(continued from previous page)

One way to locate information on promising interventions to promote safe and drug-free schools is to consult the 10 lists of “exemplary, model, or effective” programs that have been sponsored by the federal government. (A list of these 10 has been compiled by the Southeast Comprehensive Assistance Center, www.sedl.org/secac). However, these lists should be approached with caution, as there are some major discrepancies across the lists.

For example, the Center found that of the 193 programs identified by the ten lists, only 26 appear as "effective," "model," or "select"
on three or more of the lists.

Dr. Whitehurst explained that one reason for the discrepancies between the lists is that some lists focus only on drug prevention, others focus only on violence prevention, while others focus on both problem areas.

Another reason is that different lists use different standards. For example, some lists examine only those programs that have been tested with randomized trials, while others allow quasi-experimental designs such as those that attempt to match students who receive and do not receive the treatment on a set of pre-existing characteristics. Some look at evidence from a single study, while others insist upon replication of that evidence. In addition, evidence of short-term effects is sufficient for some lists while other lists require evidence of long-term effects.

In an effort to create a clearer and more consistent set of standards for synthesizing findings from education research, the U.S. Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences has developed a new resource to provide educators, policymakers, researchers, and the public with a central, independent, and trusted source of scientific evidence of what works in education, including what works to promote safe and drug-free schools.

The What Works Clearinghouse, available online at www.w-w-c.org, is developing standards for reviewing and synthesizing research on what works in education and will provide its findings in several free, searchable, user-friendly databases. School violence prevention programs is one of the topic areas to be reviewed. More information about this important new resource will be available in future issues of The Challenge.

In addition to such lists, educators can investigate recent meta-analyses of school-based violence and substance abuse prevention programs. (See sidebar.)

Meta-analyses statistically summarize results across many studies. However, a major limitation of meta-analyses is that the studies summarized in them are often of varying quality.

In addition, Dr. Whitehurst cautioned that meta-analyses allow substantial room for interpretation by authors in the selection, categorization, and analysis of studies. In fact, different and sometimes contradictory conclusions can emerge from different meta-analyses of the same research topic. Therefore, educators should be aware of the limitations of meta-analyses and understand that conclusions may not always be definitive.

With these caveats in mind, recent meta-analyses of prevention programs suport:

• Interactive prevention programs (those that develop social skills) appear to be superior to didactic programs (those that only enhance knowledge and change attitudes);
• Short-term prevention programs seem to produce short-term results;
• Bigger gains seem to be realized for high-risk students;
• Small-scale prevention programs appear to produce larger effects than large-scale programs;
• Demonstration programs seem to have greater impact than routine practice programs;
• Well-implemented prevention programs seem to realize bigger gains;
• Overall effects of prevention programs appear to be positive, but small; and
• Effects seem to be similar for different types of interactive programs.

How do we use evidence-based education to produce progress in the future?

One of the key challenges facing the prevention community today, Dr. Whitehurst commented, is that while research exists about what works to decrease safety and drug problems, most schools do not use proven prevention programs. For example, one recent study (Ennett, et al., 2003)1 found that only 14 percent of a nationally representative sample of schools used interactive substance abuse prevention programs that include content which has proven to be effective.

According to Dr. Whitehurst, schools need to adopt programs that show promise based on rigorous research evidence.

“For programs to work,” he said, “they need strong leadership, trained facilitators, high quality materials, and local involvement. In addition, schools need to measure
performance and progress towards goals.”

He offered several recommendations to the research community to help schools achieve these goals. What is needed, he said, are the following:

• More randomized trials of violence prevention programs as there have been far fewer studies in this area compared to substance use prevention;
• New research to boost impacts in prevention programs that show promise;
• New research to develop coordinated school-wide programs that merge prevention and youth development;
• More effectiveness studies;
• Research on implementation; and
• Clear and consistent decision support tools.

“The Department’s Institute of Education Sciences stands ready to help both schools and the research community utilize evidence-based education to provide safer, healthier learning environments for young people,” Dr. Whitehurst said.

1 Ennett, S.T., et al. A Comparison of Current Practice in School-Based Substance Use Prevention Programs with Meta-Analysis Findings. Prevention Science 4(1): 1-14, March 2003.