Content uploaded by Jean Y Ko
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jean Y Ko
Content may be subject to copyright.
Urban African American youth exposed to community violence:
A school-based anxiety preventive intervention efficacy study
Michele R. Cooley-Strickland1,2, Robert S. Griffin1, Dana Darney3, Katherine Otte1, and
Jean Ko1
1Johns Hopkins University
2University of California, Los Angeles
3University of Missouri
Abstract
This study evaluated the efficacy of a school-based anxiety prevention program among urban
children exposed to community violence. Students who attended Title 1 public elementary schools
were screened. Ninety-eight 3-5th grade students (ages 8-12; 48% female; 92% African American)
were randomized into preventive intervention versus wait-list comparison groups. Students
attended 13 bi-weekly one-hour group sessions of a modified version of FRIENDS, a cognitive-
behavioral anxiety intervention program. Results indicated that both intervention and control
groups manifested significant reductions in anxiety symptomatology and total exposure to
community violence, along with improved standardized reading achievement scores. Additional
gains observed only in the intervention group were increased standardized mathematics
achievement scores, decreased life stressors, and reduced victimization by community violence.
The intervention was equally efficacious for both genders and for children exposed to higher,
compared to lower, levels of community violence. Implications for comprehensive, culturally and
contextually relevant prevention programs and research are discussed.
Keywords
community violence; children and youth; ethnic minority; African American; prevention; anxiety;
school-based interventions
Community violence in schools, neighborhoods, and communities is a major public health
problem (WHO, 2002). Children’s exposure by hearing about, witnessing, and/or
experiencing it reached critical levels decades ago and there it remains. The effects of
exposure to community violence may profoundly affect children’s development in multiple
domains from early childhood into adolescence and beyond (Cooley-Strickland, Quille,
Griffin, Bradshaw, & Furr-Holden, 2009). For example, studies have found a positive
association between community violence exposure and anxiety (Cooley-Quille, Boyd,
Frantz, & Walsch, 2001; Ward, Martin, Theron & Distiller, 2007) and that anxiety interferes
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Michele Cooley-Strickland, M.Ed., Ph.D., Department of Psychiatry,
NPI-Semel Institute for Neuroscience, University of California - Los Angeles, Center for Culture and Health, 760 Westwood Plaza,
Box 62, Los Angeles, California 90024-1759. mcooley@mednet.ucla.edu.
Michele R. Cooley-Strickland, Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and The Center for
Culture and Health, Department of Psychiatry, NPI-Semel Institute for Neuroscience, University of California – Los Angeles; Robert
S. Griffin, Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; Dana Darney, Department of
Educational, School,& Counseling Psychology, University of Missouri; Katherine Otte, Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins
Bloomberg School of Public Health; and Jean Ko, Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
NIH Public Access
Author Manuscript
J Prev Interv Community. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 April 20.
Published in final edited form as:
J Prev Interv Community
. 2011 April ; 39(2): 149–166. doi:10.1080/10852352.2011.556573.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
with children’s ability to concentrate, thus potentially disrupting their academic performance
(Birmaher, Bridge, Williamson, Brent, Dahl, et al., 2004). It has been recommended that
developmentally appropriate interventions for children exposed to community violence are
implemented early and are evaluated for their effectiveness (Berkowitz, 2003). This paper
reports on the effects of a secondary preventive intervention program to investigate its
impact on community violence, anxiety, and related functioning (academic achievement, life
stressors) among urban ethnic minority school children.
Community violence affects all racial and ethnic groups, but African Americans living in
low-income urban neighborhoods experience higher rates of community violence and crime
than urban European Americans (Crouch, Hanson, Saunders, Kilpatrick, & Resnick, 2000).
Exposure to violence among African American youth does not decrease with higher socio-
economic status, as it does for European Americans (Crouch et al., 2000). Constant worry
about one’s own or loved ones’ safety or health likely interferes with low income, urban
children’s ability to function in developmentally appropriate, academically successful, and
healthy ways (Cooley-Quille, Boyd, & Grados, 2004) and may be a source of anxiety and
oppositional-aggressive behavior as an attempt to exert control in chaotic environments
(Ford, 2002). Low income, urban youth have elevated anxiety disorder symptoms (Rathus,
Wetzler, & Asnis, 1995). Those living in perpetually violent communities may be in a
constant state of defense, potentially at risk for developing anxiety symptoms as a result of a
neurological structure that is ready to deal with external threats at any time (Edlynn,
Gaylord-Harden, Richards & Miller, 2008). This is consistent with the concept of Allostatic
load identified by McEwen (2000) as referring to the physiological costs of chronic
exposure to the neural stress response.
Anxiety disorders in childhood and adolescence are serious mental health problems (Barrett
& Turner, 2001) which occur at disturbingly high rates (Barrett, Farrell, Ollendick & Dadds,
2006). They are the most frequently experienced mental health disorder among children and
adolescents and are experienced by about 13 out of every 100 children from ages 9 to 17
years, with approximately half of them suffering from an additional mental health disorder
(DHHS, 1999). Left untreated, children with anxiety disorders are at significant risk for
developing other psychological disorders (e.g., Cole, Peeke, Martin, Truglio & Seroczynski,
1998; Last, Hansen, & Franco, 1997) as well as problems such as poor social skills, low self
esteem, and substance abuse (DHHS, 1999). Anxiety symptoms and disorders in childhood
may interfere with children’s long-term academic functioning, as those affected by an
anxiety disorder are significantly less likely to be in school or working in young adulthood
(Last, Hanson & Franco, 1997). African Americans are less likely than European Americans
to receive appropriate treatment for anxiety problems (Young, Klap, Sherbourne, & Wells,
2001).
School-based treatment and preventive interventions are needed for youth exposed to
chronic community violence (Cooley-Strickland et al., 2009). A review of them was
conducted by Cooley and Lambert (2006). Providing interventions in schools improves
attendance at sessions, reduces stigma associated with therapy (Stallard, Simpson,
Anderson, Hibbert & Osborn, 2007), and delivers the services in communities where
resources may be sparse. There are well-evaluated school-based intervention programs
designed to treat anxiety (Stallard, Simpson, Anderson, Hibbert & Osborn, 2007). Studies
have demonstrated that cognitive-behavioral treatment (CBT) is effective for reducing
childhood anxiety (Barrett, Duffy, Dadds & Rapee, 2001; Kendall, 1994) and group-based
CBT has proven to be effective for treating childhood anxiety (e.g., Shortt, Barrett & Fox,
2001). Although there is very little research on CBT with diverse populations (Bryant &
Harder, 2008) it has proven to be effective for Latino/Hispanic (Kataoka, Stein, Jaycox,
Wong, et al., 2003) and African American students in school-based settings (Ginsburg &
Cooley-Strickland et al. Page 2
J Prev Interv Community. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 April 20.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Drake, 2002). Yet to be tested in a randomized control study is a group CBT anxiety
preventive intervention program with urban African American children exposed to
community violence.
FRIENDS (Barrett, Webster, & Turner, 2000) is a group CBT program designed originally
as a treatment program for Australian children with anxiety disorders. It has been
established as a successful school-based group anxiety prevention program in Australia
(Barrett & Turner, 2001; Lowry-Webster, Barrett, & Dadds, 2001) and in the U.S. with
majority students (i.e., 97% European American; Bernstein, Layne, Egan, & Tennison,
2005). FRIENDS uses the core CBT components (exposure, relaxation, cognitive strategies,
contingency management) and targets the primary components of anxiety (physiological,
cognitive, behavioral). A distinctive element of the current project is that it applies this
effective intervention to underserved ethnic minority youth who live in neighborhoods with
low resources and high levels of external threats.
The aim of the current study was to reduce the symptoms and prevent the onset of severe
anxiety disorders among African American children exposed to community violence who
attend urban public elementary schools. The primary hypothesis was that compared to the
non-intervention comparison youth, participants in the modified FRIENDS program would
have fewer anxiety symptoms at post-intervention. It was also expected that FRIENDS
would be equally efficacious for males and females, and for children exposed to high and
low levels of community violence. Secondarily, it was expected that children in the
intervention group would experience less community violence exposure and related adverse
life events as a result of improved cognitive, physiological, and behavioral skills. Relatedly,
it was expected that academic achievement may improve for intervention participants.
Method
Participants
Participants (n=93) were African American (92%) and biracial (8%) students 8 to 12 years
old (grades 3-5; 48% female), in two Title 1 public elementary schools located in Baltimore,
MD. Both schools were located in economically disadvantaged urban communities (average
of 90% of the student bodies received free or reduced lunch) characterized by high crime.
Intervention
FRIENDS (Barrett & Turner, 2001; Barrett, Webster, & Turner, 2000) is a group oriented
CBT selected anxiety prevention program that targets students with mild to moderate
anxiety disorders. The cognitive, physiological, and behavioral components of the
FRIENDS Program teach children specific strategies for coping with anxiety, including
problem-solving skills and skills to cope with fearful stimuli. During the sessions didactic
lessons were taught by the group leaders, then students participated in activities and role-
plays to practice the new skills. Students were given weekly homework assignments to help
generalize the skills they learned to the classroom and home environments. Examples of
session content include: identifying physiological symptoms of anxiety (e.g., students were
taught to identify emotions and body cues), learning relaxation techniques (e.g., deep
breathing and visualization), and engaging in positive feelings, thoughts, and self-talk as
they actively face challenges and fears.
FRIENDS is an acronym for the skills it teaches, which stands for: F- Feeling worried? R-
Relax and feel good; I- Inner thoughts; E- Explore plans; N- Nice work so reward yourself;
D- Don’t forget to practice; and S- Stay calm, you know how to cope now (Shortt, Barrett &
Fox, 2001). The current preventive intervention program was based on the FRIENDS
Program, albeit modified to be culturally and contextually appropriate for ethnically diverse
Cooley-Strickland et al. Page 3
J Prev Interv Community. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 April 20.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
urban American children, particularly African Americans. The guiding principle of this
adaptation was to limit changes to shallow structure modifications that facilitated the
students being able to comprehend and relate to the program content, while striving to
maintain the therapeutic integrity of the cognitive-behavioral intervention. For example, the
relaxation exercises were modified from animals that were indigenous to Australia (e.g.,
koalas, bilbys, cattle dogs, crocodiles) to those found in urban America (e.g., pigeons, mice,
dogs, kittens); CD’s were made of the relaxation exercises for the students to take home and
practice. Children drew pictures of real-life violence that had occurred in their communities
that they had either heard about happening, witnessed, or had personally been victimized by.
Other opportunities to relate incidents and anxiety associated with living in violent and
chaotic environments (e.g., fights, gangs, drugs, low resources) were integrated into the
sessions; further cultural and contextual modifications for the intervention may be found in
Cooley-Quille et al. (2004).
Under the supervision of a licensed psychologist (the first author), the group leaders and co-
leaders received training and supervision in the FRIENDS preventive intervention (e.g.,
review of the intervention curriculum and materials, role-plays, practice sessions). The
FRIENDS Program consisted of 13 biweekly, one-hour sessions led by a doctoral level
African American group leader and African American or European American co-leader with
at least a bachelor’s degree. Sessions were implemented as a pull-out program during the
school day in small groups of 8-10 students. Make-up sessions were held for children who
missed their regular session. Including the make-ups, all participants attended at least 12 of
the 13 sessions.
Because family factors are commonly associated with the development and maintenance of
childhood anxiety (Barrett, 1998) and family involvement in treatment helps reduce anxiety
in children (Bernstein et al., 2005), the current project planned 3 one-hour parent sessions
using the FRIENDS parent manual. The sessions were based on CBT, reviewed child
management skills, skills the children were acquiring in the FRIENDS program, and how to
encourage them in their children to promote generalizability to the home and larger
community. Instead, a single expanded parent session was held; fewer than half of the
families attended.
Measures
Exposure to community violence was assessed using the Children’s Report of Exposure to
Violence (CREV; Cooley, Turner, & Beidel, 1995). The CREV is a widely used self-report
questionnaire developed to assess children’s lifetime exposure to community violence. It has
good two-week test-retest reliability (r=.75), internal consistency (overall α = .78), and
construct validity (Cooley et al., 1995). Twenty-nine scored CREV items are rated on a 5-
point Likert scale, ranging from 0 – “no, never” to 4 – “everyday,” to indicate the frequency
of exposure to community violence via four modes (i.e., media, hearsay, witness,
victimization). Types of violent situations include being chased or threatened, beaten up,
robbed or mugged, shot, stabbed, or killed. Higher scores indicate more perceived exposure.
A past-year version of the CREV was developed and administered at the post-assessment
evaluation. Cronbach’s α for the lifetime CREV Total score was .88 at baseline and .90 for
the past-year version.
Mental health was assessed using the Computerized Diagnostic Interview Schedule for
Children. It is a comprehensive, structured interview that covers mental health disorders for
children and adolescents using DSM-IV criteria (Shaffer, Fisher, Lucas, Dulcan, & Schwab-
Stone, 2000). Eighteen modules were administered at baseline, including the anxiety,
depression, attention/hyperactivity, and conduct modules. Eight anxiety modules were
administered during the post assessment. The C-DISC has demonstrated excellent interrater
Cooley-Strickland et al. Page 4
J Prev Interv Community. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 April 20.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
reliability with 97% of clinicians agreeing with the C-DISC’s diagnosis (Wolfe, Toro &
McCaskill, 1999).
Anxiety symptomatology was assessed using the Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale
(RCMAS; Reynolds & Richmond, 1997), a self-report measure of the level and nature of
anxiety in children and adolescents. It is a 37 item questionnaire in which students agree or
disagree to statements pertaining to how some people think or feel about themselves,
assessing different ways anxiety is manifested. A higher score indicates more anxiety and
distress. The RCMAS has good internal consistency (α=0.83) and test-retest reliability
(r=0.68). In the FRIENDS study, Total RCMAS reliability was α=.83 at baseline and α=.84
at post-assessment.
Academic achievement was assessed using the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-
Screener (WIAT Screener; Psychological Corporation, 1992) which consists of 3 subtests of
the comprehensive WIAT battery (i.e., Basic Reading, Mathematics Reasoning, Spelling). It
assesses basic academic skills; permits the calculation of age- and grade-based standard
scores; was standardized using a large representative sample; is widely used; and has
demonstrated reliability and validity with little evidence of practice effects (Psychological
Corporation, 1992).
Adverse life events were assessed using the Multicultural Events Schedule for Adolescents
(MESA; Gonzales, Gunnoe, Samaniego & Jackson, 1995), developed to assess major and
minor life events specific to an urban multi-ethnic population (Gonzales et al., 1995). It was
normed on African American, European American, and English- and Spanish speaking
Mexican Americans. The MESA includes 84 items in which a student responds yes or no to
each life events over the past year. A Total life events score is based on the number of
events endorsed, with a higher score indicating more adverse life events and hassles. The
MESA has adequate concurrent validity and test-retest reliability (Gonzales et al., 1995). In
the FRIENDS project, the MESA Total score α =.89 at baseline, and α=.95 at the post-
assessment.
Procedure
Baseline screening and selection of participants—A two-stage screening process
identified children for participation in the FRIENDS Program. First, parents/guardians of
students in the third through fifth grades in regular education or resource classes at the two
urban public elementary schools were mailed letters of notification informing them of the
RCMAS (Reynolds & Richmond, 1978) and CREV (Cooley et al., 1995) administration at
their child’s school with an option to decline participation. Children who assented and
whose parents/caregivers provided permission were administered the RCMAS and CREV in
groups by classroom (12 classes in two schools; 330 (82%) students were assessed out of
404 in the combined student body). Teachers in each classroom (n=16) nominated up to 3
very anxious students, following Dadds et al. (1997) procedure, resulting in 34 students who
were automatically considered for the next level of eligibility in the project. Consistent with
other school based interventions (e.g., Stein, Jaycox, Kataoka, Wong, Tu, et al., 2003),
teachers were also asked to identify up to three children in their classrooms who were
extremely disruptive or aggressive and therefore would not be appropriate for group
sessions. Those 51 students were eliminated from the project although their exclusion did
not eliminate all anxious children with co-occurring aggressive behavior from the FRIENDS
program. Children were included and eligible for further consideration for the FRIENDS
program if they: 1) had a CREV Total score > 10; and 2) either a RCMAS T-score of 51 or
higher or were included in the teachers’ nominations of anxious children. They were
excluded if they were not in regular education or resource classes or had been nominated by
teachers as extremely disruptive.
Cooley-Strickland et al. Page 5
J Prev Interv Community. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 April 20.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
In the second stage of screening, parents of the 207 eligible students were asked to provide
written consent for their child to participate in a comprehensive anxiety assessment battery
at school for urban children exposed to community violence, as well as permit their child to
be randomized to an anxiety prevention program or wait-list control condition, treated
(including parent participation in sessions), and participate in the post-assessment
evaluation, if the child was found eligible to participate. Of those contacted, parental consent
was provided by 122 (58.9%) of them; their children were administered a comprehensive,
multi-method assessment battery including the: WIAT Screener, MESA, and C-DISC.
Assessments were conducted by trained research assistants in empty classrooms for the 90
minute battery. Incentives to encourage participation were given to teachers (e.g., class pizza
party for classrooms with 80% or higher response rates), parents (e.g., $40 lottery), and
students (e.g., dictionaries, pencils).
Final selection and randomization—Parents were given feedback about their child’s
status. Eligible children who were considered “at-risk” for anxiety disorders and who
endorsed at least mild exposure to community violence were invited to participate in the
FRIENDS selected prevention program to be randomized to preventive intervention or wait-
list control conditions. To be considered “at-risk,” the child had to have a mild to moderate
DSM-IV anxiety diagnosis or features/symptoms of an anxiety disorder. Twenty-six
students were excluded from the project for: currently receiving mental health treatment for
an anxiety disorder; a threshold level DSM-IV disruptive behavioral disorder (i.e., ADHD,
Conduct Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder); too few anxiety symptoms; or a severe
anxiety disorder. Those students were not randomized to conditions and were excluded from
the study; parents were offered referrals for child mental health services if needed and/or
desired. Children who assented following their parents’ consent (n=93) were randomly
assigned to the intervention or wait-list comparison group. Post-intervention assessments
were conducted at the end of the FRIENDS program.
Results
Comparison of the intervention (n = 48) and wait-list control (n = 45) groups using Chi-
square and ANOVA tests revealed no significant differences in demographic characteristics,
academic performance, community violence, anxiety, or adverse life events (Table 1; p’s >
0.05). In comparing the two Title 1 schools from which the participants were recruited, there
were no significant differences (Chi-square and ANOVA tests; p’s > 0.05) between them on
age of the participants or any of the academic performance or psychosocial measures. The
two schools differed on ethnic composition (Chi-square (df) = 14.88(1); p < 0.01) such that
the program participants from one school were 97.7% African American and 2.3% biracial
(22.9% of the neighborhood residents lived below the poverty level), whereas the other were
75.8% African American and 24.2% biracial (8.6% of neighborhood residents lived below
poverty).
Within-group comparisons
Paired t-tests were used to investigate within-group changes on community violence
exposure, academic performance, and psychosocial outcomes (Table 2). Both groups
showed significant reductions in their Total exposure to community violence at post-
intervention compared to baseline (Table 2; p’s < 0.01). The intervention group also
experienced a mean reduction in community violence victimization; the control group did
not (p > 0.05). Significant reductions in overall anxiety, as measured by total RCMAS score,
were observed in both groups at post-intervention from baseline (p’s < 0.01). Reading
performance significantly improved from baseline to post-intervention in both groups
(WIAT Reading age equivalent; p’s < 0.05). The FRIENDS intervention group’s
Cooley-Strickland et al. Page 6
J Prev Interv Community. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 April 20.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
mathematics performance score also significantly improved, although the control group’s
did not. The intervention group was performing mathematical skills at the mean equivalent
of a 9.6 year-old (SD = 1.9) at baseline, and the equivalent of a 10 year old (SD = 1.8) at
post-intervention (p < 0.01). The intervention, but not control, group had significant
reductions in adverse life events, as measured by the Total MESA score (p < 0.01).
Between-group comparisons
A two-group repeated measures MANOVA, controlling for baseline measures, was
conducted to investigate the differences across baseline and post-intervention for the
FRIENDS intervention versus control group. The two groups did not significantly differ on
the major variables of interest (CREV, RCMAS, WIAT, MASC, behavior change, program
likeability; no group by time interactions were found; p’s > 0.05; data not shown). A time
effect was observed, as the entire sample had lower levels of anxiety (RCMAS; F(1,71) =
10.139; p < 0.01) and improved scores on age-based WIAT Reading performance (F(1,70)=
5.26; p < 0.05).
Gender differences at post-intervention
A 2×2 Factorial ANOVA controlling for baseline measurements was conducted to
investigate whether the FRIENDS intervention was equally efficacious for male (n=24) and
female (n=24) participants. There were no significant main effects for intervention status on
any of the measures of interest (p’s > 0.05; data not shown).
Post-intervention differences for high and low exposure to community violence
A two-groups repeated measures MANOVA, controlling for baseline measures, was
conducted to investigate whether the FRIENDS intervention was equally efficacious for
individuals who reported high and low exposure to community violence at baseline. The
median CREV score at baseline was used to classify high and low community violence
exposure (CVE) groups. As expected, the two exposure groups did not differ significantly
on academic performance or measures of anxiety (p’s > 0.05; data not shown).
Discussion
Anxiety disorders are based in part on unrealistic appraisals of threat. However, children
who have been exposed to high levels of chronic community violence may face danger that
is not unrealistic – such as threats of physical harm or safety – that may adversely affect
their physiological and cognitive well-being. Participants in the FRIENDS program gave
many examples of the real-life dangers they faced as residents in violent communities.
Research on assessing youth’s threat appraisals in response to community violence has
recently been published (Kliewer & Sullivan, 2008) based on the recognized need of
accurately understanding the unique threats posed by this form of life stressor. Questions
arise such as: When are fears, worries, and apprehension among youth exposed to
community violence psycho-pathological? Are the fears protective? At what point should
anxiety be targeted for intervention? Ideally, economic and environmental changes at the
community level would occur that removed the threats to urban children like poverty, guns,
street drugs, and gangs. Until then, intervening at the individual, school, and family levels
may benefit youth, including targeting unhealthy levels of distress and anxiety. Certain
levels of anxiety protect against African American youth’s exposure to community violence
(Boyd, Cooley, Lambert, & Ialongo, 2003; Lambert, Ialongo, Boyd, & Cooley, 2005),
although studies of the “optimal” level among this population are warranted.
Anxiety can negatively influence cognitive as well as social development (Cooley-Quille,
Boyd, Frantz, & Walsch, 2001). The FRIENDS Program did not specifically target
Cooley-Strickland et al. Page 7
J Prev Interv Community. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 April 20.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
academic skills but its participants exhibited improved standardized reading and
mathematics achievement scores whereas the control children only showed improved
reading. Perhaps math skills improved as a result of the intervention’s focus on problem-
solving and other cognitive components, although this study was not designed to identify
which specific elements caused which intervention effects. Regardless, there were notable
developmental benefits of the intervention, particularly given substantial pressure on
students and schools to perform at least at grade level because of local, state, and national
performance-based initiatives.
Controlling for baseline scores, children who participated in the FRIENDS intervention
group showed reduced levels of victimization of community violence and fewer life
stressors, whereas the control group did not. Perhaps this is related to the skills taught in the
intervention and emphasis on strategies for coping with anxiety (e.g., relaxation techniques,
engaging in positive feelings, thoughts, and self-talk as they actively face challenges and
fears). Additionally, students in the intervention group were taught to attend to perceived
external threats and to problem-solve. Homework assignments were administered to help the
children to generalize the skills they learned to their natural environments. Perhaps the
children in the intervention group learned to manage life stressors and make healthier life
decisions, including regarding those that placed them at-risk for exposure to and
victimization by community violence.
In the FRIENDS parent session, the FRIENDS leader encouraged parents/caregivers to
observe their children and be available to hear and help process their children’s concerns
and stresses. Multiple caregivers indicated difficulty in doing so because they felt overly
stressed themselves (e.g., working more than one job; caring for multiple children,
grandchildren, and/or great-grandchildren; severe economic challenges; and/or limited
resources). Previous studies have found some added benefits of family anxiety management
training or parent management training in interventions with anxious youth (Barrett, Duffy,
Dadds, & Rapee, 2001; Bernstein, Layne, Egan, & Tennison, 2005). In future interventions
with community violence exposed youth, a comprehensive parental intervention may be
warranted, although sufficient resources should be allocated to address the challenges to
participation.
Teaching urban, primarily African American children with greater life stressors, fewer
resources and social supports (Myers & Taylor, 1998) to reward themselves, to talk to their
friends about their problems, and make friends in order to build social support networks
(i.e., “traditional” conceptualizations of developing positive peer relationships) – as the
FRIENDS Program is designed to do -- may be problematic without ample consideration of
the cultural milieu. For example, peer relations among urban ethnic minority youth may be
adversely complicated by concerns of appearing “weak” (e.g., fearful, nervous, emotionally
needy) because perceived weakness may make inner-city residents more vulnerable to
violence victimization. Enhanced coping skills and social support have helped reduce the
effects of community violence exposure on African American youth (Edlynn, Gaylord-
Harden, Richards & Miller, 2008; Hammack, Richards, Luo, Edlynn & Roy, 2004),
although programs designed to teach these capacities should include methods to identify and
elicit rewarding sources of prosocial support.
Limitations
One limitation of the current study is frequently found in school- and community-based
research projects involving ethnic minority participants: Low parental consent rates.
Students are prevented from reaping potential benefits of school-based mental health
programs if their parents do not consent to their participation (Stein, Jaycox, Langley,
Kataoka, Wilkins & Wong, 2007). Parental permission and child assent rates obtained
Cooley-Strickland et al. Page 8
J Prev Interv Community. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 April 20.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
during the first stage of screening were acceptable (82%), but parental consent was only in
the low-moderate range (59%) in the second stage despite active recruitment strategies. The
most effective mechanism for parental cooperation was linked to building the school
community’s trust over time and enhancing the parent’s relationship and comfort with the
school. Nonetheless, as a result of the relatively small and highly selected sample, the
study’s power and generalizability are restricted.
There were exceptions (WIAT Screener, C-DISC) but the majority of outcome measures
reported in this study are self-report questionnaires. Data from additional informants at pre-
and post-intervention would have strengthened this investigation, as would behavioral
measures of the efficacy of the FRIENDS intervention (e.g., psychophysiological,
neurobehavioral assessments). The study was designed to obtain both teacher and parent
reports. The former was obtained as part of the screening procedure (i.e., teacher
nominations), but neither was obtained for the outcome measures. The original approach of
sending parental report forms home for parents/caregivers to complete proved to be
inadequate and was discontinued. Future studies should allocate sufficient resources to
obtain outcome data from multiple informants (e.g., in-person or telephone interviews,
sufficient incentives, adequate tracking procedures).
The results of the current study indicated significant decreases in self-reported anxiety for
both the intervention and control groups in the within-group comparisons. However, the
assessments were conducted immediately following treatment, as the end of the school year
had arrived, and there were no significant between-group differences. A longer follow-up
may have yielded differential results for the two groups. Some other child anxiety
preventive intervention studies have not observed significant improvements until a
substantial amount of time has passed and the children have been able to implement,
practice, and generalize the skills that they have learned. For example, Dadds et al. (1997)
did not find significant differences in anxiety reduction among children who participated in
the anxiety intervention compared to controls immediately following treatment, but the
intervention group maintained their treatment gains over 6- and 24-months whereas the
control group did not. Another study did not find significant changes in children’s self-
reported anxiety in an efficacy study of the FRIENDS intervention, although parental reports
indicated significantly decreased anxiety among children who participated in the
intervention compared to the controls (Bernstein et al., 2005), suggesting the importance of
involving parents as informants in studies involving anxious children.
The current study lacked a clearly delineated comparison group, which also may have
contributed to the failure to find between-group differences, yet there were within-group
differences. The FRIENDS Team was given a classroom in the school where both
intervention and control group students completed their assessment batteries and were
welcomed to visit (i.e., get snacks, draw, chat). FRIENDS staff became active and integrated
members of the school community (e.g., attended school events, Back-to-School Night, PTA
meetings, talent shows, basketball games). Control students reported liking being “members
of the FRIENDS Team” as much as the intervention participants. Some reported the
FRIENDS program was the only organized “team” to which they belonged, a reflection of
the under-resourced environments in which they lived. The unanticipated impact of this
relationship may have attenuated distinctions between the intervention and control groups, at
least in the short-term and may speak to the power of creating community and meaningful
relationships beyond the proscribed intervention.
Future Studies
It is well established that African American youth are less likely than European Americans
to receive appropriate treatment for anxiety problems (Young, Klap, Sherbourne, & Wells,
Cooley-Strickland et al. Page 9
J Prev Interv Community. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 April 20.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
2001). After school programs may be ideal venues for time- and resource-intensive
interventions because they provide the security and resources of the school setting,
community accessibility, and reduced costs and stigma associated with clinical settings. The
FRIENDS Program was implemented in only 13 contact hours with the students, yet
resulted in significant gains for this underserved population. It speaks to the need to continue
to develop comprehensive, multi-component preventive intervention efforts that target not
only anxiety, but also developmentally, ecologically, culturally and contextually appropriate
factors within a community environment. Future studies designed to prevent the adverse
effects of youth’s exposure to stressful community violence should involve larger sample
sizes, longer-term follow-ups, more comprehensive preventive intervention programs, and
comprehensive multi-informant assessments of cognitive, neuropsychological, behavioral,
academic, and/or social outcomes, not just those constructs directly related to anxiety.
Understanding developmental timing and optimal dosage levels are also important. Cost-
effectiveness studies are needed, as preventive and treatment interventions conducted in
school-based settings may have particular cost-efficiency over the long-term. Intervening
with urban African American youth who have been chronically exposed to community
violence even using a brief, focused intervention resulted in within-group improvements in
emotional, behavioral, and academic well-being.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health (PI: Cooley; R21 MH63143)
and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (PI: Cooley; R01 DA018318).
We extend our gratitude to the Baltimore City Public School System and the principals, teachers, parents,
caregivers, and students who participated in the FRIENDS Program.
References
Barrett P. Evaluation of cognitive-behavioral group treatments for childhood anxiety disorders. Journal
of Clinical Child Psychology. December; 1998 27(4):459–468. [PubMed: 9866083]
Barrett, PM.; Lowry-Webster, H.; Holmes, J. The FRIENDS Group Leader’s Manual for Children
(Edition II). Australian Academic Press; Bowen Hills, Queensland, AU: 1999.
Barrett P, Turner C. Prevention of anxiety symptoms in primary school children: Preliminary results
from a universal school-based trial. British Journal of Clinical Psychology. 2001; 40(4):399–410.
[PubMed: 11760616]
Barrett P, Duffy A, Dadds M, Rapee R. Cognitive-behavioral treatment of anxiety disorders in
children: Long-term (6-year) follow-up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. February;
2001 69(1):135–141. [PubMed: 11302272]
Barrett P, Farrell L, Ollendick T, Dadds M. Long-term outcomes of an AU universal prevention trial of
anxiety & depression symptoms in children & youth: An evaluation of the FRIENDS program.
Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology. 2006; 35:403–411. [PubMed: 16836477]
Barrett, P.; Webster, H.; Turner, C. FRIENDS Prevention of Anxiety and Depression for Children
Group Leader’s Manual. Australian Academic Press; Bowen Hills, AU: 2000.
Berkowitz SJ. Children exposed to community violence: The rationale for early intervention. Clinical
Child and Family Psychology Review. 2003; 6(4):293–302. [PubMed: 14719640]
Bernstein G, Layne A, Egan E, Tennison D. School-based interventions for anxious children. Journal
of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. November; 2005 44(11):1118–1127.
[PubMed: 16239860]
Birmaher B, Bridge JA, Williamson DE, Brent DA, Dahl RE, Axelson DA, Dorn LD, Ryan ND.
Psychosocial functioning in youths at high risk to develop Major Depressive Disorder. Journal of
the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2004; 43:839–846. [PubMed:
15213585]
Cooley-Strickland et al. Page 10
J Prev Interv Community. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 April 20.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Boyd R, Cooley M, Lambert S, Ialongo N. First-grade child risk behaviors for commu. violence
exposure in middle school. Journal of Community Psychology. 2003; 31:297–314.
Bryant CE, Harder J. Treating Suicidality in African American Adolescents with Cognitive-Behavioral
Therapy. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal. 2008; 25(1):1–9.
Cole D, Peeke L, Martin J, Truglio R, Seroczynski A. A longitudinal look at the relation between
depression and anxiety in children and adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology. June; 1998 66(3):451–460. [PubMed: 9642883]
Cooley, M.; Lambert, S. School-based interventions for children & adolescents exposed to chronic
community violence. In: Lieberman, A.; DeMartino, R.; Fox, N., editors. Interventions for
Children Exposed to Violence. Johnson & Johnson Pediatric Institute; NJ: 2006.
Cooley M, Turner S, Beidel D. Assessing community violence: The children’s report of exposure to
violence. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 1995; 34(2):201–
208. [PubMed: 7896653]
Cooley-Quille M, Boyd RC, Frantz E, Walsch J. Emotional and psychophysiological impact of
exposure to community violence in urban adolescents. Journal of Child Clinical Psychology,
Special Section: Violence & Youth. 2001; 30:199–206.
Cooley-Quille M, Boyd RC, Grados JJ. Feasibility of an anxiety preventive intervention for
community violence exposed children. Journal of Primary Prevention. 2004; 25(1):105–123.
Cooley-Strickland MR, Quille T, Griffin R, Stuart E, Bradshaw C, Furr-Holden D. Community
violence and youth: Affect, behavior, substance use, and academics. Journal of Clinical Child and
Family Psychology Review. 2009; 12:127–156.
Crouch JL, Hanson RF, Saunders BE, Kilpatrick DG, Resnick HS. Income, race/ethnicity, and
exposure to violence in youth: Results from the national survey of adolescents. Journal of
Community Psychology. 2000; 28:625–641.
Dadds M, Spence S, Holland D, Barrett P, Laurens K. Prevention and early intervention for anxiety
disorders: A controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. August; 1997 65(4):
627–635. [PubMed: 9256564]
Department of Health and Human Services. Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services; Rockville, MD: 1999.
Edlynn ES, Gaylord-Harden NK, Richards MH, Miller SA. African-American inner-city youth
exposed to violence: Coping skills as a moderator for anxiety. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry. 2008; 78(2):249–258. [PubMed: 18954188]
Ford JD. Traumatic victimization in childhood and persistent problems with oppositional-defiance.
Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma. 2002; 6:25–58.
Ginsburg GS, Drake KL. School-based treatment for anxious African-American adolescents: A
controlled pilot study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.
2002; 41(7):768–775. [PubMed: 12108800]
Gonzales, NI.; Gunnoe, ML.; Samaniego, R.; Jackson, KM. Validation of the Multicultural Events
Schedule for urban Adolescents (MESA); Paper presented at the Fifth Biennial Conference of the
Society for Community Research in Action; Chicago, IL. 1995, June;
Hammack PL, Richards MH, Luo Z, Edlynn ES, Roy K. Social support factors as moderators of
community violence exposure among inner-city African American adolescents. Journal of Clinical
Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2004; 33(3):450–462. [PubMed: 15271603]
Kataoka S, Stein BD, Jaycox LH, Wong M, Escudero P, Tu W, Zaragoza C, Fink A. A school-based
mental health program for traumatized Latino immigrant children. Journal of the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2003; 42(3):311–318. [PubMed: 12595784]
Kliewer W, Sullivan T. Community violence exposure, threat appraisal, and adjustment in adolescents.
Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2008; 37(4):860–873. [PubMed: 18991135]
Kendall PC. Treating Anxiety disorders in children: Results of a randomized clinical trial. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1994; 62:200–210.
Lambert S, Ialongo N, Boyd R, Cooley M. Risk Factors for Community Violence Exposure in
Adolescence. American Journal of Community Psychology. 2005; 36(1):29–48. [PubMed:
16134043]
Cooley-Strickland et al. Page 11
J Prev Interv Community. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 April 20.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Last C, Hansen C, Franco N. Anxious children in adulthood: A prospective study of adjustment.
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. May; 1997 36(5):645–652.
[PubMed: 9136499]
Lowry-Webster H, Barrett P, Dadds M. A universal prevention trial of anxiety and depressive
symptomatology in childhood: Preliminary data from an Australian study. Behaviour Change.
2001; 18(1):36–50.
McEwen BS. Allostasis and allostatic load: Implications for neuropsychopharmacology.
Neuropsychopharmacology. 2000; 22(2):108–124. [PubMed: 10649824]
Myers H, Taylor S. Family contributions to risk and resilience in African American children. Journal
of Comparative Family Studies. March; 1998 29(1):215–229.
Psychological Corporation. Wechsler Individual Achievement Test Screener. Author; San Antonio,
TX: 1992.
Rathus J, Wetzler S, Asnis G. Posttraumatic stress disorder and exposure to violence in adolescents.
Journal of the American Medical Association. 1995; 273(22):17–34.
Reynolds, CR.; Richmond, OB. Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale Manual. Western
Psychological Services; Los Angeles: CA: 1997.
Shaffer D, Fisher P, Lucas C, Dulcan M, Schwab-Stone M. NIMH Diagnostic Interview Schedule for
Children version IV: description, differences from previous versions, and reliability of some
common diagnoses. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2000;
39:28–38. [PubMed: 10638065]
Shortt A, Barrett P, Fox T. Evaluating the FRIENDS Program: A cognitive-behavioral group treatment
for anxious children and their parents. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology. 2001; 30(4):525–535.
[PubMed: 11708240]
Stallard P, Simpson N, Anderson S, Hibbert S, Osborn C. The FRIENDS Emotional Health
Programme: Initial Findings from a School-Based Project. Child and Adolescent Mental Health.
2007; 12(1):32–37.
Stein BD, Jaycox LH, Kataoka SH, Wong M, Tu W, Elliott MN, Fink A. A mental health intervention
for school children exposed to violence. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2003;
290(6):603–611. [PubMed: 12902363]
Ward CL, Martin E, Theron C, Distiller GB. Factors affecting resilience in children exposed to
violence. South African Journal of Psychology. 2007; 37(1):165–187.
Wolfe S, Toro P, McCaskill P. Comparison of homeless & matched housed adolescents on family
environment variables. Journal of Research on Adolescence. 1999; 9:53–66.
World Health Org. World Report on Violence & Health. WHO; Brussels, Belgium: 2002.
Young A, Klap R, Sherbourne C, Wells K. The quality of care for depressive & anxiety disorders in
the United States. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2001; 58:55–61. [PubMed: 11146758]
Cooley-Strickland et al. Page 12
J Prev Interv Community. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 April 20.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Cooley-Strickland et al. Page 13
Table 1
Baseline Characteristics of the FRIENDS Intervention and Control group (N=93)
Variables Intervention Group (N=48) Control Group
(N=45)
n (%) n (%)
Chi-
squared
(df)
Gender
Males 24 (0.5) 24 (0.53) 0.35 (2)
Females 24 (0.5) 21 (0.47)
Race/Ethnicity
African American 45 (0.94) 40 (0.89) 0.74 (2)
Mixed/Biracial 3 (0.06) 5 (0.11)
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) F-statistic
(df)
Age (years) 9.47 (1.16) 9.35 (1.0) 2.419 (2)
CREV Total 46.15 (17.86) 49.25 (20.72) 0.91 (2)
RCMAS Total 16.71 (4.97) 16.00 (5.86) 1.89 (2)
WIAT Composite-Age
Equivalent 9.72 (1.60) 9.88 (1.30) 0.68 (2)
MESA Total Score 17.96 (9.48) 18.57 (9.41) 1.79 (2)
All p’s > .05.
J Prev Interv Community. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 April 20.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Cooley-Strickland et al. Page 14
Table 2
Within group baseline and post-intervention differences (N=93)
Measure
Intervention (n= 48) Control (n=45)
Baseline
Mean (SD) Post-
intervention
Mean (SD)
Pre/Post Paired Mean
Difference (SD) Baseline Mean
(SD) Post-intervention
Mean (SD) Pre/Post Paired
Mean Difference
(SD)
CREV Total 33.7 (13.4) 19.4 (14.0) −14.3 (17.3)
**
36.0 (18.1) 25.6 (15.9) −10.4 (16.7)
**
CREV Victimization 1.8 (2.1) 0.6 (1.2) −1.1 (1.9)
**
1.7 (1.6) 1.0 (1.7) −0.6 (2.3)
RCMAS Total 17.1 (4.7) 12.1 (6.5) −5.0 (6.7)
**
15.8 (5.3) 10.9 (4.7) −5.0 (5.9)
**
WIAT Reading
(Age equivalent) 9.5 (1.4) 10.2 (1.9) 0.7 (0.9)** 9.9 (1.4) 10.3 (1.7) 0.4 (0.8)**
WIAT Math
(Age equivalent) 9.6 (1.9) 10.0 (1.8) 0.4 (0.9)** 9.7 (1.3) 9.8 (1.1) 0.2 (0.6)
MESA Total 17.4 (9.2) 12.7 (12.4) −4.7 (9.5)
**
18.6 (9.6) 14.8 (11.4) −3.9 (12.3)
Tp < 0.10
*p < 0.05
**p < 0.01.
J Prev Interv Community. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 April 20.
