Search Publications | The Evaluation Exchange | FINE Network | OST Database

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.

A Profile of the Evaluation of Say Yes First

Program Description

Overview	Say Yes First—to Rural Youth and Family Alcohol/Drug Prevention (SYF), a rural, multi-component, school-based, drug-prevention project in northern Colorado, provided primary and secondary prevention services for youth as they progressed from fourth through eighth grade. This five-year demonstration project focused on protective and resiliency factors such as academic success and personal involvement in positive drug-free experiences in youth's families, schools, and communities. The project staff designed educational and recreational activities as alternatives to alcohol, tobacco, and other drug (ATOD) use for youth.
Start Date	1991 (completed 1996)
Scope	local

Type	after school, summer/vacation, before school, weekend, comprehensive services
Location	rural
Setting	public school
Participants	elementary through middle school students (fourth through eighth grade)
Number of Sites/Grantees	four school districts
Number Served	859 (1991–1996)
Components	SYF's approach included school team training, substance abuse prevention programs, and case management of high-risk youth and families. To create positive social influences, low-risk students were also included in the intervention. School Team Training Project staff conducted two-day school district team trainings each fall to acquaint school personnel with the program. Each school district team consisted of a school administrator, teachers from the designated grade, parent representatives, other interested school staff, the program manager, and the case manager. Substance Abuse Prevention Program School staff and a program manager in each district delivered a substance abuse prevention and education program that included: comprehensive health education for all students, academic improvement and enhancement programs for at-risk students, parent-education programs and involvement strategies, alternative activities for youth and families, SYF councils, and youth-leadership trainings. Health Education Programs The comprehensive health education program was designed to help youth develop healthy lifestyles and resiliency factors such as self-acceptance and problem-solving skills. It entailed specialized healthy lifestyle curricula, including the nationally validated Growing Healthy¹ and Teenage Health Teaching Modules² curricula for all students in all grades. Academic Programs Students who needed academic assistance were recruited into school programs in which small groups of students participated in structured academic activities such as before, during, and after school academic tutoring and mentoring programs with an emphasis on math, science, and/or language-art skills. Summer academic-enrichment programs in grades four through six were held daily for two to four weeks. Students also participated in a two-day creative, summer academic enhancement program designed to help in writing, science, math, communication, and envisioning a positive future for themselves (including the possibility of attending a local college or university). Parent Education Programs and Involvement Strategies Parent education programs, such as the Nurturing Parenting Program,³ Preparing for the Drug-Free Years,⁴ Cara y Corazon (Face and Heart),⁵ and Padres Con Poder (Parents With Power),⁶ focused on: substance abuse education, parenting skills, family communication, career development, and use of community resources. Each program manager was assisted by a Parent Advisory Committee (PAC), made up of parents and teachers. PAC meetings were held quarterly and usually included an educational program for parents, as well as recreational or educational activities for their children so entire families could attend. Alternative Youth and Family Activities Alternative, drug-free school and recreational activities for high-risk youth and their families included weekly, noncompetitive summer softball practices (grades four through six), monthly noncompetitive family sports tournaments, and BBQs. Local school district sports camps (e.g., Tae Kwon Do, basketball, swimming, cheerleading, roller skating) in grades five and six emphasized having fun, developing interpersonal skills, acquiring sport/activity skills, and building team cooperation. Other activities included evening entertainment programs, a community health walk, artwork, skits, plays, and musicals. Family-oriented summer activities included monthly field trips to the zoo, museums, a national park, evening concerts at the local university and professional baseball games on the weekend or in the evening. Some trips were organized as student rewards for previous program participation or improvement in grades. School bus transportation was provided for families to attend recreational activities. In grades five and six, SYF students organized service projects to contribute back to their local communities. SYF Councils SYF councils were implemented in grades six and seven and consisted of 8 to 25 high- and low-risk class representatives per school district each year. The councils provided a forum for students to help plan and deliver SYF programs, recruit students and parents into SYF activities, and disseminate information about SYF to their classes. Youth-Leadership Trainings Youth Leadership Training Conferences were organized for students at a local university. These one-day conferences included get-acquainted games and inspirational leadership talks by local professionals. High school student leaders also discussed with small groups of students the importance of staying drug free, doing well in school, and being involved in school programs, as well as how to prepare for the transition to high school and for future careers. About 60 students participated in each conference. Case Management A case manager in each district handled a caseload of 12 to 17 high-risk youth and their families who were referred by school staff; they were recruited by personal invitation with case manager home visits. The case manager conducted initial interviews, made home visits to assess youth and family needs, recommended a prescriptive plan, which included referral to school and community services (such as counseling, social services, and substance abuse treatment), and provided follow-up to help families progress. To ensure quality control, documented plans and progress reports were reviewed. Grant administrative staff and an ATOD consultant held monthly case management meetings to educate case managers about community resources for families and for referrals. ¹ National Center for Health Education. (1991). Growing healthy: A comprehensive health school health education curriculum [Grade 4–6 curricula]. New York: Author. ² Education Development Center. (1983–1992). Teenage health teaching modules [Teacher Curriculum Guides]. Newton, MA: Author. ³ Bavolek, S., & Bavolek, J. (1989). The nurturing program. Park City, UT: Family Development Resources. ⁴ Developmental Research and Programs, & Roberts, Fitzmahan & Associates. (1988). Preparing for the drug (free) years: A family activity book (2nd ed.). Seattle, WA: Comprehensive Health Education Foundation. ⁵ Tello, J., Barrera, R. M., Cardenas, F., Somyak, B. L., & Lester, M. E. R. (1994). Cara y corazon: A family-strengthening, rebalancing and community mobilizing process. Austin, TX: Corporate Fund for Children. Canek Media Productions. (1994). Padres con poder: Parent empowerment program [Video program] ⁶ Canek Media Productions. (1994). Padres con poder: Parent empowerment program [Video program]. Houston, TX: Author.
Funding Level	$2.2 million (total funding 1991–1996)
Funding Sources	The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP)

Evaluation

Overview	A longitudinal evaluation of the duration of the SYF program examined academic and prevention outcomes for a cohort of student participants in the SYF program as they progressed from fourth through eighth grade. A three-year follow-up of program participants was conducted in 1999 when students were in eleventh grade. In addition, evaluators conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the project.
Evaluators	Victor Battistich, External Evaluator and Deputy Director and Associate Professor, Educational Psychology, Research and Evaluation, University of Missouri-St. Louis Rachel Barton, Evaluation Associate, and Richard J. Delaney, Evaluation Assistant, University of Northern Colorado Administrators Kathleen J. Zavela, Director, and Ruben Flores, Assistant Director, University of Northern Colorado Consultant B. J. Dean, Project Consultant and Director, Island Grove Treatment Center, Greeley, Colorado
Evaluations Profiled	Say Yes First: A Longitudinal, School-Based Alcohol and Drug Prevention Project for Rural Youth and Families Say Yes First: Findings from the High School Follow-Up Assessments
Evaluations Planned	none (project completed)
Report Availability	Zavela, K. J., Battistich, V., Dean, B. J., Flores, R., Barton, R., & Delaney, R. J. (1997). Say Yes First: A longitudinal, school-based alcohol and drug prevention project for rural youth and families. Journal of Early Adolescence, 17(1), 67–96. Zavela, K. J., Shaw, A. R., & Dean, B. J. (1998). Cost-benefit analysis of the Say Yes First-to Rural Youth and Family Alcohol/Drug Prevention Program. San Juan, PR: XVI World Conference on Health Promotion and Health Education. Zavela, K. J., & Battistich, V. (2001). Say Yes First: Findings from the high school follow-up assessments. Greeley, CO: Author.

Contacts

Evaluation	Kathleen J. Zavela, M.P.H., Ph.D., C.H.E.S. Professor of Community Health College of Health & Human Sciences University of Northern Colorado Department of Community Health and Nutrition Gunter Hall 2360 Greeley, CO 80639 Tel: 970-351-1516 Fax: 970-351-1489 Email: kathy.zavela@unco.edu
Program	Kathleen J. Zavela, M.P.H., Ph.D., C.H.E.S. Professor of Community Health College of Health & Human Sciences University of Northern Colorado Department of Community Health and Nutrition Gunter Hall 2360 Greeley, CO 80639 Tel: 970-351-1516 Fax: 970-351-1489 Email: kathy.zavela@unco.edu
Profile Updated	August 12, 2003

Evaluation 2: Say Yes First: Findings From the High School Follow-up Assessments

Evaluation Description

Evaluation Purpose	To determine the long-term impact of SYF on participants.
Evaluation Design	Quasi-Experimental: A follow-up study of students who participated in SYF in grades four through eight and comparison students was conducted when students were in the eleventh grade; 120 former program students and 49 comparison students from four high schools and an additional 87 comparison students from a fifth high school (136 comparison students total) were assessed. The fifth school was comparable to the SYF schools in terms of its rural location and demographic characteristics. Years of participation in SYF among program students ranged from one to five, with almost half (48%) reporting participation for all five years. The overall sample was 63% female, 79% white, and 77% from two-parent families. Students were an average of just under 17 years old (mean = 16.83 years) and almost all (97%) were in the eleventh grade. Program and comparison samples did not differ by gender, age, ethnicity, or family composition, nor in the proportion who indicated that their school courses included learning how to: feel good about themselves, get along with others, or make better decisions. However, a significantly higher proportion of comparison (63%) than program students (39%) indicated that their school courses included learning about ATOD (p < .001). Conversely, program students indicated that they had participated in more prevention programs (other than SYF) in their lifetimes than comparison students (p < .01), and that they had been involved in more extracurricular activities than comparison students during the past year (p < .001). Finally, more comparison students had a part- or full-time job (72%) than program students (52%) at the time of follow-up (p < .002), although among those who were employed, comparison and program students did not differ in how long they had been working. Data were analyzed controlling for gender, ethnicity, and age.
Data Collection Methods	Surveys/Questionnaires: The CSAP National Youth Survey (Follow-up Questionnaire)⁸ was used to obtain information about ATOD use and associated risk and resiliency factors for the participant and comparison groups. ⁸ EMT Associates. (2000). National cross-site evaluation of high risk youth programs, final technical report. Folsom, CA: Author.
Data Collection Timeframe	Data were collected in the spring of 2000.

Findings:
Summative/Outcome Findings

Academic

Program students reported significantly higher grades in school than comparison students (means = 3.18, 2.70, respectively; p<.001, effect size = .54).

SYF students reported missing significantly fewer days of school in the two months preceding follow-up than comparison students (means = 1.26, 1.75 respectively; p < .02, effect size = -.30).

SYF youth scored significantly higher than comparison youth on a measure of positive attitude toward school (means = 3.41, 3.22, respectively; p < .03, effect size = .28).

Family

Program students had significantly fewer disagreements or arguments with their parents than comparison students (means = 3.04, 3.25, respectively; p < .08, effect size = -.22).

Program students scored significantly higher than comparison students on measures of communication and involvement with family members and other adults (e.g., talking with parents, enjoying doing things with their family, helping at home; means = 3.60, 3.41, respectively; p < .05, effect size = .26).

There were no significant differences between program and comparison students in parental monitoring.

Prevention

Although program students generally scored lower than comparison students on measures of ATOD use, the only significant difference was for lifetime prevalence of marijuana use-fewer program (35%) than comparison students (46%) reported that they had ever used marijuana (p < .09, effect size = -.22).

There were no significant differences between program and comparison students in measures of perceptions about drugs use (i.e., negative attitudes toward drugs, perceived adult or peer disapproval of drug use, ability to resist peer pressure to use drugs, or drug use by best friend).

Program students were significantly less often in trouble at school than comparison students (means = 1.42, 1.59 respectively; p = .10, effect size = -.20). There were no significant differences in other measures of delinquency (i.e., frequency of fighting or damaging others' property, tendency toward aggressing/acting out, and number of times arrested/threatened with arrest in the past two months).

Youth Development

Program students reported that they participated in sports significantly more frequently than comparison students (means = 3.87, 3.30 respectively; p < .01, effect size = .39). There were no significant differences in other measures of frequency of activity participation (i.e., taking lessons/attending classes out of school, participation in clubs or youth groups, doing chores at home, or attending a summer program).

Program students scored significantly lower than comparison students on a measure of pessimism and negative self-appraisal (means = 1.83, 1.94, respectively; p < .10, effect size = -.20). However, there were no significant differences in the number of students who had been depressed for two or more weeks in the last two months. There were also no differences in students' belief in the value of perseverance, beliefs in conventional social values, and perceived social competence.

A Profile of the Evaluation of Say Yes First

Profile Information