EasyEdit
Edit tags
(what's this?What are these tools?
People just like you can add or edit the content on this site. If you want to try editing, but aren't ready to add to this site, try our demo area.
Read more about editing pages at Wetpaint Central.
)
Report page
Share this

Substance Abuse: Effect of Comprehensive, Coordinated, Whole School Programs (BT)

This page contains a list of research reviews and articles as well as a listing of reports and resources on substance abuse prevention and schools. Visitors to this page are encouraged to use the "Easy Edit" tool found at the top of the page to insert additional items. All versions of the page are automatically saved, so no previous versions can be lost.

Research	Resources/Reports
Holistic, Contextual and Comprehensive Approaches Benoit, C., & Jansson, M. (2006). Risky business? Experiences of street youth. Victoria, Canada: Centre for Youth and Society, University of Victoria. McNamee, J.E., & Offord, D.R. (1994). Children of alcoholics. In Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination (Ed.), Canadian guide to clinical preventive health care (pp. 470-485). Ottawa, Canada: Health Canada Roe, S., & Becker, J. (2005). Drug prevention with vulnerable young people: A review. Drugs: education, prevention and policy, 12(2), 85-99 Mushquash, C.J., Comeau, M.N., & Stewart, S.H. (2007). An alcohol abuse early intervention for First Nations adolescents. The First Peoples Child and Family Review, 3, 17-26 World Health Organization. Tobacco Use Prevention: An Important Entry Point for the Development of Health-Promoting Schools. (Report) World Health Organization. Creating an Environment for Emotional and Social Well-Being. An Important Responsibility of a Health-Promoting and Child Friendly School. (Report) Elias, M. Academic and social-emotional learning. Educational Practices Series. (Report) Zins, J.E., Weissberg, R.P., Wang, M.C. and Walberg, H.J. (eds) (2004). Building academic success on social and emotional learning: What does the research say? New York: Teachers College Press. Kurtz, Zarrina. (2004). What Works in Promoting Children’s Mental Health? The Evidence and the Implications for Sure Start Settings. Nottingham, England: DfES. Bond, L., Thomas, L., Coffey, C., Glover, S., Butler, H., Carlin, J.B., Patton, G. (2004). Long-term impact of the Gatehouse Project on cannabis use of 16-year-olds in Australia. Journal of School Health, 74(1), 23-9. CASEL, ECS, LSS. (2003). Making the Case for Social and Emotional Learning and Service-Learning. Denver, Co: Education Commission of the States. (Report) Centre of Excellence for Youth Engagement. 2003. Youth Engagement and Health Outcomes: Is There a Link? (Review) August GJ. Bloomquist ML., Realmuto GM, & Hektner JM (2007). The early risers "skills for success" program: A targeted intervention for preventing conduct problems and substance abuse in aggressive elementary school children. In P. Tolan, J. Szapocznik & S. Sambrano (Eds.), Preventing youth substance abuse: Science-based programs for children and adolescents. Paglia, A. (1998). Tobacco risk communication strategy for youth: A literature review. Ottawa, Canada: Health Canada Spooner, C., & Heatherington, K. (2004). Social determinants of drug use [Tech. Rep. No. 228]. Sydney, Australia: University of New South Wales, National drug and alcohol research centre Aboriginal Healing Foundation. (2006). Final Report of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation. Volume I. A Healing Journey: Reclaiming Wellness. Ottawa, Ontario: The Aboriginal Healing Foundation. Retrieved September 14, 2007 from http://www.ahf.ca/pages/download/28_13238 Erickson, P. G., & Butters, J. E. (2005). How Does the Canadian Juvenile Justice System Respond to Detained Youth with Substance Use Associated Problems? Gaps, Challenges, and Emerging Issues. Substance Use & Misuse, 40, (7), 953-973 Fullan, M. (2005). The Tri-Level Solution School/District/State Synergy. Retrieved 1/8, 2006 from http://www.saee.ca/policy/D_072_BII_LON.php Hawe, P. (1998). Making sense of context-level influences on health. Health Educ Res, 13(4), i-iv. Hawe, P., Riley, T., Shiel, E. (2001). Understanding Programs Within Their Context: Use of Inter-Organizational Network Analysis Within a Community Intervention Trial. Paris, France: International Union for Health Education and Health Promotion Conference. (pp. 137-158).	Community Schools-Manitoba (Government of Manitoba) The Community Schools Partnership Initiative (CSPI) was launched in January 2005 under the jurisdiction of Manitoba Education, Citizenship and Youth (MECY). Community schools can act as a hub for a broad range of services, supports and opportunities that strengthen and support schools, families and communities. Substance abuse prevention is part of this initiativesaimed primarily at high need schools. School Plus (Government of Saskatchewan) SchoolPlus invites schools to maximize the learning potential of all children and youth, by expanding their engagement of the community in a reciprocal relationship of sharing and support. This will enable schools and communities to benefit from an exchange of services and programs and create opportunities to partner to meet common goals. Substance abuse prevention is part of this initiatives aimed primarily at high need schools.
Effect of Coordinated Programs and Services On Health Overall (Including Substance abuse) World Health Organization. 1997. Promoting Health Through Schools. Report of a WHO Expert Committee on Comprehensive School Health Education and Promotion. Geneva, Switzerland (Report) Allensworth D, Lawson E, Nicholson L, Wyche J. (eds). 1997. Schools and Health: Our Nation's Investment. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. (Report) Nutbeam D, St. Leger L. 1998. Effective School Health Promotion. Towards Health Promoting Schools. Commonwealth of Australia.(Report) Ontario Public Health Research, Education & Development. 1999. Effectiveness of School-Based Interventions in Reducing Adolescent Risk Behaviour: A Systematic Review of Reviews. Hamilton, ON. (Review) Lister-Sharp D, Chapman S, Stewart-Brown S, Sowden A. 1999. Health promoting schools and health promotion in schools: Two systematic reviews. Health Technology Assessment. 3(22). UK: University of York. (Review) Stewart-Brown, S. (2006). What is the Evidence on School Health Promotion in Improving School Health or Preventing Disease and Specifically What is the Effectiveness of the Health Promoting Schools Approach? WHO, Copenhagen, Denmark. On Substance Abuse in Particular Toumbourou, J.W., Stockwell, T., Neighbors, C., Marlatt, G.A., Sturge, J., & Rehm, J. (2007). Interventions to reduce harm associated with adolescent substance use: An international review. Lancet, 369, 1391-1401 Caulkins JP, Rydell CP, Everingham SS, Chiesa J, Bushway S. 1999. An ounce of prevention, a pound of uncertainty: The cost-effectiveness of school-based drug prevention programs. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Drug Policy Research Center. Vol. 23. (Cost Analysis) Cuijpers P. 2002. Effective ingredients of school-based drug prevention programs. A systematic review. Addict Behav. 27(6):1009-23. (Review) Canning U. Millward L, Raj T, Warm D. 2004. Drug Use Prevention Among Young People: A Review of Reviews. Health Development Agency. (Review) Ennett ST, Ringwalt CL, Thorne J, Rohrbach LA, Vincus A, Simons-Rudolph A, Jones S. 2003. A comparison of current practice in school-based substance use prevention programs with meta-analysis findings. Prev Sci. 4(1):1-14. (Case Study) Caulkins J, Rydell P, Everingham S, Chiesa J, Bushway S. 1999. An ounce of uncertainty: The cost-effectiveness of school-based drug prevention programs. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Drug Policy Research Center: (23):194. (Cost Analysis) Botvin G, Botvin E, Ruchlin H. 1998. School-based approaches to drug abuse prevention: Evidence for effectiveness and suggestions for determining cost-effectiveness. Cost-Benefit/Cost-Effectiveness Research of Drug Abuse Prevention: Implications for Programming and Policy, NIDA Research Monograph 176. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health. (Review) Loxley, W., Toumbourou, J.W., & Stockwell, T. (2004). The prevention of substance use, risk and harm in Australia: A review of the evidence. Perth, Australia: Australian Government, Department of Health and Aging Tunnard, J. (2002). Parental Drug Misuse: A Review of Impact and Intervention Studies. Research in practice. Faggiano, F., Vigna-Taglianti, F.D., Versino, E., Zambon, A., Borraccino, A., Lemma, P. (2005). School-based prevention for illicit drugs’ use. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005 Apr 18;(2):CD003020. Faggiano, F. Vigna-Taglianti, F.D., Versino, E., Zambon, A., Borraccino, A., Lemma, P.(2008) School-based prevention for illicit drugs use: A systematic review Skara S, Sussman S. (2003). A review of 25 long-term adolescent tobacco and other drug use prevention program evaluation. Prev Med. 2003 Nov;37(5):451-74. Tobler NS and Stratton HH. Effectiveness of School-Based Drug Prevention Programs: A Meta-Analysis of the Research. The Journal of Primary Prevention. 1997; 18(1): 71-128 Kumar, R., O’Malley, P.M., Johnston, L.D., Schulenberg, J.E., Bachman, J.G. (2002). Effects of school-level norms on student substance use. Prev Sci, 3(2), 105-124. Midford, R.,Lenton, S., Hancock,L. (2000). A Critical Review and Analysis: Cannabis Education in Schools. New South Wales Department of Education and Training, Sydney. National Drug Research Institute. (2002). The Prevention of Substance Use, Risk and Harm in Australia: A Review of the Evidence Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing, Canberra. Perry, C.L., Williams, C., Komro, K., Veblen-Mortenson, S., Stigler, M., Munson, K., Farbakhsh, K., Jones, R., Forster. J. (2002). Project Northland: Long-term outcomes of community action to reduce adolescent alcohol use. Health Education Research. 17(1):117-132. (Random Controlled Trial) Roberts, G., McCall, D.S., Stevens-Lavigne, A., Anderson, J., Paglia, A., Bollenbach, S., Wiebe, J., Gliksman, L. (2001). Preventing Substance Use Problems Among Young People. A Compendium of Best Practices. Ottawa, ON: Office of Canada’s Drug Strategy, Health Canada. Tobler, N. and Stratton, H. (1997). Effectiveness of school-based drug education programs: a meta analysis of the research. Journal of Primary Prevention 18: 1 pp 71-128. Foxcroft DR, Ireland D, Lowe G, Breen R. Primary prevention for alcohol misuse in young people. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2002, Issue 3. Comprehensive Models that Integrate Diseases and Risks and Coordinate Interventions Canning U. Millward L, Raj T, Warm D. 2004. Drug Use Prevention Among Young People: A Review of Reviews. Health Development Agency. (Review) Perry CL, Williams C, Komro K, Veblen-Mortenson S, Stigler M, Munson K, Farbakhsh K, Jones R, Forster J. 2002. Project Northland: Long-term outcomes of community action to reduce adolescent alcohol use. Health Education Research. 17(1):117-132. Botvin G, Botvin E, Ruchlin H. 1998. School-based approaches to drug abuse prevention: Evidence for effectiveness and suggestions for determining cost-effectiveness. Cost-Benefit/Cost-Effectiveness Research of Drug Abuse Prevention: Implications for Programming and Policy, NIDA Research Monograph 176. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health. (Review) Amuedo-Dorantes, C., Mach, T., & Clapp, J. D. (2004). The impact of schools on juvenile substance initiation and use. Prevention science, 5(2), 91-99. Foxcroft, D., Ireland, D.J., Lister-Sharp, D., Lowe, G., & Breen, R. (2003). Longer-term primary prevention for alcohol misuse in young people: A systematic review. Addiction, 98, 397-411. Hawks, D., Scott, K., & McBride, M. (2002). Prevention of psychoactive substance use: A selected review of what works in the area of prevention. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization Gottfredson, D.C., & Wilson, D.B. (2003). Characteristics of effective school-based substance abuse prevention. Prevention Science, 4(1), 27-38 Paglia, A., & Room, R. (1999). Preventing substance use problems among youth: A literature review and recommendations. Journal of Primary Prevention, 20(1), 3-50 Stewart, S.H., Conrod, P.J., Marlatt, G.A., Comeau, M.N., Thush, C,, Krank, M. (2005). New developments in prevention and early intervention for alcohol abuse in youths. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 29(2), 278-86 Stockwell, T., Gruenewald, P.J., Toumbourou, J.W., & Loxley, W. (2005). Recommendations for new directions in the prevention of risky substance use and related harms. Stockwell T, Gruenewald PJ, Toumbourou JW, Loxley W, editors. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Effects On Learning (Educational achievement and school effectiveness) Engberg, J., & Morral, A.R. (2006). Reducing substance use improves adolescents’ school attendance. Addiction, 101, 1741–1751 RAND. (2005). Classroom drug prevention works: But left unchecked, early substance use haunts older teens and young adults. Santa Monica, California: RAND. Full-Text: http://www.rand.org/publications/RB/RB4560/ Bryant, A.L., Schulenberg, J.E., O’Malley, P.M., Bachman, J.G., & Johnston, L.D. (2003). How academic achievement, attitudes, and behaviors relate to the course of substance use during adolescence: A 6-year, multiwave national longitudinal study. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13(3), 361–397. Engberg, J., & Morral, A.R. (2006). Reducing substance use improves adolescents’ school attendance. Addiction, 101, 1741–1751 Cox, R.G., Zhang, L., Johnson, W.D., & Bender, D.R. (2007). Academic performance and substance use: Findings from a state survey of public high school students. Journal of School Health, 77, 109-115. Paternite, C. E., & Johnston, T.C. (2005). Rationale and strategies for central involvement of educators in effective school-based mental health programs. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34, 41–49. Lynskey, M., & Hall, W. (2000). The effects of adolescent cannabis use on educational attainment: A review. Addiction, 95(11), 1621-1630. Battistich, V., Schaps, E., & Wilson, N. (2004). Effects of an elementary school intervention on students’ “connectedness” to school and social adjustment during middle school. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 24(3)	Canadian Guidelines and Resources The following planning manuals and guidelines are excellent resources: Preventing Substance Abuse Problems among Young People (Health Canada) Best practice guidelines for mental health promotion programs: Children & Youth (CAMH) What Works in SA Prevention for Youth (CAMH) When Drugs Come to School: A Resource Manual for Student Substance Use and School-Based Policy Development (Nova Scotia) Prevention Strategies for Teachers (AADAC) International Guidelines and Planning Resources The following planning guides are excellent sources: Principles of Effectiveness for Safe and Drug Free Schools (US Dept of Ed) Drug Use Prevention Among Young People: A Review of Reviews. Evidence Briefing Update. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), U.K. Guidelines for Managing Drug Related Incidents in Schools (NSW, Australia) School Drug Education Principles (Australian Gov’t) Guidelines to Support the Development of School-Based Drug Education Policies and Practices (New South Wales, AU) Examples of Coordinated, Multiple Intervention Programs School Age Children and Youth Program (Vancouver School Board, BC) The VSB program includes interventions to improve school climate, train staff, peer delivery of education, instruction and parent involvement. PROMOTING SAFER SCHOOLS: An Introduction to Effective Behaviour Support ( BC Council of Administrators of Special Education Publication) Problem behaviour occurs on a continuum from relatively mild and infrequent to frequent and severe. Effective Behaviour Support recognizes this and advocates that schools develop several integrated systems for responding to the behaviours along the continuum. From Challenges to Possibilities: Planning for Behaviour (Government of Manitoba) This is a planning resource intended to provide a support for student service administrators, principals, classroom teachers, resource teachers, school counsellors, clinicians, and other community professionals who will help in assisting schools in developing proactive and reactive approaches to behaviour. The resource will address the broad range of students with behavioural challenges that are found in all schools, from those who have discipline problems to those with severe emotional problems. It will offer a range of suggestions that can be implemented at the school-wide level as well as at the individual student level. Positive Action Program (Reviewed by SAMHSA, United States, December 2006) Positive Action is an integrated and comprehensive program that is designed to improve academic achievement; school attendance; and problem behaviors such as substance use, violence, suspensions, disruptive behaviors, dropping out, and sexual behavior. It is also designed to improve parent-child bonding, family cohesion, and family conflict. Positive Action has materials for schools, homes, and community agencies. All materials are based on the same unifying broad concept (one feels good about oneself when taking positive actions) with six explanatory subconcepts (positive actions for the physical, intellectual, social, and emotional areas) that elaborate on the overall theme. The program components include grade-specific curriculum kits for kindergarten through 12th grade, drug education kits, a conflict resolution kit, sitewide climate development kits for elementary and secondary school levels, a counselor's kit, a family kit, and a community kit. All the components and their parts can be used separately or in any combination and are designed to reinforce and support one another. Project Northland (Reviewed by SAMHSA, United States, March 2007) Project Northland is a multilevel intervention involving students, peers, parents, and community in programs designed to delay the age at which adolescents begin drinking, reduce alcohol use among those already drinking, and limit the number of alcohol-related problems among young drinkers. Administered to adolescents in grades 6-8 on a weekly basis, the program has a specific theme within each grade level that is incorporated into the parent, peer, and community components. The 6th-grade home-based program targets communication about adolescent alcohol use utilizing student-parent homework assignments, in-class group discussions, and a communitywide task force. The 7th-grade peer- and teacher-led curriculum focuses on resistance skills and normative expectations regarding teen alcohol use, and is implemented through discussions, games, problem-solving tasks, and role-plays. During the first half of the 8th-grade Powerlines peer-led program, students learn about community dynamics related to alcohol use prevention through small group and classroom interactive activities. During the second half, they work on community-based projects and hold a mock town meeting to make community policy recommendations to prevent teen alcohol use. Midwestern Prevention Project (Identified by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence – University of Colorado) The (MPP) is a comprehensive, community-based, multi-faceted program for adolescent drug abuse prevention. The MPP involves an extended period of programming. Although initiated in a school setting, it goes beyond this setting into the family and community contexts. The MPP bridges the transition from early adolescence to middle through late adolescence. Since early adolescence is the first risk period for gateway drug use (i.e., alcohol, cigarettes, and marijuana), programming is initiated with whole populations of middle school (sixth or seventh grade) students. The MPP strives to help youth recognize the tremendous social pressures to use drugs and provides training skills in how to avoid drug use and drug use situations. These skills are initially learned in the school program and reinforced through the parent, media, and community organization components. The MPP disseminates its message through a system of well-coordinated, community-wide strategies: mass media programming, a school program and continuing school boosters, a parent education and organization program, community organization and training, and local policy change regarding tobacco, alcohol, and other drugs. These components are introduced to the community in sequence at a rate of one per year, with the mass media component occurring throughout all the years. The central component for drug prevention programming, however, is the school. Active social learning techniques (i.e., modeling, role playing, and discussion, with student peer leaders assisting teachers) are used in the school program, along with homework assignments designed to involve family members. The parental program involves a parent-principal committee that meets to review school drug policy, and parent-child communications training. A consistent message supporting a nondrug use norm is delivered via the other three components: mass media coverage and programming, community organization, and the local health policy change component. All components involve regular meetings of respective deliverers (e.g., community leaders for organization) to review and refine programs. Project SUCCESS (Reviewed by SAMHSA, United States, November 2007) Project SUCCESS (Schools Using Coordinated Community Efforts to Strengthen Students) is designed to prevent and reduce substance use among students 12 to 18 years of age. The program was originally developed for students attending alternative high schools who are at high risk for substance use and abuse due to poor academic performance, truancy, discipline problems, negative attitudes toward school, and parental substance abuse. In recent years, Project SUCCESS has been used in regular middle and high schools for a broader range of high-risk students. The intervention includes four components: The Prevention Education Series (PES), an eight-session alcohol, tobacco, and other drug program conducted by Project SUCCESS counselors (local staff trained by the developers) who help students identify and resist pressures to use substances, correct misperceptions about the prevalence and acceptability of substance use, and understand the consequences of substance use. Schoolwide activities and promotional materials to increase the perception of the harm of substance use, positively change social norms about substance use, and increase enforcement of and compliance with school policies and community laws. A parent program that includes informational meetings, parent education, and the formation of a parent advisory committee. Individual and group counseling, in which the Project SUCCESS counselors conduct time-limited counseling for youth following their participation in the PES and an individual assessment. Students and parents who require more intensive counseling, treatment, or other services are referred to appropriate agencies or practitioners in the community

Research

Resources/Reports

Holistic, Contextual and Comprehensive Approaches

Benoit, C., & Jansson, M. (2006). Risky business? Experiences of street youth. Victoria, Canada: Centre for Youth and Society, University of Victoria.

McNamee, J.E., & Offord, D.R. (1994). Children of alcoholics. In Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination (Ed.), Canadian guide to clinical preventive health care (pp. 470-485). Ottawa, Canada: Health Canada

Roe, S., & Becker, J. (2005). Drug prevention with vulnerable young people: A review. Drugs: education, prevention and policy, 12(2), 85-99

Mushquash, C.J., Comeau, M.N., & Stewart, S.H. (2007). An alcohol abuse early intervention for First Nations adolescents. The First Peoples Child and Family Review, 3, 17-26

World Health Organization. Tobacco Use Prevention: An Important Entry Point for the Development of Health-Promoting Schools. (Report)

World Health Organization. Creating an Environment for Emotional and Social Well-Being. An Important Responsibility of a Health-Promoting and Child Friendly School. (Report)

Elias, M. Academic and social-emotional learning. Educational Practices Series. (Report)

Zins, J.E., Weissberg, R.P., Wang, M.C. and Walberg, H.J. (eds) (2004). Building academic success on social and emotional learning: What does the research say? New York: Teachers College Press. Kurtz, Zarrina. (2004). What Works in Promoting Children’s Mental Health? The Evidence and the Implications for Sure Start Settings. Nottingham, England: DfES.
Bond, L., Thomas, L., Coffey, C., Glover, S., Butler, H., Carlin, J.B., Patton, G. (2004). Long-term impact of the Gatehouse Project on cannabis use of 16-year-olds in Australia. Journal of School Health, 74(1), 23-9.

CASEL, ECS, LSS. (2003). Making the Case for Social and Emotional Learning and Service-Learning. Denver, Co: Education Commission of the States. (Report)

Centre of Excellence for Youth Engagement. 2003. Youth Engagement and Health Outcomes: Is There a Link? (Review)

August GJ. Bloomquist ML., Realmuto GM, & Hektner JM (2007). The early risers "skills for success" program: A targeted intervention for preventing conduct problems and substance abuse in aggressive elementary school children. In P. Tolan, J. Szapocznik & S. Sambrano (Eds.), Preventing youth substance abuse: Science-based programs for children and adolescents.

Paglia, A. (1998). Tobacco risk communication strategy for youth: A literature review. Ottawa, Canada: Health Canada

Spooner, C., & Heatherington, K. (2004). Social determinants of drug use [Tech. Rep. No. 228]. Sydney, Australia: University of New South Wales, National drug and alcohol research centre
Aboriginal Healing Foundation. (2006). Final Report of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation. Volume I. A Healing Journey: Reclaiming Wellness. Ottawa, Ontario: The Aboriginal Healing Foundation. Retrieved September 14, 2007 from http://www.ahf.ca/pages/download/28_13238

Erickson, P. G., & Butters, J. E. (2005). How Does the Canadian Juvenile Justice System Respond to Detained Youth with Substance Use Associated Problems? Gaps, Challenges, and Emerging Issues. Substance Use & Misuse, 40, (7), 953-973

Fullan, M. (2005). The Tri-Level Solution School/District/State Synergy. Retrieved 1/8, 2006 from http://www.saee.ca/policy/D_072_BII_LON.php

Hawe, P. (1998). Making sense of context-level influences on health. Health Educ Res, 13(4), i-iv.

Hawe, P., Riley, T., Shiel, E. (2001). Understanding Programs Within Their Context: Use of Inter-Organizational Network Analysis Within a Community Intervention Trial. Paris, France: International Union for Health Education and Health Promotion Conference. (pp. 137-158).

Community Schools-Manitoba (Government of Manitoba)
The Community Schools Partnership Initiative (CSPI) was launched in January 2005 under the jurisdiction of Manitoba Education, Citizenship and Youth (MECY). Community schools can act as a hub for a broad range of services, supports and opportunities that strengthen and support schools, families and communities. Substance abuse prevention is part of this initiativesaimed primarily at high need schools.

School Plus (Government of Saskatchewan)
SchoolPlus invites schools to maximize the learning potential of all children and youth, by expanding their engagement of the community in a reciprocal relationship of sharing and support. This will enable schools and communities to benefit from an exchange of services and programs and create opportunities to partner to meet common goals. Substance abuse prevention is part of this initiatives aimed primarily at high need schools.

Effect of Coordinated Programs and Services

On Health Overall (Including Substance abuse)

World Health Organization. 1997. Promoting Health Through Schools. Report of a WHO Expert Committee on Comprehensive School Health Education and Promotion. Geneva, Switzerland (Report)

Allensworth D, Lawson E, Nicholson L, Wyche J. (eds). 1997. Schools and Health: Our Nation's Investment. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. (Report)

Nutbeam D, St. Leger L. 1998. Effective School Health Promotion. Towards Health Promoting Schools. Commonwealth of Australia.(Report)

Ontario Public Health Research, Education & Development. 1999. Effectiveness of School-Based Interventions in Reducing Adolescent Risk Behaviour: A Systematic Review of Reviews. Hamilton, ON. (Review)

Lister-Sharp D, Chapman S, Stewart-Brown S, Sowden A. 1999. Health promoting schools and health promotion in schools: Two systematic reviews. Health Technology Assessment. 3(22). UK: University of York. (Review)

Stewart-Brown, S. (2006). What is the Evidence on School Health Promotion in Improving School Health or Preventing Disease and Specifically What is the Effectiveness of the Health Promoting Schools Approach? WHO, Copenhagen, Denmark.

On Substance Abuse in Particular

Toumbourou, J.W., Stockwell, T., Neighbors, C., Marlatt, G.A., Sturge, J., & Rehm, J. (2007). Interventions to reduce harm associated with adolescent substance use: An international review. Lancet, 369, 1391-1401

Caulkins JP, Rydell CP, Everingham SS, Chiesa J, Bushway S. 1999. An ounce of prevention, a pound of uncertainty: The cost-effectiveness of school-based drug prevention programs. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Drug Policy Research Center. Vol. 23. (Cost Analysis)

Cuijpers P. 2002. Effective ingredients of school-based drug prevention programs. A systematic review. Addict Behav. 27(6):1009-23. (Review)

Canning U. Millward L, Raj T, Warm D. 2004. Drug Use Prevention Among Young People: A Review of Reviews. Health Development Agency. (Review)

Ennett ST, Ringwalt CL, Thorne J, Rohrbach LA, Vincus A, Simons-Rudolph A, Jones S. 2003. A comparison of current practice in school-based substance use prevention programs with meta-analysis findings. Prev Sci. 4(1):1-14. (Case Study)

Caulkins J, Rydell P, Everingham S, Chiesa J, Bushway S. 1999. An ounce of uncertainty: The cost-effectiveness of school-based drug prevention programs. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Drug Policy Research Center: (23):194. (Cost Analysis)

Botvin G, Botvin E, Ruchlin H. 1998. School-based approaches to drug abuse prevention: Evidence for effectiveness and suggestions for determining cost-effectiveness. Cost-Benefit/Cost-Effectiveness Research of Drug Abuse Prevention: Implications for Programming and Policy, NIDA Research Monograph 176. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health. (Review)

Loxley, W., Toumbourou, J.W., & Stockwell, T. (2004). The prevention of substance use, risk and harm in Australia: A review of the evidence. Perth, Australia: Australian Government, Department of Health and Aging

Tunnard, J. (2002). Parental Drug Misuse: A Review of Impact and Intervention Studies. Research in practice.

Faggiano, F., Vigna-Taglianti, F.D., Versino, E., Zambon, A., Borraccino, A., Lemma, P. (2005). School-based prevention for illicit drugs’ use. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005 Apr 18;(2):CD003020.

Faggiano, F. Vigna-Taglianti, F.D., Versino, E., Zambon, A., Borraccino, A., Lemma, P.(2008) School-based prevention for illicit drugs use: A systematic review

Skara S, Sussman S. (2003). A review of 25 long-term adolescent tobacco and other drug use prevention program evaluation. Prev Med. 2003 Nov;37(5):451-74.

Tobler NS and Stratton HH. Effectiveness of School-Based Drug Prevention Programs: A Meta-Analysis of the Research. The Journal of Primary Prevention. 1997; 18(1): 71-128

Kumar, R., O’Malley, P.M., Johnston, L.D., Schulenberg, J.E., Bachman, J.G. (2002). Effects of school-level norms on student substance use. Prev Sci, 3(2), 105-124.

Midford, R.,Lenton, S., Hancock,L. (2000). A Critical Review and Analysis: Cannabis Education in Schools. New South Wales Department of Education and Training, Sydney.

National Drug Research Institute. (2002). The Prevention of Substance Use, Risk and Harm in Australia: A Review of the Evidence Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing, Canberra.

Perry, C.L., Williams, C., Komro, K., Veblen-Mortenson, S., Stigler, M., Munson, K., Farbakhsh, K., Jones, R., Forster. J. (2002). Project Northland: Long-term outcomes of community action to reduce adolescent alcohol use. Health Education Research. 17(1):117-132. (Random Controlled Trial)

Roberts, G., McCall, D.S., Stevens-Lavigne, A., Anderson, J., Paglia, A., Bollenbach, S., Wiebe, J., Gliksman, L. (2001). Preventing Substance Use Problems Among Young People. A Compendium of Best Practices. Ottawa, ON: Office of Canada’s Drug Strategy, Health Canada.

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

Foxcroft DR, Ireland D, Lowe G, Breen R. Primary prevention for alcohol misuse in young people. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2002, Issue 3. Comprehensive Models that Integrate Diseases and Risks and Coordinate Interventions

Canning U. Millward L, Raj T, Warm D. 2004. Drug Use Prevention Among Young People: A Review of Reviews. Health Development Agency. (Review)

Perry CL, Williams C, Komro K, Veblen-Mortenson S, Stigler M, Munson K, Farbakhsh K, Jones R, Forster J. 2002. Project Northland: Long-term outcomes of community action to reduce adolescent alcohol use. Health Education Research. 17(1):117-132.

Botvin G, Botvin E, Ruchlin H. 1998. School-based approaches to drug abuse prevention: Evidence for effectiveness and suggestions for determining cost-effectiveness. Cost-Benefit/Cost-Effectiveness Research of Drug Abuse Prevention: Implications for Programming and Policy, NIDA Research Monograph 176. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health. (Review)

Amuedo-Dorantes, C., Mach, T., & Clapp, J. D. (2004). The impact of schools on juvenile substance initiation and use. Prevention science, 5(2), 91-99.

Foxcroft, D., Ireland, D.J., Lister-Sharp, D., Lowe, G., & Breen, R. (2003). Longer-term primary prevention for alcohol misuse in young people: A systematic review. Addiction, 98, 397-411.

Hawks, D., Scott, K., & McBride, M. (2002). Prevention of psychoactive substance use: A selected review of what works in the area of prevention. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization

Gottfredson, D.C., & Wilson, D.B. (2003). Characteristics of effective school-based substance abuse prevention. Prevention Science, 4(1), 27-38

Paglia, A., & Room, R. (1999). Preventing substance use problems among youth: A literature review and recommendations. Journal of Primary Prevention, 20(1), 3-50

Stewart, S.H., Conrod, P.J., Marlatt, G.A., Comeau, M.N., Thush, C,, Krank, M. (2005). New developments in prevention and early intervention for alcohol abuse in youths. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 29(2), 278-86

Stockwell, T., Gruenewald, P.J., Toumbourou, J.W., & Loxley, W. (2005). Recommendations for new directions in the prevention of risky substance use and related harms. Stockwell T,

Gruenewald PJ, Toumbourou JW, Loxley W, editors. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Effects On Learning (Educational achievement and school effectiveness)

Engberg, J., & Morral, A.R. (2006). Reducing substance use improves adolescents’ school attendance. Addiction, 101, 1741–1751

RAND. (2005). Classroom drug prevention works: But left unchecked, early substance use haunts older teens and young adults. Santa Monica, California: RAND. Full-Text: http://www.rand.org/publications/RB/RB4560/

Bryant, A.L., Schulenberg, J.E., O’Malley, P.M., Bachman, J.G., & Johnston, L.D. (2003). How academic achievement, attitudes, and behaviors relate to the course of substance use during adolescence: A 6-year, multiwave national longitudinal study. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13(3), 361–397.

Engberg, J., & Morral, A.R. (2006). Reducing substance use improves adolescents’ school attendance. Addiction, 101, 1741–1751

Cox, R.G., Zhang, L., Johnson, W.D., & Bender, D.R. (2007). Academic performance and substance use: Findings from a state survey of public high school students. Journal of School Health, 77, 109-115.

Paternite, C. E., & Johnston, T.C. (2005). Rationale and strategies for central involvement of educators in effective school-based mental health programs. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34, 41–49.

Lynskey, M., & Hall, W. (2000). The effects of adolescent cannabis use on educational attainment: A review. Addiction, 95(11), 1621-1630.

Battistich, V., Schaps, E., & Wilson, N. (2004). Effects of an elementary school intervention on students’ “connectedness” to school and social adjustment during middle school. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 24(3)

Canadian Guidelines and Resources
The following planning manuals and guidelines are excellent resources:

Preventing Substance Abuse Problems among Young People (Health Canada)
Best practice guidelines for mental health promotion programs: Children & Youth (CAMH)
What Works in SA Prevention for Youth (CAMH)
When Drugs Come to School: A Resource Manual for Student Substance Use and School-Based Policy Development (Nova Scotia)
Prevention Strategies for Teachers (AADAC)

International Guidelines and Planning Resources
The following planning guides are excellent sources:

Principles of Effectiveness for Safe and Drug Free Schools (US Dept of Ed)
Drug Use Prevention Among Young People: A Review of Reviews. Evidence Briefing Update. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), U.K.
Guidelines for Managing Drug Related Incidents in Schools (NSW, Australia)
School Drug Education Principles (Australian Gov’t)
Guidelines to Support the Development of School-Based Drug Education Policies and Practices (New South Wales, AU)

Examples of Coordinated, Multiple Intervention Programs

School Age Children and Youth Program (Vancouver School Board, BC)
The VSB program includes interventions to improve school climate, train staff, peer delivery of education, instruction and parent involvement.

PROMOTING SAFER SCHOOLS: An Introduction to Effective Behaviour Support ( BC Council of Administrators of Special Education Publication)
Problem behaviour occurs on a continuum from relatively mild and infrequent to frequent and severe. Effective Behaviour Support recognizes this and advocates that schools develop several integrated systems for responding to the behaviours along the continuum.

From Challenges to Possibilities: Planning for Behaviour (Government of Manitoba)
This is a planning resource intended to provide a support for student service administrators, principals, classroom teachers, resource teachers, school counsellors, clinicians, and other community professionals who will help in assisting schools in developing proactive and reactive approaches to behaviour. The resource will address the broad range of students with behavioural challenges that are found in all schools, from those who have discipline problems to those with severe emotional problems. It will offer a range of suggestions that can be implemented at the school-wide level as well as at the individual student level.

Positive Action Program (Reviewed by SAMHSA, United States, December 2006)
Positive Action is an integrated and comprehensive program that is designed to improve academic achievement; school attendance; and problem behaviors such as substance use, violence, suspensions, disruptive behaviors, dropping out, and sexual behavior. It is also designed to improve parent-child bonding, family cohesion, and family conflict. Positive Action has materials for schools, homes, and community agencies. All materials are based on the same unifying broad concept (one feels good about oneself when taking positive actions) with six explanatory subconcepts (positive actions for the physical, intellectual, social, and emotional areas) that elaborate on the overall theme. The program components include grade-specific curriculum kits for kindergarten through 12th grade, drug education kits, a conflict resolution kit, sitewide climate development kits for elementary and secondary school levels, a counselor's kit, a family kit, and a community kit. All the components and their parts can be used separately or in any combination and are designed to reinforce and support one another.

Project Northland (Reviewed by SAMHSA, United States, March 2007)
Project Northland is a multilevel intervention involving students, peers, parents, and community in programs designed to delay the age at which adolescents begin drinking, reduce alcohol use among those already drinking, and limit the number of alcohol-related problems among young drinkers. Administered to adolescents in grades 6-8 on a weekly basis, the program has a specific theme within each grade level that is incorporated into the parent, peer, and community components. The 6th-grade home-based program targets communication about adolescent alcohol use utilizing student-parent homework assignments, in-class group discussions, and a communitywide task force. The 7th-grade peer- and teacher-led curriculum focuses on resistance skills and normative expectations regarding teen alcohol use, and is implemented through discussions, games, problem-solving tasks, and role-plays. During the first half of the 8th-grade Powerlines peer-led program, students learn about community dynamics related to alcohol use prevention through small group and classroom interactive activities. During the second half, they work on community-based projects and hold a mock town meeting to make community policy recommendations to prevent teen alcohol use.

Midwestern Prevention Project (Identified by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence – University of Colorado)
The (MPP) is a comprehensive, community-based, multi-faceted program for adolescent drug abuse prevention. The MPP involves an extended period of programming. Although initiated in a school setting, it goes beyond this setting into the family and community contexts. The MPP bridges the transition from early adolescence to middle through late adolescence. Since early adolescence is the first risk period for gateway drug use (i.e., alcohol, cigarettes, and marijuana), programming is initiated with whole populations of middle school (sixth or seventh grade) students. The MPP strives to help youth recognize the tremendous social pressures to use drugs and provides training skills in how to avoid drug use and drug use situations. These skills are initially learned in the school program and reinforced through the parent, media, and community organization components. The MPP disseminates its message through a system of well-coordinated, community-wide strategies: mass media programming, a school program and continuing school boosters, a parent education and organization program, community organization and training, and local policy change regarding tobacco, alcohol, and other drugs. These components are introduced to the community in sequence at a rate of one per year, with the mass media component occurring throughout all the years. The central component for drug prevention programming, however, is the school. Active social learning techniques (i.e., modeling, role playing, and discussion, with student peer leaders assisting teachers) are used in the school program, along with homework assignments designed to involve family members. The parental program involves a parent-principal committee that meets to review school drug policy, and parent-child communications training. A consistent message supporting a nondrug use norm is delivered via the other three components: mass media coverage and programming, community organization, and the local health policy change component. All components involve regular meetings of respective deliverers (e.g., community leaders for organization) to review and refine programs.

Project SUCCESS (Reviewed by SAMHSA, United States, November 2007)
Project SUCCESS (Schools Using Coordinated Community Efforts to Strengthen Students) is designed to prevent and reduce substance use among students 12 to 18 years of age. The program was originally developed for students attending alternative high schools who are at high risk for substance use and abuse due to poor academic performance, truancy, discipline problems, negative attitudes toward school, and parental substance abuse. In recent years, Project SUCCESS has been used in regular middle and high schools for a broader range of high-risk students. The intervention includes four components:

The Prevention Education Series (PES), an eight-session alcohol, tobacco, and other drug program conducted by Project SUCCESS counselors (local staff trained by the developers) who help students identify and resist pressures to use substances, correct misperceptions about the prevalence and acceptability of substance use, and understand the consequences of substance use.
Schoolwide activities and promotional materials to increase the perception of the harm of substance use, positively change social norms about substance use, and increase enforcement of and compliance with school policies and community laws.
A parent program that includes informational meetings, parent education, and the formation of a parent advisory committee.
Individual and group counseling, in which the Project SUCCESS counselors conduct time-limited counseling for youth following their participation in the PES and an individual assessment. Students and parents who require more intensive counseling, treatment, or other services are referred to appropriate agencies or practitioners in the community

dmccall	Latest page update: made by dmccall , Jan 24 2010, 6:26 PM EST (about this update About This Update Rename - dmccall No content added or deleted. - complete history)
	Keyword tags: None (edit keyword tags) More Info: links to this page

Threads for this page

Post a new thread

There are no threads for this page. Be the first to start a new thread.

JavaScript must be enabled in order for you to contribute to this site.
To start contributing, enable JavaScript by changing your browser options, then try again.

Home

Add a New Page

	Subject:
	Message:
	Quote:
	Tags:
	Category:	General Discussion

Substance Abuse: Effect of Comprehensive, Coordinated, Whole School Programs (BT)

Threads for this page

Start a New Thread as Reply as Anonymous (Get credit for your thread)