Damn! Every time i’ve turned to write about this topic in the last 30 years, i get frustrated because i have failed to make any progress convincing anyone to implement widespread use of parent skills training. Nobody has.
This is not untested territory, people! While it may not be a panacea, it certainly is a powerful tool in boosting children’s future academic and social achievements, and in lowering their future abuse of drugs and criminal behaviour. And i am not referring only to the sketchy part of the city; these programs are provably effective region-wide.
¿And why isn’t every county in the U.S. – hell, in the world – investing in parent skills training? Because you cannot freaking measure a significant downturn in community violence and criminal behaviour for the first 15 years after implementing such a program. ¿What poll-fearing politician is going to raid the General Fund for a program that won’t yield any community benefits until after they are voted out of office? None. (Well, maybe a few.)
OK. ¿What the hell am i talking about? Notwithstanding differences between programs, parent skills training boils down to getting parents together (real or virtually) with a ‘leader’ for several workshops with directed discussions, activities, exercises, and homework that relate to parenting practices appropriate for the age of their kid(s) younger than 5. That’s it. Whoopeedoo.
The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) lists 23 such programs differing in emphasis, materials, organizing principles, number of workshops, costs, etc. Several entities – such as First 5 California – have since created still more programs.
In 2009, the CDC (United States Department of Health & Human Services Center for Disease Control and Prevention) conducted a meta-analysis of parenting skills programs and found some efforts were more effective and some were less effective. ¿Why the CDC? Because drugs, crime, and academic underachievement are all public health issues. BTW, did you notice that the list of 23 programs mentioned above came from the UN’s Office on Drugs and Crime. This ain’t untested theory, friends. Here is a passage from The Oxford Handbook of Crime Prevention (2014).
“The present research demonstrates that policies should attempt to assist families in preventing antisocial and delinquent behavior by providing them with resources needed to realize effective child development practices. Most of the studies demonstrated that childhood behavioral problems can be partially prevented or lessened with the implementation of the appropriate parent training programs. These same parenting programs have also produced many other benefits outside of crime reduction, including a higher pursuit of education, a decrease in pregnancies during teenage years, better financial security, and improved personal health (Reynolds et al. 2001, Farrington and Welsh 2007). The evidence is clear: parent training programs are effective.”
¿How would a governmental or NGO entity implement such a program? They can start by downloading a copy of the UNODC’s “Guide to implementing family skills training programmes for drug abuse prevention.” 2009. Also available in Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian, and Spanish.)
I’ve heard variations of: “Our [state/county/city] already has such a program and it works great.” Bullshit. If it ‘works great’ then the majority of parents of kids 0-5 years would already be actively enrolled and crime statistics would be plummeting. Instead, bureaucrats are happy to have a program they paternalistically recommend to just a few struggling parents they happen to know about. They might even spend a bit of budget on printing flyers that describe the program. Pathetic. Parent skills training can be and should be a universal social experience.
Parenting skills workshops need to be organized around social domains, such as a neighborhood, church, community center, ethnic organization, or workplace. It is imperative that each group of parents and their leader share the same mother tongue. When the paid-professional-parenting- skill-workshop-leader has an hour’s down time, they need to be out actively searching for and recruiting newly pregnant ‘couples’ within their assigned domain.
Every pregnant woman and her immediate support – whether partner, parent, or friend – need to be encouraged and incentivized to participate in the Pregnancy subprogram. They can be incentivized with the prospects of camaraderie, childcare, refreshments, coupons, products, health insurance premium discounts, cash, and better academic and life outcomes for their children.
Program details [curriculum, number and frequency of workshops, attendance requirements, supply costs, etc.] are different for each of the 20+ established programs. A possible array of subprograms might be: Pregnancy, Infancy, Toddler, Pre-School.
OK. Let’s dive into a typical workshop session that brings parents together for the first of the subprograms – “Pregnancy.” It brings pregnant ‘couples’ together to:
- share their joy, stress, worry, successes, conflicts, et cetera.
- learn what else they may soon experience
- be exposed to successful practices and products for pregnancy, parturition, and motherhood
- practice or play-act common activities and interactions
- deal with homework assignments
- learn about extant social services, medical services, and other support opportunities
- collect their incentives
These programs are not intended as paternalistic or racially-defined – as they are too often labelled – but given the centuries of implicit racial biases – locally, nationally, and globally – disparities in implementation are inevitable in this era.
I implore you to do a little research starting with the links above, then adopt some level of gadfly-ness and go proselytize to some socially conscious organization – governmental, religious, or otherwise – and prepare yourself for frustration.
REFERENCES
Baker, S et al. “A randomized controlled trial evaluating a low-intensity interactive online parenting intervention, Triple P Online Brief, with parents of children with early onset conduct problems.” Behaviour Research and Therapy, vol. 91, April 2017, pp. 78-90.
Bodenmann, Guy et al. “The efficacy of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program in improving parenting and child behavior: A comparison with two other treatment conditions.” Behaviour Research and Therapy, vol. 46, no. 4, 2008, pp. 411-427
Chiesa, Antonia E. et al. “Intimate partner violence victimization and parenting: A systematic review.” Child Abuse & Neglect, vol. 80, June 2018, pp. 285-300
Errázuriz, P. et al. “Perception of Chilean Parents on the Triple P Program for Improving Parenting Practices.” Journal of Child and Family Studies vol. 25, 2016, pp. 3440–3449
Evans, Sue et al. “Short-term benefits from the Incredible Years Parents and Babies programme in Powys.” Community Practitioner, vol. 88, no. 9, 2015
Farrington, David P., and Brandon C. Welsh. Saving Children from a Life of Crime: Early Risk Factors and Effective Interventions. New York, Oxford University Press, 2007.
Fujiwara, T et al. “Effectiveness of Group Positive Parenting Program (Triple P) in Changing Child Behavior, Parenting Style, and Parental Adjustment: An Intervention Study in Japan.” Journal of Child and Family Studies, vol. 20, 2001, pp. 804–813
Heerde, Jessica A et al. “Prevent crime and save money: Return-on-investment models in Australia.” Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, [electronic resource], April 2018
Heinrichs, N. et al. “Four-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Triple P Group for Parent and Child Outcomes.” Prevention Science, vol. 15, 2014, pp. 233–245 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-012-0358-2
Mondi, Christina F. et al. “Fostering socio-emotional learning through early childhood intervention.” International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, vol. 15, no. 6, 2021
Moullin, Sophie et al. “Baby Bonds: Parenting, attachment and a secure base for children.” 42 pp., The Sutton Trust, London, 2019
Prinz, R.J. and E.N. Neger “Risk Reduction via a Community-Wide Approach to Parenting and Family Support.” In: Teasdale B. and M. Bradley (eds) Preventing Crime and Violence. Advances in Prevention Science. Springer, Cham., 2017
Piquero, Alex R. and Wesley G. Jennings. “Parent Training and the Prevention of Crime.” In: Welsh, Brandon C. and David P. Farrington, The Oxford Handbook of Crime Prevention. Chapter 5, pp. 89-101, New York, Oxford University Press, 2014
Proctor, Kaitlin B. and Elizabeth Brestan-Knight. “Evaluating the use of assessment paradigms for preventive interventions: A review of the Triple P- Positive Parenting Program.” Children and Youth Services Review, vol. 62, 2016, pp. 72-82, ISSN 0190-7409
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190740916300184)
Reynolds, A.J. et al. “Long-term Effects of an Early Childhood Intervention on Educational Achievement and Juvenile Arrest: A 15-Year Follow-up of Low-Income Children in Public Schools.” JAMA. vol. 285, no. 18, 2001, pp. 2339–2346
Richards, Noni and Tania Cargo. “Parent-child relationships, including caregiving and attachment.” In: Cutfield WS, Derraik JGB, Waetford C, Gillon GT, Taylor BJ [editors]. “Brief Evidence Reviews for the Well Child Tamariki Ora Programme. A Better Start National Science Challenge.” Auckland, New Zealand; 2019; p. 52-72.
Shaw, Daniel S. “Health Systems: Opportunities and Challenges (Lessons Learned the Hard Way).” University of Pittsburgh, Powerpoint Presentation.
Wakimizu, Rie and Hiroshi Fujioka. “Strengthening Positive Parenting Through a 2-Month Intervention in a Local City in Japan: Evaluating Parental Efficacy, Family Adjustment, and Family Empowerment.” European Journal For Person Centered Healthcare, Vol 3, No 4, 2015
Warren, Wendi Wilson. Triple P- Positive Parenting Program Improves Parenting Experiences in Families of at-Risk Preschoolers. The University of North Carolina at Charlotte. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2017. 10280283.
Webster-Stratton, Carolyn et al. “Long-Term Outcomes of Incredible Years Parenting Program: Predictors of Adolescent Adjustment.” Child and Adolescent Mental Health, vol. 16, No. 1, 2011, pp. 38-46