Triple P – Positive Parenting (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

Triple P – Positive Parenting

Intervention:

Triple P – Positive Parenting Program is a comprehensive parent-training program with the purpose of reducing child maltreatment and children’s behavioral problems. It is built upon a public health approach and as such was designed to treat large populations. The five core principles taught to parents are:

Ensure a safe and engaging environment.
Promote a positive learning environment.
Use assertive discipline.
Maintain reasonable expectations.
Take care of oneself as a parent.

It is through these core principles that parents learn how to engage in positive and supportive parenting. The first step is getting past the stigma that some parents need help and training in how to be effective parents. The second step is giving them the proper tools and knowledge to raise healthy children.

Triple P system has five intervention levels of increasing intensity and narrowing population reach. Any family with at least one child from infant to 12 years of age is eligible for any of the five programming levels; parents determine for themselves how much help they require.

There are differing program activities at each level of the intervention:

Universal Triple P, or Level 1. This intervention uses a media campaign to reach out to parents who are seeking help. The goal is to destigmatize parent training and make effective parenting strategies available to all families who want to use them. The media campaign uses advertisements in local radio and newspapers, newsletters sent to schools, and mass mailings to families in the intervention area. These messages contain some tips and guidelines for parents, but they are primarily a means of getting the word out about Triple P and upcoming parent training seminars.

Selected Triple P, or Level 2. Level 2 builds upon the first level of intervention but narrows the focus of the programming. The intent here is to normalize parenting interventions and let parents know it is acceptable to ask for help. The programming is primarily targeted at parents who are dealing with minor behavior problems or smaller issues that do not require intensive intervention. There are two delivery options for this intervention: brief consultation with individual parents and parenting seminars delivered to large groups of parents. The brief consultations involve one or two meetings lasting about 20 minutes and the other delivery format consists of three 90-minute sessions aimed at large populations of parents. The seminars are independent of each other, so parents can attend one out of the three or the whole set and still receive some benefit. As with the brief consultations, each delivery method is another avenue for parents to become familiar with Triple P and, if they feel they need it, inquire about more intensive levels of help and parent training.

Primary Care Triple P, or Level 3. Primary Care Triple P increases the intensity of intervention. This level is appropriate for families experiencing common behavior problems. Advice and information are paired with active skills training and effective parenting strategies. Families with infants, toddlers, and preschoolers will benefit the most from this level of assistance and training. The delivery format is four 20-minute consultations that incorporate active skills training and parenting tip sheets that cover common developmental issues (i.e. potty training) and behavioral problems.

Standard and Group Triple P, or Level 4. This level of intervention is targeted at populations of children who have detectable problems which may not be clinically diagnosed and at parents who are struggling with child-rearing challenges. Parents receive a variety of child management skills and advice on how to use these skills at home and in their communities. There are two delivery formats at this level of intervention. The first is 10 sessions, lasting about 90 minutes each, with individual families. These sessions incorporate skills training and observation periods at the home. The second format is given to large groups, and includes eight sessions. Five of these are 2-hour sessions that allow parents to learn through observation, discussion, practice, and feedback. There are also three 15- to 30-minute follow-up sessions done by telephone that give additional support to parents as they apply what they have learned at home.

Enhanced Triple P, or Level 5. This is an optional version of level 4, but is addressed to parents that are in need of more serious intervention or are dealing with major behavioral problems. This level of programming has additional modules on partner communication, mood management, stress-coping skills, and addressing parent–child issues.

Evaluation Methodology:

Study 1
Prinz and colleagues (2009) used a stratified random assignment of the Triple P program to 18 medium-sized counties in a southeastern state. The counties selected were carefully controlled for population, poverty rate, and child abuse rate. Counties ranged in size from 50,000 to 175,000 residents and in structure from rural to semi-urban. Very small and large counties were excluded, as it was deemed that small counties would not have a sufficient population to implement the program or to detect effects, and that large counties would account for too much of the overall variance in results. The counties included in the study had suffered significant reductions in their family services, and there was no evidence that they had ever been exposed to Triple P System or any other large-scale intervention program.

The nine treatment counties received the Triple P system and the nine control counties received services as usual. At baseline, there were no significant differences between intervention and control counties in terms of population size, percentage of population in poverty, racial composition, and child maltreatment measures. Counties were randomized, thus getting an estimate of how many families received the Triple P intervention was difficult. The researchers used a telephone survey of Triple P service providers to gauge how many families were served. Based on the survey results, it was estimated that between 8,883 and 13,560 families participated in some aspect of the Triple P System. It was also estimated that 71 percent to 75 percent of families received levels 2 and 3 of the intervention, while the remainder received level 4 and above.

The follow-up period was 2 years, at which point three indicator measures were used to determine the prevention of child maltreatment: substantiated child maltreatment, child out-of-home placements, and hospitalizations or emergency room visits for child maltreatment related injuries. As the unit of analysis was counties, these measures of child maltreatment were measured at the county level.

Researchers conducted preliminary analyses of the three selected measures for 5 years prior to this current study period. This was done to determine if the two groups of counties, treatment and control, differed significantly or had any noticeable trends in child maltreatment prior to the intervention. Each county was subjected to a county cluster by time repeated measures analysis of variance: for both the treatment counties and the control counties, repeated measures of substantiated child maltreatment, child out-of-home placements, and hospitalizations or emergency room visits for maltreatment related injuries were taken for 5 years prior to the Triple P evaluation. All three measures were nonsignificant; the treatment and control counties did not differ significantly in terms of prior child maltreatment for the three indicators examined.

To evaluate the effectiveness of Triple P, T–tests were used to compare the two conditions with respect to the difference in scores before and after the intervention.

Evaluation Outcome:

Study 1
Child Maltreatment
For all three child maltreatment outcomes—substantiated child maltreatment, out-of-home child placements, and hospitalizations or emergency room visits for child maltreatment injuries—Prinz and colleagues (2009) found that the counties receiving the Triple P system showed differential and positive effects. The effect sizes (calculated as Cohen’s d) ranged from 1.09 to 1.22, which is considered to be large to very large in size. This indicated that the Triple P System had a large effect in reducing child maltreatment in the counties in which it was implemented.

Child Maltreatment Investigations
Scholars have noted that substantiations and investigations should both be evaluated to be thorough in studying child maltreatment issues. Therefore, as a supplementary analysis and outcome, the researchers examined the change in rate of child maltreatment investigation. Again, a differential and positive effect for the child maltreatment investigation rate was found with a medium effect size in the counties that implemented Triple P.

Other Information:

The Triple P system is well established and features a Web site with resources for both parents and practitioners: http://www.triplep-america.com/index.html. Interested parties can fill out an online form that specifies the needs that they, or their communities, have identified.

References:

De Graaf, Ireen, Paula Speetjens, Filip Smit, Marianne de Wolff, and Louis Tavecchio. 2008. “Effectiveness of the Triple P Positive Parenting Program on Parenting: A Meta-Analysis”. Family Relations 57:553–66.

Prinz, Ronald J., Matthew R. Sanders, Cheri J. Shapiro, Daniel J. Whitaker, John R. Lutzker. 2009. “Population-Based Prevention of Child Maltreatment: The U.S. Triple P System Population Trial.” Prevention Science 10:1–12.

Sanders, Matthew R., Carol Markie–Dadds, Lucy A. Tully, and William Bor. 2000. “The Triple P – Positive Parenting Program: A Comparison of Enhanced, Standard, and Self-Directed Behavioral Family Intervention for Parents of Children With Early Onset Conduct Problems.” The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 68:624–40.

Sanders, Matthew R. 2008. “Triple P – Positive Parenting Program as a Public Health Approach to Strengthening Parenting.” The Journal of Family Psychology 22:506–17.

Triple-P America. 2009. Triple P America Positive Parenting Program. Accessed February 2009. http://www.triplep-america.com/index.html

Program Specification:

New Rating:

Effective

Re-reviewed Date:

June 2011

Program Type:

Community Awareness / Mobilization

Parent Training

Ethnicity:

American Indian or Alaska Native

African American

Hispanic or Latino (of any race)

White

Gender:

Both

Age:

0 - 15

Target Settings:

Rural

Suburban

Urban

Problem Behaviors:

Family Functioning

Trauma Exposure

Risk & Protective Factors:

Risk

Family

Broken home

Child victimization and maltreatment

Family management problems / Poor parental supervision and/or monitoring

Family violence

Parental use of physical punishment / Harsh and/or erratic discipline practices

Pattern of high family conflict

Poor family attachment / Bonding

Individual

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

Life stressors

Victimization and exposure to violence

Protective

Community

Clear social norms / Policies with sanctions for violations and rewards for compliance

Presence and involvement of caring, supportive adults in the community

Family

Effective parenting

Good relationship with parents / Bonding or attachment to family

Having a stable family

Individual

Healthy / Conventional beliefs and clear standards

Perception of social support from adults and peers

Positive / Resilient temperament

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

Contact Information:

Program Developer:
Matthew R. Sanders
Professor and Director Parenting and Family Support Centre, University of Queensland
Brisbane, Queensland 4072
Email: Click Here
Website: Click Here