1987
DOI: 10.1111/j.1939-0025.1987.tb03519.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Long term effects of a systems-oriented school prevention program.

Abstract: This study documents three-year effects of a grade school systems-oriented primary prevention program based on the Yale Child Study Center model. Follow-up indicated that children receiving the intervention performed significantly better on various indices, mainly academic. Implications of these findings are discussed.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
20
0

Year Published

1993
1993
2008
2008

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 51 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
20
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Implemented in two poor, inner-city elementary schools in New Haven, Connecticut, the program integrates a planning and management team, a parent participation program, and a mental health team to promote community responsibility by parents, teachers, and students. A comparison of school performance to that of a set of nonequivalent control schools suggested that the program improved parent involvement, test scores, and student behavior (13). Assessment: Promising.…”
Section: Community-level Interventionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Implemented in two poor, inner-city elementary schools in New Haven, Connecticut, the program integrates a planning and management team, a parent participation program, and a mental health team to promote community responsibility by parents, teachers, and students. A comparison of school performance to that of a set of nonequivalent control schools suggested that the program improved parent involvement, test scores, and student behavior (13). Assessment: Promising.…”
Section: Community-level Interventionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, they at least try to expand their reform efforts beyond the traditional boundaries of the school, by including the family-neighborhood-community level. Fourth, due to the programs' focus on holistic (vs. solely academic) development and community-school (vs. solely school) development, the programs have been assessed in regard to (i) community and parent involvement Haynes et al 1989;, (ii) school and classroom climate (Battistich and Hom 1997;Cook et al 1999;Haynes et al 1989), (iii) unsocial or delinquent behavior Comer 1989), (iv) pro-social behavior (Haynes et al 1988;Solomon et al 1990), and (v) academic achievement (Cauce et al 1987;Cook 2001;Cook et al 1999;Haynes and Comer 1996;Schaps et al 2004). Fifth, despite the fact that these two programs have been judged as successful in numerous individual studies, as well as in the two mentioned meta-analyses, the programs seem to have work very well in some cases, less well in others, and were even ineffective (and thus occasionally discontinued) in yet others (Cook 2001;Cook et al 1999Cook et al , 2000Schaps et al 2004).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Instead, students have reported higher levels of self-competence, effective contraceptive use, growth toward self-esteem, more functional coping skills, better child-parent communication, improved health, fewer pregnancies and/or delay in sexual activity (Cauce, Comer, and Schwartz, 1987;Dryfoos, 1990;Harold, 1988;Zelnik and Kim, 1982).…”
Section: School-related Clinicsmentioning
confidence: 96%