Connard and Novick (1996) seeks to provide a comprehensive approach to providing services to families.

Based on philosophical principles, the ecological model analyzes family dynamics through interactions between the family, children, and their environmental surroundings. The Family-Centered Approach is explained as a half-full cup approach that aims to promote the strengths families already have (Conrad & Novick, 1996). By introducing key concepts such as the family as a system, family ecology, environmental impacts on development, and a goodness of the fit model, the author makes several suggestions to parent education. The authors provides a highly useful, systematic approach to analyzing how families function and interact with their surrounding communities. For example, the systems theory states that there is strong interdependence between children and their families. They are not mutually exclusive entities that can be understood in isolation. Rather, a family is more than the sum of its parts (Connard & Novick, 1996). The systems theory goes on to argue that there should also be equifinity in an analysis of a family. That is, there are many paths to healthy development and there is no one-best-way to raise children (Stafford & Bayer, 1993). These guiding principles seem to provide a strong, adaptive structure for delivering services to families of various backgrounds. The authors approach repeatedly stresses that development is affected by the setting or environment in which it occurs. The strength in the model stems from a multi-faceted analysis of environmental interactions. They highlight that ecology does not simply refer to family ecology or child ecology. Instead, it includes many elements such as: family, informal social networks, community professionals and organizations, and society as a whole. Yerby, Buerkel-

Rothfus, and Bochner (1990) go on to argue that behavior is a complex interaction of factors because no one person or thing can be realistically identified as the cause of a problem. By taking all factors into consideration, it is clear that a familys environment tends to interact with people in a complex chain of reactions that cannot be simply explained. While the authors ecological model has strengths in adaptability and comprehensiveness, I find that her developmental trajectory theory may contain some weaknesses. Connard and Novick provide examples of what a risk factor and protective factor may be (e.g. poverty may be a risk factor while nurturing caregivers may be a protective factor), but do not offer any detailed explanation on the magnitude of risk and protective factors. Without an understanding of magnitude, it is hard to make comparisons of risk and protective factors. Alternatively, are there any implications of what might happen in a case where risk and protective factors are perfectly offset by each other? Furthermore, the Family-Centered Approach states that it rejects the treatment model in favor of blending the prevention and promotion models (Connard & Novick 1996). The lack of treatment seems to limit the usefulness and generalizability of the approach. While this approach seems to be more proactive, some families would not be able to benefit from a model that cannot help them with their existing dysfunctions. Word Count: 496 Christina Chen #23410095 Connard, C., & Novick, R. (1996). The ecology of the family. a background paper for a familycentered approach to education and social service delivery. Northwest Regional Education Laboratory Program Report, 1-21.