Tribes Learning Communities Prevention Program
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: A Randomized Experimental Evaluation of the Tribes Learning Communities Prevention Program Author: Thomas Hanson, Jo Ann Izu, Anthony Petrosino, Bo Delong-Cotty, Hong Zheng Document No.: 237958 Date Received: March 2012 Award Number: 2006-JP-FX-0059 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally- funded grant final report available electronically in addition to traditional paper copies. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. A Randomized Experimental Evaluation of the Tribes Learning Communities Prevention Program Final report October 2011 Authors: Thomas Hanson Jo Ann Izu Anthony Petrosino Bo Delong-Cotty Hong Zheng This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. A RANDOMIZED EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION OF THE TRIBES LEARNING COMMUNITIES (TLC) PREVENTION PROGRAM Thomas Hanson, Jo Ann Izu, Anthony Petrosino, Bo Delong-Cotty, and Hong Zheng WestEd Acknowledgements A grant from the U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice (2006- JP-FX-0059) supported this study and report. The authors thank Project Officers from the National Institute of Justice, Patrick Clark and Laurie Bright, for their guidance throughout the study. Program developers from CenterSource Systems, LLC, including Carol Rankin, Jeanne Gibbs and David Gibbs, and Tribes trainers Nancy Lindhjem and Mary Palin were especially helpful during the project. We also thank a number of persons at WestEd who assisted at times with this project, including Nicole Busto, Chris Camp, Michal Clingman, MaryCruz Diaz, Sam Goldstein, Jessica Goodell, Sarah Guckenburg, Brian Lugo, Isabel Ochoa, Elisa Ordona, Leslie Poynor, Brandi Steinhoff and Donna Winston. We also appreciated the comments of Ann Brackett and Jim Derzon at various stages of the project. The University of California Berkeley graduate students who assisted in data collection include: Leslie Butler, Timothy Charoenying, Mila DeWitt, David Hill, Alea Holman, Denise Lew, and Lisa Wadors with a special thanks to Helen Maniates and Lynna Tsou for their additional assistance in coding interview data. Thanks are also due to the district staff who assisted in school recruitment and/or collection of archival data: Mary McCarthy and Denise DeMartini of Antioch Unified, Tara Aderman, Bat Ly, and Jackie Kiyabu of Livermore Valley Charter, Greg Irish of Novato Unified, Trish Bascom, Ilsa Bertolini, David Celoria, James De Lara, Stephen Kelley, Janice Link, Linda Lovelace, Kitty Ou, Ingrid Roberson, and Meyla Ruwin of San Francisco Unified, and Michael Cheap of Vallejo City Unified. The following persons facilitated our work at the 13 participating schools: Jeff Borgos and Sarah Lipson; Pamela Lum and Tamitrice Rice Mitchell; Donna Rodriguez and Deborah Faigenbaum; Jean Robertson and Sue Ellen Perez-Shea; Gene Barresi and Ali Guida; Brenda Diaz and Debra Lee Harrington; Deborah Hill and Alene Wheaton; Ruby Brown and Janet Welsh; Tracie Connors; MuMu DeLong, Linda Greene and Eileen Smith; Kelly Eyler and Bonnie Mackie; Valkyrie Choy and Kelly Wright; MaBella Gonzales, Alexa Hauser, and Susan Peters. Finally, we express our gratitude to the many teachers, parents, and students at the participating schools for consenting to the study, filling out required forms, and for assisting us in other ways. 1 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Table of Contents Table of Contents ...................................................................................2 Abstract ..........................................................................................7 Executive Summary ...............................................................................8 Research Questions .............................................................................. 9 Methodology ....................................................................................... 9 Implementation Results ....................................................................... 10 Impact Results ................................................................................... 12 Implications of the research ................................................................. 13 Chapter I: Introduction and Study Overview ...................................... 16 Need for Study ................................................................................... 17 Research Questions and Hypotheses ...................................................... 18 Organization of the Report ................................................................... 19 Chapter II. Review of Relevant Literature .......................................... 20 Chapter III. Study Design and Methodology ....................................... 25 Research Design ................................................................................. 25 Two Phases, Two Studies, and Two Cohorts ......................................... 25 Sample Recruitment ............................................................................ 30 Recruitment of Districts and Schools ................................................... 30 Recruitment of Teachers ................................................................... 32 Recruitment of Students ................................................................... 32 Random Assignment ........................................................................ 34 Study Incentives ................................................................................. 34 Human Subjects Review....................................................................... 35 Sample Selection and Retention ............................................................ 36 Teacher Participation ........................................................................ 36 Student Participation ........................................................................ 36 Data Collection ................................................................................... 42 Outcome data collection and measures ............................................... 44 Implementation Data Collection ......................................................... 50 Baseline Data Collection and Measures ................................................ 50 Sample Characteristics ........................................................................ 51 Schools .......................................................................................... 51 Teachers ........................................................................................ 53 Students ........................................................................................ 54 Data Analysis Methods ......................................................................... 59 Impact Analyses .............................................................................. 59 2 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Variations in Effectiveness ................................................................. 62 Sample Size/Statistical Power ............................................................... 62 Chapter IV: Implementation of Tribes Learning Communities ............ 64 Intervention Description ...................................................................... 64 Training ............................................................................................. 65 Training for the Intervention ................................................................. 65 Follow-Up Support .............................................................................. 67 Evidence of Exposure and Implementation at Baseline .............................. 67 Year 1 Implementation and the Treatment Contrast ................................. 73 Summary of Implementation Findings .................................................... 78 Chapter V: Results .............................................................................. 81 Impact on Classroom Environments ....................................................... 81 Impact on Student Outcomes ............................................................... 86 Immediate impacts of one academic year of Tribes exposure – BERS-2 and ABCL ......................................................................................