The Impact of School Settings on Implementation of Evidence-Based Parenting Programs: A Comparative Case Study

Background and Purpose: Despite high rates of social, emotional, and behavioral (SEB) challenges among both children and adolescents, access to high quality parenting supports is limited. Delivering parenting support in schools offers an opportunity to reach large numbers of parents, but research on how implementation of evidence-based parenting supports is impacted by school settings is limited. Thus, the current study examines variations in reach and implementation of brief evidence-based parenting supports for parents of adolescents via middle/high schools as compared to implementation of these same supports for parents of younger children via elementary/preschool settings.

Method: We utilized a case study methodology to compare two projects led by the same university-community partnership in the same school district. Case One was a 3-year project that focused on implementation of brief Triple P parenting supports in all middle and high school settings. Case Two was a separate 3-year project that focused on implementation of brief Triple P parenting supports in all elementary school settings (Paper 2 in this symposium). For both projects, data were collected from participants during Triple P training (pre, mid, and post-training) and data on implementation (reach, facilitators, and barriers) was collected using a monthly online survey.

Results: In Case One, n=86 existing school counselors and social workers were trained in Primary Care Teen Triple P and 6 were trained in Seminar Teen Triple P. Reach to caregivers of adolescents over the project period was n=720. Significant workforce turnover was noted during the project (27.9%). Responses to the monthly project surveys assessing reach and implementation was low and inconsistent, averaging 13.64 providers per month (range 4-34). Reported facilitators included program materials (88.8%). Barriers noted included lack of time or scheduling (57.5%) as well as role-related barriers (13.7%). In contrast, in Case Two, to date n=66 existing counselors, social workers, and parent liaisons were trained in Primary Care Triple P and 5 were trained in Seminar Triple P. No turnover has occurred. Responses to monthly provider surveys average 20.55 providers per month (range 8-43). Reach to caregivers is estimated at 2888 (n=272 via 1:1 contacts and 2616 via tips in school newsletters). Implementation facilitators include program materials (78%) and positive reactions from families (31.8%). Barriers related to parents were noted in 47.9% of reports.

Conclusions and Implications: Despite implementation in the same school district by the same university-community partnership, using nearly identical models of brief parenting supports, large differences in adoption, implementation, and reach to caregivers were seen. Far greater uptake staff and reach to caregivers is evident in elementary school vs middle/high school settings. Providers in middle/high school settings more often reported no use or role-related barriers and limited access to parents. Focus on development of autonomy for adolescents may reduce the perceived viability of offering parenting supports in middle/high school settings. Providing equitable access to parenting supports for caregivers of adolescents suggests the need for enhanced pre-service (graduate program) training in evidence-based parenting support models for school social workers, counselors, and related professionals.