Promising parenting programmes for reducing adolescent problem behaviours
| Date | 29 November 2013 |
| Published date | 29 November 2013 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JCS-04-2013-0016 |
| Pages | 229-243 |
| Author | Kevin P. Haggerty,Anne McGlynn-Wright,Tali Klima |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Vulnerable groups,Children's services |
Promising parenting programmes for
reducing adolescent problem behaviours
Kevin P. Haggerty, Anne McGlynn-Wright and Tali Klima
Dr Kevin P. Haggerty is
Associate Director, Anne
McGlynn-Wright is a Graduate
Research Assistant, and Dr Tali
Klima is a Research Scientist,
all are based at the Social
Development Research Group,
School of Social Work,
University of Washington,
Seattle, Washington, USA.
Abstract
Purpose – Adolescent problem behaviours (substance use, delinquency, school dropout, pregnancy, and
violence) are costly not only for individuals, but for entire communities. Policy makers and practitioners that
are interested in preventing these problem behaviours are faced with many programming options. The
purpose of this review is to discuss two criteria for selecting relevant parenting programmes, and provide
five examples of such programmes.
Design/methodology/approach – The first criterion for programme selection is theory based.
Well-supported theories, such as the social development model, have laid out key family-based risk and
protective factors for problem behaviour.Programmes that target these risk and protective factors are more
likely to be effective. Second, programmes should have demonstrated efficacy; these interventions have
been called “evidence-based programmes”(EBP). This review highlights the importance of evidence from
rigorous research designs, such as randomised clinical trials, in order to establish programme efficacy.
Findings – Nurse-Family Partnership, The Incredible Years, the Positive Parenting Program (Triple P),
Strengthening Families 10-14, and Staying Connected with Your Teen are examined. The unique features
of each programme are briefly presented. Evidence showing impact on family risk and protective factors, as
well as long-term problem behaviours, is reviewed. Finally, a measure of cost effectiveness of each
programme is provided.
Originality/value – The paper proposes that not all programmes are of equal value, and suggests
two simple criteria for selecting a parenting programme with a high likelihood for positive outcomes.
Furthermore, although this review is not exhaustive, the five examples of EBPs offer a good start for policy
makers and practitioners seeking to implement effective programmes in their communities. Thus, this paper
offers practical suggestions for those grappling with investments in child and adolescent programmes
on the ground.
Keywords Prevention, Adolescent, Evidence-based practice, Parenting, Family, Programmes
Paper type General review
Introduction
In the past 30 years, physicians, educators, and scientists have made dramatic advances in
what we know about effective parenting. It is now clearly possible to help parents raise more
successful children – children who are mentally healthy, able to resist negative influences to take
dangerous physical and health risks, confident, caring, and connected in positive ways to their
schools and families. We now have evidence that certain scientifically tested parenting
programmes create better outcomes for children whose parents participate in them. These
programmes work with a wide variety of families in diverse settings. Often all it takes is parents’
willingness to make a small investment of time and effort – in some cases as little as ten hours of
a workshop over a period of seven weeks – to learn skills that will change their children’s
development for the better for years.
Substance use, delinquency, school dropout, teen pregnancy, and violence all can be
devastating for parents and also pose serious social, health, and economic consequences in
This study was supported in part by
the US National Institute on Drug
Abuse (R01 DA021737, Haggerty,
PI). The content of this paper is
solely the responsibility of the
authors and does not necessarily
represent the official views of the
funding agency.
DOI 10.1108/JCS-04-2013-0016 VOL. 8 NO. 4 2013, pp. 229-243, CEmerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1746-6660
j
JOURNAL OF CHILDREN’S SERVICES
j
PAGE 229
To continue reading
Request your trial