Battistich, V., Schaps, E., Watson, M., Solomon, D., & Lewis, C. (2000). Journal of Primary Prevention, 21 (1), 75–99.
Reviewed: April 2007
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Caring School Community (CSC).
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
State-developed test |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. None |
Posttest |
Grade 3: Southern district;
|
0.22 |
-0.03 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Inductive reasoning |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. None |
Posttest |
Grades 5–6;
|
2.00 |
1.51 |
No |
-- | |
|
SRA Achievement Series |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. None |
Posttest |
Grades 2-6: West Coast district;
|
-1.52 |
-0.70 |
No |
-- | |
|
SAT-9 |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. None |
Posttest |
Grade 1-5: Southeastern district;
|
1.38 |
4.69 |
Yes |
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Had property stolen from desk |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. None |
Posttest |
Grades 5–6;
|
0.49 |
0.67 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Taken a car without permission |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. None |
Posttest |
Grades 5–6;
|
0.03 |
0.09 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Had property damaged on purpose on purpose |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. None |
Posttest |
Grades 5–6;
|
0.44 |
0.56 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Use of marijuana |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. None |
Posttest |
Grade 5-6;
|
0.04 |
0.07 |
No |
-- | |
|
Been physically attacked |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. None |
Posttest |
Grades 5–6;
|
0.28 |
0.34 |
No |
-- | |
|
Altruistic behavior |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. None |
Posttest |
Grade 3-6;
|
0.04 |
-0.03 |
No |
-- | |
|
Damaged property on purpose |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. None |
Posttest |
Grade 5-6;
|
0.23 |
0.27 |
No |
-- | |
|
Been in a gang fight |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. None |
Posttest |
Grades 5–6;
|
0.10 |
0.14 |
No |
-- | |
|
Had money or property taken by force or threat taken by force or threat |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. None |
Posttest |
Grades 5–6;
|
0.17 |
0.22 |
No |
-- | |
|
Use of alcohol |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. None |
Posttest |
Grade 5-6;
|
0.27 |
0.29 |
No |
-- | |
|
Been threatened with harm |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. None |
Posttest |
Grades 5–6;
|
0.45 |
0.47 |
No |
-- | |
|
Run away from home |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. None |
Posttest |
Grade 5-6;
|
0.09 |
0.10 |
No |
-- | |
|
Thrown objects at people |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. None |
Posttest |
Grades 5–6;
|
0.22 |
0.23 |
No |
-- | |
|
Been made fun of or called names |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. None |
Posttest |
Grades 5–6;
|
0.98 |
0.99 |
No |
-- | |
|
Use of cigarettes |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. None |
Posttest |
Grade 5-6;
|
0.13 |
0.12 |
No |
-- | |
|
Skipped school |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. None |
Posttest |
Grade 5-6;
|
0.16 |
0.15 |
No |
-- | |
|
Stolen money or property |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. None |
Posttest |
Grades 5–6;
|
0.26 |
0.25 |
No |
-- | |
|
Carried a knife, gun, or other weapon |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. None |
Posttest |
Grades 5–6;
|
0.24 |
0.23 |
No |
-- | |
|
Threatened to hurt someone |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. None |
Posttest |
Grades 5–6;
|
0.45 |
0.43 |
No |
-- | |
|
Hurt someone on purpose |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. None |
Posttest |
Grades 5–6;
|
0.40 |
0.37 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Sense of community |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. None |
Posttest |
Grades 3–6;
|
0.09 |
-0.20 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outgroups discrepancy score (deviation from friend) |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. None |
Posttest |
Grades 3–5;
|
0.02 |
-0.09 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Conflict resolution skills |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. None |
Posttest |
Grades 3–6;
|
0.30 |
0.07 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Democratic values |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. None |
Posttest |
Grades 3–5;
|
0.13 |
0.03 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Concern for others |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. None |
Posttest |
Grades 4–5;
|
0.02 |
-0.08 |
No |
-- | |
|
Acceptance of outgroups |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. None |
Posttest |
Grades 3–5;
|
0.04 |
0.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Sense of efficacy |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. None |
Posttest |
Grades 3–6;
|
0.19 |
0.13 |
No |
-- | |
|
Enjoyment of helping others learn others learn |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. None |
Posttest |
Grades 4–5;
|
-0.04 |
-0.08 |
No |
-- | |
|
Social competence |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. None |
Posttest |
Grades 4–5;
|
-0.06 |
-0.08 |
No |
-- | |
|
General self-esteem |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. None |
Posttest |
Grades 4–5;
|
0.01 |
-0.02 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study took place in 24 schools located in six urban, suburban, and rural districts and serving diverse student populations. The 10 schools included in this review were from three districts: one district on the West Coast, one in the South, and one in the Southeast. Two schools (one intervention and one comparison) were from a rural school district. Four schools (two intervention and two comparison) were located in an urban school district, and four schools (two intervention and two comparison) were located in a suburban school district.
Participants of the study were students in the upper elementary grades in 12 intervention schools and 12 matched comparison schools in six districts (grades 3–5 in four districts and grades 4–6 in the two other districts). This review includes only five intervention schools with meaningful progress toward program implementation and their matched comparison schools.1 The composition of the student population was similar at the intervention and comparison schools. Two of the schools in the sample reviewed and their matched comparison schools served a predominantly low-socioeconomic status population. In four pairs of schools, most of the school population was white; in one pair of schools, most of the students were African-American. The students began with the study in 1991–92 when they were in the third or fourth grade and were followed until the end of elementary school.
The intervention schools implemented the Child Development Project (CDP) program. (For details about the connection between the CDP and the CSC, see the CSC intervention report). The CDP program consisted of classroom discussions and activities, a schoolwide component, and a family involvement component. Class meetings included activities designed to promote core values. In the classrooms, students learned group interaction skills and relevant values and worked in small groups toward mutual academic and nonacademic goals. Teachers identified and discussed exemplary behavior using examples from the classroom, television, literature, and movies. Developmental discipline, a classroom management approach, was applied to teach prosocial norms and values. In addition, children were encouraged to help others by doing classroom chores, tutoring younger students as part of the “buddies” programs, performing charitable community activities, and helping with activities in the school at large. Classroom observations and interviews with school staff indicated an adequate level of program implementation.
The comparison schools were drawn from the same school districts as the intervention schools and matched with the intervention schools with respect to school size and student characteristics. The comparison schools did not implement the program.
The study investigated students’ drug use and other types of problem behavior, core values (acceptance of people in outgroups, concern for others, altruistic behavior), and academic attitudes and motives (sense of the school as a community, task orientation, frequency of reading self-chosen books outside of school, frequency of reading self chosen books in school, enjoyment of class, preference for challenging tasks). (See Appendices A2.1–A2.3 for more detailed descriptions of the outcome measures.)
Professional development was conducted at both the district and the school levels. At first, the program was introduced to 8–15 member “implementation teams” in each district. In the three subsequent years of the study, schoolwide training was also conducted. Each year, the implementation teams participated in summer workshops delivered by the developer. Implementation team members took increasing responsibility for the within-district workshops and for other support to teachers implementing the program. Teachers were also encouraged to meet regularly in small “partner study and support groups” to discuss and help each other with implementation issues.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube