An Evaluation of Dating Violence Prevention Programs

Katie Morrow-Mackay and Maia Knauer A Review of Dating Violence Prevention Programs Survey Design and Analysis Major Research Project April 15, 2013

An Evaluation of Dating Violence Prevention Programs

Dating violence is becoming an issue among teens. Various forms of prevention programs have been developed to assist teens in recognizing the warning signs and to outline effective mediation strategies regarding dating violence. The objective of this literature review is to examine existing prevention programs, focusing on their effectiveness and limitations in an effort to provide guidelines and recommendations for future program development. Background The frequency of teens who have experienced dating violence has increased. Cornelius and Resseguie (2007) define dating violence as the intention to cause harm or pain to their partner, through the use of physical force or restraint. Tharp, Burton, Freire, Hall, Harrier, Latzman and Vagi (2011) report that currently, one in four teens experience some form of dating violence. Often, this violence materializes in elementary years and evolves, becoming most problematic in high school (Tharp et al. 2011). Kervin and Obinna (2010) describe certain factors that prevalence of dating violence among teens, which include; a hostile and abusive family atmosphere, financial issues, mental health problems and poor gender stereotypes. Examples of Dating Violence Prevention Programs The Minnesota School Curriculum Project was designed to educate high school students about dating violence and equip them with skills to prevent similar maltreatment in the future (Cornelius and Resseguie, 2007). The program was to be included in the curriculum and delivered by the teacher through various activities, discussions and presentations. Teachers willing to partake in the program were required to participate in a training course and a number of teachers who attended the training course were asked to participate in an evaluation of the program (Cornelius and Resseguie, 2007). Each school participating was assigned a nearby control school

An Evaluation of Dating Violence Prevention Programs

as a form of comparison. Following the assessment, various conclusions were made. Prior to the program, students from the control and participating schools showed similar understanding of dating violence. However, following the program students displayed a wider understanding of resources available and mediation methods (Cornelius and Resseguie, 2007). Females proved to be more responsive to the material. However, the program was ineffective in altering the attitudes of students who participated. Cornelius and Resseguie (2007) also suggest that individuals who have experienced dating violence are reluctant to discuss their experiences. They also note that the influence of an authority figure, such as a teacher, should be considered, especially regarding youth (Cornelius and Resseguie, 2007). Wolfe, Crooks and Jaffe (2009) examine a program focusing on dating violence that was introduced into grade nine health classes and delivered by teachers. It consisted of 21 lessons over a period of 28 hours and was followed by an evaluation. During the follow up, control schools were utilized as a form of comparison. Wolfe et al. (2009) describes that post program, males proved to be receptive of the information, while females showed no improvement. Following the evaluation several shortcomings become apparent. First, although researchers asked participants if they had ever been involved in dating violence, they failed to examine individual motivations and conditions leading to aggression. Second, the study focused on physical acts of dating violence and did not include outside pressures or sexual harassment. Finally, the sexual preferences of each student were not considered (Wolfe et al. 2009). Comparative Analysis and Further Limitations of Prevention Programs When comparing the two studies, improvements are evident within the target populations. However, the information provided affected females and males differently. Cornelius and Resseguie (2007) found females to be more receptive, whereas Wolfe et al. (2009) found the

An Evaluation of Dating Violence Prevention Programs

program had a greater effect on males. Also, both studies saw a lack of improvement in the attitudes of students. Pittman, Wolfe and Wekerle (2000) acknowledge a common struggle most researchers face when trying to maintain contact with teens; relationships tend to be short and unstable, making it difficult to measure the existence of abuse. Additionally, instructors of prevention programs often do not have access to the required resources to effectively run and monitor such programs (Johnson and Johnson, 1996), which may jeopardize the effectiveness of the program. Future Directions Advantages of implementing school based prevention programs allow instructors to reach a large number of students in a stable and controlled environment. However, Kerig, Moeddel and Cuellar (2010) describe the necessity for teachers to customize program material. Fredland, Ricardo, Campbell, Sharps, Kub and Yonas (2005) outline the desire of students to have safe and private places where they can discuss relationship abuse with someone who can provide helpful advice. Finally, Cornelius and Resseguie (2007) describe the need for programs to have multiple forms of education, incorporating information directed at physical acts of dating violence and improving attitudes of students. In conclusion, the need for dating violence prevention programs is made evident by the above literature. Two studies focusing on existing prevention programs were discussed and the literature outlined results and limitations for each. Greater attention needs to be paid to the methods used to educate students, the content and the additional supports that can be established outside the school environment. It seems that programs should also target males and females differently in order to see overall improvement in the prevalence of teen dating violence.

An Evaluation of Dating Violence Prevention Programs

References Cornelius, T.L., Resseguie, N. (2007). Primary and secondary prevention programs for dating violence: A review of the literature. Science Direct, 12(3), 364-375. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2006.09.006 Fredland, N. M., Ricardo, I. B., Campbell, J. C., Sharps, P. W., Kub, J. K., & Yonas, M. (2005). The Meaning of Dating Violence in the Lives of Middle School Adolescents: A Report of a Focus Group Study. Journal Of School Violence, 4(2), 95-114. doi:10.1300/J202v04n02_06 Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R.T. (1996). Conflict Resolution and Peer Mediation Programs in Elementary and Secondary Schools: A Review of the Research. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 359-506. doi: 10.3102/00346543066004459 Kerig, P.K., Volz, A. R., Moeddel, M., & Cuellar, R. E. (2010). Implementing Dating Violence Prevention Programs with Flexibility, Fidelity, and Sensitivity to Diversity: Lessons Learned from Expect Respect. Journal Of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 19(6), 661-680. doi:10.1080/10926771.2010.502079 Kervin, D., & Obinna, J. (2010). Youth Action Strategies in the Primary Prevention of Teen Dating Violence. Journal Of Family Social Work, 13(4), 362-374. doi:10.1080/10522158.2010.492499 Pittman, A., Wolfe, D. A., Wekerle, C. (2000). Strategies for Evaluating Dating Violence Prevention Programs. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 4(1), 217238. doi: 10.1300/J146v04n01_10 Tharp, A. T., Burton, T., Freire, K., Hall, D. M., Harrier, S., Latzman, N. E., & Vagi, K. J. (2011). Dating Matters: Strategies to Promote Healthy Teen Relationships. Journal Of Women's Health (15409996), 20(12), 1761-1765. doi:10.1089/jwh.2011.3177 Wolfe, D. A. (2009). School-based program to prevent dating violence. Brown University Child & Adolescent Behavior Letter, 25(10), 3-4. Wolfe DA, Crooks C, Jaffe P, et al. (2009). A School-Based Program to Prevent Adolescent Dating Violence: A Cluster Randomized Trial. Archives Pediatric Adolescent Medicine, 163(8), 692-699. doi:10.1001/archpediatrics.2009.69.