Funded by the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools (OSDFS), U.S. Department of Education, the National Training and Technical Assistance Center for Drug Prevention and School Safety Coordinator Program (formerly the Middle School Coordinators) has supported the implementation of school-based prevention by full-time coordinators in public schools across the country since 1999. During these 6 years, the coordinators gained a wealth of knowledge and experience in carrying out prevention in schools. Many implemented successful prevention programs with lasting changes in challenging schools. OSDFS supported their work by providing training and technical assistance based on the latest research in planning, implementing, and sustaining prevention in schools.

This five-day facilitated event will examine the research base for prevention programs, examine how to effectively implement evidence-based programs, and draw from examples of coordinators' success in using these principles to reduce drug abuse and violence in their schools. Coordinators can use this course to familiarize key school officials, such as superintendents and principals, as well as policy makers with what can be achieved when a dedicated staff member in schools attends to the daily work of preventing drug abuse and violence in schools.

By participating in this online event you will have the opportunity to do the following:

• Review the research basis and background for the coordinator program.
• Review preliminary evidence on the effectiveness of the coordinator program.
• Learn about successes of coordinators across the country.
• Share the key steps that a prevention coordinator must take.
• Explore resources to continue the work of prevention coordinators.

You are ready to begin this event if you have done the following:

• Received confirmation of your registration
• Visited the Center's Orientation to On-Line Events Web site

Before beginning Day 1, please read this page to learn the answers to the following frequently asked questions about on-line learning:

Getting Started

Before beginning Day 1, please read this page to learn the answers to the following frequently asked questions about on-line learning:

• Why Do You Offer This Training On-Line?
• What Will I Learn from This Event?
• How Is This Web Site Organized?
• How Much Time Is Required Each Day?
• Can I Print These Materials?
• Where Can I Go for Help?

Why Do You Offer This Training On-Line?

Conducting training on-line has numerous benefits! On-line or distance learning allows professionals working in different locations within a district, throughout a state, or even across the country to come together around a topic of interest and form a community of practitioners.

Specifically, on-line learning offers these advantages:

• It saves time and money for participants who would otherwise have to travel to a training.
• It provides access to information for participants who live and work in places where resources may be unavailable or difficult to locate.
• It increases participants' familiarity and comfort with technology.
• It provides flexibility, allowing participants to access information at the time and pace most convenient for them.
• It gives participants an opportunity to engage thoughtfully in a topic of interest by allowing them time to reflect before responding.
• It provides materials that participants can print for future reference or share with colleagues and community members.

What Will I Learn from This Event?

School-Based Prevention Works: Educational Leaders for Effective Practice is a five-part workshop designed to be completed over five days. This workshop takes a tiered approach to learning, presenting multiple levels of information, actual examples of the application of this information, and extensive additional resources. It is divided into the following sections:

How Is This Web Site Organized?

This site is composed of the following sections:

How Much Time Is Required Each Day?

Week 1: We expect that it will take you approximately one hour per day to review materials, complete activities, and contribute to the event discussion. We ask that you visit the Discussion Area at least once each day to share your ideas and experiences, as well as to review and respond to the messages posted by your fellow participants and National Center staff. If possible, it is beneficial to visit the Discussion Area more than once each day; participants in previous on-line workshops have found that more frequent visits allowed them to better monitor and contribute to the on-line discussion.

You will have a more accurate sense of how much time you will need to set aside for this event after you complete the first session. Please make sure to allow enough time each day to complete all event tasks; your full participation is the key to the success of this training.

Week 2: During the second week of this event, we encourage you to continue your exploration of event materials as well as your on-line discussion with fellow event participants. National Center staff will periodically monitor your discussion during this week, and any critical questions left unanswered by your peers will be forwarded to gang experts at two points: on Tuesday and Thursday. You will receive a response to those questions as soon as National Center staff hear back from the experts.

Can I Print These Materials?

All event materials can be printed for future reference. However, we strongly suggest that you review the materials on-line before you print them, so that you can see how the various sections fit together and participate more readily in the on-line discussion among event participants and National Center staff.

There are two ways to print event materials. The easiest way is to look for this box at the end of each day's materials and follow the instructions:

While the PDF files include all of the main text and supporting materials for each day of the event, the formatting will be a bit off. If you prefer to maintain the formatting that you see on-line, please try the second printing method (described below).

You can also print the event materials directly from your Internet browser. To print a specific page, go to that page, place your cursor on File (at the top of the page), go to Print, and then press OK. Everything on the screen in front of you will print. Please note that, if you select this option, you will need to choose the "Landscape" orientation under Page Setup in order to fit all the text on the page. To print only the text (minus the title and navigation bars at the top and side of the screen), place your cursor on the page you want to print, right-click your mouse, select Print, and choose OK.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to print the entire site with a single click of the mouse.

Where Can I Go for Help?

Students cannot learn if they are distracted by problems at home or at school. They cannot do well on standardized tests if they are consumed with fear of bullying by other students. They cannot achieve if they are experimenting with drugs and alcohol, or face violence and fear at home, or have mistakenly looked for a sense of belonging through anti-social groups like gangs. Most studies agree that school failure, represented by low grade point average, is one of the most consistent risk factors for, and a major predictor of, substance abuse. Research also indicates that academic success can reduce involvement in a variety of risky behaviors that compromise students' health (Dryfoos, 1990).

Addressing these risk factors is complex and, to do it effectively, requires a comprehensive, multifaceted, and integrated approach (Adelman, 1993, 1996a, 1996b; Catalano and Hawkins, 1995; Comer, 1997; Dryfoos, 1998; Greenwald et. al., 1996; Sailor and Skrtic, 1996; Schorr, 1997). Years of research have demonstrated the critical role that schools can play in promoting the healthy development and learning of young people. Comprehensive prevention programs that combine research-based strategies targeted to a common goal have been shown to be effective in preventing violence and substance abuse among young adolescents. Safe, Supportive, and Successful Schools identifies these four key elements of a comprehensive approach:

• Providing appropriate academic instruction
• Creating a caring school community
• Teaching appropriate behaviors and social problem-solving skills
• Implementing positive behavior support systems (Osher et. al., p. 63).

Although research has shown that these practices are linked to school success, few schools use such multiple strategies or research findings as the basis for selecting programs because it is difficult to find comprehensive and reliable information. Schools appear to rely on well-marketed instructional programs that have not been evaluated or shown to work.

Research Findings from Substance Abuse and Violence Prevention

Nan Tobler identified the following principles of effective substance abuse prevention through a synthesis of findings of multiple studies (Tobler, 1986; Tobler, 1998; Tobler, 1993; Tobler and Stratton, 1997):

• Interactive drug prevention programs are far more effective than the non-interactive ones.
• Interactive programs that are community-wide are even more effective.
• Smaller programs delivered to fewer than 500 students were more effective in reducing drug use.
• Systemwide change programs (either school-community-media-family) or entire school system efforts, which are often called comprehensive, collaborative prevention programs, are far more effective than either the social influences or comprehensive life skills programs.

In "Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General," the authors described similar findings for violence prevention programs. They also point out that the manner in which a program is implemented can have an enormous impact on its effectiveness.

The existing research supports the premise that prevention programs that are implemented with fidelity and adhere to the above cited principles of effectiveness are effective means of preventing substance abuse and violence in schools.

The Impact of School Connectedness

Effective prevention programs go beyond simply focusing on interventions. Your plan must be comprehensive and impact all of the elements in a school community. According to Alison Adler, this means creating a single school culture. "A Single School Culture is not a program but a way of organizing and running a school. It begins with shared norms, beliefs, values, and goals and results in agreed upon processes and procedures that produce consistency in practice. A Single School Culture results in consistency of both adult and student practices related to behavior, academics, and climate" (Adler 2005). The implementation of this approach has been shown to be an effective school-based prevention strategy.

Another essential element of effective prevention programs is that they impact the degree to which students feel connected to their schools. The National Longitudinal Study of Health, a study of 90,000 middle and high school students, also found that students who feel "connected" to school -- as measured by the strength and quality of their relationships with teachers and other students -- are more likely to have improved attitudes toward school, learning, and teachers; heightened academic aspirations, motivations, and achievement; and more positive social attitudes, values and behavior. They are also less likely to use drugs, be violent, commit suicide, or exhibit other at-risk behaviors (Resnick et. al., 1997). Others have presented similar findings (Verdugo and Schneider, 1999; Gottfredson, 2001).

Research also shows that the students' sense of school as a community is related to a number of improved outcomes, including reduced drug use, victimization, and delinquency, increased positive interpersonal attitudes, enjoyment of school, school engagement, and academic motivation (Battistich and Horn, 1997; Solomon et. al., 2000). Other studies also find evidence of reduced violence and sexual activity (O'Donnell et. al., 1995), and improved school climate, reading and math achievement, and anger control(Cook et. al., 2000).

Other aspects of school life bear similar evidence of the impact of school connectedness. Students who participate in extracurricular activities have better attendance, lower dropout rates, lower rates of drug use, higher academic achievement, and higher aspirations than nonparticipants (Brown and Theobald, 1998; Camp, 1990; Jenkins, 1996).

Well-designed prevention programs based upon the principles of effectiveness have been shown to be successful. Some examples of effective prevention efforts are the Resolving Conflict Creatively Program, Reconnecting Youth and PATHE. The Resolving Conflict Creatively Program is a K-12 school program that cultivates the social, emotional, and ethical development of children through teaching conflict resolution and intercultural understanding. Key findings from the Atlanta pilot sites of this effort include the following:

• 64 percent of teachers reported less physical violence
• 75 percent of teachers reported an increase in student cooperation
• 92 percent of students reported feeling better about themselves
• 90 percent of the parents reported an increase in their own communication and problem-solving skills
• Student attendance rates improved
• Rates of course failure decreased
• In- and out-of-school suspension rates at the middle school decreased
• Drop-out rates decreased (Aber et. al., 1996)

Reconnecting Youth is a school-based peer group program that builds life skills among adolescents at high risk for behavioral problems in general and drug involvement specifically. Five months after the intervention, participants in the program showed a tendency to curb their progression of drug use. In addition, fewer drug control problems and consequences were recorded. Students enrolled in the program also showed increases in grade-point averages and self-esteem, and exhibited more positive, connected relationships with teachers, friends, and family (Eggert et. al., 1994; Eggert et.al., 1995).

PATHE is a school-based delinquency prevention program that combines an environmental change approach with a direct intervention for youth at risk. A study that compared PATHE students to a control group showed similar outcomes: a decrease in delinquency and drug use; a reduction in suspension rates, significant decreases in alienation for both middle and high school students; increased attachment to school resulting in higher attendance, grades, promotion rates, and graduation rates. The study also found improvements in staff morale, school safety, and teacher-administration cooperation (Gottfredson, 1984; Hahn et. al., 1994).

Key Learnings

Schools can enhance their efforts to reduce or prevent substance abuse among young people by coordinating multiple, complementary strategies that "address change not only at the individual level but also at the school, peer, family, community, and larger society levels" (Learning First Alliance, p. 1). The Middle School Drug Prevention and School Safety Program, funded by Safe and Drug Free School, U.S. Department of Education, was designed to provide this kind of support to schools.

This event looks at the importance of, and need for, implementing effective prevention programs in schools, and some key lessons learned from the Middle School Drug Prevention and School Safety Program, funded by the federal government to coordinate prevention programs in our schools. Tomorrow, we will examine the role of the coordinator as an essential mechanism for supporting the coordination and implementation of effective prevention programs. We will look at how coordinators in a variety of schools and settings were able to secure sustainable improvement using research-based principles of prevention. In the days ahead, we will draw upon research on program effectiveness and intervention, while offering the tools you need to create a coordinator position or function in your school or district. We will provide you with research, lessons learned from six years of experience, links to on-line core training and courses, as well as examples from practitioners in the field.

Resources for Day 1:

Adler, Alison. (2005). Single School Culture -- Components and Strategies for Implementation. Keynote address to the 2005 Governor's Institute for Educators. Available: http://www.center-school.org/profdev/documents/adler-backhus.pdf

Benard, B. and Marshall, K. (2001). Meta-Analyses Provide Decade of Evidence: Effective School-Based Drug Prevention Programs. Resilience Research for Prevention Programs. Minneapolis, MN: National Resilience Resource Center, University of Minnesota and the Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies. Available: http://www.cce.umn.edu/pdfs/NRRC/capt_pdf/meta-analyses.pdf

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Surveillance Summaries. May 21, 2004. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 53(SS-2).

Comeau, C. (July, 2005). Personal communication.

Cuervo, A. (January, 2005). Personal communication.

Delbert, E. (2005). "Violence Prevention: What Works and What Doesn't." Keynote address to the 2005 Partnerships for Success (PfS) Evidence-based Practices Symposium.

Elias M., Zins J.E., Graczyk P.A. and Weissberg, R.P. (2003) Implementation, Sustainability, And Scaling Up of Social-Emotional and Academic Innovations in Public Schools. School Psychology Review, 32 (3), 303-319.

Ennett, S. T., Ringwalt, C. L., Thorne, J., Rohrbach, L. A., Vincus, A., Simons-Rudolph, A., & Jones, S. (2003). A comparison of current practice in school-based substance use prevention programs with metaanalysis findings. Prevention Science, 4, 1—14. Available: http://www.casel.org/downloads/AmericanPsychologist2003.pdf

Gottfredson & Gottfredson. (2002). Quality of School-Based Prevention Programs: Results from a National Survey. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 39: 3-35.

Greenberg, M.T., Weissberg, R.P., Utne O'Brien, M., Zinns, J.E, Fredericks, L., Resnick, H and Elias M. (June/July 2003) "Enhancing School-Based Prevention and Youth Development Through Coordinated Social, Emotional, and Academic Learning," American Psychologist. 58(6-7), 466-474.

Hoffman Clark & Associates, Final Evaluation Report: San Diego City Schools, Middle School Coordinator Program II, August 2004.

Ringwalt, et. al. (2002). The Prevalence of Effective Substance Use Prevention Curricula in U.S. Middle Schools. Prevention Science. 257-272.

Safe and Drug-Free Schools, U.S. Department of Education (2002). Leaving No Child Behind: Results-Based Strategies for Safe and Drug-Free Schools. Siliva, S. (July, 2005). Personal communication.

Silvia, E.S., and Thorne, J. (1997). School-based prevention programs: A longitudinal study in selected school districts. Executive Summary. Final Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

Smith, K (January, 2005). Personal communication.

Tobler, N. (1986). Meta-analysis of 143 adolescent drug prevention programs. Journal of Drug Issues 16, 537-567.

Tobler, N. (1998). Principles of effectiveness of school-based drug prevention programs:The rationale for effective peer programs. Peer Facilitator Quarterly, 15, 109-115.

Tobler, N. (1993). Updated meta-analysis of adolescent drug prevention programs. In C. Montoya, C. Ringwalt, B. Ryan, & R. Zimmerman (Eds), Evaluating School-Linked Prevention Strategies: Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drugs. San Diego, CA: UCSD Extension, University of California, 71-86.

Tobler, N. & H. Stratton (1997). Effectiveness of school-based drug prevention programs: A meta-analysis of the research. Journal of Primary Prevention 18 (1), 71-128.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 2004. Crime and Safety in America's Public Schools: Selected Findings from the School Survey on Crime and Safety.

U.S. Dept. of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Institute of Education Sciences. 2005. Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2005. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/crimeindicators/index.asp?ShowFileName=Exec_Summ.asp

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2001). Youth Violence: A report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Available:http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/youthviolence

Weissberg, R. (January, 2005). Personal communication.

The following summaries report on a number of programs in use in public schools throughout the United States that have demonstrated success in preventing problem behavior and/or in improving academic performance.

• Long-term follow-up of inner-cty children who had participated in a comprehensive, K-5 prevention program showed positive findings in the areas of behavior and school performance. Students receiving the full intervention reported less heavy drinking, fewer violent delinquent acts, less frequent sexual intercourse, fewer sexual partners, and less pregnancy at age 18. They also had higher school-reported grade point averages and self-reported achievement, and were less likely to repeat a grade (Hawkins et. al., 1999).
• Project Support, a three-year drug and gang prevention program for elementary school students, produced positive outcomes in both behavior and school performance. These students produced positive outcomes in both behavior and school performance. These included less crime against people and property, better attendance, less tardiness, higher academic achievement scores in reading, math, and language, and increased pro-school attitudes (Simun et.al., 1996).
• A study examining a "caring classroom" program developed for elementary school children with disruptive behavior shoed an overall decrease in disruptive behavior and an increase in academic achievement. Most students receiving the program had improved report card grades, and some students had better rates of assignment completion (Lindmark et.al., 1996).
• When compared with a control group, students participating in the Behavioral Monitoring and Reinforcement Program had better grades and attendance immediately following the intervention. The year after the intervention ended these students also displayed fewer problem behaviors at school and reported less substance abuse and criminal behavior. Five years after the program ended, these students were less likely to have a juvenile record (Bry, 1982; Bry and George, 1979; Bry and George, 1980).
• Evaluation results from STATUS (a school within a school program involving youth at high risk in junior and senior high schools) demonstrated that intervention students reported reduced delinquent behavior, had reduced levels of negative peer influences, earned higher grade point averages, perceived school to be significantly less punishing and more rewarding, were significantly more attached to school, had more positive self concepts, and persisted in school longer (Gottfredson, 1990; Gottfredson, 1997).
• Compared to the control group, students in the Social Skills Training ( a social skills program for upper elementary students that uses drama simulation games to help students improve interpersonal problem-solving abilities) group demonstrated the following directly after program participation: more assertive responses, fewer passive and aggressive problem-solving responses, and increased popularity. One year later, they also had increased grade-point averages (Rotheram, 1982).
• Children involved in the Seattle Social Development Program (a school-based program for grades 1-6 that seeks to reduce childhood risks for delinquency and drug abuse by improving parent-child communication and changing teachers' classroom management practices) study were followed through the sixth grade. Fifth grade students in the intervention group showed the following changes: reduced antisocial behavior, particularly aggressiveness (for males); reduced self-destructive behavior (for females); improved academic skills; greater commitment to school; reduced levels of alienation; better social bonding to others; less misbehavior in school; and, fewer incidents of drug use in school (Hawkins et. al., 1992b; Hawkins et. al., 1991).

A prevention program must be integrated within the fabric of the school -- with its particular characteristics, students and needs -- for it to be effective.

Fortunately, a model exists for schools to address these pressing issues of the need for effective, evidence-based prevention programs that are well implemented. At its core is a coordinator who is dedicated to the complex task of helping schools identify and employ effective solutions to the difficult problem of substance abuse and violence among youth. The results of six years of implementation of the Middle School Drug Prevention and School Safety Program, a federal program supported by the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, show that a school coordinator can significantly impact the degree to which prevention programs are effective. We will share many examples of the ways that these prevention coordinators have improved the lives of students, teachers, and staff in schools across the country.

The Need for the Prevention Coordinator Program Is Clear

The federal government created the Coordinator Program to address violence and substance abuse issues in schools in a comprehensive and coordinated manner. While most of the nation's schools are safe places, some schools have serious crime and violence problems that compromise the learning environment and endanger children and teachers.

In 1999-2000, 71 percent of public elementary and secondary schools experienced at least one violent incident, according to the National Center for Education Statistics (Indicator 7: Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2005). Serious violence is defined as rape, sexual battery other than rape, physical attacks or fights without a weapon, threats of physical attack with a weapon or robberies either with or without a weapon.) (A smaller percentage of schools experience the most serious form of violence. According to the National Center, 20 percent of public schools experienced at least one serious violent incident.)

Many schools without serious crime often experience other types of violence, such as bullying, and drug and alcohol use, that impede learning. In 1999-2000, schools were more likely to have a serious problem with student bullying than with any other discipline problem (29 percent), according to the National Center for Education Statistics. Student acts of disrespect for teachers and gang activities (19 percent each) were the second most serious problems for public schools.

Alcohol and drug use remain high among high school students. In 2003, three-fourths of students in grades 9 through 12 reported having at least one drink of alcohol, according to the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System in 2003. In addition, 40 percent of high school students had used marijuana one or more times during their lifetime. However, the onset of alcohol and other drug use behaviors occur before high school. In 2003, 28 percent of high school students reported that they first drank alcohol before age 13, according to the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System.

For decades schools have attempted to address these issues with limited success. A 1997 U.S. Department of Education sponsored study yielded some critical insights on what makes for effective prevention programming. The study, which took place between 1990 and 1995, investigated the effectiveness of school-based prevention programs. The longitudinal study examined 19 drug prevention programs undertaken by the U.S. Department of Education. The programs were funded by the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act to expand and strengthen drug and alcohol abuse education and prevention programs in communities around the nation (the Act is now called the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1994).

Barriers to Implementation

The 1997 U.S. Department of Education study found that the most common barrier to achieving full implementation of prevention programs was a lack of leadership by the individual assigned to coordinate the program, a situation frequently exacerbated by the coordinator having other responsibilities within the district.

As a result, program coordinators did not consistently follow through to monitor the activities being implemented in the schools. In addition, there was a lack of awareness by the program coordinators or other district administrators of the full spectrum of prevention strategies that might be employed and other district priorities interfered with prevention efforts. Another barrier to success cited was community members who did not believe there were drug problems among their youth.

Middle School Drug Prevention and School Safety Program

Based on these findings, the U.S. Congress funded the Middle School Drug Prevention and School Safety Program in 1999. The purpose of the program was to recruit, hire, and train drug prevention and school safety program coordinators in middle schools that had significant drug, discipline, and violence problems. The federal grants funded 915 coordinators throughout the country.

The U.S. Congress reauthorized the program in 2002 as part of the No Child Left Behind legislation. Under the reauthorization, the program expanded to include individuals to serve as drug prevention and safety coordinators in elementary, middle, and high schools with significant drug and school safety problems. Approximately 150 coordinators were hired under this program. This demonstration project was designed to test and validate comprehensive prevention approaches that can be used by schools across the country.

These coordinators had no job responsibilities other than researching, implementing and evaluating prevention programs in their schools. They had the time to train teachers in new methods of classroom education and management. They had time to develop relationships with community agencies that could provide key resources to schools. They had time to evaluate the effectiveness of their programs and make any adjustments. The program was a demonstration project that was designed to test and validate comprehensive prevention approaches that can be used by schools across the country.

Principles of Effectiveness Define the Coordinator's Role

In 1998, the Department of Education established a set of Principles of Effectiveness for all recipients of Safe and Drug-free Schools funds including the Middle School Coordinators. These Principles of Effectiveness call for grant recipients to:

• Base their program selections on needs assessment.
• Develop measurable goals and objectives for their prevention programs.
• Implement research-based, effective programs.
• Evaluate their success at regular intervals and use evaluation findings to improve programming.

All middle school and national coordinators were expected to follow those principles of effectiveness in developing, implementing and evaluating their programs.

The U.S. Department of Education awarded grants to Local Education Agencies with significant issues in drug use, drug prevention, and school safety to hire middle school and later, National Coordinators who would work in one to seven schools. They would help schools and communities start the process of implementing research-based prevention strategies.

The role of the coordinator was to:

• Identify research-based drug and violence prevention strategies and programs.
• Assist schools in adopting the most successful strategies, including training of teachers and staff
• Develop, conduct and analyze assessments of school crime and drug problems
• Work with community agencies and organizations to ensure that students' needs are met
• Work with parents and students to obtain information about effective programs and strategies and encourage their participation in program selection and implementation.
• Assist in the development and implementation of evaluation strategies.
• Identify additional funding sources for drug prevention and school safety.
• Provide feedback to state educational agencies on programs and activities that have proven to be successful in reducing drug use and violent behavior.

As one middle school coordinator put it, "Some schools already have some specific ideas in mind and are ready to implement strategies, but maybe just need a catalyst to get things going. That's where you [the coordinator] come in."

Coordinators could not provide any direct services. Instead, they were to spearhead the development and implementation of a comprehensive prevention plan tailored to their schools' needs. The coordinators also had access to intensive technical assistance that was provided by the Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. That assistance included:

• A five-day intensive workshops for all new coordinators that provided training on their specific roles and responsibilities. The training assured that all coordinators had the same background and skills for working in their schools and districts in supporting the identification, selection, and effective implementation of evidence based prevention practices. Coordinators could also attend two-day leadership institutes, which provided depth beyond the core training in key competencies in organizational development, group management and systems change. These trainings were also a cost-effective alternative to providing on-site training to coordinators scattered across the country.
• On-line courses that provided training on duties of the coordinators such as how to conduct a needs assessment, selecting research-based prevention programs and evaluating programs and as well as training on topical issues, such as crisis response, bullying, truancy and youth gangs. These courses provide coordinators with the opportunity to go into greater depth on topics covered in the face-to-face training and to work at their own pace without the need to travel.
• A Listserv was made available to coordinators so that they could share tips and connect with one another.

The training events were constantly updated and improved based on feedback from the coordinators. Shortly after the project began, experienced coordinators were asked to share their "lessons learned" with new coordinators. Through this process a cadre of prevention specialists who were truly experts in this field was developed.

All of this training, including the 40-hour core training, is currently available at ww.k12coordinator.org for any school or district to use. This represents a rich resource of information on prevention programming that you may choose to access.

Evaluating the Coordinator Project

Researchers at the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) are conducting a five-year national evaluation of the role and impact of middle school coordinators on drug and violence prevention programs. The study has three main objectives. They are to:

1. Investigate the extent to which middle school coordinators improves prevention programming.

2. Document the process, extent and quality of implementation so it may be replicated in other districts.

3. Determine if improved programming also leads to improved program outcomes for youth drug use and school safety.

The evaluation consisted of three parts:

1. An implementation study that describes the overall implementation of the middle school coordinator program across all districts. Evaluators used an annual web-based survey of Middle School Coordinators and their supervisors.

2. A matched comparison study that assesses program outcomes over three years in districts with and without the Middle School Coordinator program. The sample included 30 randomly selected Middle School Coordinator districts from the 2000 group and 30 comparison districts. The evaluators collected data annually that included seventh grade student surveys on attitudes and behaviors related to substance abuse and school safety. They also conducted staff surveys and collected incidents of violence and disciplinary actions.

3. A case study that takes an in-depth look at 10 Middle School Coordinators sites to describe successful strategies and barriers to implementation. Evaluators conducted interviews and focus groups with coordinators, school staff, parents and community representatives.

The results of the evaluation have not been released; however, researcher Suyapa Silvia provided the following preliminary findings:

According to 59 percent of school staff surveyed, the middle school coordinators influenced prevention programs to change their curricula. Fifty-three percent of school staff said that the coordinators influenced them to change the priority given to prevention and 43 percent said that the coordinators increased the fidelity of curriculum delivery as a result of the training and support from the coordinators.

• In addition, more than 85 percent of the supervisors of district coordinators believe that since hiring the middle school coordinators, schools are implementing better prevention programs and are more effective in meeting prevention and treatment needs of students and staff.

Silvia also carried out a case study of 10 middle school sites.

Further evidence of the impact of the coordinators' work is the decision by principals and superintendents across the country to continue funding the positions once federal funding ended. In Anchorage, Alaska, Alief, Texas, Denver, Colo., Madison, Wisc. and Palm Beach County, Florida, among many other sites, coordinators have been hired by their school districts or continued their work with other grant funding obtained by the district. In Anchorage, Alaska two of the coordinators have been hired by the school district to work district wide. One will focus on bullying prevention and the other will work with helping non-English speaking parents, and their children, feel more connected to the schools. Superintendent Carol Comeau said it is vital for school districts to have a prevention coordinator

Based on the early results of the national evaluation of the Middle School Coordinator Program, these individuals have had a positive impact on drug and safety prevention programs in local school districts. This evidence is supported by the fact that a number of school districts have found the coordinators to be such a valuable resource that they have funded the positions with either their own funds or other grant support.

One of the critical functions the coordinators have provided is conducting a needs assessment to gather data to support the development of individualized prevention programs. In Day 3, we will look at the critical role a needs assessment plays in the successful development of a prevention plan and the characteristics of effective programs.

Resources for Day 2:

Cheek, J. (July 2005). Personal communication.

DeVoe, J.F., Peter, K., Noonan, M., Snyder, T.D., and Baum, K. (2005). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2005 (NCES 2006–001/NCJ 210697). U.S. Departments of Education and Justice. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006001.pdf

Greenberg, M.T., Weissberg, R.P., Utne, O'Brien, M, Zins, J.E., Fredericks, L., Resnick H., and Elias, M.J. (June/July 2003). Enhancing School-Based Prevention and Youth Development Through Coordinated Social, Emotional, and Academic Learning. American Psychologist, 58(6/7), 466-474.

Henry, S. (2000). What Is School Violence? An Integrated Definition. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 567: 16-29.

Hill, P. (May 2005). Personal communication.

Osher, D. (January 2005). Personal communication.

Osher, D., Dwyer, K., and Jackson, J. (2004). Safe, Supportive and Successful Schools, Step by Step. Longmont, Colorado: Sopris West Educational Services.

Payne, A.A., Gottfredson, D.C., and Gottfredson, G.D. (2003). Schools as Communities: The Relationship Between Communal School Organization, Student Bonding, and School Disorder. Criminology, 41: 749-778.

Quinn, K. School-based Strategies for Meeting the Needs of Socially and Emotionally Challenged Children and Youth.

Safe and Sound: An Educational Leader's Guide to Evidence-Based Social and Emotional Learning Programs. (2003). Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning.

Siliva, S. (July, 2005). Personal communication.

Smith, K. (April 2005). Personal communication.

Wilson, Ruth Ann. (May 2005). Personal communication.

"Here are some effective strategies we have used to implement prevention programs at our middle school:

• Provide support to classroom teachers who are implementing new prevention programs. Most prevention curricula require `active learning'; this can be a new and exhausting experience for a teacher. I spend a lot of time in the classroom observing, engaging in feedback with the teachers, and listening to their concerns. I am in the classroom when they try new ideas and programs, and I give them support, both during and (especially) after. I also have created a survey that students complete at the end of each program, designed to be constructive and positive. This helps teachers see how much students prefer active learning and how much new information they are absorbing (great positive feedback!). Finally, I make sure that the principal and community members are aware of the teachers who are taking on this new journey of more active learning, research-based programs, etc.
• Involve students and support integrated learning. We conducted a focus group in our eighth grade health class to assess students' interests and learning styles. We learned, among other things, that students are interested in learning about methamphetamines, club drugs, and eating disorders, and that they prefer being taught though small-group activities, small-group presentations, up-to-date videos, and have speakers come into the classroom. This information helped us strengthen our existing program.
• Schedule presentations by local professionals in the field to complement prevention program topics. This not only makes topics `real' for students and faculty but builds and strengthens school-family-community partnerships. For example, we had representatives from the county Juvenile Court Probation Office and a deputy from the Sheriff's Department give classroom presentations on problems associated with alcohol and methamphetamine use. We also had a panel comprising our probation officer, a juvenile court judge, and the assistant county attorney make an evening parent education presentation.
• Use the school newsletter to communicate about prevention topics and what is being done in the classroom (middle school students often don't tell their parents about these activities). I coordinate the prevention section with our Juvenile Court Probation Office, health teacher, physical education teacher, school nurse, and principal.
• Write grants. This has helped us garner support for specific issues and programs -- even when the requested funding was not awarded. For example, our physical education program became a pilot site for the University of Northern Iowa, despite the fact that the U.S. Department of Education didn't fund our 2001 application for a Physical Education Program grant. This provided our district with a curriculum, training to physical education teachers, and ongoing technical assistance at no cost. The physical education department is now very receptive to trying new prevention programs and strategies."

Source: Safe and Drug-Free Schools, U.S. Department of Education (2002). Leaving No Child Behind: Results-Based Strategies for Safe and Drug-Free Schools.

A 1997 longitudinal study of 19 prevention programs undertaken by the U.S. Department of Education noted these key findings:

• Some drug prevention programs improved student outcomes but effects were small. Student outcomes were somewhat better in districts where the prevention programs had greater stability over time and in districts with more extensive program components, including student support services.
• Few schools employed program approaches that have been found effective in previous research. The consensus of the current research literature is that certain approaches, such as those that teach children how to resist and deal with powerful social influences for using drugs and those that correct those misperceptions of peer drug use, have the greatest potential for making a difference for students. However, these approaches are rarely implemented. A likely reason is the higher cost of these program approaches, particularly in terms of teacher training and staff time.
• Program delivery was variable and inconsistent, even within schools. To increase the likelihood that a program will be delivered faithfully, teachers must be given proper and sufficient training so they will be confident and prepared to deliver the program. Many of the approaches that aim to teach students how to resist and deal with social influences, for example, require teaching methods that are very different from the traditional methods that most teachers employ in their classrooms. These approaches utilize role-playing, small-group discussion, and other interactive methods and often use peer leaders to deliver portions of the program. Teachers may be more reluctant to use these types of approaches because they require more intensive training, more time in the classroom, and more planning.
• Few districts seem to know about or consider research findings when planning their prevention programs. Only a few districts engaged in a well-defined process of developing their programs. Such a process would include the following:
• Assessing the problems of students in the district's schools and in the community
• Setting priorities for how to address these problems.
• Reviewing relevant research that links these problems and priorities to effective strategies
• Selecting strategies that appear to have promise for their district.
• Providing the leadership and training necessary to implement the selected strategies
• Assessing progress in meeting the needs identified in the first step
• Adjusting program strategies accordingly
• Few districts also conducted formal program evaluations to assess their program's effectiveness and identify areas in need of improvement.

While all school districts conducted informal assessments of their programs periodically, fewer than half conducted and responded to the evidence of more formal evaluations in selecting or altering programs.

Source: Silvia, E.S., & Thorne, J. (1997). School-based prevention programs: A longitudinal study in selected school districts. Executive Summary. Final Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

The Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools (OSDFS) in the U.S. Department of Education is one of the most important incubators of effective school-based prevention and health promotion programming today. OSDFS has its roots in the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities (SDFSC) program, first authorized by Congress in 1986 as a response to alarmingly high rates of alcohol and other drug use among children and youth. Previously, the Department had funded only technical assistance activities related to drug prevention, at a total of about $3 million annually.

Through the SDFSC program, the Department made grants totaling $200 million in fiscal year 1987, the first year of funding. The amount increased steadily, reaching $624 million in fiscal year 1992.

In 1994, the SDFSC program was reauthorized as part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The most significant change was the inclusion of violence prevention activities and a focus on school safety. As noted by OSDFS Associate Deputy Under Secretary William Modzeleski in testimony to Congress in 1999, "Since many of the issues related to drug and violence prevention are interrelated, the revised [program] was intended to have school districts develop integrated programs that addressed student `risk factors' that cut across alcohol and other drug use as well as violent behavior."

With expanded funding and grant-making came a growing emphasis on program accountability. Especially significant in setting program accountability standards was the publication in June 1998 of the program's "Principles of Effectiveness." These principles require grant recipients to use objective data to identify their needs, establish measurable goals for their programs, implement programs of demonstrated effectiveness, and assess their progress toward achieving their goals. Throughout, the emphasis is on high-quality programs and results.

Another step in the program's evolution occurred in September 2002 when the Department announced the formation of a successor to the OSDFSC. According to Secretary of Education Rod Paige, OSDFS was designed to bring together into a single unit programs that were previously scattered among several different offices. "Folding all programs that deal with safety, health, and citizenship into one office will enable us to better respond to the critical needs of schools in these areas and also help us to develop a broad-based, comprehensive strategy," Paige said.

The 2005 proposed federal budget includes $838.9 million for OSDFS programs. Of this, $440.9 million is slated for SDFSC State Grants to provide sustained support for drug and violence prevention programs in school districts and communities throughout the country. Among the many different programs administered directly by OSDFS, especially noteworthy in relation to social and emotional learning are the Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative, which OSDFS carries out in partnership with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP); the Mentoring Program, which pairs at-risk youth with older mentors, a strategy that has been proven effective in many different settings; and the Character Education and Civic Education programs, which support activities to help students understand, care about, and act on core ethical and citizenship values.

The scope of all the OSDFS programs far exceeds the limitations of this article. For more details, go to http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osdfs/programs.html.

Source: Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. (June 2004) e-newsletter.

Example of Coordinators' Training

The workshops start with a discussion of the schools' role in effective prevention: Schools should serve as the hub of community prevention activities for youth, rather than try to solve these problems on their own. To illustrate the concept of school-linked approaches, the trainers offer a collection of scenarios like this one:

"Most parents only think about prevention issues at the time of a crisis, but typically prevention coordinators are not working in crisis situations," said Yvette Lamb, former director of training for the National Training Center for coordinators. "The coordinators can raise awareness about prevention and help improve school and community connections. What better place for schools and communities to come together than on creating safe and drug-free schools?"

In helping the coordinators prepare for their job, the training manual lists three levels of change:

• Social and thinking skills education for all students

• Early identification, referral, and intervention for students and parents at risk

• Safe and supervised alternative activities for students at risk

• Classroom restructuring for more engaging and interactive education environments

• School-community collaboration in program design and delivery

• Clear school policies to deter substance use and violence that can be integrated into more general school reform efforts

• Enforcement of school policies, with clear reward structure and unambiguous sanctions

• Schoolwide communication campaigns to influence school norms about substance use and violence

• Community policies to limit availability of alcohol, tobacco, other drugs, and weapons in the community

• Enforcement of community policies to limit youth access to alcohol, tobacco, other drugs, and weapons

• Community-wide communication campaigns to influence community norms about substance use and violence

Source: Bridging Schools and Communities: National Training Center for middle school drug prevention and school safety coordinators. (Fall 2001). Mosaic, Education Development Center, Newton, Mass. 3, (2).

Every effective prevention program started with a needs assessment of the target school and local community. Needs assessments is an essential part of the planning process. A needs assessment is a way of taking a systematic look at the issues facing a school and community. Through this process, information can be gathered from many sources to identify the issues to be addressedand the resources that might be used to support the implenattion strategy. An assessment can include gathering existing data, such as school offenses and suspensions. It provides objective data to problems that people might sense but not have the evidence to support. The assessment also may reveal issues that team members had not been aware of. Assessments also often include surveys of students, faculty and school administrators as well as focus groups. Many times, coordinators meet with community officials who may have access to key data or have conducted their own needs assessments. Police departments will have data on youth offenses and agencies such as the YMCA or Boys and Girls Clubs may have conducted their own youth needs assessments that could be relevant for this work. The results of a needs assessment may reveal issues that team members have not been aware of.

A needs assessment:

• Defines the nature and extent of substance abuse problems

• Identifies populations and/or neighborhoods statistically associated with the problem

• Identifies the underlying risk and protective factors of the identified population/ group/neighborhood

• Leads to a plausible theory (or theories) of change that, matched to the appropriate program(s), should reduce or prevent substance abuse (SAMHSA, 2003, Pathways to Effective Programs and Positive Outcomes)

Characteristics of Effective Programs

In "What Works in Prevention," Maury Nation and colleagues reviewed reviews of prevention programs of four areas-substance abuse, risky sexual behavioral, school failure, and juvenile delinquency and violence). From their review, they identified principles related to program characteristics of effective prevention programs. Those characteristics are:

• "Comprehensive. This means providing multiple interventions to address the target problem in multiple settings. For instance, Hawkins and Catalano argued that drug prevention programs should address risk and protective factors across domains or settings (e.g., community, family, school, peer group) that have primary influence on the participants.

• Varied Teaching Methods. Students need some type of active, skills-based component in preventive interventions. Effective prevention programs involve interactive instruction and provide hands-on experiences that increase the participants' skills. The National Institute on Drug Abuse concluded that programs that prevent alcohol and drug use help participants develop resistance skills, including the ability to be assertive and effectively communicate around issues related to drug use.

• Sufficient Dosage. Participants need to be exposed to enough of the intervention for it to have an effect. Aspects of dosage include the session length, number of sessions, spacing of sessions, and the duration of the total program. In addition to initial exposure to the intervention, effective interventions generally include some type of follow-up or booster sessions to support durability of impact.

• Theory Driven. This principle refers to the need for scientific justification of a preventive intervention. Although this principle may seem basic, an examination of actual prevention programs used in many communities and schools indicates that it is sometimes overlooked. Two types of theories that play a role in prevention programming are etiological theories and intervention theories. Etiological theories focus on the causes (e.g., risk or protective factors and processes) of the targeted problem. Intervention theories are focused on the best methods for changing these etiological risks.

• Positive Relationships. Providing opportunities for children to develop strong, positive relationships was consistently associated with positive outcomes. Reviews of substance abuse prevention emphasized the necessity to have strong connections between children and significant others (including peers, teachers, community members) as a way of preventing drug use. The reviews support the idea that it is critical for children to have a strong relationship with at least one adult."

The authors also identified principles related to matching the program with a target population. Those principles were:

• "Appropriately Timed. Interventions should be time to occur in a child's life when they will have maximal impact. Unfortunately, many programs tend to be implemented when children are already exhibiting the unwanted behavior or when the programs are developmentally less relevant to the participants. Early intervention allows programs to have a chance to affect the developmental trajectory of the problem behavior. This suggests that the elementary school to middle school transition may be an importance window for intervention.

• Socioculturally Relevant. The relevance of prevention programs to the participants appears to be a primary concern in producing positive outcomes. Culturally tailoring prevention programs goes beyond surface structure language translation to deep structure modifications sensitive to cultural factors that influence development and receptiveness to the intervention."

Finally, the authors identified principles related to implementation and evaluation of prevention programs. Those principles were:

• "Outcome Evaluation. The evaluation of prevention programs is necessary to determine program effectiveness. Otherwise, practitioners may assume that a program is effective on the basis of anecdotal or case study evidence. As evaluation has become more common, the results indicate that many programs that are anecdotally believed to be successful may actually not be effective.

• Well-Trained Staff. A high-quality, research based program can produce disappointing results in dissemination field trials if the program providers are poorly selected, trained, or supervised. The implementation of prevention programs is enhanced when the staff members are sensitive, are competent, and have received sufficient training, support, and supervision."

Following are two case studies which illustrate how school coordinators used these principles when they chose and implemented prevention programs in their schools.

When coordinator Lisa Pisciotta conducted a needs assessment at Kunsmiller Middle School in Denver, she learned that students, teachers and parents were most concerned with school safety and substance abuse. Fights were common and almost half of the students said that their peers picked on others because they were different.

The school administration decided to implement programs that were both evidence-based and shown to be effective with the Latino population. They chose the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, which attempts to restructure the existing school environment to reduce opportunities and rewards for bullying. The efforts are directed toward improving peer relations and making the school a safe and positive place for students to learn and develop. School staff is largely responsible for introducing and implementing the program.

Pisciotta coordinated the development of an Olweus Bullying Prevention committee that consisted of the principal, assistant principal, student advisors, nurse, social worker, psychologist, counselor, teachers and herself.

Committee participants at Kunsmiller Middle School held a kick-off for students to discuss issues related to bullying and to informing them that a new program was being implemented at their school. All students signed a pledge during the kick-off agreeing to not bully their fellow students. The students' pledge was laminated and placed in the main entrance of the school. Kunsmiller also had a kick-off for parents and members of the community. At this meeting administration discussed bullying and informed parents that they were beginning the Olweus Bullying Prevention program to counteract bullying issues at the school. In addition, school rules against bulling were posted throughout the entire building. All Health teachers began implementing the program by utilizing discussion, video and role playing in their classroom. Also, all teachers began conducting individual interventions with bullies and victims. In addition, the administration secured the school's "hotspots" with increased supervision. Those areas include the locker rooms, hallways, stairways, and the adjacent park. The Bullying Prevention committee also met once a month to discuss specific reports of students who were found to bully and those who were victimized. Plans and strategies were generated to support both groups of students.

The survey results showed that after one year of implementing the program, bullying had decreased significantly. The survey results showed a seven percent decrease in verbal bullying, an 8 percent decrease in physical bullying and an 11 percent decrease in relational bullying from 2002-2003 to 2003-2004.

Following the needs assessment, Pisciotta and her colleagues also decided to implement the Life Skills Training program to support substance abuse prevention. The program focuses on preventing tobacco, alcohol and drug abuse among adolescents. It addresses a range of risk and protective factors by teaching young people general personal social skills in combination with drug resistance skills and education. Every student participates in the program through their physical education class. The 2003-2004 pre- and post-survey showed a significant increase in overall knowledge, drug-related knowledge, and life skills knowledge. There was also a significant decrease in pro-drinking and pro-marijuana attitudes.

In addition to the universal interventions, Pisciotta oversaw interventions directed at specific groups who may be a higher risk for problems with violence and substance abuse. The school implemented the Aggression Replacement Training (A.R.T.) in the Special Education and Alternate classrooms. The program focuses on skill building, anger-control training and training in moral reasoning. The program also works with parents and family members in a parent empowerment component. Key findings from the A.R.T. program showed that teachers in the Special Education classroom went from mainstreaming none of their students to having every student mainstreamed into at least one regular classroom. Similar results took place in the Alternative classroom.

With another grant, Pisciotta brought in a full time substance abuse counselor, to work with students who were caught in school with drugs or alcohol. Another program, the Kunsmiller Middle School Mentoring Program works with ECCOS (Ethnic Counseling Community Outreach Services) Family Center, which is a non-profit organization operating throughout Metro Denver. Volunteers from ECCOS work as mentors for the students who need some extra support.

Pisciotta, who had previously worked at a mental health agency, said that it took a while for teachers and administrators to understand her role. She also had to step back from her inclination to do everything and let teachers and staff take on key responsibilities. It was critical that they do so because her job was only funded for three years. She sent an assistant principal to training on the bullying program and found funding to support him and others to take on extra duties. With the training and support, he will be prepared to oversee the program, she said.

As a result of the prevention work, Kunsmiller was recognized with a visit by the then Attorney General Ken Salazar (now a U.S. Senator) to speak to the students and spotlight the success of implementing the Olweus Bulling Prevention Program. Pisciotta said that the success of that and other programs has helped her receive additional grants including a $300,000 three-year grant from the Colorado Trust. The school has also received a $100,000 grant from Catholic Charities to partner with it in running an after school program. Before the coordinators program, the school did not have these grants or the recognition for its prevention efforts, Pisciotta said.

Through the grants, Pisciotta is sustaining much of the work begun under the coordinators initiative. She also spearheaded a successful effort to have the bullying program, Life Skills and other prevention program include in the school improvement plan. The school board voted to approve their inclusion in the plan. In addition, she has cultivated champions of this work among school administrators and teachers. All of those efforts make it likely that the work will continue.

In Tahlequah, Oklahoma, a simple box might have saved many lives. Fred Poteete, the former middle school coordinator there, learned through his needs assessment that bullying was a major problem in the school there. As part of the anti-bullying work, he installed a drop box for students to report anything that felt unsafe to them anonymously. While some of the reports were false, 90 percent checked out, he said. Poteete or his colleagues checked the box several times a day. One day, four students left notes saying that a new student was planning to bring a weapon to school. With that information, school officials went to the student who expressed relief that they had found out before he could have done anything dangerous, Poteete said.

Poteete also worked with teachers to design a referral form for them to fill out when they see bullying. Before, the teachers never had such a clear and simple way to report bullying. By asking for teachers' input into the design of the form, Poteete won their support.

Students also filled out aerial maps of the school campus that showed "hot spots" where they felt unsafe. They also used the maps to report where tobacco and drug use took place. The results were eye-opening. For example, a student said that in a special education classroom, a student was hitting another behind a cabinet while the teacher stood outside the door. When she learned about this she changed her position and the bullying stopped. Students even added locations not on the maps, such as buses and the athletic building where bullying was taking place. Administrators learned that in the athletic building while the coaches were in their offices talking, seventh grade boys were getting harassed as they got dressed by eighth grade boys. The survey also yielded other useful information, such as where students were getting cigarettes and smokeless tobacco.

Poteete and his colleague also implemented a formal anti-bullying program. They started with one and then moved on to Aggressors, Victims and Bystanders, which they felt had more of a track record and was more empathy based, which the junior high needed.

Poteete and other coordinators emphasize that any prevention program must meet the particular needs of a school. For his school, an empathy-based training was critical because that was lacking among the students. Another school that tackles bullying may need a different emphasis. Schools in the same district might have different needs or be at different stages of readiness to take on prevention programming. Coordinators working in multiple schools need to keep that in mind.

Poteete has been educator for 27 years in Tahlequah, working as a teacher, assistant principal and coach. Lately, he has been filling in as a bus driver to relieve a shortage in the community. He knows the community well, which has helped him in his job. Tahlequah is the western capital of Cherokee Nation and two-thirds of the students are Native American. Most of the rest of the students are white.

The comprehensive anti-bullying program led to a drop in incidents of bullying and an increase in reporting in bullying. It was so successful that the Tahlequah school board passed a measure mandating bullying program in all of its schools. The work also drew the attention of State Senator Herb Rozell who once taught in Tahlequah public schools. He co-authored the School Bullying Prevention Act. Passed in 2002, the law requires all Okalahoma school districts to come up with policies and programs to prevent harassment, intimidation and violence.

To combat drug use, Poteete also implemented the drug prevention programs Project Alert and Life Skills training to combat drug use.

Several coordinators are continuing to do this work in other school positions. One is funded through a drug free communities grant. Others have been absorbed by the school in other positions, such as student advocate.

Select a Research-Based Prevention Program

At the heart of the coordinator program is the reliance on prevention programs that have been validated by research. Coordinators were required to use prevention programs that were on the U.S. Department of Education's list of exemplary or promising programs. All had been shown to be effective in research studies.

Among the key prevention strategies that have been favorably evaluated are:

• Enhancing students' personal and social skills.
• Connecting at-risk students and families with appropriate services.
• Providing safe and supervised alternatives.
• Restructuring classrooms to promote student engagement.
• Influencing school and community norms.
• Establishing and enforcing clear school policies.
• Establishing and enforcing clear community policies.
• Building school-family-community-partnerships

Criteria for Selecting the Right Programs for Your Community

How do you know which strategies and programs are right for your community? You have to do a feasibility study that considers more than just the cost of implementing the program. Your study should look at outcomes, costs, adaptability, and technical assistance available.

In 1998, a panel of experts comprised of nationally recognized researchers, practitioners, and technical assistance providers, identified these six criteria for selecting programs:

• The program must have documented effectiveness and be based on sound theory.
• The program can be easily integrated with existing school practices.
• The program must have data that demonstrate effectiveness or ineffectiveness with particular student groups.
• Data must indicate that the program has a positive impact on student achievement.
• Program developers/sponsors must demonstrate that subscribing schools receive sufficient technical assistance.
• Program components must focus on promoting positive solutions to behavioral and emotional problems. (Safe, Supportive, and Successful Schools, p. 123).

Finally, Nation et. Al. identified well-trained staff as key to the successful implementation, adaptation, and fidelity of evidence-based prevention programs:

Tomorrow we'll look at professional development from both sides -- what coordinators needed to learn and what they needed to share with their prevention teams -- and how that impacted their program implementation.

Resources for Day 3:

Nation, M., Crusto, C., Wandersman, A., Kumpfer, K. Seybolt, D., Morrissey-Kane E., and Davino, K. (June/July 2003) What Works in Prevention: Principles of Effective Prevention Programs, American Psychologist. 58(6/7): 425-432.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). (2001). Community how to guide needs assessment and strategic planning. Available: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/Community%20Guides%20HTML/ Book2_NeedsAssess.html#app1

Osher, David, Dwyer, Kevin, & Jackson, Stephanie. (2004). Safe, Supportive, and Successful Schools Step by Step. Colorado: Sopris West.

Pisciotta, L. (April, 2005). Personal communication.

Poteete, F. (April, 2005). Personal communication.

• To document evidence of need. Let's say that parents in your community are very concerned about the use of psychedelics, cocaine, or heroin, but your needs assessment shows that more young people are using tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana. Your argument for selecting a prevention program that addresses smoking will be much more compelling if you can back it up with data.

• To highlight key issues that are particular problems in your community or district, and target prevention efforts to those at risk. You may find out that underage drinking rates are higher in your community than in similar locales or in the state as a whole, or that more students in your community than in other locales begin using alcohol in the sixth grade.

• To identify potential barriers to implementing research-based programs. You may discover, for example, that your superintendent is committed to continued implementation of a particular prevention program that is not based on research, but which has been part of the school system's curriculum for many years.

• To determine if your community is ready to address a given problem. For example, you may learn that parents in the community are unwilling to acknowledge that substance abuse or violence is a problem among their children. If this is the case, you will need to spend time educating parents, as well as their children, if your program is to succeed.

• To promote community buy-in to your prevention initiative. The school and community members you meet and connect with throughout the assessment process are your future partners in prevention. Engaging people in the process of collecting information about your community's needs will motivate and better prepare them to make decisions about which prevention strategies or programs should be selected to meet those needs.

• As a baseline for evaluation. Assessment data lets you track behavior change over time and monitor the impact of your prevention efforts.

• To mobilize the community. Carefully presented assessment data can be used to heighten awareness among community members of the extent and types of drug- and violence-related problems facing local youth. Local data, in particular, can be a powerful tool for mobilizing your community to address problems (perhaps even more effective than similar data about state or national populations.) Community members with a clear understanding of your findings are more likely to actively support and participate in prevention activities.

Source: Middle School Coordinator’s online course,"Using Existing Data in Your Needs Assessment." http://www.k12coordinator.org/
onlinece/onlineevents/assessment/id81.htm

In 1983, after three adolescent boys in northern Norway committed suicide, most likely as a consequence of severe bulling by peers, the country's Ministry of Education commissioned Professor Dan Olweus to conduct a large-scale research project on bully/victim problems. His work led to the creation of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. The program has been implemented and evaluated at a number of sites in the U.S.

The program, which can be used in elementary, middle or high schools, attempts to restructure the existing school environment to reduce opportunities and rewards for bullying. All students participate in most aspects of the program, while students identified as bullying others or as targets of bullying receive additional individual interventions. Core components of the program are implemented at the school, classroom, and individual levels.

• Formation of a Bullying Prevention Coordinating Committee

• Distribution of an anonymous student questionnaire assessing the nature and prevalence of bullying

• Training for committee members and staff

• Development of a coordinated system of supervision

• Adoption of school-wide rules against bullying

• Development of appropriate positive and negative consequences for students' behavior

• Holding staff discussion groups related to the program

• Involvement of parents

• Reinforcement of school-wide rules against bullying

• Holding regular classroom meetings with students to increase knowledge and empathy

• Informational meetings with parents

• Interventions with children who bully

• Interventions with children who are bullied

• Discussions with parents of involved students

A number of sites also are implementing community-level components, such as: convening meetings with community members, incorporating anti-bullying messages and strategies in youth-related activities in the community (including recreational activities, scouting, and after-school programs).Results of the program include:

• A 30 to 70 percent reduction in students reports of being bullied and bullying others.

• Significant reductions in student reports of general antisocial behavior (e.g., vandalism, fighting, theft, and truancy).

• More positive attitude toward school work and school.

The LifeSkills Training program consists of three major components that cover the critical domains found to promote drug use. Research has shown that students who develop skills in these three domains are far less likely to engage in a wide range of high-risk behaviors. The three components include:

• Drug Resistance Skills enable young people to recognize and challenge common misconceptions about tobacco, alcohol and other drug use. Through coaching and practice, they learn information and practical ATOD (Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug use) resistance skills for dealing with peers and media pressure to engage in ATOD use.

• Personal Self-Management Skills teach students how to examine their self-image and its effects on behavior; set goals and keep track of personal progress; identify everyday decisions and how they may be influenced by others; analyze problem situations, and consider the consequences of each alternative solution before making decisions; reduce stress and anxiety, and look at personal challenges in a positive light.

• General Social Skills teach students the necessary skills to overcome shyness, communicate effectively and avoid misunderstandings, initiate and carry out conversations, handle social requests, utilize both verbal and nonverbal assertiveness skills to make or refuse requests, and recognize that they have choices other than aggression or passivity when faced with tough situations.

Source: www.lifeskillstraining.com

Aggression Replacement Training is a program for aggressive adolescents and young children that is administered by teachers or school counselors. The program seeks to enhance interpersonal skills, self-mediated ability to control anger and a youth's concern for rights and needs of others.

The goal of the program is to improve psychological skill competence, anger control and moral reasoning and social problem -solving skills. The intervention consists of skill streaming, anger-control training, and training in moral reasoning. Skill streaming utilizes modeling, role-playing, performance feedback and generalization training to teach the curriculum of pro-social skills. The rationale behind the program is to arm students with whatever is needed to behave in constructive , non aggressive and still-satisfying ways in school, at home and in the community. Many youths are skilled in fighting, bullying and intimidating , harassing, and manipulating others. However they frequently have inadequate skills in more socially desirable behaviors such as negotiating differences, dealing appropriately with accusations, and responding effectively to failure, teasing, rejection or anger. The curriculum has been offered in a variety of lengths and each session include skill streaming,anger-control training and training in moral reasoning. The program has been implemented in schools and delinquency and mental health settings. Evaluation demonstrated decreasing anger levels in response to minor anger-provoking situations and increasing pro-social skills and social skills knowledge.

Source: Virginia Best Practices in School-Based Violence Prevention.

Realizing that the majority of Kunsmiller students are Latino, it was agreed that the program should support a student's cultural identity. The ECCOS Family Center/Kunsmiller Mentor Program is culturally based and seeks to connect youth with mentors of similar ethnic and cultural background, thus promoting cultural identity, self-awareness, and positive self-esteem of each student participating in the program. The mentor program realizes that the importance of positive self-esteem is crucial to the student's academic success.

SUPPORT GROUPS AT KUNSMILLER

Beginning in February, 2005, ECCOS is offering support groups for eighth graders at Kunsmiller Middle School. The support groups will assist students to develop skills in the following areas:

• Character development

• Self-esteem

• Relationship building

• Anger management

• General social skills

Students build these skills in order to aid in their transition to high school. Students are screened before entering the program, and mental health referrals are made if necessary.

VISION

Students attending Kunsmiller will stay in school and proceed to high school. This vision will be realized by supporting the healthy development of youth, which includes cultural identity, positive peer groups, strong family support, as well as educational goals.

WHAT MAKES A MENTOR?

Mentors are adults, who have had more experience in life, and can support and guide students to make healthy, appropriate decisions in life. Additionally, mentors can also offer friendship and guidance. Mentors participate in recreational activities with the student, assist them in setting goals for the future, and encourage students to graduate from high school, while promoting the importance of their cultural identity.

WHAT ACTIVITIES DO MENTORS AND STUDENTS DO TOGETHER?

• Explore educational and career options

• Attend cultural events, such as plays, concerts

• Attend extra curricular school events

• Colleges visits and fairs

• Attend community functions

• Build a healthy and respectful relationship.

COMMITMENT

• Length of mentorship should be at least one year

• At least two personal contacts a month & weekly contact by phone

• Complete CBI and background check

• Attend mentor training

• Meet with the parents/families of the student at least once every three months (special events will be pre-arranged)

FUNDED BY:

The Colorado Department of Education/Denver Public Schools, DPS/Safe & Drug Free Schools & Communities.

WHO PROVIDES THE PROGRAM?

ECCOS Family Center and Kunsmiller Middle School came together to develop a mentoring program to help students achieve their academic potential. ECCOS Family Center is a nonprofit agency founded in response to the social and educational needs of youth and families in the Latino Community. Source: www.eccosfamilycenter.org

Project ALERT is a two-year, 14-lesson program that focuses on the substances that adolescents are most likely to use: alcohol, tobacco, marijuana and inhalants. The project is aimed at middle school adolescents.

Project ALERT uses participatory activities and videos to help:

• Motivate adolescents against drug use.
• Teach adolescents the skills and strategies needed to resist pro-drug pressures.
• Establish non-drug-using norms.

Guided classroom discussions and small group activities stimulate peer interaction and challenge student beliefs and perceptions, while intensive role-playing activities help students learn and master resistance skills. Parent-involved homework assignments extend the learning process.

According to its web site, the project has been effective with adolescents from a variety of backgrounds, including urban, rural and suburban committees as well as Caucasian, African-American, Hispanic, Asian-American and Native American youth from a variety of socioeconomic backgrounds.

According to a study by RAND, students that received Project ALERT:

• Reduced initiation of marijuana use by 30%.
• Decreased current marijuana use by 60%.
• Reduced past month cigarette use by 20-25%.
• Decreased regular and heavy smoking by 33-55%
• Substantially reduced students' pro-drug attitudes and beliefs.

Source: www.projectalert.com

Coordinators needed to take a systematic approach to their work incorporating proven strategies and a thoughtful plan. Through their core training and follow-up online courses, coordinators learned a step-by-step way to devise and implement a prevention plan for their schools and communities. Dr. Durlak has identified professional development as one of the steps to ensure effective implementation in schools. There are several others we will look at throughout this day.

Ingredients for Sustainable School Improvement

In "Safe, Supportive and Successful Schools: Step by Step" David Osher, Kevin Dwyer, and Stephanie Jackson state that research and practice suggest that sustainable school improvement requires at least 14 ingredients. We will take a closer look at each of these components:

All the schools with prevention coordinators had significant problems in the areas of drugs, alcohol, or violence. Those were the starting points. But coordinators had to gather evidence and go through a step-by-step process in deciding which initiatives to undertake. As part of that process, you will need to select evidence-based programs and practices that fit your school. Be an intelligent consumer. Make sure the programs and practices have produced results under conditions that suggest that they will work in your own school and community (Osher et. al., pp. 5-6). Here's a link to some of the excellent resources available to you online to help you select the right interventions for your community.

Form a School-Based Team

It is a good idea for schools to employ two teams: the school wide team that addresses overall performance and the student support team that addresses individual student problems, according to Safeguarding Our Children: An Action Guide. At least three people -- the principal, a teacher and mental health specialist -- should serve on both teams, according to the Action Guide.

Practitioners suggest first looking to work with an existing school wide team that addresses academic performance and family involvement. Team members should understand the school community. Some should have expertise in areas such as school safety, student support, mental health and school reform. The members should also represent a variety of perspectives.

The coordinator is responsible for leading the team and making sure it stays on track. Alison Adler, who oversaw the work of several coordinators in Palm Beach County, Florida, offered this advice for team leaders.

Lisa Pisciotta, a middle school coordinator in Denver, said that it is also critical to encourage team members to take ownership of programs or prevention efforts. That will make them more invested in the programs and the programs can live on even if the coordinator position ends.

Conduct a Needs Assessment

Day 3 has already discussed the importance of needs assessments. A good assessment is the key to developing your prevention program. The needs assessment is a way to take a systematic look at the issues facing a school and community. An assessment can include gathering existing data, such as school offenses and suspensions. It provides objective data to problems that people might sense but not have the evidence to back up. An assessment also may reveal issues that team members had not been aware of. Assessments also often include surveys of students, faculty and school administrators as well as focus groups. Many times, coordinators meet with community officials who may have access to key data or have conducted their own needs assessments. Police departments will have data on youth offenses and agencies such as the YMCA or Boys and Girls Clubs may have conducted their own youth needs assessments that could be relevant for this work.

Added Adler, "Look at what the school has already done and what the community has already decided on the needs for that school and try and mold a plan that works for both groups."

It is not enough to simply gather data, however, she said.

Develop Relationships with School Staff and Community Members

Relationship building is one of the most critical jobs of a prevention coordinator. Teachers need to know that the coordinators are there to make their lives easier, not to add work. Principals must support the coordinators for them to be effective. Community members, such as police chiefs, school board members, city council members and heads of nonprofits can become crucial allies in the work of a coordinator. Much of this relationship building involves being a steady, available presence and offering to help rather than asking for something -- at least in the beginning.

These relationships are not only good for the coordinator but good for the school as well.

Trisha Garwood, school coordinator at Portage High School in Portage, Wisc., had her office located right next to the copy room, where teachers came by every day. She stationed herself outside the room each day and talked to the teachers. She also administered a mini-survey to learn more about their needs and concerns. It quickly became clear that teachers felt that incoming junior high students needed some help in adjusting to high school life. They were often disoriented and unprepared to start school. In her first year, the incoming freshmen class was particularly seen as troublesome. With the needs of the teachers in hand, Garwood and school staff put together a plan for a freshman orientation. Under the plan the first day of school was solely for freshmen. They met with teachers, got their schedules, found their way around school, and signed up for extracurricular activities. They also learned how to do seemingly simple things that had caused other freshmen problems in the past. For example, everyone in high school had lockers with padlocks-a change from junior high. Trying to open those padlocks quickly in between classes was often difficult for new freshmen, who would get taunted by their upperclassmen. On the freshmen day, they got a chance to practice opening their locks.

Trisha Garwood also quickly learned that it was critical to reach out to her community. The high school building was relatively new and had been funded by a referendum. School administrators knew that later on, they might need to ask the community for more funding. So they did not always want to be seen as having their hand out. The area has a high elderly population who could make or break any future referendums. Garwood took a team of administrators to meet with seniors at a local residential facility. When asked for their ideas, they said that they wanted to spend time with kids in a positive way rather than just seeing them as hoodlums hanging out on the streets.

Garwood began organizing a regular euchre night that was attended by more than 100 people-half seniors and half seventh and eighth graders. The game nights have been such a success that the seniors have become some of the students'-and the schools-biggest advocates, Garwood said. Recently they supported the construction of a skateboard park that the students wanted.

Develop an Action Plan

An action plan is a blueprint for the work of the coordinator. It is based on the needs assessment and identifies the key priority areas for improvement. The plan will include goals with measurable objectives.

Coordinators and team members should build on and strengthen existing resources. While action plans are an important basis for work, they will doubtless change as coordinators get to know their schools better. Karen Smith, who worked in several schools in Alief, Texas, found that she had to modify her action plan to fit the needs of each school. Even though the demographics were similar across schools the needs were different. If the school was low performing on standardized tests, principals might be reluctant to introduce any prevention curriculum. Instead, Smith and her colleagues helped teachers find ways to connect with their students and manage their classrooms, which in turn could help them better teach material for the standardized tests. In another school with higher test scores, Smith might concentrate on building the strengths of the students to continue to do well. There might be more student led activities as well.

Select a Research-Based Prevention Program

At the heart of the coordinator program is the reliance on prevention programs that have been validated by research. Coordinators were required to use prevention programs that were on the U.S. Department of Education's list of exemplary or promising programs. All had been shown to be effective in research studies.

Among the key prevention strategies that have been favorably evaluated are:

• Enhancing students' personal and social skills.
• Connecting at-risk students and families with appropriate services.
• Providing safe and supervised alternatives.
• Restructuring classrooms to promote student engagement.
• Influencing school and community norms.
• Establishing and enforcing clear school policies.
• Establishing and enforcing clear community policies.
• Building school-family-community-partnerships

Implement the Program, Often Starting with a Pilot Program

Choosing a research-based prevention program is only the first step. The next step is to implement that program within the specific problems and population of a school and community.

Quality implementation refers to the degree to which an intervention is delivered as it was intended to be delivered. However, many researchers in the field assert that successful implementation actually depends on some degree of adaptation. Programs must be adapted to accommodate complex and often idiosyncratic school settings as well as to meet the needs of a variety of audiences. One group of researchers have proposed that program modification is acceptable as long as the program's active or core elements are delivered as planned.

Many coordinators began implementing their programs on a small scale. They would start in one classroom or one grade level.

And not every intervention should continue after a pilot run.

"We've had good luck in a few initiatives that had results that showed that these interventions worked and the schools made long-standing commitments to them," Adler said. "But if we find some that aren't making the grade, they're not showing enough improvement or they're difficult to implement, no matter how evidence based or research based our schools aren't going to really accept them."

Conduct Continual Staff Development

Choosing a research-based prevention program is only the first step. The next step is to implement that program within the specific problems and population of a school and community.

One of the most important jobs of a prevention coordinator is to conduct on-going professional development. In fact, teacher training is a critical component of a prevention plan. Teachers will be the main school staff implementing these programs, which often require an interactive, active-learning style that they may not be trained in. Because these programs are comprehensive and seek to involve the whole school, coordinators need to involve and train custodians, cafeteria staff, secretaries and paraprofessionals as well. Many schools have high turnover so new staff need to be trained in prevention.

Work with Community Members to Implement Programs

Community members are equally important partners in prevention programs. They can bring needed resources and expertise to schools. What's more, students are a product of their community as well as their family. Prevention coordinators need to have their finger on the pulse of the community and know what the key players are doing around prevention issues.

Fred Poteete, a middle school coordinator in Tahlequah, Oklahoma, needed the help of the community in combating a serious bullying problem. Many families attended church, which were a key part of the community. Poteete invited youth pastors from the area to school and presented a bible study curriculum about bullying. Poteete gave them the curriculum along with some ideas about how they could address bullying in their youth groups. He explained that bullying not only means hitting or calling someone names but excluding people from groups, which can happen as easily in church groups as in other groups.

Poteete also pointed out to the youth pastors that many youth groups are small, which increases the chance the someone in the group will be bullied.

Communicate Findings and Results

Marie Rogers, a middle school coordinator in Nassau County, Florida, made it a point to consistently communicate the results of her work to two main constituencies: school boards and the teachers implementing the prevention programs. For school boards, she did a power point presentation. For busy teachers she created a one-page information sheet with key findings. She put the one-pager in all the teachers' mail boxes to make sure they got them.

Evaluate and Refine the Programs

It is critical that coordinators undertake a systematic evaluation of the prevention programs that they have implemented. Evaluations are crucial in learning more about the results of a program and how to improve it. It is important for coordinators and their school team to agree on the outcomes they want to measures at the beginning so they can or an outside evaluator can collect the appropriate data and information.

All of this work is described in more depth in the coordinators manual and in online courses that is available for districts to use in training their own prevention specialists at http://www.k12coordinator.org

Resources for Day 4:

Cuervo, A. (January, 2005). Personal communication.

Durlak, J. (1998). "Why implementation is important," Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community. Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 5-18.

Elias, M., Zins, J.E., Graczyk, P.A. and Weissberg, R.P. (2003). Implementation, Sustainability, And Scaling Up of Social-Emotional and Academic Innovations in Public Schools. School Psychology Review, 32 (3), 303-319.

Garwood, T. (April, 2005). Personal communication.

Gottfredson, G. D., Gottfredson, D. C., Czeh, E. R., Cantor, D., Crosse, S. B., & Hantman, I. (2000). National study of delinquency prevention in schools: Summary. Ellicott City, MD: Gottfredson Associates. Available: http://www.gottfredson.com/national.htm

Mihalic S, Irwin, K, Fagan, A, Ballard, D. and Elliott, D. (July 2004 "Successful Program Implementation: Lessons from Blueprints." Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Office of Justice Programs, Washington, D.C.

Osher, D. (January, 2005). Personal communication.

Osher, D., Dwyer, K, and Jackson, J. (2004). Safe, Supportive and Successful Schools, Step by Step. Longmont, Colorado: Sopris West Educational Services.

Pisciotta, L. (January, 2005). Personal communication.

Rogers, M. (August, 2005). Personal communication.

Smith, K. (January, 2005). Personal communication.

Wilson, R. (January, 2005). Personal communication.

In "Safe, Supportive and Successful Schools: Step by Step" David Osher, Kevin Dwyer and Stephanie Jackson that states that research and practice suggest that sustainable school improvement requires at least 14 ingredients:

• Address the needs of your school and community. Take into account school and community characteristics throughout the change process.
• Be strategic and comprehensive. Develop a strategic plan for addressing the needs of all children through universal prevention, early intervention, and individualized intensive intervention.
• Be systemic. Effective change aligns improvements in key areas simultaneously: curriculum, teaching and teacher training, school culture and environment, and student support systems.
• Don't do it alone. Serving all students requires interagency collaboration.
• Involve the entire community. Include all stakeholders-students, families, and policymakers-in program development, monitoring, and evaluation.
• Understand and manage change. Change is not easy. A well-trained team, representative of and accessible to all stakeholders and skilled in cooperative problem solving, should manage change.
• Build a learning organization. School staff should have the time and support to discuss, plan, and reflect on new approaches.
• Value and address diversity. Programs and practices should be sensitive to and respectful of the culturally and linguistically diverse students, families and staff who are part of the school and community.
• Assess and address strengths and challenges. Build on existing resources and leverage what is working in your school and community. Some interventions, however, may not work or may not have sufficient power to realize your goals. Others may even have harmful effects. Improve or eliminate ineffective programs; identify and eliminate harmful programs and practices.
• Employ evidence-based programs and practices. Select evidence-based programs and practices that fit your school. Be an intelligent consumer. Make sure the programs and practices have produced results under conditions that suggest that they will work in your own school and community.
• Build capacity. Develop and fund organizational capacity, including necessary staff and training to ensure that programs can be implemented effectively.
• Employ data. Collect and assess data on an ongoing basis and use the data to refine programs and procedures. Whenever possible, employ or refine existing data sources.
• Evaluate outcomes. Evaluate programs to ensure that they produce sufficiently positive outcomes.
• Focus on the long haul. Change is neither easy nor cheap. Don't focus on symbolic actions and quick fixes. Develop an organizational capacity to maintain and sustain school improvement.

Source: Osher, D, Dwyer, K. Jackson, S. (2004). "Safe, Supportive and Successful Schools Step by Step." Sopris West Educational Services.

Once your planning team has completed the needs assessment and decided on the focus for the prevention plan, you need to identify interventions and programs that will successfully impact your plan. These interventions have to be a 'good fit between the interventions and your school or community' (Safe, Supportive, and Successful Schools, pp. 121-122).

These online resources will give you a wealth of information.

• Center for the Application of
  Prevention Technologies (CAPT):
  Database of Effective Prevention Programs
  http://www.northeastcapt.org/science/pod/search.asp

• Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice
  http://www.air.org/ceep

• Center for Substance Abuse Prevention:
  Prevention Works!
  http://casat.unr.edu/bestpractices/

• Center for the Study and Prevention of
  Violence's Blueprints
  http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/

• Center for Mental Health in Schools
  http://smhp.psych/ucla/edu/

• Center for Substance Abuse Prevention
  http://www.samhsa.gov/centers/csap/csap.html

• Centers for Disease Control National
  Youth Violence Prevention Resource Center
  http://www.safeyouth.org/home.htm

• Centers for Disease Control and
  Prevention,
  National Center for Injury Prevention and Control
  http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/bestpractices.htm

• The Collaborative for Academic, Social,
  and Emotional Learning's (CASEL) Safe and Sound:
  An Educational Leaders Guide to Evidence-Based
  Social and Emotional Learning Programs
  http://www.casel.org/progrevfr.htm

• Hamilton Fish National Institute on School
  and Community Violence
  http://www.hamfish.org/

• Positive Youth Development in the United States:
  Research Findings on Evaluations of Positive Youth Development Programs
  http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/positiveyouthdev99/

• Prevention Research Center for the
  Promotion of Human Development
  http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/
  youthviolence/report.html

• U.S. Department of Education's Safe and
  Drug-Free Schools Program's Model Programs
  http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SDFS/programs.html

Source: Osher, D., Dwyer, K, and Jackson, J. (2004). Safe, Supportive and Successful Schools, Step by Step. Longmont, Colorado: Sopris West Educational Services.

• School and community members provide varied perspectives on community problems and populations at risk. They can play key roles in helping you conceptualize your needs assessment, they can provide a context for understanding the information you collect, and they may be able to direct you toward other assessment efforts that have already been undertaken in your community. In addition, partners can help you determine whether your community is ready to address a given problem or likely to support a particular type of program.

• Participation in a successful, multifaceted group often produces increased involvement and commitment. People who are engaged in a collaborative process will feel a greater sense of "ownership" of the prevention plan and will be more invested in obtaining positive outcomes. They will also be motivated and better prepared to make decisions about which prevention strategies or programs should be selected to meet identified needs.

• Partners bring a variety of complementary skills to support prevention efforts. A well-selected group of partners can provide you with access to many systems and resources that can help you get things done. For example, elected officials can host town meetings that allow you to share assessment findings; local artisans can help you design a newsletter; school committee members have the "know how" to influence policy change; area businesses can donate goods and services not allowable under your grant; and local graduate students can help you develop your evaluation plan. Ultimately, the more involvement school and community members have in the design and implementation of your prevention plan, the greater the likelihood that the research-based strategies you and your team select will be effective.

• Activities that are initiated and maintained through a deliberate planning effort are of higher quality than programs that are simply "installed" in the organization. Well-planned activities tend to possess many of the characteristics associated with higher-quality programming. These include a high level of local staff participation, more and better training, greater standardization, and a higher degree of supervision. They are also more likely to be research-based.

Source: Middle School Coordinator's online course, "Promoting Prevention Through School-Community Partnerships."

Trained teachers are more likely to implement, and to implement more of the curriculum than untrained teachers, according to the Blueprints for Violence Prevention Initiative, which identifies effective violence prevention and drug prevention programs that have been evaluated in rigorous, controlled trials. In addition, fully trained teachers complete a greater percentage of the program with greater fidelity, They also are more effective and have more favorable student outcomes than untrained teachers. Teachers without follow and support over time often fail to fully implement or continue use of a program.

Source: Mihalic S, Irwin, K, Fagan, A, Ballard, D. and Elliott, D. (July 2004 "Successful Program Implementation: Lessons from Blueprints." Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Office of Justice Programs, Washington, D.C.

To: Project Alert and Second Step Teachers

From: L. Marie Rogers, Middle School Coordinator Drug & Violence Prevention

You are making a difference! The following should encourage and direct us to place Project Alert and Second Step as an integral part of your curriculum planning.

The spring 2004 NEFEC Survey results are available. Nassau County is showing the following results for the gateway drugs emphasized in Project Alert:

The 2002 survey was used as the baseline data. As of October 2004, the following comparison for past 30-day use indicates we are making a difference:

Three indicators of violence in the survey show an improvement from the baseline data.

When students in 2002 were asked "what has helped you to not use alcohol, tobacco, other drugs or engage in violence", 55.9% answered that education about the harmful effects of drugs and violence has helped "A Lot". By 2004, that number had increased to 63.2% of the students. These indicators show that education and awareness are helping to make a difference in Nassau County. The 2004 Florida Youth Substance Abuse Survey results are not available at this time. It is hoped that those results will reflect the positive outcomes that support our prevention efforts as well

Please share this information with your students in class. Call if I can assist you or your students.

Source: Marie Rogers, Middle School Coordinator for Drug and Violence Prevention, Nassau County, Florida.

Coordinators bring an expertise and depth that is critical for schools and districts. By assigning the right person the responsibility of overseeing prevention work, districts can be assured that they are getting well-tested programs that are right for their particular schools. They are giving students, teachers, other staff, parents and others the tools to not only be successful academically but to be successful in life.

School districts have many options in adding a dedicated prevention coordinator. They can re-assign someone who is already working as a counselor, school psychologist, social worker or teacher. That person would need to have the right combination of skills and personality for the job. Suyapa Silvia, the evaluator for the Middle School Coordinator program, pointed out findings from a 10-site case study she conducted.

"We heard from the administrators that what was key in the places that were perceived as successful were the coordinators themselves," she said. "What they brought, their enthusiasm, their skills, their leadership. They communicated better and more often [than the less successful coordinators], they anticipated the need for information and provided it in a way that was helpful. They gained the trust of the administrators and they were very good at connecting with community resources. They brought more community resources to the schools and more funding."

In the case study, all of the coordinators had at least a bachelor's degree and 60 percent had a master's degree, according to Silvia.

The Spring 2005 issue of The Challenge newsletter, which is a publication of the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, contains an article in which Eric Schaps, president of Developmental Studies Center, describes key factors that make a difference in effective implementation and sustainability. He is the developer of the Child Development Project, a school improvement initiative that builds students' reading comprehension skills and fosters caring connections between students, teachers, and parents. The project has been recognized as a model program by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and as a promising program by the U.S. Department of Education's Expert Panel on Safe, Disciplined and Drug-Free Schools. Schaps has had more than 20 years of experience in implementing prevention programs in schools across the country.

In the article, Schaps and his colleagues identified several factors that can mean the difference between successful and unsuccessful implementation and sustainability.

• Principal leadership and support. "You simply must have the support of the principal," Schaps said. "Teachers need ample professional development time and you need access to money, space and equipment. The principal is the one to make those things happen. The principal also needs to actively participate in all staff development sessions. That sends a clear signal that the program is important and that school culture change is a priority."

• District office leadership and support. School districts are increasingly determining priorities for their schools and deciding how staff development time and school budgets are to be used. Therefore, it is important that key district decision-makers find ways to support the adoption and institutionalization of any serious program. This includes district leaders signaling the importance of the program by allocating resources they control to it, and protecting the school from competing demands for change so that the principal and staff can properly attend to implementation issues.

• Whole faculty involvement. Change requires not only the investment of classroom teachers but also the involvement of lunchroom staff, playground aides, bus drivers, janitorial staff, and school secretaries. In order to build a cohesive school culture, all of the individuals who relate to students and families need to operate in synch.

• Professional development that "walks the walk." "Teachers need a complete understanding of every aspect of the program," Schaps explained. "Therefore, when you are training teachers, you need to provide opportunities for them to experience the exact same elements of the program that their students will."

• Clear program implementation materials. Schools require how-to manuals that clearly describe each program element and offer easy-to-follow activities.

Funding

Another important part of prevention work is securing funding to begin or continue the work after grant funding ends. While the National Coordinator funding ended in 2005, there are other options for funding for these positions. There are three main sources of grants for school-and community-based prevention work:

• The government, including federal, state and sometimes local sources.
• Foundations
• Private businesses and corporations

• Use the money efficiently.
• Show the relationship between student support and academic improvement.
• Focus on evidenced based practices.

Examples of funding possibilities are:

• Title 1 of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is the largest federally funded educational program. This program, authorized by Congress, provides supplemental funds to school districts to assist schools with the highest student concentrations of poverty to meet school educational goals.

• Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is a federal program which provides funds to states and local education agencies (school districts) to support education for children with disabilities age 3 to 21.

• U.S. Department of Justice, Juvenile Justice funding at the state level.

• The federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

Amalia Cuervo, program officer for the National Coordinator program at the U.S. Department of Education, also urged schools to collaborate with other agencies in seeking funding. Among the possibilities for collaboration are:

• Aligning and coordinating the use of categorical funds to enhance their efficiency.

• Pooling funds across agencies or programs to create a less restrictive source of funding for local programs.

• Braiding funds so that each agency can track and retain its identity and requirements for its funding while the monies from different agencies are "braided" together to fund one Integrated Service Plan.

• Capturing and reinvesting funds save through programs that appropriately reduce costs (e.g., when fewer referrals for costly services are made.)

Free and Extensive On-line Training

Research has shown that people who work in prevention need intensive and on-going training. This training is available free of charge through several federal agencies. National Coordinators web site has its entire core training available as well as 15 on-line courses that provide additional training on planning and implementing programs as well as on specific topics such as crisis response, bullying, truancy, and gangs (www.k12coordinator.org).

The federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) is launching a substantial on-line training available for prevention programs (www.samhsa.org). Called the Prevention Platform, the training will have tools and resources for:

• Communities to assess their needs, readiness and resources.
• Strategic planning and infrastructure development (capacity building).
• Selection and implementation of evidence-based prevention approaches.
• Ongoing evaluations that measure progress, impact, and outcomes.

SAMHSA also has a National Registry of Effective Programs and Practices (www.modelprograms.samhsa.gov). The Registry is a system for identifying and promoting interventions that are:

• Well implemented.
• Thoroughly evaluated.
• Produce consistent, positive and replicable results.
• Able to assist in dissemination and training efforts.

Enshrining Prevention Work

The ultimate goal for these coordinator positions are to enshrine or their work into the school district. Districts have a variety of options to ensure that this work continues. Among the options are:

• Enshrine programs in law or school improvement plans.
• Put the coordinator's position as a line item in the school budget.
• Tie prevention positions into union-protected positions.
• Provide on-going staff development.
• Find champions for this work.
• Adapt programs to changing needs.

When you are done, please click here to complete a
feedback form so that we can improve future on-line events!

References for Day 5:

Adler, A. (January, 2005). Personal communication.

Elias M., Zins J.E., Graczyk P.A. and Weissberg, R.P. (2003) Implementation, Sustainability, And Scaling Up of Social-Emotional and Academic Innovations in Public Schools. School Psychology Review, 32 (3), 303-319.

Prevention Programs with Staying Power: What Makes Good Prevention Programs Take Hold and Last? (Spring 2005) The Challenge (newsletter of the U.S. Department of Education Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools.

• "Dr. Maurice Elias and his colleagues at CASEL conducted a study of why some schools succeed or fail to "scale up" or expand and sustain their SEL efforts. Based on both their own project experience and reviews of literature, the CASEL team found several challenges that often prevent programs that are successful at one place from taking hold at another. These include:

• Structural features in school settings. Problems such as high staff turnover can affect whether a prevention effort succeeds. Unless a school has good systems for collecting and sharing information, staff turnover can impair the ability to transfer knowledge about how a program operates.

• A narrow "programs and packages" perspective. In a complex school environment, there can be many programs going on at a school at the same time and interacting with each other in unknown ways. If schools take a narrow "programs and packages" approach (i.e. "this prevention package can be opened up from the box and plunked down here with success") without understanding how different programs fit together with one another and with the rest of the school day, they might actually be unwittingly working against themselves. Schools need to do more than choose an effective prevention program; they need to link effective programs to an overall prevention strategy.

• Poor management of time and other resources. Not every site is ready for change just because a starting date is reached. Detailed planning is essential, and program organizers must be prepared to deal with inevitable changes or delays. Programs often fail if implementers have not engaged in adequate planning, or do not have the flexibility to take another path if necessary.

• Characteristics of adults who carry out the programs. School-based programs depend on human operators whose levels of commitment may vary, or do not always feel supported or motivated to go through the difficult process of implementing change."

Source: Prevention Programs with Staying Power: What Makes Good Prevention Programs Take Hold and Last? (Spring 2005) The Challenge (newsletter of the U.S. Department of Education Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools.

This section provides a comprehensive list of the materials and resources presented in this event. Session Resources include the main text for each day of this event, as well as supplementary materials. General Resources include materials designed to facilitate your participation in this on-line training.

Session Resources

Adler, Alison. (2005). Single School Culture -- Components and Strategies for Implementation. Keynote address to the 2005 Governor's Institute for Educators. Available: http://www.center-school.org/profdev/documents/adler-backhus.pdf

Benard, B. and Marshall, K. (2001). Meta-Analyses Provide Decade of Evidence: Effective School-Based Drug Prevention Programs. Resilience Research for Prevention Programs. Minneapolis, MN: National Resilience Resource Center, University of Minnesota and the Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies. Available: http://www.cce.umn.edu/pdfs/NRRC/capt_pdf/meta-analyses.pdf

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Surveillance Summaries. May 21, 2004. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 53(SS-2).

Comeau, C. (July, 2005). Personal communication.

Cuervo, A. (January, 2005). Personal communication.

Delbert, E. (2005). "Violence Prevention: What Works and What Doesn't." Keynote address to the 2005 Partnerships for Success (PfS) Evidence-based Practices Symposium.

Elias M., Zins J.E., Graczyk P.A. and Weissberg, R.P. (2003) Implementation, Sustainability, And Scaling Up of Social-Emotional and Academic Innovations in Public Schools. School Psychology Review, 32 (3), 303-319.

Ennett, S. T., Ringwalt, C. L., Thorne, J., Rohrbach, L. A., Vincus, A., Simons-Rudolph, A., & Jones, S. (2003). A comparison of current practice in school-based substance use prevention programs with metaanalysis findings. Prevention Science, 4, 1–14. Available: http://www.casel.org/downloads/AmericanPsychologist2003.pdf

Gottfredson & Gottfredson. (2002). Quality of School-Based Prevention Programs: Results from a National Survey. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 39: 3-35.

Greenberg, M.T., Weissberg, R.P., Utne O'Brien, M., Zinns, J.E, Fredericks, L., Resnick, H and Elias M. (June/July 2003) "Enhancing School-Based Prevention and Youth Development Through Coordinated Social, Emotional, and Academic Learning," American Psychologist. 58(6-7), 466-474.

Hoffman Clark & Associates, Final Evaluation Report: San Diego City Schools, Middle School Coordinator Program II, August 2004.

Ringwalt, et. al. (2002). The Prevalence of Effective Substance Use Prevention Curricula in U.S. Middle Schools. Prevention Science. : 257-272.

Safe and Drug-Free Schools, U.S. Department of Education (2002). Leaving No Child Behind: Results-Based Strategies for Safe and Drug-Free Schools. Siliva, S. (July, 2005). Personal communication.

Silvia, E.S., and Thorne, J. (1997). School-based prevention programs: A longitudinal study in selected school districts. Executive Summary. Final Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

Smith, K (January, 2005). Personal communication.

Tobler, N. (1986). Meta-analysis of 143 adolescent drug prevention programs. Journal of Drug Issues 16, 537-567.

Tobler, N. (1998). Principles of effectiveness of school-based drug prevention programs:The rationale for effective peer programs. Peer Facilitator Quarterly, 15, 109-115.

Tobler, N. (1993). Updated meta-analysis of adolescent drug prevention programs. In C. Montoya, C. Ringwalt, B. Ryan, & R. Zimmerman (Eds), Evaluating School-Linked Prevention Strategies: Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drugs. San Diego, CA: UCSD Extension, University of California, 71-86.

Tobler, N. & H. Stratton (1997). Effectiveness of school-based drug prevention programs: A meta-analysis of the research. Journal of Primary Prevention 18 (1), 71-128.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 2004. Crime and Safety in America's Public Schools: Selected Findings from the School Survey on Crime and Safety.

U.S. Dept. of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Institute of Education Sciences. 2005. Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2005. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/crimeindicators/index.asp?ShowFileName=Exec_Summ.asp

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2001). Youth Violence: A report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Available:http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/youthviolence

Weissberg, R. (January, 2005). Personal communication.

Day 2 - The Role of the Prevention Coordinator: Research to Practice

Cheek, J. (July 2005). Personal communication.

DeVoe, J.F., Peter, K., Noonan, M., Snyder, T.D., and Baum, K. (2005). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2005 (NCES 2006–001/NCJ 210697). U.S. Departments of Education and Justice. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006001.pdf

Greenberg, M.T., Weissberg, R.P., Utne, O'Brien, M, Zins, J.E., Fredericks, L., Resnick H., and Elias, M.J. (June/July 2003). Enhancing School-Based Prevention and Youth Development Through Coordinated Social, Emotional, and Academic Learning. American Psychologist, 58(6/7), 466-474.

Henry, S. (2000). What Is School Violence? An Integrated Definition. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 567: 16-29.

Hill, P. (May 2005). Personal communication.

Osher, D. (January 2005). Personal communication.

Osher, D., Dwyer, K., and Jackson, J. (2004). Safe, Supportive and Successful Schools, Step by Step. Longmont, Colorado: Sopris West Educational Services.

Payne, A.A., Gottfredson, D.C., and Gottfredson, G.D. (2003). Schools as Communities: The Relationship Between Communal School Organization, Student Bonding, and School Disorder. Criminology, 41: 749-778.

Quinn, K. School-based Strategies for Meeting the Needs of Socially and Emotionally Challenged Children and Youth.

Safe and Sound: An Educational Leader's Guide to Evidence-Based Social and Emotional Learning Programs. (2003). Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning.

Smith, K. (April 2005). Personal communication.

Wilson, Ruth Ann. (May 2005). Personal communication.

Day 3 - What Works in Prevention: Research to Practice

Nation, M., Crusto, C., Wandersman, A., Kumpfer, K. Seybolt, D., Morrissey-Kane E., and Davino, K. (June/July 2003) What Works in Prevention: Principles of Effective Prevention Programs, American Psychologist. 58(6/7): 425-432.

Pisciotta, L. (April, 2005). Personal communication.

Poteete, F. (April, 2005). Personal communication.

Day 4 - Step-by-Step to Prevention: Research to Practice

Cuervo, A. (January, 2005). Personal communication.

Durlak, J. (1998). "Why implementation is important, " Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community. Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 5-18.

Elias, M., Zins, J.E., Graczyk, P.A. and Weissberg, R.P. (2003). Implementation, Sustainability, And Scaling Up of Social-Emotional and Academic Innovations in Public Schools. School Psychology Review, 32 (3), 303-319.

Garwood, T. (April, 2005). Personal communication.

Gottfredson, G. D., Gottfredson, D. C., Czeh, E. R., Cantor, D., Crosse, S. B., & Hantman, I. (2000). National study of delinquency prevention in schools: Summary. Ellicott City, MD: Gottfredson Associates. Available: http://www.gottfredson.com/national.htm

Mihalic S, Irwin, K, Fagan, A, Ballard, D. and Elliott, D. (July 2004 "Successful Program Implementation: Lessons from Blueprints." Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Office of Justice Programs, Washington, D.C.

Osher, D. (January, 2005). Personal communication.

Osher, D., Dwyer, K, and Jackson, J. (2004). Safe, Supportive and Successful Schools, Step by Step. Longmont, Colorado: Sopris West Educational Services.

Pisciotta, L. (January, 2005). Personal communication.

Rogers, M. (August, 2005). Personal communication.

Smith, K. (January, 2005). Personal communication.

Wilson, R. (January, 2005). Personal communication.

Day 5 - Sustaining Effective Prevention Practices: Research to Practice

There are a number of resources that you can use in learning about how to establish a research-based prevention program in your school or district. The following resources may be particularly helpful:

Research on Effective, Evidence-Based Prevention

Sustainability

Social and Emotional Learning

Developmental Assets

Funding

The following agencies, initiatives, and foundations often provide funding for prevention activities:

Federal Agencies

Foundations

Other Funding Resources

General Resources

• Navigating This Site

• Participating in On-Line Events

• Using the Discussion Area

• Event Support

Research on Effective, Evidence-Based Prevention

The June/July 2003 special issue of the American Psychologist contains articles on key research findings and common principles for effective programming. Among those articles are:

Sustainability

Implementation, Sustainability, and Scaling Up of Social-Emotional and Academic Innovations in Public Schools Based on experiences of the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning and reviews of literature, the reasons why some schools fail to expand and sustain their social and emotional learning efforts are discussed, along with steps schools can take to help avoid these common pitfalls.

The Center for Mental Health in Schools at the University of California and Los Angeles provides information on sustainability of programs.

Social and Emotional Learning

Safe and Sound: An Educational Leader's Guide to Evidence-Based Social and Emotional Learning Programs Based on a three-year study funded by the Institute of Education Sciences and the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools in the U.S. Department of Education, Safe and Sound is a comprehensive and inclusive guide to social and emotional learning programming.

Developmental Assets

Search-institute.org Search Institute is an independent nonprofit organization whose mission is to provide leadership, knowledge, and resources to promote healthy children, youth, and communities. To accomplish this mission, the institute generates and communicates new knowledge, and brings together community, state, and national leaders. At the heart of the institute's work is the framework of 40 Developmental Assets, which are positive experiences and personal qualities that young people need to grow up healthy, caring, and responsible.

Funding

The following agencies, initiatives, and foundations often provide funding for prevention activities:

• Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program (SDFS), U.S. Department of Education

• Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Department of Justice

• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

Funding

• The Annie E. Casey Foundation

• The Pew Charitable Trusts

• The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

• The W.K. Kellogg Foundation

Funding

• The Foundation Center

• Regional Associations of Grantmakers