R E E X A M I N I N G MODELS OF HEALTHY
FAMILIES
Charlotte W i l b u r n McCoy
ABSTRACT" This paper presents the perceptions of members of an
alternative family form concerning the strengths of their family type,
the functions of family, family models, and traits of a healthy families
in general. The concepts presented are the product of a qualitative
research study of shared home families.
KEY WORDS: Nontraditional families; alternative families; traits of healthy families;
shared home families; biologically unrelated families.
Historically family research literature concerning healthy, well
functioning families has been based upon studies of predominantly
Anglo American, middle- to upper-middle class, Protestant, biologically intact families, or the opinions of predominantly Anglo American, middle- and upper-class professionals (Kellam, Ensminger, &
Turner, 1977; H a r e v e n & Adams, 1982; Walsh, 1982, 1993;
Fitzpatrick, 1984: Anderson & White, 1986; Jorgenson, 1989: Stacey,
1990; Patterson, 1990; Wescott & Dries, 1990; Marciano, 1991; Smith,
1991; Brinker, 1992). Such family types represent the traditional
American prototype which has been the focus of news media coverage,
movies, and literature which romanticize this ideal family type and
present information of its demise or breakdown (Aldous, 1991; Walsh,
1993). Examples of such studies include Curran's (1983) Traits of a
Healthy Family, among others.
There is a need in the field of family studies and family therapy
to reexamine the base upon which the models of healthy, well funcCharlotte Wilburn McCoy, MEd, PhD, is a therapist and criminal justice system
liaison person for a domestic violence agency, The Family Place, 5477 Glen Lakes,
Suite 204, Dallas, TX 75231.
Contemporary Family Therapy, 18(2), June 1996
9 1996Human SciencesPress, Inc.
243
244
CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY
tioning families have been founded. Braverman (1990) made a plea
for a radical shift in the way professionals think and the way they
define what is at the center of their intellectual systems--the center
of what defines their therapeutic theories, frameworks, and strategies. According to the 1993 Statistical Abstract of the United States
(US Bureau of the Census, p. 61), there are 67,173,000 families in the
nation, only 19,253,000 of which represent biologically intact families
(p. 62). These intact families represent different races, religions, and
lower income levels. Those families which get less attention in research concerning healthy families are low income level families,
blended families, single parent families, homosexual families, cohabitating families, reconstituted families, families without children,
grandparent and grandchildren families, and other alternative family
types.
P U R P O S E OF THE S T U D Y
The purpose of this descriptive and qualitative study was to explore the perspectives of members of alternative families concerning
their lifestyle, traits of healthy families, models of families, and the
functions of families, and to enter the shared home perspectives into
family science literature which historically has eliminated nontraditional families in studies concerning healthy, well functioning families.
SAMPLE
The sample included 20 shared home families--52 adults and 26
children--representing a combined alternative family type living in
shared housing projects or private shared homes in three large metropolitan cities, one each in California, Florida, and Texas. Shared
home families represent different combinations. Agency group homes
may consist of single parent families or elderly couples living with
single parent families. The Texas participants represented completely
homeless people living in agency owned group homes. Private home
share may include single individuals, couples, single parent families,
or combinations of the three.
245
CHARLOTTE WILBURN MCCOY
METHOD
Using an unstructured interview format, the researcher focused
on the families' efforts to interpret their situations, construct their
perceptions and relationships, devise their own patterns of interaction, and create their own meanings. The phenomenological approach
and research method were used for the design and analysis of videotaped interviews. The interview videotapes were transcribed as soon
after the interviews as possible, the transcriptions were checked for
accuracy and used for data analysis, and the transcripts phenomenologically reported as accurately as possible. Demographic data were
obtained by having the participants complete a facesheet at the end of
the interview.
RESULTS
The results indicated that members of nontraditional families
have valuable concepts concerning healthy family life. Shared home
families were found to be primarily based upon an economic need.
The families did not present the traditional structural hierarchy typical of nuclear biologically intact families. Shared home family members demonstrated a commitment to ethical living and valued such
traits of healthy families as open communication, help and support,
sharing activities, and recognizing members as being unique. The
most important function of the family, according to the shared home
participants, was the teaching and guiding of children. Participants'
concepts of healthy family life and the functions of family were compared with existing family literature to determine similarities and
differences. For each research site lists were compiled to reflect the
respondents' concepts of the strengths of their shared home situation,
what they would consider to be a healthy family, what model they
had in mind, and what they considered to be the functions of family.
THE TOTAL P I C T U R E : C O M P I L I N G R E S P O N S E S
Presented here are the comprehensive lists of strengths, traits of
healthy families, and functions representing all three sites. The lists
show concepts shared by all three sites. The items are given in the
246
CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY
order of frequency of mention with the most frequently mentioned
listed first.
Strengths
1. Housing
2. Shared Sense of Commitment and Responsibility
3. Shared Activities, Traditions, Goals, and Work
4. Help and Support
5. Protection
6. Independence
7. Safety and Trust
8. Companionship
9. Sense of Shared Situation
10. Opportunity for Personal Growth
11. Being Separate and Connected
12. Fairness
13. Humor
14. Respect
15. Children Interact with Others
16. Reflect Change and Real Relationships
17. Practice Religious Values
Traits of a Healthy Family
1. Family members help and support one another.
2. The home is a comfortable and safe place; there is a relaxed
atmosphere and lots of humor.
3. Open communication is essential.
4. Everyone is allowed their own opinions and feelings, and recognized as being unique.
5. Family members validate and affirm one another, show love
and caring.
6. Family members do things together, share activities.
7. Family members show respect and consideration.
8. Everyone cooperates with work.
9. Adults model problem solving.
10. The family changes with society and reflects what is real.
Functions of Family
1. To teach children and instill values.
2. To provide help and support.
247
CHARLOTTE WILBURN MCCOY
3. To establish security, a family core to which all can belong,
and to make members feel that they do belong.
4. To provide necessities.
5. To improve the future.
6. To provide time for all family members to grow.
CHARACTERISTICS OF SHARED HOME FAMILIES
D I F F E R E N T FROM EXISTING FAMILY LITERATURE
Participants at each site described the strengths of their shared
home family life and how they managed their lives from morning until night. Certain characteristics of shared home family living are distinctly different from characteristics of families described in most of
the family literature of the past.
A Difference in Context: Lack of a Romantic Basis
Shared home family members are an exception to the usual romantic pattern. The ideal t h a t people should begin relationships
through the romantic phase is very prevalent in the United States,
and most traditional families begin with an attraction of some type,
usually a romantic attraction, between a male and a female. The
shared home families in this study represent nontraditional families
which were created predominantly out of an economical need, a need
for a basic component of life--shelter. Acquiring a place to live was
the top priority.
Commitment to Safety
Shared home members value commitment to simple rules of ethical living. Homeless individuals spoke of the advantages of shared
living in being able to sleep at night, not worrying about intruders or
the abuse connected with drug addiction. Participants who were not
homeless and who represented higher income levels spoke of the
same sense of safety. All referred to the importance of feeling safe to
express their opinion, the lack of the feeling one had to "stuff' their
feelings, or the lack of the feeling one had to "walk on pins and needles to avoid setting some sorehead off." Many of the participants referred to previous traditional families of which they had been a part
as lacking that basic element of safety and their dedication to establishing it. Many responses referred to the family creating a safe and
248
CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY
comfortable place, a relaxed atmosphere where humor abounds. The
shared home members discuss this safety need among themselves by
setting house rules and insisting that all rules are followed (e.g., no
alcohol or drug use, not allowing strangers to enter the home, dedication to open communication, house meetings, and basic consideration
among the members).
Companionship
There were participants who owned their homes that did not
need to acquire housing, but were interested in companionship. The
desire for companionship resembles the romantic element; however,
according to the participants of the study who mentioned companionship, romance was not the basis of the need but more the evasion of
loneliness. For some participants, those who were friends previously
and decided to share their dwelling, the friendship was not a romantic at any time, and still there was a business base to the relationship
in that the friends saw an opportunity to share housing, save money,
and divide responsibilities concerning the upkeep of the home. Examples of this type of situation include the following statement:
One of the things that attracted me to this shared housing
was that I'd be with other women who were not with men in
their lives, without drugs and alcohol. I thought I could be
me, fit in, and I would also have support and not feel alone.
There are other women who are doing what I'm doing. I've
had friends say to me "Why don't you just get a boyfriend?"
That made me sick. I'm more important than to get someone
to take care of me. That brought me back to that stereotype
in the kind of w a y my mother was. But here there are women
doing j u s t w h a t I'm doing, and there is support in that.
Absence of Traditional Structural Hierarchy
Proponents of structural theory would not see the traditional parental and child subsystems in shared home families. Guidelines for
daily living were established by adults, b u t those adults might have
been the agency staff members overseeing agency owned homes such
as the California single parent shared homes. Or the adults might
have been biologically unrelated individuals sharing a home not overseen by any outside source. In all of the situations, no one individual
249
CHARLOTTE WILBURN MCCOY
or set of individuals had any more power than the others. Rules of
living were mutually agreed upon and carried out with what appeared to be a minimum of effort and very little, if any, friction. An
example of this situation would be the three single male participants
living together in a California shared home which was privately
owned. The renting of the home was contracted through the shared
home agency, but the men were not involved in the agency's self-sufficiency program and determined their own guidelines for daily living.
Another interesting example involved individuals who owned the
home being shared. Home owner participants in this study did not set
themselves up as the authoritative head of the house. In one Florida
shared home a single parent female and her child lived in the home of
a single female. The home owner had this to say about sharing:
We used to try to keep our food separate, but that was uncomfortable. Now whatever is in there is for everybody.
Adults in shared home families appeared to establish equalitarian relationships. Single parents did not appear to expect any
type of assistance with their children; however, an offering of assistance often occurred. Single individuals living with single parents
spoke of being flattered when single parents asked for their opinion
regarding an issue involving a child. A 63-year-old male in Florida
shared his home with a single parent female, age 19, and her infant.
Although he was certainly not required by any shared home rules to
be involved with the infant and the single parent female made no
demands upon the home owner, the man felt involved and explained
his feelings in the following manner:
What's important right now is [the infant's] health. I've held
her and I'm very concerned and involved. Nothing is more
important than her chance to grow up strong and healthy.
S H A R E D H O M E M E M B E R ' S C O N C E P T S OF H E A L T H Y
F A M I L I E S D I F F E R E N T F R O M THE FAMILY
LITERATURE
Participants were asked to describe what a healthy family would
be like and what a healthy family would not be like. The process and
250
CONTEMPORARYFAMILYTHERAPY
the concepts related revealed two major differences from the existing
family literature.
No Scales, No Instruments, No Ratings
The most important difference that can be highlighted concerning the characteristics of healthy families identified by the research
participants is that those characteristics were created by the participants themselves. There were no judgments by family science professionals. No scales were used, there were no professionals who rated
the families. The majority of the shared family participants judged
themselves to be healthy according to the lists they created.
Curran's Traits of a Healthy Family
Curran (1983) stated that she did not use poverty level families
in listing traits of a healthy family due to the advice of her professors,
specifically because at a certain level of income needs become the
most important thing rather than strengths (p. 23). Of Curran's 15
traits, the following were valued more highly among the poverty level
families of the present study than families of higher income levels
represented in the same study:
3. teaches respect for others
4. Develops a sense of trust.
8. Has a strong sense of family in which rituals and traditions
abound.
10. Has a shared religious core.
12. values service to others
13. Fosters family table time and conversation.
14. Shares leisure time.
S H A R E D H O M E M E M B E R ' S C O N C E P T S OF HEALTHY
FAMILIES SIMILAR TO THE FAMILY LITERATURE
In their descriptions of healthy families, shared home family
members revealed concepts which were similar to existing family literature.
251
CHARLOTTE WILBURN MCCOY
Help and Support
Experiential therapists describe the normal family as one in
which members are mutually supportive and in which individual
growth is fostered. The characteristic which was of the greatest importance to the participants when describing a healthy family was
help and support. The behaviors described by the participants as indicating help and support included a sense that someone would be
available in times of need and the action taken by family members to
assist others in the family who needed help.
One 79-year-old participant from Florida explained it this way:
"People have to let each other know that come hell or high water
they're gonna be there through thick or thin." Texas participants also
valued support and help. One 62-year-old participant defined support
as giving encouragement:
People would support each other. Like if a boy wants to play
baseball, everybody'd give him some good words like "You
can do it." Or maybe if a daughter wants to go to college and
maybe there ain't no money but the family can pump her up
and say there's a way.
Open Communication
The California participants highly valued open communication.
This characteristic was mentioned by all of the participants at least
once during the interviews. An example follows:
Accepting someone's opinion, and they accept yours. To me
that's part of open communication which would have to be in
a healthy family. Telling how you feel if something is bothering you. Being honest with your feelings. A family would allow that.
RELATIONAL ETHICS
Boszormenyi-Nagy (1981) described the healthy family as one in
which ethical accountability exists. Good family relationships involve
a balancing of give and take among members, considering each
others' welfare and interests, exhibiting loyalty, and earning merit by
supporting one another. The research participants in this study val-
252
CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY
ued and strove for the establishment of trust and safety through personal responsibility, displayed the earning of merit through trustworthy behavior, provided each other mutual support and validation, and
demonstrated a balance of give and take in their daily lives.
At all three sites statements were made concerning the rules of
daily living. Shared home members discuss common rules to which
they strictly adhere. One 21 year-old single parent California female
communicated the strictness of certain requirements. 'Tou can't be
here if you're not working or going to school. You have to be doing
something and present a list of goals. You can't just live here and do
nothing."
Texas participants also referred to certain basic rules they were
required to follow. A 53-year-old male addressed the requirements in
this manner: "The center don't let no scum in. You got to behave and
be willin' to work and save, and help out around the house. Any alcohol or drugs and you're out of here." A female, age 62, spoke of feeling
good about the people who were selected to share the home:
We keep to ourselves. I mean we know each other and we
trust each other. It's up to the rabbi who comes in. We don't
make that decision. But when one or some body does come in
we know they must be pretty OK if the rabbi done looked 'em
over.
At all three sites the participants referred to sharing chores, respecting one another, and being courteous. Shared home family members often validated one another during the interviews and described
how individuals, by their actions, had earned merit in the eyes of the
speaker.
THE MINIMAL FAMILY
The term "minimal family" was coined by Dizard and Gadlin
(1990) who distinguished between family as the rigid nuclear unit
which depended mostly upon itself to fulfill its functions and familism
which is a reciprocal sharing and cooperation, the creating of a home
as a base to which one can always turn when one fails or finds that
their efforts do not bring satisfaction. Familism implies loyalty, unconditional love, and sacrificing for others. The authors define the
minimal family as the modern f a m i l y . . . " a number of different fami-
253
CHARLOTTE WILBURN MCCOY
lies. The specific form a given family takes is a function of what the
people involved bring to their relationship, the sum of their convictions, their ethnic traditions, and their own personal desires and aspirations" (p. 23). The minimal families, according to Dizard and Gadlin, seem to be doing a better job of increasing familism than the
idealized self-sufficient nuclear family.
S h a r e d H o m e F a m i l i e s as M i n i m a l Families
Shared home families are minimal families formed of different
individuals and couples and families, each component of which is involved in separate and connected pursuits. Shared home families by
the very context of their being represent people reaching outside to
the community for resources, h u m a n resources. There is reciprocal
sharing and cooperation in the shared home families. Shared home
family members represented in this research defined the home as a
base, a core to which all could belong and return when needed.
And we sit a lot and talk. My communication with her is a lot
better and that's OK. Everybody communicates on a different
schedule and in different ways . . . .
I respect that. I don't
want anyone to always do things my way.
Support. I don't mean financial support even though that's
essential too, b u t more so it's the showing that even though
you m a y screw up every now and then you're still loved and
there is someone there to stand by you.
Family helps its own and sometimes like us, see we live together and we help each other, give each other a little hope.
THAT'S IT (says this louder), a family gives hope. See we
know we're stuck for a while b u t somehow we know we're
goin to make it. See what I mean?
SHARED HOME MEMBER'S CONCEPTS OF FAMILY
FUNCTIONS
C u r r a n (1983) stated t h a t people do not need each other any
longer financially (p. 8). The shared home members predominantly
needed each other financially, either out of a situation of homelessness or the need for financial assistance to afford improved housing.
254
CONTEMPORARYFAMILYTHERAPY
Curran stated t h a t the family function of teaching had mostly been
turned over to schools and the family is no longer a protective unit (p.
9). Certainly a great portion of education has been turned over to the
schools; however, the participants of this study felt that educating
children in the home was the number one function of family. This
educating involved developing relating skills, learning respect for
people and the government, learning about protection and safety,
learning to save money or how to stretch a dollar, and learning about
the world of work and responsibility.
CONCLUSIONS
Shared home families represent nontraditional family types usually excluded from research concerning healthy, well-functioning famflies. Shared home families are storehouses of information concerning
family life. The shared home participants of this study:
9 Presented concepts of healthy families which are different from
family literature, most notably the absence of a structural hierarchy, triangulation, and the romance as the basis for the relationship.
9 Demonstrated concepts of family functions which are similar to
familism.
9 Identified functions of family which are different from family
literature such as the functions of the education and protection
of children, t h a t people do still depend on one another economically, and single parents, regardless of difficult obstacles, succeed in accomplishing functions.
9 Rated themselves as healthy families according to lists of traits
of h e a l t h y families they created, the majority exhibiting the
ability to describe the strengths of their family type and traits
of a healthy family without comparing themselves to an ideal
model. Those participants who did refer to a model usually
thought of their family of origin as a negative mode.
9 Exhibited equality among themselves, regardless of race, sex,
or economic level, manifesting an absence of any one adult individual having more power or authority over another.
9 Exhibited reciprocal s h a r i n g and cooperation in the s h a r e d
home and defined the home as a base, a core to which all could
belong and r e t u r n when needed.
255
CHARLOTTE WILBURN MCCOY
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS
Despite the sampling limitations, the responses from these
shared family members have several implications for marital and
family therapists. They suggest that therapists:
~ Reexamine what is at the center of their definitions of family
and models of family. Participants in nontraditional arrangements, including shared home families, often view themselves
as families and have definite ideas and different views (from
traditional and biological families) regarding what constitutes a
family. Therapists should be careful to remain open to models
and perceptions other than those that they may have formed
and retained as a result of their own limited experiences and
participation in family life.
9 Examine paradigms of family health with alternative family
types such as the shared family forms and compare those with
conceptions of family health and healthy families usually held
by family therapists. Such recognition may be quite helpful in
formulating treatment goals that are more congruent with the
goals of some clients.
9 Be open to recognizing that significant relationships and families are formed on bases other than an initial romantic attraction.
~ Recognize that for some persons shared housing is an option to
alleviate such problems as homelessness, high housing costs,
and loneliness.
~ Emphasize relational ethics, highlighting the lasting qualities
of companionship, commitment, and honesty.
REFERENCES
Aldous, J. (1991). In the families' ways. Contemporary Sociology:An International Journal of Reviews, 20, 660-675.
Anderson, J. Z., & White, G. D. (1986). An empirical investigation of interaction and
relationship patterns in functional and dysfunctional nuclear families and stepfamilies. Family Process, 25, 407-422.
Boszormenyi-Nagy, I., & D. N. Ulrich (1981). Contextual family therapy. In A. S. Gurman & D. P. Kniskern (Eds.). Handbook of family therapy (pp. 159-186). New York:
Brunner/Mazel.
Braverman, L. (1990). Women in context: The feminist perspective: Implications for
therapists. In Proceedings from the Menninger Foundation Conference. Topeka, KS:
Educational Video Productions (AAMFT Masters' Series Video, 1990).
256
CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY
Brinker, R. P. (1992). Family involvement in early intervention: Accepting the unchangeable, changing the changeable, and knowing the difference. Topics in Early
Childhood Special Education, 12, 307-332.
Curran, D. (1983). Traits of a healthy family. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Dizard, J., & Gadlin, H. (1990). The minimal family. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.
Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1984). Kinship relationships. Proceedings of the Northwestern University Conference on Families. Wisconsin: Department of Communication Arts,
University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Hareven, T. K., & Adams, K. J. (1982). Aging and life course transitions: An interdisciplinary perspective. New York: Guilford.
Jargenson, J. (1989). Where is the 'family' in family communication? Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 17, 27-41.
Kellam, S., Ensminger, M., & Turner, R. (1977). Family structure and the mental
health of children. Archives of General Psychiatry, 34, 1012-1022.
Marciano, T. D. (1991). A postscript on wider families: Traditional family assumptions
and cautionary notes. Marriage and Family Review, 17(1-2), 159-171.
McCoy, C. W. (1995). Alternative families look at family: A qualitative study. Doctoral
dissertation, Texas Womans University, Denton, TX. Dissertation Abstracts (in
press).
Patterson, J. M. (1990). Family and health research in the 1980's: A family scientist's
perspective. Family Systems Medicine, 8, 421-432.
Smith, T. A. (1992). Family cohesion in remarried families. Journal of Divorce and
Remarriage, 17, 49-65.
Stacey, J. (1990). Brave new families: Stories of domestic upheaval in the late twentieth
century America. New York: Basic Books.
US Bureau of the Census (1993). Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1993 (113th
Edition). Washington, DC.: US Government Printing Office.
Walsh, F. (Ed.)(1982). Normal family processes. New York: Guilford.
Walsh, F. (Ed.)(1993). Normal family processes. (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
Westcott, M. E., & Dries, R. (1990). Has family therapy adapted to the single-parent
family? American Journal of Family Therapy, 18, 363-372.