A ten-session dating abuse prevention program to raise students' awareness of what constitutes healthy and abusive dating relationships, as well as the causes and consequences of dating abuse.
Blueprints: Promising
Crime Solutions: Effective
OJJDP Model Programs: Effective
SAMHSA : 2.9-3.3
Safe Dates
15251 Pleasant Valley Road, P.O. Box 176
Center City, MN 55012-0176
Phone: (800) 328-9000 ext. 4324
Website: http://www.hazelden.org/web/public/safedatesproduct.page
Vangie Foshee
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Safe Dates is a ten-session dating abuse prevention program for middle/high school students consisting of both school and community components. The school component has a curriculum that is implemented in schools by regular classroom teachers and targets primary prevention, while the community component targets secondary prevention by providing support groups and activities for youth as well as information for parents. The curriculum in the school component can also be presented by community resource people outside of the school setting. Each session is 45-50 minutes in length and includes the following topics: defining caring relationships, defining dating abuse, why people abuse, helping friends, overcoming gender stereotypes, equal power through communication, how we feel/how we deal, and preventing sexual assault. Booster sessions can also be offered after the initial administration of the curriculum.
Safe Dates is a dating violence prevention program that provides male and female middle/high school students with the skills to prevent dating violence by changing dating violence norms and gender stereotyping, improving conflict-management skills, help-seeking behavior, and other cognitive factors associated with help-seeking.
The Safe Dates program includes school (primary prevention) and community (secondary prevention) activities. School activities promote the primary prevention of dating violence perpetration by changing norms associated with partner violence, decreasing gender stereotyping, and improving conflict management skills. Community activities promote secondary prevention by changing those same variables and by also changing beliefs about the need for help, awareness of services for victims and perpetrators of partner violence, and help-seeking behavior. Community activities also enhance the availability of dating violence services from which adolescents can seek help. School activities include: a theater production performed by peers, a 10-session curriculum (45-50 minutes per session), and a poster contest. The 45-minute theater production, about how an adolescent victim of dating violence seeks help with her violent relationship, addresses many of the mediating variables related to help-seeking. The poster contest is described during day 10 of the curriculum, and interested students develop posters that address themes in the Safe Dates curriculum. The poster contest is designed to give adolescents another exposure to messages about dating violence. Posters are displayed in the classroom and judged by students to determine the top three posters in the school, each of which earns a cash prize.
Booster sessions are administered three years post-intervention. The booster consists of an 11-page newsletter mailed to the adolescents' homes and a telephone call from a health educator approximately four weeks after the mailing. The newsletter contains worksheets based on the Safe Dates school curriculum for adolescents to complete. The health educators answer questions, provide additional information when needed, and assess completion of newsletter worksheets.
Although the school component has primarily been implemented by regular classroom teachers as a part of required health education classes, the curriculum could also be delivered by community leaders or as a part of a youth-group activity, provided all of the sessions are completed and a high level of attendance is assured. Topics covered in the curriculum include: defining caring relationships, defining dating abuse, why people abuse, helping friends, overcoming gender stereotypes, equal power through communication, how we feel/how we deal, and preventing sexual assault. Community activities consist of special services for adolescents in abusive relationships (e.g., a crisis line, weekly support groups, materials for parents) and community service provider training.
Primary Evidence Base for Certification
Study 1
Foshee et al. (1998, 2005), Foshee, Benefield et al. (2004) and four additional studies reported:
Compared to the control group, participants in the treatment group schools showed the following improvements at one-month follow-up:
At one-year follow-up, participants in the treatment group showed the following improvements compared to participants in the control group:
At the four-year follow-up, the following significant results were found among program participants compared to the control group participants:
Primary Evidence Base for Certification
The one study Blueprints has reviewed (Study 1) meets Blueprints evidentiary standards (specificity, evaluation quality, impact, dissemination readiness). The study was done by the developer.
Study 1
Foshee et al. (1998, 2005), Foshee, Benefield et al. (2004) and four additional studies conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial with 14 schools stratified by grade and matched on school size. Matched pairs of schools were randomly assigned to the treatment which received both the school and community activities or to a control condition that only received community activities. Data measuring dating violence perpetration and victimization were collected at baseline, one month, and annually up to four years after program completion.
Study 1
Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Arriaga, X. B., Helms, R. W., Koch, G. G., & Linder, G. F. (1998). An evaluation of Safe Dates, an adolescent dating violence prevention program. American Journal of Public Health, 88, 45-50.
Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Ennett, S. T., Suchindran, C., Benefield, T., & Linder, G. F. (2005). Assessing the effects of dating violence prevention program "Safe Dates" using random coefficient regression modeling. Prevention Science, 6(3), 245-257.
Foshee, V. A., Benefield, T. S., Ennett, S. T., Bauman, K. E., & Suchindran, C. (2004). Longitudinal predictors of serious physical and sexual dating violence victimization during adolescence. Preventive Medicine, 39, 1007-1016.
Individual: Favorable attitudes towards antisocial behavior*
Peer: Interaction with antisocial peers
Individual: Prosocial involvement
Family: Attachment to parents
Neighborhood/Community: Opportunities for prosocial involvement
*
Risk/Protective Factor was significantly impacted by the program
See also: Safe Dates Logic Model (PDF)
Subgroup differences in program effects by race, ethnicity, or gender (coded in binary terms as male/female) or program effects for a sample of a specific racial, ethnic, or gender group:
Sample demographics including race, ethnicity, and gender for Blueprints-certified studies:
Implementation training is available from Hazelden Safe Dates trainers. This hands-on program prepares teachers to deliver Safe Dates with competence and confidence. This training has demonstrated its ability to help participants implement Safe Dates in a way that will garner the outcomes it promises (due to fidelity to the model) and to significantly decrease preparation time. Generally, implementation training is offered on-site for school districts or community organizations, but occasionally Hazelden will offer open-enrollment workshops for multiple organizations. The cost of an on-site workshop (one-day) is $2,200, plus transportation and lodging expenses for the trainer. Open-enrollment workshops are $175.00 per person.
Under a special licensing arrangement with Hazelden, organizations may be granted the authority to train Safe Dates implementers within a geographic region. A three-day training-of-trainers workshop is then held to prepare facilitators to provide implementation training for teachers, counselors, and others who will deliver Safe Dates training to young people in a variety of settings. The cost of this program is $6,200 plus transportation and lodging expenses for the trainer.
Source: Washington State Institute for Public Policy
All benefit-cost ratios are the most recent estimates published by The Washington State Institute for Public Policy for Blueprint programs implemented in Washington State. These ratios are based on a) meta-analysis estimates of effect size and b) monetized benefits and calculated costs for programs as delivered in the State of Washington. Caution is recommended in applying these estimates of the benefit-cost ratio to any other state or local area. They are provided as an illustration of the benefit-cost ratio found in one specific state. When feasible, local costs and monetized benefits should be used to calculate expected local benefit-cost ratios. The formula for this calculation can be found on the WSIPP website.
One-day implementation training for teachers who will be delivering Safe Dates curriculum: $175 per teacher for participation in open enrollment training at Hazelden plus transportation and teacher time or $2,200 for Hazelden trainers to come on-site and deliver training to a group of teachers plus Hazelden trainer travel costs + teacher time.
$225.00 for teacher manual that includes a CD-ROM with student and parent materials.
None.
None.
$16.63 per class (estimate of materials and supplies required for each classroom of 30 students and 45 parents/guardians.)
Because training is typically delivered in classrooms, there are not usually any additional space, transportation or administration costs associated with implementation.
Occasional web training and consultation on "frequently asked questions" is available free of charge from Hazelden; if more in-depth consultation is required, the fee is $125.00 per hour.
Fidelity monitoring tools are included with teacher manual and are generally used by teachers delivering the program.
None.
No information is available
The majority of the costs incurred are up-front costs for teacher training and curricula. Once these investments are made, there is little additional cost to implement the model, making this a very low cost model over time. The major resource required to sustain the program is dedicating teaching time to the delivery of training.
A school wishing to implement Safe Dates with 20 teachers, each with a class of 25, could expect the following costs:
| Initial on-site training for 20 | $2,200.00 |
| Trainer travel | $2,000.00 |
| Materials for 20 classrooms @ $225 | $4,500.00 |
| Total One Year Cost | $8,700.00 |
With 500 students taught, the cost per student would be $17.40.
Safe Dates is a very low cost program and many districts are able to purchase training materials through their general curriculum funds and then dedicate classroom teacher time to delivering the training. In addition, partnerships with private foundations or businesses can be an effective way to support the initial training and curriculum costs with the school district then sustaining the program through dedication of the teaching time.
Redirection: The most critical support necessary to sustain Safe Dates is for District and School administrators to commit to dedicating classroom teaching time to delivery of the curriculum. In order for this commitment to be sustained over time, it is important for the program to have key champions at the school level - administrators, teachers, parents, and students - who will advocate for the importance of the program.
State departments of education or health sometimes allocate state funds toward violence prevention programs, which can be administered competitively or by formula to Districts, and could potentially support a Safe Dates program. Some states have put in place legislative set- asides requiring a certain portion of state agency budgets be dedicated to evidence-based programs and/or prevention programs.
Formula Funds: There are a variety of federal formula funds that could potentially support Safe Dates. Accessing these funding streams depends on the leaders of the administering agency prioritizing investment in Safe Dates.
Discretionary Grants: There are relevant federal discretionary grants administered by SAMHSA, OJJDP, Education, and the Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB).
Foundation grants and public-private partnerships are an important financing strategy for Safe Dates. Districts that find it difficult to identify dollars to support the initial training and curriculum purchases can potentially partner with a local foundation or corporation to support these costs. In some sites, Parent-Teacher-Organizations (PTO) and local domestic violence agencies are also important partners.
A final category of strategies to consider are mechanisms to generate new revenue and to set aside funding for specific populations or sets of services. Several states and localities generate funding for prevention services through the imposition of fees on products that can result in social costs. The most popular of these "sin taxes" generally target tobacco and alcohol use. New tax and fee strategies are generally difficult to put in place, and the mechanism for establishing them depends on the state. In some states new revenue mechanisms can be put in place through ballot initiatives, while in others they require state legislation.
Survey and interview with purveyor, Hazelden Publishing.
Vangie FosheeUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillDepartment of Health Behavior and Health Education317 Rosenau Hall, CB 7440Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7440(919) 966-6616(919) 966-2921foshee@email.unc.edu www.sph.unc.edu
A ten-session dating abuse prevention program to raise students' awareness of what constitutes healthy and abusive dating relationships, as well as the causes and consequences of dating abuse.
Middle school age youth (grades 8-9).
Subgroup differences in program effects by race, ethnicity, or gender (coded in binary terms as male/female) or program effects for a sample of a specific racial, ethnic, or gender group:
Sample demographics including race, ethnicity, and gender for Blueprints-certified studies:
Risk: antisocial peer opportunities, antisocial peer involvement, negative gender stereotyping, abusive social norms.
Protective: prosocial neighborhood opportunities, positive family involvement, good family management, positive school involvement, prosocial peer involvement, prosocial beliefs.
Individual: Favorable attitudes towards antisocial behavior*
Peer: Interaction with antisocial peers
Individual: Prosocial involvement
Family: Attachment to parents
Neighborhood/Community: Opportunities for prosocial involvement
*Risk/Protective Factor was significantly impacted by the program
Safe Dates is a ten-session dating abuse prevention program for middle/high school students consisting of both school and community components. The school component has a curriculum that is implemented in schools by regular classroom teachers and targets primary prevention, while the community component targets secondary prevention by providing support groups and activities for youth as well as information for parents. The curriculum in the school component can also be presented by community resource people outside of the school setting. Each session is 45-50 minutes in length and includes the following topics: defining caring relationships, defining dating abuse, why people abuse, helping friends, overcoming gender stereotypes, equal power through communication, how we feel/how we deal, and preventing sexual assault. Booster sessions can also be offered after the initial administration of the curriculum.
Safe Dates is a dating violence prevention program that provides male and female middle/high school students with the skills to prevent dating violence by changing dating violence norms and gender stereotyping, improving conflict-management skills, help-seeking behavior, and other cognitive factors associated with help-seeking.
The Safe Dates program includes school (primary prevention) and community (secondary prevention) activities. School activities promote the primary prevention of dating violence perpetration by changing norms associated with partner violence, decreasing gender stereotyping, and improving conflict management skills. Community activities promote secondary prevention by changing those same variables and by also changing beliefs about the need for help, awareness of services for victims and perpetrators of partner violence, and help-seeking behavior. Community activities also enhance the availability of dating violence services from which adolescents can seek help. School activities include: a theater production performed by peers, a 10-session curriculum (45-50 minutes per session), and a poster contest. The 45-minute theater production, about how an adolescent victim of dating violence seeks help with her violent relationship, addresses many of the mediating variables related to help-seeking. The poster contest is described during day 10 of the curriculum, and interested students develop posters that address themes in the Safe Dates curriculum. The poster contest is designed to give adolescents another exposure to messages about dating violence. Posters are displayed in the classroom and judged by students to determine the top three posters in the school, each of which earns a cash prize.
Booster sessions are administered three years post-intervention. The booster consists of an 11-page newsletter mailed to the adolescents' homes and a telephone call from a health educator approximately four weeks after the mailing. The newsletter contains worksheets based on the Safe Dates school curriculum for adolescents to complete. The health educators answer questions, provide additional information when needed, and assess completion of newsletter worksheets.
Although the school component has primarily been implemented by regular classroom teachers as a part of required health education classes, the curriculum could also be delivered by community leaders or as a part of a youth-group activity, provided all of the sessions are completed and a high level of attendance is assured. Topics covered in the curriculum include: defining caring relationships, defining dating abuse, why people abuse, helping friends, overcoming gender stereotypes, equal power through communication, how we feel/how we deal, and preventing sexual assault. Community activities consist of special services for adolescents in abusive relationships (e.g., a crisis line, weekly support groups, materials for parents) and community service provider training.
Primary prevention: Changes in norms coupled with improvements in prosocial skills serve as the theoretical base for primary prevention (school curriculum) activities. Norms are standards for acceptable behavior and thus have a significant effect on behavior and conformity. Weak conflict-management skills are associated with youth aggression in general and with partner violence specifically. Thus, school activities are expected to lead to the primary prevention of dating violence perpetration by (1) changing norms associated with partner violence, (2) decreasing gender stereotyping, and (3) improving conflict-management skills.
Secondary prevention: Changes in norms, awareness of gender stereotyping, and conflict-management skills may also be important for adolescents in abusive relationships if they are to leave those relationships or stop being violent. In addition, secondary prevention activities encourage victims and perpetrators to seek help by addressing cognitive factors associated with help-seeking. Precaution adoption theory posits that decisions to seek help are influenced by (1) beliefs in the need for help and (2) beliefs in a given action to provide help.
Primary Evidence Base for Certification
The one study Blueprints has reviewed (Study 1) meets Blueprints evidentiary standards (specificity, evaluation quality, impact, dissemination readiness). The study was done by the developer.
Study 1
Foshee et al. (1998, 2005), Foshee, Benefield et al. (2004) and four additional studies conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial with 14 schools stratified by grade and matched on school size. Matched pairs of schools were randomly assigned to the treatment which received both the school and community activities or to a control condition that only received community activities. Data measuring dating violence perpetration and victimization were collected at baseline, one month, and annually up to four years after program completion.
Primary Evidence Base for Certification
Study 1
Foshee et al. (1998, 2005), Foshee, Benefield et al. (2004) and four additional studies reported:
At the one-month follow-up, compared to control, Safe Dates prevented and reduced psychological abuse perpetration, reduced sexual dating violence perpetration, and positively changed cognitive mediating variables that were based on program content, such as dating violence norms, gender stereotyping, conflict management skills, and awareness of community services for dating violence.
At the one-year follow-up, behavioral effects had faded but there were still effects on the cognitive mediating variables as well as on peer violence victimization and weapon-carrying.
At the four-year follow-up, there were significant treatment effects in the expected direction for physical, serious physical, and sexual dating violence perpetration and sexual victimization. Prior victimization moderated program effects on physical and serious physical victimization at almost all strata of prior victimization. The booster intervention did not improve the effectiveness of Safe Dates. When adolescents exposed to the booster were eliminated from the analysis, adolescents who only received Safe Dates reported perpetrating significantly less psychological, moderate physical, and sexual dating violence perpetration at all four follow-up Waves than those in the control group. In addition, those adolescents who reported no severe physical perpetration or average amounts of severe physical perpetration at baseline reported significantly less severe physical perpetration than control group adolescents at each of the four long-term follow-up waves.
Primary Evidence Base for Certification
Study 1
Foshee et al. (1998, 2005), Foshee, Benefield et al. (2004) and four additional studies reported:
Compared to the control group, participants in the treatment group schools showed the following improvements at one-month follow-up:
At one-year follow-up, participants in the treatment group showed the following improvements compared to participants in the control group:
At the four-year follow-up, the following significant results were found among program participants compared to the control group participants:
One study meets Blueprints standards for high quality methods with strong evidence of program impact (i.e., "certified" by Blueprints): Study 1 (Foshee et al., 1998, 2005), Foshee, Benefield et al. (2004) and additional articles. The study included 8th and 9th grade students from schools in a rural county of North Carolina in which the treatment was compared to a control condition only receiving community activities.
Blueprints: Promising
Crime Solutions: Effective
OJJDP Model Programs: Effective
SAMHSA : 2.9-3.3
Safe Dates
15251 Pleasant Valley Road, P.O. Box 176
Center City, MN 55012-0176
Phone: (800) 328-9000 ext. 4324
Website: http://www.hazelden.org/web/public/safedatesproduct.page
Certified Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Arriaga, X. B., Helms, R. W., Koch, G. G., & Linder, G. F. (1998). An evaluation of Safe Dates, an adolescent dating violence prevention program. American Journal of Public Health, 88, 45-50.
Certified Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Ennett, S. T., Suchindran, C., Benefield, T., & Linder, G. F. (2005). Assessing the effects of dating violence prevention program "Safe Dates" using random coefficient regression modeling. Prevention Science, 6(3), 245-257.
Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Ennett, S., Linder, G. F., Benefield, T., & Suchindran, C. (2004). Assessing the long-term effects of Safe Dates and a booster in preventing and reducing dating violence victimization and perpetration. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 619-624.
Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Greene, W. F., Koch, G. G., Linder, G. F., & MacDougall, J. E. (2000). The Safe Dates program: One-year follow-up results. American Journal of Public Health, 90, 1619-1622
Certified Foshee, V. A., Benefield, T. S., Ennett, S. T., Bauman, K. E., & Suchindran, C. (2004). Longitudinal predictors of serious physical and sexual dating violence victimization during adolescence. Preventive Medicine, 39, 1007-1016.
Foshee, V. A., Linder, G. F., Bauman, K. E., Langwick, S. A., Arriaga, X. B., Heath, J. L., . . . Bangdiwala, S. (1996). The Safe Dates project: Theoretical basis, evaluation design, and selected baseline findings. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 12, 39-47.
Foshee, V. A., Reyes, L. M., Agnew-brune, C., Simon, T. R., Vagi, K. J., Lee, R. D., & Suchindran, C. (2014). The effects of the evidence-based safe dates dating abuse prevention program on other youth violence outcomes. Prevention Science, 15(6), 907-916.
Summary
Foshee et al. (1998, 2005), Foshee, Benefield et al. (2004) and four additional studies conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial with 14 schools stratified by grade and matched on school size. Matched pairs of schools were randomly assigned to the treatment which received both the school and community activities or to a control condition that only received community activities. Data measuring dating violence perpetration and victimization were collected at baseline, one month, and annually up to four years after program completion.
Compared to the control group, participants in the treatment group schools showed the following improvements at one-month follow-up:
At one-year follow-up, participants in the treatment group showed the following improvements compared to participants in the control group:
At four-year follow-up, the following significant results were found among program participants compared to the control group participants:
Evaluation Methodology
Design: Program activities took place from November 1994 through March 1995. The booster took place between the two- and three-year follow ups. Fourteen public schools in Johnston County, North Carolina with students in the eighth or ninth grade were stratified by grade and matched by school size. One member of each matched pair was then randomly assigned to a treatment or control condition. Treatment adolescents were exposed to school and community activities (the Safe Dates program), whereas control adolescents were exposed to community activities only. Adolescents who had been in the treatment schools and who had parental permission completed the two-year follow-up data collection and then were randomly allocated to booster and non-booster conditions. As a part of the community activities, 20 workshops were offered to community service providers, including social service, mental health, crisis line, and health department staff, school counselors, sheriff's deputies, and officers from the nine police departments in the county. Students in the 7 treatment schools first saw the theater production, then received the 10-session curriculum two months later, and finally participated in the poster contest one month after the curriculum was implemented. Baseline data were collected in October 1994 from 1,886 (81%) of the 2,344 eligible students. Follow-up data were collected from the treatment and control adolescents at 1 month (Wave 2), 1 year (Wave 3), 2 years (Wave 4), 3 years (Wave 5), and 4 years (Wave 6) after completion of the Safe Dates program using the same procedures as in the baseline data collection. Students who were absent for school data collection, including those who had dropped out of school, were mailed a questionnaire and 50% of those questionnaires were completed and returned.
Across all follow-up waves, between 4 and 9% of the students completed questionnaires by mail. A total of 48.2% (n = 460) of the adolescents from the eighth grade cohort who provided baseline data also provided data at the two-year and four-year follow-up, which included measures of booster effects (control = 201; Safe Dates = 124; Safe Dates plus the booster = 135). Additional analyses were limited to adolescents who completed a baseline questionnaire and who were in either the original control or the treatment group that received Safe Dates but not the booster. The booster-group adolescents were eliminated from subsequent analyses because the focus was on evaluating the effects of Safe Dates, rather than the booster, over time.
There were no significant differences on the baseline measures of dating abuse victimization and perpetration between adolescents who received Safe Dates only and those who received Safe Dates and the booster. Attrition from baseline to Wave 3 was only 12%, but by Wave 5 was approximately 50%. There were no statistically significant treatment group differences in the amount of attrition at each follow-up wave.
Sample: Adolescents were eligible for the study if they were enrolled in the eighth or ninth grade in Johnston County, North Carolina on September 10, 1994 (n = 2,344 eligible students). Of these eligible adolescents, 1,700 completed the one-month post-test questionnaire. Fifty-one percent of the initial post-test sample were female, 19.1% were African American, and 77.1% were White. Ages ranged from 11 to 17 years, with a mean of 13.8. At both baseline and the first follow-up, about 70% of the adolescents reported dating. Of the adolescents who were dating at baseline, 34.9% of the girls and 38% of the boys reported being a victim of dating violence at least once. At baseline, dating girls were significantly more likely than boys to report perpetration of nonsexual dating violence, but dating boys were more likely than dating girls to report sexual dating violence perpetration. Caucasian adolescents reported less victimization of nonsexual dating violence than either African-American adolescents or adolescents in the "other" racial group category, and reported significantly less nonsexual violence perpetration than African-American adolescents. Adolescents in the "other" racial group category reported more sexual violence perpetration than Caucasian adolescents.
The 1,700 students were divided into three subsamples based on dating violence experience. The primary prevention subsample included dating adolescents who reported at baseline that they had never been a victim or a perpetrator of dating violence (n = 862), the victim secondary prevention subsample included dating adolescents who reported being a victim of dating violence at baseline (n = 438), and the perpetrator secondary prevention subsample included dating adolescents who reported they had been a perpetrator of dating violence at baseline (n = 247). Most of the adolescents in this study reporting experience with dating violence reported being both a victim and a perpetrator, thus many of the same adolescents were in both the victim and perpetrator subsamples. There were no significant differences between treatment and control schools at the individual or school level. All of the study samples and subsamples were equivalent at baseline.
Measures: Data were collected from students during 50-minute in-school sessions through self-administered questionnaires or via the mailed questionnaires used in subsequent Waves of data collection. Four victimization and four perpetration variables were measured using a Likert scale: psychological abuse victimization, nonsexual violence victimization, sexual violence victimization, and violence in the current relationship. Moderate physical, severe physical, and sexual dating violence perpetration were measured by responses (0 = never; 3 = 10 or more times) to 18 listed acts of direct perpetration. From these responses, composite measures for moderate physical, severe physical, and sexual dating violence perpetration were created. The five mediating variables were also assessed at each Wave. In addition, four variables measuring dating violence norms were created: acceptance of prescribed norms, acceptance of proscribed norms, perceived positive consequences of dating violence, and perceived negative consequences of dating violence. The same Likert scale format was used to measure all four constructs. Gender stereotyping and beliefs regarding need for help were also measured using the above format. Students were also asked if they were aware of any services for victims and perpetrators of dating violence, and whether they had asked for help from others as either a victim or perpetrator. Finally, four conflict management variables were measured with Likert scale responses: constructive and destructive communication skills, and constructive and destructive responses to anger.
Foshee et al. (2014) examined three additional measures of violence: peer violence perpetration, peer violence victimization and weapon carrying to school. Although data were gathered at baseline and then at 1-month, and 1, 2, 3, and 4 years post-intervention, only 1-year follow-up results were presented. Peer violence perpetration (baseline alpha = .80; follow-up alpha=0.86) was measured using questions such as "How many times have you ever done the following things to someone of the same sex and the same age as you: 'beat them up,' 'hit them with my fist,' 'threatened them with a weapon,' and 'used a weapon on them.'" Response options ranged from never (0) to 10 or more times (3) and were summed to find a total score. Similar questions were used to measure peer violence victimization (baseline alpha = .75; follow-up alpha=0.81). Weapon-carrying was measured by asking adolescents if they had ever brought a gun or any other kind of weapon to school (0=no; 1=yes).
Analysis: Logistic regression was used to evaluate the multivariate relationship of study variables to dropout status through odds ratios. Three variables, White racial identity, gender stereotyping, and nonsexual violence victimization were significantly associated with dropout status. White students were slightly more likely to drop out of the study than other students. The odds of dropping out increased with gender stereotyping and nonsexual violence. Accordingly, all three variables were controlled in multivariate analyses.
In the full sample and each subsample, the treatment and control groups were compared at baseline and follow-up on demographic, mediating, and outcome variables using the school as the unit of analysis while taking the matching design into consideration. Matching allowed consideration of each matched pair as a primary sampling unit. School wide means for each outcome of interest were compared using the nonparametric Wilcoxon signed rank test for differences from matched pairs. When identifying the variables that mediated program effects, analyses were performed at the individual level.
Sample sizes were too small to conduct analyses on subsamples of "pure perpetrators" and "pure victims."
Linear mixed regression models were used to assess program and booster effects (where included) and moderators of effects.
For the analysis of the Safe Dates non-booster and control groups, data were used from Waves 1 through 5. Wave 6 data were not used because the ninth-grade cohort had graduated from high school and therefore no data was collected from them. Within-subjects multiple imputation procedures were used to decrease the likelihood that the findings would be biased by missing data.
Long-term analysis by Foshee et al. (2005) to determine primary (prevention) and secondary (intervention) program effects over time up to 3 years post-intervention used random coefficient regression modeling. Multiple imputation procedures were used to deal with missing data values.
To examine the three additional measures of violence, Foshee et al. (2014) used multivariate logistic regression models (for weapon-carrying) and negative binomial regression models (for peer violence victimization and perpetration). Models adjusted standard errors for nesting within schools due to the clustered design. Only adolescents without missing data were used in the analysis, resulting in an analyzed sample size of 1620 for peer victimization and perpetration. Further, adolescents who had reported carrying a weapon to school at baseline were also dropped from the analysis for the weapon-carrying outcome, resulting in a sample size of 1397.
Outcomes
Post test: At follow-up, there were no significant differences in the victimization of psychological abuse, nonsexual violence, sexual violence, or violence in the current relationship between the treatment and control groups in any of the samples.
Full sample: At the one-month follow-up, adolescents in the treatment condition reported significantly less psychological abuse perpetration and significantly less perpetration of violence against a current dating partner than those in the control condition. Adolescents in the treatment group, as compared with those in the control group, were less supportive of prescribed dating violence norms, were more supportive of proscribed dating violence norms, perceived fewer positive consequences from using dating violence, used more constructive communication skills and responses to anger, were less likely to engage in gender stereotyping, and were more aware of victim and perpetrator services.
Mediation: After gender, variables associated with attrition, and baseline values of the dependent variables had been controlled, placement in the treatment condition was significantly associated with changes in psychological abuse perpetration, sexual violence perpetration, and violence perpetrated in the current relationship. The association between treatment condition and psychological abuse perpetration was mediated by changes in prescribed norms, gender stereotyping, and awareness of victim services. The association between treatment condition and sexual violence perpetration was mediated by changes in prescribed norms, gender stereotyping, awareness of victim services and awareness of perpetrator services. The relationship between treatment condition and violence perpetrated in the current relationship was mediated only by changes in prescribed norms.
Primary prevention subsample: At the one-month follow-up, adolescents in the treatment condition, as compared to those in the control condition, reported initiating significantly less psychological abuse perpetration. Treatment adolescents were more supportive than controls of proscribed dating violence norms, perceived more negative consequences from using dating violence, and engaged in less gender stereotyping.
Mediation: Controlled analyses indicated that placement in the treatment condition was significantly associated with initiation of psychological abuse. The relationship remained statistically significant when proposed mediators were controlled, indicating that this program effect occurred through mechanisms other than those proposed.
Victim subsample: Adolescents in the treatment group, relative to control group adolescents, were less accepting of prescribed dating violence norms, less accepting of traditional gender stereotypes, and more aware of victim services.
Perpetrator subsample: At the one-month follow-up, there were trends toward significance in the predicted direction in differences in psychological abuse perpetration and sexual violence perpetration. Adolescents in the treatment group, as compared to those in the control group, perceived more negative consequences for using dating violence and were more aware of services for perpetrators.
Mediation: Placement in the treatment condition was associated with psychological abuse perpetration and with sexual violence perpetration. The association between treatment condition and psychological abuse perpetration was mediated by changes in awareness of perpetrator services, while the association between treatment condition and sexual violence perpetration was mediated by changes in perceived negative consequences for using dating violence and awareness of perpetrator services.
Long term: At the one-year follow-up (8th/9th grades), no significant differences were found between the treatment and control groups in any of the behavioral outcomes in any of the samples. Some of the mediating variables were maintained and are described below:
Full sample: Adolescents in the treatment group were less accepting of dating violence, perceived more negative consequences from engaging in dating violence, reported using less destructive responses to anger, and were more aware of victim and perpetrator services than were adolescents in the control group.
Primary prevention subsample: No significant differences were found in any of the mediating variables between treatment and control groups at follow-up.
Victim subsample: Adolescents in the treatment group were less accepting of dating violence, perceived more negative consequences from engaging in dating violence, reported using less destructive responses to anger, reported less gender stereotyping, and were more aware of victim services than were adolescents in the control group.
Perpetrator subsample: Adolescents in the treatment group reported using less destructive responses to anger, and were more aware of perpetrator services than were adolescents in the control group.
Additional measures of violence (Foshee et al., 2014): Adolescents in the treatment group were less likely to report peer violence victimization (p=.04) and less likely to carry a weapon to school (p=.005) at follow-up compared to adolescents in the control condition. While there was not a significant effect of the program on peer violence perpetration at follow-up for the full sample, participation in the program was significantly negatively associated with peer violence perpetration for minority adolescents (p=.001) but not for white adolescents (p=.48).
Four-year follow-up at 12th grade (Foshee et al., 2004): These analyses were restricted to the eighth grade cohort at four years post-intervention. There were significantly more females in the four-year follow-up sample than in the sampling frame. Analysis of differential attrition revealed no significant differences between treatment condition and dropout status. Two baseline variables were associated with dropout status in both treatment and control groups -- gender and serious physical violence victimization -- although these interactions were only marginally significant. Males were more likely than females to drop out of the study, and the odds of dropping out decreased with increased serious physical violence victimization.
Safe Dates effects on perpetration: Adolescents who received only Safe Dates (and not the booster) reported perpetrating significantly less physical, serious physical, and sexual dating violence perpetration at the four-year follow-up than did those in the control group. Safe Dates effects on psychological abuse perpetration were moderated by prior involvement in dating violence.
Booster effects on perpetration: There were no significant effects of the booster on physical, serious physical, or sexual dating violence when comparing the Booster to the Safe Dates only group. Prior involvement in psychological abuse perpetration, however, moderated the effect of the booster on psychological abuse perpetration. There were no significant differences between the booster and control group in follow-up physical, serious physical, or sexual dating violence perpetration.
Safe Dates victim subsample: Adolescents who received only Safe Dates reported significantly less sexual victimization from dates at follow-up than those in the control group. There were no effects on psychological victimization. Safe Dates had effects on physical and serious physical victimization, but the effects were moderated by prior involvement with the behavior. The Safe Dates group reported less physical abuse victimization in all three strata at follow up than the control group. The pattern was similar for serious victimization: in all three strata of prior serious physical victimization, adolescents exposed to Safe Dates reported significantly less victimization from serious dating violence than did adolescents in the control group. Safe Dates had both primary and secondary prevention effects on all six of the outcomes and the program was equally successful by gender and race.
Booster victim subsample: The effects of the booster on physical, serious physical, and sexual victimization were all moderated by prior victimization. Adolescents exposed to the booster reported more serious physical and sexual victimization in all three strata at follow-up than those exposed only to Safe Dates. These differences were statistically significant only when prior involvement in dating violence was high. There were no effects of the booster on psychological abuse victimization. There were no significant differences between the booster and control group at follow-up for psychological abuse victimization. Adolescents exposed to the booster reported significantly less victimization than controls in serious victimization and serious sexual victimization when there was no prior serious victimization.
Non-booster subsample: When the booster-group was eliminated from all Waves of analysis, the findings indicated that adolescents who only received Safe Dates reported perpetrating significantly less psychological, moderate physical, and sexual dating violence perpetration at all four follow-up Waves than those in the control group. The lack of any significant treatment condition by baseline outcome interactions indicate that treatment effects were the same for those who did and did not report using those forms of violence against a dating partner prior to intervention exposure. Those adolescents who reported no severe physical perpetration or average amounts of severe physical perpetration at baseline reported significantly less severe physical perpetration than control group adolescents at each of the four follow-up Waves.
Significant treatment outcomes for mediating variables were also found for dating violence norms, gender-role norms, and beliefs in need for help. The Safe Dates Program was successful in decreasing acceptance among adolescents in prescribed dating violence norms and traditional gender-role norms, and increasing the belief in the need for help at all four follow-up periods, compared to control group youth. The Safe Dates Program was also successful at increasing awareness of community services, with gains most significant at Wave 2. Dating violence norms was found to have mediating effects on all program measures.
These outcomes were mostly confirmed in an additional analysis that included both 8th and 9th grade students at three years post-intervention (Foshee et al., 2005), using random coefficients models with multiple imputation of missing data. In summary, Safe Dates students, relative to controls, reported less psychological, moderate physical, and sexual dating violence perpetration and less moderate physical dating violence victimization at all four follow-up periods. There was a marginal program effect on sexual victimization and no effects on psychological or severe physical victimization at any of the four follow-ups.
Further research (Foshee, Benefield et al., 2004) points to several variables that were found to predict future victimization. Male victims of serious physical dating violence were more likely to have been hit by an adult with the intention of harm, have low self-esteem, and have been in a physical fight with a peer. Along with these variables, having a friend who has been a victim of dating violence, alcohol use, and being white, predicted chronic victimization for males. For females, the onset of serious physical dating violence victimization was predicted by having been hit by an adult. That variable plus coming from a single-parent household predicted chronic victimization from serious physical violence. Onset of sexual victimization for females was predicted by having a friend who has been the victim of dating violence and being depressed. Those variables plus gender stereotyping predicted chronic victimization from sexual dating violence.