Jeffrey Jenson presented on promoting healthy child and adolescent development through prevention programs and policies. He discussed the evolution of prevention approaches in the US, from ineffective fear-based programs in the 1960s-70s to evidence-based social learning and cognitive behavioral programs developed in the 1980s. Jenson promoted adopting a public health framework using risk and protective factors to inform prevention strategies. He concluded prevention science shows many programs are effective and one health could help apply prevention worldwide to promote well-being in young people.

1. Promoting Healthy Child
and Adolescent Development:
Prevention and
the One Health Paradigm
Jeffrey M. Jenson, Ph.D.
Philip D. and Eleanor G. Winn
Professor for Children
and Youth at Risk
Graduate School of Social Work
University of Denver
Presentation at the Global Risk Forum, One Health Summit. Davos, Switzerland. November
19, 2013.

2. Promoting Healthy Child
and Adolescent Development
 Evolution
of prevention programs and
policies in the U.S.
 Risk,
protection, and public health models
 Foundations
 The
of prevention science
inclusion of prevention in the One
Health paradigm

3. Child and Adolescent Behavior
as Indicators of Human Health

Child and adolescent development and behavior are
important markers of human health

Well-being among children and youth has become an
increasingly important construct and goal in public
health, social science, and other disciplines

Rates of problem behavior among children and youth over
time reflect a number of societal and environmental trends

What is the “state” of childhood and adolescence?

4. Trends in Child and
Adolescent Behavior

Rates of problem behavior among children and youth
illustrate both positive trends and challenges




School drop-out rates remain high, particularly among Latino/a
and African-American youth
Drug use declined to a record low in the early 1990s and has
since moderated to late 1980s levels
Violent and property crime decreased significantly between 1995
and 2005; persistent reports of aggression and violence at school
have tempered optimism about general reductions in crime
Variations in etiological factors and in behavior by
gender, race, and ethnicity pose social justice and equity
concerns

5. Promoting Healthy
Child and
Adolescent
Development
The Evolution of
Prevention in
the United States

6. School, Family, and Community-Based
Prevention Approaches, 1960-1980

Prevention, treatment, and control strategies have coexisted in American social policy
Prevention
Primary/Universal
Secondary/Selective
Tertiary/Indicated

Information dissemination, fear-arousal, and alternative
programs were common in the 1960s and 1970s

These strategies had little or no effect on behavior or
healthy development

7. School, Family, and Community-Based
Prevention Approaches, 1980-1990

Poor outcomes from early studies led to new prevention
strategies in the 1980s

Social learning and cognitive-behavioral theories were used to
develop interactive and skills-based programs
• Life Skills Training (Botvin, 1984)
• Seattle Social Development Project (Hawkins & Catalano, 1986)

Early randomized controlled trials of these approaches
revealed significant effects in preventing or delaying the
onset of problem behaviors

Widespread adoption of prevention remained limited


Implementation of tested strategies was largely limited to funded
investigators
A unifying conceptual model of prevention was still lacking!

8. School, Family, and Community-Based
Prevention Approaches, 1990-2000

A common prevention framework came with
the adoption of a public health approach in the
1990s


This approach used knowledge of the risk and protective
factors associated with adolescent problem behaviors to
inform the nature of prevention strategies
The public health model is based on a simple
premise:

Problem behaviors are best prevented by reducing the
risk factors associated with onset and by enhancing the
factors that buffer exposure to risk

9. Public Health and Prevention

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/

10. Common Risk Factors for Adolescent Problem Behaviors*

Individual Factors





Interpersonal and Social Factors









Sensation-seeking orientation
Poor impulse control
Attention deficits
Hyperactivity
Family communication and conflict
Poor parent–child bonding
Poor family management practices
Family alcohol and drug use
School failure
Low commitment to school
Rejection by conforming peer groups
Association with antisocial peers
Environmental Factors




Norms favorable to antisocial behavior
Poverty/low economic opportunity
Neighborhood disorganization
Low neighborhood attachment
*Adapted from Jenson, J.M., & Fraser, M.W. (2011). Social policy for children and
families: A risk and resilience perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

11. Common Protective Factors for Adolescent Problem Behaviors*

Individual Factors





Interpersonal and Social Factors







Social and problem-solving skills
Positive attitude
Temperament
Low childhood stress
Attachment to parents
Caring relationships with siblings
Low parental conflict
High levels of commitment to school
Involvement in conventional activities
Belief in pro-social norms and values
Environmental Factors



Opportunities for education, employment, and other positive activities
Caring relationships with adults or extended family members
Social support from community and non-family members
*Adapted from Jenson, J.M., & Fraser, M.W. (2011). Social policy for children and
families: A risk and resilience perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

12. Public Health to Prevention Science

The adoption of a public health framework based on risk
and protective factors contributed to a science of
prevention (Coie et al., 1993; Hawkins, 2006; Jenson, 2010)

Elements of prevention science:




Malleable risk and protective factors identified in empirical
studies should be the targets of prevention
Factors associated with a problem behavior must be changed to
prevent that behavior
Prevention programs should be rigorously tested
Efficacious programs should be replicated and implemented with
fidelity in other settings

13. Public Health to Prevention Science

The evidentiary base for prevention indicates
that many programs are effective

Some programs are both efficacious and cost
effective when compared to alternatives (Aos et
al., 2012)




Nurse Family Partnership Program (Olds et al., 2008)
Seattle Social Development Project (SDRG, 2006; 2008)
The Incredible Years (Webster-Stratton, 2010)
Others (see Jenson & Bender, 2014)

14. The Denver Public Schools Study:
A Group-Randomized Prevention Trial
•
All public elementary schools
in urban Denver, Colorado
•
•
Schools were stratified by
risk criteria and geography
Randomly assigned
28 schools to Youth Matters
or to a no-treatment condition
•
Measures
Bullying and victimization (Olweus
Revised Bullying Questionnaire)
Self-reports of, antisocial conduct,
depressive symptoms, and school
bonding
Analyses
Multilevel linear growth modeling to
examine intervention effects across
5 waves
LCA & LTA to assess patterns of
bullying
27 classrooms in
14 control schools
36 classrooms in
14 experimental schools
Jenson, J.M., & Dieterich, W.A. (2007). Effects of a skills-based prevention program on bullying and bully
victimization among elementary school children. Prevention Science, 8, 285-296.

15. 1.08
0
1
2
semester
3
4
bully victim scale
1.71
1.32
0.0
-0.5
YM  -0.171, t-value = -2.074
-1.0
log(bully victim scale - .7)
0.5
2.36
Control
Intervention
3.43
1.0
Bully Victimization Curves
for YM and Control Schools

16. The Youth Matters Denver
Public Schools Prevention Trial
Jenson, J.M., & Dieterich, W.A. (2007). Effects of a skills-based prevention program on
bullying and bully victimization among elementary school children. Prevention Science, 8,
285-296.
Jenson, J. M., Dieterich, W. A., Brisson, D., Bender, K. A., & Powell, A. (2010). Preventing
childhood bullying: Findings and lessons from the Denver Public Schools Trial. Research
on Social Work Practice, 20, 509-517.
Williford, P.A., Brisson, D., Bender, K.A., Jenson, J.M., & Forrest-Bank, S.S. (2011). Patterns
of aggressive behavior and peer victimization from childhood to early adolescence: A latent
class analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 644-655.
Jenson, J.M., Brisson, D., Bender, K.A., & Williford, A,. (2013). Effects of the Youth Matters
prevention program on patterns of bullying and victimization in elementary and middle
school. Social Work Research.
Williford, A., Boulton, A. Jenson, J.M. (in press). Transitions between subclasses of bullying
and victimization when entering middle school. Aggressive Behavior.

17. Promoting
Child and
Adolescent
Well-Being
Prevention and the
One Health Paradigm

18. Prevention, Youth
Development, and One Health

Children grow up in complex ecological systems
characterized by multiple levels of influence

Preventing problem behaviors requires targeting risk and
protective factors that are present in a young person’s
social ecology

Child and youth development is intrinsically linked to the
social environment and to many common social
determinants of health

Prevention practices and policies should place greater
emphasis on interactions in and across levels of social
ecology

19. Prevention and One Health:
“The Way Forward”

Healthy children and youth represent one of the
most important pillars of society

Therefore… promoting child and adolescent
development and increasing the well-being of
young people should be included in the context
of a broader One Health agenda

20. Prevention and One Health:
“The Way Forward”

Prevention science indicates that well-designed
preventive interventions are effective

One Health could be a key player in the
worldwide application of prevention science

The time is right to develop a global strategy to
advance prevention practice and policy and
promote healthy development and well-being in
young people!

21. Contact Information
For more information about these projects:
Jeffrey M. Jenson, Ph.D.
Principal Investigator
Graduate School of Social Work
University of Denver
2148 So. High Street
Denver, CO 80208
303-871-2526
jjenson@du.edu