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 has both school and community components. A long term evaluation of the program found it to have positive impacts in reducing perpetration of physical abuse, psychological abuse, and/or sexual abuse up to four years after completion of the program. The program had mixed findings regarding its impact on dating violence victimization.

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.

As of June, 2011, Safe Dates curriculum manuals can be purchased for $225.00 each.

EVALUATION(S) OF PROGRAM

Study 1:

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. The sample was were 77 percent white, 19 percent black, and 4 percent of other ethnic background. 72 percent of these students had been on a date before. Of those students who had dated in the past, 36 percent of the females and 39 percent of the males reported ever having been the victim of partner violence and 28 percent of females and 15 percent 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 JohnstonCounty 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. The Safe Dates curriculum was delivered in January and February. 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 percent 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 significant 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 percent 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.

Study 2: 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 percent 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.

Study 3: Foshee, B.A., Bauman, K.E., Ennett, S.T., Suchindran, C., Benefield, T., & Linder, G.F., (2005). Assessing the Effects of the Dating Violence Prevention Program “Safe Dates” Using Random Coefficient Modeling. Prevention Science, 6(3), 245-258.

Evaluated population: This study reports data for the sample from Study 1. Students who were randomly assigned to the booster condition in Study 2 are excluded from this study, because the authors wanted to focus on the effects of the original intervention.

Approach: The data collection process is described above. This study includes data collected at baseline (wave 1) and one month (wave 2), one year (wave 3), two years (wave 4), and three years (wave 5) post intervention. Results from waves 1 through 3 were reported previously in Study 1. However, in this study, the authors used a different analytical strategy (random coefficient regression modeling) and used multiple imputation procedures to account for attrition. Random coefficient modeling is superior to the statistical analyses used in previous papers because it can assess the impacts of the intervention over time while controlling for individual and school variables and can include covariates (mediators and moderators) without segmenting the sample. The use of multiple imputation procedures strengthened the study by allowing the researchers to impute values without underestimating standard errors or bias parameter estimates, as often happens with simpler imputation procedures.

Results: Results based on these more sophisticated analyses are substantially similar to findings reported earlier. Adolescents who received the Safe Dates intervention reported perpetrating less psychological abuse, moderate physical abuse, and sexual dating abuse than control group adolescents at all four follow-up assessments. Regarding physical abuse perpetration, adolescents in the intervention condition who reported no or average amounts of severe physical perpetration at baseline reported less severe physical abuse perpetration than control group adolescents at each follow-up. However, for adolescents who reported high levels of severe physical abuse perpetration at baseline, there was no intervention impact.

Adolescents who participated in Safe Dates were less likely to be victims of moderate physical violence than control group adolescents. Intervention group adolescents were also less likely to be victims of sexual abuse, though this effect was only marginally significant (p = .07). There was no intervention impact on the likelihood of being a victim of psychological abuse or severe physical abuse.

Adolescents in the intervention group reported less acceptance of dating violence, less acceptance of traditional gender roles, a stronger belief in the need for help, and more awareness of community services at all four follow-up assessments. There was no impact on conflict resolution skills. Mediation analyses showed that differences in acceptance of dating violence, acceptance of gender-roles, and awareness of community services mediated the effects of the program on dating violence perpetration and victimization.

SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION

Safe Dates curriculum materials available for purchase at:

http://www.hazelden.org/web/public/safedates.page

References:

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., 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.

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.

Foshee, B.A., Bauman, K.E., Ennett, S.T., Suchindran, C., Benefield, T., & Linder, G.F., (2005). Assessing the Effects of the Dating Violence Prevention Program “Safe Dates” Using Random Coefficient Modeling. Prevention Science, 6(3), 245-258.

KEYWORDS: Adolescence (12-17), Youth (16-24), Middle School, High School, School-based, Community-based, Curriculum, Rural, Behavioral Problems, Dating Violence, Other Social/Emotional Health, White or Caucasian, Cost information is available, Manual is available, Social Skills/Life Skills.

Program information last updated on 7/11/11.