The Impact of a Character Intervention on Student Outcomes: Results From Three

Years of the Positive Action Program in the Chicago Randomized Trial

Brian R. Flay, D.Phil.Professor

Oregon State University Corvallis, OR

Carol Gerber Allred, PhDPositive Action, Inc.

Twin Falls, ID

David L. DuBois, Ph.D., Professor, Public Health,University of Illinois at

Chicago

Peter Ji, Ph.D., Research Associate, PsychologyUniversity of Illinois at

Chicago

Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Prevention Research, San Francisco, May 28 2008

2

Outline

I. The Positive Action program philosophy/theory and components

II. Prior evaluations and results

III. Design of the Chicago study

IV.Results from the Chicago study

V. Conclusions

3

I. Overview of PA Program• Positive Action (PA) is a comprehensive school-based program

designed to – promote student character and positive behavior, – prevent an array of student problem behaviors, and – improve student achievement.

• PA is grounded in a broad theory of self-concept that posits – (a) students’ self-concepts and characters are determined by how

they behave and how they feel about themselves when they do various behaviors and

– (b) making positive and healthy behavioral choices results in feelings of self-worth.

• Major features of the program include: – Teacher delivered scripted PA curriculum lessons in classroom – Teacher and school staff modeling/reinforcement of “PA

behaviors” inside and outside of the classroom– School-wide activities (e.g., PA assemblies) led by principal and

PA Committee

4

Positive Action Overview

1. The core of Positive Action is contained in an underlying philosophy.

2. The philosophy is described in the Thoughts-Actions-Feelings Circle.

3. Positive Action teaches the positive actions for the whole self through six units that are contained in five program components.

4. The five completely prepared components are: 1. K–12 curriculum,2. Climate Development,3. Counselors program,4. Family program, and5. Community program.

5

You feel good about

yourself when you do positive actions.

Cognitive Behavior Therapy and Positive Psychology

Basic Philosophy (Theory of Action)

of the Positive Action Program & Circle

6

You feel bad about yourself when you do

negative actions.

C.F. Depression

...and

Basic Philosophy (Theory of Action)

of the Positive Action Program & Circle

7

The Positive Action Program Targets Multiple Behaviors

• By teaching that:

– When you do good, you feel good

– And there’s always a positive way of doing things

AND

• By teaching that doing positive actions helps:

– Individuals, families, schools and communities develop positive self identities.

8

Limitations of Behavior-Specific Programs

• Problem-specific

–Usually only one behavior or one skill

• Start too late

–Upper elementary or middle school

• Limited intensity and dose

–Often only once a week for 10–20 sessions

• Ecologically limited

–Usually only in the classroom

• Limited effect sizes

–Average effect sizes in the 0.2 to 0.4 range

• Effects not sustained

–Few effects beyond one year, let alone into high school

9

The POSITIVE ACTION Program Components

K–12 classroom curriculumover 1,200 lessons - using Teacher’s Kits (manuals and materials for each grade), classroom teachers present 15–20-minute lessons

Principal’s Kits (Elementary and Secondary)a school-climate program to promote the practice and reinforcement of positive actions in the whole school population (students and staff)

Counselor’s Kitused with selected individual students, small groups and families

Family Kit contains prepared weekly home lessons paralleling the school program along with school parent-involvement activities

Community Kitmanuals and materials that align and encourage collaboration of all the environments (schools, families and community) involved in the program

10

Positive Action Focus Units(Learning Goals)

• In the classroom curriculum and all other materials, the Positive Action content is taught through six focus units.

Unit 1: Self-Concept: What It Is, How It’s Formed, and Why It’s Important (Philosophy & Circle)

Unit 2: Physical and Intellectual Positive Actions for a Healthy Body and Mind (includes motivation to learn)

Unit 3: Social/Emotional Positive Actions for Managing Yourself Responsibly

Unit 4: Social/Emotional Positive Actions for Getting Along with Others by Treating Them the Way You Like to Be Treated (Social-Emotional Skills & Character)

Unit 5: Social/Emotional Positive Actions for Being Honest with Yourself and Others (Mental Health)

Unit 6: Social/Emotional Positive Actions for Improving Yourself Continually (Setting & Achieving Goals)

11

Logic/Theoretic Model of the Expected Effects of the Positive Action Program

Program Components Immediate Outcomes

Attitudes Toward Behaviors,

Social Normative Beliefs,

Self-Efficacy

Improved School Attendance, Gradesand Test Scores

* Improved relationships among school administrators, teachers, parents & community.* Improved classroom management.* Increased involvement of school with parents & community.

Climate Development, Family Kit, Teacher/Staff Training, K–12 Instruction Curriculum, Drug Education Supplements, Community Kit,Counseling Kit

Improved

Learning

Environment

1. Improved character/self-concept2. Learning/Study skills3. Self-Management4. Interpersonal/social skills5. Self-honesty, responsibility6. Goal setting, future orientation

PA Unit

ImprovedSocialand

CharacterDevelopme

nt

Fewer Disciplinary Problems; ReducedSubstance Use; Less Violence

Expected Effects Expected Impact

12

How You

Like To Be

Treated

Feelings Empathy

How to Treat

Others

Conflict Resolution

Communica -tion Skills

Social Context/

Situations

Others’ Behavior

& Approval

Social Bonding/ Attachment

Family School Neighborhood Peers

Others’ Expectations

Desire to Please

Social Normative

Beliefs

INTENTIONS/DECISIONS

BEHAVIORExperiences from

Behavior

Self Concep

t

Health & Drug Info

Thinking Skills Creativity Decision-Making Problem-Solving

Self Managemen

t

Time, Energy, Talents, Money, AngerSocial &

Emotional Health

Socio-Cultural

Environment

Information Environment

General Values

Expected

Consequences

Evaluation of Outcomes

Mass Media Regulations Religion

Economy

Attitudes Toward the

Behavior

IntraPersonal (Individual)

Social Competence

Sense of Self

Social

Skills

Self- Determination

Self-Efficacy

Genetics Biology

Personality

CLASSROOM SCHOOL FAMILY COMMUNITY

Positive Action Program Components and Lessons (Exist in each Component)

Positive Role Models

Mapping of Positive Action Components Onto The Theory of Triadic Influence

13

II. Prior Evaluations of PA

• Early Studies of the PA Program’s Effectson Self-Concept

• Effects of the Positive Action Program on Achievement and Discipline: Two Matched-Control Comparisons in Hawai’i and Nevada Elementary Schools (Flay, Allred & Ordway, 2001)

• Long-term Effects of the Positive Action Program (Flay & Allred, 2003)

• Utah State Annual Report of PA Family Classes Outcomes

• Randomized Trial of PA in Hawaii Elementary School• Randomized Trial in Chicago Public Schools

14

In a prior quasi-experimental study, relative to elementary schools without PA, matched schools with PA reported:

• Major reductions in problem behaviors• Up to 85% reductions in violence• Up to 71% reductions in substance use• Up to 90% fewer general disciplinary actions (with effects sometimes being larger

in schools with higher levels of student poverty)• Up to 80% fewer suspensions• Up to 94% reductions in criminal bookings

• Major improvements in school performance• Up to 60% reductions of absenteeism,• Up to 13% lower rates of chronic absenteeism.• Up to 100% improvements on standardized achievement scores,• Many schools report moving from one of the lowest scoring to one of the highest

scoring in their district or state

• Publication: Flay, Allred & Ordway, Am J. Health Behavior, 2001• The matched-control study was replicated by Flay & Allred (Prevention

Science, 2003) with the addition of pretest matching data.

15

Effects of 3 or 4 years of PA on 5th grade student self-reports of substance use: Hawaii randomized trial 2005 & 2006

All differences significant at p < .05

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

Smoked acigarette (or used

some other form oftobacco)*

Drank alcohol(beer, wine or liquor)*

Gotten drunk onalcohol*

Used an illegaldrug like marijuana

or cocaine*

Gotten high ondrugs *

Per

cen

t

Control PA

16

Effects of 3 or 4 years of PA on student self-reports of violence and sexual behaviors: Hawaii randomized trial 2005

& 2006 -- All differences significant at p < .05

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

Carried aknife or razor to

use to hurtsomeone*

Threatenedto cut or stabsomeone*

Cut orstabbed

someone onpurpose to hurt

them*

Carried agun*

Shot atsomeone*

Voluntarysex with

someone ofthe opposite

sex*

Per

cen

t

Control PA

17

Effects of 3 or 4 years of PA on teacher reports of 5th grade student behaviors: Hawaii randomized trial 2005 & 2006

Differences significant at p < .05** or P < .10*

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

Smokes(or maysmoke)

cigarettes (orother formsof tobacco)

Drinks ormay drinkalcohol

Usesdrugs like

marijuana orcocaine**

Gets intoa lot offights**

Physicallyhurts others*

Threatensothers**

Destroysthings

belonging toothers**

Per

cen

t

Control PA

18

Effects of PA on Student Absenteeism Hawaii Randomized Trial (4 yrs of PA)

(Multiple baseline - 1997-2001)

8.5

9

9.5

10

10.5

11

11.5

12

12.5

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005* 2006* 2007*

Year (* indicates significant differences between conditions)

Ave

rag

e D

ays

Ab

sen

t

CONTROL Means

PA Means

STATE Standard

Positive Action Program

19

Effect of PA on SAT (Stanford 9) Reading ScoresHawaii Randomized Trial 2000-2006 (4 yrs of PA)

(No testing in 2001 due to a teacher strike)

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006* 2007*

Year (* indicate w here conditions signif icantly dif ferent)

% S

co

rin

g A

vera

ge o

r B

ett

er

CONTROL Means

PA Means

STATE

Positive Action Program

20

III. The Chicago Randomized Trial of Positive Action

• UIC/OSU school-based randomized trial• One site of a 7-site study funded by the IES of the US DoED• Schools randomly assigned from 7 matched pairs

– Matched on school-level demographic variables, achievement and disciplinary referrals

• Data collected from students and their teachers and parents, and school leadership (principal and PA Coordinator)– Beginning and end of grades 3 & 4 and end of grade 5

• Program Implementation and Outcomes– Teacher amount and integrity of program delivery– Parent involvement with program and schools– Teacher classroom management– Student character and behavior– Student school attendance and achievement test scores– Also school records data on achievement, attendance and disciplinary

referrals• Last wave of data collection Spring 2007

21

Research Design• 7 matched pairs of schools randomly assigned to 2 conditions:

– Early Starters: Start the program in the 2004-05 school year OR

– Late Starters: Start the program 3 years later (2007-08 school year)

• Schools eligible for inclusion were:– Community-based (No Magnet or Charter schools), Have not already used

Positive Action, Not already participating in related projects (Project Northland, All Stars),

– Enrollment > 50 and < 140 students per grade

– Mobility rate no greater than 40%

– More than 50% of students receive free or reduced price lunch

– Less than 50% of students met achievement criteria on the ISAT

• Schools matched into pairs before randomization:– Achievement scores, School size – enrollment, Ethnic Distribution, %

Mobility, % Free/Reduced Lunch, Attendance and Truancy Rates, % Parent Involvement, % Teachers not meeting minimal requirements, CPS Region, Community crime statistics

22

Research Design 2• Follow one cohort of students from the beginning of grade 3 to

the end of grade 5

• Signed parental consent – 98.3% returned, 79.7% Yes

• Surveys of students, teachers and parents at beginning and end of grades 3 and 4, and end of grade 5.

• Teachers complete behavior rating scales on students in their class at beginning and end of grades 3 and 4, and at the end of grade 5.

• Some of the measures are multi-site – collected by a national contractor (Mathematica Policy Research – MPR) at each of the 7 sites – and not available to PIs until about a year later

• Some of the measures are site-specific – specific to our evaluation of the Positive Action program – collected by UIC research staff

23

Assessment of Program Impact

• Multi-site – data collected with student, parent, and teacher surveys used by all SACD sites

• Local site – data collected with student survey used by Chicago SACD site only

• Data collected only on cohort of students that was in 3rd grade at start of study (Fall ’04)

• Outcomes assessed at 5 time points – Year 1: Fall ’04 (T1), Spring ’05 (T2)– Year 2: Fall ’05 (T3), Spring ’06 (T4)– Year 3: Spring ’07 (T5)

24

Outcome Measures - Multi-site

• Student (S), Parent (P), and Teacher (T) Surveys– Behavioral – BASC Aggression and Conduct Problem (P/T);

Frequency of Delinquent Behavior (S); Social Competence—Prosocial Behavior (T)

– Emotional – Empathy (S); Emotional Regulation (P, T)

– Academic – Engagement vs. Disaffection for Learning (S); Academic Competence (T)

– Not utilized for impact analyses in this presentation pending release of report of findings from the multi-site study

• School Records – student grades, standardized test scores, attendance, discipline—some of these data are not yet available

25

Outcome Measures – Local• Behavioral

– Social Problem Solving (.44) – Aggressive (.50), Competence (.58)– Positive Health Behavior – Hygiene (.48), Food and Exercise (.43)

• Emotional– Affect - Positive (.68), Negative (.74)– Self-Esteem – Peer (.71), School (.68), Family (.75), Appearance (.66), Sports (.72),

Global (.61)– Self-Esteem Formation – Positive (.74), Negative (.75)– Self-Esteem Process – Motivation (.73), Control (.34)– Life Satisfaction (.70)

• Academic– Student report of grades

• Mediators– Character and Social Development Scales (CASD)– Belief in the Moral Order – Positive values (.59), Negative values (.59)– Attachment – School (.74), Teacher (.68), Parents (.54), Friends (.71)– Rewards for Prosocial Behavior – Parents (.72), Teachers (.80) – Conventional Friends - Good friends (.57), Bad friends (.76)– Neighborhood Youth Inventory (.69)

Note: Coefficient alphas in parentheses

26

Implementation Measures

Classroom Teachers

PA School Coordinators

PA Committee Members

Any School Staff

PersonStudents

Principal

Weekly Implementation Reports

Unit Implementation Reports

End-of-Year Survey

PA Committee Roster Form

PA Budget

PA Expenditures Report

PA Committee Meeting Report Form

PA School Activity Form

End-of-Year Implementation Survey

PA Budget and Expenditures Report

End-of-Year Implementation Survey

PA Program Observation Form

PA Mid Year and End-of-Year Student Survey

PA Committee Meeting Attendance Log and Report Form

PA Research Team

Ratings of Implementation Fidelity

Consultation Notes

Teacher Interview

27

Results 1:Program Implementation by Year

Program Benchmarks: 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

Teaching at least 4 lessons per week 61% 68% 66%

Distribute 5 + Word of the Week Cards/week 22% 35% 35%

Distribute 5 + PA Stickers per week 30% 39% 41%Read 5 + notes from ICU Box 42% 48% 49%Play PA Music 2 + days per week 19% 35% 33%Spoke with 2 + Parents about PA per week 25% 45% 43%

Identified Academic Learning Standards in PA 81% 93% 91%

Attended a PA assembly each unit 17% 47% 47%

Teacher believes s/he delivered program quite well or very well 64% 71% 71%

Teacher believes continued use of PA is very or extremely likely to improve student character

61% 63% 68%

Teacher believes continued use of PA is very or extremely likely to improve student academics

49% 53% 58%

Teacher Response Rates 53% 75% 76%

28

Outcome Tx C ES Tx C ES Tx C ES

% of teachers engaging in any SACD activity

91.8 82.6 0.14 91.1 94.8 -0.09 96.4 88.8 0.13

Teacher report of N of hours/week engaging in any SACD activity

76.3 35.5 0.49 84.1 76.6 0.1 80.3 76.4 0.05

Data from IES/MPR Draft report, Appendix C, Table 5-13

Teacher-reported SACD activities in treatment and control schools by year

Spring 3rd grade Spring 4th grade Spring 5th grade

Lots of SACD activity in control schools

29

Results 2: Impact Analyses• SAS PROC Mixed - Standard errors adjusted for clustering of students

within schools– Model included school-level random intercept – Classroom level error term was excluded– Model did not include the pair-wise matching of schools – Covariates –

• Student gender, student age, parent ethnicity, parent education level, # of people in household

• T1 score on the criterion measure• T1 Negative school orientation – Student Report• T1 Normative beliefs about aggression – Student Report• T1 Victimization at school – Student Report• T1 Confusion, Hubbub and Order – Parent Report• T1 ADHD Symptomology – Teacher Report

30

Impact Analyses Results

• At baseline, ES and LS demonstrated equivalence on all school-level variables (next slide) and all but four outcomes (positive values, parent and teacher rewards for prosocial behavior, bad friends: ES < LS).

• Results indicate multiple emerging (.05 < p < .10) and significant (p < .05, two-tailed) program effects

31

Comparability of Matched Sets of SchoolsChicago Study (No significant differences)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pair

Readin

ess

% W

hite

% B

lack

% H

isp

% A

sian

Achiev

e

% A

ttten

d

% T

ruan

cy

% P

over

ty

% M

obilit

yEnr

ol

% P

aree

nt P

atici

p

Quality

Tea

cher

s

Crimes

Pe

rce

nt

ES (Program)

LS (Control)

Figure A: Effects of 3 years of PA (Grade 3 through grade 5)on Local Character Measures: % Change by Outcome

4.8

15.2

9.6

11.5

3.8

7.5

2.9

4.5

6.4

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Peer Affiliation – GoodFriends

Peer Affiliation – BadFriends

Social Problem Solving -Full Scale

Competent Problem SolvingStyle

Character - Peer

Character - Self-Control

Character - Rules

Character - Honesty

BASC Anxiety subscale

% Improvement

33

Latent Growth Curve Analysis and Effect Sizes for Local-site Student Level Outcome Scales: Summary of Noteworthy Findings

Notes:

All significance levels one-tailed; *** p < .05, ** p < .10. Condition was coded as 0 = Control; 1 = PA.

T vs. C denotes estimated difference (unstandardized) in slope between Treatment and Control schools.

% change = (a – b) x 100, where by a = the treatment wave 4 or 5 mean divided by the control wave 4 or 5 mean and b = the treatment wave 1 mean divided by the control wave 1 mean. Cohen ES = a – b, where a = (treatment wave 4 or 5 mean – control wave 4 or 5 mean) / pooled standard deviation and b = (treatment wave 1 mean – control wave 1 mean) / pooled standard deviation.

For all scales, higher scores indicate more of the construct.

Wave 1-4 Wave 1-5 Scale

T vs. C %

change Cohen

ES T vs. C

% change

Cohen ES

Social Problem Solving Scale Full Scale .04 11.3 .21* .04 9.6 .19***

Aggressive Problem Solving -.02 -8.4 -.15* -.01 1.0 -.10***

Competence Problem Solving Style .02 8.8 .14*** .02 11.5 .20***

Peer Group Affiliation–Good Friends .05 5.5 .23** .04 4.8 .21**

Peer Group Affiliation–Bad Friends -.10 -14.1 -.28*** -.07 -15.2 -.31***

CASD–Pro-social Behavior (Peer) .05 4.8 .25*** .04 3.8 .21**

CASD–Honesty .06 4.8 .25*** .05 4.5 .24***

CASD–Self–Control .05 3.8 .17** .06 7.5 .30***

CASD–PA–Rules .05 3.4 .22*** .03 2.9 .18**

34

Figure B: Effects of 3 years of PA on Behavior% Improvement

28.2

21.7

12.5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Smoking

Alcohol use

Serious violence

% Improvement

P.S. Similar reductions in the multi-site measure of Problem Behavior

35

% Ever Used Sustances and % Reduction by Condition:Grade 5 Chicago Randomized Trial

13.2%

36.2%

10.7%

39.9%

9.4%

28.3%

5.1%

32.1%

28.2%

21.7%

52.2%

19.5%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Ever smoked/usdtobacco

Ever drank alcohol Ever gotten drunk Ever usedtobacco, alcohol

or drugs

Pe

rce

nt

C PA % reduction

36

% Ever Engage in Violence or Gang Activties and % Reduction By Condition: Grade 5 Chicago Randomized Trial

12.4%

4.9%

22.2%

26.7%

37.3%

7.5%

3.6%

18.2%

21.3%

32.7%

39.4%

27.7%

18.2%20.5%

12.5%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

Everthreateed tocur ot stabsomeone

Ever cut orstabbed

someone

Ever beenasked to be in

a gang

Ever hung outwith gangmembers

Ever engagedin

violence/gangactivities

Per

cen

t

C PA % reduction

37

Effects on School-Level reports of misconducts and suspensions

In ANCOVA models predicting year 4 differences from year 1 levels and condition, differences at year 4 are marginally significant for misconducts (p = .054)

and significant for suspensions (p = .037) using one-tailed tests.

Average N of suspensions per 100 students by year and condition (77% reduction at 2006-07)

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

Year

PA C

Average N of misconducts per 100 students by year and condition (80% reduction at 2006-07)

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

45.00

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

Year

PA C

CPS Standardized Achievement (% meeting or exceeding expectations on ISAT) by Condition:

ES (PA) group shows 9% improvement [(60-55)/55] for reading, 4% for math, 6.5% for composite. Difference is statistically significant for reading.

50

52

54

56

58

60

62

64

66

School Wide 2007 Reading School Wide 2007 Math School Wide 2007 Composite

ES(PA) LS(Co)

Program Effects on Standardized Test Scores

39

Program Effects on Standardized Test Scores

Standardized Achievement Reading Scores by ConditionES(PA) group shows a 49% improvement compared to 30% for the ES(Co) group, or a 16.6% relative improvement [(%change in PA - %change in Co)/%Post Co]

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

2005 2006 2007

Year

% M

eeti

ng

or

Exceed

ing

Exp

ecta

tio

ns ES(PA) LS(Co)

40

V. Conclusions• Implementing school-wide character education programs to

address a wide range of outcomes is challenging– Limited resources of urban school systems – NCLB

• Evaluation of school-based character/social development programs is complicated by control schools implementing similar programs under “business as usual” conditions

• Multiple program effects were obtained after 3 years of programming

• School-level reports of misconducts and suspensions strengthen the robustness of the findings

• Time trends in outcomes suggest increasing effects over time• School-wide social and character development education can be

effective at:– decreasing multiple negative behaviors and – increasing multiple positive behaviors

41

Future Research

• Investigate potential differential impacts of PA based on student gender, child risk level, etc.

• Investigate whether schools with different levels in the quality of implementation yield different “impacts”

• Validate SACD scales with observed student behavior

• Examine impact of PA as student cohort progresses into upper elementary grades (grades 6-8)– Critical transitional period within emotional,

behavioral, and academic domains

42

Future Work/Needs – The bigger picture

• Larger scale trials– ICCs for attitudes (.03-.1) and behavior (.01-.05) are generally smaller

than for achievement (.15-.2)– Still need Ns of 10-20 per condition rather than 7

• Improved measures of integrity and dosage delivered and received– Teacher, student and observer reports– Contractual reporting systems?

• Longer term follow-ups– Effects take several years to even start emerging– Prior work suggests important long-term effects are possible

• Methods of analysis to accommodate differential implementation– Propensity scoring, CACE, instrumental variable

43

Acknowledgment

The findings reported here are based on research conducted by the authors as part of the Social and Character Development (SACD) research program funded by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), U.S. Department of Education through Grant # R215S020218 to the University of Illinois at Chicago (2003-2005) and Oregon State University (2005-2008). The SACD Consortium consists of representatives from IES, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the national evaluation contractor, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (MPR), and each grantee site participating in the evaluation. The content of this presentation does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the SACD Consortium members including IES, CDC, and MPR, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Correspondence concerning this presentation should be addressed to Brian R. Flay, D.Phil., Principle Investigator, Department of Public Health, 254 Waldo Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97330, brian.flay@oregonstate.edu.

44

SACD disclaimer statement:

The Social and Character Development (SACD) research program funded by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), U.S. Department of Education includes a national evaluation study conducted by Mathematica Policy Research (MPR), and complementary research studies conducted by each grantee. The findings reported here are based on the complementary research activities carried out by Brian Flay, Oregon State University, and David L. DuBois, University of Illinois at Chicago, under the SACD program. These findings may differ from the results reported for the SACD national evaluation study. The findings presented in this conference presentation are based on a smaller sample size of children, classrooms, and teachers, utilized a different set of outcome measures, and sought to answer complementary research questions. The content of this presentation does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the SACD Consortium including IES, CDC, and MPR, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education.

45

Have a Positive Action Day!