Last updated: 2003 www.ojjdp.gov/mpg

 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 1

Classroom Curricula 

Curricula are classroom-based instruction programs designed to teach students factual information; 

increase their awareness of social influences to engage in misbehavior; expand their repertoires for 

recognizing and appropriately responding to risky or potentially harmful situations (e.g., drug use, 

gang involvement, violence); increase their appreciation for diversity in society; improve their moral 

character; improve conflict resolution skills; and encourage accountability. 

A curriculum is a way to organize and systematize the delivery of program components. A 

curriculum eases dissemination and encourages fidelity to a program’s goals and objectives. Across 

the phases of the youth services continuum, from prevention to rehabilitation, curricula have proven 

to be an effective means for delivering concepts to encourage optimum developmental outcomes for 

youth. While many curricula focus on preventing violence, conduct problems, juvenile delinquency, 

adult criminality, and substance abuse, core goals of these programs tend to be the promotion of 

cognitive-, social-, and emotional competence. 

Schools have traditionally been the arena for prevention programs in general and for prevention 

curricula in particular. Schools provide an environment other than the home or the community for the 

generalization and stabilization of behaviors and cognitions. The school can offer an excellent social 

context for supporting the learning and practice of more adaptive and prosocial forms of interaction 

(Fergusson and Lynskey 1998; Gottfredson 1998; Tremblay, Masse, Perron, and LeBlanc 1992). 

Types of Curricula 

Universal curricula that target elementary school children include interventions to reduce children’s 

off-task or aggressive classroom behavior and to increase their basic academic skills and socially 

competent behaviors. Academic and social skills predict better short- and long-term outcomes (Coie 

and Krehbiel 1984; Ferrer-Wreder et al. 2003; Finn, Pannozzo, and Voelkl 1995). If teachers devote less 

time to correcting behavioral problems in the classroom, they have more time to devote to their 

traditional mission of promoting academic achievement. Therefore, prevention-oriented initiatives 

designed to reduce children’s disruptive or off-task classroom behavior have multiple benefits that 

generalize to the entire learning environment (Ferrer-Wreder et al. 2003; Nelson 1996). An example of 

curricula developed to target classroom behaviors is Linking the Interests of Families and Teachers 

(LIFT).

Other curricula have been developed or expanded to target the whole school environment. Many of 

these were developed with the goal of promoting a peaceful environment where young people, 

teachers, administrators and staff all work toward creating an optimum learning environment. Key 

components of effective school-wide prevention curricula involve having clearly defined goals and 

objectives understood by all and delivered by well-trained teachers in a developmentally and 

Suggested Reference: Development Services Group, Inc. 2003. “Classroom Curricula.” Literature review. Washington, D.C.: 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Classroom_Curricula.pdf

Prepared by Development Services Group, Inc., under cooperative agreement number 2013–JF–FX–K002. Points of view or 

opinions expressed in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of 

OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice.
 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 2

culturally sensitive manner (Quinn et al. 1998). Positive Action is an example of an exemplary K–12 

curriculum that has shown effectiveness improving achievement scores, attendance, and self-concept 

and for reducing drug use, violence, and other problem behaviors. 

Schools have also traditionally been the site of alcohol and drug education as well as sex education. 

Problem behaviors such as alcohol use or risky sexual behaviors often begin during the school-age 

years (Stovell 1999). Taking these factors into account, many believe that implementing prevention 

programs in the school setting increases the chance of forestalling the onset, ameliorating the severity, 

or diverting the long-term consequences of problem behaviors. 

Drug prevention efforts have relied largely on classroom curricula, usually designed for elementary 

and middle school children (Dusenbury and Falco 1997). The nation’s schools spend $125 million on 

drug abuse prevention curricula each year however many of these may not be effective in preventing 

substance abuse (Dusenbury and Falco 1997). Drug and alcohol abuse prevention curricula have 

traditionally been based on pure information dissemination. Previous evaluations show that this 

didactic approach may be effective at transmitting information regarding drug and alcohol abuse 

however it is not effective at changing the underlying attitudes and behaviors (Sherman 2000; 

Gottfredson 1998; Botvin, Botvin and Ruchlin 1998; Sherman et al. 1998). 

Outcome Evidence 

A review of the literature in the drug abuse prevention field suggests certain types of school-based 

curricula can effectively reduce substance abuse in adolescence (Botvin and Botvin 1992; Dusenbury 

and Falco 1997; Tobler and Stratton 1997). Efficacious prevention curricula consist of several key 

elements. Curricula delivered in an interactive format with smaller groups of young people have been 

shown to produce strong and lasting positive results (Tobler and Stratton 1997). Effective curricula 

gives students the tools to recognize internal pressures like stress or anxiety and external pressures 

like peer attitudes and advertising that may influence them to use alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs. 

Following this, another useful component is helping students develop and practice personal, social, 

and refusal skills in order to resisting these influences effectively (Dusenbury and Falco 1997). 

Changing perceptions of friends’ tolerance of drug use was a substantial mediator of program effects 

on drug use (MacKinnon et al. 1991). 

Curricula are not only employed in schools but can successfully be implemented in and across 

multiple contexts. For instance BUILD, is a curriculum that has been implemented in a juvenile 

detention center. The curriculum focuses on reducing violence, delinquency, and gang related 

behaviors with the overall goal of reducing recidivism. One independent evaluation of BUILD’s 

program found that it was extremely well implemented and had a significant effect on juvenile 

detainees’ recidivism rates (Lurigio et al. 2000). 

Gottfredson (1998) identified comprehensive instructional programs that focus on a range of social 

competency skills (e.g., developing self-control, stress management, responsible decision making, 

social problem-solving, and communication skills) and that are delivered by well-trained providers 

over a long period of time to continually reinforce skills as effective techniques for preventing crime 

and delinquency. 

References 

Botvin, G.J., E.M. Botvin, and H. Ruchlin. 1998. “School-based Approaches to Drug Abuse Prevention: 

Evidence for Effectiveness and Suggestions for Determining Cost Effectiveness.” In W. J. 

Bukoski and R. I. Evans (Eds.), Cost Benefit/Cost-effectiveness Research for Drug Abuse Prevention: 
 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 3

Implications for Programming and Policy (NIDA Monograph 176, pp. 59-82). Rockville, Md.: U.S. 

National Institute on Drug Abuse. 

Coie, J.D. and G. Krehbiel. 1984.”Effects of Academic Tutoring on the Social Status of Low-Achieving, 

Socially Rejected Children.” Child Development 55:1465–1478. 

Dusenbury, L. and M. Falco. 1995. “Eleven Components of Effective Drug Abuse Prevention 

Curricula.” Journal of School Health 65:420–425. 

Fergusson, D. M. and M. T. Lynskey. 1998. “Conduct Problems in Childhood and Psychosocial 

Outcomes in Young Adulthood: A Prospective Study.” Journal of Emotional & Behavioral 

Disorders 6: 2–18. 

Ferrer-Wreder, Laura, Hakin Stattin, Carolyn Cass Lorente, Jonathon Tubman and Lena Adamson. 

2003. Prevention and Youth Development Programs: Across Borders. New York: Kluwer/Plenum 

Academic Publishers. 

Finn, J. D., G.M. Pannozzo, and K.E. Voelkl. 1995. “Disruptive and Inattentive-Withdrawn Behavior 

and Achievement Among Fourth Graders.” Elementary School Journal 95:421–34. 

Gottfredson, Denise C. 1998. “School-Based Crime Prevention.” In L.W. Sherman, D. Gottfredson; J. 

MacKenzie; P. Eck; P. Reuter; and S. Bushway (eds.). Preventing Crime: What Works, What 

Doesn’t, What’s Promising. Report to the U.S. Congress. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, National Institute of Justice. 

Lurigio, Arthur, Gad Bensinger, S. Rae Thompson, Kristin Elling, Donna Poucis, Jill Selvaggio, 

Melissa Spooner. 2000. A Process and Outcome Evaluation of Project BUILD: Years 5 and 6. 

Unpublished Report. Chicago, Ill.: Loyola University, Department of Criminal Justice. 

MacKinnon, D.P., C.A. Johnson, M.A. Pentz, J.H. Dwyer, W.B. Hansen, B.R. Flay, E.Y. Wang. 1991. 

“Mediating mechanisms in a School-based Drug Prevention Program: First-year Effects of the 

Midwestern Prevention Project.” Health Psychology 10:164–72. 

Nelson, J.R. 1996. “Designing School to Meet the Needs of Students who Exhibit Disruptive Behavior 

Problems.” Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders 4:147–161. 

Quinn, M.M., D. Osher, C.C. Hoffman, and T.V. Hanley. 1998. Safe, Drug-free, and Effective Schools for 

ALL Students: What Works! Washington, D.C.: Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice, 

American Institutes for Research. 

Sherman, Lawrence W., Denise C. Gottfredson, Doris Layton MacKenzie, John E. Eck, Peter Reuter, 

and Shawn D. Bushway. 1997. Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising. 

Report to the U.S. Congress. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute 

of Justice. 

Stovell, Karienne. 1999. Prevention Programs for Youth: A Guide to Outcomes Evaluation, Successful 

Funding. Rhode Island: Manisses Communications Group. 

Tremblay, R. E., B. Masse, D. Perron, and M. LeBlanc. 1992. “Early Disruptive Behavior, Poor School 

Achievement, Delinquent Behavior, and Delinquent Personality: Longitudinal Analyses.”

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 60:64–72.