Urban youth violence prevention: effectiveness of a scaled‐up practice‐to‐research programme

Abstract

PurposeThe aim of this paper is to evaluate the effectiveness of The Leadership Program's Violence Prevention Project (VPP) – a 12‐session programme consisting of explicit curriculum‐based classroom instruction designed for adolescents to promote a range of communication skills associated with violence prevention and alter classroom norms about aggression and violence.Design/methodology/approachA multi‐site, quasi‐experimental effectiveness trial examined pre‐ and post‐implementation surveys that assessed violence‐related behaviours and attitudes from 3,264 6th‐8th grade students in 24 urban public schools across four consecutive academic years (2005‐2009).FindingsMultilevel modelling showed VPP buffered negative beliefs and behaviour in a wide range of violence‐related outcomes including peer support and tolerance for aggression. VPP also promoted positive conflict resolution skills by reducing the use of verbally and physically aggressive resolution strategies over time in programme participants. Programme quality was maintained through a five point practitioner‐created fidelity system amenable to real‐world conditions.Originality/valueFindings indicate semester‐long violence prevention programmes promoting communication skills are effective with urban early adolescents.

Effectiveness of universal school-based programs for prevention of violence in adolescents.

“…Secondly, van-Schoiack-Edstorm et al (2002) reported that both level 1 and 2 intervention students had significant reductions in proaggressive attitudes compared to controls. Thirdly, The Leadership Program's Violence Prevention Project reported positive effects in terms of intervention students having a significantly slower increase in normative beliefs about aggression compared to controls (Chauveron et al, 2012); however, it should be noted that at baseline, intervention students had significantly worse attitudes and behaviours towards violence and this study was graded as weak due to the high level of selection bias.…”

“…Another incorporated arts-based projects to develop PSS (Chauveron et al, 2012). The SN approaches also varied considerably.…”

“…Seven programs were stand-alone SD programs (Botvin, Griffin, & Nichols, 2006;Castillo, Salguero, FernandezBerrocal, & Balluerka, 2013;Espelage, Low, Polanin, & Brown, 2013;Griffin, Holliday, Frazier, & Braithwaite, 2009;Jiménez-Barbero, Ruiz-Hernández, Llor-Esteban, LlorZaragoza, & Pérez García, 2013;Kliewer et al, 2011;Yeager, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2013) and aimed to give students the skills to avoid violence and manage conflict peacefully (see introduction). Five studies combined SD programs with attempts to foster caring school communities which it was hoped would also create pro-social norms within the student body (Chauveron, Thompkins, & Harel, 2012;Farrell, et al, 2003a;Farrell, et al, 2003b;Meyer, Roberto, Boster, & Roberto, 2004;van Schoiack-Edstrom et al, 2002). Both the Aban Aya Youth Project (e.g.…”

“…Finally, all studies utilised a cluster-controlled trial design, with the clusters either at the school-or class-level, and allocation was randomized in eight evaluations. When randomization did not occur (Castillo et al, 2008;Chauveron et al, 2012;Espelage et al, 2013;Farrell, et al, 2003a;Katz et al, 2011;Meyer et al, 2004;Swaim & Kelly, 2008;van Schoiack-Edstorm et al, 2002) allocation was done by teacher preferences to not be a control group or school willingness to implement the program.…”

“…Three studies were graded as weak (Chauveron et al, 2012;Meyer et al, 2004;van Schoiack-Edstorm et al 2002) primarily due to selection bias. Although Jagers et al (2007) and Ngwe et al (2004) were part of the Aban Aya project (for which all other studies were graded moderate), these studies were graded weak due to the different outcome measures used.…”