Fast Track (OJJDP Model Program Guide)

Office of Justice Programs, Innovation - Partnerships – Safer Neighborhoods

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Serving Children, Families and Communities

PREVENTION

IMMEDIATE SANCTIONS

INTERMEDIATE SANCTIONS

RESIDENTIAL

REENTRY

MPG HOME SEARCH HOME SEARCH ENTIRE PROGRAM DATABASE SEARCH USING RISK & PROTECTIVE FACTORS PROGRAM TYPES RATING SYSTEM REFERENCES NOMINATE PROGRAMS RELATED LINKS RESOURCES DMC-REDUCTION BEST PRACTICES DATABASE DSO BEST PRACTICES DATABASE

Fast Track

Intervention:

Fast Track is a comprehensive, long-term prevention program that aims to prevent chronic and severe conduct problems in high-risk children. The program targets children identified in kindergarten for disruptive behavior and poor peer relations. It is based on the view that antisocial behavior stems from the interaction of multiple influences such as school, home, and the individual. The main goals of the program are to increase communication and bonds between and among these three domains; to enhance children’s social, cognitive, and problem-solving skills; to improve peer relationships; and ultimately to decrease disruptive behavior at home and in school. The developmental model guiding this project indicates that an effective prevention program would address classroom, school risk, and family risk factors, including communication between parents and schools.

Fast Track extends from 1st through 10th grade, with particularly intensive interventions during the transitions at school entry and from elementary to middle school. The primary intervention is designed for all youths in a school setting. The PATHS (for Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies) curriculum was revised for use in the Fast Track program. In addition to this universal intervention, Fast Track includes an indicated intervention component for children considered high-risk. This includes parent groups, child social-skills training, academic tutoring, and home visits. The most intense phase of intervention took place in the first grade year for each of three successive cohorts. The program can be implemented in rural and urban areas for boys and girls of varying ethnicity, socioeconomic background, and family composition.

Evaluation Methodology:

Study 1
The Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (2002) evaluated the comprehensive Fast Track program during its first 3 years. Subjects attended 54 schools in four geographic sites serving neighborhoods identified as high risk on the basis of crime and poverty statistics. The schools at each geographic site were divided into two sets, matched on size, ethnic composition, achievement scores, and percentage of free lunch recipients. Half of the schools were randomly assigned to an intervention group; the other half served as the control group. A multistaged screening included all kindergarten children in three successive cohorts at all four schools. The screening included teacher ratings of disruptive behavior followed by parent ratings of child behavior at home. More than 9,000 kindergarteners were screened, and those who scored in the top 40 percent on a teacher scale of conduct problems were screened further, using parent-reported behavior scores.

Children with the highest composite screen scores were selected to form a sample size of 891 (intervention=445; control=446). The sample was 51 percent African American, 47 percent European American, and 2 percent other ethnicities. Only 32 percent of the participants were from middle-class families. Analysis of demographic and behavioral variables at baseline indicated no significant differences between the two groups. A normative sample of 387 children was also followed to serve as a basis of comparison with the high-risk sample.

A curriculum in social and emotional development revised from the Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) curriculum was implemented in grades 1, 2, and 3 at the intervention schools. The Fast Track program also included parent training, home visiting, academic tutoring, and child social skills training along with additional parent and child group training that occurred weekly in grade 1, biweekly in grade 2, and monthly in grade 3. After grade 1, tutoring and other individualized support components of the program were offered if individual children and families met a risk-based criterion for each component. A Fast Track Educational Coordinator provided support and consultation for teachers and monitored implementation of the PATHS curriculum at intervention schools.

Data was collected from parents, teachers, and children each summer following grades 1, 2, and 3. Outcomes at grade 3 included conduct problems, social cognition, academic progress, child social competence, and parenting behavior.

Evaluation Outcome:

Study 1
Conduct Problems
The evaluation by the Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (2002) found that at the end of grade 3, participants in the treatment group were significantly less likely than control group participants to exhibit evidence of serious conduct problems. Five of the eight variables for child conduct yielded significant main effects. Teacher and parent ratings on child conduct revealed significantly lower conduct problems for the intervention group, compared with the control group. Peer nominations of aggressive-disruptive behavior and one parent measure (the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children) yielded no significant differences between the two groups.

Social Cognition
At the end of grade 3, the proportion of competent responses on a social problem-solving measure was marginally higher for intervention children than for the control group. In addition, intervention children generated marginally fewer hostile attributions about peer intentions than the control group children.

Academic Progress
At the end of grade 3, there were no significant differences between the groups on reading or on grades for language arts or mathematics.

Child Social Competence
At the end of grade 3, there were no significant effects of intervention on the sociometric measures of peer social preference and prosocial behavior.

Parenting Behavior
At the end of grade 3, there was less parental endorsement of physical punishment for children’s problem behaviors and greater self-reported improvement in parenting behavior, compared with reports of the control group.

Other Information:

References:

Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. 1999. “Initial Impact of the Fast Track Prevention Trial for Conduct Problems: II. Classroom Effects.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 67(5):648–57.

———. 2002. “Evaluation of the First 3 Years of the Fast Track Prevention Trial With Children at High Risk for Adolescent Conduct Problems.” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 30(1):19–35.

———. 2010. “Fast Track Intervention Effects on Youth Arrests and Delinquency.” Journal of Experimental Criminology 6:131–57.

Program Specification:

New Rating:

Promising

Re-reviewed Date:

June 2011

Program Type:

Classroom Curricula

Conflict Resolution / Interpersonal Skills

Parent Training

School/Classroom Environment

Ethnicity:

Asian

African American

Hispanic or Latino (of any race)

White

Gender:

Both

Age:

5 - 15

Target Settings:

Rural

Urban

Problem Behaviors:

Aggression/Violence

Family Functioning

Risk & Protective Factors:

Risk

Family

Family management problems / Poor parental supervision and/or monitoring

Poor family attachment / Bonding

Individual

Antisocial behavior and alienation / Delinquent beliefs / General delinquency involvement / Drug dealing

Early onset of aggression and/or violence

Lack of guilt and empathy

Peer

Association with delinquent and/or aggressive peers

School

Negative attitude toward school / Low bonding / Low school attachment / Commitment to school

Truancy / Frequent absences

Protective

Community

Presence and involvement of caring, supportive adults in the community

Family

Effective parenting

Good relationship with parents / Bonding or attachment to family

Individual

Healthy / Conventional beliefs and clear standards

Perception of social support from adults and peers

Positive / Resilient temperament

Social competencies and problem solving skills

Peer

Good relationships with peers

Involvement with positive peer group activities

School

Opportunities for prosocial school involvement

Additional Information:

OJJDP: Blueprints

HHS: Surgeon General

Status:

Program is in operation at this time.

Performance Measures:

Suggested OJJDP Performance Measures for the Program Types(s):

Delinquency Prevention
Classroom Curricula
Logic Model: PDF
Performance Matrix:PDF
School Programs
Classroom Curricula
Logic Model: PDF
Performance Matrix:PDF
Delinquency Prevention
Parent Training
Logic Model: PDF
Performance Matrix:PDF
Mental Health Services
Parent Training
Logic Model: PDF
Performance Matrix:PDF
School Programs
School/Classroom Environment
Logic Model: PDF
Performance Matrix:PDF

Contact Information:

Program Developer:
Mark T. Greenberg, Ph.D.
Human Development and Family StudiesTr-Madison
110 Henderson Building South
University Park, PA 16802–6504
Phone: 8148630112
Fax: 8148652530
Email: Click Here
Website: Click Here

Program Locations:
Kenneth A. Dodge, Ph.D.
Fast Track
Bay C, Second Floor
Durham, NC 27705

Karen L. Bierman, Ph.D.
Fast Track, Child Study Center
105 E. Henderson Building
University Park, PA 16802

Robert J. McMahon, Ph.D.
Fast Track
146 N. Canal Street, Suite 111
Seattle, WA 98103

Ellen E. Pinderhughes, Ph.D.
Fast Track
803 18th Avenue South
Nashville, TN 37203