Guiding Good Choices (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

Guiding Good Choices

Intervention:

Guiding Good Choices (GGC), formerly known as Preparing for the Drug-Free Years, is a multimedia family competency training program that promotes healthy, protective parent–child interactions and reduces children’s risk for early substance use. The program targets families of middle school children (ages 9–14) who reside in rural, economically stressed neighborhoods.

GGC is based on the social development model, which theorizes that enhancing protective factors such as effective parenting practices will decrease the likelihood that children will engage in problem behaviors.

The program is delivered in five weekly sessions specifically designed to strengthen parents’ child-rearing techniques, parent–child bonding, and children’s peer resistance skills. Children are required to attend one session, which concentrates on peer pressure. The other four sessions involve only parents and include instruction in four areas:

Identifying risk factors for adolescent substance use and creating strategies to enhance the family’s protective processes
Developing effective parenting skills, particularly those regarding substance use issues
Managing anger and family conflict
Providing opportunities for positive child involvement in family activities

Evaluation Methodology:

Study 1
Kosterman and colleagues (1997) assessed GGC by examining the program effects on three specific parenting behaviors:

1. The increase of proactive family communication

2. The reduction of negative family interaction

3. The improvement of observable relationship quality between parent and child

The study was conducted in six school districts in two economically stressed rural communities in the central Midwest, with 209 families completing the pretest assessment. The families were then randomly assigned into an intervention group (treatment) or a waitlist group (control). Videotaped observations of family interactions were conducted at the families’ homes both 2 months before and 2–9 weeks following the intervention. Before each interaction, parents and children completed an independent questionnaire designed to identify issues leading to disagreements within the family. Family interactions were scored across 60 different dimensions intended to measure individual characteristics, relationships, group interactions, and problem-solving.

An analysis of covariance was used to examine differences in posttest scores while controlling for differences in pretest scores. An intent-to-treat approach was used for analysis, so that all families in the treatment condition were included in the analysis regardless of their level of participation in the intervention.

Study 2
Spoth and colleagues (1999) evaluated a comprehensive test of GGC to assess the impact of the program on the initiation of substance use (alcohol or tobacco) and on the progression from one status to another status (e.g., from no-use to alcohol-only use). Schools were selected on the basis of free-lunch-program eligibility and community size (population 8,500 or fewer). Schools were assigned using a randomized block design, wherein blocks were formed on the basis of school size and the proportion of students residing in low-income neighborhoods. Within blocks, schools were assigned to GGC (n=221 families), a second intervention group (Iowa Strengthening Families Program, n=238) or a minimal contact control group (n=208).

Test participants consisted of families of sixth graders enrolled in 33 rural schools in 19 contiguous counties in a Midwestern State. All three groups were similar across sociodemographic characteristics, and families participating in the study were generally representative of the sampling frame (the mean level of education was 0.7 years higher for participants). The sample completing both pretests and posttests was composed primarily of dual-parent families (85.0 percent) and whites (98.6 percent). In 51 percent of the families, the target child for the intervention was female.

The analysis incorporated three waves of data collected over a 2.5-year period. Participants were tested 1-year post-implementation and 2-years post-implementation. Measures of lifetime and past-month use of substances (self-report) were used in a stage-sequential latent transition analysis model.

Study 3
In study 3, Spoth and colleagues (2009) analyzed data from the study 2 population. The follow-up period of 10 years allowed the researchers to follow participants into young adulthood, and data was collected at seven points in time over that period. The study used four measures of young adult substance use: frequency of drunkenness, alcohol-related problems, use of cigarettes, and use of illicit drugs. A fifth measure for polysubstance use was developed by dichotomizing answers for the previous measures and compiling them.

The primary analysis used an indirect effects model, which was designed to address issues related to the long follow-up period. The model compares case rates in the treatment and control conditions, which yields relative reduction rates—that is, the proportion of control condition cases that would have been prevented had those individuals received the intervention. The researchers hypothesized that program effects on problematic substance use in young adults would occur indirectly, that is through the program’s impact on the initiation of substance use. A hierarchical latent growth curve model was used to assess intervention effects on adolescent substance use initiation, which was then assessed for its effects on young adult substance use outcomes.

Evaluation Outcome:

Study 1
Proactive Communication
The first evaluation found significant positive effects of the interaction on proactive communication. Mothers who participated in GGC showed statistically significant increases in general family interactions, and mothers and fathers showed statistically significant increases in problem-solving interactions.

Negative Interactions with Children
The study found decreased negative interactions between mothers and their children. This effect was statistically significant. Although the fathers in the treatment group showed fewer negative interaction practices with their children than did fathers in the control group, the differences were not statistically significant.

Relationship Quality
The control group showed moderate improvements in relationship quality. For this dimension, only fathers in the treatment group demonstrated statistically significant improvements in their quality of relationship with their child during the problem-solving task. Mothers in the treatment group showed a higher quality of relationship during the general interaction task, but this difference from the control group mothers only approached significance.

Study 2
Initiation of Substance Use
The second evaluation demonstrated positive effects for parents who participated in GGC and their children. Compared with members of a control group, adolescents in the treatment group who had not initiated substance use by the 1-year follow-up were significantly less likely to have initiated use at the 2-year follow-up.

Progression in Substance Use
Adolescents in the treatment group who had initiated substance use by the 1-year follow-up were also significantly more likely than control group youths to have remained at their 1-year substance use status.

Study 3
Substance Use
The third evaluation found that the intervention prevented significant numbers of individuals from engaging in problematic young adult substance use. Specifically, GGC could have prevented an estimated 9 percent of control group individuals from engaging in drunkenness, 11 percent from experiencing alcohol-related problems and cigarette use, and 16 percent from engaging in illicit drug use.

Other Information:

Costs: The estimated cost of the program materials is $1,079, which includes the core program kit packaged with 25 Family Guides; there is an additional cost for optional training. A core program kit is $839.00, plus $13.99 per Family Guide for each participating family (discounts are available for quantities of 10 or more). Optional training costs $4,200 for a 3-day training for up to 12 participants; travel expenses for the trainer are additional.

Implementation: The core program kit includes materials for use by workshop leaders, including two copies of the Workshop Leader’s Guide, each including the training binder/text, workshop video DVD, Family Guide, and CD containing PowerPoint presentations.Guiding Good Choices is designed to be implemented by two workshop leaders who facilitate sessions, sharing responsibility for instruction, modeling skills, and answering questions. At least one of the leaders should be a parent. Also, a Family Guide should be provided to each participating family.

Training requirements/provider certification: Three days of onsite training for Workshop Leaders is recommended but not required.

Language:Guiding Good Choices is available in English and Spanish.

References:

Kosterman, Rick, J. David Hawkins, Richard L. Spoth, Kevin P. Haggerty, and Kangmin Zhu. 1997. “Effects of a Preventive Parent Training on Observed Family Interactions: Proximal Outcomes From Preparing for the Drug-Free Years.” Journal of Community Psychology 25(3):277–92.

Mason, W. Alex, Rick Kosterman, J. David Hawkins, Kevin P. Haggerty, Richard L. Spoth, and Cleve Redmond 2007. “Influence of a Family-Focused Substance Use Preventive Intervention on Growth in Adolescent Depressive Symptoms.” Journal of Research on Adolescence 17(3):541–64.

Park, Jisuk, Rick Kosterman, J. David Hawkins, Kevin P. Haggerty, Terry E. Duncan, Susan C. Duncan, and Richard L. Spoth. 2000. “Effects of the ‘Preparing for the Drug-Free Years’ Curriculum on Growth in Alcohol Use and Risk for Alcohol Use in Early Adolescence.” Prevention Science 1(3):125–38.

Spoth, Richard L., Cleve Redmond, and Chungyeol Shin. 2001. “Randomized Trial of Brief Family Interventions for General Populations: Adolescent Substance Use Outcomes 4 Years Following Baseline.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 69(4):627–42.

Spoth, Richard L.; M.L. Reyes; Cleve Redmond; and Chungyeol Shin. 1999. “Assessing a Public Health Approach to Delay Onset and Progression of Adolescent Substance Use: Latent Transition and Log-Linear Analyses of Longitudinal Family Preventive Intervention Outcomes.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 67(5):619–30.

Spoth, Richard, Linda Trudeau, Max Guyll, Chungyeol Shin, and Cleve Redmond. 2009. “Universal Intervention Effects on Substance Use Among Young Adults Mediated by Delayed Adolescent Substance Initiation.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 77(4):620–32.

Program Specification:

New Rating:

Effective

Re-reviewed Date:

June 2011

Program Type:

Alcohol and Drug Therapy / Education

Conflict Resolution / Interpersonal Skills

Parent Training

Ethnicity:

White

Gender:

Both

Age:

9 - 14

Target Settings:

Rural

Suburban

Problem Behaviors:

Aggression/Violence

Alcohol,Tobacco and Other Drug Use

Family Functioning

Risk & Protective Factors:

Risk

Family

Family management problems / Poor parental supervision and/or monitoring

Having a young mother

Low parent education level / Literacy

Poor family attachment / Bonding

Individual

Favorable attitudes toward drug use/Early onset of AOD use/Alcohol and/or drug use

Life stressors

Poor refusal skills

Peer

Gang involvement / Gang membership

Peer alcohol, tobacco, and/or other drug use

Protective

Community

Presence and involvement of caring, supportive adults in the community

Family

Effective parenting

Good relationship with parents / Bonding or attachment to family

Having a stable family

High family expectations

Opportunities for prosocial family involvement

Rewards for prosocial family involvement

Individual

Healthy / Conventional beliefs and clear standards

High individual expectations

Perception of social support from adults and peers

Positive / Resilient temperament

Positive expectations / Optimism for the future

Self-efficacy

Social competencies and problem solving skills

Peer

Good relationships with peers

Involvement with positive peer group activities

Additional Information:

SAMHSA: NREPP

Department of Education

NIDA: Preventing Drug Abuse

Status:

Program is in operation at this time.

Performance Measures:

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

Delinquency Prevention
Parent Training
Logic Model: PDF
Performance Matrix:PDF
Mental Health Services
Parent Training
Logic Model: PDF
Performance Matrix:PDF

Contact Information:

Program Developer:
Prevention Science Customer Service Representative
Channing Bete Company
One Community Place
South Deerfield, MA 01373–0200
Phone: 8778968532
Fax: 8004996464
Email: Click Here
Website: Click Here

Training & TA Provider:
Dr. Dorothy Ghylin–Bennett
81 NW Doncee Drive
Bremerton, WA 98311
Phone: 3606929986
Fax: 3606130726
Email: Click Here