family connect to services or resources. ECE professionals support families and children when they intentionally learn about a family's culture and language.

Follow up with families: Next steps

Following up with families is an important step after a resource is requested by a family, or offered by the ECE professional.

Sometimes, a family may not follow through with a concern. This could be because the family may not yet be emotionally ready to hear or see the concern. Another reason may be that a family needs extra support to follow through with a contact, for example, a phone and quiet place to call the resource or organization. The relationship, support, and understanding the family receives from the ECE professional are key to continued discussions with the family as they navigate concerns, and explore resources. Even when challenges arise, it is important for the ECE professional to value the family's feelings, and continue open and honest discussions with the family.

The ECE professional, learning setting, and community are important parts of the broader support system that connect families with important resources and services. Family engagement is foundational to the strong relationships, collaborations, and active engagement that build the best outcomes for children and families.

• National Center on Parent Family and Community Engagement, The. 2014. "Understanding Family Engagement Outcomes: Research to Practice Series: Family Engagement and School Readiness." Office of Head Start. Accessed December 13, 2016.
• National Center on Parent Family and Community Engagement, The. 2014. "Understanding Family Engagement Outcomes: Research to Practice Series: Family Wellbeing." Office of Head Start. Accessed December 13, 2016.
• US Department of Health and Human Services, US Department of Education, Office of Head Start. Reviewed 2016. " Parent, Family, and Community Engagement Framework." US Department of Health & Human Services. Accessed December 13, 2016.
• US Department of Health and Human Services, US Department of Education. 2016. "Policy Statement On Family Engagement From the Early Years to the Early Grades." US Department of Health and Human Services, US Department of Education.
• Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University. 2016. From Best Practices to Breakthrough Impacts: A Science-Based Approach to Building a More Promising Future for Young Children and Families . Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University. Accessed December 12, 2016.

Download PDF Version

Social Media

• X (Twitter)
• Degrees & Programs
• College Directory

Information for

• Faculty & Staff
• Visitors & Public

We're celebrating 50 years of transforming education across the country!

COVID-19 Updates: Visit our Learning Goes On site for news and resources for supporting educators, families, policymakers and advocates.

• Resource Center

Improving Educational Impact through Community and Family Engagement

As the discussion on educational accountability and achievement escalates, the question of impact becomes key in measuring student success. There are many points to consider when discussing student impact, such as ways educational systems can have greater positive impact on learners and ways educators at all levels can engage with parents and communities to create support systems that have positive impact on access and success for all students throughout the educational pipeline.

Much of the work currently underway focuses on these points from the perspective of educators, faculty and administrators. Less is written about how to assess impact from the perspective of parents and communities.

This article provides information about resources and poses key questions that can be used by parents and communities to assess the degree of accessibility and readiness for parent and community engagement on the part of educational systems. These questions are indicators of pathways that exist or need to be created in order to begin a dialogue toward shared accountability and greater impact for student success.

Families in Schools

The importance of family in the educational process is a strongly-held belief in many circles. Parent involvement predicts children’s academic achievement even more than family characteristics, such as education, family size, marital status, socio-economic level and student grade level. Therefore, a strong parent component can strengthen the impact of any educational program. A clear understanding of educational goals and how to achieve them leads to honest relations with parents and consistent instruction and a curriculum that is coherent.

When trying to foster greater involvement of parents, schools need to recognize that learning begins at home. Teachers who recognize and value the informal learning that takes place in the home are more likely to listen to parents and to be listened to by parents. In this way, faculty and parents can create avenues of engagement and more positive learning environments that will result in greater impact.

In programs for second language learners, there are specific ways the school and the family are each uniquely qualified to contribute to creating positive impacts in learning, and their work should complement each other (Brisk, 2000). Good school-parent-community interaction contributes to the formation of bicultural individuals who can flourish in the new culture as well as in their own ethnic community (Kleinfeld, 1979). Inviting parents to teach a class or participate actively in learning with their children can stimulate the learning environment for all children. Tapping into the assets parents and communities have to share can increase parent involvement and create positive impact in educational programs. For example, one innovative approach, the Funds of Knowledge Project, surveyed the community for the knowledge evident in their lives, incorporated it in the curriculum, and asked community members to participate in teaching (Moll, et. al., 1992).

Community organizations can also provide key support to schools when access to families is difficult or when there are language or cultural barriers. One bilingual educational project describes an English-speaking teacher who engaged community workers who spoke Spanish, Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese to explain to parents how they might contribute to activities taking place at the school (Faltis, 1993). Community workers can also encourage schools and parents in forming networks to support each other in creating and strengthening the learning community for youth. Positive impact through engagement stems from partnerships between schools, parents and communities that are based on mutual benefit, respect and accountability. Engagement for impact goes beyond temporary or limited outreach on the part of educational institutions.

To foster lasting and meaningful educational impact, mechanisms for engagement with parents and families need to be firmly embedded in the mission, vision and central activities of educational institutions from pre-school through higher education. While the process is challenging, an approach that embraces engagement can yield significant results in learning for all spheres.

Families that work with the school in creating an environment conducive to higher student achievement can function as full-fledged partners. These families can have an impact on the school’s ability to deliver quality services to children by asking the right questions and involving themselves in the solutions of the schools.

The next section of this article provides information for schools to use in creating involvement strategies that are meaningful to families. It provides characteristics of a plan to increase impact through the involvement of community and a series of questions that parents can use to assess the degree of accessibility, readiness and effectiveness of the school in creating a partnership that leads to higher student achievement.

Designing and Implementing Meaningful Family Involvement Strategies

Schools that are committed to engagement and are genuinely using the partnership approach do three things before embarking into the process of developing a plan. First, schools assess their approach to identify the degree to which barriers to family involvement will impact the creation of the partnership. The box on Page 11 contains a list of barriers identified in the literature and some suggestions for counteracting the impact of these barriers in creating a partnership (Colten, 2002).

A way of identifying the degree to which these barriers are present in the community is to monitor interactions with parents and conduct focus groups with parent and family representatives. Below is a series of sample questions that could be asked in a focus group.

• What is the commitment of the school to engage with parents in meaningful ways to enhance learning?
• How does the school demonstrate this commitment?
• How pro-active are teachers and administrators in creating effective pathways to communication between schools and families?
• What are the important resources that families can offer to the learning process?
• Are mechanisms in place to facilitate shared decision-making and communication between school and home?
• What strategies are working to effectively engage parents?
• What needs to be improved?
• What action can be taken and by whom?

Once this information is collected and analyzed, the next step is to outline the guiding principles that will be used in selecting family involvement strategies. Those guiding principles are based on the elements of a successful partnership. The following are a set of guiding principles that have emerged from the literature.

• Learning is enhanced through mutual trust and respect.
• Effective partnerships in learning are built upon a no-fault/no-deficit model.
• Parents and teachers each have unique contributions to enhance the learning process.
• Accommodations for different needs and expertise strengthen the context for learning to take place.
• Children’s learning and development are enhanced by parent involvement.
• Communication is facilitated when it is two-way, ongoing, clear of jargon and reflective of the native language of the family.
• Information and mutual respect help break down cultural barriers.
• Transportation and childcare facilitate interaction with families.
• Learning strategies that are fun, inexpensive, and feasible encourage parental interaction.
• Parents are valuable resources who can assume important leadership roles in education.
• Strong home-school partnerships and effective collaboration draw and build upon the strengths of parents.
• Responsive schools are flexible in order to accommodate a variety of parent and caregiver schedules.

Third, schools must integrate into their school improvement plans the role that community and family involvement will play complementing the schools’ efforts to improve student achievement. Mechanisms for engagement need to be firmly embedded in the mission, vision and central activities of educational institutions. This is true for public schools, community colleges and universities. In this way, schools and universities can make an important investment in the future of young people and have lasting positive impact upon their communities.

Characteristics of an effective plan to partner with community and families, at a minimum, include the following:

• See their present and future well-being as inextricably linked;
• Collaboratively plan and design mutually beneficial programs and outcomes;
• Engage in reciprocal learning;
• Respect the history, culture, knowledge and wisdom of the other;
• Create structures that promote open communication and equity with one another;
• Have high expectations for their performance and involvement with each other;
• Value and promote diversity; and
• Regularly conduct a joint assessment of the partnership and report results (W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 2002).

Families can have an important, positive impact on the school’s ability to deliver quality education when they are valued, their contributions are sought and integrated into the school decision making, and they collaboratively plan and deliver services aimed at higher student achievement. Families represent a valuable resource that should be factored into the educational equation. A dialogue between families and educators should be established to arrive at a shared accountability approach with a focus on academic achievement of children. The Intercultural Development Research Association has developed two guides to help families and school personnel to review and plan improvements to the school’s community engagement (for details call 210-444-1710 or e-mail [email protected] ).

Research has found correlations between family education, size, marital status, and socio-economic levels and student achievement. Recent research is suggesting that meaningful parent involvement in education is a great predictor of high student academic achievement. A challenge for the school is to design family involvement that fosters a partnership with one central goal in mind – that of high academic achievement. Students should be able to graduate and be prepared to exercise their options of a college education or the workplace.

Colton, A.B. Helping Parents Help Children Learn: Involving Caregivers in a Child’s Education (Grand Haven, Mich.: Council of Michigan Foundations, 2002).

Becher, R.M. Parent Involvement: A Review of Research and Principles of Successful Practice (Urbana, Ill: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education, 1984).

Brisk, M.E. “Good Schools for Bilingual Students: Essential Conditions,” Lifting Every Voice: Pedagogy and Politics of Bilingualism (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Education Publishing Group, 2000).

Brofenbrenner, U. “Is Early Intervention Effective?” Teachers College Record (New York, N.Y.: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1972).

Dauber, S.L. and Epstein, J.L. “Parents’ Attitudes and Practices of Involvement in Inner-city Elementary and Middle Schools,” Families and Schools in a Pluralistic Society (Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Press, 1993).

Faltis, C.J. Joinfostering: Adapting Teaching Strategies for the Multilingual Classroom (New York, N.Y.: Merrill/Macmillan, 1993).

Henderson, A.T. and Berla, N. A New Generation of Evidence: The Family is Critical to Student Achievement (Washington, D.C.: National Committee for Citizens in Education, 1994).

Henderson, A.T. and Berla, N. The Evidence Continues to Grow: Parent Involvement Improves Student Achievement: An Annotated Bibliography (Columbia, Md.: National Committee for Citizens in Education, 1987).

Kleinfeld, J.S. Eskimo School on the Andreafsky: A Study of Effective Bicultural Education (New York, N.Y.: Praeger, 1979).

Moll, L.C., Amantin, C., Neff, D., and González, N. “Funds of Knowledge for Teaching: Using a Qualitative Approach to Connect Homes and Classrooms,” Theory Into Practice (Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, 1992).

Sanders, James R., et.al. A Model for School Evaluation (Kalamazoo, Mich.: Center for Research on Educational Accountability and Teacher Evaluation-CREATE of Western Michigan University, 1995).

W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Engagement in Youth and Education Programming ( Battle Creek, Mich.: W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 2002).

Rosana G. Rodríguez, Ph.D., is director of the IDRA Division of Community and Public Engagement. Abelardo Villarreal, Ph.D., is the director of the IDRA Division of Professional Development. Comments and questions may be directed to them via e-mail at [email protected] .

[©2002, IDRA. This article originally appeared in the November – December 2002  IDRA Newsletter by the Intercultural Development Research Association. Permission to reproduce this article is granted provided the article is reprinted in its entirety and proper credit is given to IDRA and the author.]

• Classnotes Podcast

Explore IDRA

• Data Dashboards & Maps
• Educator & Student Support
• Families & Communities
• IDRA Valued Youth Partnership
• IDRA VisonCoders
• IDRA Youth Leadership Now
• Policy, Advocacy & Community Engagement
• Publications & Tools
• SEEN School Resource Hub
• SEEN - Southern Education Equity Network
• Semillitas de Aprendizaje
• YouTube Channel
• Early Childhood Bilingual Curriculum
• IDRA Newsletter
• IDRA Social Media
• Southern Education Equity Network
• School Resource Hub – Lesson Plans

5815 Callaghan Road, Suite 101 San Antonio, TX 78228

Phone: 210-444-1710 Fax: 210-444-1714

© 2024 Intercultural Development Research Association

How Do You Define Community and Why Is it Important?

• First Online: 30 September 2023

Cite this chapter

• Laurene Tumiel-Berhalter 18 &
• Linda Kahn 18  

Part of the book series: Philosophy and Medicine ((volume 146))

263 Accesses

Researchers have an ethical responsibility to understand the communities they invite to participate in their research and that their research ultimately impacts. The commonalities that characterize a community are broad and complex, and everyone belongs to multiple, diverse, formal, and informal communities. Understanding experiences of members of different communities can help researchers fine tune their questions, assesses disparities faced by these communities, refine recruitment strategies, and assess whether proposed interventions would be equally as effective in the broader patient population. Before planning research with or in any community, it is important to explore what data has already been collected. Incorporating community voices can also help frame research to be the most inclusive and therefore more generalizable. When researchers understand a community, this can help with recruitment and improve study outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Exploring community engaged research experiences and preferences: a multi-level qualitative investigation

Engaging Communities as Partners in Research: Advancing Integrated Care Through Purposeful Partnerships

The Researcher’s Mark: What Researchers Bring to Communities, and What May or May Not be Left Behind When Their Work is Done

Arditti, J. A. (2015). Situating vulnerability in research: Implications for researcher transformation and methodological innovation. The Qualitative Report, 20 (10), 1568–1575.

Google Scholar  

Benoit, C., Jansson, M., Millar, A., & Phillips, R. (2005). Community-academic research on hard-to-reach populations: Benefits and challenges. Qualitative Health Research, 15 (2), 263–282.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bernard, H. R. (2006). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches . Altamira press.

Boeri, M., & Shukla, R. K. (2019). Inside ethnography: Researchers reflect on the challenges of reaching hidden populations . University of California Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Bradshaw, T. K. (2008). The post-place community: Contributions to the debate about the definition of community. Community Development, 39 (1), 5–16.

Center for Urban Studies in Primary. (1994). The lower west side health needs survey, 1994.

Chavis, D. M., & Lee, K. (2015). What is community anyway? . https://doi.org/10.48558/EJJ2-JJ82

Community Engagement Key Function Committee Task Force. (2011). Principles of community engagement . In Clinical, Community Engagement Key Function Committee Task Force on the Principles of Community Engagement Translational Science Awards Consortium, Agency for Toxic Substances United States, Registry Disease, Control Centers for Disease and Prevention. Dept. of Health & Human Services, National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Clinical and Translational Science Awards (Eds.), Report.

Dankwa-Mullan, I., Rhee, K. B., Williams, K., Sanchez, I., Sy, F. S., Stinson, N., Jr., & Ruffin, J. (2010). The science of eliminating health disparities: Summary and analysis of the NIH summit recommendations. American Journal of Public Health, 100 , 12–18. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2010.191619

Easterling, B. A., & Johnson, E. I. (2015). Conducting qualitative research on parental incarceration: Personal reflections on challenges and contributions. The Qualitative Report, 20 (10), 1568–1575.

Ellard-Gray, A., Jeffrey, N. K., Choubak, M., & Crann, S. E. (2015). Finding the hidden participant solutions for recruiting hidden, hard-to-reach, and vulnerable populations. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14 (5), 1609406915621420.

Ewing, J. A. (1984). Detecting alcoholism. The CAGE questionnaire. JAMA, 252 (14), 1905–1907. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.252.14.1905

Fremlin, J. (2015). Identifying concepts that build a sense of community . Accessed 30 Apr 2022. Media/Community Psychologist.

Green, L. W., & Mercer, S. L. (2001). Can public health researchers and agencies reconcile the push from funding bodies and the pull from communities? American Journal of Public Health, 91 (12), 1926–1929. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.91.12.1926

Joosten, Y. A., Israel, T. L., Williams, N. A., Boone, L. R., Schlundt, D. G., Mouton, C. P., Dittus, R. S., Bernard, G. R., & Wilkins, C. H. (2015). Community engagement studios: A structured approach to obtaining meaningful input from stakeholders to inform research. Academic Medicine, 90 (12), 1646–1650. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000794

Joosten, Y. A., Israel, T. L., Head, A., Vaughn, Y., Villalta Gil, V., Mouton, C., & Wilkins, C. H. (2018). Enhancing translational researchers’ ability to collaborate with community stakeholders: Lessons from the community engagement studio. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 2 (4), 201–207. https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2018.323

Kahn, L. S. (1992). Schooling, jobs, and cultural identity: Minority education in Quebec, Garland reference library of social science . Garland Pub.

Kahn, L. S., Vest, B. M., Kulak, J. A., Berdine, D. E., & Granfield, R. (2019). Barriers and facilitators to recovery capital among justice-involved community members. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 58 (6), 544–565. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2019.1621414

Kahn, L. S., Wozniak, M., Vest, B. M., & Moore, C. (2020). “Narcan encounters:” overdose and naloxone rescue experiences among people who use opioids. Substance Abuse , 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/08897077.2020.1748165

Krabbe, J., Jiao, S., Guta, A., Slemon, A., Cameron, A. A., & Bungay, V. (2021). Exploring the operationalisation and implementation of outreach in community settings with hard-to-reach and hidden populations: Protocol for a scoping review. BMJ Open, 11 (2), e039451–e039451. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039451

LaMancuso, K., Goldman, R. E., & Nothnagle, M. (2016). “Can I ask that?”: Perspectives on perinatal care after resettlement among karen refugee women, medical providers, and community-based doulas. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 18 (2), 428–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-015-0172-6

MacQueen, K. M., McLellan, E., Metzger, D. S., Kegeles, S., Strauss, R. P., Scotti, R., Blanchard, L., & Trotter, R. T. (2001). What is community? An evidence-based definition for participatory public health. American Journal of Public Health, 91 (12), 1929–1938. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.91.12.1929

Monograph. (1990). The collection and interpretation of data from hidden populations . NIDA Research.

Moore, L. W., & Miller, M. (1999). Initiating research with doubly vulnerable populations. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 30 (5), 1034–1040. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1999.01205.x

Newman, S. D., Andrews, J. O., Magwood, G. S., Jenkins, C., Cox, M. J., & Williamson, D. C. (2011). Community advisory boards in community-based participatory research: A synthesis of best processes. Preventing Chronic Disease, 8 (3), A70–A70.

Quinn, S. C. (2004). Ethics in public health research. American Journal of Public Health, 94 (6), 918–922. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.94.6.918

Reilly, S. M., Wilson Crowley, M., Harold, P., Hemphill, D., & Tumiel Berhalter, L. (2018). Patient voices network: Bringing breast cancer awareness and action into underserved communities. Journal of the National Medical Association, 110 (5), 448–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnma.2017.10.008

Schuster, R. C., Rodriguez, E. M., Blosser, M., Mongo, A., Delvecchio-Hitchcock, N., Kahn, L., & Tumiel-Berhalter, L. (2019). “They were just waiting to die”: Somali Bantu and Karen experiences with cancer screening pre- and post-resettlement in Buffalo, NY. Journal of the National Medical Association, 111 (3), 234–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnma.2018.10.006

Smith, M. K. (2013). ‘Community’ in The encyclopedia of pedagogy and informal education . Accessed 30 Apr. https://infed.org/mobi/community/

Strauss, R. P., Sengupta, S., Quinn, S. C., Goeppinger, J., Spaulding, C., Kegeles, S. M., & Millett, G. (2001). The role of community advisory boards: Involving communities in the informed consent process. American Journal of Public Health, 91 (12), 1938–1943. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.91.12.1938

Terrell, J. A., Williams, E. M., Murekeyisoni, C. M., Watkins, R., & Tumiel-Berhalter, L. (2008). The community-driven approach to environmental exposures: How a community-based participatory research program analyzing impacts of environmental exposure on lupus led to a toxic site cleanup. Environmental Justice, 1 (2), 87–92. https://doi.org/10.1089/env.2008.0517

Tumiel-Berhalter, L., Watkins, R., & Crespo, C. J. (2005). Community-based participatory research: Defining community stakeholders. Metropolitan Universities, 16 (1), 93–106.

Wallerstein, N., & Duran, B. (2010). Community-based participatory research contributions to intervention research: The intersection of science and practice to improve health equity. American Journal of Public Health, 100 (S1), S40–S46. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2009.184036

Williams, E. M., Terrell, J., Anderson, J., & Tumiel-Berhalter, L. (2016). A case study of community involvement influence on policy decisions: Victories of a community-based participatory research partnership. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13 (5). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13050515

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are truly grateful to the many community partners that we have worked with over the years that have shared their stories, their insight, and their passion with us. We are honored to have been part of your lives and humbled by all you have taught us.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Family Medicine, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Science, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA

Laurene Tumiel-Berhalter & Linda Kahn

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laurene Tumiel-Berhalter .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Neiswanger Institute for Bioethics, Stritch School of Medicine, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, IL, USA

Emily E. Anderson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Tumiel-Berhalter, L., Kahn, L. (2023). How Do You Define Community and Why Is it Important?. In: Anderson, E.E. (eds) Ethical Issues in Community and Patient Stakeholder–Engaged Health Research. Philosophy and Medicine, vol 146. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-40379-8_7

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-40379-8_7

Published : 30 September 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-40378-1

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-40379-8

eBook Packages : Religion and Philosophy Philosophy and Religion (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
• Administration for Children & Families
• Upcoming Events

School Readiness

• Open an Email-sharing interface
• Open to Share on Facebook
• Open to Share on Twitter
• Open to Share on Pinterest
• Open to Share on LinkedIn

Prefill your email content below, and then select your email client to send the message.

Recipient e-mail address:

Send your message using:

Parent, Family, and Community Engagement (PFCE) Framework

The Head Start Parent, Family, and Community Engagement (PFCE) Framework is a road map for progress. It can be used in program-wide strategic planning, program design and management, continuous learning and improvement activities, as well as with governing bodies and parent groups. The Framework is also useful as a professional development tool. It can help all staff members understand their role in systemic, integrated, and comprehensive PFCE , and to coordinate their efforts with others.

Consider using the PFCE Framework to enhance and coordinate program services. Use it to inform community partners about Head Start and Early Head Start parent and family engagement goals and the importance of those goals to children's school readiness and success in school and life. The Head Start PFCE Framework is intended to inspire a renewed spirit of collaboration as programs identify and take next steps to engage families and communities to achieve better outcomes for children and families.

Use the interactive PFCE Framework to find research, resources, and regulations related to program foundations, program impact areas, family engagement outcomes, and child outcomes. Select any area of the Framework below to get started.

Download the PFCE Framework  and  PFCE Overview for Parents .

Defining Family and Community Engagement

Family engagement is an interactive process through which program staff and families, family members, and their children build positive and goal-oriented relationships. It is a shared responsibility of families and professionals that requires mutual respect for the roles and strengths each has to offer. Family engagement means doing with—not doing to or for—families. At the program level, family engagement involves parents’ engagement with their children and with staff as they work together toward the goals that families choose for themselves and their children. It also involves families and staff working toward goals to improve the program. Head Start and Early Head Start staff work together with families, other professionals, and community partners in ways that promote equity, inclusiveness, and cultural and linguistic responsiveness.

Children are at the heart of meaningful family engagement. They are the inspiration for positive, goal-oriented, parent-provider relationships.

Parents enter relationships with staff on their children’s behalf, and they deepen these relationships with their children in mind. They know their children better than anyone—their temperaments, personalities, strengths, vulnerabilities, talents, and special needs. They know their own cultures and what they want to transmit to their children. When parents share their knowledge, they improve provider practices and program quality.

Head Start and Early Head Start staff create authentic partnerships with parents when they convey their eagerness to welcome parents’ expertise and their readiness to share the care. Parents can believe in the partnership when they feel the passion providers share with them—for the quality of the child’s everyday experiences, for supporting the parent-child relationship, and for laying the foundations early for a thriving future.

Head Start and Early Head Start staff and community agencies build partnerships that honor and are responsive to the languages and cultures of the families they serve.

Community engagement refers to the mutually respectful, strengths-based interactions of Head Start and Early Head Start staff and families with community members and agencies at all levels. These partnerships support parents’ roles as valued community members and their progress toward their goals for themselves and their children.

Community partners provide tangible child development supports and resources that families and staff want and need. They can work with families and Head Start and Early Head Start staff toward such goals. These include parents’ educational advancement, economic mobility, and other aspects of family well-being.

Head Start and Early Head Start staff actively seek out and respond to community voices, strengths, and needs. They collaborate with families, community members, and other local agencies to identify common goals, align resources, and share data for continuous improvement and effective partnerships.

Explore Resources

Unveiling the updated head start pfce framework, implementing the pfce framework, relationship-based competencies to support family engagement, building partnerships with families series, understanding family engagement outcomes: research to practice series, boosting school readiness through family engagement simulation series, best practices in family & community engagement video series.

Resource Type: Article

National Centers: Parent, Family and Community Engagement

Audience: Family Service Workers

Last Updated: August 8, 2024

• Privacy Policy
• Freedom of Information Act
• Accessibility
• Disclaimers
• Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
• Viewers & Players

BELONGING IMPORTANT FOR HEALTH

How Developing Community Connections Can Enhance Wellbeing

Creating opportunities for people to build healthy relationships with each other can combat the epidemic of isolation and loneliness, said Dr. Hahrie Han, professor and inaugural director of the Stavros Niarchos Foundation Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University.

“We live in a world where people tend to have lots of interactions but fewer relationships,” said Han, during a fireside chat with U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy. Moderated by National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities Deputy Director Dr. Monica Webb Hooper, the chat was part of the Murthy Distinguished Lecture Series on Public Health Leadership.

The civic institutions where people used to go to build relationships, such as faith communities or hobby and recreational organizations, have decayed over the past 50, 60 or 70 years, Han said.

Loneliness and isolation severely impacted the social development of many children during the Covid-19 pandemic. Most people spend their time online, which limits their ability to build relationships. However, people are having more interactions than ever before.

“During my day, I have interactions with lots of people, “ Han said. “Online, I might read a post and like it. I might also talk to the checker at the grocery store.”

Han’s research focuses on the study of organizing, movements, collective action, civic engagement, and democracy.

Relationships differ from interactions. In a relationship, both parties have expectations of a shared future. There are two types of relationships: transactional and social, she said.

In a transactional relationship, both parties have a shared future, but each person protects their self-interest. Social relationships, on the other hand, can be more fulfilling because people invest into these relationships “without knowing what they’re going to get back.” 

Because there are so many opportunities to have social interactions in digital communities, they encourage what social scientists call the “habit of exit.”

If a person gets uncomfortable in an online situation or heated conversation, they can leave and find another community. Once a person develops that habit, he or she doesn’t learn a set of skills that are necessary for long-term connection. They don’t learn how to work through conflict. People behave differently if they know they aren’t leaving when things get too hard.

Young people struggle with loneliness and isolation, said Murthy. Although they stay in touch with each other through social media, they do not always have relationships with each other. Instead, they compare themselves to their peers, which leads to lower self-esteem. They also report being less comfortable in situations that require interacting with strangers.

“We have to build social muscles,” agreed Han. “We’ve lost the proverbial gyms where people would go and learn how to engage in these kinds of activities.”

People must have the opportunity to organize their lives around the things they hold sacred, she added. Young people aren’t given opportunities to learn how to live together. They feel society encourages them to prioritize their careers over relationships. 

Governments around the country are starting to fund programs that address loneliness and isolation, said Murthy. They are investing in research and supporting initiatives that help communities cultivate healthy relationships.

Schools, for instance, are teaching students how to recognize, understand and manage their emotions to they can build relationships with others. Building social connections is just as important as math and reading, he argued.

“These kinds of programs are really important,” said Murthy. “We can’t assume young people are going to grow up with a strong skillset when it comes to navigating, building and maintaining relationships and negotiating conflict.”

Evangelical megachurches, or houses of worship with more than 2,000 congregants, are one of the few social institutions that have been growing. The average megachurch grew 34 percent between 2015-2020. Han said some of these churches have a motto, “belonging comes before belief.” In other words, being part of a community doesn’t depend on what a person believes.

“They create a community of belonging, which is how I think they draw people in,” she said. “People are hungry for places like that.” 

People who don’t feel like they belong anywhere are in a state of hypervigilance. Those who are alone respond differently to threats. Murthy believes the rise in mental health challenges is connected to loneliness and isolation.

“Rebuilding connection is not just a health issue,” he concluded. “It’s an economic, educational and national security issue. It’s important for the health and wellbeing of society.”

The full lecture can be viewed on demand at https://videocast.nih.gov/watch=54661 .

The NIH Record

The NIH Record , founded in 1949, is the biweekly newsletter for employees of the National Institutes of Health.

Published 25 times each year, it comes out on payday Fridays.

Associate Editor: Dana Talesnik [email protected] (link sends e-mail)

Assistant Editor: Eric Bock [email protected] (link sends e-mail)

Staff Writer: Amber Snyder [email protected] (link sends e-mail)

• NIH Record Home
• Current Issue
• Past Issues
• Submission Deadlines
• Privacy Policy
• Disclaimers
• Accessibility
• Freedom of Information Act
• No Fear Act
• HHS Vulnerability Disclosure
• Office of Inspector General
• '' Subscribe
• '' Facebook

NIH…Turning Discovery Into Health ®

National Institutes of Health 9000 Rockville Pike

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (link is external)

• Family and community resources

Locating resources within the homeschooling family or access to others in the community who are homeschooling will be important as families get a sense of effective tools and experiences.

• Homeschooling considerations landing page
• General child needs
• Educational resources
• Meeting government regulations

Questions to consider:

• What community resources are available to support your child’s education? For example, are there museums, zoos, cultural centers, or summer programs that offer educational opportunities for children?
• Does your family or town have dedicated space or organized sports programs to promote physical activity?
• What computer or technology resources are available to your child?
• How comfortable are you in taking on a teaching role with your child(ren)? For example, managing their behavior during instruction and learning activities?
• Do you have access to a public library and/or books at home that will engage your child and promote learning?
• Middle school
• High school

Direct, in-person, active learning is most beneficial for young children. When young children first learn about topics they have not encountered in their home environment (e.g., different types of animals), they remember that information better if it is learned in a meaningful context (e.g., a zoo). Their memory will have more connections to retrieve that information in the future. Providing opportunities for children to interact with items to be learned in the “real world,” and for discussing their observations with others, usually results in enhanced memory. That is why children learn more if they participate in follow-up discussions after watching an informative video. Games are a great way to practice using numbers or reading information. When children create drawings or models of their learning, they notice new things and deepen their knowledge and understanding. Finally, setting routines is important for children’s learning experiences. Physical activities and play can be a regular part of that routine.

The academic resources and expertise that are necessary as students begin learning more advanced topics may be beyond those readily available within a homeschooling family (e.g., additional knowledge in a particular academic domain). It may be necessary to pool resources across homeschooling families and access resources within the community or online to support students as they transition into middle school and subsequently into high school. At this developmental stage, middle school students will delve into more abstract concepts. It will be important to know when to push, when to pull back, and how to facilitate retention by building on their existing knowledge. Most middle school students will become more independent in their learning and will take ownership of their instructional planning. Middle school may seem early to begin thinking about college and careers; however, consideration at this point will help to ensure that middle school students develop the prerequisite skills and experiences necessary for college and careers. It is important that homeschooling families understand college expectations and ensure that the curriculum they choose is aligned with or surpasses those expectations. 

Family and community resources are very important for high school students: mastering more advanced concepts may require extracurricular activities to facilitate a detailed understanding of academic subject matter. Because peer relationships are a crucial component of adolescent social development, active engagement with peer organizations and activities also becomes critically important in the high school grades. Many local school districts will allow homeschooled students to participate in extracurricular activities (e.g., chorus, athletics, clubs), and these opportunities can be invaluable. High school students also need supervised experience in planning, time management, study skills, and independent exploration of academic and career interests; all of these experiences can be supported through family and community resources. Fostering connections with the community for high school students can facilitate work-related experiences, which may aid in the transition from high school to a career or, for college-motivated students, to postsecondary education. 

Beginner’s guide to family history research

Interested in starting to research your family history? The Library offers a wealth of guides and resources suitable for both beginner and experienced researchers. The Family History collection includes genealogical material from all Australian states and territories, as well as some overseas resources. Material of interest may also be found in our general collection, including newspapers and journals, and in our specialist collections: pictures, maps, oral history, manuscripts and in the Asian collection. 

Where do I start with my family history?

Family tree charts can be a helpful way to organise and begin tracing your ancestry. By filling in what you already know, you can see what gaps there are and figure out what you might try to research first. The Library offers three charts that are freely available to download and print or to complete online:

• Three-generation family tree chart (PDF, 121KB)
• Four-generation family tree chart (PDF, 117KB)
• Individual Research Form (PDF, 97KB)

How do I begin my research? 

Plan your research.

What do you want to find out today? Are you researching a particular ancestor, family, event or topic?  

Select records to explore

Useful records for family history research include birth, death and marriage indexes , electoral rolls , passenger lists , convict records , newspapers , cemetery records , maps and much more. 

Keep a research log

Keep track of your findings and where you’ve already searched. Cite, note or even take a photo of records including details such as page number, microfiche/film numbers, URLs, call numbers etc. Making a note of any unsuccessful searches can help you avoid searching the same resource twice.

How can the Library help me with my research? 

Our research guides are the best spot to learn about our range of family history resources and how you can use them. Get started with our family history and Australian Indigenous family history research guides. Many of our other research guides may help you throughout your research journey.  

We also have several webinar recordings and learning videos that cover many different research topics, such as Chinese-Australian family history and using newspapers for family history research.

What family history databases and online resources can I access at the Library? 

The Library’s eResources portal provides access to many family history databases. View titles by selecting the ‘Browse eResources’ tab followed by the ‘Genealogy’ or the ‘Newspapers & Media’ category. Access conditions to these databases vary, with some freely available from home, others requiring a National Library login or can only be used onsite in the Library building.  

What research can I do with Trove? 

Simply search a name or place to explore newspaper articles, published material, documents, photographs, archived websites and much more in Trove . Newspapers may be particularly useful, often containing details such as births, deaths, marriages, social and local events and court appearances. Learn more about using Trove for family history .

Have a question along the way? 

One of our friendly librarians can offer you suggestions, research tips, resources and strategies through our Ask a Librarian service . Fill in our online enquiry form or contact us by phone. 

The National Library of Australia acknowledges Australia’s First Nations Peoples – the First Australians – as the Traditional Owners and Custodians of this land and gives respect to the Elders – past and present – and through them to all Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Cultural Notification

Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are advised that this website contains a range of material which may be considered culturally sensitive including the records of people who have passed away.

Online Research Help

Online genealogy consultations.

Click the link below to schedule a free 20-minute genealogy consultation (40 minutes for DNA consultations) via Zoom with a research specialist. A research specialist can provide you with research guidance, methodology, and next steps for your genealogy.

FamilySearch Community Groups

The FamilySearch Community houses many free research groups for areas all over the world. Log into FamilySearch with your free account and join a research group to ask research questions, get document translations, and get insight from other researchers in the group.

Online Genealogy Research Groups

Online genealogy research groups are resources where individuals can post specific genealogical questions or translation requests regarding a country or region in the world. The research groups/communities consists of individuals who wish to collaborate and help one another find answers.

• Research Help

Navigation menu

Search learning & how-to's.

CCC Find Background Information

Ccc librarian.

And a single internet search will give "quick" access to a whole range of sources, but the drawback there is that you'll have to determine what kinds of sources they are all on your own.

So I offer the library resources below. Think of them as the chips and salsa of the research process. Sure, the main dish is more exciting, but who can pass up chips and salsa?

CREDO Search

Search for background and reference sources in Power Search

Once your search results appear, use the links at the top of the page to narrow by Result Type. Reference, Magazines, and News are all great for background research.

What about..., can i use wikipedia to do background research.

Absolutely. A decent first or second step in your research process might be to look at the Wikipedia page related to your topic. What you shouldn't do is use Wikipedia as a source in your paper. Instead, find the source the Wikipedia editors used (hot tip: they're linked and listed at the bottom of every Wikipedia page!) and use that one instead.

• Last Updated: Aug 16, 2024 10:06 AM
• URL: https://libraryguides.nau.edu/c.php?g=1416269