Research has demonstrated that a number of prevention strategies that were widely thought to be effective were not. For example, providing knowledge of the seriousness of problems like drug abuse, HIV AIDS, violence, bullying and social ostracism is part of the prevention process, but knowledge, by itself, does not change attitudes and behavior. In some instances knowledge alone may do more harm than good; for example in the 1970s information on the pharmacological effects of drugs introduced k-12 students who wanted to experiment with substances to drugs they had not yet tried (Goodstadt, 1978). It was thought that police speaking to k-12 students about the nature and dangers of various drugs through Operation DARE would provide desired prevention outcomes. Substantial public funds were spent on DARE, but evaluation did not demonstrate success for this approach to prevention (Ennett et al., 1994). Speakers who have experienced problems themselves (for example, former substance abusers) are often thought to be effective advocates of prevention. However, for some students, the life experience of such speakers only demonstrates that an individual can engage in high risk behavior and, in the end, suffer no negative consequences. Such speakers may do more harm than good. Real Life Issue Prevention CI incorporates prevention strategies that research has demonstrated are effective.
Prevention strategies that research demonstrates are effective respond to three levels of influence on problems of children and adolescents (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Flay and Petraitis, 1994).
The first level of influence is the wider community. There are many ways in which the wider community helps produce the problem behavior of young people. For example:
-
Research (Currie, 1993) indicates that pressing problems in low income communities including drug dealing, heavy use of illegal drugs and gang violence are largely responses to poverty - to the failure of the society to provide sufficient legal opportunity for young people in these neighborhoods.
-
A community where there is heavy drinking by adults and parental tolerance of adolescent drinking provides examples and permission that will almost certainly result in high levels of binge drinking by high school students.
-
Communities where there is very heavy focus on achievement, competitive success and status are likely to promote especially high levels of youth competition, cliques and social ostracism.
The second level of influence is social interaction
with significant others including family and peers. There
are many examples of this level of influence.
-
A family where a parent has an alcohol or other drug problem is more likely to have children with substance abuse problems than a family without these problems
-
Families that lack clear standards against drugs and violence will raise youngsters with more problems of drugs and violence than families where standards are clear.
-
Perhaps the greatest single indicator of the likelihood that a young person will engage in problem behavior is the behavior of the youngster’s peers. A strong protective factor against high risk behavior is close association with peers and significant adults, including teachers, who reflect “pro-social norms”, that is, they do not engage in and oppose such behavior.
-
Most young people want very much to fit in with the expectations of their peers. If they perceive widespread substance use, violence, bullying, cliquishness and high risk sexual behavior they are far more likely to engage in these practices than if they do not perceive such behavior as normative for their age group.
The third level of influence is the individual.
-
Students who crave approval, have difficulty and lack skills and practice in resisting peer pressure are more likely to be talked into engaging in problem behavior than students who have developed these social skills.
-
These students also have trouble making decisions and are more likely to decide to engage in problem behavior than students who have developed decision making skills.
-
Young people who see themselves as personally invulnerable to the negative effects of high risk behavior are more likely to experience the negative consequences of such behavior than students with a more accurate assessment of personal risks.
In developing prevention curricula it is
critically important to incorporate research based strategies
that respond to these three levels of causation. At the level
of the wider community:
-
students may be encouraged to participate in community anti-drug or anti violence coalitions.
-
Through service learning students may volunteer to work with community agencies and organizations engaged in treatment and prevention of drugs, violence or high risk sexual behavior. Through such participation they will address real life issues at the community level. In the process they will align themselves with “pro-social” groups and individuals, associations that research indicates reduce the risk that individuals will engage in problem behavior.
At the level of association with significant
others:
-
Teachers can provide positive role models and also reinforce pro social behavior.
(Biglan et al., 2004).
-
Schools administrators who provide clear and enforced anti drug policies promote lower levels of substance use by students.
-
Students may be encouraged to align with “pro-social norms” through participation in school based conflict resolution and peer mediation activities.
-
They may be encouraged to be involved in a school wide prevention campaign targeting drugs, violence, bullying, social ostracism or at risk sexual behavior.
-
Students may also learn to correct their misperception of norms related to real life issues. Research shows that students generally exaggerate the use of drugs by peers, and, in their drinking and drug using behavior conform to the overestimated levels (Perkins and Wechsler, 1996). Affected by the media, students also exaggerate the extent of violence in the society. Because behavior of young people is significantly affected by the desire to fit the expectations of their age group (Cosaro and Eder, 1990), research indicates that correcting the misperceived (exaggerated) norm reduces the problem behavior.
At the level of individual decision making
there is substantial research (Botvin, 1996) indicating that prevention
curricula that develop important life skills can reduce problems
like youth substance abuse and violence. Through Real Life Issue
CI:
-
Students may be encouraged to develop social skills including interpersonal communication and refusal skills; this strategy includes role playing as students learn effective ways to handle peers.
-
Students may also learn how to disengage from and attempt to resolve conflict
-
Students can be taught how to avoid situations involving high risk sexual behavior
-
Students can learn methods to deflate, stand in opposition to and seek support in the context of bullying and social ostracism
-
Young people often believe that harm can only come to others. As they are shown that they are at personal risk from use of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, from group and individual violence and from their sexual practices research indicates that many will alter their behavior (Bachman, Johnston and O’Malley, 1998).
There are a number of good sources for finding Evidence-Based programs. These include government sources such as CSAP, NIDA and SAMSHA, the U. S. Department of Education and the University of Colorado’s Blueprints. Information and links to these sources will be included on the project website (www.neiu.edu/~k12pac/).
