Characteristics of Programs Included in This Monograph
Interventions and findings discussed throughout this text are based on those grants submitting final reports to the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention by December 31, 1995. Thirty-seven HRY programs were identified as being at least moderately rigorous and well implemented. However, the focus of this monograph is on well-implemented, rigorously evaluated, effective programs. Using these criteria for inclusion, the pool of demonstration grants reviewed decreased to nine. One of the nine programs was dropped from further consideration because its results, while positive, were not always consistent, and the lack of consistency was not readily explainable by an examination of population, implementation, or evaluation factors. Thus, the eight programs presented here represent those that were implemented well, were rigorously researched, and have demonstrated positive effects on substance use and/or key risk or resiliency factors related to later substance use.
Conclusions and implications derived from a systematic analysis of the HRY DataBank are the main focus of this monograph. Chapter 2 presents detailed abstracts from well-implemented, rigorously evaluated, effective programs. Chapter 3 provides a synthesis of the findings from these effective programs as a function of CSAP’s prevention strategies and primary outcome of interest—the use of alcohol, tobacco, or illicit drugs. Tables 1 and 2 present information about the geographic distribution of the eight programs, the target populations, and program activities. The format of this report was selected to facilitate inclusion and revision of findings as more and more of the CSAP grantees complete their demonstrations and report their findings, adding to the breadth and depth of our knowledge base.
Table 1
Program Characteristics
Projects included in this review produced either quantitative and/or qualitative data that were rated as reliable and reproducible. In practice, this meant that projects had to both measure change and have an explicit source of comparison against which to gauge the changes observed. Projects often employed separate research designs to evaluate each of their component interventions. The most common design used to evaluate findings was a pre-post design with both treatment and comparison groups. A few evaluation efforts attempted between one and three additional followup assessments. Pre-post designs differed primarily in the means by which youth were assigned to conditions. Most often, blocks (e.g., classrooms, public housing authorities) were assigned randomly to treatment or comparison groups. On occasion, treatment samples were self-selected (i.e., referred for treatment) and comparison samples were matched from waiting lists or demographically similar entities (e.g., schools, public housing authorities). Two studies used an experimental pre-post design with treatment and comparison groups (individuals were randomly assigned to condition). One project employed a cohort-sequential design to assess changes over time in one school.
Table 2
Program Intervention Activities
Key: x = fully implemented
Previous | Table of Contents | Next
Last Updated: March 4, 2002
