5.2 Evidence-Based Curricula across the Lifespan

5.2 Evidence-Based Curricula across the Lifespan

Core Foundation: In the modern era of prevention science, professional practice has evolved away from anecdotal intuition and well-intentioned guesswork. Today, Prevention Specialists are ethically and operationally mandated to select and deploy Evidence-Based Programs (EBPs). These are standardized, theoretically grounded behavioral interventions that have undergone rigorous scientific evaluation and demonstrated reliable, statistically significant reductions in substance misuse and related risk behaviors.

---

What Defines an Evidence-Based Program (EBP)?

An intervention is designated as "evidence-based" only after meeting rigorous scientific and methodological standards established by independent prevention researchers. To achieve this designation, a program must demonstrate:

1. Theoretical Grounding: The program is built upon established, empirical behavioral theories, such as Social Learning Theory (Bandura), Problem Behavior Theory (Jessor & Jessor), the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen), or the Social Development Strategy (Hawkins & Catalano).
2. Rigorous Experimental Design: Demonstrated efficacy evaluated through Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) or high-quality quasi-experimental designs with well-matched control or comparison groups.
3. Empirical Measurement of Behavioral Outcomes: Statistically significant reductions in actual substance use behaviors (e.g., past 30-day tobacco, alcohol, cannabis, or prescription drug use) or documented increases in validated protective factors, rather than merely shifts in short-term attitudes or knowledge.
4. Independent Replication: Consistent positive behavioral outcomes replicated across multiple diverse geographic, demographic, and socioeconomic populations by independent evaluators with no financial stake in the program.
5. Peer-Reviewed Scientific Publication: Methodologies, analytical controls, attrition rates, and statistical outcome metrics subjected to rigorous peer review in recognized scientific journals.

Why Good Intentions Fail: The History of Iatrogenic Programs

The historical necessity for strict empirical standards arose from well-intentioned programs that inadvertently caused harm. Classic examples include:

• Fear-Based Scare Tactics & Shock Assemblies: Showing graphic crash photos or bringing incarcerated individuals to lecture youth ("Scared Straight"). Evaluations revealed these programs often increased delinquency and substance experimentation by triggering counter-defensive responses and glamorizing risk-taking among sensation-seeking youth.
• Original D.A.R.E. (1980s Curriculum): The original Drug Abuse Resistance Education curriculum relied heavily on uniform police officers delivering didactic lectures on pharmacology and self-esteem. Multiple longitudinal meta-analyses demonstrated that the original model produced no statistically significant long-term reduction in drug use, prompting its total overhaul into the evidence-based keepin' it REAL interactive curriculum.

---

Registries and Clearinghouses of Evidence-Based Programs

Prevention Specialists rely on national evidence clearinghouses to identify, compare, and select interventions matched to their community's prioritized risk factors and target population:

1. Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development

Maintained by the Institute of Behavioral Science at the University of Colorado Boulder, Blueprints is one of the most rigorous registries in prevention science; only a small fraction of the programs it reviews earn certification. Certified programs are rated:

• Promising: Evidence from one high-quality randomized controlled trial (RCT) or two high-quality quasi-experimental evaluations showing positive behavioral impact.
• Model: Evidence from two high-quality RCTs, or one RCT plus one high-quality quasi-experimental evaluation, with positive effects sustained at least 12 months after the intervention ends.
• Model Plus: A Model program that also has a high-quality replication conducted by independent evaluators with no ties to the developer.

2. CrimeSolutions (National Institute of Justice / OJP)

Maintained by the U.S. Department of Justice, CrimeSolutions utilizes expert lead researchers to review and score criminal justice, juvenile delinquency, and substance abuse programs. Evaluated programs are categorized into:

• Effective: Strong, consistent evidence across multiple rigorous trials demonstrating the program achieves its intended behavioral outcomes.
• Promising: Some empirical evidence indicating positive outcomes, but requires additional replication or larger sample sizes.
• No Effects: Rigorous evaluation demonstrates the intervention fails to produce positive outcomes or produces harmful/iatrogenic effects.

3. The Legacy NREPP and Current SAMHSA Resources

For decades, SAMHSA operated the National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices (NREPP). NREPP was discontinued in 2018, but its ratings still appear in older grant documents and program materials. Today, SAMHSA's Evidence-Based Practices Resource Center offers guides, reviews, and implementation toolkits rather than a program-rating registry.

---

Landmark Evidence-Based Prevention Curricula

Credentialed Prevention Specialists must demonstrate detailed technical knowledge of the most widely implemented evidence-based curricula across developmental tiers:

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                    EVIDENCE-BASED CURRICULA ACROSS THE LIFESPAN                         |
+-----------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| EARLY ELEMENTARY      | MIDDLE SCHOOL               | HIGH SCHOOL & INDICATED           |
| - Good Behavior Game  | - LifeSkills Training (LST) | - Project Toward No Drug Abuse    |
| - Contingency mgmt    | - Project ALERT             | - Indicated cognitive-behavioral  |
| - Universal classroom | - Strengthening Families    | - Alternative school settings     |
+-----------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------+

---

1. LifeSkills Training (LST)

• Developer: Dr. Gilbert J. Botvin (Cornell University Weill Medical College).
• Target Tier & Audience: Universal; primarily designed for middle/junior high school students (Grades 6–9), with adapted versions available for elementary and high school.
• Delivery Setting: School classroom setting, led by trained teachers, health educators, or peer leaders.
• Theoretical Framework: Anchored in Bandura's Social Learning Theory and Problem Behavior Theory. LST posits that substance use is a socially learned behavior resulting from a complex interaction of cognitive, attitudinal, social, and environmental influences.
• Curriculum Structure & Active Ingredients: LST operates across three interrelated components rather than teaching pharmacology in isolation:
  1. Personal Self-Management Skills: Equips youth with cognitive-behavioral tools to analyze decisions, solve problems, identify personal motivations, manage stress, and regulate intense emotions.
  2. General Social Skills: Develops verbal and non-verbal communication, assertiveness techniques, conversation skills, and overcoming social anxiety.
  3. Drug Resistance Skills: Exposes media advertising tactics, corrects normative fallacies (demonstrating that the vast majority of peers do not smoke, drink, or vape), and provides behavioral role-play practice in refusing substance offers assertively.
• Dosage & Booster Structure: LST is a multi-year sequential curriculum. The standard middle school model delivers 15 sessions in Year 1 (6th/7th grade), 10 booster sessions in Year 2 (7th/8th grade), and 5 booster sessions in Year 3 (8th/9th grade).
• Longitudinal Outcomes: Randomized trials with follow-up through the end of high school and into young adulthood have reported substantial reductions in tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana use compared with controls (developer summaries cite reductions of up to 50–75%), along with lower rates of polydrug use and prescription drug misuse.

---

2. Project ALERT

• Developer: RAND Corporation.
• Target Tier & Audience: Universal; middle school youth (Grades 7 and 8).
• Delivery Setting: School classrooms, youth organizations, and after-school programs.
• Theoretical Framework: Based on the Social Influence Model, focusing on proximal social forces that drive early experimentation.
• Active Ingredients:
  • Modifies normative perceptions: Shows students real survey data proving non-use is the statistical norm among their peers.
  • Identifies internal pressures (desire to fit in, curiosity) and external pressures (peers, social media, adult modeling).
  • Teaches and actively rehearses practical "Saying No" refusal assertiveness techniques through interactive video vignettes and structured role-playing.
• Dosage: Consists of 11 core lessons in Year 1 (7th grade) and 3 booster lessons in Year 2 (8th grade).
• Documented Outcomes: Proven to curb cigarette initiation, reduce alcohol misuse, and reduce cannabis experimentation during the critical transition to high school.

---

3. Good Behavior Game (GBG)

• Developers: Dr. Muriel Saunders, Harriet Barrish, and Montrose Wolf (1969); longitudinally evaluated and advanced by Dr. Shepherd Kellam (Johns Hopkins University / Baltimore Prevention Trials).
• Target Tier & Audience: Universal; early elementary school children (Grades 1 and 2).
• Delivery Setting: Primary school classrooms during regular instructional periods.
• Operational Mechanism: The Good Behavior Game is a universal classroom-based contingency management strategy rather than a traditional scripted curriculum. The teacher divides the classroom into two or three diverse, balanced teams. The teacher and students establish clear, explicit classroom rules regarding respectful behavior and focused academic attention. During designated game periods throughout the school day, the teacher marks a point on the board whenever a team member displays disruptive, off-task, or aggressive behavior. If a team remains under a predetermined penalty threshold by the end of the game period, all members of that team receive immediate, tangible positive recognition (e.g., extra recess time, line leader privileges, special stickers).
• Longitudinal Outcomes: The Baltimore Prevention Trials followed 1st-grade participants into young adulthood. At ages 19–21, GBG classrooms showed:
  • Lower rates of drug and alcohol use disorders and of regular smoking, with the largest effects among boys who were most aggressive and disruptive in first grade.
  • Lower rates of antisocial personality disorder and violent and criminal behavior among those high-risk boys.
  • Lower rates of suicidal ideation and attempts. These are some of the longest-lasting effects recorded for any classroom intervention. By teaching self-regulation and peer-supported social cohesion at the critical developmental entry point into formal schooling, GBG reorganizes a child's developmental trajectory for life.

---

4. Strengthening Families Program: For Parents and Youth 10–14 (SFP 10–14)

• Developers: Dr. Virginia Molgaard and colleagues (Iowa State University), adapting the original high-risk model developed by Dr. Karol Kumpfer (University of Utah).
• Target Tier & Audience: Universal and Selective; families with children aged 10 to 14.
• Delivery Setting: Community centers, schools, faith-based facilities, and civic organizations.
• Curriculum Design & Active Ingredients: Delivered over 7 weekly two-hour sessions, followed by optional booster sessions. SFP 10–14 utilizes a unique parallel-and-combined instructional format:
  • Hour 1 (Separate Parent and Youth Sessions): Parents meet in one room with a trained facilitator to master effective discipline, setting clear family rules, active listening, and managing parental stress. Simultaneously, youth meet in a separate room to learn peer resistance, decision-making, emotional coping, and managing peer conflicts.
  • Hour 2 (Joint Family Session): Parents and youth come together in the same room for interactive family games, structured family meetings, role-playing conflict resolution, and shared meals.
• Documented Outcomes: Long-term follow-ups demonstrate significant delays in the initiation of alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis, reduced rates of methamphetamine use, decreased aggressive delinquent behavior, and long-term improvements in family bonding and academic success.

---

5. Guiding Good Choices (GGC)

• Developers: Dr. J. David Hawkins and Dr. Richard F. Catalano (University of Washington, Social Development Research Group).
• Target Tier & Audience: Universal and Selective; parents and caregivers of youth aged 9 to 14.
• Theoretical Framework: Social Development Strategy (SDS).
• Structure: A 5-session workshop series (2 hours per session). Parents attend all five sessions; youth attend one session (Session 3) to practice resistance skills directly with their parents.
• Core Focus: Teaches parents how to build strong family bonds through opportunities, skills, and recognition; establish a clear family position on drug and alcohol use; manage family conflict without hostility; and involve children in meaningful family decision-making.
• Documented Outcomes: Documented long-term reductions in adolescent alcohol and drug initiation, delayed onset of sexual activity, and improved parent-child attachment.

---

6. Project Toward No Drug Abuse (Project TND)

• Developer: Dr. Steve Sussman and colleagues (University of Southern California).
• Target Tier & Audience: Most often used as selective or indicated prevention; high school youth aged 14 to 19, particularly adolescents attending alternative high schools, continuation programs, or diversion programs who show elevated risk or experimental substance use.
• Delivery Setting: Alternative high schools, conventional high school intervention settings, and community youth facilities.
• Structure & Dosage: 12 interactive 40- to 45-minute sessions, delivered over a 3- to 4-week period.
• Theoretical Focus: Motivation, Skills, and Decision-Making (MSD) model. TND addresses cognitive misperceptions, emotional regulation, substance use consequences, active listening, tobacco cessation, communication assertiveness, and resisting gang and peer pressure.
• Documented Outcomes: Randomized trials found about a 25% reduction in hard drug use at one-year follow-up, along with reductions in cannabis and alcohol use among some groups and in weapon carrying.

---

7. Communities That Care (CTC)

• Developers: Dr. J. David Hawkins and Dr. Richard F. Catalano (University of Washington).
• Target Tier & Framework: Macro Community Operating System (not a single classroom curriculum, but a comprehensive prevention system).
• Five-Phase Implementation Process:
  1. Phase 1: Get Started — Assess community readiness and recruit key community leaders.
  2. Phase 2: Get Organized — Establish a diverse community coalition and youth advisory board.
  3. Phase 3: Develop a Community Profile — Administer the CTC Youth Survey to measure local risk and protective factors across its community, family, school, and peer/individual domains.
  4. Phase 4: Create a Community Action Plan — Select prioritized risk factors and choose tested, evidence-based programs from registries that directly match those factors.
  5. Phase 5: Implement and Evaluate — Monitor implementation fidelity and evaluate longitudinal community-level youth behavior shifts.

---

Master Comparative Matrix of Evidence-Based Programs