Identifying and Intervening with at-Risk Urban High School Students through the Coping Power in the City Model

Introduction: Exposure to violence has been shown to interact in complex ways with the general challenges of adolescence to increase the risk for serious conduct problems, school drop-out and other mental health problems for urban youth. These effects are compounded for low-income Black and Latino males who also are coping with broader systemic issues related to poverty and bias (Thomas et al., 2011). Baltimore City Public Schools (BCPS) is an urban school district with a high concentration of students exposed to violence, challenges related to elevated tensions between youth and police, and an unprecedented surge in homicides. Although the potential benefits of indicated prevention programs to address youth violence are clear, many efforts fall short of meeting the particular needs of urban student populations. This session describes preliminary findings from a randomized trial testing the Coping Power in the City program, which is a high school version of an evidence-based indicated preventive intervention called Coping Power (Lochman & Wells, 2002).

Method: Coping Power in the City (CPIC) is a multi-component indicated intervention for urban high school students, which aims to bolster coping skills and reduce risk for aggressive behavior. This developmentally and culturally adapted version of the original Coping Power model includes 25 student group sessions, parent supports, teacher training, and training for school police officers in the CPIC strategies. CPIC sessions are co-facilitated by a project clinician and a school-based counselor.

Results: This presentation will report preliminary findings from the first cohort of over 179 youth who are participating in a 10 high school RCT of CPIC in BCPS. Students are screened by teachers in the fall of 9^th grade to identify students with elevated rates of aggressive behavior. Eligible students were then recruited into the RCT, in which they were randomized to either a control condition or participation in CPIC over the course of the 9^th grade. Pre-post and one-year follow-up data are collected to determine program impacts. Preliminary findings regarding the student outcomes over the course of the first year of the indicated preventive intervention will be presented with regard to youth self-report and teacher ratings of aggressive behavior and a range of adaptive coping skills.

Discussion: Preliminary findings will be summarized, with particular attention to issues associated with screening and implementation fidelity, and careful consideration of the urban high school context. Implications for implementing indicated preventive interventions with high schoolers and their parents will be considered.