Prevention encompasses a comprehensively set of strategies to reduce the individual and environmental risk factors and increase resiliency factors in high risk populations. The concepts of prevention and treatment for young people emerged as the concept of youth mental illness took shape, in the late 19th century (Weisz, Sandler, Duralak, & Anton, 2005).

Historically, prevention was classified on three different levels which included primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention. Primary prevention consisted of activity implementation to decrease the number of incidents; secondary consisted of identification of a problem and early intervention; and tertiary involved the actual rehabilitation of an existing condition to either improve or reduce the significance of a condition.

Increasing amount of research had proven the effectiveness of research and therefore has developed a niche that can be focused. Because prevention encompasses a multidisciplinary science, which includes but is not limited to psychology, social work, nursing, political science, and education, multiple theoretical frameworks have arisen.

One of the most common frameworks involves an intervention spectrum that includes treatment and maintenance and can be divided into three subcategories: universal preventive interventions that target the general public or a whole population group hat has not been identified on the basis of individual risk; selective preventive interventions that focus on individuals or population subgroups who have biological, psychological. Or social risk factors, placing them at higher that average likelihood of developing a mental disorder; and indicated preventive interventions that target high-risk individuals with detectable symptoms or biological markers predivtive of mental disorders but do not meet diagnostic criteria for disorder at the present time (Weissberg et al.2003, Munoz, Mrazek, & Haggerty, 1996).

According to the 1999 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 14.2% of students reported being in a physical fight on schools grounds in the year prior to the survey (Wilson & Lipsey, 2003). For 1995 and 1997, respectively, 15.5% and 14.8% of students reported being in physical fights (Wilson & Lipsey, 2003; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2002).

Prevention can be administered on several different levels including universal and selected. The universal type of prevention focuses on a general population such as all students in a school. The selective type targets specific groups that are considered at-risk due to various factors including, individual, family, school, and community. This study will focus on selected prevention and intervention in the schools.

Risk Factors

The risk domains described above includes individual factors such any health problems associated with the child; favorable attitudes toward drug use; display of anti-social behaviors; greater influence by and reliance of peers; and isolation and loss. The family domain includes those factors such as family management problems including inconsistent or excessively severe discipline; lack of monitoring; marital conflicts and family history of substance use; and involvement with the Criminal Justice System. The school domain would include those factors such as lack or clear school/class policies, classroom management problems; school transitions, limited student involvement; and academic failure. While the community domain focuses on areas such as economic and social deprivation; low neighborhood attachment including community disorganization; and availability of substances.

Among a variety of individual, family, school, and neighborhood factors related to poor child developmental outcomes, early aggressive behaviors and poor peer relationships have been implicated as major precursors of fighting, delinquency, and drug involvement (Dodge & Pitt, 2003; Fraser, Maeda, Galinsky, Smokowaski, Day, Terzian, Rose, & Guo, 2005).

Assessing Prevention Programs

Many studies have been implemented and findings presented on the impact of prevention and early intervention programs in the schools. In particular, a research study presented by Wilson and Lipsey (2003) describes how there is limited research on intervention programs that are routine programs that already exist in the schools but there is plenty of research done about programs that are demonstration based or those implemented or evaluated by a researcher. Significant findings have been found in terms of the impact it has on children on those demonstratin groups. One may suggest that perhaps the factor is that the demonstration group is somehow directed by the researcher and therefore produce positive outcomes. A recent survey of schools programs (D. C. Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 2002; G.D Gottfredson et al., 2000) found that adequate training of service delivery personnel, supervision, and principal support were key to implementing programs successfully (Wilson et al, 2003). Perhaps significant effects reported on the changed behaviors of these participants is due to the extensive training and supervision that these researchers sustain during the course of the study.

Cognitive Behavioral and Social Skills Programs

This study plans to utilize a cognitive-behavioral social skills program which includes an individual mentoring component. . Research sustains that intensity as well as multimodal approaches including one-to-one formats were more effective in intervention programs in the schools. Wilson and Lipsey’s meta-analysis (2003) found a modest, but positive, overall mean effect size, with programs using cognitive-behavioral instructional techniques or behavioral modeling/modification showing the largest effects. Since cognitive- behavioral approaches will be facilitated in this study, the focus will be on teaching children, and their parents, and teachers the importance of learning how to evaluate interpersonal problems and therefore; making decisions to solve them. Also implemented will be the demonstration and practice of these skills in actual real-life situations through role-plays.

According to Shure (1999) research has shown that when children learn to use problem solving thinking, their social adjustment improves, with significant reductions in demanding, aggression, emotional upset and social withdrawal.

Click Here for the Next Section