Guide to Effective Programs
for Children and Youth

The Coping Power Program

OVERVIEW

The Coping Power Program (CPP) is a multifaceted prevention and intervention program designed to target children with aggression problems. The program operates under the presumption that children with aggression are at risk for developing subsequent risky behaviors, such as substance use. In an effort to disrupt this potential trajectory, CPP targets four key areas of children’s development that are considered to be predictive of later risk behaviors. The CPP consists of separate parent and child skill-building sessions that help promote social competence, self-regulation, school bonding and parental involvement. The Coping Power Program has been the subject of multiple evaluations. In general, results indicate that CPP helps reduce rates of substance use and delinquent behavior while also improving children’s social competence and behavior.

DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM

Target population: Aggressive or disruptive children in grades four through six approaching a transition to middle school

The Coping Power Program (CPP) was designed to target children exhibiting aggressive and disruptive behaviors in late elementary school. The program is implemented in the 5^th and 6^th grades in anticipation of the difficult transition to middle school and early adolescence. CPP is comprised of two separate parent and child components which run for approximately 15 months. The Coping Power Child Component spans two school years and consists of eight sessions the first year (5^th grade) and twenty-five sessions the second year (6^th grade). These sessions run for approximately 40 to 60 minutes and are led by a trained program staff member and a school guidance counselor. Group sessions typically include between four and six boys and take place at school. The Child Component sessions focus on coping skills, peer relations, social competence, effective discipline and reinforcement strategies, monitoring and supervision, anger management and general social and academic problem-solving skills. The sessions involve interactive video vignettes, role playing and various skill-building activities. During this time, children also meet separately with program staff to focus on individual goals and progress. These meetings typically occur once or twice a month.

The Coping Power Parent Component is implemented over the same 15-month time period. It consists of 16 sessions which usually take place at school and include between four and six parents or parent dyads. The Parent Component is run by two trained program staff members. The Parent Component emphasizes skills that target prosocial and disruptive child behaviors, monitoring and supervision, inductive discipline strategies, rewarding and reinforcement, and family communication and management skills, as well as stress management. Additionally, parents learn some of the skill-building techniques used in the Child Component to encourage and support the use of those skills at home.

EVALUATION(S) OF PROGRAM

Evaluated population: Fourth and fifth grade boys exhibiting aggressive and disruptive behaviors and their parents. Of the initial 1,578 boys screened, the top 22 percent (n=546) were identified as high-risk candidates. After further eligibility screening and consent, the sample was reduced to 183 boys. With the exception of cognitive scores, which were lower among boys who did not consent, no significant differences were found between the original high risk pool and the consenting participants.

Approach: In the winter of 1997, teachers in eleven elementary schools evaluated two annual cohorts of male students in the 4^th and 5^th grades. Boys were evaluated on various measures of aggression and disruptive behaviors.

Boys were randomly assigned to participate in one of three conditions. The Child Intervention (n=60) received only the Coping Power Child Component; the Child and Parent Intervention (n=60) received both the Coping Power Child Component and the Coping Power Parent Component; and the control group (n=63) which received school services as usual. Evaluators report that attrition throughout the study did not bias the conditions and that there were no differences between groups at baseline.

The intervention began in the spring and continued for 15 months through the next school year when the boys were in 5^th and 6^th grades. A one-year follow up was conducted the following summer, when the boys were in the 6^th or 7^th grades. Outcomes assessed in the evaluation included parent and child-reported substance use, child-reported covert and overt delinquency, and teacher-reported assessments of the child’s behavioral improvements in school.

Results: At the one-year follow up, children who participated in the intervention, either the Child Component (CI) or the combination of Child and Parent Components (CPI), experienced greater reductions in the number of covert delinquent acts, when compared with boys in the control group (p<.04). After distinguishing between type of intervention, CI boys did not differ from those in the control group. Those in the CPI, however, continued to experience significantly greater reductions in covert delinquency than the control group (p=.04).

No significant differences were found among conditions on measures of child-reported overt delinquency (such as robbery or assault) or substance use. On measures of parent-reported child substance use, however, boys in the intervention groups had significantly lower rates of substance use (p=.03). Again, after differentiating between treatment types, no differences were found between the CI and the control group. Children in the CPI still experienced significantly greater reductions in substance use, when compared with those in the control group (p<.01).

Finally, on measures of school behavior, the intervention groups were reported by teachers to have significantly greater behavioral improvements than their control group counterparts (p<.01). After separating out intervention types, results indicated that boys in both the CI and the CPI groups experienced significantly greater behavioral improvements (p <.01) and (p=.01) respectively, when compared to control group participants.

Limitations to the current study include the relatively small sample size, in addition to the homogeneity of the sample (no girls were included due to funding limitations). Furthermore, because there was no Coping Power Parent Component condition, one cannot discern whether the promising effects of the CPI are due to the combination of the parent and child components, or the impact of the parent component alone. Finally, the self-report measures of delinquency and substance use may be subject to social desirability bias and therefore not entirely representative of actual behavior.

SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION

Link to program curriculum: http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=72-1572307285-0

References

Lochman, J.E., & Wells, K.C. (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), 571-578.

Lochman, J.E., & Wells, K.C. (2002). The Coping Power Program at the middle-school transition: Universal and indicated prevention effects. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 16(4S), S40-S54.

Lochman, J.E., & Wells, K.C. (2002). Contextual social-cognitive mediators and child outcome: A test of the theoretical model in the Coping Power program. Development and Psychopathology, 14, 945-967.

Program categorized in this guide according to the following:

Evaluated participant ages: 4^th-6^th grades

Program age ranges in the Guide: 6-11

Program components: parent or family component; school-based

Measured outcomes: social and emotional health and development; behavioral problems

Program information last updated 3/14/07