Appendix 5-B
Descriptions of Specific Programs That Meet Standards for Model and Promising Categories

MODEL PROGRAMS: LEVEL 1 (VIOLENCE PREVENTION)

Functional Family Therapy (FFT)

Evidence of effectiveness: In multiple clinical trials, FFT achieved significant reductions in the proportion of youths who reoffended (60 percent of treated youths were arrested after the program versus 93 percent of controls in one study and 11 percent versus 67 percent in another) and the frequency of offending up to 2.5 years after participation in the intervention. Diffusion effects on the siblings of target youths have also been observed, with significantly fewer siblings of FFT youths than control youths having juvenile court records 2.5 to 3.5 years after the program.

For further information:

• Developmental Research and Programs, Inc. (2000). Communities That Care® prevention strategies: A research guide to what works. Seattle, WA.
• Alexander, J., Pugh, C., Parsons, B., Barton, C., Gordon, D., Grotpeter, J., Hansson, K., Harrison, R., Mears, S., Mihalic, S., Schulman, S., Waldron, H., & Sexton, T. (1998). Functional family therapy. In D. S. Elliott (Series Ed.), Blueprints for violence prevention. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado at Boulder.
• Mendel, R. A. (2000). Less hype, more help: Reducing juvenile crime, what works—and what doesn't. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum.

Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care

Evidence of effectiveness: A randomized evaluation of Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care compared to group care in boys only demonstrated the following results at a 12-month follow-up: Treated boys spent significantly more days in their placements, were less likely to run away from their placements, and spent twice as many days living with their families or relatives. One year after leaving treatment, treated boys had significantly larger decreases in arrest rates than controls, had significantly fewer arrests overall, and were significantly more likely not to have been arrested at all during follow-up. Treated boys also reported significantly fewer criminal activities (general delinquency, index offenses, and felony assaults). In prior evaluations that included both boys and girls, Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care improved rates of program completion, reduced rates of incarceration and number of days incarcerated during the first year after treatment, and resulted in a faster drop in rates of problem behavior for seriously impaired youths.

For further information:

• Chamberlain, P. (1998). Treatment foster
  care. Family strengthening series. (OJJDP Bulletin NCJ 173421). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
• Chamberlain, P., & Mihalic, S. F. (1998). Multidimensional treatment foster care. In D. S. Elliott (Series Ed.), Blueprints for violence prevention. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado at Boulder.
• Chamberlain, P., & Reid, J. (1998). Comparison of two community alternatives to incarceration for chronic juvenile offenders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 6, 624-633.
• Eddy, J. M., & Chamberlain, P. (2000). Family management and deviant peer association as mediators of the impact of treatment condition on youth antisocial behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 5, 857-863.
• Moore, K. J., Sprengelmeyer, P. G., & Chamberlain, P. (in press). Community-based treatment for adjudicated delinquents: The Oregon Social Learning Center's "Monitor" treatment foster care program. Residential Treatment for Children and Youth.
• Mendel, R. A. (2000). Less hype, more help: Reducing juvenile crime, what works—and what doesn't. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum.

Multisystemic Therapy (MST)

Evidence of effectiveness: This program has been evaluated in multiple, well-designed clinical trials. Studies conducted in Memphis, Tennessee, and South Carolina (among seriously delinquent youths) show that participation in MST can have significant positive effects on behavior problems (including conduct problems, anxiety-withdrawal, immaturity, and socialized aggression), family relations, and self-reported offenses immediately after treatment. Fifty-nine weeks after referral, seriously delinquent youth who participated in MST had slightly more than half as many arrests as controls (mean = 0.87 versus 1.52), spent an average of 73 fewer days incarcerated in justice system facilities, and showed reductions in aggression with peers. After 2.4 years, MST youths were half as likely as control youths to have been rearrested. In Columbia, Missouri, MST improved family relations and arrest rates, including arrests for violent and substance-related crimes, and demonstrated a dose-response effect, with program completers demonstrating significantly more benefits than dropouts.

For further information:

• Henggeler, S. W., Mihalic, S. F., Rone, L., Thomas, C., & Timmons-Mitchell, J. (1998). Multisystemic therapy. In D. S. Elliott (Series Ed.), Blueprints for violence prevention. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado at Boulder.
• Thornton, T. N., Craft, C. A., Dahlberg, L. L., Lynch, B. S., & Baer, K. (2000). Best practices of youth violence prevention: A sourcebook for community action. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

Prenatal and Infancy Home Visitation by Nurses

Evidence of effectiveness: Prenatal and Infancy Home Visitation by Nurses has demonstrated effectiveness in both white and African American families in rural and urban settings. A 15-year follow-up of low-income, teenage mothers in whom this intervention was implemented in Elmira, New York, showed a 79 percent reduction in reports of child abuse and neglect, a 31 percent drop in subsequent births, a 44 percent decline in maternal behavioral problems, a 9 percent decline in maternal arrests, a 56 percent decrease in running away by children, and reductions of 56 percent in arrests of children and alcohol consumption by children. The program also increased the average spacing between children by more than 2 years. Preliminary results of a replication in Memphis, Tennessee, demonstrated positive effects on parental caregiving and childhood injuries and reductions in dysfunctional caregiving, including child abuse and neglect. Recent reanalysis of the 15-year follow-up in Elmira showed that the program's effects on child abuse and neglect were significantly diminished in families that reported high rates of domestic violence (more than 28 incidents since the birth of the study child). A new replication of the program in Denver has taken this limitation into account, adding elements on partner communication and assessment and referral for domestic violence. The evaluation of this replication has also been revised to account more accurately for the effects of the program on domestic violence, as well as the effects of domestic violence on the program outcomes (Reuters Health, 9/20/00).

For further information:

• Developmental Research and Programs, Inc. (2000). Communities That CareŽ prevention strategies: A research guide to what works. Seattle, WA.
• Olds, D. L., Hill, P. L., Mihalic, S. F., & O'Brien, R. A. (1998). Prenatal and infancy home visitation by nurses. In D.S. Elliott (Series Ed.), Blueprints for violence prevention. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado at Boulder.
• Howell, J. A. (Ed.). (1995). Guide for implementing the comprehensive strategy for serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
• Thornton, T. N., Craft, C. A., Dahlberg, L. L., Lynch, B. S., & Baer, K. (2000). Best practices of youth violence prevention: A sourcebook for community action. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

Seattle Social Development Project

Evidence of effectiveness: Evaluations of the Seattle Social Development Project demonstrate reductions at the end of grade 2 in aggression, antisocial and externalizing behaviors, and self-destructive behaviors in children who participated in the program during the 1st and 2nd grades. Other benefits of the program include lower rates of alcohol and delinquency initiation, improvements in family management practices and parent-child relationships, greater attachment and commitment to school, and less involvement with antisocial peers. Follow-up at age 18 shows that the Seattle Social Development Project significantly improves long-term attachment and commitment to school and school achievement and reduces rates of self-reported violent acts and heavy alcohol use. At follow-up, students who received the full intervention were also less likely than controls to be sexually active, to have had multiple sex partners, and to have been or have gotten someone pregnant (this difference was only marginally significant, at p = .057). Replications of this program have confirmed its benefits in both general and high-risk populations of youths.

For further information:

• Catalano, R. F., Harachi, T. W., Abbott, R.D., Haggerty, K. P., & Fleming, C. B. (draft). Raising healthy children through enhancing social development in elementary school: Results after 1.5 years. Seattle, WA: Social Development Research Group, University of Washington.
• Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. (1999). CSPV blueprints promising fact sheet: Seattle Social Development Project. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado at Boulder.
• Developmental Research and Programs, Inc. (2000). Communities That CareŽ prevention strategies: A research guide to what works. Seattle, WA.
• Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., Kosterman, R., Abbott, R., & Hill, K. G. (in press). Preventing adolescent health-risk behaviors by strengthening protection during childhood. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine.
• Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., Morrison, D., O'Donnell, J., Abbott, R., & Day, L. E. (1992). The Seattle Social Development Project: Effects of the first four years on protective factors and problem behaviors. In J. McCord & R. E. Tremblay (Eds.), Preventing antisocial behavior: Interventions from birth through adolescence. New York: The Guilford Press.
• Hawkins, J. D., Doueck, H. J., & Lishner, D. M. (1988). Changing teacher practices in mainstream classrooms to improve bonding and behavior of low achievers. American Educational Research Journal, 25, 31-50.
• Hawkins, J. D., Von Cleve, E., & Catalano, R. F. (1991). Reducing early childhood aggression: Results of a primary prevention program. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 30, 208-217.
• Howell, J. A. (Ed.). (1995). Guide for implementing the comprehensive strategy for serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
• Mendel, R. A. (2000). Less hype, more help: Reducing juvenile crime, what works—and what doesn't. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum.
• O'Donnell, J., Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., Abbott, R. D., & Day, E. (1995). Preventing school failure, drug use, and delinquency among low-income children: Long-term intervention in elementary schools. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 65, 87-100.
• Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn't, what's promising. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

MODEL PROGRAMS: LEVEL 2 (RISK PREVENTION)

Life Skills Training (LST)

Evidence of effectiveness: More than a dozen studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of LST. On average, the program reduces tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana use by 50 to 75 percent. Long-term follow-up of students 6 years after participation in the intervention demonstrates that LST also reduces polydrug use by 66 percent, reduces pack-a-day cigarette smoking by 25 percent, and decreases the use of inhalants, narcotics, and hallucinogens.

For further information:

• Developmental Research and Programs, Inc. (2000). Communities That CareŽ prevention strategies: A research guide to what works. Seattle, WA.
• Botvin, G. J., Mihalic, S. F., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1998). Life skills training. In D. S. Elliott (Series Ed.), Blueprints for violence prevention. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado at Boulder.
• Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn't, what's promising. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

The Midwestern Prevention Project

Evidence of effectiveness: Results of the Kansas City study showed that the Midwestern Prevention Project significantly reduces the increase in drug use that occurs in middle school. Specifically, cigarette, alcohol, and marijuana use were 5 percent, 2 percent, and 0 percent lower, respectively, in the Midwestern Prevention Project group at 6 months; 8 percent, 4 percent, and 3 percent lower after 1 year; and 9 percent, 2 percent, and 3 percent lower after 2 years. At 3 years, significant program effects on tobacco and marijuana use, but not alcohol use, remained. Based on early results of this program, a replication in Indianapolis (Project I-STAR) modified the Midwestern Prevention Project intervention by adding two sessions on alcohol use to the school curriculum, introducing a parent-training component a year earlier than in the initial study, adding a pretraining orientation for parent committee members, shortening the time between the various program components, and changing the community organization structure. In the Project I-STAR replication, the effects on cigarette and marijuana use through the high school years were similar to but smaller than the effects demonstrated in Kansas City. The magnitude of effects on inhalant, amphetamine, and LSD use was similar in the two cities. When the quality of implementation was taken into account, the effects of the program in Indianapolis reached the same magnitude as the effects demonstrated in Kansas City with respect to gateway drug use (tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana).

For further information:

• Pentz, M. A., Mihalic, S. F., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1998). The midwestern prevention project. In D. S. Elliott (Series Ed.), Blueprints for violence prevention. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado at Boulder.

PROMISING PROGRAMS: LEVEL 1 (VIOLENCE PREVENTION)

Intensive Protective Supervision Project

Evidence of effectiveness: Compared to regular protective supervision, Intensive Protective Supervision reduces referrals to juvenile court for delinquency during treatment and up to 1 year after case closing. One evaluation of a poorly implemented replication in North Carolina (additional sites were added to the original study group) showed a deterioration of program effects over time.

For further information:

• Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. (1999). CSPV blueprints promising fact sheet: Intensive Protective Supervision Project. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado at Boulder.
• Land, K. C., McCall, P. L., & Williams, J. R. (1992). Intensive supervision of status offenders: Evidence on continuity of treatment effects for juveniles and a "Hawthorne effect" for counselors. In R. Tremblay & J. McCord (Eds.), Preventing antisocial behavior: Interventions from birth through adolescence. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
• Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn't, what's promising. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-ment of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
• Sontheimer, H., & Goodstein, L. (1993). Evaluation of juvenile intensive aftercare probation: Aftercare versus system response effects. Justice Quarterly, 10, 197-227.

Montreal Longitudinal Study/Preventive Treatment Program

Evidence of effectiveness: No significant differences between treated and control boys were observed immediately after treatment, but 2 years later treated youths were involved in fewer fights, were half as likely to have serious school adjustment problems, and were less likely to be involved in delinquent activities than those in the control group. Boys followed to age 12 (3 years after the intervention) had significantly lower rates of delinquency, fighting, serious difficulties in school, and placement in special-education classes, and they were rated as significantly more well adjusted in school than controls. Three years later, treated boys were less likely than untreated boys to report gang involvement, drunkenness, or drug use in the past year, delinquency, and having friends arrested by police. Because the effects of this intervention on girls are unknown, these benefits can be expected only when the intervention is implemented in boys.

For further information:

• Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. (1999). CSPV blueprints promising fact sheet: Preventive Treatment Program. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado at Boulder.
• Developmental Research and Programs, Inc. (2000). Communities That CareŽ prevention strategies: A research guide to what works. Seattle, WA.
• Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C., & Bumbarger, B. (1991). Preventing mental disorders in school-age children: A review of the effectiveness of prevention programs. University Park, PA: Prevention Research Center for the Promotion of Human Development, Pennsylvania State University.
• Howell, J. A. (Ed.). (1995). Guide for implementing the comprehensive strategy for serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
• Tremblay, R. E., Pagani-Kurtz, L., Masse, L. C., & Pihl, R. O. (1995). A bimodal preventive intervention for disruptive kindergarten boys: Its impact through mid-adolescence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 560-568.
• Tremblay, R. E., Vitaro, F., Bertrand, L., LeBlanc, M., Beauchesne, H., Boileau, H., & David, L. (1992). Parent and child training to prevent early onset of delinquency: The Montreal Longitudinal Experimental Study. In J. McCord & R. Tremblay (Eds.), Preventing antisocial behavior: Interventions from birth through adolescence. New York: The Guilford Press.

Perry Preschool Program

Evidence of effectiveness: Follow-up at age 19 of children enrolled in Perry Preschool demonstrates less delinquency and fewer arrests, less involvement in serious fights, less police contact, lower dropout rates, and fewer pregnancies and births. The intervention has also reduced antisocial behavior and misconduct in elementary school and shown positive effects on commitment to school, academic achievement, rates of employment, and job satisfaction at age 15.

For further information:

• Berrueta-Clement, J. R., Schweinhart, L. J., Barnett, W. S., Epstein, A. S., & Weikart, D. P. (1984). Changed lives: The effects of the Perry Preschool Program on youths through age 19. Ypsilanti, MI: The High/Scope Press.
• Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. (1999). CSPV blueprints promising fact sheet: Perry Preschool Program. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado at Boulder.
• Epstein, A. S. (1993). Training for quality: Improving early childhood programs through systematic inservice training. Ypsilanti, MI: The High/Scope Press.
• Greenwood, P., Model, K. E., Rydell, C. P., & Chiesa, J. (1996). Diverting children from a life of crime: Measuring costs and benefits. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
• Mendel, R. A. (2000). Less hype, more help: Reducing juvenile crime, what works—and what doesn't. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum.
• Schweinhart, L. J., & Weikart, D. P. (1980). Young children grow up: The effects of the Perry Preschool Program on youths through age 15. Ypsilanti, MI: The High/Scope Press.
• Weikart, D. P., Bond, J. T., & McNeil, J. T. (1978). The Ypsilanti Perry Preschool Project: Preschool years and longitudinal results through fourth grade. Ypsilanti, MI: The High/Scope Press.

School Transitional Environmental Program (STEP)

Evidence of effectiveness: Evaluations performed at the end of the 9th grade show that STEP students have fewer school absences, higher grade-point averages, more positive feelings about school, and a better self-concept than controls. In long-term studies, STEP students had lower dropout rates than controls (21 percent versus 43 percent), higher grades, and fewer absences. In a replication of the program in middle and junior high schools, both STEP and control students showed increases in substance use, delinquent acts, and depression, and decreases in academic performance and self-confidence. However, these changes were significantly smaller among STEP students than controls. Students who participated in STEP also had lower dropout rates than controls. Replication in students with lower risk profiles 1 year after participation in STEP confirmed these findings, showing lower rates of delinquency and higher self-esteem, academic performance, and school attendance than controls. This program has not been evaluated in small or high-achieving schools. In past studies, the program has worked best in large schools. The major limitation to the evaluation research on this program is that the first study lacked pretest measures; however, the researchers reported no differences between treated students and controls with respect to attendance and grades at baseline.

For further information:

• Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. (1999). CSPV blueprints promising fact sheet: School Transitional Environmental Program. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado at Boulder.
• Developmental Research and Programs, Inc. (2000). Communities That CareŽ prevention strategies: A research guide to what works. Seattle, WA.
• Felner, R. D., & Adan, A. M. (1988). The School Transitional Environment Project: An ecological intervention and evaluation. In H. H. Price, E. L. Cowen, R. P. Lorin, & J. Ramos-McKay (Eds.), 14 ounces of prevention: A casebook for practitioners. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Felner, R. D., Ginter, M., & Primavera, J. (1982). Primary prevention during school transitions: Social support and environmental structure. American Journal of Community Psychology, 10, 277-290.
• Felner, R. D., Brand, S., Adan, A. M., Mulhall, P. F., Flowers, N., Satrain, B., & DuBois, D. L. (1993). Restructuring the ecology of the school as an approach to prevention during school transitions: Longitudinal follow-ups and extensions of the School Transitional Environment Project (STEP). In L. A. Jason, K. E. Danner, & Kurasaki, K. S. (Eds.), Prevention and school transitions. New York: The Haworth Press.
• Howell, J. A. (Ed.). (1995). Guide for implementing the comprehensive strategy for serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
• Reyes, O., & Jason, L. A. (1991). An evaluation of a high school dropout prevention program. Journal of Community Psychology, 19, 221-230.
• Sherman, L.W., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. (1997, February). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn't, what's promising. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

Striving Together to Achieve Rewarding Tomorrows (CASASTART, formerly Children At Risk [CAR])

Evidence of effectiveness: Evaluations of CASASTART have demonstrated significant positive effects on drug use, including gateway drug use, immediately following participation and on violent crime and drug selling 1 year later. Compared to controls and comparison youths, youths who participated in CASASTART also reported significantly less lifetime drug sales and less involvement with delinquent peers. While the initial evaluation of this intervention included multiple, ethnically diverse sites, a true replication of this program has not been evaluated.

For further information:

• Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. (1999). CSPV blueprints promising fact sheet: CASASTART. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado at Boulder.
• Harrell, A. V., Cavanagh, S., & Sridharan, S. (1998). Impact of the Children at Risk Program: Comprehensive final report II. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
• Thornton, T. N., Craft, C. A., Dahlberg, L. L., Lynch, B. S., & Baer, K. (2000). Best practices of youth violence prevention: A sourcebook for community action. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

Syracuse Family Development Research Program

Evidence of effectiveness: The most dramatic effects of the program were demonstrated in a 10-year follow-up evaluation that showed reduced juvenile delinquency and improved school functioning. Children in the program also demonstrated more positive self-ratings, higher educational goals, and increased self-efficacy. Benefits to parents included greater encouragement of their children's success and increased family unity. The existing evaluation research on this program is limited by several factors: The program has not been replicated; there was relatively high attrition of families in the initial studies that may have led to a positive bias in the follow-up results; and allocation to treatment and control groups was not randomized. This program is no longer deliverable—that is, no technical assistance is available to those who wish to implement it.

For further information:

• Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. (1999). CSPV blueprints promising fact sheet: Syracuse Family Development Research Program. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado at Boulder.
• Howell, J. A. (Ed.). (1995). Guide for implementing the comprehensive strategy for serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
• Lally, J. R., Mangione, P. L., Honig, A. S., & Wittner, D. S. (1988). The Syracuse University Family Development Research Program: Long-range impact on early intervention with low-income children and their families. In D. R. Powell & I. E. Sigel (Eds.), Parent education as early childhood intervention: Emerging directions in theory, research and practice. Annual Advances in Applied Developmental Psychology, Volume 3. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
• Mendel, R. A. (2000). Less hype, more help: Reducing juvenile crime, what works—and what doesn't. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum.

PROMISING PROGRAMS: LEVEL 2 (RISK PREVENTION)

Bullying Prevention Program

Evidence of effectiveness: Initial evaluations of the Bullying Prevention Program were conducted in elementary and junior high school students in Bergen, Norway. Two years after the intervention, bully-victim problems in treated schools decreased by 50 percent. Antisocial behavior, including theft, vandalism, and truancy, also dropped during these years, while school climate improved. These changes showed a dose-response relationship. Multiple replications of this program have demonstrated similar effects in England, Germany, and the United States.

For further information:

• Olweus, D., Limber, S., & Mihalic, S. (1998). Bullying prevention program. In D. S. Elliott (Series Ed.), Blueprints for violence prevention. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado at Boulder.
• Howell, J. A. (Ed.) (1995). Guide for implementing the comprehensive strategy for serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
• Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. (1997, February). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn't, what's promising. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

Families and Schools Together (FAST Track)

Evidence of effectiveness: FAST Track has demonstrated effectiveness in students of diverse demographic backgrounds, including sex, ethnicity, social class, and family composition. Short-term follow-up at the end of grade 1 shows improvements in children's aggressive, disruptive, and oppositional behavior; peer ratings; parenting techniques; parent-child bonding; and maternal involvement in school activities. Long-term follow-up studies are in progress, but data are not yet available.

For further information:

• Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. (1999). CSPV blueprints promising fact sheet: FAST Track. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado at Boulder.
• Conduct Problems Prevention Group (Bierman, K., Coie, J., Dodge, K., Greenberg, M., Lochman, J., & McMahon, R.). (1992). A developmental and clinical model for the prevention of conduct disorder: The FAST Track Program. Development and Psychopathology, 4, 509-527.
• Conduct Problems Prevention Group (Bierman, K., Coie, J., Dodge, K., Greenberg, M., Lochman, J., & McMahon, R.). (1996, May). Abstract: An initial evaluation of the FAST Track Program. Proceedings of the Fifth National Prevention Conference, Tysons Corner, VA.
• Developmental Research and Programs, Inc. (2000). Communities That CareŽ prevention strategies: A research guide to what works. Seattle, WA.
• Thornton, T. N., Craft, C. A., Dahlberg, L. L., Lynch, B. S., & Baer, K. (2000). Best practices of youth violence prevention: A sourcebook for community action. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

Good Behavior Game

Evidence of effectiveness: This intervention has shown positive effects in teacher reports of aggressive and shy behaviors in 1st-grade students. Long-term follow-up evaluations of the Good Behavior Game show sustained decreases in aggression among boys rated most aggressive in grade 1. Program effects on violence or delinquency have not been measured.

For more information:

• Barrish, H. H., Saunder, M., & Montrose, M. W. (1969). Good behavior game: Effects of individual contingencies for group consequences on disruptive behavior in a classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 119-124.
• Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. (1999). CSPV blueprints promising fact sheet: Baltimore Mastery Learning and Good Behavior Game Interventions. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado at Boulder.
• Developmental Research and Programs, Inc. (2000). Communities That CareŽ prevention strategies: A research guide to what works. Seattle, WA.
• Dolan, L., Turkan, J., Wethamer-Larsson, L., & Kellam, S. (1989). The good behavior game manual. Baltimore, MD: The Prevention Program. (Also available on the Internet, at www.bpp.jhu.edu)
• Howell, J. A. (Ed.). (1995). Guide for implementing the comprehensive strategy for serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
• Kellam, S. G., Rebok, G. W., Ialongo, N., & Mayer, L. S. (1994). The course and malleability of aggressive behavior from early first grade into middle school: Results of a developmental epidemiologically based preventive trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 259-282.
• Kellam, S. G., & Rebok, B. W. (1992). Building developmental and etiological theory through epidemiologically based prevention intervention trials. In J. McCord & R. E. Tremblay (Eds.), Preventing antisocial behavior: Interventions from birth through adolescence. New York: The Guilford Press.
• Medland, M. B., & Stachnik, T. J. (1972). Good-behavior game: A replication and systematic analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 5, 45-51.
• Mendel, R. A. (2000). Less hype, more help: Reducing juvenile crime, what works—and what doesn't. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum.

I Can Problem Solve

Evidence of effectiveness: In nursery school and kindergarten students, I Can Problem Solve significantly reduced impulsive and inhibited classroom behavior and improved problem-solving skills at posttest and 1 year. A second study demonstrated sustained improvements in classroom behavior and problem solving 3 to 4 years after the end of the program. In 5th- and 6th-graders, the program increased the use of positive and prosocial behaviors and improved peer relationships and problem-solving skills. In general, it appears that the program is more effective in high-risk students than in students from the general population. Prior studies of this intervention did not use a randomized study design and were limited by high attrition.

For further information:

• Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. (1999). CSPV blueprints promising fact sheet: I Can Problem Solve (ICPS). Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute for Behavioral Science, University of Colorado at Boulder.
• Developmental Research and Programs, Inc. (2000). Communities That CareŽ prevention strategies: A research guide to what works. Seattle, WA.
• Howell, J. A. (Ed.). (1995). Guide for implementing the comprehensive strategy for serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
• Shure, M. B. (1993). Interpersonal problem solving and prevention: A five year longitudinal study—kindergarten through grade 4. Final Report #MH-40801. Washington, DC: National Institute of Mental Health.
• Shure, M. B., & Spivack, G. (1979). Interpersonal problem solving thinking and adjustment in the mother-child dyad. In M. W. Kent & R. E. Rolf (Eds.), Primary prevention of psychopathology, Volume 3: Social competence in children. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.
• Shure, M. B., & Spivack, G. (1980). Interpersonal problem solving as a mediator of behavioral adjustment in preschool and kindergarten children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 1, 29-44.
• Shure, M. B., & Spivack, G. (1982). Interpersonal problem-solving in young children: A cognitive approach to prevention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 10, 341-355.
• Shure, M. B., & Spivack, G. (1988). Interpersonal cognitive problem solving. In R. H. Price, E. L. Cowen, R. P. Lorion, & J. R. McKay (Eds.), 14 ounces of prevention. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Shure, M. B., & Healey, K. N. (1993). Interpersonal problem solving and prevention in urban school children. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Annual Convention, Toronto.

The Incredible Years Series

Evidence of effectiveness: In a series of six randomized trials, the parent program reduced conduct problems and improved parent-child relationships. In two randomized studies, the teacher program reduced peer aggression in the classroom, increased positive interactions with teachers and peers, and enhanced school readiness. Two randomized studies of the child program demonstrated reductions in conduct problems at home and school and improvements in problem solving with peers. Program effects have been shown to persist for at least one year after treatment.

For further information:

• Developmental Research and Programs, Inc. (2000). Communities That CareŽ prevention strategies: A research guide to what works. Seattle, WA.
• Mendel, R. A. (2000). Less hype, more help: Reducing juvenile crime, what works—and what doesn't. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum.
• Webster-Stratton, C., & Reid, M. J. (1999). Treating children with early-onset conduct problems: The importance of teacher training. Paper presented at the Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy, Toronto, Canada.
• Webster-Stratton, C., & Reid, J. J. (1999). Effects of teacher training in Head Start classrooms: Results of a randomized controlled evaluation. Paper presented at the Society for Prevention Research, New Orleans.
• Webster-Stratton, C. (1999). How to promote social and emotional competence in young children. London, United Kingdom: Sage Publishers.
• Webster-Stratton, C. (1998). Preventing conduct problems in Head Start children: Strengthening parent competencies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 715-730.
• Webster-Stratton, C. (1994). Advancing videotape parent training: A comparison study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 583-593.
• Webster-Stratton, C. (1990). Enhancing the effectiveness of self-administered videotape parent training for families with conduct-problem children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 18, 479-492.
• Webster-Stratton, C. (1990). Long-term follow-up of families with young conduct-problem children: From preschool to grade school. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 19, 144-149.
• Webster-Stratton, C. (1984). Randomized trial of two parent-training programs for families with conduct-disordered children. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 52, 666-678.
• Webster-Stratton, C., & Hammond, M. (1997). Treating children with early-onset conduct problems: A comparison of child and parent training interventions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 93-109.
• Webster-Stratton, C., Kolpacoff, M., & Hollinsworth, T. (1989). The long-term effectiveness and clinical significance of three cost-effective training programs for families with conduct-problem children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 550-553.
• Webster-Stratton, C., Kolpacoff, M., & Hollinsworth, T. (1988). Self-administered videotape therapy for families with conduct-problem children: Comparison of two cost-effective treatments and a control group. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 558-566.
• Webster-Stratton, C., Mihalic, S., Fagan, A. Arnold, D., Taylor, T., & Tingley, C. (in press). The incredible years series. In D. S. Elliott (Series Ed.), Blueprints for violence prevention. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado at Boulder.

Iowa Strengthening Families Program

Evidence of effectiveness: Evaluations of this program revealed program-related reductions in alcohol initiation of 30 to 60 percent 2 years after the intervention and lower rates of tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana use and drunkenness after 4 years. Short-term evaluations also demonstrate improvements in parenting practices, parent-child communication, and family bonding.

For further information:

• Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. (1999). CSPV blueprints promising fact sheet: Iowa Strengthening Families Program. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado at Boulder.
• Developmental Research and Programs, Inc. (2000). Communities That CareŽ prevention strategies: A research guide to what works. Seattle, WA.
• Spoth, R., Redmond, C., & Shin, C. (1998). Direct and indirect latent-variable parenting outcomes of two universal family-focused preventive interventions: Extending a public health-oriented research base. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 385-399.
• Spoth, R., Redmond, C., & Lepper, H. (in press). Alcohol initiation outcomes of universal family-focused preventive interventions: One- and two-year follow-ups of a controlled study. Journal of Studies on Alcohol.
• Spoth, R., Reyes, M., Redmond, C., & Shin, C. (1998). Assessing a public health approach to delay onset and progression of adolescent substance use: Latent transition and loglinear analyses of longitudinal family preventive intervention outcomes. Ames, IA: Social and Behavioral Research Center for Rural Health.
• Spoth, R. L., Redmond, C., & Shin, C. (1999). Randomized trial of brief family interventions for general populations: Reductions in adolescent substance use four years following baseline. Manuscript under review.

Linking the Interests of Families and Teachers (LIFT)

Evidence of effectiveness: In short-term evaluations, LIFT decreased children's physical aggression on the playground (particularly children rated by their teachers as most aggressive at the start of the study), increased children's social skills, and decreased aversive behavior in mothers rated most aversive at baseline, relative to controls. Three years after participation in the program, 1st-grade participants had fewer increases in attention-deficit disorder-related behaviors (inattentiveness, impulsivity, and hyperactivity) than controls. At follow-up, 5th-grade participants had fewer associations with delinquent peers, were less likely to initiate patterned alcohol use, and were significantly less likely than controls to have been arrested.

For further information:

• Eddy, J. M., Reid, J. B., & Fetrow, R. A. (2000). An elementary-school based prevention program targeting modifiable antecedents of youth delinquency and violence: Linking the Interests of Families and Teachers (LIFT). Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8, 165-176.
• Stoolmiller, M., Eddy, J. M., & Reid, J.B. (2000). Detecting and describing preventative intervention effects in a universal school-based randomized trial targeting delinquent and violent behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 296-306.
• Reid, J. B., Eddy, J. M., Fetrow, R. A., & Stoolmiller, M. (1999). Description and immediate impacts of a preventative intervention for conduct problems. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 483-517.

Parent Child Development Center Programs

Evidence of effectiveness: Evaluations of this program have demonstrated enhanced school achievement in grades 2 and 3; improved parenting skills at the end of the program, at (the child's) age 4, and in grades 2 and 3; and reduced aggressive behavior by children at ages 4 to 7 and 8 to 11. Unfortunately, the evaluations of these programs conducted to date have been limited by high attrition rates.

For further information:

• Bridgeman, B., Blumenthal, J.B., & Andrews, S. R. (1981). Parent child development center: Final evaluation report. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Human Development Services.
• Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. (1999). CSPV blueprints promising fact sheet: Parent Child Development Center Programs. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado at Boulder.
• Developmental Research and Programs, Inc. (2000). Communities That CareŽ prevention strategies: A research guide to what works. Seattle, WA.
• Johnson, D. L., & Walder, T. (1987). Primary prevention of behavior problems in Mexican-American children. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 375-385.
• Howell, J. A. (Ed.). (1995). Guide for implementing the comprehensive strategy for serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
• Thornton, T. N., Craft, C. A., Dahlberg, L. L., Lynch, B. S., & Baer, K. (2000). Best practices of youth violence prevention: A sourcebook for community action. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

Parent-Child Interaction Training

Evidence of effectiveness: This intervention has shown positive effects on early antisocial behaviors and family management practices. In a randomized, 1-year follow-up, children who participated in Parent-Child Interaction Training improved significantly more than controls on teacher ratings of attention deficit, hyperactive, aggressive, and anxious behavior.

For further information:

• Developmental Research and Programs, Inc. (2000). Communities That CareŽ prevention strategies: A research guide to what works. Seattle, WA.
• Howell, J. A. (Ed.). (1995). Guide for implementing the comprehensive strategy for serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
• Strayhorn, J. M., & Weidman, C. S. (1991). Follow-up of one year after parent-child interaction training: Effects on behavior of preschool children. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 30, 138-143.
• Thornton, T. N., Craft, C. A., Dahlberg, L. L., Lynch, B. S., & Baer, K. (2000). Best practices of youth violence prevention: A sourcebook for community action. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

Preparing for the Drug-Free Years

Evidence of effectiveness: Evaluations of Preparing for the Drug-Free Years have demonstrated significant program-related positive effects on parenting skills, parent-child relationships, mothers' self-efficacy, and children's avoidance of alcohol initiation. Unfortunately, 43 percent of recruited families did not participate in the initial studies of this intervention, raising questions about the representativeness of the results.

For further information:

• Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. (1999). CSPV blueprints promising fact sheet: Preparing for the Drug-Free Years. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado at Boulder.
• Developmental Research and Programs, Inc. (2000). Communities That CareŽ prevention strategies: A research guide to what works. Seattle, WA.
• Spoth, R., Redmond, C., Shin, C., Lepper, H., Haggerty, K., & Wall, M. (1998). Risk moderation of proximal parent-child outcomes of a universal family-focused preventive intervention: A test of replication. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68, 565-­579.
• Spoth, R., Redmond, C., & Shin, C. (1998). Direct and indirect latent parenting outcomes of two universal family-focused preventive interventions: Extending a public health-oriented research base. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 385-399.
• Spoth, R., Redmond, C., Hockaday, C., & Yoo, S. (1997). Protective factors and young adolescent tendency to abstain from alcohol use: A model using two waves of intervention study data. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 749-770.
• Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J. D., Spoth, R., Haggerty, K. P., & Zhu, K. (1997). Effects of preventive parent training intervention on observed family interactions: Proximal outcomes from Preparing for the Drug-Free Years. Journal of Community Psychology, 25, 277-292.

Preventive Intervention

Evidence of effectiveness: Evaluations of this program demonstrate both short- and long-term effectiveness on violence-related risk factors, including higher grades and attendance at the end of the program; significantly lower drug use, school-related problems, and unemployment after 1 year; significantly fewer students with county court records at 5 years; and lower rates of reported criminal behavior at the 1.5 year follow-up (marginal significance, p < .075). Program effects on self-reported criminal behavior did not reach statistical significance, although the treatment and control groups did differ significantly with respect to the proportion of students with a juvenile record.

For further information:

• Bry, B. H. (1982). Reducing the incidence of adolescent problems through preventive intervention: One- and five-year follow-up. American Journal of Community Psychology, 10, 265-276.
• Bry, B. H., & George, F. E. (1980). The preventive effects of early intervention on the attendance and grades of urban adolescents. Professional Psychology, 11, 252-260.
• Bry, B. H., & George, F. E. (1979). Evaluating and improving prevention programs: A strategy from drug abuse. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2, 127-136.
• Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. (1999). CSPV blueprints promising fact sheet: Preventive Intervention. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado at Boulder.
• Developmental Research and Programs, Inc. (2000). Communities That CareŽ prevention strategies: A research guide to what works. Seattle, WA.

Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS)

Evidence of effectiveness: Evaluations of this intervention have demonstrated that PATHS improves self-control, understanding and recognition of emotions, the ability to tolerate frustration, the use of effective conflict-resolution strategies, thinking and planning skills, and conduct problems, such as aggression. In students with special needs, PATHS has also been shown to significantly reduce symptoms of anxiety, depression, and sadness and to reduce conduct problems.

For further information:

• Greenberg, M. T., Kusche, C., & Mihalic, S. (1998). Promoting alternative thinking strategies (PATHS). In D. S. Elliott (Series Ed.), Blueprints for violence prevention. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado at Boulder.
• Developmental Research and Programs, Inc. (2000). Communities That CareŽ prevention strategies: A research guide to what works. Seattle, WA.
• Howell, J. A. (Ed.). (1995). Guide for implementing the comprehensive strategy for serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
• Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn't, what's promising. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
• Thornton, T. N., Craft, C. A., Dahlberg, L. L., Lynch, B. S., & Baer, K. (2000). Best practices of youth violence prevention: A sourcebook for community action. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

The Quantum Opportunities Program

Evidence of effectiveness: In a multisite, randomized evaluation, a follow-up through the expected time of graduation showed that treated youths were significantly less likely than controls to be arrested (0.17 versus 0.58 arrests per person), were more likely to graduate (63 versus 42 percent), were more likely to attend postsecondary schools (42 versus 16 percent), were less likely to be dropouts, were more likely to receive an honor or award, were less likely to become teen parents, and were more likely to be involved in community service, be hopeful about the future, and consider their lives a success. Follow-up for 2 years after graduation revealed persistent, positive program effects.

For further information:

• Lattimore, C. B., Mihalic, S. F., Grotpeter, J. K., & Taggart, R. (1998). The quantum opportunities program. In D. S. Elliott (Series Ed.), Blueprints for violence prevention. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado at Boulder.
• Developmental Research and Programs, Inc. (2000). Communities That CareŽ prevention strategies: A research guide to what works. Seattle, WA.
• Hahn, A., Leavitt, T., & Aaron, P. (1994). Evaluation of the quantum opportunities program (QOP). Did the program work? A report on the post-secondary outcomes and cost-effectiveness of the QOP program (1989-1993). Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Heller Graduate School Center for Human Resources.
• Mendel, R. A. (2000). Less hype, more help: Reducing juvenile crime, what works—and what doesn't. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum.

Yale Child Welfare Project

Evidence of effectiveness: An evaluation conducted 10 years after participation in the program showed that youths enrolled in the Yale Child Welfare Project missed significantly fewer days of school, required significantly fewer remedial and supportive school services, and were rated significantly less negative and more socially well adjusted by their teachers compared to controls. Some program effects on academic achievement showed significant diffusion effects on siblings. However, the sample in this study was small, with only 14 of the original 17 pairs of matched treatment and control youths available for evaluation at follow-up. In addition, this study used a quasi-experimental design. This program is no longer deliverable—that is, no technical assistance is available to those who wish to implement it.

For further information:

• Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. (1999). CSPV blueprints promising fact sheet: Yale Child Welfare Project. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado at Boulder.
• Seitz, V., Rosenbaum, L. K., & Apfel, N. H. (1985). Effects of family support intervention: A ten-year follow-up. Child Development, 56, 376-391.