Program Profile: PeaceBuilders

This violence prevention program seeks to reduce negative child behavior for school-aged children. The program is rated No Effects. Overall, there were no differences on teacher and student reported aggression in students. The studies also found mixed statistically significant differences among age groups with students in grades 3-5 displaying less aggressive behavior, but also lower prosocial behavior. The evidence suggests the program did not have the intended effect on students.

A No Effects rating implies that implementing the program is unlikely to result in the intended outcome(s) and may result in a negative outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

Program Goals/Target Population

PeaceBuilders is a universal, elementary school-based violence prevention program for students in kindergarten through fifth grade. The program is designed to alter individual child behavior in interpersonal and social settings through an ongoing, long-term strategy implemented by school staff, teachers, and students to change the climate and culture of the entire school. The main goals of the PeaceBuilders intervention are to reduce aggressive behavior and increase social competence. By implementing school-wide rules and activities through positive reinforcements, the program’s goals are to foster positive communication between students and adults, as well as prosocial behavior among students, to reduce violence and its associated precursors such as aggression (Flannery et al. 2003).

Program Components

PeaceBuilders rewards prosocial behaviors and provides strategies to avoid the differential or accidental reinforcement of negative behaviors that may occur with other types of mediation programs (Webster 1993). To achieve this, students, teachers, and other school staff receive instruction in common principles, opportunities to rehearse positive behavior, and rewards for practicing this behavior. These five principles teach students, teachers, and staff (in a common language) to do the following: 1) praise people, 2) avoid putdowns, 3) seek wise people as advisers and friends, 4) notice and correct hurts that you cause, and 5) right wrongs. The program seeks to enable students to grasp these principles through incorporating them into daily rituals that are meant to foster a sense of belonging; into cues and symbols that can be applied to diverse community settings; into specific prompts to “transfer” across people, behaviors, and time; and into new materials or strategies introduced for times and circumstances when positive behavior might otherwise decline.

In addition, there are nine broad behavior-change techniques designed to promote a prosocial school environment, including 1) common language for community norms; 2) stories and live models for positive behavior; 3) environmental cues to signal desired behavior; 4) role plays to increase the range of responses; 5) rehearsals of positive solutions after negative events, including explanations of the impact that negative behavior had on the environment; 6) group and individual rewards to strengthen positive behavior; 7) threat reduction to reduce reactivity; 8) self- and peer-monitoring for positive behavior; and 9) generalization promotion—a strategy that generalizes behavior change in individuals—to increase maintenance of change across time, places, and people. Ultimately, these techniques and program activities are designed to help promote the PeaceBuilders “way of life” in the school environment and facilitate and reinforce positive behavior among students.

Finally, because social context has a strong impact on the development of violent behavior in youth, PeaceBuilders includes the following four components to influence the neighborhood, community, and media:

1. Parent education. This component is designed to help parents create solutions to reduce aggression in their children. It teaches parents ways to reduce TV watching and sibling fights, as well as strategies to increase homework completion.
2. Marketing to families. This component is designed to make the program’s goals known to families. This is done through advertising in fast-food restaurants, toy manufacturing, and public health campaigns.
3. Collateral training. The program trains community volunteers who are interested in assisting with the PeaceBuilders program.
4. Mass media tie-ins. This component is designed to communicate the PeaceBuilders principles to the community, to spread its positive message. These communications include repetition and recognition of specific tactics used in the program.

Key Personnel

The PeaceBuilders program relies on the participation of teachers, parents, school principals, and support staff to model the program’s principles to students in order to foster their positive behavior at school, at home, and in public places.

Program Theory

The underlying theory behind PeaceBuilders is that youth violence can be reduced by initiating prevention early in childhood, by increasing children’s resilience, and by reinforcing positive behaviors. This point of view further hypothesizes that aggressive behavior can be reduced by altering the school environment to emphasize rewards and praise for prosocial behavior. In theory, if positive behaviors are consistently reinforced and rewarded in schools, social competence among students will improve and violent behavior will decrease (Embry et al. 1996; Flannery et al. 2003a).

Study

The study by Flannery and colleagues (2003b) also evaluated the impacts of the PeaceBuilders program for students in grades 3–5. The examination of the program’s effects on students in grades 3–5 used the same eight schools in Pima County, Arizona, as described in Study 1. However, as the study authors separated students in grades K–2 and 3–5 into two different study sample groups and used different data collection methods for each group, the studies have been treated separately. For students in grades 3–5, the authors used self-report surveys to collect responses, compared with face-to-face interviews conducted with students in grades K–2.

Of the student sample for grades 3–5, there were 954 students in the PeaceBuilders (treatment) program group and 943 in the control group. As in Study 1, 51 percent of the students were Hispanic, 28 percent were white, 13 percent were American Indian, 6 percent were African American, and 1.5 percent were Asian American. There were no statistically significant baseline differences between groups.

The program was implemented for 2 full school years (fall and spring) starting in 1994 (baseline), with a 1-year follow up in spring 1995 (Time 2). Additional follow ups (with the control group receiving the intervention) were conducted in fall 1995 (Time 3) and spring 1996 (Time 4). The CrimeSolutions review of the program focused on outcomes at the Time 2 follow up.

Outcomes of interest for grades 3–5 included teacher-rated child aggression and social competence, and child self-reports of aggression and prosocial behavior. Teachers for grades 3–5 used the same measures as the K–2 teachers (see Study 1). The students’ self-reported aggression was measured using 9 items, invented by the study researchers, that evaluated aggressive behavior through a 3-point scale ranging from “no” (1) to “a lot” (3) for scale items such as “ I hit someone” or “I put down other kids.” Child self-reported prosocial behavior was measured through a 16-item instrument that assessed empathy, caring, helpfulness, and support of others (i.e., “I helped adults at school without being asked” and “I helped other kids”) on a 3-point scale: “no” (1), “a little” (2), and “a lot” (3). A hierarchical linear model was used to measure group differences between baseline and the spring of year 1 (Time 2) follow up. This study authors did not conduct subgroup analyses.

Study

Flannery and colleagues (2003a) conducted a randomized controlled trial in Pima County, Arizona, to study the effects of the PeaceBuilders violence prevention program for grades K–2. Eight schools were selected based on reports of their high numbers of juvenile arrests and histories of suspensions and expulsions. The eight participating schools were from two large school districts in the central city and on the outskirts. Schools were grouped into four matched pairs primarily based on geographic proximity and the percentage of ethnic students; the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch; and the percentage of students in English as a Second Language (ESL) classrooms. The matched pairs were randomly assigned to the PeaceBuilders (treatment) intervention (n = 4) or the control (no treatment) condition (n = 4).

It is important to note that data collection instruments and methods for the child self-report measures varied across grade level; face-to-face interviews were conducted with students in grades K–2, while teachers and students in grades 3–5 filled out bubble scan sheets to provide responses. These methods are considered best practice for the two age ranges. Results from the two forms of the instruments could not be combined, thus the study authors reported the outcomes separately for students in grades K–2 and students in grades 3–5. Thus, this CrimeSolutions review considered the results as two separate studies: Study 1 pertains to the results for students in grades K–2; Study 2 (described below) pertains to the results for students in grades 3–5.

A total of 4,128 students were included in the study sample (grades K–5). For grades K–2, 438 students in the prevention (treatment) group and 405 in the control group were included in the program analysis. Of the total sample, 51 percent were Hispanic, 28 percent were white, 13 percent were American Indian, 6 percent were African American, and 1.5 percent were Asian American. There were no statistically significant baseline differences between groups.

The program was implemented for 2 full school years (fall and spring) starting in fall 1994 (baseline), followed by a posttest in spring 1995 (Time 2). Additional follow-up periods (with the control group receiving the intervention) were in fall 1995 (Time 3) and spring 1996 (Time 4). This CrimeSolutions review focused on outcomes at the Time 2 follow up.

Outcomes of interest for students in grades K–2 included teacher-rated child aggression and social competence, and child self-reported aggression and prosocial behavior. Teacher-rated child aggression was measured using the 25-item Teacher Report Form (TRF), which rated child behavior on a 3-point Likert scale (0 = not true, 1 = somewhat true, 2 = very true). Teacher-rated child social competence was measured using the 19-item Walker-McConnell (W-M) Scale of Social Competence and School Adjustment (elementary school version; grades K–6) which included three scales: 1) School Adjustment (7 items); 2) Peer-Preferred Behaviors (7 items); and 3) Teacher-Preferred Behaviors (5 items), such as cooperation, self-control, and social behavior. Teachers rated the frequency of such behaviors on a Likert scale ranging from never (1) to frequently (5).

Data for children in grades K–2 were collected through individual face-to-face interviews, which were approximately 5 to 8 minutes in duration. Child self-reported aggression was measured by children answering five items through “yes” or “no” responses to questions that examined whether the child got into trouble at school, whether the child ever got into fights, and whether the child ever cut in line. Child self-reported prosocial behavior was measured through six questions based on sharing, helpfulness, saying “thank you,” and saying “I’m sorry,” and answers that included “yes,” “sometimes,” or “no, not really.” A hierarchical linear model was used to measure group differences between baseline and the spring of year 1 (Time 2) follow up. The study authors did not conduct subgroup analyses.

Teachers and staff received training to properly implement the PeaceBuilders curriculum, which comprised several stages (Flannery et al. 2003a). The first stage consisted of a pre-intervention orientation for all school faculty and staff, which comprised a half-day training workshop on the basic PeaceBuilders model. The second stage consisted of extensive onsite coaching (on average, 2 hours per week) in the first 3 to 4 months of the intervention and then on an as-needed basis. All training and coaching was conducted by the model developer (Embry et al. 1996) as a means of facilitating internal validity. Each participating school also received specific in-service sessions on important issues identified by staff (e.g., implementing activities with special needs children), periodic group forums to discuss successes and challenges to implementation, and occasional 1-day institutes that focused on applying and creating new materials and interventions.

Teacher-implemented activities included 1) assembling students into a “PeaceCircle,” in which students were to compliment one another for acts of helpfulness, friendship, and accomplishment; 2) assigning “preferrals” to the principal’s office as rewards for good behavior; and 3) writing mediation essays (known as “PeaceTreaties”) after behaving inappropriately. Additionally, staff and students were encouraged to use “praise notes” to reinforce positive behavior and provide support to others. Students also completed activities from a specially designed comic book in which they were the heroes. In addition, PeaceBuilders rules and principles were prominently displayed throughout the school to serve as constant reminders of prosocial behavior.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Universal School-Based Prevention and Intervention Programs for Aggressive and Disruptive Behavior

Universal school-based prevention and intervention programs for aggressive and disruptive behavior target elementary, middle, and high school students in a universal setting, rather than focusing on only a selective group of students, with the intention of preventing or reducing violent, aggressive, or disruptive behaviors. The practice is rated Effective in reducing violent, aggressive, and/or disruptive behaviors in students.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Juvenile Problem & At-Risk Behaviors

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?