Introduction
The multisite violence prevention project: Background and overview

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2003.09.017Get rights and content

Abstract

Abstract

This paper provides an overview of the Multisite Violence Prevention Project, a 5-year project to compare the effects of a universal intervention (all students and teachers) and a targeted intervention (family program for high-risk children) on reducing aggression and violence among sixth graders. First, the paper describes the role of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in developing the project. Second, it details the background of researchers at the four participating universities (Duke University, The University of Georgia, University of Illinois at Chicago, and Virginia Commonwealth University) and examines the characteristics of the selected schools (n=37). Finally, the paper summarizes the theoretical perspectives guiding the work, the development of interventions based on promising strategies, the decision to intervene at the school level, the research questions guiding the project, the research design, and the measurement process for evaluating the results of the program.

Introduction

T o increase knowledge of what works to prevent youth violence, the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), a component of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), provided funding to initiate a multiyear, multisite evaluation study. Through a competitive peer-review process, four universities were awarded funding to develop and implement the study. The overall goal was to determine the effectiveness of several interventions—both alone and in combination—designed to reduce aggressive and violent behavior among middle school–aged students.

This paper provides an overview of the Multisite Violence Prevention Project. The first section describes CDC's role in violence prevention and in the development of this project. The second section describes the researchers at the four participating universities and the characteristics of the selected schools. The final section provides an overview of the theoretical background of the project, the rationale for focusing on sixth graders, the theoretical and practical importance of comparing universal and targeted approaches, the research questions, expected effect at the school level, the study design, the interventions, and the measurement methods. Each of these topics is discussed in detail in other papers in this supplement.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Section snippets

CDC's role

CDC's NCIPC provides leadership, coordination, and expertise to facilitate the development, evaluation, and implementation of interventions to prevent injuries—including those produced by violence—or to reduce their incidence, severity, and adverse outcomes. NCIPC uses a science-based approach to understand and prevent violence. This approach involves four steps: (1) describing the problem, (2) identifying risk and protective factors, (3) developing and evaluating interventions and policies,

Participating researchers and schools

The four participating universities—Duke University, The University of Georgia, University of Illinois at Chicago, and Virginia Commonwealth University—were selected on the basis of demonstrating the following criteria: (1) capacity to carry out a large-scale project, as evidenced by previous experience working with violence reduction programs involving family, student, and teacher interventions; (2) ability to cultivate and sustain positive, productive partnerships with schools and community

Overview of the project

Investigators from NCIPC and the selected universities established working groups and met regularly during a planning year (1999–2000) to establish a collaborative model for working across universities, to develop research questions and an appropriate research design, to determine an overall study timeline, and to develop the interventions to be implemented. Several themes emerged during these discussions and guided the development of the research questions, including achieving agreement about

Summary

The Multisite Violence Prevention Project will evaluate the individual and combined effects of two interventions to reduce aggression in middle schools. Study findings will provide important and much-needed knowledge about what works to prevent youth violence.

This paper provides an overview of the history and main components of the project. The remaining papers in this supplement provide greater detail about the two components of the universal intervention, the GREAT Teacher Program5 and the

Acknowledgements

Multisite Violence Prevention Project (corporate authors) includes: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta GA: Robin M. Ikeda, MD, MPH; Thomas R. Simon, PhD; Emilie Phillips Smith, PhD; Le’Roy E. Reese, PhD (all Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control); Duke University, Durham NC: David L. Rabiner, PhD; Shari Miller-Johnson, PhD; Donna-Marie Winn, PhD; Steven R. Asher, PhD; Kenneth A. Dodge, PhD (all Center for Child and Family Policy

References (54)

  • S.H. Kelder et al.

    The Students for Peace Projecta comprehensive violence-prevention program for middle school students

    Am J Prev Med

    (1996)
  • Henry DB, Farrell AD, Multisite Violence Prevention Project. The study designed by a committee: design of the Multisite...
  • Meyer AL, Allison KW, Reese LE, Gay FN, Multisite Violence Prevention Project. Choosing to be violence free in middle...
  • Miller-Johnson S, Sullivan TN, Simon TR, Multisite Violence Prevention Project. Evaluating the impact of interventions...
  • Multisite Violence Prevention Project. Lessons learned in the Multisite Violence Prevention Project collaboration: big...
  • Orpinas P, Horne AM, Multisite Violence Prevention Project. A teacher-focused approach to prevent and reduce students'...
  • Smith EP, Gorman-Smith D, Quinn WH, Rabiner DL, Tolan PH, Winn D-M. Multisite Violence Prevention Project....
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Youth violence: a report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD:...
  • L.J. Crockett et al.

    Adolescent development: health risks and opportunities for health promotion

  • Orpinas P, Horne AM. Bullies and victims: a challenge for schools. In: Lutzker J, ed. Violence prevention. Washington...
  • Gorman-Smith D, Tolan PH, Henry DB, Quintana E, Lutovsky K. SAFE Children: a preventive intervention for urban...
  • A.D. Farrell et al.

    Evaluation of Responding in Peaceful and Positive Ways (RIPP)a school-based prevention program for reducing violence among urban adolescents

    J Clin Child Psychol

    (2001)
  • D.A. Newman et al.

    Bully Busters: a teacher's manual for helping bullies, victims, and bystanders

    (2000)
  • W.H. Quinn et al.

    Early intervention with juvenile offendersthe Family Solutions Program

    Prev Res

    (1997)
  • D. Gorman-Smith et al.

    Relation of family problems to patterns of delinquent involvement among urban youth

    J Abnorm Child Psychol

    (1998)
  • T.V. Sayger et al.

    Marital satisfaction and social-learning family-therapy for child conduct problems—generalization of treatment effects

    J Marital Fam Ther

    (1993)
  • Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. A developmental and clinical model for the prevention of conduct disorders:...
  • S. Oden et al.

    Coaching children in social skills for friendship making

    Child Dev

    (1977)
  • Miller-Johnson S, Costanzo P. If you can't beat ′em…induce them to join you: peer-based interventions during...
  • K.A. Dodge et al.

    Social information-processing bases of aggressive-behavior in children

    Pers Soc Psychol Bull

    (1990)
  • P.D. Renshaw et al.

    Children's goals and strategies for social interaction

    Merrill-Palmer Q

    (1983)
  • D.L. Rabiner et al.

    Children's beliefs about familiar and unfamiliar peers in relation to their sociometric status

    Dev Psychol

    (1993)
  • S. Miller-Johnson et al.

    Peer rejection and aggression and early starter models of conduct disorder

    J Abnorm Child Psychol

    (2002)
  • Initial impact of the Fast Track prevention trial for conduct problemsI. The high-risk sample

    J Consult Clin Psychol

    (1999)
  • A. Horne et al.

    Treatment of conduct disordered and oppositional defiant disorders of children

    (1990)
  • T.V. Sayger et al.

    Social learning family therapy with aggressive childrentreatment outcome and maintenance

    J Fam Psych

    (1988)
  • Newman D, Horne AM. The effectiveness of a psychoeducational intervention for classroom teachers aimed at reducing...
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text