The Impact of a Character Intervention on
Student Outcomes: Results From Three
Years of the Positive Action Program in the
Chicago Randomized Trial
Brian R. Flay, D.Phil.
Professor
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR
David L. DuBois, Ph.D.,
Professor, Public Health,
University of Illinois at
Chicago
Carol Gerber Allred, PhD
Positive Action, Inc.
Twin Falls, ID
Peter Ji, Ph.D., Research
Associate, Psychology
University of Illinois at
Chicago
Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Prevention Research, San Francisco, May 28 2008
Outline
I. The Positive Action program
philosophy/theory and components
II. Prior evaluations and results
III. Design of the Chicago study
IV. Results from the Chicago study
V. Conclusions
2
I. Overview of PA Program
• Positive Action (PA) is a comprehensive school-based program
designed to
– promote student character and positive behavior,
– prevent an array of student problem behaviors, and
– improve student achievement.
• PA is grounded in a broad theory of self-concept that posits
– (a) students’ self-concepts and characters are determined by how they
behave and how they feel about themselves when they do various
behaviors and
– (b) making positive and healthy behavioral choices results in feelings
of self-worth.
• Major features of the program include:
– Teacher delivered scripted PA curriculum lessons in classroom
– Teacher and school staff modeling/reinforcement of “PA
behaviors” inside and outside of the classroom
– School-wide activities (e.g., PA assemblies) led by principal and
PA Committee
3
Positive Action Overview
1. The core of Positive Action is contained in an underlying
philosophy.
2. The philosophy is described in the Thoughts-ActionsFeelings Circle.
3. Positive Action teaches the positive actions for the whole
self through six units that are contained in five program
components.
4. The five completely prepared components are:
1. K–12 curriculum,
2. Climate Development,
3. Counselors program,
4. Family program, and
5. Community program.
4
Basic Philosophy (Theory of Action)
of the Positive Action Program & Circle
You feel good about
yourself when you do
positive actions.
Cognitive Behavior Therapy
and Positive Psychology
5
Basic Philosophy (Theory of Action)
of the Positive Action Program & Circle
...and
You feel bad about
yourself when you do
negative actions.
C.F. Depression
6
The Positive Action Program
Targets Multiple Behaviors
• By teaching that:
– When you do good, you feel good
– And there’s always a positive way of doing things
AND
• By teaching that doing positive actions helps:
– Individuals, families, schools and
communities develop positive self identities.
7
Limitations of Behavior-Specific
Programs
• Problem-specific
–Usually only one behavior or one skill
• Start too late
–Upper elementary or middle school
• Limited intensity and dose
–Often only once a week for 10–20 sessions
• Ecologically limited
–Usually only in the classroom
• Limited effect sizes
–Average effect sizes in the 0.2 to 0.4 range
•
Effects not sustained
–Few effects beyond one year, let alone into high school
8
The POSITIVE ACTION Program Components
K–12 classroom curriculum
over 1,200 lessons - using Teacher’s Kits (manuals and materials for each
grade), classroom teachers present 15–20-minute lessons
Principal’s Kits (Elementary and Secondary)
a school-climate program to promote the practice and reinforcement of
positive actions in the whole school population (students and staff)
Counselor’s Kit
used with selected individual students, small groups and families
Family Kit
contains prepared weekly home lessons paralleling the school program
along with school parent-involvement activities
Community Kit
manuals and materials that align and encourage collaboration of all the
environments (schools, families and community) involved in the program
9
Positive Action Focus Units
(Learning Goals)
• In the classroom curriculum and all other materials,
the Positive Action content is taught through six focus units.
Unit 1: Self-Concept: What It Is, How It’s Formed, and
Why It’s Important (Philosophy & Circle)
Unit 2: Physical and Intellectual Positive Actions for a
Healthy Body and Mind (includes motivation to learn)
Unit 3: Social/Emotional Positive Actions for Managing
Yourself Responsibly
Unit 4: Social/Emotional Positive Actions for Getting
Along with Others by Treating Them the Way
You Like to Be Treated (Social-Emotional Skills & Character)
Unit 5: Social/Emotional Positive Actions for Being
Honest with Yourself and Others (Mental Health)
Unit 6:
Social/Emotional Positive Actions for Improving
Yourself Continually (Setting & Achieving Goals)
10
Logic/Theoretic Model of the Expected
Effects of the Positive Action Program
Program Components
Climate Development,
Family Kit,
Teacher/Staff Training,
K–12 Instruction
Curriculum,
Drug Education
Supplements,
Community Kit,
Counseling Kit
Immediate Outcomes
* Improved relationships among school
administrators, teachers, parents & community.
* Improved classroom management.
* Increased involvement of school with
parents & community.
PA Unit
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Improved character/self-concept
Learning/Study skills
Self-Management
Interpersonal/social skills
Self-honesty, responsibility
Goal setting, future orientation
Expected Effects
Attitudes
Toward
Behaviors,
Social
Normative
Beliefs,
SelfEfficacy
Improved
Social
and
Character
Development
Improved
Learning
Environment
Expected Impact
Fewer Disciplinary
Problems; Reduced
Substance Use;
Less Violence
Improved School
Attendance, Grades
and Test Scores
11
Mapping of Positive Action Components Onto The Theory of Triadic Influence
CLASSROOM
SCHOOL
FAMILY
COMMUNITY
Positive Action Program Components and Lessons (Exist in each Component)
IntraPersonal
(Individual)
Social Context/
Situations
Genetics
Biology
Personality
Self
Concept
Self
Management
Time, Energy,
Talents,
Money, Anger
Social &
Emotional
Health
Sense
of Self
Social
Competence
SelfSocial
Determination Skills
Environment
Family
School
Neighborhood Peers
Feelings
Empathy
How to
Treat Others
Communica
-tion Skills
Conflict
Resolution
Self-Efficacy
Socio-Cultural
Social
Others’
Bonding/
Behavior &
Attachment
Approval
Others’
Expectations
Desire to
Please
Social Normative
Beliefs
Mass Media Regulations
Religion
Economy
Positive
Role
Models
How You
Like To
Be
Treated
General
Values
Information
Environment
Evaluation of
Expected
Outcomes
Consequences
Attitudes Toward
the Behavior
Health
& Drug
Info
Thinking
Skills
Creativity
DecisionMaking
ProblemSolving
INTENTIONS/DECISIONS
BEHAVIOR
Experiences from Behavior
12
II. Prior Evaluations of PA
• Early Studies of the PA Program’s Effects
on Self-Concept
• Effects of the Positive Action Program on Achievement
and Discipline: Two Matched-Control Comparisons in
Hawai’i and Nevada Elementary Schools (Flay, Allred &
Ordway, 2001)
• Long-term Effects of the Positive Action Program (Flay &
Allred, 2003)
• Utah State Annual Report of PA Family Classes
Outcomes
• Randomized Trial of PA in Hawaii Elementary School
• Randomized Trial in Chicago Public Schools
13
In a prior quasi-experimental study, relative to
elementary schools without PA, matched schools
with PA reported:
• Major reductions in problem behaviors
• Up to 85% reductions in violence
• Up to 71% reductions in substance use
• Up to 90% fewer general disciplinary actions (with effects sometimes being larger
in schools with higher levels of student poverty)
• Up to 80% fewer suspensions
• Up to 94% reductions in criminal bookings
• Major improvements in school performance
•
•
•
•
Up to 60% reductions of absenteeism,
Up to 13% lower rates of chronic absenteeism.
Up to 100% improvements on standardized achievement scores,
Many schools report moving from one of the lowest scoring to one of the highest
scoring in their district or state
• Publication: Flay, Allred & Ordway, Am J. Health Behavior, 2001
• The matched-control study was replicated by Flay & Allred (Prevention
Science, 2003) with the addition of pretest matching data.
14
Effects of 3 or 4 years of PA on 5th grade student self-reports
of substance use: Hawaii randomized trial 2005 & 2006
All differences significant at p < .05
20.0
Control
18.0
PA
16.0
14.0
Percent
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
Smoked a
Drank alcohol
cigarette (or used (beer, wine or liquor)*
some other form of
tobacco)*
Gotten drunk on
alcohol*
Used an illegal
drug like marijuana
or cocaine*
Gotten high on
drugs *
15
Effects of 3 or 4 years of PA on student self-reports of
violence and sexual behaviors: Hawaii randomized trial 2005
& 2006 -- All differences significant at p < .05
12.0
10.0
Control
PA
Percent
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
Carried a
Threatened
Cut or
knife or razor to to cut or stab
stabbed
use to hurt
someone*
someone on
someone*
purpose to hurt
them*
Carried a
gun*
Shot at
someone*
Voluntary
sex with
someone of
the opposite
sex*
16
Effects of 3 or 4 years of PA on teacher reports of 5th grade
student behaviors: Hawaii randomized trial 2005 & 2006
Differences significant at p < .05** or P < .10*
35.0
30.0
Control
PA
Percent
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
Smokes
(or may
smoke)
cigarettes (or
other forms
of tobacco)
Drinks or
Uses
may drink
drugs like
alcohol
marijuana or
cocaine**
Gets into
Physically
a lot of
hurts others* Threatens
fights**
others**
Destroys
things
belonging to
others**
17
Effects of PA on Student Absenteeism
Hawaii Randomized Trial (4 yrs of PA)
(Multiple baseline - 1997-2001)
12.5
12
Average Days Absent
11.5
11
10.5
CONTROL Means
PA Means
10
STATE Standard
9.5
9
Positive Action Program
8.5
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005*
2006*
2007*
Year (* indicates significant differences between conditions)
18
79
Effect of PA on SAT (Stanford 9) Reading Scores
Hawaii Randomized Trial 2000-2006 (4 yrs of PA)
(No testing in 2001 due to a teacher strike)
% Scoring Average or Better
CONTROL Means
78
PA Means
77
STATE
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
Positive Action Program
69
2000
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006*
2007*
Year (* indicate w here conditions significantly different)
19
III. The Chicago Randomized
Trial of Positive Action
• UIC/OSU school-based randomized trial
• One site of a 7-site study funded by the IES of the US DoED
• Schools randomly assigned from 7 matched pairs
– Matched on school-level demographic variables, achievement and
disciplinary referrals
• Data collected from students and their teachers and parents, and
school leadership (principal and PA Coordinator)
– Beginning and end of grades 3 & 4 and end of grade 5
• Program Implementation and Outcomes
–
–
–
–
–
–
Teacher amount and integrity of program delivery
Parent involvement with program and schools
Teacher classroom management
Student character and behavior
Student school attendance and achievement test scores
Also school records data on achievement, attendance and disciplinary
referrals
• Last wave of data collection Spring 2007
20
Research Design
• 7 matched pairs of schools randomly assigned to 2 conditions:
– Early Starters: Start the program in the 2004-05 school year OR
– Late Starters: Start the program 3 years later (2007-08 school year)
• Schools eligible for inclusion were:
– Community-based (No Magnet or Charter schools), Have not already used
Positive Action, Not already participating in related projects (Project
Northland, All Stars),
– Enrollment > 50 and < 140 students per grade
– Mobility rate no greater than 40%
– More than 50% of students receive free or reduced price lunch
– Less than 50% of students met achievement criteria on the ISAT
• Schools matched into pairs before randomization:
– Achievement scores, School size – enrollment, Ethnic Distribution, %
Mobility, % Free/Reduced Lunch, Attendance and Truancy Rates, % Parent
Involvement, % Teachers not meeting minimal requirements, CPS Region,
Community crime statistics
21
Research Design 2
• Follow one cohort of students from the beginning of grade 3 to
the end of grade 5
• Signed parental consent – 98.3% returned, 79.7% Yes
• Surveys of students, teachers and parents at beginning and end
of grades 3 and 4, and end of grade 5.
• Teachers complete behavior rating scales on students in their
class at beginning and end of grades 3 and 4, and at the end of
grade 5.
• Some of the measures are multi-site – collected by a national
contractor (Mathematica Policy Research – MPR) at each of the
7 sites – and not available to PIs until about a year later
• Some of the measures are site-specific – specific to our
evaluation of the Positive Action program – collected by UIC
research staff
22
Assessment of Program Impact
• Multi-site – data collected with student, parent, and
teacher surveys used by all SACD sites
• Local site – data collected with student survey used by
Chicago SACD site only
• Data collected only on cohort of students that was in 3rd
grade at start of study (Fall ’04)
• Outcomes assessed at 5 time points
– Year 1: Fall ’04 (T1), Spring ’05 (T2)
– Year 2: Fall ’05 (T3), Spring ’06 (T4)
– Year 3: Spring ’07 (T5)
23
Outcome Measures - Multi-site
• Student (S), Parent (P), and Teacher (T) Surveys
– Behavioral – BASC Aggression and Conduct Problem (P/T);
Frequency of Delinquent Behavior (S); Social Competence—
Prosocial Behavior (T)
– Emotional – Empathy (S); Emotional Regulation (P, T)
– Academic – Engagement vs. Disaffection for Learning (S);
Academic Competence (T)
– Not utilized for impact analyses in this presentation
pending release of report of findings from the multi-site
study
• School Records – student grades, standardized test
scores, attendance, discipline—some of these data
are not yet available
24
Outcome Measures – Local
•
•
•
•
Behavioral
– Social Problem Solving (.44) – Aggressive (.50), Competence (.58)
– Positive Health Behavior – Hygiene (.48), Food and Exercise (.43)
Emotional
– Affect - Positive (.68), Negative (.74)
– Self-Esteem – Peer (.71), School (.68), Family (.75), Appearance (.66), Sports (.72),
Global (.61)
– Self-Esteem Formation – Positive (.74), Negative (.75)
– Self-Esteem Process – Motivation (.73), Control (.34)
– Life Satisfaction (.70)
Academic
– Student report of grades
Mediators
– Character and Social Development Scales (CASD)
– Belief in the Moral Order – Positive values (.59), Negative values (.59)
– Attachment – School (.74), Teacher (.68), Parents (.54), Friends (.71)
– Rewards for Prosocial Behavior – Parents (.72), Teachers (.80)
– Conventional Friends - Good friends (.57), Bad friends (.76)
– Neighborhood Youth Inventory (.69)
Note: Coefficient alphas in parentheses
25
Implementation Measures
Ratings of Implementation Fidelity
Consultation Notes
Weekly
Implementation
Reports
Teacher Interview
PA Committee Roster Form
PA Budget
Unit Implementation
Reports
End-of-Year Survey
PA Budget and
Expenditures Report
End-of-Year
Implementation
Survey
PA Mid Year and End-ofYear Student Survey
PA Research
Team
Classroom
Teachers
Principal
Students
PA Expenditures Report
PA School
Coordinators
PA Committee Meeting
Report Form
PA School Activity Form
End-of-Year Implementation
Survey
PA Committee
Members
Any School
Staff Person
PA Committee Meeting
Attendance Log and
Report Form
PA Program Observation Form
26
Results 1:
Program Implementation by Year
Program Benchmarks:
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
Teaching at least 4 lessons per week
61%
68%
66%
Distribute 5 + Word of the Week Cards/week
22%
35%
35%
Distribute 5 + PA Stickers per week
Read 5 + notes from ICU Box
Play PA Music 2 + days per week
Spoke with 2 + Parents about PA per week
30%
42%
19%
25%
39%
48%
35%
45%
41%
49%
33%
43%
Identified Academic Learning Standards in PA
81%
93%
91%
Attended a PA assembly each unit
17%
47%
47%
Teacher believes s/he delivered program quite well or very well
64%
71%
71%
Teacher believes continued use of PA is very or extremely
likely to improve student character
Teacher believes continued use of PA is very or extremely
likely to improve student academics
Teacher Response Rates
61%
63%
68%
49%
53%
58%
53%
75%
76%
27
Lots of SACD activity in control schools
Teacher-reported SACD activities in treatment and control schools by year
Outcome
% of teachers
engaging in any
SACD activity
Teacher report of N
of hours/week
engaging in any
SACD activity
Spring 3rd grade
Spring 4th grade
Spring 5th grade
Tx
C
ES
Tx
C
Tx
C
ES
91.8
82.6
0.14
91.1
94.8 -0.09
96.4
88.8
0.13
76.3
35.5
0.49
84.1
76.6
80.3
76.4
0.05
ES
0.1
Data from IES/MPR Draft report, Appendix C, Table 5-13
28
Results 2: Impact Analyses
•
SAS PROC Mixed - Standard errors adjusted for clustering of students
within schools
– Model included school-level random intercept
– Classroom level error term was excluded
– Model did not include the pair-wise matching of schools
– Covariates –
• Student gender, student age, parent ethnicity, parent education
level, # of people in household
• T1 score on the criterion measure
• T1 Negative school orientation – Student Report
• T1 Normative beliefs about aggression – Student Report
• T1 Victimization at school – Student Report
• T1 Confusion, Hubbub and Order – Parent Report
• T1 ADHD Symptomology – Teacher Report
29
Impact Analyses Results
• At baseline, ES and LS demonstrated
equivalence on all school-level variables (next
slide) and all but four outcomes (positive
values, parent and teacher rewards for
prosocial behavior, bad friends: ES < LS).
• Results indicate multiple emerging (.05 < p <
.10) and significant (p < .05, two-tailed)
program effects
30
Comparability of Matched Sets of Schools
Chicago Study (No significant differences)
100
ES (Program)
90
LS (Control)
80
60
50
40
30
20
10
es
C
rim
s
he
r
ip
ity
Q
ua
l
Pa
r
%
Te
ac
at
ic
l
tP
ee
n
En
ro
y
ilit
M
ob
%
er
ty
Po
v
y
%
an
c
Tr
u
%
At
tt
en
d
e
%
hi
ev
Ac
an
%
As
i
p
H
is
%
ck
Bl
a
%
W
hi
te
s
%
ne
s
ea
di
Pa
ir
0
R
Percent
70
31
Figure A: Effects of 3 years of PA (Grade 3 through grade 5)
on Local Character Measures: % Change by Outcome
BASC Anxiety subscale
6.4
Character - Honesty
4.5
Character - Rules
2.9
Character - Self-Control
7.5
Character - Peer
3.8
Competent Problem Solving
Style
11.5
Social Problem Solving Full Scale
9.6
Peer Affiliation – Bad
Friends
15.2
Peer Affiliation – Good
Friends
4.8
0
2
4
6
8
10
% Improvement
12
14
16
Latent Growth Curve Analysis and Effect
Sizes for Local-site Student Level Outcome
Scales: Summary of Noteworthy Findings
Scale
T vs. C
Wave 1-4
%
change
Cohen
ES
T vs. C
Wave 1-5
%
change
Cohen
ES
Social Problem Solving Scale Full Scale
.04
11.3
.21*
.04
9.6
.19***
Aggressive Problem Solving
-.02
-8.4
-.15*
-.01
1.0
-.10***
Competence Problem Solving Style
.02
8.8
.14***
.02
11.5
.20***
Peer Group Affiliation–Good Friends
.05
5.5
.23**
.04
4.8
.21**
Peer Group Affiliation–Bad Friends
-.10
-14.1
-.28***
-.07
-15.2
CASD–Pro-social Behavior (Peer)
.05
4.8
.25***
.04
3.8
.21**
CASD–Honesty
.06
4.8
.25***
.05
4.5
.24***
CASD–Self–Control
.05
3.8
.17**
.06
7.5
.30***
CASD–PA–Rules
.05
3.4
.22***
.03
2.9
.18**
-.31***
Notes:
All significance levels one-tailed; *** p < .05, ** p < .10. Condition was coded as 0 = Control; 1 = PA.
T vs. C denotes estimated difference (unstandardized) in slope between Treatment and Control schools.
% change = (a – b) x 100, where by a = the treatment wave 4 or 5 mean divided by the control wave 4 or 5 mean and b = the treatment wave 1
mean divided by the control wave 1 mean. Cohen ES = a – b, where a = (treatment wave 4 or 5 mean – control wave 4 or 5 mean) / pooled
standard deviation and b = (treatment wave 1 mean – control wave 1 mean) / pooled standard deviation.
For all scales, higher scores indicate more of the construct.
33
Figure B: Effects of 3 years of PA on Behavior
% Improvement
Serious violence
12.5
Alcohol use
21.7
Smoking
28.2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
% Improvement
P.S. Similar reductions in the multi-site measure of Problem Behavior
34
% Ever Used Sustances and % Reduction by Condition:
Grade 5 Chicago Randomized Trial
60.0%
C
PA
% reduction
52.2%
50.0%
39.9%
Percent
40.0%
36.2%
32.1%
28.2%
30.0%
28.3%
21.7%
19.5%
20.0%
13.2%
10.0%
9.4%
10.7%
5.1%
0.0%
Ever smoked/usd Ever drank alcohol Ever gotten drunk
tobacco
Ever used
tobacco, alcohol
or drugs
35
% Ever Engage in Violence or Gang Activties and %
Reduction By Condition: Grade 5 Chicago Randomized Trial
45.0%
39.4%
40.0%
C
PA
% reduction
37.3%
35.0%
32.7%
Percent
30.0%
27.7%
25.0%
22.2%
10.0%
21.3%
20.5%
18.2%
18.2%
20.0%
15.0%
26.7%
12.5%
12.4%
7.5%
4.9%
3.6%
5.0%
0.0%
Ever
threateed to
cur ot stab
someone
Ever cut or
stabbed
someone
Ever been Ever hung out Ever engaged
asked to be in
with gang
in
a gang
members
violence/gang
activities
36
Effects on School-Level reports
of misconducts and suspensions
Average N of misconducts per 100 students by
year and condition (80% reduction at 2006-07)
45.00
40.00
PA
Average N of suspensions per 100 students by
year and condition (77% reduction at 2006-07)
35.00
C
PA
C
30.00
35.00
25.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
20.00
15.00
15.00
10.00
10.00
5.00
5.00
0.00
0.00
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
Year
2006-07
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
Year
In ANCOVA models predicting year 4 differences from year 1 levels and condition,
differences at year 4 are marginally significant for misconducts (p = .054)
and significant for suspensions (p = .037) using one-tailed tests.
37
Program Effects on Standardized Test Scores
CPS Standardized Achievement (% meeting or exceeding
expectations on ISAT) by Condition:
ES (PA) group shows 9% improvement [(60-55)/55] for reading, 4% for math,
6.5% for composite. Difference is statistically significant for reading.
66
ES(PA)
LS(Co)
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
School Wide 2007 Reading
School Wide 2007 Math
School Wide 2007 Composite
Program Effects on Standardized Test Scores
Standardized Achievement Reading Scores by Condition
ES(PA) group shows a 49% improvement compared to 30% for the ES(Co) group,
or a 16.6% relative improvement [(%change in PA - %change in Co)/%Post Co]
65
% Meeting or Exceeding Expectations
ES(PA)
LS(Co)
60
55
50
45
40
35
2005
2006
2007
Year
39
V. Conclusions
• Implementing school-wide character education programs to
address a wide range of outcomes is challenging
– Limited resources of urban school systems
– NCLB
• Evaluation of school-based character/social development
programs is complicated by control schools implementing similar
programs under “business as usual” conditions
• Multiple program effects were obtained after 3 years of
programming
• School-level reports of misconducts and suspensions strengthen
the robustness of the findings
• Time trends in outcomes suggest increasing effects over time
• School-wide social and character development education can be
effective at:
– decreasing multiple negative behaviors and
– increasing multiple positive behaviors
40
Future Research
• Investigate potential differential impacts of PA
based on student gender, child risk level, etc.
• Investigate whether schools with different levels
in the quality of implementation yield different
“impacts”
• Validate SACD scales with observed student
behavior
• Examine impact of PA as student cohort
progresses into upper elementary grades
(grades 6-8)
– Critical transitional period within emotional,
behavioral, and academic domains
41
Future Work/Needs –
The bigger picture
• Larger scale trials
– ICCs for attitudes (.03-.1) and behavior (.01-.05) are generally
smaller than for achievement (.15-.2)
– Still need Ns of 10-20 per condition rather than 7
• Improved measures of integrity and dosage delivered and
received
– Teacher, student and observer reports
– Contractual reporting systems?
• Longer term follow-ups
– Effects take several years to even start emerging
– Prior work suggests important long-term effects are possible
• Methods of analysis to accommodate differential
implementation
– Propensity scoring, CACE, instrumental variable
42
Acknowledgment
The findings reported here are based on research conducted by the authors as
part of the Social and Character Development (SACD) research program
funded by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), U.S. Department of
Education through Grant # R215S020218 to the University of Illinois at Chicago
(2003-2005) and Oregon State University (2005-2008). The SACD Consortium
consists of representatives from IES, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), and the national evaluation contractor, Mathematica Policy
Research, Inc. (MPR), and each grantee site participating in the evaluation.
The content of this presentation does not necessarily reflect the views or
policies of the SACD Consortium members including IES, CDC, and MPR, nor
does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply
endorsement by the U.S. Government. Correspondence concerning this
presentation should be addressed to Brian R. Flay, D.Phil., Principle
Investigator, Department of Public Health, 254 Waldo Hall, Oregon State
University, Corvallis, OR 97330, brian.flay@oregonstate.edu.
43
SACD disclaimer statement:
The Social and Character Development (SACD) research program funded by
the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), U.S. Department of Education
includes a national evaluation study conducted by Mathematica Policy
Research (MPR), and complementary research studies conducted by each
grantee. The findings reported here are based on the complementary research
activities carried out by Brian Flay, Oregon State University, and David L.
DuBois, University of Illinois at Chicago, under the SACD program. These
findings may differ from the results reported for the SACD national evaluation
study. The findings presented in this conference presentation are based on a
smaller sample size of children, classrooms, and teachers, utilized a different
set of outcome measures, and sought to answer complementary research
questions. The content of this presentation does not necessarily reflect the
views or policies of the SACD Consortium including IES, CDC, and MPR, nor
does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply
endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education.
44
Have a Positive Action Day!
45