Raising Healthy Children (RHC)

« Back to list

Category	Type	Target Age Group	Setting	Outcomes	Source of Rating
Promising Programs	Delinquency & Recidivism	Elementary School Middle School	Classroom Community In-Home	15.7% reduction in recidivism	Close Blueprints for Violence Prevention (Blueprints) The Blueprints for Violence Prevention list has been developed by a research team headed by Delbert Elliott, Ph.D. at the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence at the University of Colorado. For Blueprints to certify a brand name program as “model,” the program must demonstrate its effects on problem behaviors with a rigorous experimental design, show that its effects persist after youth leave the program and be successfully replicated at least once. In order for a brand name program to be certified as “promising,” the program must demonstrate effects using a rigorous experimental design. The Blueprints Web site (www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/) lists 11 “model” programs and 19 “promising” programs. Selection Criteria: Lasting positive effects in well designed evaluations & emphasis on replication. Applicability:  Excellent for crime, violence, delinquency & substance abuse. Reliability:  Excellent Currency:  Up to Date Advantages:  Easy to use. Plentiful peer and tech support. Predictability of outcomes. Limitations:  Covers only a small number of brand name programs. Blueprints Close Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) The Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) uses the meta-analysis methodology to conduct evaluations of evidence-based practices, but also considers the cost of such programs and strategies to taxpayers and crime victims and weighs these costs against possible benefits (i.e., costs avoided through reduced crime). Programs and strategies are not ranked, but effect on recidivism is measured and the number of evaluations is reported. Recidivism, cost to tax payers and crime victims, and benefits are estimated using data specific to Washington State. For the purposes of this paper, all cost and benefit information refers to the analysis conducted by WSIPP for the State of Washington. Accordingly, the information should be considered an estimate for the potential cost and dollar benefits for California. The data used for this project can be found in the article by Elizabeth K. Drake, Steve Aos and Marna G. Miller, titled “Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Crime and Criminal Justice Costs: Implications in Washington State” (2009), and can be downloaded from their Web site, www.wsipp.wa.gov. Selection Criteria:  Meta-analysis & cost-benefit analysis. Applicability:  Meta-analysis & cost-benefit analysis. Reliability:  Excellent Currency:  Analyses are revised every few years. Advantages:  Predictability of outcomes; ability to compare cost effectiveness. Limitations:  Costs & benefits are based on WA data. WSIPP

Description:

The Raising Healthy Children program is a social development approach to positive youth development. The approach incorporates school, family and individual programs to promote key elements that research has shown are critical for creating strong connections and bonds that children need to succeed in school and life; opportunities, skills, and recognition. The school program is based on the belief that every teacher makes a difference in the life of a child, that every child can succeed, and that the family is an important partner in learning.

In short, the Raising Healthy Children program focuses on creating a caring community of learners. This program creates strong connections in students' lives by committing to comprehensive school-wide action to strengthen instructional practices and family involvement. No single entity can ensure the positive development of a community's young people. That's why the Raising Healthy Children program involves the school, the family and peers to promote the positive development of students

Target Population

This is a universal program for 1-6th grade teachers, parents and students.

 

---

References and/or Published Evaluations

Brown, E. C., Catalano, R. F., Fleming, C. B., Haggerty, K. P., Abbott, R. D., Cortes, R. C., & Park, J. (2005). Mediator effects in the social development model: an examination of constituent theories. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 15, 221-235.

Catalano, R. F., Mazza, J. J., Harachi, T. W., Abbott, R. D., Haggerty, K. P., & Fleming, C. B. (2003). Raising healthy children through enhancing social development in elementary school: Results after 1.5 years. Journal of School Psychology, 41(2), 143-164.

Hawkins, J. D., Smith, B. H., Hill, K. G., Kosterman, R., Catalano, R. F., & Abbott, R. D. (2007). Promoting social development and preventing health and behavior problems during the elementary grades: Results from the Seattle Social Development Project. Victims & Offenders, 2, 161-181.

Hawkins, J. D., Kosterman, R., Catalano, R. F., Hill, K. G., & Abbott, R. D. (2005). Promoting positive adult functioning through social development intervention in childhood: Long-term effects from the Seattle Social Development Project. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 159, 25-31.

Hawkins, J. D., Smith, B. H., Hill, K. G., Kosterman, R., Catalano, R. F., & Abbott, R. D. (2003). Understanding and preventing crime and violence: Findings from the Seattle Social Development Project. In T. P. Thornberry & M. D. Krohn (Eds.), Taking stock of delinquency: An overview of findings from contemporary longitudinal studies, (pp. 255-312). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Hawkins, J. D., Guo, J., Hill, K., Battin-Pearson, S., & Abbott, R. (2001). Long-term effects of the Seattle Social Development intervention on school bonding trajectories. In J. Maggs & J. Schulenberg (Eds.), Applied Developmental Science: Special issue: Prevention as Altering the Course of Development, 5(4), 225-236.

Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., Kosterman, R., Abbott, R., & Hill, K. G. (1999). Preventing adolescent health-risk behaviors by strengthening protection during childhood. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 153(3), 226-234.

Lonczak, H. S., Abbott, R. D., Hawkins, J. D., Kosterman, R., & Catalano, R. F. (2002). Effects of the Seattle Social Development Project on sexual behavior, pregnancy, birth, and sexually transmitted disease outcomes by age 21 years. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 156(5),438-447.

_ Back to Top

---

Additional Information

Provided by the University of Washington, Social Development Research Group, September 2010

• Has this program been replicated at other sites? If so, how many and where are they?
  Yes, the program has been done in numerous different sites, some as a research replication. Most recently we conducted the program over four years in Bedford County, PA in five school districts
  

• Is there a formal curriculum or program guidelines in place? What is the approximate cost for these materials?
  Yes, there is a formal training guide. We provide training and technical assistance to teachers. I will send you the implementation guides so that you can see the extent of the program—they I will attach year one to this e-mail and send year two and three in a separate e-mail. Pricing depends on the number of schools, staff involved in the program.
  

• What kind of training and technical assistance is available for this program?
  Typically, we work with the specific schools—we provide on site coaching and training. We are in the process of developing a train the training program.
  

• Once the program has been implemented, can an organization obtain assistance with fidelity monitoring or quality assurance?
  As noted, we provide on site coaching using the coaching checklist in the implementation guides for the teacher trainings and implementation checklist for the parenting programs.
  

• Can an organization obtain assistance with data collection or measurement of outcomes?
  We provide teacher checklist for fall and spring and pre/post tests fort he parenting programs. We can assist with the summary of the data, but we depend on teachers to complete the checklists.
  

• Which local stakeholders should participate in order for this program to be successful?
  School superintendents, school boards and the Parent-Teacher Associations are all critical stakeholders to success. We want 80 percentof teachers to commit to implementation prior to school-wide implementation.
  

• Do you recommend the use of a risk assessment tool in identifying referrals for this program? If so, which one?
  As noted above, this is intended as a universal program and does not have a component for problem students.
  

_ Back to Top