•  

Intervention Summary

Back to Results Start New Search

Project Towards No Drug Abuse

Project Towards No Drug Abuse (Project TND) is a drug use prevention program for high school youth. The current version of the curriculum is designed to help students develop self-control and communication skills, acquire resources that help them resist drug use, improve decisionmaking strategies, and develop the motivation to not use drugs. It is packaged in 12 40-minute interactive sessions to be taught by teachers or health educators. The TND curriculum was developed for high-risk students in continuation or alternative high schools. It has also been tested among traditional high school students.

Descriptive Information

Areas of Interest Substance abuse prevention
Outcomes Review Date: September 2006
1: Alcohol and tobacco use
2: Marijuana and "hard drug" use
3: Risk of victimization
4: Frequency of weapons-carrying
Outcome Categories Alcohol
Crime/delinquency
Drugs
Tobacco
Violence
Ages 13-17 (Adolescent)
18-25 (Young adult)
Genders Male
Female
Races/Ethnicities American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
Black or African American
Hispanic or Latino
White
Race/ethnicity unspecified
Settings School
Geographic Locations No geographic locations were identified by the developer.
Implementation History Approximately 1,600 individuals or sites in 44 States purchased Project TND materials between 2001 and 2009. The developer has conducted evaluations or experimental trials in 88 of those sites with more than 8,500 youth and estimates that another 20 sites have conducted their own evaluations.
NIH Funding/CER Studies Partially/fully funded by National Institutes of Health: Yes
Evaluated in comparative effectiveness research studies: No
Adaptations Project TND was initially developed for high-risk students attending alternative or continuation high schools. It has been adapted for students attending traditional high schools.
Adverse Effects No adverse effects, concerns, or unintended consequences were identified by the developer.
IOM Prevention Categories Universal
Selective
Indicated

Quality of Research
Review Date: September 2006

Documents Reviewed

The documents below were reviewed for Quality of Research. The research point of contact can provide information regarding the studies reviewed and the availability of additional materials, including those from more recent studies that may have been conducted.

Study 1

Sussman, S., Dent, C. W., Stacy, A. W., & Craig, S. (1998). One-year outcomes of Project Towards No Drug Abuse. Preventive Medicine, 27, 632-642 (erratum, 766).  Pub Med icon

Study 2

Dent, C. W., Sussman, S., & Stacy, A. W. (2001). Project Towards No Drug Abuse: Generalizability to a general high school sample. Preventive Medicine, 32, 514-520.  Pub Med icon

Study 3

Sussman, S., Sun, P., McCuller, W. J., & Dent, C. W. (2003). Project Towards No Drug Abuse: Two-year outcomes of a trial that compares health educator delivery to self-instruction. Preventive Medicine, 37, 155-162.  Pub Med icon

Study 4

Sun, W., Skara, S., Sun, P., Dent, C. W., & Sussman, S. (2006). Project Towards No Drug Abuse: Long-term substance use outcomes evaluation. Preventive Medicine, 42, 188-192.

Study 5

Simon, T. R., Sussman, S., Dahlberg, L. L., & Dent, C. W. (2002). Influence of a substance abuse prevention curriculum on violence-related behavior. American Journal of Health Behavior, 26, 103-110.  Pub Med icon

Supplementary Materials

Bachman, J. G., Johnston, L. D., & O'Malley, P. M. (2001). The Monitoring the Future project after 27 years: Design and procedures. (Monitoring the Future Occasional Paper No. 54). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

Dent, C. W., Sussman, S., Hennesy, M., Galaif, E. R., Stacy, A. W., Moss, M., et al. (1998). Implementation and process evaluation of a school-based drug abuse prevention program: Project Towards No Drug Abuse. Journal of Drug Education, 28, 361-375.  Pub Med icon

Sussman, S., Rorhbach, L., & Mihalic, S. (2004). Blueprints for Violence Prevention. Book Twelve: Project Towards No Drug Abuse. Boulder, CO: Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado.

Outcomes

Outcome 1: Alcohol and tobacco use
Description of Measures Self-reported frequency of alcohol and tobacco use in the past 30 days was measured at pretest, immediately after the Project TND intervention, and yearly for up to 5 years after the intervention. In some analyses, students who were high alcohol users at pretest were compared across conditions, and the data from males and females were analyzed separately when interactions were found.
Key Findings At 1-year follow-up across three studies, students in Project TND schools who used alcohol prior to the intervention exhibited a reduction in alcohol use prevalence of between 7% and 12% (p < .05) relative to similar students in control schools.

At 1-year follow-up of a study using an expanded 12-session TND curriculum, students in Project TND schools exhibited a reduction in cigarette use of 27% (p < .05) relative to students in control schools.

At 2-year follow-up, students in Project TND schools were about half as likely to use tobacco (p = .016) when compared with students in control schools.
Studies Measuring Outcome Study 1, Study 2, Study 3, Study 4
Study Designs Experimental
Quality of Research Rating 3.3 (0.0-4.0 scale)
Outcome 2: Marijuana and "hard drug" use
Description of Measures Self-reported frequency of marijuana and hard drug use in the past 30 days was measured at pretest, immediately after the Project TND intervention, and yearly for up to 5 years after the intervention. In some analyses presented, the measures were coded as "user" or "nonuser," high pretest users were examined separately, and males and females were examined separately.
Key Findings At 1-year follow-up across three studies, students in Project TND curriculum schools exhibited a 25% reduction in rates of hard drug use relative to students in control schools (p < .05).

At 1-year follow-up of a study using an expanded 12-session TND curriculum, students in Project TND schools exhibited a reduction in marijuana use of 22% (p < .05) relative to students in control schools.

At 2-year follow-up, students in Project TND schools were about one fifth as likely to use hard drugs (p = .02) and, among males who were nonusers at pretest, about one tenth as likely to use marijuana (odds ratio = 0.12, p = .03), relative to similar students in control schools.

At 4- to 5-year follow-up, students in Project TND schools were less likely to report using hard drugs than students in control schools (p = .02).
Studies Measuring Outcome Study 1, Study 2, Study 3, Study 4
Study Designs Experimental
Quality of Research Rating 3.4 (0.0-4.0 scale)
Outcome 3: Risk of victimization
Description of Measures This outcome was measured by self-reported frequency of victimization in the past 12 months (e.g., being physically struck, threatened with a weapon, or injured with a weapon). Six response options ranged from "never" to "five or more times."
Key Findings In one study, males in Project TND schools were about two thirds as likely as males in control schools to report victimization at 1-year follow-up (p = .03).
Studies Measuring Outcome Study 5
Study Designs Experimental
Quality of Research Rating 3.0 (0.0-4.0 scale)
Outcome 4: Frequency of weapons-carrying
Description of Measures This outcome was measured by self-reported frequency of weapons-carrying in the past 12 months. Six response options ranged from "never" to "five or more times."
Key Findings In two studies, male students who participated in Project TND exhibited a 19%-21% relative reduction in weapons-carrying at 1-year follow-up.
Studies Measuring Outcome Study 2, Study 3, Study 4, Study 5
Study Designs Experimental
Quality of Research Rating 2.9 (0.0-4.0 scale)

Study Populations

The following populations were identified in the studies reviewed for Quality of Research.

Study Age Gender Race/Ethnicity
Study 1 13-17 (Adolescent)
18-25 (Young adult)
62% Male
38% Female
46% Hispanic or Latino
37% White
8% Black or African American
4% Asian
3% American Indian or Alaska Native
2% Race/ethnicity unspecified
Study 2 13-17 (Adolescent) 53% Female
47% Male
38% Hispanic or Latino
34% White
26% Black or African American
2% Race/ethnicity unspecified
Study 3 13-17 (Adolescent)
18-25 (Young adult)
54% Male
45% Female
45% White
42% Hispanic or Latino
7% Asian
5% Black or African American
1% Race/ethnicity unspecified
Study 4 13-17 (Adolescent)
18-25 (Young adult)
55.4% Male
44.6% Female
49.5% Hispanic or Latino
31.6% White
9% Black or African American
9% Race/ethnicity unspecified
Study 5 13-17 (Adolescent)
18-25 (Young adult)
55% Male
45% Female
49% Hispanic or Latino
34% White
9% Black or African American
4% Asian
3% American Indian or Alaska Native
1% Race/ethnicity unspecified

Quality of Research Ratings by Criteria (0.0-4.0 scale)

External reviewers independently evaluate the Quality of Research for an intervention's reported results using six criteria:

  1. Reliability of measures
  2. Validity of measures
  3. Intervention fidelity
  4. Missing data and attrition
  5. Potential confounding variables
  6. Appropriateness of analysis

For more information about these criteria and the meaning of the ratings, see Quality of Research.

Outcome Reliability
of Measures
Validity
of Measures
Fidelity Missing
Data/Attrition
Confounding
Variables
Data
Analysis
Overall
Rating
1: Alcohol and tobacco use 3.5 3.0 3.3 2.5 3.8 3.8 3.3
2: Marijuana and "hard drug" use 4.0 3.0 3.3 2.5 3.8 3.8 3.4
3: Risk of victimization 2.5 2.0 3.3 2.5 3.5 4.0 3.0
4: Frequency of weapons-carrying 2.0 2.0 3.3 2.5 3.5 4.0 2.9

Study Strengths

Sound implementation of a randomized field experiment supports a high level of internal validity. The authors used state-of-the-art measures and appropriate analytic methods across studies and handled unit-of-analysis issues well (e.g., comparing schools, subsets of samples, and users across conditions). Training and observation were adequate, and students and teachers provided useful ratings on program content and delivery.

Study Weaknesses

The reliability of the 30-day alcohol use measure was limited to short-term test–retest. Authors did not comment on well-known biases associated with different data collection modalities (i.e., person-to-person survey versus telephone survey) in assessing ATOD use. The authors consistently evaluated the similarity of initial samples and follow-up samples but did not describe approaches used to model missing data.

Readiness for Dissemination
Review Date: September 2006

Materials Reviewed

The materials below were reviewed for Readiness for Dissemination. The implementation point of contact can provide information regarding implementation of the intervention and the availability of additional, updated, or new materials.

Project TND game board and instructions

Project TND Web site, http://tnd.usc.edu

Sussman, S., Craig, S., & Moss, M. (2004). Project TND Student Workbook (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: University of Southern California.

Sussman, S., Craig, S., & Moss, M. (2004). Project TND Teacher's Manual (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: University of Southern California.

Sussman, S., Rohrbach, L., & Mihalic, S. (2004). Project Towards No Drug Abuse: Blueprints for Violence Prevention, Book Twelve. Blueprints for Violence Prevention Series (D. S. Elliott, Series Editor). Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado.

University of Southern California Institute for Prevention Research. (n.d.). Drugs and life's dreams [VHS tape]. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.

University of Southern California Institute for Prevention Research. (n.d.). Project TND Pretest and Posttest Student Survey. Retrieved December 2006 from http://tnd.usc.edu/localeval.php

Readiness for Dissemination Ratings by Criteria (0.0-4.0 scale)

External reviewers independently evaluate the intervention's Readiness for Dissemination using three criteria:

  1. Availability of implementation materials
  2. Availability of training and support resources
  3. Availability of quality assurance procedures

For more information about these criteria and the meaning of the ratings, see Readiness for Dissemination.

Implementation
Materials
Training and Support
Resources
Quality Assurance
Procedures
Overall
Rating
3.8 2.3 3.3 3.1

Dissemination Strengths

The teacher's manual provides an overview of the curriculum. Goals and objectives are clear and related to desired outcomes. All sessions are linked to a student workbook, and teachers are given clear timeframes and guidelines for activities. The board game is a good strategy for engaging students in learning and can be used by teachers to assess knowledge gains to determine if the program is achieving the desired effects. Both 1-day and 2-day face-to-face trainings are available through the developer. Pretest–posttest surveys are provided to assess program outcomes, and guidelines for interpreting the results of these surveys are also provided. A classroom observation form is provided to assess intervention fidelity and contribute to quality assurance.

Dissemination Weaknesses

It is unclear how this program would fit with the rest of a typical high school curriculum. There are also no descriptions of desired qualities and/or competencies for those implementing the program. No information is provided to assess the quality of training and support.

Costs

The cost information below was provided by the developer. Although this cost information may have been updated by the developer since the time of review, it may not reflect the current costs or availability of items (including newly developed or discontinued items). The implementation point of contact can provide current information and discuss implementation requirements.

Item Description Cost Required by Developer
Teacher's manual $90 each Yes
Student workbook $60 for five Yes
Drugs and Life's Dreams video $25 each No
Game board $15 each Yes
1-day, on-site training $1,200-$1,400 for up to 25 participants, plus travel expenses No
2-day, on-site training $1,900-$2,100 for up to 25 participants, plus travel expenses No
Student surveys Free No

Additional Information

Additional costs might include prizes for the winning team of students at the end of the program.

Contact Information

To learn more about implementation, contact:
Leah Meza
(800) 400-8461
leahmedi@usc.edu

Steve Sussman, Ph.D.
(323) 442-8220
ssussma@usc.edu

To learn more about research, contact:
Steve Sussman, Ph.D.
(323) 442-8220
ssussma@usc.edu

Consider these Questions to Ask (PDF, 54KB) as you explore the possible use of this intervention.

Web Site(s):