An Outcome Evaluation of the Woodrock Youth Development Project

Abstract

The Woodrock Youth Development Project (YDP) aims to reduce alcohol tobacco, and drug (ATOD) use among adolescents. The YDP targets riskfactors thatpredispose youth to substance abuse, such as low self-esteem, unhealthy attitudes toward substance abuse, and lack of knowledge about drug effects. The YDP aims to improve problem-solving and coping skills, to raise awareness about the dangers of substance abuse, and to improve self-perception through increasing academic achievement as well as fostering a sense of cultural pride. Participation in the YDP was shown to reduce the incidence of drug use. Among younger (6 through 9 years of age) participants, the program improved interracial relations and marginally boosted self-esteem and knowledge about ATOD use. Furtherresearch is needed, however, to determine why the programfailed toproduce improvements m these latter atitudinal risk factors among older (10 through 14 years of age) respondents.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Depression Prevention Curriculum for Rural Middle School Girls: Initial Findings and 6-Month Follow-up

“…Cross-age programs are peer-helping programs in which high school students serve as mentors to younger children [28]. In the past, programs led by older peers have achieved impressive outcomes targeting other risk behaviors [29][30][31], but have not been tested for their impact on depression prevention. High school peers may have greater influence on middle school participants who are experiencing a peak in their need for autonomy from adults, but these facilitators may also require more training and more explicit manuals to maintain intervention fidelity than mental health professionals.…”

“…Twelve peer group facilitators were selected from the FCCLA applicant pool (30). The average age of the peer facilitators who attended the training was 16.5 (SD = 1.59).…”

Best practices in community‐based prevention for youth substance reduction: towards strengths‐based positive development policy

“…The selected prevention programs are as follows: Aban Aya Youth Project (Flay, Graumlich, Segawa, Burns, Hollday, 2004), Stopping Them Starting (Gorden, Whitear, & Guthrie, 1997), Woodrock Youth Development Project (LoSciuto et al, 1999), D.A.R.E. (Plus) (Perry et al, 2003), Healthy for Life (Piper, Moberg, & King, 2000), Native American Project (Schinke, Tepavac, & Cole, 2000), Project Towards No Drug (TND; Sun, Skara, Sun, Dent, & Sussman, 2006;Sussman, Dent, Stacy, & Craig, 1998), Project SixTeen (Biglan, Ary, Smolkowski, Duncan, & Black, 2000), Across Age (LoSciuto, Rajala, Townsend, & Taylor, 1996), Project Northland (Perry et al, 1996), and Yunnan Project (Wu, Detels, Zhang, Li, & Li, 2002).…”

“…First, all four effective studies used experimental design with random sampling procedures. Some studies chose areas specifically to target particular groups of youth; for example, rural, lower middle class to middle class communities in Minnesota (Perry et al, 1996) and public schools in an economically depressed community (LoSciuto et al, 1999). Second, the samples were large, but still varied in size across studies, ranging from 718 in Woodrock Project to 2,351 in Project Northland.…”

“…Third, prevention attrition was considerable in most preventions, ranging from 12.6% (LoScuito et al, 1999) to 57% (Sun et al, 2006). Forth, outcomes were measured 2 years later (LoSciuto et al, 1999), and 4-5 years after the intervention (Sun et al, 2006). The detailed methodological comparison of the four effective prevention projects as well as the other eight moderate or small effective projects is provided in Table 3.…”