FLASH is based on a health behavior change theory called the Health Belief Model (more below). The curriculum addresses:

• Perceived Susceptibility (students’ belief of the chances of getting pregnant or helping someone else become pregnant, catching an STD, being sexually exploited, developing testicular, cervical or breast cancer, and so forth),
• Perceived Severity (their perceptions of the seriousness of those things),
• Perceived Benefits (their belief in the efficacy of abstaining, of communicating assertively with partners, parents, health care providers and sexually aggressive individuals; of getting check-ups; of using condoms and other contraception; of performing self-examinations),
• Perceived Barriers (their clarity about what psychological and practical factors may stand in the way of their abstaining, communicating assertively, etc.),
• Cues to Action (it provides how-to information, promotes awareness and offers ways to remember healthy behaviors), and
• Self-Efficacy (it provides modeling, and skill-building through rehearsal and support)

It has never been rigorously evaluated in terms of actual behavior change, with large random samples, comparison schools and lagged-follow-up. That is much more costly than a county health department can afford; we are not a commercial distributor of curricula. In terms of the Kirby/Rolleri/Wilson model, FLASH would be better described as “promising,” rather than as “proven.” That is to say, we did participate, with other experts, in a day-long examination of 9/10 FLASH to assess its concurrence with the characteristics of sex ed programs that have been rigorously evaluated and found to be effective. 9/10 FLASH got good grades.

While there have not been large-scale, rigorous studies of FLASH, there have been three small post-test evaluations in the early 1990’s. Evaluations of 4/5/6 FLASH by the Vashon Island and Federal Way School Districts showed that it increased students’ knowledge in important ways and that they improved their attitudes about such things as puberty (less fear, more confidence) and sexual exploitation (their confidence in their ability to say “no” and tell an adult). And an evaluation of 7/8 FLASH comparing a health class that experienced the curriculum to a social studies class that didn’t found similar increases in knowledge, ability to formulate an assertive objection to another’s behavior, and attitudes about their own ability to be safe.

Yes and no. It can certainly be used in flexible ways. A teacher can do the social skills and decision making lessons, for example, early in a semester, the HIV and other STD lessons when other diseases are being studied, and the pregnancy and contraception lessons (in grades 7-12) at still another point in a semester. That said, pulling out a single lesson or two, especially without the climate-setting introductory lesson in the curriculum, is unlikely to be effective with respect to actual, sustained health behavior change.

Yes, training is available. No, the cost is not included in the curriculum price. Teachers need a minimum of 2-days of training to do a really skilled job with the curricula – more if possible. Each day (6-7 contact hours) of training would cost $1,500. plus trainers’ travel and per diem. That is negotiable within King County (since we are a County agency).

It includes a strong family-involvement component. The Special Education version of the curriculum is flexible, depending upon the kind and severity of students’ disabilities. The curriculum at all grade levels honors students’ intelligence and avoids condescending. It is teacher-friendly. Updated lessons and parts of lessons can be down-loaded free, as new vaccines are developed, new diseases discovered, new contraceptives approved, etc. And, perhaps most important, it is abstinence and value-based without preaching and it teaches respect for diverse community values about controversial issues.

More about the Health Belief Model

• Glanz, K., Rimer, B.K. & Lewis, F.M. (2002). Health Behavior and Health Education. Theory, Research and Practice. San Fransisco: Wiley & Sons.
  
  
• Glanz, K., Marcus Lewis, F. & Rimer, B.K. (1997). Theory at a Glance: A Guide for Health Promotion Practice. National Institute of Health.
  
  
• Eisen, M et.al. (1992). A Health Belief Model — Social Learning Theory Approach to Adolescents' Fertility Control: Findings from a Controlled Field Trial. Health Education Quarterly. Vol. 19.
  
  
• Rosenstock, I. (1974). Historical Origins of the Health Belief Model. Health Education Monographs. Vol. 2 No. 4.
  
  
• See also: www.comminit.com/ctheories/sld-2929.html and www.etr.org/recapp/theories/hbm