Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Positive Parenting in Europe
Positive Parenting in Europe
Ó 2010 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business
http://www.psypress.com/edp DOI: 10.1080/17405621003780200
282 RODRIGO
evidence the scientific community, policy makers and funders may know
which programmes work and which do not, taking into account the
standards mentioned above.
However, evidence-based programming and policymaking is more
complex and comprehensive than simply replicating ‘‘proven programmes’’
(McCall, 2009). The process of getting communities and practitioners to
want the programme, modifying the programme to fit local circumstances if
necessary, and having the programme implemented with fidelity by agencies
and staff is equally important to ‘‘bring the programme to scale’’. Assuring
competent implementation of the programme is an ongoing process that
includes fidelity to the core structure of the model, the capacity to adapt the
model to changing needs, and the ability to deliver the model fluidly and
expertly. Integrating programmes into communities also means under-
standing attrition. Barriers to enrolment, participation, and retention are
both systemic (e.g., uncoordinated care, failure to co-locate services, and
staff turnover) and familial (e.g., chaotic family circumstances and family
stress, language barriers, lack of transportation, poverty, and competing
demands on time and attention). Equally important is expanding cost-
analysis measures in the process of identifying the core elements of the
programme that works well and at a reduced cost. Finally, it is crucial to
integrate the programme into the existing network of resources as a way to
contribute to community development. We still know very little about most
of these aspects.
In the process of integrating the programme into the community another
important aspect is promoting and validating the professional work with
parents. Most European countries show a strong interest in investing in
training and research, in order to guarantee adequate and effective support
to parents. Moreover, the schema of positive parenting described in previous
sections should be properly transferred into practical knowledge to be
applied in real-life settings of family and children services. And this is quite a
challenge. Let me illustrate with one example the big gap that frequently lies
in between the two worlds. The positive parenting initiative involves a focus
on the empowerment of parents and families in the context of families–
services partnerships and aims to strengthen social networks as well.
Research has shown that effective parenting programmes have a positive
focus on strengthening the capacity of parents and societies to care for
children’s health and wellbeing (see, for instance, Family Strengthening
Policy Center, 2007; Kumpfer & Alvarado, 2003). However, the new schema
of strengthening and empowering families and children is still quite
unknown in many child protection agencies and local services where at-
risk families are still considered the causal factor of many child problems,
where the evaluative focus is biased to the negative side of the families and
not to their assets and resources, where low attention is given to the family
POSITIVE PARENTING IN EUROPE 291
support system and the quality of the neighbourhoods, and where service
provision is delivered following unidirectional formats without a real
participation of the families during the whole process (Rodrigo et al., 2008).
summer or winter schools for young scholars coming from several European
countries to present their research projects and to promote discussions
around topics of interests for the ESDP membership, such as migration or
positive parenting. In fact, a summer school for young scholars on
‘‘Immigration and development: Conceptual and methodological considera-
tions’’ was successfully organized under the auspicious of the society in
2008.
Finally, the ESDP can participate in different campaigns to raise public
awareness around topics of importance within the developmental perspec-
tive. For instance, a declaration can be prepared concerning adherence to
the campaign against corporal punishment of children as the most
widespread form of violence against children and a violation of their rights.
The Council of Europe campaign ‘‘Raise your hand against smacking’’,
launched in Zagreb in June 2008, targets government decision makers and
the general public, including professionals working in contact with children.
The campaign’s objective is to eliminate corporal punishment of children
through the introduction of a specific ban in all European legislations (some
of the northern European countries have already enacted bans several
decades ago as Sweden in 1979 or Norway in 1987), through the promotion
of the development of positive, non-violent parenting techniques, and
through awareness on children’s rights in general. The promotion of positive
parenting is closely linked to this objective to abolish corporal punishment
of children. The realization of the child’s right to physical integrity goes
hand in hand with the support to parents in bringing up their children in a
non-violent manner.
In conclusion, the participation in these activities can enhance the
visibility of the ESDP in the international forums as well as its recognition
as a relevant interlocutor in the development and promotion of family
policies in Europe.
REFERENCES
American Psychological Association. (2009). Effective strategies to support positive parenting in
community health centers: Report of the Working Group on Child Maltreatment Prevention in
Community Health Centers. Washington, DC: Author.
Azar, S. T., Lauretti, A. F., & Loding, B. V. (1998). The evaluation of parental fitness in
termination of parental rights cases: A functional–contextual perspective. Clinical Child and
Family Psychology Review, 1, 77–100.
Baumrind, D. (1968). Authoritarian vs. authoritative parental control. Adolescence, 3, 255–272.
Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development, 55, 83–96.
POSITIVE PARENTING IN EUROPE 293
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Evans, G. W. (2000). Developmental science in the 21st century:
Emerging theoretical models, research designs, and empirical findings. Social Development, 9,
115–125.
Bugental, D. B., & Grusec, J. (2006). Socialization processes. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner
(Series Eds.), & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional
and personality development (pp. 366–428). New York: Wiley.
Chaffin, M., & Friedrich, B. (2004). Evidence-based treatments in child abuse and neglect.
Children & Youth Services Review, 26, 1097–1113.
ChildONEurope Secretariat. (2007). Survey on the role of parents and the support from the
Governments in the EU. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe Publications. (Available
from: http://www.childoneurope.org/activities/pdf/reportSurveyRoleParents)
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. (2006). Recommendation 19. (Available from
http://www.coe.int/t/dg3/youthfamily)
Council of Europe. (2008). Campaign against corporal punishment of children. (Available from
http://www.coe.int/corporalpunishment)
Daly, M. (2007). Parenting in contemporary Europe: A positive approach. Strasbourg, France:
Council of Europe Publishing.
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model.
Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487–497.
Daro, D., & Donnelly, A. C. (2002). Charting the waves of prevention: Two steps forward, one
step back. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26, 731–742.
De Mol, J., & Buysse, A. (2008). Understandings of children’s influence in parent–child relationships:
A Q-methodological study. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(2), 359–379.
DePanfilis, D., & Dibowitz, H. (2008). Assessing the cost-effectiveness of family connections in
relation to child behavior. Child Maltreatment, 32, 335–351.
European Commission. (2007). Towards a European strategy on the rights of the child [Communi-
cation]. European Children’s Network (EURONET) Briefing for MEPs ‘‘Children are European
citizens too’’. (Available from http://:www.europeanchildrensnetwork.eu)
Family Strengthening Policy Center. (2007). Home visiting: Strengthening families by promoting
parenting success (18). Washington, DC: National Human Services Assembly. (Available
from http://www.nassembly.org/fspc)
Flay, B. R., Biglan, A., Boruch, R. F., Castro, F. G., Gottfredson, D., Kellam, S., et al. (2005).
Standards of evidence: Criteria for efficacy, effectiveness and dissemination. Prevention
Science, 6, 151–175.
Garbarino, J., & Kostelny, K. (1992). Child maltreatment as a community problem. Child
Abuse & Neglect, 16, 455–464.
Ghate, D., & Hazel, N. (2002) Parenting in poor environments: Stress, support and coping.
London: Jessica Kingsley.
Grolnick, W. S., Price, C. E., Beiswenger, K. L., & Sauck, C. C. (2007). Evaluative pressure in
mothers: Effects of situation, maternal, and child characteristics on autonomy—supportive
versus controlling behavior. Developmental Psychology, 43, 991–1002.
Grusec, J. E., & Goodnow, J. J. (1994). Impact of parental discipline methods on the child’s
internalization of values: A reconceptualization of current points of view. Developmental
Psychology, 30, 4–19.
Hinde, R. A. (1979). Toward understanding relationships. London: Academic Press.
Kerr, M., Stattin, H., Biesecker, G., & Ferrer-Wreder, L. (2003). Relationships with parents and
peers in adolescence. In I. B. Weiner (Ed.), Handbook of psychology. Vol. 6: Developmental
psychology (pp. 395–419). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Kuczynski, L., & Parkin, M. (2007). Agency and bidirectionality in socialization: Interactions,
transactions, and relational dialectics. In J. E. Grusec & P. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of
socialization (pp. 259–283). New York: Guilford Press.
294 RODRIGO
Kumpfer, K. L., & Alvarado, R. (2003). Family strengthening approaches for the prevention of
youth problem behaviors. American Psychologist, 58, 457–465.
Lin, N., & Ensel, W. M. (1989). Life stress and health: Stressors and resources. American
Sociological Review, 54, 382–399.
Matos, A. R., & Sousa, L. M. (2004). How multiproblem families try to find support in social
services. Journal of Social Work Practice, 18, 65–80.
McCall, R. B. (2009). Evidence-based programming in the context of practice and policy. Social
Policy Report, 23, 3–18.
Olds, D. L., Kitzman, H., Hanks, C., Cole, R., Anson, E., Sidora-Arcoleo, K., et al. (2007).
Effects of nurse home visiting on maternal and child functioning: Age-9 follow-up of a
randomized trial. Pediatrics, 120, 832–845.
Reder, P., Duncan, S., & Lucey, C. (2003). Studies in the assessment of parenting. London:
Routledge.
Rodrigo, M. J., Janssens, J., & Ceballos, E. (1999). Do children’s perceptions and attributions
mediate the effects of mothers’ childrearing actions? Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 508–
522.
Rodrigo, M. J., Máiquez, M. L., Correa, A. D., Martı́n, J. C., & Rodrı́guez, G. (2006).
Outcome evaluation of a community center-based program for mothers at high psychosocial
risk. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30, 1049–1064.
Rodrigo, M. J., Máiquez, M. L., Martı́n, J. C., & Byrne, S. (2008). Preservación familiar. Un
enfoque positivo para la intervención con familias. Madrid, Spain: Pirámide.
Rodrigo, M. J., Martı́n, J. C., Máiquez, M. L., & Rodrı́guez, G. (2007). Informal and formal
supports and maternal child-rearing practices in at-risk and non at-risk psychosocial
contexts. Children & Youth Services Review, 29, 329–347.
Smetana, J. G. (2005). Adolescent–parent conflict: Resistance and subversion as developmental
process. In L. Nucci (Ed.), Resistance, subversion, and subordination in moral development
(pp. 69–91). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Spiel, C. (2009). Evidence-based practice: A challenge for European developmental psychology.
European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 6, 11–33.
Sweet, M. A., & Appelbaum, M. I. (2004). Is home visiting an effective strategy? A meta-
analytic review of home visiting programs for families with young children. Child
Development, 75, 1435–1456.
Williams, F. (2004) Rethinking families. London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.
Copyright of European Journal of Developmental Psychology is the property of Psychology Press (UK) and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.