Coping Power Program (OJJDP Model Program Guide)

Office of Justice Programs, Innovation - Partnerships – Safer Neighborhoods

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Serving Children, Families and Communities

PREVENTION

IMMEDIATE SANCTIONS

INTERMEDIATE SANCTIONS

RESIDENTIAL

REENTRY

MPG HOME SEARCH HOME SEARCH ENTIRE PROGRAM DATABASE SEARCH USING RISK & PROTECTIVE FACTORS PROGRAM TYPES RATING SYSTEM REFERENCES NOMINATE PROGRAMS RELATED LINKS RESOURCES DMC-REDUCTION BEST PRACTICES DATABASE DSO BEST PRACTICES DATABASE

Coping Power Program

Intervention:

The Coping Power Program (CPP) is a cognitive-based intervention delivered to aggressive children and their parents during the children’s transition to middle school. The program aims to increase competence, study skills, social skills, and self-control in aggressive children as well as improving parental involvement in their child’s education.

The Coping Power Program is a multicomponent intervention based heavily on cognitive–behavioral therapy, which emphasizes increasing and exercising parenting skills and the child’s social skills. The child component of CPP draws from anger management programs that concentrate on decision-making, attributions, and peer pressure.

The program has a component aimed at the parents of children in intervention classrooms. The child component of CPP lasts 16 months and includes 22 fifth grade sessions and 12 sixth grade sessions. The parent component is administered over 16 sessions, which provides the parents with instruction on parenting skills, including rule setting, appropriate punishment, stress management, and family communication.

The parent component concentrates on parenting and stress-management skills, while the child component involves the use of school-based focus groups and emphasizes anger management and social problem–solving skills. Parents also meet with CPP staff to help them understand and prepare for future adolescence-related and general education issues, and to give them the tools necessary for a smooth transition to middle school.

Evaluation Methodology:

Study 1
The Lochman and Wells 2003 study evaluated the effectiveness of the Coping Power Program (CPP) among aggressive children identified in the fourth grade, with the intervention taking place in the fifth and sixth grades. This study examined results at the 1-year follow-up looking in particular at delinquency, substance use, and school behavior outcomes. After the researchers identified moderate- to high-risk aggressive children and received parental consent, 245 children were randomized into intervention and control conditions. The children were spread out through 60 fifth grade classrooms in 17 elementary schools. There were four randomized groups with 59 subjects in Coping Power–only condition, 61 in the Coping Power and classroom intervention condition, 62 in the classroom-only condition, and 63 subjects in the control condition. There were no significant differences among the groups in terms of aggressive behavior, demographic factors, or teacher-assessed cognitive functioning. The sample had a 2-to-1 boy-to-girl ratio and was predominantly African American (about 75 percent) and white. The classroom intervention, known as Coping With the Middle School Transitions, includes a teacher component in which they meet with Coping Power staff members for five 2-hour sessions. These sessions were used to discuss problem solving around the issue of aggression and to present the CPP format.

The delinquency outcomes were assessed with child self-report surveys based on questions from the National Youth Survey. The substance abuse outcomes were also measured with child self-report, while aggressive behavior in a school setting was measured using the Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation—Revised. Results collected at the 1-year follow-up were tested with analysis of variance (aka ANOVA) and analysis of covariance (or ANCOVA), using generalized linear models.

Study 2
Lochman and Wells (2004) reported the results of their 15-month evaluation of the CPP. In winter 1997, baseline assessment took place of fourth and fifth grade boys with treatment delivered in the spring and during the following academic year. The final sample had two experimental conditions: a CPP with parent intervention (n=60) and CPP for children only (n=60). There were 63 children in the control group. In addition to these three groups of aggressive children, a normative sample of 63 children was also used. The child component consisted of 8 sessions in the first year and 25 in the second year, with each session lasting between 40 and 60 minutes. The parent component consisted of 16 group sessions over the intervention period. There were no significant differences among the three at-risk groups. The total sample was made up of 55 percent fourth graders and 45 percent fifth graders and was 61 percent African American and 28 percent white.

Child measures were taken 1 year after the intervention, while parent measures were taken 6 months postintervention. The National Youth Survey (NYS) provided outcome measures for delinquency, which were separated into overt (minor assault, felony assault, robbery) and covert (minor theft, felony theft, fraud, destruction of property). The NYS also provided the outcomes for the child self-report of substance use. Additionally a parent report of the child’s substance use was used, as well as a teacher assessment of the child’s behavioral improvement. Results were tested with either ANOVAs, ANCOVAs, or multiple analysis of covariance (MANOVAs), using the generalized linear model.

Study 3
The Zonnevylle–Bender and colleagues (2007) study examined the effects of the CPP program on children with disruptive behavior disorder in the city of Utrecht in the Netherlands. Children were randomized to the treatment and care as usual control group. Children were recruited from psychiatric outpatient clinics over a period of 3 years. To be eligible for inclusion in the study, they had to be between 8 and 13 years old. They additionally had to be living within a family structure, meet an IQ threshold, and have been diagnosed with disruptive behavior disorder. Final sample sizes for participants in the study were 30 in the treatment group and 31 in the control group. There were no significant baseline differences between groups. All subjects were white; 87 percent of the treatment group and 90 percent of the control group were male. At the beginning of the study, the average age of the treatment group was 9.9 years; it was 10.3 years for the control group. The CPP treatment never lasted more than 9 months; it included 23 weekly sessions with children and 25 parent sessions.

Measures were taken 5 years after treatment began. Substance use was assessed using a self-report instrument adapted from the California Student Survey, while delinquency was assessed using the National Youth Survey questionnaire. The authors used one-factor ANOVAs to test results from delinquency self-report, while the substance use measures were tested with Pearson’s chi-squared analyses.

Evaluation Outcome:

The Coping Power Program was initially developed in the United States; the studies reporting outcome effects after one year (studies 1 and 2) both showed promising, although sometimes inconsistent, effects particularly in study 2. However, an evaluation 5 years after the beginning of the intervention in the Netherlands (study 3) showed no effects, although the study did include a smaller sample size. The evidence base for this program suggests caution in its implementation with evidence of promising outcomes for children with some inconsistent findings.

Study 1
Delinquency
Lochman and Wells (2003) found that the Coping Power Program groups had significantly lower scores of self-reported delinquency when compared with the control condition.

Substance Use
Overall the treatment group had significantly lower self-reported substance use than the control group. In particular the authors note that older and moderate-risk children in the treatment group report significantly lower substance use than the control group. However, there was no significant difference between younger high-risk treatment children and the control group.

School Behavior
The treatment group significantly improved their aggressive behavior in school scores as reported by the teacher compared with the control group. This result was seen across treatment conditions.

Study 2
Delinquency
Lochman and Wells (2004) found that there were no significant differences between the experimental and control groups on measures of overt delinquency (minor assault, felony assault, robbery). However, the experimental group had significant lower covert delinquency (minor theft, felony theft, fraud, destruction of property) than the control group.

Substance Use
The treatment boys had significantly lower substance use scores than the control group on the parent measure scale. Using the child self-report measure, however, there were no significant differences.

School Behavior
The experimental group had significantly better teacher ratings of aggressive behavior than the control group.

Study 3
Delinquency
Zonnevylle–Bender and colleagues (2007) found that there were no significant differences between treatment and control groups on the delinquency scale.

Marijuana Use
The treatment group had significantly lower lifetime use of marijuana, compared with the control group, with 13 percent of the treatment group and 35 percent of the control group reporting having lifetime marijuana use. However, there were no significant differences between groups on usage within the last month.

Alcohol Use
There were no significant differences between treatment and control groups in lifetime or past-month alcohol use.

Cigarette Use
The treatment group had significantly lower use of cigarettes in the last month, compared with the control group, with 17 percent of the treatment and 42 percent of the control group reporting cigarette smoking in the last month. There were, however, no significant differences on lifetime use of cigarettes.

Other Information:

Implementation: The Coping Power Program Web site notes that active support is required from school administrators and teachers for successful replication. Elementary and middle schools wishing to adopt the program should ensure that they have at least one full-time, master’s-level counselor or other staff with related functions and similar qualifications. Additionally, Child Component group sessions take place during school, lasting 50 minutes and usually include five children. For more information visit the Coping Power Program website at http://www.copingpower.com/

References:

Boxmeyer, Caroline Lewczyk, John E. Lochman, Nicole Powell, Anna Yaros, and Mary Wojnaroski. 2007. “A Case Study of the Coping Power Program for Angry and Aggressive Youth.” Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy 37:167–74.

Cabiya, José J., Lymaries Padilla–Cotto, Karelyn González, Jovette Sanchez–Cestero, Alfonso Martínez–Taboas, and Sean Sayers. 2008. “Effectiveness of a Cognitive–Behavioral Intervention for Puerto Rican Children.” Interamerican Journal of Psychology 42(2):195–202.

Lochman, John E., Caroline Lewczyk Boxmeyer, Nicolle Powell, Lixin Qu, Karen C. Wells, and Michael Windle. 2009. “Dissemination of the Coping Power Program: Importance of Intensity of Counselor Training.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 77(3):397–409.

Lochman, John E., Nicole Powell, Caroline Lewczyk Boxmeyer, Lixin Qu, Karen C. Wells, and Michael Windle. 2009. “Implementation of a School-Based Prevention Program: Effects of Counselor and School Characteristics.” Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 40(5):476–82.

Lochman, John E., and Karen C. Wells. 2002. “The Coping Power Program at the Middle-School Transition: Universal and Indicated Prevention Effects.” Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 16(4S):S40–54.

Lochman, John E., and Karen C. Wells. 2003. “Effectiveness of the Coping Power Program and of Classroom Intervention With Aggressive Children: Outcomes at a 1-Year Follow-Up.” Behavior Therapy 34:439–515.

Lochman, John E., and Karen C. Wells. 2004. “The Coping Power Program for Preadolescent Aggressive Boys and Their Parents: Outcome Effects at the 1-Year Follow-Up.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 72(4):571–78.

van de Wiel, Nicolle M.H., Walter Matthys, Peggy T. Cohen–Kettenis, and Herman van Engeland. 2003. “Application of the Utrecht Coping Power Program and Care as Usual to Children With Disruptive Behavior Disorders in Outpatient Clinics: A Comparative Study of Cost and Course of Treatment.” Behavior Therapy 34:421–36.

van de Wiel, Nicolle M.H., Walter Matthys, Peggy T. Cohen–Kettenis, Gerald H. Maassen, John E. Lochman, and Herman van Engeland. 2007. “The Effectiveness of an Experimental Treatment When Compared to Care as Usual Depends on the Type of Care as Usual.” Behavior Modification 31(3):298–312.

Program Specification:

New Rating:

Promising

Re-reviewed Date:

April 2012

Program Type:

Alcohol and Drug Therapy / Education

Classroom Curricula

Cognitive Behavioral Treatment

Parent Training

Ethnicity:

African American

White

Gender:

Male

Age:

8 - 13

Target Settings:

Suburban

Urban

Problem Behaviors:

Aggression/Violence

Delinquency

Risk & Protective Factors:

Risk

Family

Family management problems / Poor parental supervision and/or monitoring

Poor family attachment / Bonding

Individual

Antisocial behavior and alienation / Delinquent beliefs / General delinquency involvement / Drug dealing

Cognitive and neurological deficits/Low intelligence quotient/Hyperactivity

Life stressors

Mental disorder / Mental health problem / Conduct disorder

Poor refusal skills

Peer

Association with delinquent and/or aggressive peers

School

Low academic achievement

Negative attitude toward school / Low bonding / Low school attachment / Commitment to school

Protective

Family

Good relationship with parents / Bonding or attachment to family

High family expectations

Individual

High individual expectations

Positive / Resilient temperament

Positive expectations / Optimism for the future

Social competencies and problem solving skills

Peer

Good relationships with peers

School

High expectations of students

Presence and involvement of caring, supportive adults in school

Rewards for prosocial school involvement

Strong school motivation / Positive attitude toward school

Student bonding (attachment to teachers, belief, commitment)

Additional Information:

Status:

Program is in operation at this time.

Performance Measures:

Suggested OJJDP Performance Measures for the Program Types(s):

Delinquency Prevention
Parent Training
Logic Model: PDF
Performance Matrix:PDF
Mental Health Services
Parent Training
Logic Model: PDF
Performance Matrix:PDF
Delinquency Prevention
Classroom Curricula
Logic Model: PDF
Performance Matrix:PDF
School Programs
Classroom Curricula
Logic Model: PDF
Performance Matrix:PDF
Mental Health Services
Cognitive Behavioral Treatment
Logic Model: PDF
Performance Matrix:PDF

Contact Information:

Program Developer:
John E. Lochman
Department of Psychology
Univeristy of Alabama
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487
Phone: 2053487678
Fax: 2053488648
Email: Click Here

Training & TA Provider:
John E. Lochman
Department of Psychology
University of Alabama
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487
Phone: 2053487678
Fax: 2053488648
Email: Click Here