The Harvard Family Research Project separated from the Harvard Graduate School of Education to become the Global Family Research Project as of January 1, 2017. It is no longer affiliated with Harvard University.
HFRP
> Out-of-School Time
> OST Database & Bibliography
> Database
> Boys & Girls Clubs of America—Stay SMART Program and SMART Leaders Program
A Profile of the Evaluation of Boys & Girls Clubs of America—Stay SMART Program and SMART Leaders Program
Profile Information
- Full Text (HTML)
- Request reprint permission
- How to cite
- About the OST Database
Program Description
| Overview | Stay SMART is a component of SMART Moves, the National Prevention Program of Boys & Girls Clubs of America (BGCA). The program is modeled after a school-based intervention designed to build personal and social competence in at-risk youth. The program seeks to teach youth a broad spectrum of social and personal competence skills and to help them identify and resist peer and other social pressures to use alcohol, cigarettes, and marijuana, as well as to engage in early sexual activity. SMART Leaders I and SMART Leaders II are booster programs designed to reinforce the skills and knowledge learned during the initial program, as well as enhance the abilities of program participants to serve as leaders and role models for their peers in the area of drug and sexual activity prevention. |
| Start Date | February 1988 |
| Scope | national |
| Type | after school, summer/vacation, weekend |
| Location | urban, suburban, and rural |
| Setting | community-based organization |
| Participants | middle school and high school students (ages 13–16) |
| Number of Sites/Grantees | Ten program sites (five delivered just the Stay SMART program, five delivered the Stay SMART program + Boosters) |
| Number Served | 250 |
| Components | The Stay SMART program is adapted from Botvin's Life Skills Training (LST) Program,¹ which was originally designed as a school-based intervention. Stay SMART consists of structured small group sessions. LST's twelve sessions are condensed into nine, with the addition of three sessions designed by BGCA to prevent early sexual activity. The sexual activity prevention component is an abstinence-only program and does not provide contraceptive information or services. The 12 sessions are:
SMART Leaders I:
SMART Leaders II:
In Session 3 of the Stay SMART program, Advertising, youth analyze advertisements to help them see how underlying pressures in the media promote sexual activity and drug use. In Session 5, Coping With Change, youth examine physical and emotional changes that occur during puberty. In Session 10, Assertiveness, teens participate in role-play situations in which they practice resisting pressures to have sex or to smoke, drink, or use other drugs. Youth also discuss “lines” commonly used to pressure teens into having sex and practice responses that assertively convey their desire not to engage in sexual activity. Session 11, Relationships, focuses on ways to show caring while postponing sexual involvement, and also focuses on meaningful relationships. Session 4 of SMART Leaders 1, Resisting Media Pressures, focuses on glamorous depictions of sexual activity and drinking/drug use in different forms of media. Participants watch music videos, discuss lyrics, and analyze conveyed messages. In Session 5, Being Assertive in Pressure Situations, teens review assertiveness skills and again practice using those skills in role-plays of situations in which they are pressured to have sex or to smoke, drink, or use other drugs. ¹ Botvin, G. J. (1983). Life Skills Training teacher's manual. New York: Smithfield. |
| Funding Level | $600,000 over five years |
| Funding Sources | Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) |
Evaluation
| Overview | The researchers sought to determine the effectiveness of a school-based prevention program offered in the Boys & Girls Club setting, and whether the addition of a two-year booster program would enhance program effects. |
| Evaluator(s) | Tena L. St. Pierre and D. Lynne Kaltreider, Institute for Policy Research and Evaluation, The Pennsylvania State University Melvin M. Mark and Kathryn J. Aikin, Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University |
| Evaluations Profiled | Drug Prevention in a Community Setting: A Longitudinal Study of the Relative Effectiveness of a Three-Year Primary Prevention Program in Boys & Girls Clubs Across the Nation A 27-Month Evaluation of a Sexual Activity Prevention Program in Boys & Girls Clubs Across the Nation |
| Evaluations Planned | None |
| Report Availability | St. Pierre, T. L., Kaltreider, D. L., Mark, M. M., & Aikin, K. J. (1992). Drug prevention in a community setting: A longitudinal study of the relative effectiveness of a three-year primary prevention program in Boys & Girls Clubs across the nation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 20(6), 673–706. St. Pierre, T. L., Mark, M. M., Kaltreider, D. L., & Aikin, K. J. (1995). A 27-month evaluation of a sexual activity prevention program in Boys & Girls Clubs across the nation. Family Relations, 44, 69–77. Kaltreider, D. L., & St. Pierre, T. L. (1995). Beyond the schools: Strategies for implementing successful drug prevention programs in community youth-serving organizations. Journal of Drug Education, 25(3), 223–237. |
Contacts
| Evaluation | Tena L. St. Pierre Dept. of Agricultural and Extension Education College of Agricultural Sciences The Pennsylvania State University 440 Agricultural Administration Building University Park, PA 16802 Tel: 814-865-0399 Fax: 814-863-4753 Email: tls@psu.edu |
| Program | Sharon Hemphill Director, Health & Life Skills Boys & Girls Clubs of America National Headquarters 1230 W. Peachtree St, NW Atlanta, GA 30309 Tel: 404-487-5826 Email: shemphill@bgca.org |
| Profile Updated | February 21, 2003 |
Evaluation 1: Drug Prevention in a Community Setting: A Longitudinal Study of the Relative Effectiveness of a Three-year Primary Prevention Program in Boys & Girls Clubs Across the Nation
Evaluation Description
| Evaluation Purpose | To examine the following questions: (1) Did participation in Stay SMART and/or Stay SMART with booster sessions affect participants' attitudes towards the social benefits of using alcohol and marijuana? (2) Did participation affect participants' behavior regarding cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and other drugs, or their overall drug use? and (3) Did participation affect participants' knowledge of the health consequences and prevalence of alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use by teens and other adults? |
| Evaluation Design | Quasi-Experimental: Fourteen clubs were chosen to be included in the study. Five of these delivered just the Stay SMART program, five delivered the Stay SMART + Boosters, and four served as a control group. The 10 intervention clubs were selected due to their having pilot-tested BGCA's prevention program called SMART Moves. These 10 Clubs were selected from an application process that assessed, among other things, the clubs' organizational capacities to implement the program. Of these 10 clubs, the five chosen to implement Stay SMART and the booster programs also were selected based on their capacity and willingness to administer the program and track their participants. The four control clubs were selected based on demographic characteristics, socioeconomic factors, and apparent organizational capabilities similar to the treatment clubs. The primary method of analysis was analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Pretests were administered prior to the program, with multiple posttests administered 3, 15, and 27 months afterwards, corresponding to the end of the Stay SMART program, the SMART Leaders I program, and the SMART Leaders II program, respectively. A total of 377 students were included in the pretest, with 80.1% retention at 3 months, 64.5% retention at 15 months, and 52.8% retention at 27 months. Similar percentages of students were retained in all three groups, and only those who participated in all waves of testing are included in the analysis. The total number of students in the analysis was 161, of which 52 received Stay SMART only, 54 received Stay SMART + Boosters, and 55 were in the control group. Thirteen-year-old BGCA members were recruited through invitations for the two treatment groups. Participants for the control group were recruited the same way, but only for testing. There were some statistically significant differences between the group included in the analysis (those remaining in all four measurement waves) and those lost due to attrition. The attrition group was initially more likely to perceive social benefits from using alcohol, perceive more social benefits from using marijuana, and had more marijuana-related behavior. Control group participants had more alcohol-related behavior at the pretest than those in the Stay SMART and Stay SMART + Boosters programs (p<.05). Initial differences between groups were statistically controlled for in the subsequent analysis. |
| Data Collection Methods | Surveys/Questionnaires: Self-report questionnaires were administered at the programs by staff members, with increased confidentiality measures taken given the survey's content. After completing the surveys, youth placed them in envelopes addressed directly to the university for analysis. Items measured attitudes toward alcohol and marijuana, cigarette, alcohol, and drug usage behavior, and drug knowledge. Some items in the questionnaire were adapted from the Cornell University Medical School Health Survey.² ² Botvin, G. J. (n.d.). Cornell University medical school health survey. |
| Data Collection Timeframe | The pretest was conducted in February 1988, the first posttest in May 1988, the second posttest in May of 1989, and the final posttest in May of 1990. |
Findings:
Formative/Process Findings
| Activity Implementation | SMART Leaders participants were encouraged at the end of each year's sessions to become involved in BGCA activities and in specific prevention activities. The SMART Leaders booster programs included experiential activities and videotapes made culturally relevant by prevention program staff leaders. These leaders selected culturally and regionally appropriate music videos, television commercials, role-plays, and records/tapes used in specific sessions. The SMART Leaders II booster program was designed with a video format on the recommendation of program delivery staff in order to maintain youth involvement. |
| Program Context/Infrastructure | Seventy-seven percent of youths indicated that in the areas in which they lived, it would be easy to get marijuana, and 64% said it would be easy to get cocaine or crack. Forty percent thought that many or most of the people in their neighborhood smoked marijuana and almost half said they had personally seen cocaine/crack or other illegal drugs sold. |
| Recruitment/Participation | Forty-five percent of participants were Caucasian, 14% Hispanic, and 42% African American. Three-fourths were male and the average age at baseline was 13.6. Club members' families had higher than the national average percentages of welfare recipients (37%), female-headed households (44%), unemployment (18%), and incomes below the poverty level (36%). Participants in the Stay SMART + Boosters program were significantly younger (p<.05) than participants in either of the other two groups. The Stay SMART + Boosters participants were predominantly Caucasian, as was the control group. The Stay SMART only participants, however, were predominantly black. There were no significant gender differences between groups. |
Summative/Outcome Findings
| Prevention | Stay SMART + Boosters participants perceived fewer social benefits from alcohol over time, while both Stay SMART only and control youth came to perceive more benefits over time. These differences were statistically significant at the p<.05 and p<.01 level at both the 15- and 27-month posttests, respectively, as measured against the control group. These differences were also marginally statistically significant at the p<.11 and p<.12 level, respectively, as measured against the Stay SMART only group. Both Stay SMART and Stay SMART + Boosters youth reported less alcohol-related behavior than control youth at both the 15- and 27-month posttests, differences which were marginally statistically significant (p<.06 and p<.08, respectively). At the 15- and 27-month posttests, Stay SMART + Boosters youth perceived significantly fewer social benefits from using marijuana than did either control group (p<.01 and p<.05, respectively) or Stay SMART only youth (p<.05 and p<.10, respectively). Both the Stay SMART + Boosters and the Stay SMART only youth reported significantly less marijuana-related behavior than the control youth (p<.05 and p<.06, respectively). Marginally fewer Stay SMART + Boosters youth reported recent marijuana use than did control youth (p=.09). Post hoc tests indicated that Stay SMART only and Stay SMART + Boosters participants reported significantly less cigarette-related behavior than the control group (p<.05). Both groups also reported significantly less overall drug-related behavior than the control group (p<.05). No effects were found for chewing tobacco/snuff behavior. Both Stay SMART only and Stay SMART + Boosters groups demonstrated significantly more knowledge concerning drug use than the control group (p<.001 and p<.05, respectively). The Stay SMART only group demonstrated significantly more knowledge concerning drug use than the Stay SMART + Boosters group (p<.05) across the 27 months. |
Evaluation 2: A 27-Month Evaluation of a Sexual Activity Prevention Program in Boys & Girls Clubs Across the Nation
Evaluation Description
| Evaluation Purpose | To answer the following questions: (1) In the Boys & Girls Club setting, would a personal and social competence program designed to simultaneously prevent/reduce sexual activity, cigarette smoking, alcohol use, and marijuana use, affect sexual activity? and (2) Would the addition of a two-year booster program enhance program effects? |
| Evaluation Design | Quasi-Experimental: Results reported here are from the same study and same data as the longitudinal study. Specifically, 14 clubs were chosen to be included in the study. Five of these delivered just the Stay SMART program, five delivered the Stay SMART + Boosters, and four served as a control group. The 10 intervention clubs were selected due to their having pilot-tested BGCA's prevention program called SMART Moves. These 10 clubs with the pilot program were selected from an application process that assessed, among other things, the clubs' organizational capacities to implement the program. Of these 10 clubs, the five chosen to implement the Stay SMART and booster programs also were selected based on their capacity and willingness to administer the program and track their participants. The four control clubs were selected based on demographic characteristics, socioeconomic factors, and apparent organizational capabilities similar to the treatment clubs. The primary method of analysis was analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Pretests were administered prior to the program, with multiple posttests administered 3, 15, and 27 months afterwards, corresponding to the end of the Stay SMART program, the SMART Leaders I program, and the SMART Leaders II program, respectively. A total of 377 students were included in the pretest, with 80.1% retention at 3 months, 64.5% retention at 15 months, and 52.8% retention at 27 months. Similar percentages of students were retained in all three groups, and only those who participated in all waves of testing are included in the analysis. The total number of students in the analysis was 161, of which 52 received Stay SMART only, 54 received Stay SMART + Boosters, and 55 were in the control group. Thirteen-year-old BGCA members were recruited through invitations for the two treatment groups. Participants for the control group were recruited the same way, but only for testing. Nine of the 161 participants included in the analysis above were excluded from this analysis due to no reporting of their virginity status at the time of the pretest. This left 49 youths in the Stay SMART only group, 50 youths in the Stay SMART + Boosters group, and 53 youths in the control group. The retention rate for non-virgins in the Stay SMART + Boosters group was less than that of virgins, while retention rates in the other two groups were roughly equivalent for virgins and non-virgins. More black non-virgins dropped out of the Stay SMART + Boosters program, while more Caucasian non-virgins dropped out of the Stay SMART only program. Virgins of different completion and/or program groups showed no significant differences from each other. |
| Data Collection Methods | Surveys/Questionnaires: Data collection methods used in this evaluation are from the same study and same data as the longitudinal study. Specifically, staff members administered self-report questionnaires at the programs. Given the survey's content, increased confidentiality measures were taken. After completing the surveys, youth placed them in envelopes addressed directly to the university for analysis. The pretest was conducted in February 1988, the first posttest in May 1988, the second posttest in May of 1989, and the final posttest in May of 1990. Measures included in this analysis included a nine-item Sexual Attitude Scale using a five-point Likert-type scale, measuring adolescents' attitudes toward various aspects of sexual behavior. Other outcome measures examined are recency and frequency of sexual intercourse. |
| Data Collection Timeframe | Data were collected in May 1988, May 1989, and May 1990. |
Findings:
Formative/Process Findings
| Activity Implementation | SMART Leaders participants were encouraged at the end of each year's sessions to become involved in BGCA activities and in specific prevention activities. The SMART Leaders booster programs included experiential activities and videotapes made culturally relevant by prevention program staff leaders. These leaders selected culturally and regionally appropriate music videos, television commercials, role-plays, and records/tapes used in specific sessions. The SMART Leaders II booster program was designed with a video format on the recommendation of program delivery staff in order to maintain youth involvement. |
| Recruitment/Participation | Forty-five percent of participants were Caucasian, 14% Hispanic, and 42% African American. Three-fourths were male and the average age at baseline was 13.6. Club members' families had higher than the national average percentages of welfare recipients (37%), female-headed households (44%), unemployment (18%), and incomes below the poverty level (36%). Participants in the Stay SMART + Boosters program were significantly younger (p<.05) than participants in either of the other two groups. The Stay SMART + Boosters participants were predominantly Caucasian, as was the control group. The Stay SMART participants, however, were predominantly black. There were no significant gender differences between groups. Among non-virgins included in the analysis, participants in the Stay SMART + Boosters program were marginally significantly younger than Stay SMART only youth and control youth (p=.10). Non-virgins in both variations of the Stay SMART programs were predominantly black, while the control group non-virgins were more racially diverse. Stay SMART only non-virgins were marginally more likely than Stay SMART + Boosters or control youth to hold favorable attitudes toward sexual activity at the time of the pretest (p<.10). |
Summative/Outcome Findings
| Prevention | Stay SMART only non-virgins perceived significantly fewer social benefits from engaging in sexual activity, and this difference was consistent across all posttests (p<.005). Stay SMART only non-virgins also reported marginally less sexual behavior at the 15-month posttest than did control group non-virgins (p<.10). This same group of non-virgins reported significantly less sexual behavior than either Stay SMART + Boosters or control group non-virgins at the 27-month posttest. For virgins, no effects were found for either Stay SMART only or Stay SMART + Booster participants on either sexual attitudes or behavior. The authors caution against a strong reading of the findings in regards to the apparent beneficial effects of the Stay SMART only program for three reasons: (1) it is not apparent why the Stay SMART only program would be effective while the same program with the addition of two booster sessions would not, (2) the program seems to be effective only for non-virgins, which runs contrary to the prevailing evidence and arguments about such programs, and (3) the behavioral effects did not emerge at the 3-month posttest. |