•  

Intervention Summary

Back to Results Start New Search

Too Good for Violence

Too Good for Violence (TGFV) is a school-based violence prevention and character education program for students in kindergarten through 12th grade. It is designed to enhance prosocial behaviors and skills and improve protective factors related to conflict and violence. TGFV has a developmentally appropriate curriculum for each grade level through 8th grade, with a separate high school curriculum for students in grades 9 through 12. The K-5 curricula each include seven weekly, 30- to 60-minute lessons, and the curricula for grades 6-8 each include nine weekly, 30- to 45-minute lessons. The high school curriculum includes 14 weekly, 1-hour lessons, plus 12 optional, 1-hour "infusion" lessons designed to incorporate and reinforce skills taught in the core curriculum through academic infusion in various subject areas. Trained teachers, counselors, and prevention specialists deliver the program. The research presented in this review involved only students in the 3rd grade.

Too Good for Violence is a companion program to Too Good for Drugs (TGFD). At the high school level, the programs are combined in one volume under the name Too Good for Drugs & Violence High School. Outcomes for TGFD and the combined high school version have been reviewed by NREPP in another summary.

Descriptive Information

Areas of Interest Mental health promotion
Outcomes Review Date: April 2008
1: Personal and prosocial behaviors
2: Protective factors related to conflict and violence
Outcome Categories Family/relationships
Social functioning
Violence
Ages 6-12 (Childhood)
Genders Male
Female
Races/Ethnicities American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
Black or African American
Hispanic or Latino
White
Race/ethnicity unspecified
Settings School
Other community settings
Geographic Locations Urban
Suburban
Rural and/or frontier
Implementation History The program developer is aware of two implementations that have been evaluated; most schools and districts conduct their own evaluations and are not required to submit data or results to the developer. Since TGFV was first implemented in 1996, it has been used in approximately 2,000 school districts nationwide and has reached an estimated 5 million students.
NIH Funding/CER Studies Partially/fully funded by National Institutes of Health: No
Evaluated in comparative effectiveness research studies: No
Adaptations No population- or culture-specific adaptations of the intervention were identified by the developer.
Adverse Effects No adverse effects, concerns, or unintended consequences were identified by the developer.
IOM Prevention Categories Universal

Quality of Research
Review Date: April 2008

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

Bacon, T. P. (2003). Technical report: The effects of the Too Good for Violence prevention program on student behaviors and protective factors. A project funded by the C. E. Mendez Foundation, Inc., Tampa, FL.

Hall, B. W., & Bacon, T. P. (2005). Building a foundation against violence: Impact of a school-based prevention program on elementary students. Journal of School Violence, 4(4), 63-83.

Supplementary Materials

Bacon, T. P. (2001). Evaluation of the Too Good for Drugs and Violence--High School prevention program. A report produced for a project funded by the Florida Department of Education, Department of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, Tallahassee, FL.

Bacon, T. P. (2001). Impact on high school students' behaviors and protective factors: A pilot study of the Too Good for Drugs and Violence prevention program. Florida Educational Research Council, Inc., Research Bulletin, 32(3 & 4), 1-40.

Bacon, T. P. (2004). Technical report: Pilot study of the Too Good for Drugs and Violence after-school activities program. A project funded by the C. E. Mendez Foundation, Inc., Tampa, FL.

Outcomes

Outcome 1: Personal and prosocial behaviors
Description of Measures Personal and prosocial behaviors were measured using the Teacher Checklist of Student Behaviors. Teachers responded to 21 items using a 5-point scale from "never" to "almost always." Teacher responses to items were grouped into three protective subscales associated with a student's adaptability: personal and social skills, positive social behaviors, and inappropriate social behaviors. Higher scores indicated positive levels of student behaviors.
Key Findings At posttest and the 20-week follow-up, 3rd-grade students participating in TGFV were perceived by teachers as showing more frequent use of personal and social skills and more frequent engagement in prosocial behaviors than 3rd-grade students from the assessment-only control group (all p values < .001). The teachers' perceptions of inappropriate social behaviors did not differ significantly between the two groups.
Studies Measuring Outcome Study 1
Study Designs Experimental
Quality of Research Rating 2.9 (0.0-4.0 scale)
Outcome 2: Protective factors related to conflict and violence
Description of Measures Protective factors related to conflict and violence were measured using the Student Protective Factor Survey Questionnaire. Students responded to 32 items on a Likert scale ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." Responses were grouped into four protective subscales associated with children's resiliency to social challenges: emotional competency skills, prosocial behaviors and resistance skills, communication skills, and perceptions of interactions with others. Higher scores indicated positive levels of attitudes, perceptions, or skills.
Key Findings At posttest and the 20-week follow-up, 3rd-grade students in the TGFV program had significantly higher scores in their perceptions of emotional competency skills, prosocial behaviors and resistance skills, and communication skills than 3rd-grade students in the assessment-only control group (all p values < .001). The two groups did not differ significantly on perceptions of interactions with others.
Studies Measuring Outcome Study 1
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 6-12 (Childhood) 52% Male
48% Female
44% White
36% Hispanic or Latino
12% Black or African American
5% Race/ethnicity unspecified
2% Asian
1% American Indian or Alaska Native

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: Personal and prosocial behaviors 3.0 2.7 2.8 3.3 3.0 2.5 2.9
2: Protective factors related to conflict and violence 3.0 2.5 2.8 3.3 3.0 2.7 2.9

Study Strengths

The instruments used in the study have good reliability. Attrition was monitored and was not significantly different between the intervention and control group. Appropriate statistical methods were used to analyze the data. The study randomized matched schools, which decreased the potential for confounding variables. The intervention effects were supported by consistent results across gender, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups.

Study Weaknesses

Because the Student Protective Factor Survey Questionnaire was pilot-tested with middle and high school students, it is possible that the study participants, who were in 3rd grade, did not fully understand the language in the questionnaire. There is lack of evidence demonstrating that the instrument is sufficiently sensitive to consistently detect desirable effects among this age group after only a 20-week follow-up period. Teachers who rated program implementation were the same as those who completed the Teacher Checklist of Student Behaviors, which may have introduced bias since the teachers were aware of program objectives.

Readiness for Dissemination
Review Date: April 2008

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.

Mendez Foundation. (n.d.). Too Good Programs catalog. Tampa, FL: Author.

Mendez Foundation kits:

  • Too Good for Violence Grade 2 Kit
  • Too Good for Violence Grade 5 Kit
  • Too Good for Violence Grade 8 Kit

Mendez Foundation training materials:

  • Too Good for Drugs & Violence After-School Activities curriculum training packet
  • Too Good for Drugs & Violence High School curriculum training packet
  • Too Good for Violence K-8 curriculum training packet
  • Too Good Programs Regional Trainings [brochure]
  • Too Good Programs Training of Trainers Manual

Program Web site, http://www.mendezfoundation.org

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
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Dissemination Strengths

Implementation materials are comprehensive, well organized, and ready for classroom integration. Each curriculum kit is tailored to grade level and includes age-appropriate multimedia materials to supplement scripted lessons. Multiple levels of training are available on site, at the developer's site, and at regional training events. The developer also offers ongoing support and consultation to implementers. An array of evaluation tools, including fidelity assessment and outcome measurement protocols, is provided to support quality assurance.

Dissemination Weaknesses

No weaknesses were identified by reviewers.

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
K-8 grade-specific kits $100-$130 each Yes
1-day, on-site curriculum training $2,000 for 10-50 participants, plus travel expenses No
1-day, off-site curriculum training $295 per person No
Train-the-trainer session $400 per person No
Implementation design and technical assistance before, during, and following program implementation Free No
Student behavior checklist, student outcome survey, student knowledge test, teacher implementation instrument, and classroom observation checklist Included with kits No

Additional Information

Kit components may be purchased individually.

Replications

Selected citations are presented below. An asterisk indicates that the document was reviewed for Quality of Research.

Bacon, T. P. (2001). Evaluation of the Too Good for Drugs and Violence--High School prevention program. A report produced for a project funded by the Florida Department of Education, Department of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, Tallahassee, FL.

Bacon, T. P. (2001). Impact on high school students' behaviors and protective factors: A pilot study of the Too Good for Drugs and Violence prevention program. Florida Educational Research Council, Inc., Research Bulletin, 32(3 & 4), 1-40.

Bacon, T. P. (2004). Technical report: Pilot study of the Too Good for Drugs and Violence after-school activities program. A project funded by the C. E. Mendez Foundation, Inc., Tampa, FL.

Contact Information

To learn more about implementation or research, contact:
Alison Pierce Oxford, M.P.H.
(800) 750-0986 ext 246
aoxford@mendezfoundation.org

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

Web Site(s):