A preventive intervention with teacher, parent, and child components, designed to promote positive youth development by enhancing protective factors, reducing identified risk factors, and preventing problem behaviors and academic failure.
Blueprints: Promising
Shelley Logan
Social Development Research Group
University of Washington School of Social Work
9725 3rd Ave. Northeast, Suite 401
Seattle, WA 98115-2024
206-685-1997
slogan@uw.edu
https://depts.washington.edu/sdrg/programs-tools/
Richard F. Catalano, Ph.D.
University of Washington School of Social Work
Raising Healthy Children (RHC) is a multifaceted program with separate components targeting classroom teachers, parents, and students to promote opportunities, skills and recognition in developmentally appropriate ways from grades 1-12. The goal is to decrease the negative impact of the student in the classroom by providing services to the family. The teacher program includes a series of workshops for instructional improvement in classroom management. Workshop topics include proactive classroom management, cooperative learning methods, strategies to enhance student motivation, student involvement and participation, reading strategies, and interpersonal problem-solving skills. In addition, after each workshop, RHC project staff provide classroom coaching for teachers. After the first year of the project, teachers participate in monthly booster sessions to further reinforce RHC teaching strategies. The RHC program for parents is conducted by school-home coordinators who are classroom teachers or specialists with experience in providing services to parents and families. Parent training and involvement include five-session parenting group workshops, selected topic workshops, and in-home problem-solving sessions. Topics for parent training include family management skills and "How to Help Your Child Succeed in School." The student intervention consists of summer camps targeting students with academic or behavioral problems who are recommended by teachers or parents. In addition, in-home services are provided for students referred for behavior or academic problems.
Elementary School Program: Raising Healthy Children (RHC) is a multifaceted program with components focusing on classroom teachers, parents, and students, with the goal of decreasing the negative impact of the student in the classroom by providing services to the family. The teacher intervention includes a series of workshops for instructional improvement in classroom management. Workshops focus on instructional strategies shown to be effective in mainstream classrooms in reducing academic risks and early aggressive behaviors while enhancing protective factors among elementary students. Workshop topics include proactive classroom management, cooperative learning methods, strategies to enhance student motivation, student involvement and participation, reading strategies, and interpersonal problem-solving skills. Teachers from the same school attend workshops together to foster and reinforce shared learning experiences. In addition, after each workshop, RHC project staff provide classroom coaching for teachers. After the first year of the project, teachers participate in monthly booster sessions to further reinforce RHC teaching strategies. Teachers are also provided a substitute for a half-day so they can observe other project teachers using RHC teaching strategies in their classrooms.
Implementation of the RHC program for parents is conducted by school-home coordinators (SHCs) who are classroom teachers or specialists with experience in providing services to parents and families. Parent training and involvement are offered through various mechanisms such as five-session parenting group workshops, selected topic workshops, and in-home problem-solving sessions. Topics for parent training include family management skills and "How to Help Your Child Succeed in School." In addition, monthly newsletters are sent to parents to reinforce and extend parenting content regarding the RHC intervention. The student intervention consists of summer camps targeting students with academic or behavioral problems who are recommended by teachers or parents. In addition, in-home services are provided for students referred for behavior or academic problems.
Extending the Program through Middle and High School: If the program is extended into middle school and high school, there are individual, family, and teacher components offered. Individual interventions include after-school tutoring and study clubs during grades 4-6 and individualized booster sessions and group-based work during middle and high school years. Social skills booster retreats are also offered during middle school to provide peer intervention strategies for students to learn and practice social, emotional, and problem-solving skills. Group and individual interventions are offered to families during grades 1-8. During high school, booster sessions are delivered through home visits in which both parents and students complete assessments that cover specific developmental risk areas. The sessions are individualized to target specific skills identified through the assessment process. Teachers receive staff development workshops through grade 7.
Safe Drivers Wanted High School Program: The "Safe Drivers Wanted" component consists of family-based driving sessions and is administered as part of the RHC intervention to families and teens approaching driving age. The sessions are administered when the oldest participants are in ninth grade. The Safe Drivers Wanted sessions attempt to improve teens' decision-making skills with respect to driving, explain current driving laws, clarify parents' driving guidelines, and help families develop a plan for monitoring compliance with those guidelines as well as provide appropriate consequences. By improving teen decision-making skills, parent and teen understanding of driving laws, and parent management of teen driving, these sessions attempt to lessen impulsive behavior and risk taking, negative peer influences, and driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The transition-to-driving lessons used in this component build upon the foundation of the earlier delivered interventions. They reinforce (or act as booster sessions for) the application of family processes taught during the elementary and middle school periods specific to driving experiences. The sessions are delivered by school-home coordinators via individual home visits (typically about 90 minutes in length) to parents and students. Visits follow standard manualized protocols. Self-study materials are mailed to families living 25 miles outside the local area. The non-local families receive follow-up phone calls from the SHCs to review materials and address family-specific issues. Families with the in-person visits have the opportunity for guided skills practice, while families receiving the mailed materials are urged to practice the skills on their own.
The first transition-to driving session is designed to provide information and skills to parents and teens about healthy development and risk taking as teens reach driving age. The session and materials review risk taking related to driving age and teach teens skills for making healthy decisions and choices. The second driving session is provided after the teens obtain their license and is designed to assist families in being specific about driving expectations in order to complete a driving contract.
Primary Evidence Base for Certification
Study 1
Catalano et al. (2003) found at 18 months posttest, first- and second-grade students who started the program, relative to controls, showed significantly:
Brown et al. (2005) found during the middle to high school periods (with exposure to intervention materials/boosters through grade 10), intervention students, relative to controls, showed:
Haggerty et al. (2006) found in 11th or 12th grade, intervention students in the Safe Drivers Wanted program, relative to controls, showed:
Primary Evidence Base for Certification
Blueprints has reviewed one study, and it meets Blueprints evidentiary standards (specificity, evaluation quality, impact, dissemination readiness). Study 1 was done by the developer.
Study 1
Catalano et al. (2003), Brown et al. (2005) and Haggerty et al. (2006) conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial with 10 schools and 938 first and second grade students. In the second year of the study, an additional 102 students were added to the sample. Schools were randomly assigned to the intervention or a treatment-as-usual control condition. Data measuring academic performance, problem behaviors, and drug use were collected at posttest, several additional time points through grade 10, and finally at 11 years after the study began.
Study 1
Brown, E. C., Catalano, R. F., Fleming, C. B., Haggerty, K. P., & Abbott, R. D. (2005). Adolescent substance use outcomes in the Raising Healthy Children project: A two-part latent growth curve analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 699-710.
Catalano, R. F., Mazza, J. J., Harachi, T. W., Abbott, R. D., Haggerty, K. P., & Fleming, C. B. (2003). Raising healthy children through enhancing social development in elementary school: Results after 1.5 years. Journal of School Psychology, 41, 143-164.
Individual: Early initiation of antisocial behavior, Favorable attitudes towards antisocial behavior, Favorable attitudes towards drug use, Substance use
Peer: Interaction with antisocial peers
Family: Family conflict/violence, Parental attitudes favorable to antisocial behavior, Parental attitudes favorable to drug use, Poor family management
School: Low school commitment and attachment*, Poor academic performance
Neighborhood/Community: Laws and norms favorable to drug use/crime
Individual: Problem solving skills, Refusal skills, Skills for social interaction
Peer: Interaction with prosocial peers
Family: Attachment to parents, Opportunities for prosocial involvement with parents, Parental involvement in education, Parent social support, Rewards for prosocial involvement with parents
School: Opportunities for prosocial involvement in education, Rewards for prosocial involvement in school
Neighborhood/Community: Opportunities for prosocial involvement, Rewards for prosocial involvement
*
Risk/Protective Factor was significantly impacted by the program
See also: Raising Healthy Children Logic Model (PDF)
Sample demographics including race, ethnicity, and gender for Blueprints-certified studies:
The Social Development Research Group (SDRG) at the University of Washington provides training and implementation support to the Raising Healthy Children (RHC) program (previously known as the Seattle Social Development Project and Project SOAR). Installation combines strategic consultation, technical assistance, training and capacity building through a train the trainers approach. The RHC training system is tailored to meet specific community or district needs (e.g., number of schools, student population, and staff size). The RHC process builds local capacity through certifying local trainers to lead the teacher workshops and the parenting workshops and to conduct monitoring and coaching of teachers.
Training and Technical Assistance for School Staff: School staff development is implemented over three years. RHC staff development trainers conduct periodic classroom visits to look for evidence of RHC teaching practices. In order to build sustainability and local capacity to conduct staff development sessions, RHC offers a four-day training of trainers to local coaches during the first year. Local coaches are mentored and co-train the staff development sessions with a certified RHC trainer until they meet the standards of certification at which time they conduct the trainings independently.
School staff development schedule over three years
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
The cost of the staff development training varies depending on the number of teachers, the number of schools, etc. On average, the cost per teacher for the first and second year of training and coaching is about $950 and $500 for the third year. This includes training and materials.
Certified Parenting Workshop Trainers
In the first year, training for local parenting workshop leaders is conducted. In subsequent years, a Training of Trainers is provided to build local capacity to continue the training of new parent workshop leaders. Participants in the Training of Trainers are drawn from parenting workshop leaders with good training skills. New trainers are observed conducting workshop leader trainings to ensure they meet certification standards.
Parenting workshop leader trainings are conducted in three-day training sessions. Cost for the trainings is $4,500 not including travel and materials. Materials for the Guiding Good Choices and Supporting School Success (programs used in the implementation of Raising Healthy Children) are available from the Channing Bete Company and pricing can be found at http://www.channing-bete.com/prevention-programs/. The Raising Healthy Children parenting workshop leaders' guide is $450 and the program materials are $15-25 per participant depending on the size of the order.
Source: Washington State Institute for Public Policy
All benefit-cost ratios are the most recent estimates published by The Washington State Institute for Public Policy for Blueprint programs implemented in Washington State. These ratios are based on a) meta-analysis estimates of effect size and b) monetized benefits and calculated costs for programs as delivered in the State of Washington. Caution is recommended in applying these estimates of the benefit-cost ratio to any other state or local area. They are provided as an illustration of the benefit-cost ratio found in one specific state. When feasible, local costs and monetized benefits should be used to calculate expected local benefit-cost ratios. The formula for this calculation can be found on the WSIPP website.
Depending upon the number of teachers participating, the average cost of the three year teacher training program for the Raising Healthy Children program is $950 per teacher per year for the first two years and $500 per teacher for the third year. This includes training, travel, and materials. For parenting workshop facilitators, there are six parenting programs available and the cost to train in each is $4,200 for 12 participants plus trainer expenses.
Training materials for teachers cost $125 per teacher over the initial three-year training process. Parent workshop guides are $465 per leader. Family guides for the parent program are $15 per family covering the five sessions. Guiding Good Choices and Supporting School Success are available through the Channing Bete Company. The Raising Healthy Children parenting program, Moving into Middle School, Stepping Up to High School, and Safe Drivers Wanted programs are available through the Social Development Research Group.
Materials Available in Other Language: Parenting materials (Guiding Good Choices and RHC parenting) are available in Spanish at same cost as English language version. Teacher materials have not been translated.None.
Administrators and principals should be involved in program implementation and may wish to be included in teacher training. The district provides in-service time for the staff development sessions.
Replacement teacher materials may be needed due to wear. Family session guides cost $15 per family.
Teachers deliver the program in the regular classroom. Parent group facilitators and home visitors typically receive about $25 per hour. There are no special qualifications for facilitators beyond being trained. It is recommended that the family groups be offered twice during the academic year and that home visits occur as needed.
A .5 FTE teacher coach is recommended for a school of about 500 students. This can be provided by time freed from an existing master teacher's duties. New teachers to the district will need to be trained. The coach should also have three days of coaching observation by the RHC trainer at a cost of $4,500 plus travel. A .5 FTE family program coordinator is also recommended. Existing school staff can be used, if available. Conducting the camp requires a full-time teacher for three weeks and an hourly aide during the two-week-long day camp. A modest supply budget is also needed (about $300-$500).
Train the trainer models for teachers are being developed. Capacity Building Training of Trainers for parent groups is $4,500 for classroom instruction followed by at least one two-day observation by the trainer. For the parent groups, the parenting coordinator is expected to observe sessions using a fidelity checklist. Workshop leaders complete an implementation checklist and pre/post tests, all provided by the purveyor with no extra cost. Optional T.A. is available from the purveyor at $1,200 per day plus travel.
Teacher coaches are responsible for assuring teacher fidelity to the model through classroom observations and use of a coding scheme. The parent coordinator observes parent groups to assure fidelity.
None at this time.
No information is available
None.
This example will involve implementing RHC in one school with 12 teachers and four workshop leaders. Coach and parent coordinator are contributed by the school. The following costs can be projected:
| Year 1 Teacher Training @ $950 x 12 | $11,400.00 |
| Workshop Leader Training with travel (3 @ $4,200) | $14,600.00 |
| Materials for Teacher ($125 x 12) | $1,500.00 |
| Family Guides (360 @ $15) | $5,400.00 |
| Workshop Leader Wages @ $25/hour for 3 hours/session | $18,000.00 |
| Coaching Observation ($4,500 + travel) | $6,000.00 |
| Total One Year Cost | $56,900.00 |
In this illustration, if there are 25 students per class, 300 students would participate at a cost of $190 per student.
Raising Healthy Children has both a teacher/classroom component and a parent support component. Teacher training and curricula may be funded with education monies available at the local, state and federal government levels. Some traditional education funds, such as Title I, include dollars to help parents support the learning of their child. These funds may need to be supplemented with grants from foundations and fundraising, to fully support and sustain the parent engagement components of the program.
Existing education resources, particularly classroom teacher time, are critical to implement the program. Likewise, schools might use the program training and model to structure and improve their existing parent engagement efforts.
Curriculum funding and monies allocated to teacher training from both state education departments and local school system budgets could potentially be used to train teachers in RHC and to purchase RHC classroom materials. State and federal grants supporting the role of parents in academic achievement can assist in funding the parenting program of RHC.
Formula Funds: Title I can potentially support curricula purchase, training and teacher salaries in schools that are operating schoolwide Title I programs. In addition, Section 1118 of Title I requires districts receiving more that $500,000 in Title I funds to set aside at least one percent for family engagement activities and distribute at least 95% of those funds to Title I schools. Schools that use Title I funds to employ a parent liaison or coordinator could potentially train this person to act as coordinator for the parent support component.
Discretionary Grants: Federal grants from the Department of Education have been used to fund the initial training of teachers.
Foundations, particularly those focused on academic achievement and the importance of parents for school success, can be considered for funding of RHC start-up costs for the classroom program and for general support of the parenting program.
Generating new revenue can be especially important to funding the parent program. Community fundraising through Parent Teacher Associations, student civic societies or partnerships with local businesses and civic organizations can all be considered.
All information comes from the responses to a questionnaire submitted by the purveyor, Social Development Research Group, to the Annie E. Casey Foundation.
Richard F. Catalano, Ph.D.University of Washington School of Social WorkSocial Development Research Group9725 3rd Ave. Northeast, Suite 401Seattle, WA 98115-2024catalano@u.washington.edu www.sdrg.org/rhcsummary.asp
A preventive intervention with teacher, parent, and child components, designed to promote positive youth development by enhancing protective factors, reducing identified risk factors, and preventing problem behaviors and academic failure.
Participants included first and second grade students who were enrolled in public schools in the suburbs of Seattle, who were predominantly Caucasian (81.9%).
Sample demographics including race, ethnicity, and gender for Blueprints-certified studies:
Risk: Family or peer involvement in antisocial behavior; community, family or peer norms and values favorable toward drug use and crime; lack of commitment to school; academic failure; poor family management; family conflict; early initiation of problem behavior; friends engaged in problem behavior. Protective: Opportunities for prosocial involvement in family, school, community, and peer groups; rewards for positive involvements; attachment to parents; attachment and commitment to school.
Individual: Early initiation of antisocial behavior, Favorable attitudes towards antisocial behavior, Favorable attitudes towards drug use, Substance use
Peer: Interaction with antisocial peers
Family: Family conflict/violence, Parental attitudes favorable to antisocial behavior, Parental attitudes favorable to drug use, Poor family management
School: Low school commitment and attachment*, Poor academic performance
Neighborhood/Community: Laws and norms favorable to drug use/crime
Individual: Problem solving skills, Refusal skills, Skills for social interaction
Peer: Interaction with prosocial peers
Family: Attachment to parents, Opportunities for prosocial involvement with parents, Parental involvement in education, Parent social support, Rewards for prosocial involvement with parents
School: Opportunities for prosocial involvement in education, Rewards for prosocial involvement in school
Neighborhood/Community: Opportunities for prosocial involvement, Rewards for prosocial involvement
*Risk/Protective Factor was significantly impacted by the program
Raising Healthy Children (RHC) is a multifaceted program with separate components targeting classroom teachers, parents, and students to promote opportunities, skills and recognition in developmentally appropriate ways from grades 1-12. The goal is to decrease the negative impact of the student in the classroom by providing services to the family. The teacher program includes a series of workshops for instructional improvement in classroom management. Workshop topics include proactive classroom management, cooperative learning methods, strategies to enhance student motivation, student involvement and participation, reading strategies, and interpersonal problem-solving skills. In addition, after each workshop, RHC project staff provide classroom coaching for teachers. After the first year of the project, teachers participate in monthly booster sessions to further reinforce RHC teaching strategies. The RHC program for parents is conducted by school-home coordinators who are classroom teachers or specialists with experience in providing services to parents and families. Parent training and involvement include five-session parenting group workshops, selected topic workshops, and in-home problem-solving sessions. Topics for parent training include family management skills and "How to Help Your Child Succeed in School." The student intervention consists of summer camps targeting students with academic or behavioral problems who are recommended by teachers or parents. In addition, in-home services are provided for students referred for behavior or academic problems.
Elementary School Program: Raising Healthy Children (RHC) is a multifaceted program with components focusing on classroom teachers, parents, and students, with the goal of decreasing the negative impact of the student in the classroom by providing services to the family. The teacher intervention includes a series of workshops for instructional improvement in classroom management. Workshops focus on instructional strategies shown to be effective in mainstream classrooms in reducing academic risks and early aggressive behaviors while enhancing protective factors among elementary students. Workshop topics include proactive classroom management, cooperative learning methods, strategies to enhance student motivation, student involvement and participation, reading strategies, and interpersonal problem-solving skills. Teachers from the same school attend workshops together to foster and reinforce shared learning experiences. In addition, after each workshop, RHC project staff provide classroom coaching for teachers. After the first year of the project, teachers participate in monthly booster sessions to further reinforce RHC teaching strategies. Teachers are also provided a substitute for a half-day so they can observe other project teachers using RHC teaching strategies in their classrooms.
Implementation of the RHC program for parents is conducted by school-home coordinators (SHCs) who are classroom teachers or specialists with experience in providing services to parents and families. Parent training and involvement are offered through various mechanisms such as five-session parenting group workshops, selected topic workshops, and in-home problem-solving sessions. Topics for parent training include family management skills and "How to Help Your Child Succeed in School." In addition, monthly newsletters are sent to parents to reinforce and extend parenting content regarding the RHC intervention. The student intervention consists of summer camps targeting students with academic or behavioral problems who are recommended by teachers or parents. In addition, in-home services are provided for students referred for behavior or academic problems.
Extending the Program through Middle and High School: If the program is extended into middle school and high school, there are individual, family, and teacher components offered. Individual interventions include after-school tutoring and study clubs during grades 4-6 and individualized booster sessions and group-based work during middle and high school years. Social skills booster retreats are also offered during middle school to provide peer intervention strategies for students to learn and practice social, emotional, and problem-solving skills. Group and individual interventions are offered to families during grades 1-8. During high school, booster sessions are delivered through home visits in which both parents and students complete assessments that cover specific developmental risk areas. The sessions are individualized to target specific skills identified through the assessment process. Teachers receive staff development workshops through grade 7.
Safe Drivers Wanted High School Program: The "Safe Drivers Wanted" component consists of family-based driving sessions and is administered as part of the RHC intervention to families and teens approaching driving age. The sessions are administered when the oldest participants are in ninth grade. The Safe Drivers Wanted sessions attempt to improve teens' decision-making skills with respect to driving, explain current driving laws, clarify parents' driving guidelines, and help families develop a plan for monitoring compliance with those guidelines as well as provide appropriate consequences. By improving teen decision-making skills, parent and teen understanding of driving laws, and parent management of teen driving, these sessions attempt to lessen impulsive behavior and risk taking, negative peer influences, and driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The transition-to-driving lessons used in this component build upon the foundation of the earlier delivered interventions. They reinforce (or act as booster sessions for) the application of family processes taught during the elementary and middle school periods specific to driving experiences. The sessions are delivered by school-home coordinators via individual home visits (typically about 90 minutes in length) to parents and students. Visits follow standard manualized protocols. Self-study materials are mailed to families living 25 miles outside the local area. The non-local families receive follow-up phone calls from the SHCs to review materials and address family-specific issues. Families with the in-person visits have the opportunity for guided skills practice, while families receiving the mailed materials are urged to practice the skills on their own.
The first transition-to driving session is designed to provide information and skills to parents and teens about healthy development and risk taking as teens reach driving age. The session and materials review risk taking related to driving age and teach teens skills for making healthy decisions and choices. The second driving session is provided after the teens obtain their license and is designed to assist families in being specific about driving expectations in order to complete a driving contract.
Raising Healthy Children (RHC) is based on the social development model (SDM), which hypothesizes that during the elementary school years, children learn patterns of behavior from socializing units of family and school, with peers playing an increasing role as children get older. Socialization, according to the SDM, involves four sequential principles: (1) Perceived opportunities for involvement in activities and interactions with others; (2) the actual degree of involvement and interactions; (3) the skills to participate successfully in these interactions and activities; and (4) the reinforcement perceived from these interactions and activities. When the socializing processes are consistent, a social bond develops between the child and the socializing unit. This social bond in turn inhibits behaviors inconsistent with the beliefs held by the socialization unit and encourages behaviors that are consistent with those beliefs. Thus, the focus of the RHC is to support and enhance the four processes of socialization within families, classrooms, and peer groups, while simultaneously promoting prosocial development in these socializing units.
Primary Evidence Base for Certification
Blueprints has reviewed one study, and it meets Blueprints evidentiary standards (specificity, evaluation quality, impact, dissemination readiness). Study 1 was done by the developer.
Study 1
Catalano et al. (2003), Brown et al. (2005) and Haggerty et al. (2006) conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial with 10 schools and 938 first and second grade students. In the second year of the study, an additional 102 students were added to the sample. Schools were randomly assigned to the intervention or a treatment-as-usual control condition. Data measuring academic performance, problem behaviors, and drug use were collected at posttest, several additional time points through grade 10, and finally at 11 years after the study began.
Primary Evidence Base for Certification
Study 1
Catalano et al. (2003) found at the 18-month posttest, first- and second-grade students who started the program were reported by teachers and parents as increasing their academic performance and commitment to school compared to students who did not receive the program. In addition, teachers rated program students as having significantly greater increases in social competency and smaller increases in antisocial behaviors compared to control students, but parent ratings and child ratings showed no significant differences.
Brown et al. (2005) reported the students in the intervention group demonstrated significantly greater decreases in frequency of alcohol and marijuana use relative to students in the control group during the middle to high school periods. However, no significant difference was found between students in the intervention and control groups for change in alcohol use versus nonuse or for marijuana use growth rates, and no variables were associated with change in either cigarette use-versus-nonuse or frequency of cigarette use outcomes. It should be noted that intervention components were delivered every year continuing into high school.
Safe Drivers Wanted Outcomes: Haggerty et al. (2006) found intervention students and parents were significantly more likely to report having a rule in the form of a written contract than those in the control group. Intervention students were also significantly more likely to report having input in making rules and were less likely to drive under the influence of alcohol or to ride in a car with someone under the age of 21 who had been drinking than their control group counterparts. There were no significant differences between intervention and control students with respect to receiving traffic tickets or getting into accidents. Neither was the intervention associated with students being more or less likely to get their driver's license.
Primary Evidence Base for Certification
Study 1
Catalano et al. (2003) found at 18 months posttest, first- and second-grade students who started the program, relative to controls, showed significantly:
Brown et al. (2005) found during the middle to high school periods (with exposure to intervention materials/boosters through grade 10), intervention students, relative to controls, showed:
Haggerty et al. (2006) found in 11th or 12th grade, intervention students in the Safe Drivers Wanted program, relative to controls, showed:
One study meets Blueprints standards for high quality methods with strong evidence of program impact (i.e., "certified" by Blueprints): Study 1 (Catalano et al., 2003; Brown et al. 2005). The study took place in suburban Seattle, WA public schools and compared the treatment to a business-as-usual control group.
As an upstream preventive intervention, this program targets and reduces problem behaviors that are associated with increased risk of developing substance use disorder or opioid use disorder later in life.
Raising Healthy Children was intended to extend the scope of the Seattle Social Development Project (SSDP), which was implemented during the elementary grades 1-6. Most of the program elements implemented in SSDP (teacher training workshops, teacher coaching, Catch 'Em Being Good, How to Help Your Child Succeed in School, and Preparing for the Drug Free Years) were implemented in Raising Healthy Children during the elementary grades. It is reasonable, therefore, to assume that the long-term outcomes demonstrated by SSDP at ages 18, 21, 24 and 27 could also be achieved by implementing Raising Healthy Children. For more detailed information regarding SSDP, please contact CSPV for the writeup.
References for Seattle Social Development Project
Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., Kosterman, R., Abbott, R., & Hill, K. G. (1999) Preventing adolescent health-risk behaviors by strengthening protection during childhood. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 153 (3), 226-234.
Hawkins, J. D., Kosterman, R., Catalano, R. F., Hill, K. G., & Abbott, R. D. (2005) Promoting positive adult functioning through social development intervention in childhood: longterm effects from the Seattle Social Development Project. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 159 (1), 25-31.
Lonczak, H. S., Abbott, R. D., Hawkins, J. D., Kosterman, R., & Catalano, R. F. (2002). Effects of the Seattle Social Development Project on sexual behavior, pregnancy, birth, and STD outcomes by age 21. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine,156 (5), 438-447.
Hawkins, J. D., Kosterman, R., Catalano, R. F., Hill, K. G., & Abbott, R. D. (2008). Effects of social development interventions in childhood 15 years later. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 162 (12), 1133-1141.
Blueprints: Promising
Dawn Marie Baletka
WR Services
for Navasota Independent School District
3501 Kanati Cove
College Station, TX 77845
(979) 777-9940
DMBsletka@gmail.com
Shelley Logan
Social Development Research Group
University of Washington School of Social Work
9725 3rd Ave. Northeast, Suite 401
Seattle, WA 98115-2024
206-685-1997
slogan@uw.edu
https://depts.washington.edu/sdrg/programs-tools/
Certified Brown, E. C., Catalano, R. F., Fleming, C. B., Haggerty, K. P., & Abbott, R. D. (2005). Adolescent substance use outcomes in the Raising Healthy Children project: A two-part latent growth curve analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 699-710.
Certified Catalano, R. F., Mazza, J. J., Harachi, T. W., Abbott, R. D., Haggerty, K. P., & Fleming, C. B. (2003). Raising healthy children through enhancing social development in elementary school: Results after 1.5 years. Journal of School Psychology, 41, 143-164.
Haggerty, K. P., Fleming, C. B., Catalano, R. F., Harachi, T. W., & Abbot, R. D. (2006). Raising Healthy Children: Examining the impact of promoting healthy driving behavior within a social development intervention. Prevention Science, 7, 257-267.
Summary
Catalano et al. (2003), Brown et al. (2005) and Haggerty et al. (2006) conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial with 10 schools and 938 first and second grade students. In the second year of the study, an additional 102 students were added to the sample. Schools were randomly assigned to the intervention or a treatment-as-usual control condition. Data measuring academic performance, problem behaviors, and drug use were collected at posttest, several additional time points through grade 10, and finally at 11 years after the study began.
Catalano et al. (2003) found at 18 months posttest, first- and second-grade students who started the program, relative to controls, showed significantly:
Brown et al. (2005) found during the middle to high school periods (with exposure to intervention materials/boosters through grade 10), intervention students, relative to controls, showed:
Haggerty et al. (2006) found in 11th or 12th grade, intervention students in the Safe Drivers Wanted program, relative to controls, showed:
Evaluation Methodology
Design: Three evaluations were performed drawing data from the same sample. The first evaluation measured the effectiveness of the intervention in affecting changes in academic and behavioral outcomes at 18 months post-intervention (end of 2nd or 3rd grade), while the second examined the effect of the intervention on substance use trajectory from grades 6-10, and the third examined the impact of the "Safe Drivers Wanted" component of RHC delivered in high school.
Participants included first and second graders in ten suburban public schools in the Pacific Northwest. The ten schools were paired on socioeconomic status and attendance patterns. One school in each pair was randomly assigned to receive either the Raising Healthy Children (RHC) intervention or to a treatment-as-usual control condition. To be considered eligible for participation in the study, children were required to have a parent who spoke English, Spanish, Vietnamese, or Korean and attended a regular first- or second-grade classroom. In the fall of Year One, active consent letters were sent to eligible families. After receiving the advance letter, each family was approached through a home visit and invited to participate in the project. Of the 1,239 eligible students, 938 (76%) consented to participate with 497 (53%) in program schools and 441 (47%) in control schools. Fifty-three percent of parents in the experimental group either attended a workshop or had a visit with the school-home coordinator by the end of Year Two.
Catalano et al., 2003 (Early Intervention): Data were collected four times during the 18-month period. Baseline data was collected prior to the intervention in December and January of Year One. The second set of data was collected during the spring of Year One, and the third and fourth sets were collected during the fall and spring of Year Two, respectively. Classroom teachers completed a student behavior checklist on each participating student in Year One at Baseline (December-January) and again at the end of the school year (May-June). Teachers also completed student behavior checklists in the fall and spring of Year Two when the students were in the second and third grades. Completion rates ranged from 95% to 99.8%. Only those participants with completed teacher-reported baseline checklists and follow-up data were used in the analysis (n = 908, 96.8%).
Data from parents were collected via a telephone interview lasting about 45 minutes in the winter of Year One as a baseline measure. Parents were again interviewed in the spring of Year One and in the spring of Year Two. Parents of participating students completed checklists containing questions about their child's behavior as well as family dynamics, parenting issues, and adult behaviors. Parents completed this form at baseline and then again in the spring of Year One and Year Two. One hundred percent of parents provided this information in Year One and 94.1% provided it in the spring of Year Two. A total of 938 parent reports were used for the analysis.
Surveys were read aloud to groups of students for independent completion in the spring of Year One and again in the spring of Year Two. A total of 938 students completed the self-report measure at Year One. A high rate of student retention was achieved: 100% in the spring of Year One and 98.1% in the spring of Year Two.
There was a significant difference between experimental and control participation by low-income families, with 44% of the control families and 33% of the experimental families qualifying for public assistance and/or free or reduced lunch. Significant gender differences were found from the parent-reported data at baseline for school commitment, with females having higher scores than males, except on academic performance and on the parent-reported social competency scale, with females scoring higher than males at baseline. Teacher-reported outcomes at baseline showed that females were rated significantly higher for commitment to school and social competency, respectively, while males were rated significantly higher on antisocial behavior. There were also gender differences on students' self-reported antisocial behavior scale, with males having significantly higher scores than females in Year One.
Brown et al., 2005 (Grades 6-10): In Year Two, the sample was augmented with an additional 102 students from a second eligible pool of 131 students who newly entered 1 of the 10 schools during second grade, thus yielding a total sample of 1,040 students for the drug use outcome measures. For the analysis sample in the drug use evaluation, 77 students were excluded because they were missing data for all substance use outcome measures during grades 6-10. An additional four students were excluded from the study based on questions regarding the validity of their self-reported responses of maximal levels of use for almost all types of substances during all measurement occasions. Thus, a final sample of 959 students (92%) was included in the drug use analyses.
In this evaluation, students in the treatment group participated in after-school tutoring sessions and study clubs during grades 4-6 and received individualized booster sessions, group-based workshops, and social skills booster retreats during the middle and high school years. Selected families in the treatment group participated in multiple-session parenting workshops and in-home services which were delivered during grades 1-8. During high school, booster sessions were delivered through in-home visits in which both parents and students completed assessments that covered specific developmental risk areas. Families who had moved outside the local geographic area had all intervention materials mailed to them with assessments completed through phone consultation.
Teachers in grades 1-7 received at least six staff development workshop sessions starting the year before they had contact with students in the study. Teachers were observed repeatedly in the classroom by independent raters to ensure fidelity to school intervention strategies. Twenty-seven percent of intervention students attended at least one study club, 40% attended at least one of the middle school retreats or workshops, and 51% attended at least one summer camp. A total of 51% of intervention families attended at least one group workshop, 35% received individual contacts including home-based services, and 77% received at least one middle or high school period booster workshop.
Student data collection in grades 6-9 consisted of both group and one-on-one in-school survey administration. Students who were not at school at the time of data collection were contacted at home and individually administered an in-person telephone or mail-in survey. In grades nine and ten, a one-on-one computer-assisted data collection technique was applied in which students entered their responses directly into a computer. Retention rates for student surveys during grades 6-10 were all greater than 88%.
Analysis of differential attrition revealed that a greater proportion of female students had missing outcome data than male students. No other significant differences were noted based on group assignment, first- versus second-grade cohorts, SES, or level of student antisocial behavior.
Haggerty et al., 2006 (High School Safe Drivers Evaluation): In the Safe Drivers Wanted evaluation, 924 students (89%) of the original sample of 1,040 were interviewed in the spring of 2004, 11 years after the study began, and were included in the analysis sample. Participants who did not complete the 11-year follow-up interview and were excluded from the analysis did not differ significantly from the analysis sample in terms of gender, whether they received free/reduced school lunch in the first two years of the project, whether they were in the intervention or control conditions, age, baseline rating of antisocial behavior by teachers, ethnicity (white or non-white), or grade cohort. Ninety-six percent of the eligible families with teens in the intervention condition were exposed to the first driving session, 56% received a home visit and 44% received a mailed packet with a telephone follow-up. Four percent were unavailable for the intervention. Only teens that had received their license (56%) were eligible for the second driving session. Eighty percent of licensed drivers who were in the intervention group and in the analysis sample were exposed to the second session, 59 through home visit and 41% through a mail-out packet with phone follow-up.
Sample: In the elementary sample, the experimental group was 55% male while the control group was 51.5%. The experimental group was 82% European American, 8.5% Asian, 4% African American, 3% Hispanic, and 2.4% Native American while the control group was 80.3% European American, 5.9% Asian, 5% African American, 5.2% Hispanic, and 3.6% Native American. For the drug use evaluation, the sample was 54% male, 82% European American, 4% Hispanic, and 3% Native American.
Measures: Teachers completed academic and behavioral measures on participating students. Commitment to school was measured using two items: "student tries hard in school" and "student wants to do well in school." Academic performance was measured using three items that focused on reading, language arts, and math with the student being compared to peers on these abilities. The academic performance items were not completed at baseline; however, these items were completed at each subsequent data collection period. Social competency was measured by nine items asking teachers about a student's ability to understand other people's feelings, cooperate with peers, accept responsibility for his/her actions, and share things. Antisocial behavior was measured using ten-items taken from the Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation-Revised (TOCA-R) and the Child Behavior Checklist-Teacher Report. Parents completed two measures, one rating their child's academic performance (using the same two scales used for teacher ratings) and the other their child's behavior. The academic performance scale for parents consisted of two items, one evaluating math and the other reading, and was not assessed during the fall of Year Two. Parent-rated social competency scale consisted of seven items that examined issues such as making friends with other children, resolving conflicts with peers or siblings, and controlling his/her temperament. The parent-rated antisocial scale was comprised of the same ten items that were completed by the teacher. The student survey was a 40-item self-report measure with a yes/no report scale targeting social competency and antisocial behavior.
Annual substance use measures were constructed from student self-reports of frequency of alcohol, marijuana, and cigarette use during both previous year and previous month time periods. A six-point Likert scale was created for alcohol and marijuana use (0 = no use in the previous year; 5 = 20 or more times in the past month), with a similar scale used for cigarette use (0 = no use in previous year; 5 = more than 40 cigarettes per day).
Measures of driving behavior were obtained from surveys of parents and students in the spring of 2004, when most students were in 11th or 12th grade. The annual survey of students was administered by trained interviewers using laptop computers to record answers. The youth survey took 50 minutes to complete. Interviews with parents were done over the telephone and took about 25 minutes. All outcome measures were dichotomous, reflecting a "yes" or "no" answer, or whether the behavior had occurred in the past 12 months. Session-specific outcomes regarding family rules about driving were measured by the following items: "Does your family have rules about driving?", "Did you help make the rule(s) (about driving)?", and "Have the family rules for driving been put in the form of a written contract?". Compliance with licensure laws was indicated by whether a participant had "driven without a license and not under the supervision of a parent, driving instructor, or other adult." Driving and substance use was assessed by whether the respondent indicated s/he had driven "while under the influence of alcohol" or "while under the influence of marijuana or other illegal drug." Participants were asked if they had ridden in a car driven by someone under age 21 "who had been drinking alcohol," if they had "received a ticket, or been stopped and warned for moving violations such as speeding, running a stop light, or improper passing" and whether the respondent had "been in a car accident while you were driving, whether or not you were responsible." In order to assess whether the intervention may have had an unintended consequence of earlier licensure, students were also asked if they had their driver's license at the time of the follow-up interview.
Analysis: Analyses were conducted based on the number of data points collected during the 18-month time period. Teacher-reported student outcomes (four data collection time points) were analyzed using growth curve analysis with hierarchical linear models (HLM) in terms of the growth rate and level (at the end of 18 months) of each child adjusted for baseline. In this analysis, two models of change were run. The initial model estimated the slope and intercept for each child, provided a test of whether the variance in slope and intercept estimates across individuals was due to sampling error, and provided estimates of the precision of the parameters. The second model examined whether treatment condition predicted the individual slope and intercept after controlling for baseline, gender, and low income. Both models included time in Level One as a predictor of outcome. Thus, level differences reported are those at the end of the 18-month intervention. Parent-reported outcomes (three data collection time points) and child self-reported data (two data collection time points) were analyzed using regression analysis. For analyses of parent-reported data, the effects of treatment condition were modeled after controlling for low income, gender, and baseline. These variables were also controlled for in the child self-reported analyses, however, baseline ratings were comprised of parent-reported data of their child at baseline because child self-reported data at baseline were not collected. Gender was controlled for in each of the analyses.
For the drug use analyses, a two-part latent growth model was used, dividing the original distribution of substance use outcomes into two parts, each modeled by separate, but correlated, growth functions. In Part 1 of the model, nonuse was isolated from any level of use in the past year. Use-versus-nonuse outcome variables for each substance were analyzed as a random-effects logistic growth model with the log odds of use regressed on growth factors. In Part 2 of the model, frequency of use outcomes were modeled as a latent growth model with growth factors of nonzero substance use regressed on intervention status and background variables following traditional latent growth modeling techniques for normally distributed substance use measures. Substance nonuse within each time period was treated as missing data for frequency of use. Change in use-versus-nonuse frequency-of-use outcomes were modeled as linear, quadratic, or piecewise growth.
In order to assess intervention versus control differences attributable to the Safe Drivers Wanted visits, covariates measured in the spring of grade 8 were included in the analysis models to adjust for salient pre-driving session behaviors of parenting and youth substance use. Eighth grade covariates included socioeconomic status, parenting behaviors, and student substance use. Socioeconomic status was indicated by parent report of whether the family received food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), or free/reduced price school lunch for the student. Parenting behaviors were assessed with three scales that measure key targets of the RHC family intervention and were derived from student surveys: monitoring; guidelines; and appropriate consequences. Substance use was indicated by student report of use of cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana in the prior year. Gender was also included as a covariate. Based on outcome measures by experimental condition, prevalence was examined using contingency tables. In order to assess the statistical significance of these differences in a manner consistent with the group-randomized design of the study, two-level multi-level models were used with students grouped by the elementary school in which they were recruited into the study. The Level 1 (individual level) sampling model was Bernoulli and a logit link was used, with the intercept of the model allowed to vary across the 10 schools (Level 2). Experimental condition was then treated as a characteristic of these school groups, and used to explain between-school variations in the intercept of the logistic regression model. Eighth-grade measures and gender were included as Level 1 covariates with their effects fixed across schools. Only those intervention students who had obtained their driver's licenses received the second transition-to-driving session. In the second analysis, parallel procedures were used to examine experimental versus control comparisons on outcome measures for the students who had their driver's license at the time of the spring 2004 survey.
In order to avoid the bias introduced by listwise deletion of cases, NORM software was used to impute 10 data sets with complete data for all 927 subjects, augmented with random error. The multilevel models were run using HLM 6.0, with results averaged across analyses on the 10 imputations in order to estimate appropriate standard errors.
Outcomes
Posttest: At the 18-month post-test, after controlling for gender, low income, and baseline, the main effects for treatment on slope and intercept were significant. In addition, there were no significant Gender X Intervention or Income X Intervention interactions.
Academic Outcomes: Students receiving the intervention had significantly higher levels of commitment to school and academic performance than students in the control group, based on teacher-reported data. Results from parent-reported data with gender, low income, and baseline scores controlled indicated that receiving the intervention was significantly predictive of academic performance, with intervention students having higher academic performance than control students. For commitment to school, the intervention condition showed a significant effect with program students showing a higher parent-rating of commitment to school than control students.
Behavioral Outcomes: Teacher-reported social competency data indicated that students who received the intervention had a significantly increasing growth rate, while control students decreased significantly in their level of social competency. Similar results were found regarding teacher-reported antisocial behavior, with a significant difference in level and growth between intervention and control students. Control students had a higher level of antisocial behavior and an increasing growth rate, while students receiving the intervention had a lower level of antisocial behavior and a decreasing growth rate. The parent ratings of social competency and antisocial behavior (controlling for gender, low income, and baseline), however, indicated that program condition was not a significant predictor of social competency or antisocial behavior at 18 months posttest. The child self-report data were limited to two outcomes: social competency and antisocial behavior. Both regression equations used parent' ratings of social competency and antisocial behavior, respectively, as substitute baseline measures because child self-report data were not collected at baseline. With low income, gender, and the baseline measure controlled for, program condition was not a significant predictor for social competency or for antisocial behavior. Analyses of effects by gender indicated females receiving the intervention did show significantly higher increases in prosocial skills as compared to males. In addition, the program effects in antisocial behavior did not differ across gender.
Drug Use Outcomes: Prevalence rates for alcohol, marijuana, and cigarette use increased generally during grades 6-10. Rates of substance use in the treatment group during grade 10 were similar to population-based rates from students in the state of Washington. Mean frequency of alcohol and marijuana use peaked at eighth grade and declined thereafter and the mean frequency of cigarette use increased throughout grades 7-10. No significant difference was found between students in the intervention group and controls for change in alcohol use versus nonuse. Students in the intervention group demonstrated a significantly greater rate of decline in the frequency of alcohol use during grades 8-10, relative to students in the control group. In addition, students in the first-grade cohort demonstrated a significantly greater decline in the growth in frequency of alcohol use during grades 8-10, relative to the second-grade cohort.
No significant differences were found in marijuana use growth rates between intervention students and controls. However, for frequency of marijuana use, results indicated a significant intervention effect, with students in the intervention group exhibiting greater linear decline in the frequency of marijuana use than students in the control group. The only significant effect for frequency of cigarette use was for baseline antisocial behavior, with higher levels related significantly to more cigarette smoking in the spring of grade 8. No other variables were associated with change in either cigarette use-versus-nonuse or frequency of cigarette use outcomes.
Safe Drivers Wanted Outcomes: Although intervention students were no more likely to report that their families had driving rules, they were significantly more likely to report having a rule in the form of a written contract than students in the control group. Parents in the intervention group were also significantly more likely to report having a rule in the form of a written contract, and intervention students were significantly more likely to report they had input in making those rules than their control group counterparts. Intervention participants were significantly less likely to drive under the influence of alcohol or to ride in a car with someone under the age of 21 who had been drinking compared to the control group. There were no significant differences found between intervention and control students with respect to receiving traffic tickets or getting into accidents. The intervention was not associated with students being more or less likely to get their driver's license, with the same percentage of students in each condition having received their license at follow-up.
Among the subsample of students who had obtained a license by spring 2004, the differences in unsafe driving were slightly stronger than in the sample as a whole. These students were significantly more likely to report that their family had a written driving contract, that they helped to make the family driving rules, and significantly less likely to report driving under the influence of alcohol or riding in a car with someone under the age of 21 who had been drinking than their control group counterparts. Parents of these students were significantly more likely to report that their family had a written driving contract than their control group counterparts.