Guiding Good Choices® (GGC)

Parents of adolescents and young teens

In five or six sessions, parents and caregivers learn specific actions that are designed to promote healthy development and reduce risky behavior in the teen years. Home practice and weekly family meetings aim to build family connections and help families apply skills in real life. Guiding Good Choices® emphasizes strong family bonds as the key that motivates preteens to follow family guidelines and stay on a course toward better health and educational outcomes as teenagers.

During the course of GGC, parents learn to set clear family guidelines, as well as learn and practice skills to strengthen family bonds, help their children develop healthy behaviors, and increase children’s involvement in the family.

Shelley Logan

• Agency/Affiliation: University of Washington
• Department: Center for Communities That Care
• Website: https://www.communitiesthatcare.net/programs/ggc/
• Email: ggc4kids@uw.edu
• Phone: (206) 685-7723

The goals of Guiding Good Choices® (GGC) are:

• Prevent substance abuse among teens
• Prevent other risky behaviors among teens
• Improve family communication
• Improve family bonding

The essential components of the Guiding Good Choices® (GGC) program include:

• Five 2-hour group workshops for caregivers that cover the following topics:
• • Session 1 – Getting Started: How to Prevent Drug Use in Your Family – Parents learn about the nature and extent of the drug problem among teenagers in general and decide for themselves how they want to prevent problems in their own family. Parents also learn about risk and protective factors through an interactive activity.
  • Session 2 – Setting Guidelines: How to Develop Healthy Beliefs and Clear Standards – Parents develop clear family guidelines and expectations for behavior. Through small group discussions, parents explore how they feel about situations related to substance abuse, such as what they would do if their child were hanging around with someone who smokes, or whether their child should be allowed to drink alcohol on special occasions.
  • Session 3 – Avoiding Trouble: How to Say No to Drugs – Both children and parents are invited to this session. They learn and practice refusal skills that children can use to stay out of trouble and keep their friends while still having fun.
  • Session 4 – Managing Conflict: How to Control and Express Your Anger Constructively – Parents learn to manage family conflict in a way that maintains and strengthens bonds with their children.
  • Session 5 – Involving Everyone: How to Strengthen Family Bonds – Parents learn ways to strengthen family bonds and increase children’s involvement with the family during the teen years. Parents also learn how to create a parent support network.
• Each workshop leader uses the GGC Workshop Leader’s Guide to deliver each session.
  • The Workshop Leader’s Guide provides detailed guidance and instructions for facilitating each workshop session. The GGC Website provides slideshows and video clips depicting common parenting scenarios that are viewed and discussed during each session.
  • The Workshop Leader’s Guide provides detailed guidance and instructions for group activities for each workshop session.
• Each participating parent/family receives a copy of the GGC Family Guide, providing family activities, skill-building exercises, tips on positive parenting, and more.
• Each participating parent/caregiver receives GGC Family Activity materials for each session with activities, and skill-building exercises. Extension exercises and tips on positive parenting are available on the GGC website.

Parent/Caregiver Services

Guiding Good Choices® (GGC) directly provides services to parents/caregivers and addresses the following:

• Family history of the problem behavior, management problems, or conflict; favorable parental attitudes and involvement in the problem behavior; or caregivers of children/adolescents with rebelliousness, favorable attitudes toward and/or friends who engage in problem behaviors (e.g., substance abuse, delinquency, teen pregnancy, violence, depression, anxiety, high school dropout)

Recommended Intensity

One 2-hour workshop per week

Recommended Duration

5 weeks for in-person delivery, 6 weeks for virtual delivery

Delivery Settings

This program is typically conducted in a(n):

• Community-based Agency / Organization / Provider
• School Setting (Including: Day Care, Day Treatment Programs, etc.)

Homework

This program does include a homework component.

Parents practice communication and family management skills between sessions and discuss their experiences at the following session.

Languages

Guiding Good Choices® (GGC) has materials available in the following languages other than English:

• Spanish

For information on which materials are available in this language, please check on the program's website or contact the program representative (contact information is listed in this page).

Resources Needed to Run Program

The typical resources for implementing the program are:

For in-person delivery: Projector or screen to share slides, internet connection that allows streaming of video components, ability to print Family Guides for participants, appropriate space to host the workshops, and typical workshop materials like paper, pens, flipcharts, “table toys,” and snacks.

For virtual delivery: Computer with video conferencing software that allows video and screen sharing. Parent guides will need to be either emailed or printed and delivered to parents.

Prerequisite/Minimum Provider Qualifications

Teachers, parent educators, or anyone who is comfortable facilitating parents’ education can teach GGC

Manual Information

There is a manual that describes how to deliver this program.

Program Manual(s)

Manual details:

• University of Washington. (2023). Guiding Good Choices Workshop Leader’s Guide. The Center for Communities That Care. https://www.communitiesthatcare.net/wp-content/uploads/GGC-WLG-In-Person-4.17.23.pdf

Training Information

There is training available for this program.

Training Contact

Training Type/Location:

Training events are primarily virtual. In-person trainings can be arranged when logistics allow.

Number of days/hours:

Virtual Training of Workshop Leaders is held over the course of five days. The first four days utilize two 2-hour sessions with a break in-between and a 3-hour session on the final day. There is some preparation work completed by participants outside of this meeting time. (Total time is typically 15-20 hours.)

In-person training consists of three 6-hour day. There is some preparation work completed outside of the meeting time. (Total time is typically 18-20 hours.)

Pre-Implementation Materials

There are no pre-implementation materials to measure organizational or provider readiness for Guiding Good Choices®.

Formal Support for Implementation

The program representative did not provide information about formal support for implementation of Guiding Good Choices®..

Fidelity Measures

There are fidelity measures for Guiding Good Choices® as listed below:

The GGC website contains access to fidelity rating tools. These include fidelity checklists that are suggested to be completed by each workshop leader at the end of each session; these can be also used by program observers.

Implementation Guides or Manuals

There are implementation guides or manuals for Guiding Good Choices® as listed below:

Tips to prepare for successful implementation are included in the Introduction section of the GGC Workshop Leaders Guide:

• University of Washington. (2023). Guiding Good Choices Workshop Leader’s Guide. The Center for Communities That Care. https://www.communitiesthatcare.net/wp-content/uploads/GGC-WLG-In-Person-4.17.23.pdf

Research on How to Implement the Program

Research has not been conducted on how to implement Guiding Good Choices®.

Child Welfare Outcome: Child/Family Well-Being

“What is included in the Relevant Published, Peer-Reviewed Research section?”

• Spoth, R. L., Redmond, C., & Shin, C. (2001). Randomized trial of brief family interventions for general populations: Adolescent substance use outcomes 4 years following baseline. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69(4), 627–642. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.69.4.627

  Type of Study: Randomized controlled trial

  Participants: 667

  Sample / Population:

  • Age — Children: Mean=11.3 years; Parents: Mean=38.1 years
  • Race/Ethnicity — Not specified
  • Gender — Children: 52% Female; Parents: Not specified
  • Status —

    Participants were parents and their children in 6^th through 10^th grade.

  Location/Institution: Thirty-three rural schools in 19 contiguous counties in a Midwestern state

  Summary:

  The study used the same sample as Spoth et al. (1998). The purpose of the study was to examine the effectiveness of Preparing for the Drug-Free Years Program (PDFY) [now called Guiding Good Choices], the Iowa Strengthening Families Program (ISFP), and a minimal-contact control condition on preventing substance use in adolescents. Participants were randomized by block design, in which schools were blocked on enrollment and on the proportion of lower income students to one of three conditions: a minimal-contact control condition, the PDFY condition, and the ISFP condition-an intervention condition that was not examined in this study. Measures utilized include self-report surveys measuring initiation and current use of alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana. Results indicate that both PDFY and ISFP intervention groups had significant differences in initiation and current use as compared to the control group. Limitations include that there were no significant differences in effect between interventions, lack of generalizability of the findings to ethnic minority families and to families living in suburban and urban settings, and only a subset of the original sample was analyzed.

  Length of controlled postintervention follow-up: 4 years.

• Mason, W. A., Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J. D., Haggerty, K. P., & Spoth, R. L. (2003). Reducing adolescents’ growth in substance use and delinquency: Randomized trial effects of a preventive parent-training intervention. Prevention Science, 4(3), 203–212. https://doi.org/doi:10.1023/A:1024653923780

  Type of Study: Randomized controlled trial

  Participants: 429

  Sample / Population:

  • Age — Children: Mean=11.35 years; Parents: 37–40 years
  • Race/Ethnicity — Not specified
  • Gender — Children: 48% Male; Parents: Not specified
  • Status —

    Participants were parents and their children in 6th grade.

  Location/Institution: Thirty-three rural schools in 19 contiguous counties in a Midwestern state

  Summary:

  The study used the same sample as Spoth et al. (1998). The purpose of the study was to examine the effectiveness of Preparing for the Drug Free Years (PDFY) [now called Guiding Good Choices] on the relationship between growth in adolescent substance use and delinquency. Participants were randomized by block design, in which schools were blocked on enrollment and on the proportion of lower income students to one of three conditions: a minimal-contact control condition, the PDFY condition, and the Iowa Strengthening Families Program condition-an intervention condition that was not examined in this study. Measures utilized include self-reported adolescent poly-substance use. Results indicate that adolescents assigned to the PDFY intervention condition had a slower rate of linear increase over time in both substance use and delinquency compared with adolescents assigned to the control condition. Limitations include that only a subset of the original sample was followed, the reliance on self-reported measures, and a lack of generalizability due to study demographics.

  Length of controlled postintervention follow-up: 1, 2, and 3.5 years.

• Spoth, R., Redmond, C., Shin, C., & Azevedo, K. (2004). Brief family intervention effects on adolescent substance initiation: School-level curvilinear growth curve analyses 6 years following baseline. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(3), 535–542. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.72.3.535

  Type of Study: Randomized controlled trial

  Participants: 667

  Sample / Population:

  • Age — Mean=18.2 years
  • Race/Ethnicity — Not specified
  • Gender — Not specified
  • Status —

    Participants were parents and their children in 6th through 10th grade.

  Location/Institution: Thirty-three rural schools in 19 contiguous counties in a Midwestern state

  Summary:

  The study used the same sample as Spoth et al. (1998). The purpose of the study was to examine Preparing for the Drug-Free Years Program (PDFY) [now called Guiding Good Choices], the Iowa Strengthening Families Program (ISFP), and a minimal-contact control condition on trajectories of substance initiation over a period of 6 years following a baseline assessment. Participants were randomized by block design, in which schools were blocked on enrollment and on the proportion of lower income students to one of three conditions: a minimal-contact control condition, the PDFY condition, and the Iowa Strengthening Families Program condition-an intervention condition that was not examined in this study. Measures utilized include questionnaires on alcohol and tobacco use. Results indicate that both family-focused interventions slowed the growth in initiation of some substances over a 6-year period following the baseline assessment, during which the mean age of participants increased from 11.8 years to 18.2 years as compared to the control group. A greater number of delayed growth effects were in evidence for the ISFP, with PDFY effects shown only on tobacco use growth rates as compared to the control group. Limitations include that there were no significant differences in effect between interventions, a lack of generalizability of the findings to ethnic minority families and to families living in suburban and urban settings, and a reliance on self-report measures.

  Length of controlled postintervention follow-up: 6 years.

• Mason, W. A., Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J. D., Haggerty, K. P., Spoth, R. L., & Redmond, C. (2007). Influence of a family-focused substance use preventive intervention on growth in adolescent depressive symptoms. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17(3), 541–564. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2007.00534.x

  Type of Study: Randomized controlled trial

  Participants: 429

  Sample / Population:

  • Age — Children: Mean=11.3 years; Parents: Mean=37–40 years
  • Race/Ethnicity — Not specified
  • Gender — Children: 52% Female; Parents: Not specified
  • Status —

    Participants were parents and their children in 6th to 12th grade.

  Location/Institution: Thirty-three rural schools in 19 contiguous counties in a Midwestern state

  Summary:

  The purpose of the study was to examine the effects of Preparing for the Drug Free Years (PDFY) [now called Guiding Good Choices] on self-reported adolescent depressive symptoms 6 years after the PDFY intervention was completed. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: a minimal-contact control condition, the PDFY condition, and the Iowa Strengthening Families Program condition which was not examined in this study. Measures utilized include the Child Behavior Checklist—Youth Self-Report (CBCL-YSR), and self-reported adolescent poly-substance use questionnaire. Results indicate that in comparison to the control group, PDFY reduced the rate of increase in depressive symptoms during adolescence. Additionally, mediation of PDFY’s effect on depressive symptoms through reduced poly-substance use was tested; the indirect effect was only marginally significant for participants in the control group. Limitations include lack of generalizability of the findings to clinical populations, ethnic minority families, and to families living in suburban and urban settings and reliance on self-reported measures.

  Length of controlled postintervention follow-up: 6 years.

• Mason, W. A., Kosterman, R., Haggerty, K. P., Hawkins, J. D., Redmond, C., Spoth, R. L., & Shin, C. (2009). Gender moderation and social developmental mediation of the effect of a family-focused substance use preventive intervention on young adult alcohol abuse. Addictive Behaviors, 34(6–7), 599–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2009.03.032

  Type of Study: Randomized controlled trial

  Participants: 429

  Sample / Population:

  • Age — Children: Mean=11.3 years, Parents: Mean=37–40 years
  • Race/Ethnicity — Not specified
  • Gender — Children: 52% Female; Parents: Not specified
  • Status —

    Participants were parents and their children in 6th to 12th grade.

  Location/Institution: Thirty-three rural schools in 19 contiguous counties in a Midwestern state

  Summary:

  The study used the same sample as Mason et al. (2007). The purpose of the study was to examine the long-term impact of Preparing for the Drug Free Years (PDFY) [now called Guiding Good Choices] on young adult alcohol abuse disorder, addressing theory-based questions about how, and for whom, the program had its effects on the outcomes. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: a minimal-contact control condition, the PDFY condition, and the Iowa Strengthening Families Program condition which was not examined in this study. Measures utilized include the Child Behavior Checklist-Youth Self-Report (CBCL-YSR), the Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS), and self-reported adolescent poly-substance use questionnaire. Results indicate that PDFY reduced the rate of alcohol abuse among target young women, with evidence that this effect was mediated by increased prosocial skills. The rate of alcohol abuse among PDFY group males was not significantly different from that of control group males. Limitations include lack of generalizability of the findings to clinical populations, ethnic minority families, and to families living in suburban and urban settings and reliance on self-reported measures.

  Length of controlled postintervention follow-up: 6 years.

• Note: The following study was not included in rating Guiding Good Choices® on the Scientific Rating Scale.

  Spoth, R., Redmond, C., Haggerty, K., & Ward, T. (1995). A controlled parenting skills outcome study examining individual differences and attendance effects. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57(2), 449–464. https://doi.org/10.2307/353698

  Summary:

  The purpose of the study was to examine the efficacy of Preparing for the Drug Free Years (PDFY) [now called Guiding Good Choices] on family-skills-focused interventions in preventing juvenile substance abuse and conduct problems. Participants were randomly assigned to a PDFY group or a wait-listed control group. Families in the wait-list control group were offered the PDFY program following completion of posttesting. Measures utilized include written questionnaires and self-reported adolescent poly-substance use. Results indicate that the program increased proactive communication between parents and children as compared to participants in the control group. Mothers in the PDFY group exhibited significantly more proactive communication following the intervention than did control mothers. Fathers in the PDFY group exhibited significantly more proactive communication in interactions with their children in the problem-solving task than did control fathers following the intervention. Limitations include lack of reliable measures and lack of follow-up. · Note: This article was not used in the rating process due to criteria on the Scientific Rating Scale which requires that outcome measures be reliable and valid, and administered consistently and accurately across all subjects.

• Note: The following study was not included in rating Guiding Good Choices® on the Scientific Rating Scale.

  Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J. D., Spoth, R., Haggerty, K., & Zhu, K. (1997). Effects of a preventive parent-training intervention on observed family interactions: Proximal outcomes from preparing for the drug free years. Journal of Community Psychology, 25(4), 337–352. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(199707)25:4<337::AID-JCOP3>3.0.CO;2-R

  Summary:

  The study used the same sample as Spoth et al. (1995). The purpose of the study was to examine the effectiveness of Preparing for the Drug Free Years (PDFY) [now called Guiding Good Choices] on targeted parental behaviors. Participants were randomly assigned to a PDFY group or a wait-listed control group. Families in the wait-list control group were offered the PDFY program following completion of posttesting. Measures utilized include the Family Interaction Scales. Results indicate that the program increased proactive communication between parents and children as compared to participants in the control group. Mothers in the PDFY group exhibited significantly more proactive communication following the intervention than did control mothers. At the end of the PDFY intervention, fathers in the PDFY condition exhibited significantly more proactive communication in interactions with their children in the problem-solving task than did control fathers. Limitations include reliance on self-reported measures and lack of follow-up. Note: This article was not used in the rating process since child symptoms were not reported.

• Note: The following study was not included in rating Guiding Good Choices® on the Scientific Rating Scale.

  Spoth, R., Redmond, C., & Shin, C. (1998). Direct and indirect latent-variable parenting outcomes of two universal family-focused preventive interventions: Extending a public health-oriented research base. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(2), 385–399. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.66.2.385

  Summary:

  The purpose of the study was to examine the effectiveness of Preparing for the Drug Free Years Program (PDFY) [now called Guiding Good Choices], the Iowa Strengthening Families Program (ISFP), and a minimal-contact control condition on parenting behaviors to prevent substance and alcohol abuse in adolescents. Participants were randomized by block design, in which schools were blocked on enrollment and on the proportion of lower income students to one of three conditions: a minimal-contact control condition, the PDFY condition, and the Iowa Strengthening Families Program condition, an intervention condition that was not examined in this study. Measures utilized include self-report and observational portions of in-home interviews. Results indicate that both PDFY and ISFP intervention groups continued to have a statistically significant effect on parenting behaviors post treatment. The parenting behaviors targeted directly by the intervention influence the more global parenting practices of general child management and parent-child affective quality compared to the control group. Because differences in the content of the PDFY and ISFP warranted the application of different measurement models, the interventions were not compared directly. Limitations include no significant differences in effect between PDFY and ISFP, lack of generalizability of the findings to ethnic minority families and to families living in suburban and urban setting, and lack of reliable and valid measures. Note: This article was not used in the rating process due to criteria on the Scientific Rating Scale which requires that outcome measures be reliable and valid, and administered consistently and accurately across all subjects.

• Note: The following study was not included in rating Guiding Good Choices® on the Scientific Rating Scale.

  Redmond, C., Spoth, R., Shin, C., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). Modeling long-term parent outcomes of two universal family-focused preventive interventions: One-year follow-up results. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67(6), 975–984. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.67.6.975

  Summary:

  The study used the same sample as Spoth et al. (1998). The purpose of the study was to examine the intervention-effects models for parenting outcomes with data collected from respondents 1 year following the posttest in Preparing for the Drug-Free Years Program (PDFY) [now called Guiding Good Choices], the Iowa Strengthening Families Program (ISFP), and a minimal-contact control condition. Participants were randomized by block design, in which schools were blocked on enrollment and on the proportion of lower income students to one of three conditions: a minimal-contact control condition, the PDFY condition, and the Iowa Strengthening Families Program condition, an intervention condition that was not examined in this study. Measures utilized include parallel social development model measures, parents’ norms against substance use measures, and a measure of proactive family management. Results indicate that both PDFY and ISFP intervention groups continued to have a statistically significant effect on parenting behaviors, which, in turn, had significant effects on both parent child affective quality and general child management as compared to the control group. Limitations include no significant differences in effect between interventions, lack of generalizability of the findings to ethnic minority families and to families living in suburban and urban settings, and lack of reliable and valid measures. Note: This article was not used in the rating process due to criteria on the Scientific Rating Scale which requires that outcome measures be reliable and valid, and administered consistently and accurately across all subjects.

• Note: The following study was not included in rating Guiding Good Choices® on the Scientific Rating Scale.

  Park, J., Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J. D., Haggerty, K. P., Duncan, T. E., Duncan, S. C., Duncan, S. C., & Spoth, R. (2000). Effects of the "Preparing for the Drug Free Years" curriculum on growth in alcohol use and risk for alcohol use in early adolescence. Prevention Science, 1(3), 125–138. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010021205638

  Summary:

  The study used of the same sample as Spoth et al. (1998).The purpose of the study was to examine the effects of Preparing for the Drug Free Years (PDFY) [now called Guiding Good Choices], the Iowa Strengthening Families Program (ISFP), and a minimal-contact control condition on enhanced growth in or maintenance of family norms against alcohol and other drug use and proactive family management, and to reduce or curb the growth in family conflict. The study also examined whether or not PDFY would improve or help to maintain adolescents’ likelihood of resisting antisocial influence from peers as well as reduce or curb the growth in alcohol use during early adolescence. Participants were randomized by block design, in which schools were blocked on enrollment and on the proportion of lower income students to one of three conditions: a minimal-contact control condition, the PDFY condition, and the Iowa Strengthening Families Program condition-an intervention condition that was not examined in this study. Measures utilized include parallel social development model measures, parents’ norms against substance use measures, and a measure of proactive family management. Results indicate that PDFY directly reduced the growth in adolescent alcohol use from age 12 to age 15 1/2 as compared to the control group. Additionally, the intervention significantly strengthened parental norms against alcohol and other drug use by adolescents over time and also helped to maintain proactive family management practices over time, compared to a slight decline in family management practices among control families. No significant PDFY effects were found on growth in family conflict or refusal skills over the period from age 11 to age 14. Limitations include lack of generalizability of the findings to ethnic minority families and to families living in suburban and urban settings, and lack of reliable and valid measures. Note: This article was not used in the rating process due to criteria on the Scientific Rating Scale which requires that outcome measures be reliable and valid, and administered consistently and accurately across all subjects.

• Note: The following study was not included in rating Guiding Good Choices® on the Scientific Rating Scale.

  Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J. D., Haggerty, K. P., Spoth, R., & Redmond, C. (2001). Preparing for the Drug Free Years: Session-specific effects of a universal parent-training intervention with rural families. Journal of Drug Education, 31(1), 47–68. https://doi.org/10.2190/3KP9-V42V-V38L-6G0Y

  Summary:

  The study used a subset of the same sample as Spoth et al. (1998). The purpose of the study was to examine the effects of Preparing for the Drug Free Years (PDFY) [now called Guiding Good Choices] on specific parenting behaviors targeted by individual program sessions (drug and alcohol abuse, family conflict, strengthening family bonds). Participants were randomized to either PDFY or a waitlist control group. Measures utilized include items from self-administered surveys assessing the social development constructs targeted in the PDFY curriculum. Results indicate that compared to those in the control group, participants in PDFY reported that they had significantly more positive involvement with their child and made more use of positive rewards in parenting, reported setting clearer standards regarding substance use and conflict among family members, and reported that their child would be less likely to refuse influences to drugs. Limitations include lack of generalizability of the findings to ethnic minority families and to families living in suburban and urban setting, lack of reliable and valid measures, and lack of follow-up. Note: This article was not used in the rating process due to criteria on the Scientific Rating Scale which requires that outcome measures be reliable and valid, and administered consistently and accurately across all subjects.

There are currently no references available for Guiding Good Choices®.