|
Research
Corner
(The following may assist as you try to
explain the importance of Peer
helping to your local administrator or used in other education needs)
Why Peer
Helping?
The field of peer helping has been maligned and peer helping
interventions disparaged because many programs that have been investigated are peer
helping programs in name only. These interventions do not adhere to the National
Association of Peer Program Professionals Programmatic (NAPPP) Standards and Ethics
(Bader et al., 2018); or the
National Association of Peer Program Professionals Rubric
(Berger, Black, & Routson, 2018). It is, therefore, no surprise that interventions that do
not adhere to program development and operational standards jeopardize any possibility
of being effective (Black, Tobler, & Sciacca, 1998). There should be no
expectation that these
interventions would meet process, outcome, and impact aims,
mission, and goals and objectives of the intervention.
An intervention that truly qualifies as a peer helping program
is designed, implemented, and evaluated according to the NAPPP Programmatic Standards
and Ethics. The NAPPP
Rubric serves
as a checklist to evaluate if a program meets NAPPP Programmatic Standards and Ethics.
There should be no excuses anymore about what
constitutes a peer program; there are now plenty of
examples of programs conducted according to these Standards (see NAPPP website and Tobler,
1986). The efficacy of peer helping interventions is irrefutable when they exemplify
and demonstrate careful conduct according to NAPPP Standards and Ethics and Rubric (Berger, 2016; Black,
Foster, & Tindall, 2012; Tindall & Black, 2009). The 2018 Revised
NAPPP Programmatic
Standards and Ethics incorporates changes in language to fit more current language
preference in the field, while the basic sections of the Programmatic Standards and Ethics are primarily
intact. NAPPP recognizes that the Programmatic
Standards and
Ethics satisfied the
original intentions for their development and have been acknowledged
as the very foundation of Peer Programs by others outside the field. The
Programmatic
Standards and Ethics are the benchmarks for the Certification of Peer
Program Educators, Peer Programs, and Peer Curricula (Black
et al, 2012; Tindall
& Black,
2009). The
Programmatic Standards and Ethics, the NAPPP Rubric, and rigors of science
underscore that process matters most, and it is how we do what we do that counts.
NAPPP-Standards-based
proven peer interventions provide protective factors and increase
resistance skills that lead to avoidance of harmful behaviors. Peer
interventions that maintain
fidelity to the NAPPP Standards, Ethics, and Rubric for program structure and
service delivery are effective in preventing or delaying risk-taking
behaviors and
in encouraging pro-social behaviors as assessed in prevention education
programs by teacher/adult supervisor observations, peer helper reports,
teacher pre-
and post- surveys, student pre- and post-surveys, state survey data in future
years, and
use of different research designs and statistical procedures (Berger, 2016;
Black
et
al., 1998; Black et al., 2012; Tindall & Black, 2009).
NAPPP-Standards-based peer helpers
help youth avoid harmful behaviors and promote positive behaviors to become contributing
members of the community and society. Peer helpers communicate positively and
understand social and emotional skills that they pass on to the youth they
serve (Black
et al, 2012; Tindall & Black, 2009).
Prior and new
research continues to support that positive older role model peers have enormous
effectiveness in engaging students in learning, connecting them to school and
trustworthy adults who value education, increase attendance and achievement,
and decrease violence
(Berger, 2016; Black et al., 1998; Black et al., 2012; Tindall & Black, 2009). The higher
risk, lower achieving, and more disconnected from school students are, the more likely they
are to listen and respond to peers than to adults, as documented first by Nan Tobler (Black
et al.,1998) and now by meta-analyses of hundreds of studies of school-based
prevention programs (Berger, 2016; Tindal & Black, 2009; Tobler, 1986, 1993, 1998;
Tobler & Stratton 1997).
NAPPP-Standards-based peer programs also address many
protective factors promoted by Communities In Schools (CIS 2018), the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Resnick
2004), critical elements for peer
programs determined by the American School Counselors Association (ASCA 2018), 37
of the 40 Developmental Assets determined by the Search Institute (Search
Institute
2006), and the accessibility necessary for effectiveness as determined by Evidence
Based Practices (EBP, 2018).
Teacher and NAPPP Standards-based peer
helper evidence-based prevention sessions show demonstrated improvement in
attitudes or behaviors about substance abuse (including tobacco), conflict
management, communication skills, family violence, suicide, gangs, dating, responsible sexuality,
teen parenthood, harassment, bullying/teasing, appreciating diversity, and school
behavior (Berger, 2016; Black et al., 2012; Tindall
&
Black, 2009). Proven
age appropriate pre- and post-testing procedures provided by SAMSHA and CSAP or others can be used to
evaluate learning, besides peer helper and teacher observation. These outcomes
have been demonstrated when evidence-based curricula are taught with high design
fidelity (EBP, 2018).
In summary:
NAPPP
Standards-based peer helpers role model and teach practical life skills,
healthy interpersonal relationships, and
non-violent social behaviors to people who might not be exposed to positive role models
regularly.
NAPPP-Standards-based peer program prevention
education services add increased emphasis on efficacious problem solving in all aspects of life
as challenges facing peers increase. Research shows that peers talk to peers first, whether
adults like it or not (Search Institute, 2007). NAPPP-Standards-based
peer helpers help others help themselves.
Research
has indicated that positive older role model peers have effectiveness in engaging
students in learning, connecting them to school and trustworthy adults who value
education, increasing attendance and achievement, and decreasing violence.
The higher
risk, lower achieving, and more disconnected from school students are, the
more
likely
they are to listen and respond to peers than to adults, as documented by Nan
Tobler as
far back as 1986 (Berger, 2016; Black et
al., 2012; Tindall & Black, 2009). NAPPP Standards-based
peer programs work to help youth, teens, and adults choose healthy and
safer lifestyles.
David
R. Black, PhD, MPH, NAPPP Treasurer, NAPP President Emeritus
Judy Tindall, PhD, NAPPP President,
NAPP President Emerita
Sue
Routson, MS, CPPE, CTC NAPPP Board Member
References
ASCA. (2018). Position
Statement on Peer Support Programs.
Retrieved
statements/peersupportprograms
Bader, M., Berger, J., Black, D.R.,
Bogner, R., Morton, C., Routson, S., Wallace, L.J.,& Wynn, C. (2018). 2018
revised
NAPPP programmatic standards and ethics. Perspectives
in Peer Programs, 28(1), 10-17. Retrieved from:
Berger, J.R.M. (2016). The
Implementation of School-Based Peer Programs:
Successes, Challenges, and Solutions.
UCLA Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Retrieved from:
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/7kv3g5w2.
Berger, J., Black, D.R., & Routson,
S. (2018). 2018 revised NAPPP
programmatic standards rubric. Perspectives in
Peer
Programs, 28(1), 18-59. Retrieved from: http://www.peerprogramprofessionals.org/perspectivesinpeerprograms
/2018/v28.1.
Black, D.R., Foster, E.S., &
Tindall, J.A. (2012). Evaluation of
Peer and Prevention Programs:
A Blueprint for
Successful Design and Implementation. New York, NY: Routledge: Taylor & Francis. ISBN#
978-0-415-88478-5.
http://tinyurl.com/nfbaxgf.
Black, D.R., Tobler, N., & Sciacca,
J.P. (1998). Peer
helping/involvement: An efficacious way of meeting the
challenge of reducing illicit drug use? Journal
of School
Health,
68, 87-93. Reprinted with
permission in the Peer
Facilitator Quarterly,
15, 99-107.
Bogner, R., Routson, S., & Wynn,
C. (2018). 2018 revised NAPPP programmatic standards checklist. Perspectives in
Peer
Programs, 28(1), 8. Retrieved from:
Communities in Schools. Risk and Protective Factors. (2018). Retrieved from:
https://www.communitiesinschools.org/.../sel_brief_updated52018.pdf
Evidence-Based
Practices Resource Center. (2018). Accessibility necessary for effectiveness.
Retrieved
from:
https://www.samhsa.gov/searchresults?k=accessability+necessary+for+treatment.
Resnick, M. (2004). How various risk and protective
factors can predict antisocial activity: A
summary from 2004
National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 34,
424.
Search Institute. (2006). Developmental
assets. Retrieved from: https://www.search-institute.org/tools
resources/free-downloads/search-institute.org/40-developmental-assets.
Thomas, G. (1990). Role of state networks in ethics and
standards. Peer Facilitator Quarterly, 7, 18.
Tindall, J. A. (2003).
Indiana Department of Education: Indiana peer helping survey summary. Peer
Facilitator
Quarterly, 19, 95-96.
Tindall, J.A., & Black, D.R. (2009). Peer Programs: An In-depth Look at Peer Programs: Planning, Implementation,
and
Administration. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor and Francis. ISBN #13:978-0-415-96236, 228.
Tobler, N. (1986).
Meta-analysis of 143 adolescent drug prevention programs. Journal of Drug Issues, 16, 537-567.
Tobler, N. (1993).
Updated meta-analysis of adolescent drug prevention programs. In C. Montoya,
C. Ringwald, B.
Ryan, & R. Zimmerman (Eds.), Evaluating school-linked prevention strategies: Alcohol, tobacco, and other
drugs (pp.
71-86).
San Diego, CA: UCSD
Extension, University of California.
Tobler, N. (1998).
Principles of effectiveness of school-based drug prevention programs: The
rationale for effective
peer programs. Peer
Facilitator Quarterly, 15, 109-115.
Tobler, N., & Stratton, H. (1997). Effectiveness of
school-based drug prevention programs: A meta-analysis of the
research. Journal of Primary Prevention, 18, 71-128.
|
Comments
Post a Comment