Prevention Science

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 211–221

Preventing the Link Between SES and High-Risk Behaviors: “Value-Added” Education, Drug Use and Delinquency in High-Risk, Urban Schools

  • Amy L. Tobler
  • Kelli A. Komro
  • Alexis Dabroski
  • Paul Aveyard
  • Wolfgang A. Markham
Article

Abstract

We examined whether schools achieving better than expected educational outcomes for their students influence the risk of drug use and delinquency among urban, racial/ethnic minority youth. Adolescents (n = 2,621), who were primarily African American and Hispanic and enrolled in Chicago public schools (n = 61), completed surveys in 6th (aged 12) and 8th (aged 14) grades. Value-added education was derived from standardized residuals of regression equations predicting school-level academic achievement and attendance from students’ sociodemographic profiles and defined as having higher academic achievement and attendance than that expected given the sociodemographic profile of the schools’ student composition. Multilevel logistic regression estimated the effects of value-added education on students’ drug use and delinquency. After considering initial risk behavior, value-added education was associated with lower incidence of alcohol, cigarette and marijuana use; stealing; and participating in a group-against-group fight. Significant beneficial effects of value-added education remained for cigarette and marijuana use, stealing and participating in a group-against-group fight after adjustment for individual- and school-level covariates. Alcohol use (past month and heavy episodic) showed marginally significant trends in the hypothesized direction after these adjustments. Inner-city schools may break the links between social disadvantage, drug use and delinquency. Identifying the processes related to value-added education in order to improve school environments is warranted given the high costs associated with individual-level interventions.

Keywords

Schools Drug use Delinquency Urban Adolescents 

References

  1. Arkes, J. (2007). Does the economy affect teenage substance use? Health Economics, 16, 19–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aveyard, P., Markham, W. A., Lancashire, E., Bullock, A., Macarthur, C., Cheng, K. K., et al. (2004). The influence of school culture on smoking among pupils. Social Science and Medicine, 58, 1767–1780.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aveyard, P., Markham, W. A., Lancashire, E., Almond, J., Griffiths, R., & Cheng, K. K. (2005). Is inter-school variation in smoking uptake and cessation due to differences in pupil composition? A cohort study. Health & Place, 11, 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnes, G. M., Welte, J. W., & Hoffman, J. H. (2002). Adolescent alcohol abuse: Subgroup differences and relationships to other problem behaviors. Journal of Adolescent Research, 1, 79–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  6. Bishop, J. H. (2004). Enrollment, attendance and engagement --> achievement: Successful strategies for motivating students—Evidence of effectiveness from comparisons of 50 states and 45 nations. CAHRS Working Paper Series, Paper 21. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
  7. Bisset, S., Markham, W. A., & Aveyard, P. (2007). School culture as an influencing factor on youth substance use. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 61, 485–490.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bursick, R. J. (1988). Social disorganization and theories of crime and delinquency: Problems and prospects. Criminology, 26, 519–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010). Youth risk behavior survey: Centers for disease control and prvention, national center for chronic disease prevention and health promotion.Google Scholar
  10. Chicago Public Schools. (2010). School & citywide reports. Retrieved March 19, 2010, 2010, from https://research.cps.k12.il.us/cps/accountweb/Reports/download.html
  11. Daniels, H., Holst, J., Lunt, I., & Ulsoe-Johansen, L. (1996). A comparative study of the relation between different models of pedagogic practice and constructs of deviance. Oxford Review of Education, 22, 63–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duncan, S. C., Duncan, T. E., & Strycker, L. A. (2002). A multilevel analysis of neighborhood context and youth alcohol and drug problems. Prevention Science, 3, 125–133.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ennett, S. T., Flewelling, R. L., Lindrooth, R. C., & Norton, E. C. (1997). School and neighborhood characteristics associated with school rates of alcohol, cigarette, and marijuana use. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 38, 55–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Evans-Whipp, T., Beyers, J. M., Lloyd, S., Lafazia, A. N., Toumbourou, J. W., Arthur, M. W., et al. (2004). A review of school drug policies and their impact on youth substance use. Health Promotion International, 19, 227–234.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Flay, B. R., & Petraitis, J. (1994). The Theory of Triadic Influence: A new theory of health behavior with implications for preventive interventions. Advances in Medical Sociology, 4, 19–44.Google Scholar
  16. Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Miller, J. Y. (1992). Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood—implications for substance-abuse prevention. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 64–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hill, D. (1971). Peer group conformity in adolescent smoking and its relationship to affiliation and autonomy needs. Australian Journal of Psychology, 23, 189–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hill, T. D., & Angel, R. J. (2005). Neighborhood disorder, psychological distress, and heavy drinking. Social Science & Medicine, 61, 965–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. (2009). Monitoring the Future national results on adolescent drug use: Overview of key findings, 2008. Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.Google Scholar
  20. Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74, 262–273.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Komro, K. A., & Toomey, T. L. (2002). Strategies to prevent underage drinking. Alcohol Research & Health, 26, 5–14.Google Scholar
  22. Komro, K. A., Perry, C. L., Veblen-Mortenson, S., Bosma, L. M., Dudovitz, B. S., Williams, C. L., et al. (2004). Brief report: The adaptation of Project Northland for urban youth. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 29, 457–466.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Komro, K. A., Perry, C. L., Veblen-Mortenson, S., Farbakhsh, K., Toomey, T. L., Stigler, M. H., et al. (2008). Outcomes for a randomized controlled trial of a multi-component alcohol use preventive intervention for urban youth: Project Northland Chicago. Addiction, 103, 606–618.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (1999). Social support and achievement for young adolescents in Chicago: The role of school academic press. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 907–945.Google Scholar
  25. Markham, W. A., & Aveyard, P. (2003). A new theory of health promoting schools based on human functioning, school organization and pedagogic practice. Social Science and Medicine, 56, 1209–1220.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Markham, W. A., Aveyard, P., Bisset, S., Lancashire, E., Bridle, C., & Deakin, S. (2008). Value-added education and smoking uptake in schools: A cohort study. Addiction, 103, 155–161.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Muller, K. E., & Fetterman, B. A. (2002). Regression and ANOVA: An integrated approach using SAS® software. Cary, NC: SAS.Google Scholar
  28. Rose, G. (1992). The strategy of preventive medicine. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Sanders, M. G. (1998). Effects of school, family, and community support on the academic achievement of African American adolescents. Urban Education, 33, 385–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147–177.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Szapocznik, J., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1999). An ecodevelopmental framework for organizing risk and protection for drug abuse: A developmental model of risk and protection. In M. Glantz & C. R. Hartel (Eds.), Drug abuse: Origins and interventions (pp. 331–366). Washington, D: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tobler, A. L., Komro, K. A., & Maldonado-Molina, M. M. (2009). Relationship between neighborhood context, family management practices and alcohol use among urban, multi-ethnic, young adolescents. Prevention Science, 10, 313–324.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tobler, N. S., & Stratton, H. H. (1997). Effectiveness of school-based drug prevention programs: A meta-analysis of the research. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 18, 71–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tobler, N. S., Roona, M. R., Ochshorn, P., Marshall, D. G., Streke, A. V., & Stackpole, K. M. (2000). School-based adolescent drug prevention programs: 1998 meta-analysis. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 20, 275–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). United States Census 2000. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce.Google Scholar
  36. U.S. Census Bureau. (2003). Census Bureau releases population estimates by age, sex, race and Hispanic origin., from http://www.census.gov/PressRelease/www/2003/cb03-16.html
  37. U.S. Census Bureau. (2009). American Fact Finder. Retrieved March 19, 2010, 2010, from http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/CTGeoSearchByListServlet?ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&_lang=en&_ts=287056230877
  38. Wilson, D. B., Gottfredson, D., & Najaka, S. S. (2001). School-based prevention of problem behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 17, 247–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Prevention Research 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amy L. Tobler
    • 1
  • Kelli A. Komro
    • 1
  • Alexis Dabroski
    • 1
  • Paul Aveyard
    • 2
  • Wolfgang A. Markham
    • 3
  1. 1.College of Medicine, Department of Health Outcomes and PolicyUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.Primary Care Clinical SciencesUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK
  3. 3.School of Health and Social SciencesUniversity of WarwickCoventryUK

Personalised recommendations