1. Teen Pregnancy Prevention Evidence Review
  2. Programs
  3. Raising Healthy Children (formerly Known As The Seattle Social Development Project)

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
No
Languages Available
English
Monitoring and Evaluation Tools
Monitoring and evaluation tools available
No
Monitoring and evaluation tool usage required
No
Program Components and Core Components

Last updated in 2024

The data presented on this page reflect 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 information on seven types of program components including content, delivery mechanism, dosage, staffing, format, context, 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.

In the drop-down menu below, under “Has component,” there are four options that indicate a component as present in the program: (1) “Yes” indicates that the component is present in at least one version of the program (whether that be the program version that was evaluated, the current version, or both versions); (2) “Yes (both versions)” indicates that the component is present in both the evaluated version of the program and the current version of the program; (3) “Yes (current version)” indicates that the component is present in the current, but not the evaluated, version of the program; and (4) “Yes (evaluated version)” indicates that the component is present in the evaluated version of the program, only. Note that for dosage components, the dosage itself is described in the Notes when available.

Some of the components identified are noted as core components of the evidence-based program, but this does not necessarily mean that these components have been rigorously tested and show evidence of effectiveness. Most often developers denoted components as core based on theory or experience in the field. Click here for the list of evidence-based components.

For more details about program components, refer to the FAQ page.

Category Component Core Component Component present Lesson number(s) / activities where present
Context Setting: Other No
Context Other No
Intended population characteristics Age or grade in school
Intended population characteristics Sex
Intended population characteristics Ethnicity
Intended population characteristics Sex
Intended population characteristics
Intended population characteristics Race
Intended population characteristics Urbanicity
Intended population characteristics Homeless or runaway youth
Intended population characteristics Youth with developmental disabilities
Intended population characteristics Sexually active youth
Intended population characteristics Pregnant/expectant or parenting
Intended population characteristics Child welfare
Intended population characteristics Juvenile justice
Intended population characteristics Population-specific needs/challenges
Intended population characteristics Population-specific strengths
Intended population characteristics Other
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:

  1. 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
  2. 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;
  3. 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.
  4. 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
No
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 Male and female youth

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

 		Favorable evidence Favorable evidence Indeterminate evidence Potentially favorable evidence Potentially favorable evidence
KEY
Evidence Indication
Favorable findings
Two or more favorable impacts and no unfavorable impacts, regardless of null findings
Potentially favorable findings
At least one favorable impact and no unfavorable impacts, regardless of null findings
Indeterminate findings
Uniformly null findings
Conflicting findings
At least one favorable and at least one unfavorable impact, regardless of null findings
Potentially unfavorable findings
At least one unfavorable impact and no favorable impacts, regardless of null findings
Unfavorable findings
Two or more unfavorable impacts and no favorable impacts, regardless of null 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

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.

Notes

Some study entries may include more than one citation because each citation examines a different follow-up period from the same study sample, or because each citation examines a different set of outcome measures on the same study sample. A blank cell indicates the study did not examine any outcome measures within the particular outcome domain or the findings for the outcome measures within that domain did not meet the review evidence standards.

Information on evidence of effectiveness is available only for studies that received a high or moderate rating. Read the description of the review process for more information on how these programs are identified.

Language directly from the program model developer or authors.