4.2 Article

Evaluating Aboriginal empowerment programs: the case of Family WellBeing

Journal

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-842X.2000.tb00501.x

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of a Family WellBeing empowerment course. Method: A range of methods were used, including: theory-driven analysis of literature and project documentation; participant observation; and analysis of course participants' personal narratives against set empowerment criteria. Results: Participation in the Family WellBeing course resulted in high levels of personal empowerment. The course enhanced participants' sense of self-worth, resilience, ability to reflect on root causes of problems and problem-solving ability, as well as belief in the mutability of the social environment. They were able to bring about modest, but significant, improvements in their general sense of wellbeing and those of the people around them in ways that were previously impossible. There was no evidence of organisational and community empowerment, such as stronger social networks and systems-level changes. Discussion: The effectiveness of the Family WellBeing course shows the importance of resourcing Aboriginal people to develop their own programs that address trauma and other issues resulting from settler colonisation. Conclusions The study highlights three lessons for the use of empowerment interventions to improve health conditions, particularly among socially disadvantaged groups: 1) A need to adopt an ecological approach that simultaneously addresses empowerment at multiple settings or levels. 2) A need to ensure that such programs reach a critical mass of the target group. 3) Policy-makers and practitioners need to take a longer-term approach to empowerment interventions, including properly resourced longitudinal studies to document and enhance the evidence base for such interventions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available