Safe Dates

Guide to Effective Programs
for Children and Youth

SAFE DATES

OVERVIEW

The Safe Dates program was developed to prevent adolescent dating violence. This program had both school and community components. In a random assignment study, 14 schools in Johnston County, North Carolina were stratified by grade and matched by size. One school in each pair was assigned to the treatment group. All 8^th and 9^th graders in Johnston County were granted access to new and improved community services, but only treatment schools implemented the Safe Dates curriculum and related activities.

One month after program activities concluded, students from treatment schools had significantly less favorable attitudes toward dating violence than did students from control schools and were significantly less likely to report being perpetrators of abuse in their current relationships. They were not, however, less likely to report being victims of abuse in their current relationships. Students in treatment schools were significantly more likely than control students to be aware of services for adolescents involved in dating violence, but they were not more likely to have made use of these services. Also, students in treatment schools left the program significantly more likely to use constructive communication when involved in disagreements and to respond constructively when angry.

One year after program activities concluded, treatment students still had significantly less favorable attitudes toward dating violence than did control students, but treatment students were just as likely as control students to report being perpetrators of abuse. At the four-year follow-up, however, not only were students less likely to be perpetrators of physical and sexual violence; they were also less likely to be victims. Booster sessions were not found to increase the long-term effectiveness of the Safe Dates program.

DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM

Target population: adolescents

The Safe Dates program involved both school and community activities.

Community activities were aimed at increasing the community resources available to adolescents involved in partner violence. Community servants who dealt with adolescents were trained on how to render their services more useful for adolescents in violent relationships. Additionally, new services were provided for these adolescents. Services included a crisis line, support groups, and materials for parents.

School activities sought to change norms associated with partner violence, decrease gender stereotyping, and improve students’ conflict management skills. A ten-session curriculum was developed to this end. This curriculum defined caring relationships, dating abuse, and sexual assault and provided students with opportunities to discuss why people abuse their partners. Students also learned how to protect themselves from dating violence and how to help friends involved in partner violence. In addition to the Safe Dates curriculum, schools enacting the Safe Dates program put on a theater production about dating violence and held a dating violence poster contest.

EVALUATION(S) OF PROGRAM

Foshee, V.A. (1998). Involving Schools and Communities in Preventing Adolescent Dating Abuse. In X.B. Arriaga & S. Oskamp (Eds.), Addressing Community Problems: Psychological Research and Interventions (pp. 104-129). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

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(1), 45-50.

Foshee, V.A., Bauman, K.E., Greene, W.F., Koch, G.G., Linder, G.F., MacDougall, J.E. (2000). The Safe Dates Program: 1-Year Follow-Up Results. American Journal of Public Health, 90, 1619-1622.

Evaluated population: In 1994, the Safe Dates program was implemented in Johnston County, North Carolina, a primarily rural county with approximately 82,000 residents. 2,344 8^th and 9^th graders at 14 public schools in Johnston County were eligible to participate in this study. 1,866 (81%) of these students completed baseline questionnaires. These students ranged in age from 12 to 17 and were 77% white, 19% black, and 4% of other ethnic background. 72% of these students had been on a date before. Of those students who had dated in the past, 36% of the females and 39% of the males reported ever having been the victim of partner violence and 28% of females and 15% of males reported ever having been the perpetrator of partner violence.

Approach: The 14 participating schools were stratified by grade, matched by size, and then randomly assigned to the treatment group or to the control group. All students were exposed to Safe Dates’ community activities, but only treatment schools implemented the Safe Dates curriculum, theater production, and poster contest.

In September 1994, all students were administered questionnaires that assessed whether they had perpetrated or been victim to psychological abuse, non-sexual violence, or sexual violence. Questionnaires also measured whether students’ current relationships were abusive and whether students had sought help to deal with this abuse. Additional measures tapped into acceptance of norms about dating violence, gender stereotyping, belief in the need for perpetrators and victims of dating violence to get help, awareness of resources available to help, communication skills, and responses to anger.

Following the administration of baseline measures, 20 three-hour workshops were offered to community service providers in Johnston County who worked with adolescents. 63% of eligible service providers received the training. A crisis line was made available to adolescents and, at the headquarters for the crisis line, services were provided for the victims of partner violence and their parents.

At treatment schools, the theater production occurred in November 1994 and 97% of treatment students were in attendance. The Safe Dates curriculum was delivered in January and February 1995 and classroom attendance during Safe Dates sessions was above 95%. Teachers delivering the Safe Dates curriculum received 20 hours of training and were allowed to teach the ten 45-minute Safe Dates lessons according to whatever pace best fit their school’s practices. The poster contest took place in March 1995. Not all treatment students submitted posters, but all were exposed to the posters and voted on their favorites.

All students were re-surveyed in May 1995, one month after program activities ended, and again in May 1996.

Results:

One-Month Follow-Up

90% of students who completed baseline questionnaires completed follow-up questionnaires one month after program activities ended (n = 1700). At this point, compared with students in control schools, students in treatment schools were significantly less likely to report ever having been the perpetrator of psychological abuse and marginally less likely to report ever having been the perpetrator of sexual violence. Treatment students were also significantly less likely to report perpetrating violence in their current relationship. Differences between treatment students and control students on measures of perpetration of nonsexual violence were non-significant.

There were no significant differences between treatment students and control students on any measure of victimization. Students in treatment schools were just as likely as students in control schools to have ever been the victim of psychological abuse, nonsexual violence, or sexual violence. And they were just as likely to be suffering from abuse in their current relationships.

Students in treatment schools were significantly more likely than students in control schools to be aware of services for victims and perpetrators of dating violence; however, they were not more likely to have made use of these services.

The Safe Dates program had a major impact on beliefs and attitudes relating to dating violence. Compared with control students, treatment students had significantly less belief in prescribed norms about dating violence and significantly more belief in opposing norms. They perceived significantly fewer positive consequences and marginally more negative consequences as being associated with dating violence. Treatment students were significantly more likely to believe that adolescents involved in violent relationships needed help and significantly less likely to agree with gender stereotypes.

The program also had an impact on students’ conflict management skills. Treatment students were significantly more likely than control students to use constructive communication when involved in disagreements and respond constructively when angry. Differences between control students and treatment students on use of destructive communication and destructive responses were not significant.

One-Year Follow-Up

85% of students who completed baseline questionnaires completed follow-up questionnaires one year after program activities ended (n = 1603). At this point, the impacts of the Safe Dates program on behavior had faded. Treatment students were now just as likely as control students to be perpetrators of dating violence. Treatment students remained just as likely as control students to be victims of dating violence. Though they remained more aware of services designed to help adolescents involved in dating violence, treatment students were still no more likely than control students to be making use of these services.

Impacts on conflict resolution skills appeared to have faded somewhat, as well. Treatment students were less likely than control students to report responding destructively when angry, but they were not more likely to report responding constructively. Differences between treatment and control students on measures on constructive communication when involved in disagreements were non-significant.

The program’s impact on attitudes toward dating violence was preserved over time, however. Compared with control students, treatment students remained significantly less accepting of dating violence. Treatment students also perceived significantly more negative consequences as being associated with dating violence.

The researchers considered their findings to be in line with a general trend among behavior prevention programs that impacts on behavior fade over time, while impacts on cognitive risk factors are maintained. They posited that perhaps a booster intervention could have served to prolong or increase the Safe Dates program’s impact on behavior.

Foshee, B.A., Bauman, K.E., Ennett, S.T., Linder, G.F., Benefield, T., & Suchindran, C. (2004). Assessing the Long-Term Effects of the Safe Dates Program and a Booster in Preventing and Reducing Adolescent Dating Violence Victimization and Perpetration. American Journal of Public Health, 94(4), 619-624.

Evaluated population: Following the collection of one-year follow-up data, parents of adolescents who had supplied baseline data when in 8^th grade were contacted to solicit consent for continued participation on the part of their child; 65% of parents consented, which equated to 620 students entering the long-term follow-up study sample.

Approach: All students whose parents had consented to continued participation were re-surveyed in May 1997, 1998, and 1999 – two, three, and four years after the conclusion of program activities.

After the administration of the two-year follow-up, all long-term follow-up students who had originally been part of the Safe Dates treatment group were randomly assigned to booster and non-booster conditions. Students in the booster condition received an 11-page newsletter in the mail. This newsletter contained information and worksheets based on the Safe Dates curriculum. Four weeks after receiving the newsletter, booster students were contacted by phone by a health educator. The health educator answered questions and provided information related to the newsletter. Additionally, the health educator assessed whether the newsletter activities had been completed by the booster student. Students who had completed all activities received $10 compensation.

Results:

Four-Year Follow-Up

460 students (74% of the original long-term follow-up sample) completed both the two-year and the four-year follow-up questionnaires. At the four-year follow-up, students who had been in the Safe Dates treatment group were significantly less likely to be perpetrators of physical abuse, serious physical abuse, and/or sexual abuse. They were not significantly less likely to be perpetrators of psychological abuse. Treatment students were also significantly less likely to be victims of sexual abuse. They were not less likely to be victims of psychological abuse.

The impact of the Safe Dates program on physical and serious physical victimization was moderated by prior involvement with these behaviors. Among students whose prior involvement with physical victimization was average or high, treatment students were significantly less likely than control students to report physical abuse victimization at follow-up. And among students who had not been victims of physical abuse in the past, treatment students were marginally less likely than control students to report physical abuse victimization at follow-up (P = .07).

The booster program did not serve to increase the effectiveness of the Safe Dates program. Students assigned to the booster group were not any less likely to be perpetrators or victims of dating violence.

Findings did not differ by race or gender. The rate of attrition from the treatment group was not significantly different from that of the control group.

SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION

Safe Dates curriculum materials available for purchase at:

http://www.hazelden.org/OA_HTML/ibeCCtpItmDspRte.jsp?item=2770

References:

Foshee, V.A., Bauman, K.E., Greene, W.F., Koch, G.G., Linder, G.F., MacDougall, J.E. (2000). The Safe Dates Program: 1-Year Follow-Up Results. American Journal of Public Health, 90, 1619-1622.

Program categorized in this guide according to the following:

Evaluated participant ages: 12-17

Evaluated participant grades: 8^th, 9^th

Program age ranges in the guide: Adolescence, Youth

Program components: School-based, Community-based

Measured outcomes: Social and Emotional Health, Physical Health, Mental Health

Program information last updated on 5/29/07.