Long-term evaluation studies of intervention (also known as secondary prevention) with high-risk youth have documented that certain prevention techniques are likely to stimulate and support behavioral change more effectively than others. Tutoring, for example, enhances the value of mentoring. The intensity, duration, and frequency of interventions with targeted youth also can make a difference in reducing high-risk behavior. Face-to-face contact over the long term, a high level of monitoring, outreach, and aftercare are likely to successfully influence young people who are already engaging in high-risk behaviors.
But what about the vast majority of children and youth who most of the time are not perceived to be high-risk? The use of authoritarian discipline is not effective in the long run. Instead, powerful and positive effects result from giving students meaningful roles in collaborative learning, school climate, and governance. Seeing kids as problems, underestimating their abilities, and writing them off as high-risk or troubled does not create the kind of educational environment consistent with the lessons of protective factor research.
What can schools and other agencies learn from the review and evaluation of programs aimed at preventing delinquency, substance abuse, teen pregnancy, and school failure? After studying 100 such programs, Dryfoos (1990) identified common elements that schools can use to guide their efforts:
For further information on research and evaluation studies relating to prevention, refer to:
References