Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness
December 11, 2006
Reducing Risk and Enhancing Protection
to Remove Barriers to Learning
Richard F. Catalano, Director
Social Development Research Group
University of Washington
www.sdrg.org
Leading Predictors
of School Dropout
 Poverty
 Delinquency
and Drug Abuse
 Academic Competence
Battin et al., 2000; Newcomb et al., 2002.
Academic Competence,
Delinquency, and Drug Abuse
 Are
the strongest predictors of
dropout
 Are modifiable
 Share common predictors
Advances in Prediction

Longitudinal studies have identified
predictors of positive outcomes like
success in school

As well as the predictors of substance
abuse, delinquency and other problem
behaviors
Family
School
X
X
X
X
X
X
Individual/Peer
X
X
X
Protective Factors
Individual Characteristics
– High Intelligence
– Resilient Temperament
*
– Competencies and Skills (Cognitive, Social and
Emotional)
In each social domain (family, school, peer
group and neighborhood)
* * * *
–
–
–
–
Prosocial Opportunities
Recognition for Prosocial Involvement
Bonding (Attachment and Commitment)
Healthy Beliefs and Clear Standards
Risk Increases and Protection
Decreases Prevalence of 30 Day
Alcohol Use
Six State Student Survey of 6th-12th Graders, Public School
Students
100%
90%
Number of
Protective Factors
80%
Prevalence
70%
0 to 1
2 to 3
4 to 5
6 to 7
8 to 9
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0 to 1
2 to 3
4 to 5
6 to 7
Number of Risk Factors
8 to 9
10+
Risk Increases and Protection
Decreases Prevalence of 30 Day
Marijuana Use
Six State Student Survey of 6th-12th Graders,
Public School Students
100%
90%
Number of
Protective
Factors
80%
Prevalence
70%
0 to 1
2 to 3
4 to 5
6 to 7
8 to 9
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0 to 1
2 to 3
4 to 5
6 to 7
Number of Risk Factors
8 to 9
10+
Risk Increases and Protection
Decreases Prevalence of “Attacked to
Hurt”
60%
Prevalence
50%
40%
30%
20%
Protection, Level 0
Protection, Level 1
Protection, Level 2
Protection, Level 3
Protection, Level 4
10%
0%
Risk, Level Risk, Level Risk, Level Risk, Level Risk, Level
0
1
2
3
4
Risk Decreases and Protection
Increases Prevalence of Academic
Success (B or better average)
Six State Student Survey of 6th-12th Graders,
Public School Students
100%
90%
Number of
Protective
Factors
80%
Prevalence
70%
0
2
4
6
8
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0 to 1
2 to 3
4 to 5
6 to 7
Number of Risk Factors
8 to 9
10+
to
to
to
to
to
1
3
5
7
9
Probability of Meeting Standard
Number of School Building Risk
Factors and Probability of Meeting
WASL Standard (10th Grade Students)
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Number of Risk Factors
Arthur et al., 2006
Math
Reading
Writing
Probability of Meeting Standard
Number of School Building Protective
Factors and Probability of Meeting
WASL Standard (10th grade students)
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Number of Protective Factors
Arthur et al., 2006
Math
Reading
Writing
7
Prevention Partnerships with
Schools are Necessary in this
Time of No Child Left Behind


If students are to achieve their best,
schools must address risk and protection
to remove barriers to learning and
enhance school commitment
Prevention programs like Seattle Social
Development Project remove barriers to
learning, motivate students to learn, and
engage parents as partners in student
learning
Twenty Five Years of Research
on School Based Youth
Development Programs
1981-present--Seattle Social
Development Project in Seattle Public
Schools
 1985--1992--Raising Healthy Children
in Renton Public Schools
 1993-present--Raising Healthy
Children in Edmonds Public Schools

Advantages of Longitudinal
Controlled Trials



Natural history of development can be
studied to identify targets for intervention
Strong tests of causal hypotheses
Short and long term effects can be
examined
Farrington, 2004
7th Grade Prevention Targets and
Academic Achievement at 10th Grade
Achievement
Test Score
Partiala r
Grades
.139**
.134**
.159**
.168**
.235**
.120**
.302**
.184**
.213**
.122*
Child Report of School Bonding
Partiala r
Skills
Teacher report of social skills
Teacher report of emotional skills
Parent report of cons. thinking
Child report of decision making
p < .05, ** p < .01, a=controlling for demographics and 4th grade achievement test score
Fleming et al., 2005
Proactive Classroom
Management Increases
Bonding to School
0.08
Growth in
Student
bonding
FallSpring
0.06
0.075
0.04
0.035
0.02
0
-0.005
-0.02
-0.04
1 SD more
Proactive
Average
Management
1 SD less
proactive
Harachi, et al, 1999
Proactive Classroom Management
Increases Social Competency
0.2
Growth in
Social
competen
ce FallSpring
0.15
0.1
0.05
0.071
0
0.053
-0.05
-0.14
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
1 SD more
Proactive
Average
Management
1 SD less
proactive
Harachi, et al, 1999
Reading Achievement Decreases
Problem Behavior
Drug use
Low
income
Grade 7
problem
behavior
Male
Covert
antisocial
behavior
-.25**
-.30**
Physical
aggression
Level at
3rd
Grade
Grade 3
reading
achievement
Grade 4
reading
achievement
Fleming, et al. 2004
Change from
3rd to 6th
grade
Grade 5
reading
achievement
Grade 6
reading
achievement
Advantages of Longitudinal
Controlled Trials



Natural history of development can be
studied to identify targets for
intervention
Strong tests of causal hypotheses
Short and long term effects can be
examined
Farrington, 2004
Seattle Social Development Project
Long Term Effects on Academic and
Behavioral Outcomes
Investigators:
J. David Hawkins, Ph.D.
Richard F. Catalano, Ph.D.
Karl G. Hill, Ph.D.
Richard Kosterman, Ph.D.
Robert D. Abbott, Ph.D.
Social Development Research Group
School of Social Work
University of Washington
9725 3rd Avenue NE, Suite 401
Seattle, Washington 98115
Funded by:
National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institute on Alcoholism and
Alcohol Abuse, National Institute on Mental Health, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Seattle Social Development Project
Design
• Initiated in 1981 in 8 Seattle elementary schools.
• Expanded in 1985, to include 18 Seattle
elementary schools to add a late intervention
condition and additional control students.
• Quasi-experimental study
Full treatment (grades 1-6) n=
Late treatment (grades 5-6) n=
Control n=
149
243
206
• 808 (77%) of the 5th grade students constitute the
longitudinal study sample.
Intervention Components



Component One: Teacher Training in
Classroom Instruction and
Management
Component Two: Parent Training
in Behavior Management and
Academic Support
Component Three: Child Social,
Emotional and Cognitive Skill
Development
Instructional Strategies
Direct Instruction








Activate Background Knowledge
Clear Objectives
Provide Input
Check for Understanding
Guided Practice
Monitor and Adjust
Feedback
Individual Practice
Instructional Strategies
Cooperative Learning


Involve small teams of students of
different ability levels and
backgrounds as learning partners
Provide recognition to teams for
academic improvement of individual
members over past performance
Proactive Classroom Management




Establish consistent classroom
expectations and routines at the
beginning of the year
Give clear, explicit instructions for
behavior
Recognize desirable student behavior
and efforts to comply
Use methods that keep minor classroom
disruptions from interrupting instruction
Parent Programs
Raising Healthy Children (grades 1-2)
•



Observe and pinpoint desirable and undesirable child behaviors
Teach expectations for behaviors
Provide consistent positive reinforcement for desired behavior
Provide consistent and moderate consequences for undesired behaviors
Supporting School Success (grades 2-3)
•


Initiate conversation with teachers about children’s learning
Help children develop reading and math skills
Create a home environment supportive of learning
Guiding Good Choices (grades 5-6)
•



Establish a family policy on drug use
Practice refusal skills with children
Use self-control skills to reduce family conflict
Create new opportunities in the family for children to contribute and
learn
Social, Cognitive and
Emotional Skills Training









Listening
Following directions
Social awareness (boundaries, taking
perspective of others)
Sharing and working together
Manners and civility (please and thank you)
Compliments and encouragement
Problem solving
Emotional regulation (anger control)
Refusal skills
Support Structures

School Staff
– 5 days of teacher training
– Coaching by teacher trainer
– Principal support

Family
– Training in each parenting curriculum
Seattle Social Development Project
Panel Retention
School Level
Elementary
Middle
High
Adult
MEAN
AGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
N
808
703
558
654
778
783
770
--
757
87%
69% 81% 96% 97% 95%
--
%
(17) 18
21
24 27
766
752
747
94% 95% 93%
93%
Attrition and Selection Bias


No significant differences for those lost to attrition
versus those retained with respect to distribution of
participants into the intervention conditions.
No significant differences between the intervention
and control groups with respect to:
• Gender, ethnicity, or childhood poverty
• Mean years living in Seattle by grade 6
• Mean number of residences lived in from age 5 to
14
• Proportion of single-parent homes during grade 5
• Living in a disorganized neighborhood at age 16
• Family size, mother’s education, or age at time of
survey
Seattle Social Development Project
Changed Risk, Protection and
Outcomes
ByBy
theage
start
5th grade,
those
in benefits
the hadfor
18of
Youths
in the
Intervention
Intervention
hasFull
specific
less heavy
alcohol
use: poverty
25.0%through
C vs 15.4%
Full18.
full• intervention
hadfrom
children
age
• less
lifetime violence:
59.7% C vs 48.3% Full
• less
initiation
of• alcohol
More attachment
to school
•
less
lifetime
sexual
activity:
83.0%
C vs 72.1% Full
• less initiation
of• delinquency
Fewer
held
back
in
nd
age
21,
broad
significant
effects
found
At the end of• the
•By
fewer
2
lifetime
sex partners:
61.5%
Cschool
vswere
49.7%
Full on
better family management
• Better
achievement
•positive
improved adult
school
bonding
functioning:
grade
• better
familyrepetition:
communication
• Less
school 22.8%
misbehavior
•• less
C vs 14.0% Full
Moregrade
high school
graduates
• boys less aggressive
• better
family
involvement
Less
drinking
and driving
•• reduced
school• discipline
rpts:58.0%
C vs 46.0% Full
More attending
college
• girls less self-destructive
• higher
• Moreattachment
employed to family
• higher
rewards
• Fewerschool
depressive
symptoms:
2.93 C vs 2.31 Full
• higher
• Fewerschool
with abonding
criminal record:
53% C vs 42% Full
• Less drug selling:
13% C vs 4% Full
•Fewer females were Late
pregnant:
40% C vs 23% Full
•Fewer STD’s among
African American:34% C vs 7% Full
Full Intervention
Late
Full Intervention
Control
Control
Grade
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Age
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Seattle Social Development Project
Effects at Age 12:
California Achievement Test Scores
600
Control
Late
Full
575
562*
556
550
546
534*
537*
529 529
525
518*
517
522*
523
507
500
Reading
Language
*p<.05 compared with controls; N = 548 to 551.
Math
Average
Seattle Social Development Project
Effects at Age 21: Education
Prevalence
100%
*
75%
Control
Late
50%
Full
25%
0%
*
High school graduate
*p<.05
compared with controls.
Two or more yrs college
Cost-Benefit
An independent cost-benefit analysis estimated that projected benefits
resulting from the SSDP intervention would produce a net positive
return per participant.
$3.14
$3.50
$3.00
$2.50
$2.00
$1.50
$1.00
$1.00
$0.50
$0.00
Investment
Return
Aos et al. (2004)
Summary




Academic competence, delinquency and drug
use all affect school success
The same longitudinal predictors affect
academic competence, delinquency and drug
use
Addressing these predictors by improving
teaching practices, family management skills,
and children’s skills can enhance academic
success and prevent multiple problems across
development
Promoting positive development in elementary
grades can prevent problems before they occur,
reducing costs to society
Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness
December 11, 2006
Reducing Risk and Enhancing Protection
to Remove Barriers to Learning
Richard F. Catalano, Director
Social Development Research Group
University of Washington
www.sdrg.org
Building Level Exposure to Risk and
Protection Predicts Standardized
Achievement Test Scores
Washington Assessment of Student Learning
(WASL) standardized achievement test scores
of the school’s 10th grade students
Youth Survey measures of a school’s average
number of elevated risk and protective factors
among their 10th grade students
Data on 82,030 students in 423 schools and
156 school districts collected in 2002-03 at
the school building level
Social Development
Approach

Social Development approaches attempt to
change the environment and the individual
to reduce risk and enhance protection
across development
Teaching Practices are Changed
Through RHC Intervention
14
12
Mean
observed
score
*
10
8
Program
Control
6
4
2
0
*
Positive
Negative
Teaching Practices
Effect size: Cohen’s d=.45
Cohen’s d=.34
Fleming, nd.
*P<.05
Proactive School and Classroom
Management- Law of Least
Intervention
– Least amount of
time
– Least amount of
teacher effort
– Least amount of
negative attention
on student
– Least unpleasant
feeling
– Least disruption to
the learning
environment









Eye contact
Proximity
Pause
First/Then
Encouraging
desirable behavior
Cueing
Humor
Empathy
Modify instruction
Seattle Social Development Project
Effects at Age 21: Work
Work
Control
Late
Full
6.00
4.96*
5.00
4.35
4.00
3.00
2.66 2.75
3.06*
3.42 3.48
3.77+
3.85
2.84 2.95
3.21**
2.00
1.00
0.00
+p<.1
*p< .05
**p< .001
Employ status
last month
Responsibility
on job
Years at present
job
Constructive
engagement