Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityLongitudinal Research on Delinquency and Crime (Funding Opportunity)

Raising Healthy Children (formerly known as the Seattle Social Development Project)

Developers

Kevin Haggerty, Ph.D.; J. David Hawkins, Ph.D.; Richard F. Catalano, Ph.D.

Program Summary

The Raising Healthy Children program uses a school-wide, multi-year social development approach to positive youth development. The approach incorporates school, family and individual programs to promote key elements that research has shown are critical for creating strong connections and bonds that children need to succeed in school and life: opportunities, skills, and recognition. The program creates strong connections in students’ lives by committing to comprehensive school wide action to strengthen instructional practices and family involvement.

Intended Population

The program was designed for and tested with elementary school youth. Suggested target populations include middle school and high school youth.

Program Setting

The program was designed to be implemented in various settings including in school classrooms, at home, and in summer camp. It was evaluated in elementary schools.

Contact and Availability Information

Social Development Research Group
UW Box #358734
9725 Third Ave NE, Suite #401
Seattle, WA 98115
Ph: 206-685-1997
Email: sdrg@uw.edu
Website: http://www.sdrg.org/rhcsummary.asp

Sample of Curriculum Available for Review Prior to Purchase

Languages Available

English

Monitoring and Evaluation Tools

Monitoring and evaluation tools available

Monitoring and evaluation tool usage required

Program Core Components

Last updated in 2023

The data presented on this page reflects responses from the program’s developer or distributor to a program component checklist that asked them to report on the individual components within their TPP program. The same program component checklist was sent to the developer or distributor of every active TPP program with evidence of effectiveness. The program component table provides data on seven types of program components including content, delivery mechanism, dosage, staffing, format, environment, and intended population characteristics; whether the component was present or optional in the program; whether the component is considered to be core to the program; and the lesson number or activity where the component can be found in the program. For more details, refer to the FAQ.

Category	Component	Core Component	Component present	Notes	Lesson number(s) / activities where present
Content	Boundary setting/refusal skills	Yes	Yes (both versions)		Refusal skills taught in classrooms as part of the Social Skills Workshops--grades 4-6 and Session three of Guiding Good Choices parenting program
Content	Child development		No
Content	Communication skills	Yes	Yes (both versions)		Raising Healthy Children Parenting program focuses on praise. Teacher workshops focus on the language used in classrooms to promote learning--such as Mindset
Content	Conflict resolution/social problem solving	Yes	Yes (both versions)		Taught as part of the teacher training session on Social Skills and resources are provided for problem solving in the Get Alongs curriculum. Video of Two Boys, One Chair
Content	Connections with trusted adults	Yes	Yes (both versions)		This is part of the Social Development Strategy that is taught to both teachers and parents
Content	Cultural values		No
Content	Gender identity		No
Content	Gender roles		No
Content	Leadership		No
Content	Normative beliefs		No
Content	Parenting skills		No
Content	Social competence	Yes	Yes (both versions)	Social skills in classroom instruction	Social Skills workshop for teachers, refusal skills in Guiding good choices
Content	Social influence/actual vs. perceived social norms		No
Content	Social support/capital	Yes	Yes (both versions)		All training sessions are grounded in the Social Development Strategy, focused on prosocial bonding
Content	Identity development		No
Content	Morals/values	Yes	Yes (both versions)		This is part of the Social Development Strategy and is covered in all teacher trainings sessions and in each of the parenting programs.
Content	Spirituality		No
Content	Volunteering/civic engagement		No
Content	Other
Delivery mechanism	Method: Anonymous question box		No
Delivery mechanism	Method: Artistic expression		Yes (both versions)	Teacher workshops provide opportunities for a variety of creative activities including drawing their version of the Social Development Strategy
Delivery mechanism	Method: Assessment/survey		No
Delivery mechanism	Method: Booster session		No
Delivery mechanism	Method: Case management		No
Delivery mechanism	Method: Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)		No
Delivery mechanism	Method: Demonstration	Yes	Yes (both versions)		This is part of the Social Skills Training Workshop for teachers, Active Engagement workshop, and the parenting workshops in Supporting School Success and Guiding Good Choices--Refusal Skills, session 3.
Delivery mechanism	Method: Discussion/debrief		No
Delivery mechanism	Method: Family session		No
Delivery mechanism	Method: Game		No
Delivery mechanism	Method: Home visiting	No	Yes (evaluated version)		Home visits were provided to families as a way to get information and skills practice to families who could not attend the parenting sessions
Delivery mechanism	Method: Homework assignment		Yes (both versions)		Home practice is part of all the parenting programs
Delivery mechanism	Method: In-session assignment		Yes (both versions)
Delivery mechanism	Method: Introduction		Yes (both versions)
Delivery mechanism	Method: Lecture		Yes (both versions)
Delivery mechanism	Method: Motivational interviewing		No
Delivery mechanism	Method: Music		No
Delivery mechanism	Method: Parent-focused activity	Yes	Yes (both versions)		RHC provides three developmentally specified Parenting Programs
Delivery mechanism	Method: Peer-to-peer		No
Delivery mechanism	Method: Public service announcement		No
Delivery mechanism	Method: Reading		Yes (both versions)
Delivery mechanism	Method: Role play/Practice		Yes (both versions)		Role Play practice is part of the Social Skills Instruction and Guiding Good Choices session 3 on Refusal skills
Delivery mechanism	Method: Self-guided activity		No
Delivery mechanism	Method: Service learning		No
Delivery mechanism	Method: Slide show		Yes (both versions)		All teacher workshops and parenting workshops have power point slides and videos
Delivery mechanism	Method: Social media		No
Delivery mechanism	Method: Spiral learning		Yes (both versions)
Delivery mechanism	Method: Storytelling		Yes (both versions)
Delivery mechanism	Method: Text message		No
Delivery mechanism	Method: Video		No
Delivery mechanism	Method: Other		No

Program Objectives

The program seeks to reduce childhood risk factors for school failure, drug abuse, and delinquency by:

Improving interpersonal problem solving and refusal skills
Increasing academic achievement
Increasing children's bonding with their families and schools
Increasing positive classroom behaviors

Program Content

Raising Healthy Children is a multi-year intervention focused on reducing school failure, drug abuse, and delinquency. The program is comprised of three main components: a school-based component, a family support program, and a peer program component.

The school-based component incorporates the following core elements:

School-wide implementation teams to manage the adoption of expectations and discipline strategies for the classroom, playground, lunchroom, and hallways.
Workshops for teachers on: providing direct instruction and reinforcement of social and emotional skills; encouraging usage of social skills in the classroom; problem-solving with students supported by teacher facilitation, when necessary; assisting students with identifying feelings and emotions; and providing opportunities for students to practice social skills in the classroom

The family support program component consists of three main curricula offered to families:

Raising Healthy Children is five sessions provided to K-2nd grade families. The sessions focus on: 1) observing and pointing out desirable and undesirable child behaviors; 2) teaching expectations for behavior; 3) providing consistent reinforcement for desired behavior; and 4) providing consistent and moderate consequences for misbehavior
Supporting School Success™ is five sessions provided to 3rd to 6th grade families. The sessions focus on: 1) initiating conversations with teachers about children’s learning; 2) helping children develop math and reading skills; and 3) creating a home environment to support learning;
Guiding Good Choices™ is five sessions provided to 4th to 6th grade families. Sessions focus on: 1) establishing a family policy on drugs; 2) practicing refusal skills with children; 3) using self-control skills to reduce family conflict; and 4) creating opportunities for children to contribute to the family.
Family support enhancement provides additional support to families to help them support their child’s academic success.

The peer program component focuses on:

Refusal and interpersonal problem-solving skills
Social and emotional skill development
Listening
Conflict resolution
Recognizing feelings
Consequential thinking

Program Methods

The program is delivered through teacher workshops on classroom management and instructional strategies to use in the classroom.

Program Structure and Timeline

The program is delivered school-wide using 3 five-session curricula over the course of elementary school years, in grades K-6. The curricula are implemented as follows:

Raising Healthy Children is delivered in 5 sessions to families of children in grades K-2.
Supporting School Success is delivered in 5 sessions to teachers and families in grades 3-6.
Guiding Good Choices is delivered in 5 sessions to families of youth in grades 4-6.

There is no specified length or intensity of each intervention session. Teachers from the same school attend workshops together to foster and reinforce shared learning experiences.

Staffing

All curricula for Raising Healthy Children should be implemented school-wide by classroom teachers.

Staff Training

Teachers are required to attend a pre-implementation training offered by the University of Washington Social Development Research Group. After the first year of the program, teachers participate in monthly booster sessions to reinforce RHC teaching strategies.

On average the cost per teacher for the first and second year of training and coaching is about $950. The cost for the third year is $500. These costs include training, travel, and materials.

Program Materials and Resources

The University of Washington Social Development Research Group provides three implementation guides for the three program components.

Additional Needs for Implementation

None specified

Fidelity

None specified

Technical Assistance and Ongoing Support

Following teacher workshops, RHC project staff provide classroom coaching for teachers.

Allowable Adaptations

None specified

Adaptation Guidelines or Kit

Reviewed Studies

Citation	High-Quality Randomized Trial	Moderate-Quality Randomized Trial	Moderate-Quality Quasi-Experiment	Low Study Rating	Did Not Meet Eligibility Criteria
Hawkins et al. 1999 Lonczak et al. 2002 Hawkins et al. 2008			✓

Study Characteristics

Citation	Setting	Majority Age Group	Majority Racial/Ethnic Group	Gender	Sample Size
Hawkins et al. 1999 Lonczak et al. 2002 Hawkins et al. 2008	In school: Elementary school	13 or younger	White	Youth of any gender	376

Study Findings

Evidence by Outcome Domain and Study

Citation	Sexual Activity	Number of Sexual Partners	Contraceptive Use	STIs or HIV	Pregnancy
Hawkins et al. 1999 Lonczak et al. 2002 Hawkins et al. 2008

KEY

Evidence Indication

Favorable findings

Potentially favorable findings

Indeterminate findings

Conflicting findings

Potentially unfavorable findings

Unfavorable findings

Note: n.a. indicates the study did not examine any outcome measures within that particular outcome domain, or the study examined outcome measures within that domain but the findings did not meet the review evidence standards.

Detailed Findings

Citation Details

Citation	Details
Hawkins et al. 1999 Lonczak et al. 2002 Hawkins et al. 2008	The program was evaluated with a quasi-experimental design involving 18 public elementary schools in Seattle, Washington. The study compared 156 students from elementary schools that implemented the programs in grades 1 through 6 with 220 students from elementary schools that did not have the program. Surveys were administered before the program started and at long-term follow ups conducted when the sample members were 18, 21, 24, and 27 years old. When the study participants were 18 years old, the study found that participants in the intervention group were statistically significantly less likely to report ever having had sexual intercourse and reported significantly fewer lifetime sexual partners. The study found no statistically significant program impacts on lifetime pregnancy or births. When the study participants were 21 years old, the study found that participants in the intervention group reported a significantly higher age at first intercourse and significantly fewer lifetime sexual partners. Female participants were significantly less likely to report a lifetime pregnancy or birth. The study found no statistically significant program impacts on frequency of condom use, condom use at first intercourse, STD diagnoses, or causing a pregnancy (for males). When the study participants were 24 years old, the study found that participants in the intervention group were significantly less likely to report having ever been diagnosed with an STD. The study also examined program impacts on measures of substance use, school outcomes, criminal activity, mental health, socioeconomic status, employment outcomes, community involvement, and civic engagement. Findings for these outcomes were not considered for the review because they fell outside the scope of the review.

Hawkins et al. 1999

Lonczak et al. 2002

Hawkins et al. 2008

The program was evaluated with a quasi-experimental design involving 18 public elementary schools in Seattle, Washington. The study compared 156 students from elementary schools that implemented the programs in grades 1 through 6 with 220 students from elementary schools that did not have the program. Surveys were administered before the program started and at long-term follow ups conducted when the sample members were 18, 21, 24, and 27 years old.

When the study participants were 18 years old, the study found that participants in the intervention group were statistically significantly less likely to report ever having had sexual intercourse and reported significantly fewer lifetime sexual partners. The study found no statistically significant program impacts on lifetime pregnancy or births. When the study participants were 21 years old, the study found that participants in the intervention group reported a significantly higher age at first intercourse and significantly fewer lifetime sexual partners. Female participants were significantly less likely to report a lifetime pregnancy or birth. The study found no statistically significant program impacts on frequency of condom use, condom use at first intercourse, STD diagnoses, or causing a pregnancy (for males). When the study participants were 24 years old, the study found that participants in the intervention group were significantly less likely to report having ever been diagnosed with an STD.

The study also examined program impacts on measures of substance use, school outcomes, criminal activity, mental health, socioeconomic status, employment outcomes, community involvement, and civic engagement. Findings for these outcomes were not considered for the review because they fell outside the scope of the review.

Breadcrumb

Raising Healthy Children (formerly known as the Seattle Social Development Project)

Lists*