HHS/CDC/NCIPC
SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR
OMB INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST
Part A
A Controlled Evaluation of Expect Respect Support Groups (ERSG): Preventing and Interrupting Teen Dating Violence among At-Risk Middle and High School Students
OMB# 0920-0861
Supported by:
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Kristin Holland, M.P.H., Project officer
[email protected] / 770-488-3954
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control
Division of Violence Prevention
Prevention Development and Evaluation Branch
4770 Buford Hwy, NE, MS F-64
Atlanta, GA 30341
Table of Contents
Abstract
A. JUSTIFICATION
1. Circumstances Making the Collection of Information Necessary
2. Purpose and Use of Information Collection
3. Use of Information Technology and Burden Reduction
4. Efforts to Identify Duplication and Use of Similar Information
5. Impact on Small Business or other Small Entities.
6. Consequences of Collecting Information Less Frequently.
7. Special Circumstances Relating to the Guidelines of 5CFR 13205
8. Comments in Response to Federal Register and Efforts to Consult Outside the Agency.
9. Explanation of Any Payments or Gifts to Respondents.
10. Assurance of Confidentiality Provided to Respondents.
11. Justification for Sensitive Questions.
12. Estimates of Annualized Burden Hours, and Costs.
13. Estimates of Other Total Annual Cost Burden to Respondents or Recordkeepers.
14. Annualized Costs to the Federal Government
15. Explanation for Program Changes
16. Plans for Tabulation, Publication, and Project Time Schedule.
17. Reason(s) Display of OMB Expiration Date Inappropriate.
18. Exemptions to Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A. Public Health Service Act: Sections 301 (42 U.S.C. 241)
Attachment B. Federal Register Notice
Attachment C. Intake Assessment
Attachment D. Baseline Survey
Attachment E. Completion and Follow-up Survey (12-months)
Attachment F IRB Approval (BCM & CDC)
Attachment G. Student Assent Form, Script and Parent Notification Form
Attachment H. Expect Respect Support Group / Texas Policy for Mandatory Reporting
Attachment I. Evaluation of Expect Respect Support Groups Fidelity Monitoring Survey
Attachment J. Fidelity Monitoring Observation Survey of Expect Respect Support Group Sessions
Attachment K. Mid-year ERSG Facilitator Qualitative Interview Guide
Attachment L. End-of-year ERSG Facilitator Qualitative Interview Guide
The prevalence and consequences of teen dating violence make it a public health concern that requires early and effective prevention. To date, only three prevention strategies — Safe Dates, the Youth Relationships Project, and 4th R - have demonstrated reductions in dating violence behaviors in rigorous, controlled evaluations. In order to protect young people and build an evidence-base of effective prevention strategies, evaluation of additional programs is needed, including those programs currently in the field. Expect Respect Support Groups (ERSG) were identified by CDC through the empowerment evaluation process as a program in the field (Austin Independent School District) that is in need of rigorous evaluation. The ERSG has demonstrated favorable, albeit preliminary, results in a pre-post program evaluation, which strongly suggests s that a controlled evaluation is needed to more rigorously examine program effects. The proposed study has two primary goals and two exploratory aims. The primary goals are: 1. To evaluate the effectiveness of Expect Respect Support Groups (ERSG) in preventing and reducing teen dating violence and 2. Comparing whether there is increased healthy conflict resolution skills reported by at-risk male and female middle and high school students supported by ERSG, compared to at-risk students in control schools who do not receive ERSG. The exploratory aims are: 1) To evaluate whether or not the effectiveness of ERSG is enhanced by the presence of a universal, school-wide prevention programs, and 2) To examine whether participants with different characteristics respond differently to the intervention. For example, we will determine whether outcome for boys or girls are the same.
A. Justification
Background
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is seeking OMB approval for a Change Request to add qualitative interviews with ERSG facilitators to the study. This nonsubstantive and non-material change does not change the study’s scope of work and results in a better understanding of the implementation process for ERSG. ERSG is a research-based adolescent dating violence prevention program, which consists of a 24-session dating violence curriculum. The proposed participants are middle and high school students representing diversity in race/ethnicity, geography, and family income.
The
prevalence and consequences of teen dating violence make it a public
health concern (Wolitzky-Taylor et al., 2008; Eaton, Davis, Barrios,
Brener, & Noonan, 2007) that requires early and effective
prevention. Despite recent legislation in Texas and Rhode Island that
requires schools to provide teen dating violence education, to date,
only three prevention strategies—Safe Dates, the Youth
Relationships Project, and 4th R (Foshee et al., 1998; Wolfe et al.,
2003; Wolfe et al., 2009) - have demonstrated reductions in dating
violence behaviors in rigorous, controlled evaluations (Hickman,
Jaycox, & Aronoff, 2004). In order to protect young people and
build an evidence-base of effective prevention strategies, evaluation
of additional programs is needed, including those programs currently
in the field (Teten, Ball, Valle, Noonan, & Rosenbluth, 2009).
Teens are at risk for experiencing dating abuse beginning
with the initiation of dating relationships during early adolescence.
Nearly half of 11– to 14-year olds report that they have been
in a dating relationship (Teen Research Unlimited, 2008). Among those
who experience dating violence victimization, 29% report their first
experience of abuse occurred at age 12-13, 40% at age 14-15, and 29%
at age 16-17 (Burcky, Reuterman, & Kopsky, 1988). Up to 45% of
high school students report experiencing some form of emotional,
physical, or sexual violence in their dating relationships (Foshee,
1996; O’Keefe, 1997; Silverman, Rai, Mucci, & Hathaway,
2001). Dating violence is associated with subsequent adverse
consequences, including substance abuse, sexual risk behaviors,
unintended pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, unhealthy weight
control behaviors, depression, and suicidality (Teten et al., 2009).
Although traditional conceptualizations of dating
violence suggested males were perpetrators and females were victims,
surveys of teen dating violence that assess both girls’ and
boys’ violence perpetration consistently report a higher
percentage of girls than boys perpetrate physical violence (Foshee,
1996; O’Keefe, 1997; Hickman et al., 2004; Sears, Byers, &
Price, 2006). Critics of these findings suggest the effects of male
and female-perpetrated physically violent acts differ substantially
in terms of injury sustained and fear evoked (Dobash, Dobash, Wilson,
& Daly, 1992). Molidor, Tolman, and Kober (2000) found that 48%
of girls in their sample and only 4% of boys reported that a violent
incident “hurt a lot.” Boys more often (54%) responded
that they “laughed” about the violence compared to girls
(10%). While the context, meaning, and effect of violent behaviors
may differ between boys and girls, studies nevertheless point to the
importance of supporting both boys and girls in learning skills for
healthy relationships. As noted by O’Keefe (1997): “every
violent action creates a risk for a violent response or future
violent acts” (p. 6). Given the prevalence and age of
initiation reported for teen dating and teen dating violence,
prevention programs need to involve boys and girls beginning with the
middle school years.
Multiple studies suggest that teens’
experiences with violence and violence-supportive or accepting
attitudes are linked with the perpetration of dating violence (Wolfe,
Wekerle, Reitzel-Jaffe, & Lefebvre, 1998; Wolfe, Wekerle, Scott,
& Pittman, 2001; Wolfe, Wekerle, Scott, Straatman, & Grasley,
2004; Malik, Sorenson, & Anehensel, 1997; O’Keefe, 1997,
1998). While the mechanism of these associations is unclear, a
history of child maltreatment has been associated with boys
threatening or carrying out dating violence, with boys experiencing
dating violence, and with girls being victims of such violence
(Wolfe, Wekerle, Scott, & Pittman, 2001). Witnessing parental
violence (O’Keefe, 1997, 1998) has been associated with the
perpetration of dating violence among boys but not girls.
Wolitzky-Taylor et al. (2008) observed an association between
experiencing serious physical and sexual dating violence and having
experienced a previous traumatic event, such as sexual or physical
assault by someone other than a dating partner, having witnessed
community violence and parental violence, and experiencing the loss
of a loved one.
Prevention approaches for dating violence
may be applied universally to all individuals in a population,
regardless of the risk factors described above, or they may have
targeted application, such that individuals at risk for experiencing
or perpetrating violence receive the prevention intervention.
Universal approaches are often didactic and classroom-based, aiming
to educate teens about healthy and abusive relationships (e.g.,
Avery-Leaf, Cascardi, O’Leary, & Cano, 1997; Foshee et al.,
1998; Jaffe, Suderman, Reitzel, & Kilip, 1992; Schewe, 2002),
whereas targeted approaches may be tailored to the particular needs
of the at-risk group and offered during the school day but outside of
a classroom curriculum. Experts have recommended intensive prevention
programs for youth who have experienced violence in the family and in
the community and who perpetrate or experience abuse in their peer
and early dating relationships (Wolfe et al., 2003; Pepler et al.,
2006; Williams et al., 2008). In addition to countering risk factors,
such as violence supportive attitudes (Capaldi et al., 2001),
targeted prevention programs may also enhance potential protective
factors, such as establishing positive relationship norms in the peer
group (Williams et al., 2008). Teaching and practicing positive
behaviors is an important aspect of building relationship competence.
Cornelius and Resseguie (2007) suggest that without a skill-building
component to improve proficiency of communication, negotiation, and
problem solving skills the likelihood of behavior change is
improbable. Teens themselves express the importance of learning
skills and ask for assistance to learn “how to make
relationships work” (Ball, Kerig, & Rosenbluth, 2009;
Sears, Byers, Whelan, & Saint-Pierre, 2006). Because some
students may be at higher risk for dating violence, the intensity of
a targeted approach in addition to (or in place of) a universal
strategy may be needed for these students (e.g., Eaton et al., 2007;
Whitaker et al., 2006).
Thus far, the Youth Relationships
Project (YRP; Wolfe et al., 2003) is the only published and
rigorously evaluated dating violence prevention program that targets
at-risk adolescents. The YRP is an 18-session program that provides
coeducational groups in community locations for youth with a history
of maltreatment. The controlled evaluation demonstrated decreases in
abuse perpetration and victimization and emotional distress symptoms;
however, participants did not show expected growth in healthy
relationship skills.
In contrast to the Youth
Relationship Project, Expect Respect Support Groups (Ball,
Rosenbluth, & Aoki, 2008) are offered at middle and high schools
- that is, in the social environment where about 40% of the worst
dating violence incidents occur (Molidor, Tolman, & Kober, 2000).
School-based support groups are designed to reach a wide range of
at-risk students and to maximize accessibility. Students are eligible
for participation in Expect Respect support groups (ERSG) if they
have witnessed domestic violence and/or experienced child abuse
(emotional/mental, physical, sexual, neglect) and/or are involved in
abusive peer and dating relationships. Boys and girls meet in
separate gender groups facilitated by same-gender group leaders,
which is intended to increase the sense of comfort and safety for
teens, to allow them to bond more quickly, and to explore their
expectations for relationships. The primary goal of the 24-session
program is to prevent at-risk youth from becoming future victims and
perpetrators in their intimate relationships and to promote healthy,
non-violent relationship behaviors.
The current protocol proposes an evaluation of Expect Respect that involves a quasi-experimental design with well-matched comparison group. Expect Respect was selected as the sexual and teen dating violence prevention program to be evaluated through the recent CDC Empowerment Evaluation (EE). Although many sexual violence prevention programs are in practice, very few have been rigorously evaluation. The EE “was CDC’s response to this gap in prevention programming and involved two strategic decisions: the focus on a small number of established programs that aim to prevent first-time male perpetration of sexual violence and the use of empowerment evaluation. This twin approach offered the greatest possible benefit in building evaluation capacity among organizations in the field while expediting the development of an evidence base for prevention programs. The first strategy guiding CDC’s approach was the decision to work with existing programs to build a knowledge base that could expedite widespread use of evidence-based prevention efforts in practice settings. This decision was novel because, according to the public health model, the starting point of program development and evaluation is often efficacy research, an approach with considerable merits (e.g., use of theory, knowledge of risk and protective factors, tightly controlled conditions, and ability to make causal inferences with random assignment designs). However, in this case, CDC chose to work with existing programs because of the growing recognition that most prevention efforts developed in research institutions (however effective they may be) do not get adopted in practice settings for myriad reasons (e.g., Institute of Medicine, 2001; Miller & Shinn, 2005; Wandersman et al., 2008). By working with extant programs, this project sampled from a universe of strategies with demonstrated real-world feasibility and appeal to practitioner audiences, two keys to promoting adoption and use of health innovations (Dearing, Larson, Randall, & Pope, 1998; Glasgow, Lichtenstein, & Marcus, 2003; Kim & Cho, 2000)…. As noted earlier, no systematic catalog exists that focuses on the prevention of first-time male perpetration. As a first step in preparation for the empowerment evaluation, it was necessary to identify and describe these programs. To this end, the project team [which included CDC staff not listed on this protocol as well as external collaborators, such as RTI international] reviewed lists of experts, government documents, Web sites, published literature, and unpublished reports in the field of sexual violence prevention. Individuals and agencies identified through these activities were contacted for information about their programs. During these conversations, a snowball sampling approach was used to find additional programs, with 37 eventually identified. Publicly available information was supplemented via structured telephone interviews with program leaders to compile profiles for each program. The resulting summary included descriptions of the populations served, intervention approach, goals and objectives, theoretical frameworks, evaluation activities, and staff capacity (RTI International, 2003).
Each of the programs identified through this process were invited to apply to participate in the empowerment process, with invitations also circulated on relevant list servers. A total of 17 applications were received and reviewed by an expert panel assembled by the project team. Selection criteria included the extent to which programs focused on prevention of first-time male perpetration in a multisession format, prior experience in evaluation, commitment to using evaluation for program improvement, and ability to commit staff resources to participation in the empowerment evaluation process. Following extensive review, four organizations were selected,” (p 6s-8s, Noonan & Gibbs, 2009) of which one was SafePlace of Austin, Texas. Safe Place worked with CDC through the EE process to build its evaluation capacity (The EE process is also described in detail in other CDC documents such as Cox et al., [2009]). SafePlace stood out among the other programs in their willingness and ability to apply program evaluation to their activities. These activities in addition to their evaluation capacity increased the impetus for a controlled evaluation of their program.
For
example, as a result of the EE, SafePlace conducted a non-CDC funded
program evaluation of 26 ERSG (16 schools). In this pre-post design,
significant increases in positive dating behaviors and significant
declines in emotional and physical victimization and perpetration
were found for students who reported a history of peer and dating
violence (Ball, Teten, Noonan, Valle, Hamburger, & Rosenbluth,
under review). Perpetration of sexual violence increased over time.
We attribute the rise in this low base rate behavior (M = 0.03 to M =
0.13) to its measurement (2 items), increases in awareness due to
intervention, and timing of the final assessment (e.g., students
completed final assessments in session 23 of 24 and reported on their
behavior over the previous 3 months, so intervention effects may not
yet have been achieved).
Based on these preliminary results,
the current study proposes a controlled evaluation of ERSG. In this
evaluation designed by CDC, we propose to address the weaknesses of
the aforementioned pilot by expanding the assessment of sexual
violence and using a control group and follow-up assessment to
clarify change in sexual and teen dating violence as a result of the
intervention. A controlled evaluation rather than an RCT was selected
as the design for the proposed evaluation, as results of the pre-post
evaluation warranted further study, but the potential for iatrogenic
effects discouraged the application of a large-scale independently
conducted randomized design. Instead, the logical next step for the
program was determined to be a quasi-experimental design that
capitalizes on the capacity within Austin and SafePlace that was
developed through the EE process. This evolution of evaluation is
also consistent with CDC’s continuum of evidence (CDC, 2010)
and demonstrates a developmental progression of evaluation rigor that
is applied to programs moving from the right to the left of the
public health model, or, in other words, programs that are in
practice that are then subjected to evaluation.
Such an evaluation is also consistent with past evaluations funded by CDC, such that the first trial is conducted in close collaboration with the developer to ensure implementation fidelity (e.g., evaluation of Safe Dates).
In
addition to implementing a more rigorous evaluation design, CDC has
developed mechanisms for training and oversight of the data
collection and evaluation (described in detail below) that will
provide safeguards for the objectivity of the evaluation.
The proposed data collection fits into the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC) Research Agenda Priorities in Preventing Sexual Violence and Intimate Partner Violence (http://www.cdc.gov/injury/ResearchAgenda/index.html) with regard to Tier 1 Part E to “Evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of programs, strategies, and policies across all levels of the social ecology to prevent and interrupt development of perpetration of sexual violence and intimate partner violence” and Part F to “Evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of programs, strategies, and policies to prevent both sexual violence and intimate partner violence, multiple types of sexual violence and intimate partner violence, and other forms of violence.” The proposed data collection also addresses NCIPC Research Agenda Priorities in Preventing Sexual Violence and Intimate Partner Violence with regard to Tier 2 Part I to “Evaluate interventions for persons exposed to sexual violence and intimate partner violence to reduce risk for associated negative health consequences.”
Authority for CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control to collect this data is granted by Section 301 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241) (Attachment A). This act gives federal health agencies, such as CDC, broad authority to collect data and do other public health activities, including this type of study. A 60-day notice to solicit public comments regarding this study was published in the Federal Register (volume 74, No.148, pages 38634 and 38635) on August 4th, 2009. Attachment B contains a copy of the notice.
Privacy Impact Assessment
Overview of the Data Collection System
Data Collectors: Data collection will be conducted by qualified individuals, other than the school’s Expect Respect facilitator, who are employed by the contractor. Data collectors will have training in working with at-risk students. The following steps will be implemented by CDC to safeguard the objectivity of the evaluation: 1) all data collectors (also referred to as survey administrators) will receive human subjects training; 2) documents will be developed to support data collection which contain standardized responses to common questions asked during data collection. To develop these documents CDC will work with SafePlace to identify particular words, instructions, or issues in the survey that may be unclear to students with lower verbal ability. Standard responses will be drafted so that data collectors across schools will provide similar answers to participants; 3) CDC will prepare data collection flow charts that will provide detailed instructions to the data collector and will ensure fidelity to standardized survey administration; 4) CDC will conduct site visits, will hold bi-weekly or monthly conference calls with the contractors to provide oversight and discuss data collection procedures; 5) CDC in collaboration with the study consultant will provide consultation via email and conference calls to the contractor; and 6) when participants complete the survey they will place the survey in an envelope and seal the envelope. The survey administrator will then deliver the sealed envelope to the data manager. The data collectors will not have access to the survey responses. As the CDC principal investigator on the CDC IRB protocol Dr. Greta Massetti is responsible for overseeing the scientific and human subjects integrity of the study. These aspects of oversight in addition to other measures determined to be appropriate over the course of data collection will be put into place to ensure that CDC will be able to have confidence in the results of the evaluation of Expect Respect. It should be noted that it is necessary to have the data collectors in the room with the students while they complete the survey both to manage emotional upset that may occur when reading survey questions about relationships and to answer clarifying questions about the survey questions or process (e.g., skip patterns).
Recruitment: To determine appropriateness for the evaluation, students referred (by self or school staff) will undergo a brief screening assessment (Attachment C). The screening assessment follows an intake session, which is a service provided by SafePlace to intervention and control schools. All intake assessments are conducted by trained data collectors with a background in mental health. Data collected during the screening assessment is not federally funded and will not be used for the evaluation. During the intake interview, ERSG data collectors conduct an open-ended interview with students to determine their safety level of risk, and appropriate service referrals, which may include ERSG. If, based on this intake assessment, which is considered service provision and not part of the evaluation, the data collector determines that the student is eligible for the evaluation, he/she will complete the screening assessment form, will discuss the evaluation with the student, and assent the student into the evaluation. Students who have participated in ERSG in past years will not be eligible for completing the baseline survey. However, because students may participate in ERSG for multiple years, if it is determined at follow-up that a participant is continuing to take part in ERSG, he/she will indicate this on the portion of the survey that assesses other prevention programs in which the student is participating.
Baseline Survey. Students who are eligible for the evaluation and who participate in the ERSG and control groups will complete a baseline survey (Attachment D) to assess recent peer and dating violence, healthy relationships behaviors, and demographic and attitudinal variables which may mediate/moderate intervention response.
Post-test
and Follow-up. After completing the baseline survey, students in
the ERSG schools will then attend 24 weekly support group sessions
that take up to 8 months to complete. Students in the control group
will go about their schedule as normal, not attending support group
sessions, but may also receive short-term services (individual
psycho-education at school [1-3 sessions] by the Expect Respect
facilitators), if needed. In addition to the screening assessment,
surveys will be conducted before group participation (at baseline),
at the end of group (8 months), and at one follow-up time (12 months
after baseline; Attachment E).
Data collected from
the four surveys will allow us to assess whether there are
statistically significant differences between the treatment and
control groups and will help us to evaluate the program's
effectiveness in preventing peer and dating violence, reducing risk
factors, and promoting protective factors for violence and
victimization. Below is a summary of the three cohorts of data that
will be collected as part of the evaluation:
Cohort 1: August 2010 – March 2012 (includes intake/assessment, baseline, completion, and follow-up surveys administration / data collection)
Cohort 2: August 2011 – March 2013 (includes intake/assessment, baseline, completion, and follow-up surveys administration / data collection)
Cohort 3: August 2012 – March 2014 (includes intake/assessment, baseline, completion, and follow-up surveys administration / data collection)
ERSG Facilitator Surveys and Interviews:
Twice a year, ERSG facilitators will complete a self-report Program Implementation Fidelity Measure (Attachment I) in order to assess how closely the ERSG curriculum is being followed and how the program is being implemented in general. Additionally, a second observational fidelity measure (Attachment J) will be completed by the lead ERSG facilitator, who will observe two separate sessions for the eight facilitators during the study period. The facilitators’ supervisor will complete a fidelity instrument to record the extent to which the curriculum is followed and to record how the program is being implemented in general. These fidelity measures will be used as a tool to inform program improvement.
ERSG facilitators will take part in a qualitative interview at one mid-year time point and at the end of each school year (Attachments K and L, respectively). This interview will serve to help program evaluators understand the implementation process for ERSG. For example, interview questions will aim to explore factors that contribute to group engagement for participants, how facilitators make decisions about the format and delivery of session content, and the various group dynamics within ERSG.
Data collected from the Program Implementation Fidelity Measures and the Mid- and End-of-Year Qualitative Interviews will be used for program improvement purposes only.
Items of Information to be Collected
The various survey instruments to be used in the evaluation (Attachments C-E) collect information about emotional, physical, and sexual peer and dating violence victimization and perpetration, use of healthy relationship skills, relationships characteristics, peer relationships, demographics, social desirability, service utilization, attitudes toward dating violence, and exposure to prevention programs other than ERSG. These measures were developed in collaboration with scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention through the Empowerment Evaluation process and underwent subsequent revision by CDC sexual and teen dating violence experts. Measures are adapted from validated measures of teen dating violence, and reflect the behaviors of interest and theory of change of Expect Respect. The Reactive Proactive Questionnaire (Raine et al., 2006; Part 4 of Attachments D and E) has also been included in the instrument packet and will be used to determine if subtype of aggression moderates response to intervention. Participants will be assigned a random identification number by the survey administrator, and the number, rather than personally identifying information, will be used on the survey instruments. Only the survey administrator and data manager will be able to link the student’s survey responses to his/her name.
Identification of Website and Website Content Directed at Children Under 13 Years of Age
No websites will be used to collect data or in the intervention design.
A.2. Purpose and Use of the Information Collection
The information collected under the proposed data collection will be used to:
Evaluate the effectiveness of ERSG for preventing and reducing teen dating violence perpetration and victimization and increasing healthy relationship skills reported by at-risk male and female middle and high school students (Primary Aim)
Evaluate whether the effectiveness of ERSG is enhanced by the presence of a universal, school-wide teen dating violence prevention program (Exploratory Aim 1)
Examine whether participants with different characteristics respond differently to the intervention. For example, we will determine whether outcome for boys or girls are the same. (Exploratory Aim 2)
SafePlace (http://www.safeplace.org/) originated as a domestic violence and sexual violence emergency shelter. Overtime, while continuing to support the immediate needs of survivors through the 24-hour hotline, hospital accompaniment, shelter and counseling services, the agency has added programs that educate, build awareness, provide support in accessing resources and work with the children of survivors to move beyond the trauma resulting from the violence in their lives.
SafePlace provides extensive community outreach, education and prevention programs through the Expect Respect Program for teens and youth, Disability Services, Deaf Services, Community Education and Community Dialogue.
SafePlace is a non-profit organization that is funded by donations by individuals, community groups, businesses and foundations. 84% of SafePlace’s operating expenses are spent directly on programs and services for individuals, families and our community.
SafePlace
currently implements Expect Respect Support Groups (ERSG) in many
middle and high schools in Austin Independent School District (AISD)
in Texas. ERSG is a targeted group intervention for the prevention of
sexual and teen dating violence offered to at-risk students.
SafePlace has an ongoing relationship with AISD and offers Expect
Respect Support Groups as part of their services to students and
families. SafePlace has traditionally collected information from ERSG
participants as part of their internal program evaluation procedures.
Promising results from these preliminary evaluations suggests a
controlled trial of ERSG is warranted.
Student data
collected in the research study will be used for a controlled
evaluation. Data collection is expected to begin within one month of
school starting in fall semester of 2010. Data will be collected over
an approximately 32 week period during which two surveys will be
administered. One follow up survey will be administered 12 months
after the initial session. Data analysis will then be conducted to
determine the effectiveness of the ERSG program.
The assessment, treatment, and prevention of interpersonal violence are perhaps the most important and most difficult tasks facing students, parents, and teachers. The legal, interpersonal, social, physical health, and psychological consequences of violence are far-reaching and are a constant strain on individuals and society. Expanding the understanding of effective teen dating violence prevention programs builds the evidence base, a goal which will benefit youth who are at risk or who are already perpetrating or experiencing dating violence. The data collected from subjects will allow us to evaluate the ERSG program, which could provide strong support for the implementation of similar programs in schools with at risk student populations. The negative consequences of not obtaining the proposed data include not being able to build the evidence base regarding effective programs that lead to a reduction in teen dating violence victimization and perpetration, as well as allowing for continued violence perpetration by and victimization of middle and high school students in the proposed intervention area since those students would not be able to benefit from the information provided to them regarding local violence prevention and mental health treatment resources, the valuable learning experience ERSG provides, and the increased awareness of warning signs and risk factors of teen dating violence.
Privacy Impact Assessment Information
Why Information is being Collected
The purpose of the effectiveness evaluation is to evaluate the effect of the ERSG program on desired outcomes, including main effects of the program on emotional, physical, and sexual dating violence perpetration and victimization and healthy conflict resolution skills; mediator variables targeted by the ERSG program (and found to be significant mediators by Foshee et al., 1998), and variance through potential moderator variables. Changes in the following outcomes will be examined: dating violence perpetration and victimization, dating violence norms, gender stereotyping, conflict management skills, belief in the need for help when violence occurs, and awareness of services. Information will be collected from adolescent respondents to determine whether the effects of the program varied based on variables including previous history of dating violence and demographic characteristics. Of these variables, the only personally identifiable information that will be collected is the student’s name, which will only be used in the screening assessment. For all subsequent assessments, students will use a random identification number provided by SafePlace staff to identify themselves on their survey responses. When participants complete the survey they will place the survey in an envelope and seal the envelope. The survey administrator will then deliver the sealed envelope to the data manager. Only the data manager will be able to link the student’s response to his/her name. The impact of this data collection on students’ privacy is very low since no information that could link a students' number to his/her data will be released to anyone outside of SafePlace and the risk of breach of privacy is minimal. SafePlace staff will store personally identifying information in a locked cabinet, will use random subject numbers, will not use any personally identifiably information in databases, and will only distribute de-identified data sets to study collaborators.
Intended Use of the Information
The information from this study will provide empirical evidence of the effectiveness of a universal and selected program to prevent dating violence perpetration and victimization in a targeted community. Results from the study will guide CDC in formulating its recommendations regarding community implementation of dating violence prevention programs, as well as guiding other governmental agencies, professional and health care organizations, and women’s advocate groups in formulating their policies on dating violence prevention programs. The results of the study will help determine whether or not a large scale, independently conducted randomized trial of Expect Respect is warranted.
Effectiveness data will be collected from students using classroom-administered scannable paper and pencil questionnaires or questionnaires that will be coded and entered into a database. Although we considered alternate modes of administration of these questionnaires, we determined that conducting Web-based questionnaires could be difficult because not every student has access to the hard/software needed. Even if each classroom had a computer, there would be no privacy for the students and little availability for all students to use the computer to complete the survey in a timely manner. In sum, we determined machine-scannable or other paper and pencil questionnaires that could be systematically entered into a database would be the best and most private methodology for collecting student effectiveness data, while minimizing potential biases that might jeopardize our ability to address the evaluation research questions.
A literature search conducted in July 2009 of the MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases found no evidence of an evaluation of programs to reduce teen dating violence and comparison of those programs to the implementation of universal programs in a school system. No date restrictions were used in the search. The following key terms were used in the search: dating violence, prevention, youth, selected intervention, universal program. For their clinical and program improvement purposes SafePlace collects its own data. This data is separate from the proposed evaluation and is not federally-funded. The data collection for the evaluation is new. While we are not planning to access any of the clinical data collected by SafePlace, if, in the future, there seems to be a potential benefit of including this information in the evaluation, we will submit a change request to access the clinical information.
A.5. Impact on Small Businesses or Other Small Entities
Small businesses are not a part of the respondent universe.
The present study will provide the primary data needed for local, state, and federal policy makers to assess the effectiveness of the ERSG program on dating violence among adolescents at baseline, completion of the study (8 months) and at one follow up times (12 months). Less frequent effectiveness evaluation data collection would not allow for measurement of pre-, post-, and follow-up student characteristics and behaviors. One of the limitations of the pilot evaluation was lack of follow-up data, as the goal of ERSG is to have a lasting effect on dating relationships. Furthermore, if this evaluation were not conducted, it would not be possible to determine to predict the effectiveness of the program or its value and impact on the lives of the people it is intended to serve. Failure to collect these data or less frequent data collection could preclude effective use of school resources to benefit students.
There are no legal obstacles to reduce the burden.
This request fully complies with the regulation 5 CFR 1320.5.
A.8. Comments in Response to the Federal Register Notice and Efforts to Consult Outside Agency
A.8.1. A 60-day notice to solicit public comments was published in the Federal Register (volume 74, No.148, pages 38634 and 38635) on August 4th, 2009. Attachment B contains a copy of the notice. There were no comments in response to the Federal Register Notice.
A.8.2. As mentioned above, Expect Respect was selected as a participant of the empowerment evaluation process through a separate process at CDC that involved an environmental scan of existing programs, a competitive application process, and expert consultation. As a result of the empowerment process, due to its progress independently conducting program evaluation and programs improvement and because of the unique gap ERSG filled in the field, as a targeted prevention strategy, ERSG developers and implementers met with internal CDC investigators and subject matter experts, on June 15, 2009. This panel relied on the substantial work and documentation of this work (see January 2009 special issue of Health Promotion Practice) in the empowerment evaluation to select the experts and consult on logical next steps for evaluating promising programs. The panel consisted of two experts in the areas of teen dating violence and at-risk youth who convened to provide guidance in addressing the research question. Following the meeting, an additional member (Dr. Cuellar) was consulted regarding human subjects issues. Members of this panel were as follows:
Table 1. Guidance Panel
Ball, Barbara |
Start Strong Austin Project Director Evaluation Specialist Expect Respect Program SafePlace Austin, Texas |
|
Rosenbluth, Barri |
512-356-1628 |
Expect Respect Program Director SafePlace |
Cuellar, Amy |
713-794-1414 |
Menninger Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences Baylor College of Medicine |
The panel concluded that a controlled evaluation was warranted to explore program effects, but that a randomized control trial (RCT) was not yet warranted given the mixed effects of the preliminary program evaluation and the current implementation of ERSG in many schools in AISD. Therefore, it was decided that all intervention schools would be selected from AISD and all matched control schools would be selected from neighboring districts.
For this study, the following CDC staff have been actively involved in developing the procedures and revising the questionnaires:
Andra Teten, behavioral scientist ([email protected]), phone 770-488-3936
Greta Massetti, lead behavioral scientist ([email protected]), phone 770-488-3943
Kristin Holland, project officer ([email protected]), phone 770-488-3954
A.9. Explanation of Any Payment or Gift to Respondents.
School incentives. Experience has taught us that schools serving in a control condition of a study involving sensitive topics such as youth sexual and dating violence can be reluctant to burden their staff in light of the multiple demands on schools and staff over and above the multiple educational demands. Participating as a control school in the proposed evaluation will include meeting with the contractor to discuss the study, allowing the contractor to meet with school personnel who will be making referrals to the study, administrative time to work with the data collectors to locate participants for survey completion, and use of space in a private location for survey completion. A school’s participation will also be affected by the sensitive nature of the evaluation and survey questions. Our experience in other CDC-funded school based evaluations of sexual and teen dating violence prevention (e.g., Green Dot in Kentucky) indicates that although schools are often aware the their students deal with these issues, a decision to participate in a data collection involving these topics may be influenced by political and ideological views of sexuality and youth relationships.
All of the activities named above will be conducted by the school, although the control school, unlike the intervention school, will not receive the services of a targeted prevention program. Moreover, due to logistical limitations and recruiting schools in less than two months within the three neighboring districts that most closely match AISD in student demographics and other variables (described in detail in matching section), only 15 potential control schools exist from which 10 schools’ participation is needed for sufficient power. Therefore, to encourage cooperation and offset staff time and effort and acknowledge the sensitive and potentially politically challenging nature of the survey and evaluation, each control school will receive a $300 for each year of their participation as a study site ($900 possible). The control school incentives are intended to recognize and offset the time and resource burden placed on teachers and school administrators and to convey appreciation for their contribution to this important, albeit sensitive study, and increase participation from a small sample of schools, as the evaluation would be impossible without their participation. The amount of the incentive was based on past work and based on SafePlace’s experience working with schools.
Intervention schools will not receive an incentive, since the intervention schools will receive ERSG, which is a social service to the schools, over and above what they offer. These services could be perceived as a benefit to the school, so in return for participating in the study, no monetary incentives will be provided to them. Furthermore, AISD currently has a contract with SafePlace, to provide these services in the schools, so it could be contractually problematic for SafePlace to receive funding to provide the services in AISD schools and then incentivize the AISD schools that will be participating in the evaluation.
We expect that 66% (10 of 15) of the control schools we contact will agree to participate in the study, partly as a result of the incentive offered. Table 2 from one of CDC’s former contractors, Research Triangle, Inc. (RTI) shows several studies where equivalent school incentives were employed. Although these studies differ in other respects that could account for some variability in response rates, overall, school incentives of $1,000 to $1,500 per year were generally associated with higher participation rates, than would be expected without an incentive (10%, CDC OMB Control No. 0920-0783). Our proposed incentive of $300 per year for up to 3 years is lower than that employed in these past studies, but we recognize that the qualities of the proposed evaluation differ from these trials (e.g., non-randomized). That said, the current evaluation may also be more sensitive than these past studies as we include detailed questions about sexual violence and have obtained a waiver of parental consent for study participation.
Table 2. RTI Studies Involving School Incentives and Corresponding Response Rates
RTI Study |
School Incentive Provided |
Participation Rate Achieved |
Impact Evaluation of a School-based Violence Prevention Program (2004 – 2009) |
$1500 each year of participation (3 years) |
10% |
Middle School Coordinator Initiative (1999 – 2004) |
$1500 each year of participation for completion of student surveys (3 years) |
33% |
Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) (2004 – 2009) |
Conference for schools that enrolled in study (value of $1500) or check for $1500 (1 year) |
70% |
A.10. Assurance of Confidentiality Provided to Respondents.
This submission has been reviewed by ICRO, who has determined that the Privacy Act does apply. All procedures have been developed, in accordance with federal, state, and local guidelines, to ensure that the rights and privacy of school principals, teachers, prevention coordinators, and students are protected and that the relationships between students and school staff will be protected and maintained. The CDC National Center for Injury Control and Prevention’s human subjects coordinator has determined that CDC will not be engaged in human subjects research: CDC will not directly obtain data by intervening or interacting with participants and CDC will not have access to identifiable (including coded) private data. In addition, the Baylor College of Medicine Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the CDC IRB reviewed all instruments, informed consent materials, and procedures to ensure that the rights of individuals participating in the study are safeguarded. A copy of the IRB approval notice is included as Attachment F.
All respondents will be assured that the information they provide will be treated in a secure manner and will be used only for the purpose of this research, unless otherwise compelled by law. Copies of assent forms provided in writing to students and scripts to be read to students are provided in Attachment G. All students will be informed that what students report in the surveys will not have any effect on their academic performance in the school, relationship with the school, or the services they receive at the school. Trained survey administrators will assure students that student names will not be associated with responses provided. Moreover, survey administrators will receive extensive training in administering the surveys in a way that will not influence students responses and will maintain student privacy. For example, standardized responses to questions about the survey will be developed so that the administrators’ responses are consistent across schools, students, and administrators. For example, past experience tells us that some students have reading abilities not commensurate with their grade level, so we anticipate that some students may not know the meanings of certain words, and standardized methods will ensure administrators provided clarification assistance in the same way. Respondents will be told that the information obtained from all of the surveys will be combined into a summary report so that details of individual questionnaires cannot be linked to a specific participant. To ensure privacy, students will not use any identifiable information on survey responses. Instead, all students will receive a random identification number. Once the student completes the survey, only the survey administrator and data manager will be able to link a student’s response to his/her name, and will do so only for data collection and management purposes.
In order to complete the surveys, students will be pulled out of class during the school day. The procedures used to get the students from class will minimize the chance of negatively affecting their academic responsibilities and will not indicate why the student is being drawn away from the classroom. This privacy will keep other students from knowing that the student is participating in an evaluation study and the procedures are consistent with those used in other areas of medical and mental health treatment when the student receives treatment during the school day. These procedures will be the same for the control and implementation schools.
The effectiveness survey does not specifically ask about danger of immediate or potential physical harm. However, mandatory reporting requirements will apply to the interactions between the data collectors and students, such that data collectors must report any abuse of a child of which they are aware. If the student reports to a data collector an event of abuse that would constitute a mandatory report, in accordance with the Texas Family Code, data collectors will make a report if students report experiencing child abuse (mental/emotional injury, physical injury, sexual conduct harmful to a child, or neglect). Harmful sexual contact is defined as any sexual contact between a child and adult or a child 14 or older who has contact with a person 3 or more years older. If the reported abuse happened within the family or involves a caretaker's failure to protect the child, a report will be made orally or online to the statewide DPRS hotline number 1-800-252-5400. If the reported abuse occurred outside the family or did not occur as a result of a caretaker's failure to protect the child, a report will be made orally to the local law enforcement agency (either the Austin Police Department, Child Abuse Division, or the Travis County Sheriff's Department.) If students report during the interview that they are perpetrating emotional, physical or sexual abuse of another child, that information will be reported to DPRS or the Austin Police Department, respectively the Travis County Sheriff’s Department. The Expect Respect policy for mandatory reporting is included in Attachment H. This exception to privacy will be fully described to students through informed assent forms and an assent script read to students (script has been uploaded to ROCIS) and is included in Attachment G).
Because the survey contains sensitive questions about student physical and sexual dating violence perpetration and victimization, students will be reminded during the assent process that their answers will not be shared with anyone outside the research project team, including their parent or guardian, unless required by law. Trained survey administrators will let students know before the survey that any disclosure of potential harm to the student or others will result in a report to the proper authorities, as well as the parents of the student. Furthermore, students will not use any identifiable information on survey responses. Instead, all students will receive a random identification number. Only the survey administrator and data manager will be able to link a student’s response to his/her name, and will do so only for data collection and management purposes.
It is possible that another student could view survey responses while survey administration is in progress, so students will be spaced out around the room to avoid the possibility of another student being able to view survey responses. After completion of the survey, students will place questionnaires in an envelope provided by Expect Respect evaluators. The evaluation field staff will seal the envelope, and it will not be unsealed until it is received by the data manager. School staff will not have access to any survey information provided by individual students.
To ensure data security, all SafePlace project staff are required to adhere to strict standards and to sign privacy agreements as a condition of employment on this project. Effectiveness evaluation survey administrators will be thoroughly educated in methods of maximizing student understanding of the government’s commitment to privacy. Hard-copy data collection forms will be delivered to a locked area for receipt and processing. Individual identifying information will be kept separate from survey responses, and ID numbers will be assigned to participants for identification purposes. Expect Respect evaluation staff will never leave completed consent/assent forms or questionnaires unattended. All completed consent/assent forms and the list of participant names and ID numbers will be stored in separate locked filing cabinets only accessible to authorized evaluation personnel. No respondent identifiers will be contained in public use data files made available from the study, and no data will be released in a form that identifies individual respondents.
Privacy Impact Assessment Information
This project is subject to the Privacy Act. The applicable System of Records Notice (SORN) is 09-20-0160, “Records of Subjects in Health Promotion and Education Studies”.
Data that are collected will be stored at the Resource Center at SafePlace (1515A Grove Blvd., Austin, TX 78741). Data will be double locked in a file cabinet with a locking mechanism and in an office with a locked door. Security will be managed by assigning a random code to students (by Safe Place co-investigators or their staff), by SafePlace personnel not releasing any information that could link a students' number to his/her data, by storing personally identifying information in a locked cabinet, by using random subject numbers and not personally identifiable information in databases, and by emailing only de-identified datasets. The use of random codes will also allow CDC staff to remain "non-engaged" in the research. CDC faculty will never be able to link the participants' data to their identity.
Respondent assent will be obtained prior to data collection. The student assent form is attached (Attachment G). Students will be informed about the intended use of the information by an ERSG data collector before the baseline survey is administered. Data collectors will inform students that, should they decide to participate in this study, they will be asked to complete surveys about their relationships and related feelings and attitudes. Students will be informed of the limits of privacy and that they will be asked to complete 4 surveys – one during the first ERSG session, one at completion of the ERSG sessions (8 months), and one at a follow up time (12 months after baseline). Students will be informed that they will receive no direct benefit by participating in the study, but that their participation will help the investigators better understand teens and plan programs to keep young people safe and healthy. Students will be informed that they should not write their name on the surveys and that all of the information they write will be kept private as allowed by law. Students will also be informed that only certain people working on this project will be allowed to look at the surveys and that the participants’ names will not be used in any reports as a result of this data collection.
Students will be assured that participation in the proposed evaluation is voluntary. It will be explained that the decision to release de-identified survey responses for this research is voluntary, and that the decision to assent to the evaluation in no way affects his/her ability to participate in ERSG or other prevention services. Students will also be informed that they may rescind their assent to release their data for any reason at any time. Students will be informed that the data they provide will be used to help investigators understand teens and plan programs to keep young people safe and healthy. Students will be informed that only certain SafePlace staff will have access to their identifiable data and that it will be securely stored and will not be able to be accessed by unauthorized persons. The OMB approval number will be listed on the final student assent form as evidence of legal authority for collecting data.
Some questions included in survey instruments might be considered sensitive by some respondents. The surveys include questions on sensitive issues such as emotional abuse, physical violence, and sexual violence. Table 3 identifies the sensitive questions, explains the justification for their inclusion in the surveys, and describes how the data will be used. The informed assent protocol apprises students that these topics will be covered during the surveys. To minimize the risk that respondents should be upset by these questions, staff will be made aware of the sensitive nature of the questions during training and will be taught to respond empathetically. In fact, all survey administrations will have training in counseling. If a respondent shows any signs of being upset or requests additional help, the administrator will refer her to appropriate local community and school-based mental health services, although we anticipate that the administrators will also have adequate training to manage mild student upset. These questions are included in the surveys because of their importance in understanding changes in dating violence among students. All sensitive questions have been used previously in internal program evaluation processes and are adapted from validated assessment tools (e.g., CADRI, Wolfe et al., 2001). As with all information collected, these data will be presented with all identifiers removed, including school and school district identifiers.
Description of Questions |
Justification for Inclusion |
Use of Data |
Student peer and/or dating violence victimization or perpetration, including psychological abuse, stalking, cyberbullying, physical violence, or sexual violence |
Necessary to determine effects of the Expect Respect support groups in preventing or reducing adolescent dating violence |
Used as dependent variable for multivariate analysis comparing students at intervention and control schools |
Attitudes related to peer and/or dating violence, including psychological abuse, physical violence, or sexual violence |
Necessary to determine whether changes in attitudes explain effects of the Expect Respect support groups on violent behaviors among dating partners |
Used as mediating variable for multivariate analysis to assess attitude changes as the pathway of program effects on adolescent dating violence behaviors |
Relationship characteristics and dating behaviors |
Necessary to determine the context of dating violence incidents and whether students engaging in risky dating behaviors are equally or less likely to benefit from the Expect Respect support groups than those not engaging in risky dating behaviors |
Used as a moderating variable for multivariate analysis to assess interaction between exposure to Expect Respect support groups and risky dating behaviors as a significant predictor of adolescent dating violence |
Table 3.
Table A-12 details the annualized number of respondents, the average response burden per interview, and the total response burden for the baseline questionnaire and follow-up interview. Estimates of burden for the survey are based on simulated runs with staff answering each questionnaire. We anticipate that the screening assessment will take approximately 15 minutes to complete, and that each data collection session (baseline survey, completion survey, two follow-up surveys) will take approximately 1 hour. On average it required about 45 minutes for respondents to complete the questionnaire at pretest, posttest, and follow-up. Based on past, uncontrolled program evaluation of Expect Respect Support groups, we anticipate that in the Austin Independent School District and neighboring district(s), 800 students will undergo an intake assessment, of whom 600 will be eligible for Expect Respect Support groups and will complete the baseline survey. We expect 400 students to complete the survey and two-follow-up assessments. Therefore, over three years 2400 students will undergo an intake assessment, of whom we will recruit 1800 students into the study (300 per year from intervention schools and 300 per year from control schools), of whom we anticipate 1200 will have complete data.
Table A.12- Estimate of Annual Burden Hours.
Type of Respondent |
Form Name |
No. of Respondents |
No. of Responses per Respondent |
Response Burden (hours) |
Total Burden Hours |
Control Schools (School districts surrounding Austin Independent School District)
|
Intake assessment |
400 |
1 |
15/60 |
100 |
Baseline Survey |
300 |
1 |
1 |
300 |
|
Completion Survey |
200 |
1 |
1 |
200 |
|
Follow-up Survey 1 (12 month) |
200 |
1 |
1 |
200 |
|
Intervention Schools (Austin Independent School District) |
Intake assessment |
400 |
1 |
15/60 |
100 |
Baseline Survey |
300 |
1 |
1 |
300 |
|
Completion Survey |
200 |
1 |
1 |
200 |
|
Follow-up Survey 1 (12 month) |
200 |
1 |
1 |
200 |
|
ERSG Facilitator |
ERSG Facilitator Program Implementation Fidelity Measure
|
8 |
2 |
15/60 |
4 |
ERSG Facilitator Supervisor |
ERSG Observational Program Implementation Fidelity Measure
|
1 |
16 |
15/60 |
4 |
ERSG Facilitator |
Mid-Year Qualitative Interview with ERSG Facilitators |
8 |
1 |
45/60 |
6 |
ERSG Facilitator |
End of Year Qualitative Interview with ERSG Facilitators |
8 |
1 |
1 |
8 |
Total |
|
1622 |
|||
A.12.B. Estimated Annualized Burden Cost
The hourly wage used to calculate the Respondent Cost is $7.25, which is the minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The average salary of Expect Respect Support Group facilitators is $22.76 per hour. This estimate was used to calculate the cost burden associated with the fidelity surveys and mid- and end-of-year facilitator interviews. Total Respondent Cost for this evaluation is $12,100.72.
Type of Respondent |
Form Name |
No. of Respondents |
No. of Responses per Respondent |
Response Burden (hours) |
Total Burden Hours |
Hourly Wage Cost |
Respondent Cost |
Control Schools (School districts surrounding Austin Independent School District) |
Intake assessment |
400 |
1 |
15/60 |
100 |
$7.25 |
$725 |
Baseline Survey |
300 |
1 |
1 |
300 |
$7.25 |
$2,175 |
|
Completion Survey |
200 |
1 |
1 |
200 |
$7.25 |
$1,450 |
|
Follow-up Survey 1 (12 month) |
200 |
1 |
1 |
200 |
$7.25 |
$1,450 |
|
Intervention Schools (Austin Independent School District) |
Intake assessment |
400 |
1 |
15/60 |
100 |
$7.25 |
$725 |
Baseline Survey |
300 |
1 |
1 |
300 |
$7.25 |
$2,175 |
|
Completion Survey |
200 |
1 |
1 |
200 |
$7.25 |
$1,450 |
|
Follow-up Survey 1 (12 month) |
200 |
1 |
1 |
200 |
$7.25 |
$1,450 |
|
ERSG Facilitators
|
ERSG Facilitator Program Implementation Fidelity Measure
|
8 |
2 |
15/60 |
4 |
$22.76 |
$91.04 |
ERSG Facilitator Supervisor |
ERSG Observational Program Implementation Fidelity Measure
|
1 |
16 |
15/60 |
4 |
$22.76 |
$91.04 |
Facilitators
|
Mid-Year Qualitative Interview with ERSG Facilitators |
8 |
1 |
45/60 |
6 |
$22.76 |
$136.56 |
Facilitators |
End of Year Qualitative Interview with ERSG Facilitators |
8 |
1 |
1 |
8 |
$22.76 |
$182.08 |
Total |
|
|
|
$12,100.72 |
|||
A.13. Estimates of Other Total Annual Cost Burden to Respondents or Recordkeepers.
Respondents will incur no capital or maintenance costs.
A.14. Estimates of Annualized Cost to the Federal Government.
Two types of government costs will be incurred: (1) government personnel, and (2) contracted data collection.
- NCIPC has assigned a Project Officer and Science Officer to assist with and oversee this data collection. Each of these personnel is assigned for 10 percent time for the duration of the contract. Based on an annual salary of $80,000, this equates to $16,000 for each year for cost of government personnel ($80,000 x 10% effort x 2 employees = $16,000).
- An anticipated budget for years 1-3 of the ERSG Program Evaluation contract is below:
Year 1
I. |
Personnel |
||
|
Project Director |
$36.06/hr x 1560 person-hours |
56,253.60 |
|
Support Group Data collectors (Field Staff) |
$21.63/hr x 1040 person-hours x 5 data collectors |
112,476.00 |
|
Data Entry and Administrative Support |
$21.63/hr x 1040 person-hours |
22,495.20 |
|
Clinical Supervisor |
$36.06/hr x 416 person hours |
15,000.96 |
|
Subtotal Personnel |
|
206,225.76 |
|
Fringe |
30% |
61,867.73 |
|
Total Personnel |
|
$268,093.49 |
|
|
|
|
II |
Equipment, supplies, and other |
|
|
|
Scantron equipment |
$4,000 for one scantron machine |
4,000 |
|
Computer purchase |
$4,000 for one computer purchase |
4,000 |
|
Computer/data analysis software |
$3,000 |
3,000 |
|
Survey printing fees |
3,000 |
3,000 |
|
School incentives |
$300 incentive per school for up to 8 schools |
2,400 |
|
Total |
|
$16,400 |
|
|
|
|
IV |
Travel |
|
|
|
Visit to Atlanta CDC |
1 visit – 2 people, 2 days = $3,000 |
3,000 |
|
Conference attendance |
1 conference – 2 people, 2 days = $3,000 |
3,000 |
|
Total |
|
$6,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Year 1 Funding |
$290,493.49 |
Year 2
I. |
Personnel |
||
|
Project Director |
$36.06/hr x 1560 person-hours |
56,253.60 |
|
Support Group Data collectors (Field Staff) |
$21.63/hr x 1040 person-hours x 2 data collectors |
44,990.40 |
|
Data Entry and Administrative Support |
$21.63/hr x 1040 person-hours |
22,495.20 |
|
Subtotal Personnel |
|
123,739.20 |
|
Fringe |
30% |
37,121.76 |
|
Total Personnel |
|
$160,860.96 |
|
|
|
|
II |
Equipment, supplies, and other |
|
|
|
Computer/data analysis software updates |
|
2,000 |
|
School incentives |
$300 incentive per school for up to 8 schools |
2,400 |
|
Total |
|
$4,400 |
|
|
|
|
IV |
Travel |
|
|
|
Visit to Atlanta CDC |
1 visit – 2 people, 2 days = $3,000 |
3,000 |
|
Conference attendance |
1 conference – 2 people, 2 days = $3,000 |
3,000 |
|
Total |
|
$6,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Year 2 Funding |
$171,260.96 |
Year 3
I. |
Personnel |
||
|
Project Director |
$36.06/hr x 1560 person-hours |
56,253.60 |
|
Support Group Data collectors (Field Staff) |
$21.63/hr x 1040 person-hours x 2 data collectors |
44,990.40 |
|
Data Entry and Administrative Support |
$21.63/hr x 1040 person-hours |
22,495.20 |
|
Subtotal Personnel |
|
123,739.20 |
|
Fringe |
30% |
37,121.76 |
|
Total Personnel |
|
$160,860.96 |
|
|
|
|
II |
Equipment, supplies, and other |
|
|
|
Computer/data analysis software updates |
|
2,000 |
|
School incentives |
$300 incentive per school for up to 8 schools |
2,400 |
|
Total Equipment |
|
$4,400 |
|
|
|
|
IV |
Travel |
|
|
|
Visit to Atlanta CDC |
1 visit – 2 people, 2 days = $3,000 |
3,000 |
|
Conference attendance |
1 conference – 2 people, 2 days = $3,000 |
3,000 |
|
Total |
|
$6,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Year 3 Funding |
$171,260.96 |
The average annualized direct costs for this project are $227,005. This averaged amount includes all costs for the contracted data collection, plus the personnel costs of federal employees involved in oversight and analysis.
This is an adjustment to add qualitative interviews with ERSG facilitators to the study.
A.16. Plans for Tabulation and Publication and Project Time Schedule.
Data analysis will focus primarily on assessing the overall program effectiveness.
Data
analysis for our study aims (examine group differences between
control and intervention students, evaluate whether or not the
effectiveness of ERSG is enhanced by the presence of a universal,
school-wide prevention programs, and examine moderators and mediators
of targeted and universal teen dating violence interventions) will
involve: 1) descriptive analyses of group characteristics to examine
prevalence and incidence of dating violence and chi-squared tests of
independence with odds ratios to examine differences in prevalence of
dating violence for control and intervention students. Study
hypotheses will be examined in several ways depending on the unit of
analysis (e.g., student, school, school district) and the group of
interest (Aim 1: control vs. intervention; Exploratory Aim: combined
vs. universal only): 1) Parametric tests such as logistic regression
will be used to examine group differences over time, 2) Nonparametric
tests such as Wilcoxon rank sum test will be used to examine group
differences on non-normal outcomes (e.g., sexual violence), and 3)
structural equation modeling (panel and growth curve models) will be
used to test for differences between intervention and control groups
over time, as well as to test the effect of moderator and mediator
variables on study outcomes.
For logistic regressions and
structural equation models we will take into account baseline
differences on demographic characteristics, mediators, and dating
violence outcomes for students who are lost to follow-up between
baseline and follow-up. To determine non-response bias, variables
found to differ between follow-up survey responders and nonresponders
will be included as covariate in multivariate analyses of program
effectiveness. While the unit of analysis for the aims is the school,
some analyses, such as missing data analysis and non-response bias
analyses will be conducted at the student level to determine the
equivalence of school units prior to conducting cluster analyses.
A.16.B. Publications
The results of the analysis will be reported in a Data Summary. In conjunction with the evaluator we will also publish an Evaluation Report, including a 1-page press release, a 2- to 3-page executive summary written in clear language and understandable by a wide range of audiences (parents, practitioners, policy makers, researchers), a 10-page executive summary, a report of less than 100 pages (including an overview of background literature to provide contextual information about the purpose of the ERSG program and evaluation approach, a detailed summary of evaluation methods and activities, the evaluation results, discussion of findings in comparison with those of other relevant program evaluations, strengths and limitations of the evaluation, and recommendations for future evaluations of this scope for practitioners, evaluators, and policy makers), and appendices. The report will also identify challenges encountered during program implementation and evaluation, as well as their solutions. The results of our study also will be used to develop peer-reviewed journal articles (e.g., American Journal of Public Health, Journal of Adolescent Health, and/or Prevention Science), conference presentations, research briefs, and Web-based papers for dissemination to researchers, schools, and the public.
Table A.16-1. Time Schedule
Activity |
Time schedule |
|
1 month after OMB approval |
|
1-2 months after OMB approval |
|
Sessions 1-24 will begin 1 month after OMB approval and continue once a week for up to 8 months |
|
12-36 months after approvals |
|
Continuous activity throughout data collection |
|
36-40 months after approvals |
A.17. Reason(s) Display of OMB Expiration Date is Inappropriate
No exemption is being sought.
A.18. Exceptions to Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions.
There are no exemptions to the certification.
References
Avery-Leaf, S., Cascardi, M., O’Leary, K.D., & Cano, A. (1997). Efficacy of a dating violence prevention program on attitudes justifying aggression. Journal of Adolescent Health, 21, 11-17.
Ball, B., Kerig, K., & Rosenbluth, B. (2009). “Like a family but better because you can actually trust each other”: The Expect Respect dating violence prevention program for at-risk youth. Health Promotion Practice , 10(1), 45S-58S.
Ball, B., Rosenbluth, B., & Aoki, A. (2008). The Expect Respect Program Manual Part I: Support Group Curriculum and Facilitator Guide. Austin, TX: SafePlace.
Burcky, W., Reuterman, N., & Kopsky, S. (1988). Dating violence among high school students. The School Counselor, 35, 353-358.
Capaldi, D. M., Dishion, T. J., Stoolmiller, M., & Yoerger, K. (2001). Aggression toward female partners by at-risk young men: The contribution of male adolescent friendships. Developmental Psychology, 37, 61-73.
Cornelius, T., & Resseguie, N. (2007). Primary and secondary prevention programs for dating violence: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 364-375.
Dobash, R. P., Dobash, R. E., Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1992). The myth of sexual symmetry in marital violence. Social Problems, 39, 71-91.
Eaton, D. K., Davis, K. S., Barrios, L., Brener, N. D., & Noonan, R. K. (2007). Associations of dating violence victimization with lifetime participation, co-occurance, and early initiation of risk behaviors among U.S. high school students. Interpersonal Violence, 22, 585-602.
Foshee, V. (1996). Gender differences in adolescent dating abuse prevalence, types and injuries. Health Education Research, 11, 275-286.
Foshee, V., Bauman, K., Arriaga, X., Helms, R., Koch, G., & Linder, G. (1998). An evaluation of SafeDates, an adolescent dating violence prevention program. American Journal of Public Health, 88, 45-50.
Foshee VA, & Matthew RA. (2007). Adolescent dating abuse perpetration: A review of findings, methological limitations, and suggestions for future research. In DJ Flannery, AT Vazjoni, & ID Waldman (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Violence Behavior and Aggression (pp. 431-449). New York: Cambridge.
Hickman, L. J., Jaycox, L. H., & Aronoff, J. (2004). Dating violence among adolescents: Prevalence, gender distribution, and prevention program effectiveness. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 5, 123-142.
Jaffe, P., Sudermann, M., Reitzel, D., & Killip, S. (1992). An evaluation of a secondary school primary prevention program on violence in intimate relationships. Violence and Victims, 7, 129-146.
Malik, S., Sorenson, S., & Anehensel, S. (1997). Community and dating violence among adolescents: Perpetration and victimization. Journal of Adolescent Health, 21, 291 – 302.
Molidor, C., Tolman, R., & Kober, J. (2000). Gender and contextual factors in adolescent dating violence. The Prevention Researcher, 7(1), 1-4.
Noonan, R. & Gibbs, D. (2009). Empowerment evaluation with programs designed to prevent first-time male perpetration of sexual violence. Health Promotion Practice, 10, 5s-10s.
O’Keefe, M. (1997). Predictors of dating violence among high school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 546-568.
O’Keefe, M. (1998). Factors mediating the link between witnessing interparental violence and dating violence. Journal of Family Violence, 13(1), 39-57.
Pepler, D. J., Craig, W. M., Connolly, J. A., Yuile, A., McMaster, L., & Jian, D. (2006). Aggressive Behavior, 32, 376-384.
Schewe, P. (2002). Guidelines for developing rape prevention and risk reduction interventions: Lessons from evaluation research. In P. Schewe (Ed.), Preventing violence in relationships: Interventions across the life span (pp. 107-136). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Sears, H. A., Byers, S., Whelan, J. J., & Saint-Pierre, M. (2006). “If it hurts you, then it is not a joke”: Adolescents’ ideas about girls’ and boys’ use and experience of abusive behavior in dating relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 1191-1207.
Silverman, J., Rai, A., Mucci, L., & Hathaway, J. (2001). Dating violence against adolescent girls and associated substance abuse, unhealthy weight control, sexual risk behavior, pregnancy, and suicidality. Journal of the American Medical Association. 286, 572-579.
Teen Research Unlimited. (July 2008). Study on teen dating abuse. Liz Claiborne Inc. Retrieved April 14, 2009 from: http://www.loveisnotabuse.com/statistics.htm.
Teten, A. L., Ball, B, Valle, L. A., Noonan, R, & Rosenbluth, B. (2009). Report from CDC: Considerations for the definition, measurement, consequences, and prevention of dating violence victimization among adolescent girls. Journal of Women’s Health, 18, 923-927.
Whitaker, D., Morrison, S., Lindquist, C., Hawkins, S., O’Neil, J. A., Nesius, A. M., Mathew, A., & Reese, L. (2006). A critical review of interventions for the primary prevention fo perpetration of partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11, 151-166.
Williams, T., S., Conolly, J., Pepler, D., Craig, W., & Laporte, L. (2008). Risk models of dating aggression across different adolescent relationships: A developmental psychopathology approach. Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 622-632.
Wolfe, D.A., Crooks, C.V., Jaffe, P., Chiodo, D., Hughes, R., Ellis, W., Stitt, L., & Donner, A. (2009). A school-based program to prevent adolescent dating violence: A cluster randomized trial. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 163: 692 - 699.
Wolfe, D. A., Scott, K., Reitzel-Jaffe, D., Wekerle, C., Grasley, C., & Straatman, A. L. (2001). Development and validation of the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 13, 277-293.
Wolfe, D., Wekerle, C., Scott, K., Straatman, A., Grasley, C., & Jaffe, D., (2003). Dating violence prevention with at-risk youth: A controlled outcome evaluation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 279-291.
Wolfe, D. A., Wekerle, C., Reitzel-Jaffe, D., & Lefebvre, L. (1998). Factors associated with abusive relationships among maltreated and nonmaltreated youth. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 61-85.
Wolfe, D. A., Wekerle, C., Scott, K., & Pittman, A. (2001). Child maltreatment: Risk of adjustment problems and dating violence in adolescence. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40(3), 282-289.
Wolfe, D. A., Wekerle, C., Scott, K., Straatman, A., & Grasley, C. (2004). Predicting abuse in adolescent dating relationships over 1 year: The role of child maltreatment and trauma. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113, 406-415.
Wolitzky-Taylor, K. B., Ruggiero, K. J., Danielson, C. K., Resnik, H. S., Hanson, R. F., Smith, D. W., Saunders, B. E., & Kipatrick, D. G. (2008). Prevalence and correlated of dating violence in a national sample of adolescents. American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 47, 755-762.
| File Type | application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document |
| File Title | SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR |
| Author | Lois P. Voelker |
| File Modified | 0000-00-00 |
| File Created | 2021-01-30 |