Study Design and Outcomes for Multiple Strengthening Families Program Studies by Diverse Researchers 1984 – 2012:

Rural African American SFP 6-12 in Selma, Alabama (N=51 Families) (Kumpfer, Turner, & Palmer, 1991, final report)

(Kumpfer, Alvarado, Smith & Bellamy, 2002)

Comments:  This study suggested that SFP is effective in improving predictor variables for African American families.  In the first year, only drug abusing mothers in treatment were recruited, but in the last four years mothers were recruited from housing communities, special education classes, and churches.  Mothers not in treatment significantly reduced their alcohol and drug use after participation in SFP, possibly because of the reduced depression and stress.

Data Analysis Method and Results: Using a post-hoc statistical control group analysis an ANOVA compared results for families with little drug use with those with high drug use who had both completed SFP.

No or Low Substance Abuse Mothers:

• Children improved only on obsessive-compulsive behavior, aggression, and delinquency.
• Family organization improved

High Substance Abuse Mothers:

• Children improved global internalizing (depression, obsessive-compulsive, somatic complaints, social withdrawal, and schizoid) and externalizing (aggression, delinquency, and hyperactivity) scales and all CBCL scales (except the uncommunicative scale).
• Significant reductions in FES family conflict, increased organization.
• Significant reduction in parent drug use

Detroit’s Safe Haven Program, the Inner City SFP 6-11 for African American Drug abusing Fathers (Aktan, Kumpfer & Turner, 1996; Aktan, 1995; 1999)

Comments:  Both versions of SFP has significant positive effects on risk and protective factors for later drug use in the children and parents.  The culturally sensitive version of SFP did not improve outcomes, but it did significantly improve recruitment and retention of the families by about 40% from about 45% of families retained to about 85% of families retained.

Data Analysis Methods: Using a post-hoc quasi-experimental control analysis of variance (ANOVA), the following significant post-test change results were found in the two groups completing SFP or the total sample:

Results for Comparison Group of No or Low Drug-use Parents Completing SFP:

• Children reduced school problems, increased school bonding,
• Decreased family conflict, drug use.

Results for High Drug-use Parents:

•  Significantly decreased all externalizing problem behaviors (aggression, hyperactivity, and delinquency, school problems) and all internalizing problem behaviors (depression, lack of communication, obsessive compulsive tendencies, social withdrawal, and schizoid tendencies).
• Increased school bonding and child doing chores. Parents reduced depression, drug use, increased perceived parent efficacy, and time spent with child.

Total sample (N=56)

• Significantly improved family relationships (composite score), cohesion, and family conflict, but not expressiveness or organization, or control.
• Increased parent self-efficacy, parents helped more with homework, inc. time with child, inc. school bonding, reduced school problems

Decreased parent depression and drug use

Utah Community Youth Activity Project (CYAP) SFP  6-12 Multi-cultural Three County Study (Harrison, 1994; Harrison, Boyle, & Farley, 1997)

Comments:  The positive results of this study suggested that SFP could be successfully implemented widely in three counties and with fidelity through multiple ethnic family serving agencies. The five-year follow-up showed reductions in the strength of the positive results at the posttest, but there were still major improvements including 68% of families still doing at least one family meeting per month and 37% weekly. This continues the impact of SFP with families holding weekly sessions for problem solving, communications, rewards, and fun family events.

Significant improvements in the FES scales for family conflict and cohesion, parenting behaviors, and improvements in all the children’s CBCL subscales for behavioral and emotional status.

Five Year Follow-up SFP Results

• 97%-“catching their children being good”
• 99%-believed they were giving clear directions
• 95%-used reasonable consequences
• 84%-improved their problem solving with children
• 94%-enjoyed each other more
• 85% scheduled family play time regularly
• 68%-using family meetings monthly
• 37%-using family meetings weekly
• Lasting improvements in: family problems (78%), stress-conflict levels (75%), amount of family fun (62%), family talking together more (67%), and showing positive feelings (65%)

SFP 6-12 Hispanic version Denver Area Youth Services (DAYS)
(Wanberg & Nyholm, 1998 final report)
(Hernandez, L. & Lucero, E., 1996)

Comments:  The culturally adapted SFP 14-session version as implemented at DAYS has been very successful in recruiting and retaining 90% of participants from high-risk families recruited universally from housing communities and schools.  The outcomes show significant reductions in 90-day family and child alcohol and drug use, family risk factors, and improvements in the child and family adjustment.

Results:  At post-test and 6-mo follow-up sig. improvements for SFP universal families in:

• FES Family cohesion, conflict, expressiveness, and organization.
• General child adjustment
• General family adjustment
• Child Adjustment (3 mo.)

At post-test only sig. improvements in:

• Child school adjustment
• Child 90-day alcohol and drug use
• Family 90-day alcohol and drug use

Hernandez & Lucero (1996) report that 68% of the SFP parents became more active volunteers in their community, joining Parent-Teacher Associations, site-based committees, heading support groups, or becoming parent recruiters for SFP.

Strengthening Hawaii’s Families (SHF) (Kameoka, 1996)

Comments:  The longer culturally adapted SHF had greater drop-out  (45%) being 20 sessions long and the outcomes were stronger for family outcomes, but weaker for parent and child outcomes possibly because of cutting 4 SFP sessions.   Later a new SHF was developed to more closely follow the original 14 session SFP.

• Pre- post-test comparisons inc. all 71 families (both SHF versions) found significant improvements in family conflict, family cohesion, and family organization.
• Improved parenting attitudes and skills, reduced parent depression, less somatization, interpersonal difficulties, anxiety, and hostility.
• No significant improvements in children’s problem behaviors.
• Comparing to the no-TX group, the culturally modified version reduced family conflict, but increased children’s substance use by parent report.

Iowa’s Strengthening Families Program

SFP 10-14 (Molgaard, V.K., Spoth, R.L., and Redmond, C., 2000.  OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin, August 2000)

Comments:  Two NIDA and NIMH R01 RCT grants tested the efficacy of SFP 10-14 Years with universal low risk families in Iowa. The follow-up studies of up to 6 and 10 years have found ISFP to be very effective in reducing adolescent substance initiation and use. A cost-benefit analysis found a large cost-benefit ratio of $9.60/$1 spent (Spoth, Guyll, & Day, 2002). This 7-session SFP version for universal families of junior high school students was developed and implemented by Kumpfer, Molgaard, & Spoth (1996). However, the evaluation research has been conducted independently at Iowa State University.  Ten year follow-ups of SFP 10-14 to 22 year of age have resulted in two to three fold reductions in lifetime diagnosed mental health problems (depression, anxiety, phobias and personality disorders) (Trudeau & Spoth, 2005; Spoth, et al., 2005). Long-term outcomes were also positive for reduced methamphetamine use (Spoth, Clair, Shin, & Redmond, 2006).

2 Year Follow-up Study Results 

• Compared to control group, ISFP significantly reduced youth tobacco, alcohol, and drug use, conduct problems, school-related problems, affiliation with antisocial peers, inc. peer resistance.

• Significantly improved parenting behaviors (clarification of substance use rules and consequences, increased level of positive parent-child involvements), general child management (e.g., standard setting, monitoring, effective discipline) and parent-child affective quality (e.g., expressions of positive affect).

Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Benefit Study Results  (Spoth, Guyll & Day, 2002). These researchers compared SFP to Preparing for the Drug free Years and found a $9.60 cost-benefit ratio compared to $5.80 for PDFY.

Strengthening Families Program for Ojibway American Indian in Iowa (Witbeck & Smith, 2001)

• Significantly improved precursor risk and protective factors.

Project SAFE (Kumpfer, Alvarado, Tait, & Turner 2002)

Comments:  This study suggests that while both programs were effective, combining a compatible school-based social skills training program, I Can Problem Solve (ICPS) with SFP results in more statistically significant improvements in effect sizes over the no treatment control group and larger (additive) effect sizes.

Data Analysis Methods and Results: Compared  the four year longitudinal results for pre- to post-test and follow-up results using an ANCOVA analysis and d’ Effect Sizes for No TX Controls, significant improvements in Effect Sizes  were found for:

• ICPS Only – school bonding and self-regulation
• SFP plus ICPS – school bonding, parenting skills, social competence, family relationships, and self-regulation.
• SFP Parenting only plus ICPS – social competence and self-regulation. Negative effect of parenting only on family relationships if full SFP with child and family sessions not included.

NIDA Strengthening Washington, D.C. Families (Gottfredson, et al., 2006)

Comments:  This study suggests that SFP 6-12  is effective in Phase 4: Health Services Research when implemented widely with reasonable fidelity with universal families (primarily African American) from schools or housing communities.

Despite using an intent-to-treat design that included families that never attended SFP and lack of cultural adaptation for AA families as planned, SFP improved all 11 predictor outcome variables, including child antisocial behavior, hyperactivity, consistency of discipline, and family cohesion) with medium effect sizes; however, sig. increases in the MT group in these four outcomes resulted in statistically sig. differences in only 7 of the 11 outcome variables;

• Child school progress,
• Child social skills
• Child sociability
• Parenting confidence
• Parent depression
• Family organization
• Family conflict

Strengthening Dutch Families (SFP 13-17 Years) (Onrust & Bool, 2006)

Comments:  This was an independent evaluation of a Dutch cultural adaptation of SFP 12-16 by the Trimbos Institute for youth in residential drug treatment in multiple sites in Netherlands.

Results. SFP improved all 18 predictor outcome variables, including all 6 parenting variables, 6 family outcomes, 9 child outcomes including child depression, social skills, overt and covert aggression with medium to large effect sizes.

Strengthening Canadian Families Program 6-11 Years (Maguin, et al. submitted)

Comments: An independent NIAAA-funded RCT of the Canadian adaptation of SFP 6-11  produced positive results among alcoholic parents and their 6-11 year old children (Maguin, et al., submitted; DeWit, et al., submitted).

Results. SFP improved all 21 predictor outcome variables, including all 6 parenting variables, 6 family outcomes, 9 child outcomes including child depression, social skills, overt and covert aggression with medium to large effect sizes;

Strengthening Spanish Families Program (SFP 6-11 Years) (Orte, et al., 2007 a & b).

Comments: The independent research on this Spanish adaptation was funded by the Spanish and Balear government to the University of Balearic Islands. The quasi-experimental results suggest positive results among drug addicted parents and their 8-12 years old children with large effect sizes similar to other studies.

Results. SFP improved all 18 predictor outcome variables, including all 6 parenting variables, 6 family outcomes, 9 child outcomes including child depression, social skills, overt and covert aggression with medium to large effect sizes.

Strengthening Irish Families SFP 12 to 16 Years (Kumpfer, Xie, & O’Driscoll, 2012),,

SFP 12-16 Years being implemented in most counties in Ireland by teams in coalitions of youth probation services, drug task forces, schools, family and youth services, and the garda. They have a National Ireland SFP Council to assure quality and fidelity.

Results. For 250 families of indicated youth compared to SFP norms, found SFP significantly  improved all 21 predictor outcome variables, including all 6 parenting variables, 6 family outcomes, 9 child outcomes including child depression, social skills, overt and covert aggression with medium to large effect sizes that were larger than those for US agencies;

A Mahoney, et al. (2014) analysis of 350 Irish participants found SFP was as effective for girls as for boys.

Strengthening UK Families (SFP 10-14 Years) (Allen, Coombs & Foxcroft, 2006).

Results. Not released yet. Only the cultural adaptations published.

Strengthening New Jersey Families (SFP 3-17 Years) 

Comments: New comparisons of the shorter 7-session SFP 10-14 to the longer 14- session SFP 3-17 for higher risk families using the same populations and instruments found the longer version produced considerably larger outcome effect sizes (Kumpfer, Ahearn-Green, Cofrin, & Whiteside, 2007, 2011).

Results. SFP improved all 21 predictor outcome variables, including all 6 parenting variables, 6 family outcomes, 9 child outcomes including child depression, social skills, overt and covert aggression with medium to large effect sizes;

REFERENCES on SFP Outcome Research (all age and risk level SFP variants)

A., Miller, B. A., Husson, G., Byrnes, H. F., Bauman, K. E., & Spoth, R. L. (2012). Implementation of adolescent family-based substance use prevention programmes in health care settings: Comparisons across conditions and programmes.  Health Education Journal, 71(1), 53-61. doi:10.1177/0017896910386209.

Aktan, G., Kumpfer, K. & Turner, C. (1996).  The Safe Haven Program: Effectiveness of a family skills training program for substance abuse prevention with inner city African American families.  International Journal of the Addictions, 31, 158-175.

Allen, D., Coombs, L., & Foxcroft, D. (2006). Cultural accommodation of the Strengthening Families Programme 10-14:  UK Phase I study. Health Education Research, 22, 4, 547-560.

Alvarado, R. & Kumpfer, K.L. (2000).  Strengthening America’s Families. In Garry, E. (Guest Ed.) Strengthening Families and Empowering Parents. Journal of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 7 (3), 8-18.

Ashery, R.S.; Robertson, E.B.; and Kumpfer K.L..(eds). Drug Abuse Prevention Through Family Interventions. NIDA Research Monograph No. 177. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1998

.Brody, G. H., Beach, S. R. H., Philibert, R. A., Chen, Y.-f., & Murry, V. M. (2009a). Prevention effects moderate the association of 5-HTTLPR and youth risk behavior initiation: Gene × environment hypotheses tested via a randomized prevention design. Child Development, 80(3), 645-661.

Brody, G. H., Beach, S. R. H., Philibert, R. A., Chen, Y.-f., Lei, M.-K., Murry, V. M., & Brown, A. C. (2009b). Parenting moderates a genetic vulnerability factor in longitudinal increases in youths’ substance use. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(1), 1-11.

Brody, G. H., Chen, Y.-f., Kogan, S. M., Murry, V. M., & Brown, A. C. (2010). Long-term effects of the Strong African American Families program on youths’ alcohol use. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78(2), 281-285.

Brody, G. H., Chen, Y.-f., Kogan, S. M., Yu, T., Molgaard, V. K., DiClemente, R. J., & Wingood, G. M. (2012). Family-centered program to prevent substance use, conduct problems, and depressive symptoms in Black adolescents. Pediatrics, 129(1), 108-115.

Brody, G. H., Chen, Y-f., Beach, S. R. H., Kogan, S. M., Yu, T., DiClemente, R. J., & et al. (2013). Differential sensitivity to prevention programming: a dopaminergic polymorphism-enhanced prevention effect on protective parenting and adolescent substance use. Health Psychology,. doi: 10.1037/a0031253.

Broening, S, Kumpfer, K L., et al., (2012). Prevention programs for children from substance-affected families: a systematic review, Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy.

Brook, J., McDonald, T. P., & Yan, Y. (2012).  An analysis of the impact of the Strengthening Families Program on family reunification in child welfare.  Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 691-695.

DeMarsh, J. P., & Kumpfer. K. L. (1985).  Family-oriented interventions for the prevention of chemical dependency in children and adolescence, Journal of Children in Contemporary Society: Advances in Theory and Applied Research, 18 (122), 117-151.

Fox, D.P., Gottfredson, D., Kumpfer, K., & Beatty, P. (2004). Challenges in disseminating model programs:  A qualitative analysis of the Strengthening WDC Families Project. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 7 (3), 165-176.  [PMID: 15645706]

Gottfredson, D., Kumpfer, K.L., Polizzi-Fox, D., Wilson, D., Puryear, V, Beatty, P., & Vilmenay, M. (2006). Strengthening Washington, D.C. Families Project:  A randomized effectiveness trial of family-based prevention, Prevention Science, 7(1), 57-74.  [PMID: 16555144]

Guyll, M., Spoth, R. L., Crowley, D. M. (2011). An economic analysis of methamphetamine prevention effects and employer costs. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 72, 577-585. PMID: 21683039 

Harrison, S., Boyle, S.W., & Farley, O.W. (1999). Evaluating the outcomes of a family-based intervention for troubled children:  A pretest-posttest study. Research on Social Work Practice, 9 (6), 640-655.

Hernandez, L., & Lucero, E. (1996). DAYS La Familia Community Drug and Alcohol Prevention Program: Family-Centered Model for Working with Inner-City Hispanic Families.  The Journal of Primary Prevention, 16 (3), 255-272.

Holleran Steiker, L.K., Castro, F. G., Kumpfer, K., L., Marsiglia, F. F., Coard, S. & Hopson, L. M. (2008).  A dialogue regarding cultural adaptation of interventions. Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions, 8(1), 154-162.

Kameoka, V. A. (1996).  The effects of a family-focused intervention on reducing risk for substance abuse among Asian and Pacific-Islander youths and families.   Evaluation of the Strengthening Hawaii’s Families Project. Social Welfare Evaluation and Research Unit, School of Social Work, University of Hawaii. (1991-1995).

Kameoka, V.A. (1996). Psychometric evaluation of measures for assessing the effectiveness of a family-focused substance abuse prevention intervention among Pacific Island families and children.  Cultural Competence Series, Responding to Pacific Islanders: Culturally Competent Perspectives for Substance Abuse Prevention,  CSAP/HRSA Special Collaborative Edition #8.

Kumpfer, K. L (2008). Prevention.  In P.Korsmeyer & H. Kranzler (Eds) Encyclopedia of Drugs, Alcohol & Addictive Behavior, 3rd ed. McMillian Publishing, New York: New York, pp 77-85.

Kumpfer, K. L. (2010). Meta-analysis of family–focused tobacco prevention, Chapter 6, In B. Flay, Efforts to Prevent Tobacco Use Among Young People. U. S. Surgeon General’s Report, Rockville, MD. .

K Kumpfer, K. L. (2013). Family-based interventions for the prevention of substance abuse and other impulse control disorders in girls. Invited Spotlight Article, ISRN Addiction, Hindawi Publishing.

Kumpfer, K. L., & Alvarado, R. (1995).  Strengthening families to prevent drug use in multi-ethnic youth.  In G. Botvin, S. Schinke, & M. Orlandi (Eds.), Drug Abuse Prevention with Multi-Ethnic Youth (pp. 255-294).  Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kumpfer, K. L. & Brooks, J. (2010). Family Nurturing Programs, In. B.S. Fisher and S.P. Lab & (Eds) Encyclopedia of Victimology and Crime Prevention, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Kumpfer, K. L., & DeMarsh, J. P. (1985).  Family Environmental and Genetic Influences on Children’s Future Chemical Dependency,  Journal of Children in Contemporary Society:  Advances in Theory and Applied Research, 18 (1-2), 49-91.

Kumpfer, K.L. & DeMarsh, J.P. (1985). Prevention of chemical dependency in children of alcohol and drug abusers. NIDA Notes, 5, 2-3.

Kumpfer, K.L. & Fowler, M. (2007). Parenting skills and family support programs for drug abusing mothers. Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, 163, 1–9.

Kumpfer K.L. & Hansen, W. (2014). Family based adolescent drug prevention. Ch. 8 in Scheier, L. & Hansen, W..(Eds.) Parenting and Teen Drug Use, Oxford University Press.

Kumpfer, K. L. & Johnson, J. (2007). Strengthening family interventions for the prevention of substance abuse in children of addicted parents, Adicciones, 11 (1), 1 – 13.

Kumpfer, K.L., & Johnson, J.L. (2011). Enhancing positive outcomes for children of substance-abusing parents, In B. A. Johnson (Ed.).Addiction Medicine: Science and Practice, Springer Verlag Publisher., pp 30-50.

Kumpfer, K.L., & Smith. P. (2010). Prevention Methods: School, Family, Community, Media and Public Policy Approaches.  Ch. 5 in N. S. Miller and M.S. Gold (Eds.) Addiction in Medical Populations,

Kumpfer, K. L., & Tala K. (UNODC, 2009). Guide to Implementing Family Skills Training Programmes for Drug Abuse Prevention, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime–Vienna, UN: New York, New York.  pp 1-52.

Kumpfer, K.L., Alvarado, R., & Turner, C. (2003).  Potential Sources of Type II Errors in the Strengthening Families Program.  Poster session at Society for Prevention Research conference Washington, D.C.

Kumpfer, K. L., Fenollar, J. & Jubani, C. (2013). An effective family skills-based intervention for the prevention of health problems in children of alcohol and drug-abusing parents In Pedagojia Social, Revisita Interuniversitarie

Kumpfer, K. L. (2008). Why are there no effective child abuse prevention parenting interventions?  Substance Use and Misuse, 43 (9), 1262-1265,

Kumpfer, K.L., Molgaard, V., & Spoth (1996).  The Strengthening Families Program for the Prevention of Delinquency and Drug Use.  In R.Peters, R. D. and R. J. McMahon, Eds. (1996). Preventing childhood disorders, substance abuse, and delinquency. Banff international behavioral science series, Vol. 3. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications, Inc.

Kumpfer, K. L., Magalhães, C., & Xie, J. (2011). Cultural adaptations of evidence-based family interventions to strengthen families and improve children’s developmental outcomes. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9 (1), 104-116.

Kumpfer, K. L., Xie, J., & O’Driscoll, R. (2011). Effectiveness of a culturally adapted Strengthening Families Program 12–16 Years for high-risk Irish families. Child and Youth Care Forum, 41 (2), 173-195.

Kumpfer, K.L., Xie, J. & O’Driscoll, R. (2012).  Effectiveness of a culturally adapted Strengthening Families Program 12-16 Years for high risk Irish families. Child and Youth Care Forum, 39 (1), Sage Publications, LA, CA. (DOI) 10.1007/s10566-011-9168-0

Kumpfer, K.L., Alvarado, R., Tait, C., & Turner, C. (2002).  Effectiveness of school-based family and children’s skills training for substance abuse prevention among 6-8-year-old rural children.  Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 16 (4S): S65-S71.

Kumpfer, K.L., Alvarado, R., Whiteside, H.O., & Tait, C. (2005). The Strengthening Families Program (SFP):  An evidence-based, multi-cultural family skills training program.  J. Szapocznik, P. Tolan, & S. Sambrano, (Eds.), In Preventing Substance Abuse, (pp. 3-14). Washington, D.C., American Psychological Association Books.

Kumpfer, K. L., Ahearn Green, J., Cofrin, K. & Whiteside, H. (2007). Three Year Evaluation of the New Jersey Strengthening Families Program, LutraGroup, Salt Lake City, Utah

Kumpfer, K. L., Alvarado, R., Smith, P. & Bellamy, N. (2002).  Cultural sensitivity in universal family-based prevention interventions.  Prevention Science, 3, 3, 241-244

Kumpfer, K.L., Kanse, S., Brown, J., Xie, J.,  & Fenollar, J. (in prep). Effectiveness of the Strengthening Families Program 7 to 17 Years Family Group and Home Use DVD Versions compared to the evidence-based SFP 12-16 Years group outcomes.

Kumpfer, K. L., Pinyuchon, M., de Melo, A., & Whiteside, H. (2008). Cultural adaptation process for international dissemination of the Strengthening Families Program (SFP).  Evaluation and Health Professions. 33 (2), 226-239.

Kumpfer, K.L., Whiteside, H. O., Greene J. A., & Allen, K.C. (2011). Effectiveness outcomes of four age versions of the Strengthening Families Program in statewide field sites. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 14(3), 211-229.

Kumpfer, K.L.; Olds, D.L; Alexander, J.F.; Zucker, R.A.; and Gary, L.E. (1998). Family etiology of youth problems. In: Ashery, R.S.; Robertson, E.B.; and Kumpfer K.L.; eds. Drug Abuse Prevention Through Family Interventions. NIDA Research Monograph No. 177. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, pp. 42–77, 1998

Maguine, E, Nochajski, T., Dewit, D., McDonald, S, Safyer, A., & Kumpfer, K.L. (Manuscript submitted for publication). The Strengthening Families Program (SFP  6-11 Years) and children of alcoholic’s families: Effects on parenting and child externalizing behaviors, American Psychology Quarterly.

Miller, B. A., Aalborg, A. E., Byrnes, H. F., Bauman, K., & Spoth, R. (2012). Parent and child characteristics related to chosen adolescent alcohol and drug prevention program. Health Education Research, 27(1), 1-13. doi:10.1093/her/cyr109 PMID: 22156235

Molgaard, V.K., Spoth, R.L., and Redmond, C. (2000). Competency Training, The Strengthening Families Program: For Parents and Youth 10-14. OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin.

Onrust, S. & Bool, M. (2006). Evaluation of the Cursus Gezin aan Bod: The Dutch adaptation of the  Strengthening Families Program  (SFP 12-16), Trimbos Institute, Utrecht, Netherland.

Orte, C., March, M., Ballester, L., & Touza, C. (2007a).  Results of a family competence program adapted for Spanish drug abusing parents (2005-2006).  Poster Presentation at 15th Annual Conference of the Society for Prevention Research, Washington, D.C (May 2007).

Orte, C., Fernández, C., Pascual, C. (2007b). La implicación de los agentse sociales en los programas de intervención socioeducativa con familias. In, Educación social, animación sociocultural y desarrollo comunitario. (pp. 1075-1086). Vigo. Spain (ISBN 978-84-8158-349-6).

Park, M. & Kumpfer, K. L. (2005). Characteristics of health educators contributing of improved outcomes in a family intervention—SFP 6 to 12 Years. Dissertation, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Safyer, A., Kumpfer, K., Maguin, E., Nochajski, T., Dewit, D., & Macdonald, S., (in review). Impact of a Family-Based Intervention for Children of Alcoholics on Family Functioning, Research on Social Work Practice

Spoth, R. & Molgaard, V. (1999). Project Family: A partnership integrating research with the practice of promoting family and youth competencies.  In T.R. Chibucos & R. Lerner (Eds.), Serving children and families through community-university partnerships: Success stories (pp.127-137).  Boston: Kluwer Academic.

Spoth, R. &  Redmond, C. (2000). Research on family engagement in preventive interventions: Toward improved use of scientific findings in primary prevention practice. Journal of Primary Prevention.;21:267–284.

Spoth, R. Redmond, C., & Shin, C. (2000). Modeling factors influencing enrollment in family-focused preventive intervention research. Prevention Science, 1, 213-225.

Spoth, R., Clair, S., Shin, C., & Redmond, C. (2006). Long-term effects of universal preventive interventions on methamphetamine use among adolescents. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 160 , 876-882.

Spoth, R., Guyll, M., & Day, S. (2002). Universal family-focused interventions in alcohol-use disorder prevention: cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses of two interventions.  Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63, (2), 219-228.

Spoth, R., Guyll, M., & Shin, C. (2009). Universal intervention as a protective shield against exposure to substance use: Long-term outcomes and public health significance. American Journal of Public Health, 99(11), 2026-2033

Spoth, R., Randall, G. K., Trudeau, L., Shin, C., & Redmond, C. (2008). Substance-related outcomes of universal family-and school-based interventions 5½ years past baseline. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 96, 57-68

Spoth, R., Redmond, C., Mason, A., Kosterman, R., Haggerty, K., & Hawkins, J. D. (2005, May). Ten-year follow-up assessment of brief, family-focused intervention effects on lifetime conduct and antisocial personality disorders: Preliminary results. Poster presented at the Society for Prevention Research 13th Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C. (PRS 186).

Spoth, R., Redmond, C., Trudeau, L., & Shin, C. (2002). Longitudinal substance initiation outcomes for a universal preventive intervention combining family and school programs. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 16 (2), 129-134.

Spoth, R., Trudeau, L., Guyll. M., & Shin, C. (In press). Benefits of universal intervention effects on a youth protective shield 10 years after baseline.  Journal of Adolescent Health. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.06.010 NIHMSID 308231

Spoth, R., Yoo, S., Kahn, J., & Redmond, C., (1996). A model of the effects of protective parent and peer factors on young adolescent alcohol refusal skills. Journal of Primary Prevention, 21 (2), 267-284.

Spoth, R., Redmond, C., Shin, C. & Azevedo, K. (2004). Brief family intervention effects on adolescent substance initiation: School-level growth curve analyses 6 years following baseline. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 72 (3), 762-779.

Spoth, R., Redmond, C., Mason, A., Kosterman, R., Haggerty, K., & Hawkins, D. (2005). Ten-year follow-up assessment of brief, family-focused intervention effects on lifetime conduct and antisocial personality disorders: Preliminary results. Poster presented at 13th annual Society for Prevention Research conference, Washington, D.C. May 26, 2005.

Whitbeck, L., & Smith, J. (2001).  The Strengthening Families Program for Ojibwa Indian Families. Paper at Society for Prevention Research conference, Washington, D.C.